Humor and Chinese Culture

Humor and Chinese Culture
This book addresses psychological studies of humor in Chinese societies. It starts

by reviewing how the concept of humor evolves in Chinese history and how it is
perceived by Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. It then compares differences
in the Western and the Chinese perceptions of humor and discusses empirical
studies that were conducted to examine such differences. It also discusses the
cultural origin and empirical evidence of the Chinese ambivalence about humor
and presents empirical findings that illustrate its existence. Having done these, it
proceeds to discuss psychological studies that examine how humor is related to
various demographic, dispositional variables as well as how humor is related to
creativity in Chinese societies. It also discusses how humor is related to emotional
expressions and mental health in Chinese society as well. It concludes with a dis-
cussion on how workplace humor is reflected and developed in Chinese contexts.
Taken together, this book attempts to bring together the theoretical proposi-
tions, empirical studies, and cultural analyses of humor in Chinese societies.
Xiaodong Yue 岳曉東 earned his BA degree in English language and litera-
ture at the Beijing Second Foreign Languages Institute in 1982, his MA degree
in education from Tufts University in 1987, and his Ed.D degree in psychol-
ogy from Harvard University in 1993. He has taught psychology courses at the
Department of Educational Psychology of the Chinese University of Hong Kong
(1993–1996) and at the Department of Applied Social Sciences of the City Uni-
versity of Hong Kong (1997–now). He has published widely on issues of creativ-
ity, humor, resilience, and adolescent idol worship in Chinese society. He is an
adjunct professor of over 20 universities in China, as well as an ad hoc reviewer of
over 10 international journals of psychology and education. He is also a prolific
speaker and has been invited to give keynote addresses at various conferences in
China and around the world.
Routledge Studies in Asian Behavioural Sciences
Series Editor: T. Wing Lo
City University of Hong Kong
For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com/Routledge-

Studies-in-Asian-Behavioural-Sciences/book-series/RABS
Archaeology of Psychotherapy in Korea

A Study of Korean Therapeutic Work and Professional Growth
Haeyoung Jeong
Hidden Youth and the Virtual World

The Process of Social Censure and Empowerment
Gloria Hongyee Chan
Psychoanalysis in Hong Kong

The Absent, the Present, and the Reinvented
Diego Busiol
Psycho-Criminological Perspective of Criminal Justice in Asia

Research and Practices in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Beyond
Edited by Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan and Samuel M.Y. Ho

A Psychological Perspective
Xiaodong Yue
A Psychological Perspective
Xiaodong Yue
First published 2018
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Xiaodong Yue
The right of Xiaodong Yue to be identified as author of this work has
been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-22062-1 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-41245-0 (ebk)
Typeset in Galliard
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
1 Humor, philosophy, and Chinese culture 1

Hua-ji: the origin of Chinese humor 2
Other forms of humor in Chinese history 3
Development of modern humor in China 5
Humor and Chinese philosophies 8
Confucianism and Chinese humor 8
Taoism and Chinese humor 9
Buddhism and Chinese humor 10
Summary 11
2 Chinese and Western views of humor 17

The Western ordinary view of humor 17
The Chinese extraordinary view of humor 19
Cross-cultural studies of humor in Chinese society 20
Neuropsychological studies of Chinese humor 32
Summary 36
3 Chinese ambivalence about humor 43

The Chinese ambivalence about humor 43
Manifestation of the Chinese ambivalence about humor 48
Empirical studies of the Chinese ambivalence to humor 50
Summary 61
4 Humor and Chinese personality 67

Humor and personality 67
Humor and gender 69
Humor and the Five-Factor Model of personality 70
Humor, optimism, and subjective happiness 74
Humor, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-compassion 79
Humor, loneliness, shyness, and social competence 83
Humor, romance, and marital satisfaction 87
vi Contents
Why the Chinese favor affiliative humor and disfavor self-
defeating humor 87
Summary 89
5 Humor and Chinese emotions 99

Traditional Chinese beliefs and emotional expressivity 99
Humor and laughter 100
Humor, loneliness, and shyness 102
Humor and gelotophobia 105
Humor and self-compassion 108
Humor and playfulness 110
Summary 114
6 Humor and Chinese mental well-being 121

Humor and mental health 121
Humor and mental health in Chinese societies 123
Humor, adjustment, and resilience among mainland
students studying in Hong Kong 128
Summary 135
7 Humor and Chinese creativity 143

Definition of creativity 143
The Western and Chinese implicit concepts of creativity 144
Studies of Chinese implicit concept of creativity 145
Meritorious evaluation bias in Chinese implicit concept of
creativity 146
Chinese creativity-humor-non-parallel phenomenon 147
Studies of Chinese creativity-humor-non-parallel
phenomenon 149
Summary 155
8 Workplace humor in Chinese society 161

Humor and workplaces 161
Humor styles, conflict styles, and leader effectiveness 162
Humor climate and job satisfaction 166
Humor, job self-efficacy, and teaching effectiveness 169
Summary 170
Glossary 175
References 181
Index 211
1 Humor, philosophy, and
Chinese culture
A man from the state of Lu wanted to carry a super-long bamboo pole

through a city gate. It would not fit vertically or horizontally. An old man
came by and said: “I am not a smart man, but I have seen a lot. Why don’t
you cut the bamboo in the middle?” And the man from Lu followed his
advice.
– Xiaolin 《笑林》
魯有執長竿入城門者，初豎執之，不可入，橫執之，亦不可入，計無所
出。俄有老父至，曰：“吾非聖人，但見事多矣。何不以鋸中截而入。”遂依
而截之。
《廣記二百六十二》
The story of the man from Lu came from the book of Xiaolin《笑林》,1 the first
collection of Chinese jokes. In this chapter, I will discuss the history of humor in
China and its relation to Chinese philosophy.
Humor is a broad and multi-faceted concept, defined in the Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary (SOED, 3rd ed.) as “the faculty of observing what is ludi-
crous, amusing or expressing it; jocose imagination or treatment of a sub-
ject.” Humor can include actions or speeches that are amusing, comical, and
funny (Simpson & Weiner, 1989). Humor has visual or nonverbal compo-
nents that are “less purely intellectual than wit and often allied to pathos”
(Chey, 2011). Hence, humor is a social phenomenon, most frequently occur-
ring spontaneously during human interactions, and accompanied by laughter
through nonverbal facial and vocal communications that express mirth. As
such, laughter, like humor in general, is inherently social. Humor is also a
complex, multidimensional, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral construct
(Martin & Lefcourt, 2004). It is typically elicited in social contexts involv-
ing playful incongruity, often to shift attention from environmental threats
(Levinson, 1994).
Circumstances and cultural backgrounds may determine perceptions and
appreciation of humor (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003;
Ruch & Hehl, 1998). For instance, the Chinese tend to simultaneously disdain
and appreciate humor (Liao, 1998, 2003; Yue, 2011). Their appreciation of
2 Humor, philosophy, and Chinese culture
humor comes from the Taoist tradition in which humor is considered a means
for witty, peaceful, and harmonious interactions (Bond, 1996). In contrast, their
deprecation of humor stems from Confucian puritanism in which humor is con-
sidered a sign of intellectual shallowness and social informality that undermines
the five cardinal relations (五倫) in human interactions (Bond, 1996; Lin Yu-
tang, 1974; Yue, 2011).
Hua-ji: the origin of Chinese humor

Hermann Ebbinghaus,2 a German psychologist who pioneered in memory
research in the early 1900s, remarked, “psychology has a long past but a short
history.” The same can be said about humor in China, which was first docu-
mented about 2,500 years ago. It originated in the form of comic acts, shows,
or dramas for upper class entertainment or in the form of satirical prose for intel-
lectuals (Chey, 2011; Davis, 2011; Yue, 2010).
Hua-ji is the earliest Chinese term for “humor.” Specifically, the character hua
滑 means “smoothening” or “slippery”; the character ji 稽, means “to check” (to
see whether it tallies) or a “trick,” which is a perfect pun for the character chi 雞,
which means “chicken” (Kao, 1974, p. xviii). The early types of humor were
riddles, jokes, or performances from four sources: commoners’ jokes 笑話, pre-
Qin (prior to 221 BC) parables 寓言, hua-ji play 滑稽戲, and Qing-yan anthol-
ogy 清言集. In ancient times, jokes were mainly used to dispense wise advice to
rulers (Chen, 1985).
Chen (1985) stated that huaji best encompasses the meaning of youmo 幽默
(humor in Chinese) and includes five humor types: mean, obscene, witty, ironic
(sarcastic), and humorous. The mean jokes use repetitious parody to ridicule
clumsiness, vulgarity, and mistakes. The obscene jokes violate certain taboo top-
ics and are usually for the lower classes. The witty jokes are “quick grasps of rel-
evance” or “divergent thinking.” The ironic jokes express cynicism. Humorous
jokes are both witty and sarcastic. In contrast, Liao (2003) argued that youmo
contains more wisdom and elegance; therefore, huaji is not equivalent. Instead,
the ancient word huaji captures modern humor in terms of basic physical actions,
speech, and wit.
The ancient poet-patriot Qu Yuan 屈原3 first used huaji in his best-known
masterpiece of ancient Chinese literature, Chu Ci 楚辭, as a way to smoothly
and ingratiatingly interact with a prince who was obviously incapable of such
subtle thinking (Kao, 1974, p. xix). Incidentally, he also used youmo in Chu Ci
to express “tranquility of life and mind.” In addition, he called huaji “humor in
the palace.”
Early professional comedians performed huaji plays as skillful enactments to influ-
ence kings. The most renowned huaji player in ancient China was Dongfang Shuo
東方朔 (160–93 BC), who lived in the Western Han Dynasty (206 BC–8 AD).
Historians regard him as the “master of humor” for his skill in speaking prose that
contained hidden meanings. Besides huaji, commoners’ jokes shaped the earliest
forms of Chinese humor.
Humor, philosophy, and Chinese culture 3
Other forms of humor in Chinese history
The earliest Chinese jokes, called pai shuo 俳說, meaning literally “small talks”
(Liao, 2001, p. 5), were literary statements rather than pure jokes (Chen, 1985,
p. 2). The first Chinese book of jokes I located was called Xiao-lin 笑林, mean-
ing “a forest of jokes,” and was written by Handan Chun 邯鄲淳 in the Wei
period 曹魏 (220–265). Ninety-three other joke books published during the
period of feudal China (221 BC-1911) recycled or re-phrased numerous pai
shuo from past dynasties (Liao, 2001, p. 34). Guo Zi-zhang 郭子章,4 a scholar
in the Ming Dynasty (明朝, 1368–1644), proposed that pai shuo jokes were
of two kinds: the kou-xie-shan-bian 口諧善辯 (wit and quips) meant for fun
and the Tan-yan-wei-zhong 談言微中 (indirect and relevant talks) meant for
pleasantly dispensing advice (Chen, 1985). Later, Zhao Nan-xing 趙南星,5
a scholar in the Qing Dynasty 清朝 (1644–1911), argued that jokes should
entertain people and make them happy, widen their worldview, transfer knowl-
edge, and enhance literature. Satire appeared in jokes, idioms, proverbs, fables,
and parables. At one time, satire was mostly confined to literate people, but it
has become widely popular in China. Duan (1992, pp. 4, 49) divided Chinese
jokes into humorous jokes 幽默笑話 for gently criticizing wrongdoing, sarcas-
tic jokes 嘲諷笑話 for expressing hostility, and banter jokes 詼諧笑話 for trig-
gering laughter.
In short, throughout Chinese history, humor has taken diverse forms: banters,
quips, herbal names, poems, riddles, and wordplays (see Table 1.1). In particular,
the culturally confined Yao ming shi 藥名詩 and Yu xi 語戲 conveyed highly per-
ceptive, insightful, witty, ironic, or sarcastic messages.
Table 1.1 Major humor techniques in Chinese history
Techniques Brief description Examples
Jia yu 佳語 Clever remarks/ There is an end to my life, but not to my

Utterances learning. （吾生也有涯，而知也無涯。）
– Zhuangzi
Ya nue 雅謔 Elegant banter Emperor Taizong (598–649) once offered a
pretty girl to his chief minister, Fang Zuoling.
Fearing his wife’s envy, Fang declined the offer.
Being upset, Emperor Taizong ordered to give
Fang’s wife a cup of poisonous wine, telling her
that she should either drink the wine or take the
girl. Fang’s wife drank it immediately. Greatly
shocked, Emperor Taizong signed, “even I
myself were scared of her, not to mention poor
Fang.” What was actually inside the cup was
vinegar. From then on, people referred envy to
“drinking vinegar.”
From (明)《雅謔》浮白齋主人著寫
(Continued)
Table 1.1 (Continued)
Techniques Brief description Examples
Jing ju 警句 Witty warnings You will become a Buddha once you put down
your knife. (放下屠刀，立地成佛。 )
Xi nue 戲謔 Playful sarcasm You don’t pay for angering a person to death.
(氣死活人不償命。 )
Zi xi 字戲 Wordplay South Tongzhou，north Tongzhou，south
north all leads to Tongzhou. (南通州，北通
州，南北通州通南北。)
Yao ming shi Herbal names “重台信嚴敞，陵澤乃閑荒。石蠶終末繭．垣
藥名詩表不可裳。秦芎留近詠．楚蘅遠翔。韓原結神
草，隨庭銜夜光”。这是現存最早的藥名詩，
是南朝王融(468～494年)寫的《藥名》。詩句
裡明鑲或暗嵌了玄參(重台)、陵澤、石搢蠶、
垣衣、秦芎、杜蘅。The poem has six herbal
names (the six underlined characters).
Qu shi 趣詩 Cute Poems Like the Chinese palindrome poem written by
Su Shi below.
Min dui 敏對 Quips Ji Xiaolan (紀曉嵐, 1724–1805), a favored
minister of Emperor Qianlong (乾隆帝, 1711–
1799), was working on a hot summer day. He
happened to have taken off his upper cloths
when the Emperor came. Feeling embarrassed,
he quickly hid under a desk to wait for Emperor
Qianlong to leave. Being unsure if he left,
he asked if the old man（literally means the
old-head-son 老頭子) was still around. The
Emperor was dismayed at hearing it and ordered
him to come out to explain. Ji explained old
meant to be longevity, head meant to be heaven,
and son meant to be heaven’s son. The Emperor
was delighted and forgave him.
From 《清稗類鈔》
( )
Qu lian 趣聯 Couplets Once, Tang bo-hu (唐伯虎, 1740–1524) and
Zhu Zhishan (祝枝山, 1461–1527) traveled
together to a mountain village. Zhu saw a
waterwheel and said “A waterwheel carries
water, water stops as it stops (水車車水，水隨
車，車停水止).” Tang quickly replied: “as a fan
carries wind, wind moves as it moves (“風扇扇
風，風出扇，扇動風生。 )”
A Chinese palindrome poem by Su Shi

Presented below is a Chinese palindrome poem6 written by Su Shi
(苏轼, 1037–1101), and it is considered to be a classic example of Chinese
wordplay.
賞花歸去馬如飛, Watching flowers then galloping fast,

去馬如飛酒力微; Galloping fast then feeling drunken;
酒力微醒時已暮, Feeling drunken then waking up late,
醒時已暮賞花歸。Waking up late then watching flowers.
Note: What is underlined is to be repeated in next line.
The earliest professional comedians in China were called pai you 俳優, a kind
of huaji player. Supported by autocratic families, their role was to amuse people
by telling jokes and performing humorous skits. They were first recorded in Sima
Qian’s 司馬遷7 (145–80 BC) Records of History as Huaji Actors《史記.滑稽列
傳》 . As time passed, the pai you established the essential Chinese humor charac-
teristics that have gradually evolved into today’s comic dramas 喜劇, witty talk
shows 詼諧表演, and cross-talks 相聲.
Development of modern humor in China

Wang Guo-wei8 (王國維, 1827–1927) first translated the English word humor
into Chinese as oumuya 歐穆亞, but intellectuals paid little attention to the topic.
In the 1920s, Lin Yu-tang, a well-known humor writer and scholar, translated
humor as youmo 幽默 when he published an article in the literary supplement
of the Peking Morning Post 北京晨報 (Kao, 1974, p. xxii). In his eagerness to
encourage Chinese humor, he argued:
Any country’s culture, lifestyle, literature, or thought needs to be enriched

by humor. If a people do not have this enrichment of humor, their cul-
ture will become more hypocritical with each passing day, their lives will be
closer and closer to cheating, their thought pedantic and outdated, their
literature increasingly withered and their spirit increasingly obstinate and
ultraconservative.
Since then, humor has gained increasing popularity in China. In 1974, Lin
Yu-tang9 argued that youmo was better than huaji for denoting the meaning of
humor. He said that humor was generally natural, verbal behavior that makes
people smile and think, whereas huaji actions were intentionally offensive. He
differentiated thoughtful smiles 會心微笑 from hilarious wholehearted laugh-
ter 開懷大笑 (Lin, 1974, p. 289) and argued that smiles coming from a meet-
ing of the hearts was more sophisticated than shallow American humor causing
belly laughs (Kao, 1974). He also distinguished between Zhuangzi,10 which was
grand, strenuous, and wild masculine humor, and Tao Yuan-ming,11 which was
mature, gracious, and poetic feminine humor (陶淵明, 352, 365–427). His defi-
nitions indicated that he favored warm but not raucous Chinese laughter. In
1933, Lin Yu-tang launched Lun-yu (Analects Fortnightly) 論語旬刊 to pub-
lish jokes and articles about humor from China and overseas (Qian, 2011). The
magazine lasted for only ten years, but it reduced the popularity of the traditional
term huaji for verbal humor (Liao, 2003) and eventually allowed the modern
term youmo to dominate.
Contemporary China has seen the rise of three new forms of humor (see
Table 1.2): jerk humor 痞子幽默, cold humor 冷幽默, and nonsense humor
無厘頭幽默. Jerk Wang Shuo 王朔,12 a popular unorthodox novelist in Main-
land China, pioneered jerk literature 痞子文學 in the 1980s in rebellion to
orthodox thinking and teaching in China. Jerk humor is characterized by
cynical and sarcastic deprecation of the self and others, but first appeared as
personal braggadocio. It is highly popular among young people in mainland
China and Taiwan (Liao, 2001).
Cold humor first appeared in Taiwan in 1970 as a variation of Western forms of
black humor (Liao, 2001). It is characterized by expressions of dry, harsh, bitter
cynicism regarding social hierarchies or inequalities and incorporates significant
Chinese and Taiwanese cultural values, taboos, and events.
Nonsense humor first appeared in south China in the late Qing Dynasty
but thrived in Hong Kong in the early 1980s. It is characterized by cute and
malicious self-entertaining wit or sarcasm. Stephen Chow 周星馳,13 the famous
Hong Kong actor and comedian, championed nonsense humor by acting in
and directing nonsensical movies. Table 1.2 describes the various forms of Chi-
nese humor. Table 1.3 summarizes the development of ancient to modern Chinese
humor.
Table 1.2 Major forms of humor in China
Forms Brief Description
Comedies
Comic acts Professional comedians performed plays and acrobatics for
Pai shou 俳說 royals and aristocrats
Two-person show One comedian played a wit, and one played a stooge. They
Can jun play made fun of all walks of life
參軍戲
Witty show Cross-talks and single-man talk shows ridiculed absurdity and
Qu yi 曲藝 unfairness
Comic drama Plays and operas portrayed humorous scenes, events, and
Xi ju 戲劇 figures
Cross-talks Comedians performed monologues or dialogues
Xiang Sheng 相聲
Satires
Satirical prose Ancient idioms, scripts, proverbs, fables, and parables
諸子散文
Folk satires Folk jokes, folklore, folk shows, and folk rhymes
民間笑話
Satirical novels Novels and short essays ridiculing politics
諷刺小說
Political satires Political jokes, satire, and stories
政治笑話
Modern Humor
Cold humor Verbal and nonverbal acts showing dry, harsh, bitter humor
冷幽默
Jerk humor Deprecation of the self and others, braggadocio
痞子幽默
Nonsense humor Verbal and nonverbal acts showing malicious and self-
無厘頭幽默 entertaining humor
Table 1.3 Examples of humor in China
Form Examples
Folk satire As the hostess guided me to my table, I asked her to keep an eye
民間笑話 out for my husband, who would be joining me very soon. I started
to describe him: “He has gray hair, wears glasses, has a potbelly . . .”
She stopped me there. “Honey, today is senior day. They all
look like that.”
Political satire “In Beijing, because pollution has reached 35 times the safety
政治笑話 level, children have been ordered to stay home. This could mean
a delay for anyone who ordered a new iPhone.” – Conan O’Brien
Cold jokes A man wanting to buy a flat brought his savings to the sales
冷幽默 center of a housing estate. The sales lady quoted the prices: “A
thousand for the first floor, eleven thousand for the second,
twelve thousand for the third, and . . .” The man stopped her
abruptly and said, “That’s ok, my parents are scared of heights.
May I buy the underground flat?”
Jerk humor When someone says “He’s a good guy once you get to know
痞子幽默 him,” what they really mean is “He’s an incredible jerk and you’ll
get used to it.”
I can’t believe it’s been a year. I didn’t become a better person!
Nonsense humor “Mom, can I ask you a question?”
無厘頭幽默 “Sure darling, go ahead!”
“How did you know my name when I was born?”
“What’s orange and sounds like a parrot?”
“A carrot.”
Humor and Chinese philosophies
To gain a deeper understanding of Chinese humor, it is important to study the
philosophical origins of humor in Chinese culture and history (Yao, 1989). Chi-
na’s three most important philosophies, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism,
and its three most influential philosophers, Confucius, Laozi, and Zhuangzi,
have profoundly influenced Chinese thinking (Yao, 1989, p. 3). Confucianism,
with its precept of the moral man 君子, has molded the serious thoughts and
habits of Chinese gentleman for thousands of years. Confucianism recognizes
Confucius as its greatest sage and Mencius14 as the second greatest (Kao, 1974,
p. 3). Mencius 孟子 (372–289 B.C.), the best-known Confucian scholar, was
known for having sarcastic wit, but he was not a humorous person.
The Taoist school, rooted in Laozi’s the Old Boy, blossomed in Zhuangzi
(莊子) and bore fruit in Liezi 列子15 and Hanfeizi 韓非子.16 Taoism recognizes
personal limitations and can therefore allow relaxation and laughter. Lin Yu-tang
considered Laozi and Zhuangzi, the co-founders of Taoism, to be the ancestors
of Chinese humor (Liao, 2001, p. 88):
Laozi, the antagonist of Confucius, must be regarded as the true comic spirit
of China, and Zhuangzi, his follower and inventor of a great many libelous
stories about Confucius, may be regarded as the most intelligent humorist
of China. Laozi’s laughter was dry and small, sounding low through his thin
beard, while Zhuangzi, often broke out into boisterous laughter.
(Kao, 1974, pp. xxxiii, xxxiv)
Confucianism and Chinese humor

Confucianism teaches that a gentleman must maintain gravity and eschew mirth,
jesting, and playfulness, which indicate disrespect and could damage social rela-
tionships within the Confucian ethos. Moreover, Chinese culture holds that indi-
viduals must cultivate tolerance, understanding, and broadmindedness (Qian,
2007). For centuries, Confucianism dominated Chinese ethical, moral, social,
political, and philosophical thought, values, institutions, behaviors, and cogni-
tions (Needham, 1956, 1976; Sun, 2008). As such, moral didacticism over-
whelmed and suffocated all forms of literature (Qian, 2007). Chey argued that:
“From [Confucius’s] time onward, Chinese society had set rigid standards for
proper behaviors and established moral imperatives. Inappropriate levity and
laughter was frowned upon, especially after the tenth century under the influence
of the philosophical reforms commonly known as Neo-Confucianism” (Chey,
2011, p. 14). Serious homophonic wordplay became popular in China (Liao,
2001). Most ironically, Lin Yu-tang, China’s humor master, proposed that edu-
cated people should write humorously but behave seriously (文章可幽默，做人
要認真) (Liao, 2001).
According to Lunyu 論語, Confucius once heard that the late Gonshu Wenzi
公叔文子 had never laughed. Confucius asked one of Gonshu’s disciples whether
this was true. The disciple replied that his master had laughed, but only when he
was delighted, so that nobody became weary of his laughter (Le ran hou xiao, ren
buy an qi xiao 樂然後笑，人不厭其笑). Confucius asked, “But how could he be
like that?” (Qi ran, qi qi ran hu 其然，豈其然乎) (Lunyu, 14.13). Gongshu Wen-
zi’s apparent eccentricity became a norm for humor and laughter in China; one
should never be too free with laughter (bu gou xiao 不苟笑). After all, frequent
mirth would not only weary others but would also encourage familiarity (xia 狎 or
jin 近), which would in time breed insolence (jian 簡 or bu xun 不遜) (Xu, 2011).
Confucius was personally quite humorous but had ambivalent attitudes toward
humor (Chen, 1985; Liao, 2001; Lin, 1971; Wang, 2002). He “had a humorous
attitude towards life, (he) was warm but serious, respectful but easy, frugal and
modest” (Lin Yu-tang, 1971). However, he once said, “A man has to be serious
to be respected” (Liao, 2007). Consequently, for thousands of years, Chinese
have been uncomfortable about when, how, and with whom they should laugh.
In short, Confucian puritanism has caused Chinese people to consider humor
to be intellectually and politically shallow and to equate humor with social infor-
mality, impropriety, and immaturity. “From the time that Confucianism became
the ideology of imperial rulers and governments, it was disseminated through the
education and examination system, and provided both a tool for the rulers and a
system restricting autocracy; however, it never represented the whole spectrum of
Chinese humor, ranging from Confucian decorum to Taoist subversion” (Chey,
2011). In such a way, proper humor should be good-natured, moderate, private,
and tasteful to Confucianists (Xu, 2011).
Taoism and Chinese humor

Taoism, native to Chinese culture for more than 2,500 years, has heavily influenced
Chinese thought and behavior. As a philosophy, the Taoist doctrines are based on
the texts of the I Ching 易經, the Tao Te Ching 道德經 and the Zhuangzi 莊子,
which emphasize living in harmony with the Tao 道. Characterized by a disasso-
ciation from grubby officialdom (Chey, 2011), Taoism de-emphasizes Confucian-
ism’s fundamental rigid rituals and social order and values naturalness, spontaneity,
simplicity, detachment from desires, and the state of wu wei 無爲, literally mean-
ing nonaction. As a religion, Taoism worships no god, issues no commandments,
answers no prayers, and requires no sacrifices. It only asks its followers to go by the
natural way of Tao. What could be more comical and humorous?
Taoism had historically been the tool for anti-establishment thinking (Chey,
2011). As such, Taoism inherently advocates humor in the natural way of wu wei
無為 and let go 放開 (Yue, 1994, 2010). In other words, by being wu-wei, the
sage seeks harmony with the great way of nature through nonaction.
Taoist literature is generally humorous, while Confucian literature is dry and
serious (Liao, 2001, p. 59). Lin Yu-tang commented that Laozi and Zhuangzi,
the co-founders of Taoism, were the ancestors of Chinese humor (Liao, 2001,
p. 88). He argued that “Laozi, the antagonist of Confucius, must be regarded as
the true comic spirit of China, and Zhuangzi, his follower and inventor of a great
many libelous stories about Confucius, may be regarded as the most intelligent
humorist of China” (Kao, 1974, p. xxxiii).
To paraphrase Lin, Laozi was more of a humorist, with a humor style charac-
terized by wit, insightfulness, and seriousness. Zhuangzi, in contrast, was more of
a comedian whose humor was characterized by sarcasm, trickery, and playfulness.
What they had in common was a genuine appreciation for conflict and paradox.
They also shared a passion for laughter, although Laozi was reported to have a
suppressed smile, while Zhuangzi laughed boisterously (Kao, 1974, p. xxxiv).
In short, Taoism is significantly more hospitable to humor than is Confucianism.
Taoism favors philosophical anarchism, pluralism, and laissez-faire-government.
What would more characterize the essence of humor?
Buddhism and Chinese humor

Buddhism, originating in India and spreading to China during the Han Dynasty
(206 BCE–220 CE), has profoundly influenced Chinese values regarding the
Buddhist quest for enlightenment and nonsuffering. Buddhism scriptures were
translated into Chinese using the Taoist vocabulary (Dumoulin, Heisig, & Knit-
ter, 2005, pp. 70, 74) and thus significantly correlate with Taoism (Prebish,
1975). Ancient Buddhist scriptures objected to humor and laughter: “Not with
loud laughter will I go amidst the houses, is a training to be observed. One
should not go amidst the houses with loud laughter. Whoever out of disrespect,
laughing a great laugh, goes amidst the houses, there is an offence of wrongdo-
ing . . .” (Horner, 1983, p. 123).
Over the centuries, however, as Buddhism transformed and spread across
different cultures, its attitude toward humor changed. In particular, Chinese
Buddhism in the form of Ch’an or Zen Buddhism 禪宗 incorporated into its
religious doctrines a positive attitude toward humor. Buddhism’s austere repre-
sentation belongs to history. Instead, Buddha is getting increasingly represented
by the “Laughing Buddha” 大肚笑佛, or Budai,17 the Chinese representation of
“Maitreya” 彌勒佛, “the laughing one, rather than as a grim aristocrat, and is
associated with good luck, friendliness, and prosperity. The Laughing Buddha is
perhaps the best visual indicator that Buddhism encourages humor. Rubbing his
fat tummy is supposed to bring prosperity. Enlightenment is at the core of Bud-
dhism. As the pilgrim moves toward awareness of absurdity or illusion at the core
of the universe, laughter can generate sudden insight (Hyers, 1989).
Zen Buddhists once avoided humor, but then humor transitioned to a teaching
device. Revered Zen monks were often seen to laugh uproariously, “. . . clowning
around, playing the fool, joking even about things ordinarily held sacred by other
Buddhists, not excluding the Buddha himself. Again and again we read about
a Zen master who clapped his hands and gave a loud roar of laughter” (Hyers,
1974, p. 33).
In conclusion, Confucius sees humor in life but has negative attitudes about
its expression, a paradoxical irony that has profoundly influenced attitudes
toward humor in later Confucians. On one hand, they believe that laughter
is a natural gift and a human need, but nevertheless, they disdain humor as
indicating a lack of education and civilization and an undermining of the five
Table 1.4 Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism: attitudes toward humor
Taoism Confucianism Buddhism
Humor Promotes emotional Violates proper Embodies the spirit of

tranquility. behaviors. enlightenment.
Laughter A means for merging In excess, destroys Linked with good
with nature. the will and spirit. luck, friendliness, and
prosperity.
Comedy and Encouraged Despised for being Teaches refinement,
satire for fostering frivolous. tolerance, and
contentment. endurance.
cardinal relations in human interactions. Taoism values humor as a means for

natural, witty, peaceful, and harmonious interactions. Buddhism sees humor as
a means toward enlightenment and is thus more closely related to Taoism than
to Confucianism.
Table 1.4 above summarizes the distinctions.
Summary
Based on the preceding paragraphs, I would like to conclude this chapter with the
following arguments. Firstly, I argue that Chinese people have been humorous
for as long as the Chinese civilization is. As rightly pointed out by Kao (1974,
p. xxix), “the Chinese are both a funny and humorous people and they do many
fantastic and contrary things.” So the Chinese never lack humor and have been
highly productive and creative with humor production and comprehension.
Unfortunately, due to the influence of Confucianism, the Chinese have been
highly cautious, conservative, and critical with use of humor.
Secondly, I argue that though the Chinese word of youmo 幽默 was translated
from the English word of humor, the characters of humor thrived in China for
thousands of years, either in its narrow sense or in its broad sense (Ruch, 1998).
In fact, the evolution of Chinese sense of humor not only allows the Chinese
to appreciate adversities and diversities in life in a comic way, it also serves what
the Western sense of humor calls in humor: wit, irony, quip, sarcasm, wisecrack,
nonsense, self-deprecation, and so on (Ruch, 1998). According to Chen (1982),
Chinese jokes, from its very beginning, tried to express both “denial humor”
(critical of reality) and “complimentary humor” (complimentary of reality),
which is different from the “pure humor” expressed by Western jokes (just mak-
ing people laugh).
Thirdly, I argue that Chinese humor differs substantially from the Western
humor in that it is more subtle and delicate. Chen (1982) argued that Chi-
nese humor production emphasized very much on “expressive subtleness and
appreciative delicacy.” As such, Chinese jokes tend to be highly dialectic and
aesthetic. Lin (Kao, 1974) argued that Chinese humorists, best represented by
Su Dongpo18 (蘇東坡, 1037–1101), have been highly witty for their humorous
expressions. Therefore, Lin preferred “thoughtful smile” (smile of the meeting
of the hearts) to “hilarious laughter” (belly laughter). Alternatively, “thoughtful
humor” best captures Chinese humor, as Chinese people, for thousands of years,
have learned to laugh very carefully and insightfully.
Fourthly, I argue that Chinese people do value humor, though they may not
be fully aware of it. Judge Wu (quoted in Kao, 1974, p. xviii) once remarked that
“Whereas Westerners are seriously humorous, Chinese people are humorously
serious.” Being humorously serious, Chinese people often become quite serious
and mysterious (Shi, 1996). Alternatively, though the Chinese undergraduates
devalued humor as a component of ideal personality and creativity, they actually
valued humor as a composite character of self-refinement.
In short, humor is among the most desirable personality trait (Grotjahn,
1957; Kuiper & Martin, 1998; Kuiper, Martin, Olinger, & Dance, 1993) and
ought to be enhanced for personal and societal empowerment (Yue, Hao,
Lan, & Yan, 2006). All humans should enjoy the natural and useful gift of
laughter (Apte, 1985; Lefcourt, 2001). Humor gives relaxation to all ages,
genders, races, and languages (Freud, 1963; Ho & Lin, 2000; Martin &
Lefcourt, 1983; Martin et al., 2003). After thousands of years of cultural
discrimination against humor, it is time for the Chinese to embrace and enjoy
humor (e.g., Chen & Martin, 2007; Liao, 2003, 2007; Yue, 2010), but first
they need to be keenly aware the existence and influence of Chinese ambiva-
lence about humor. They need to overcome their biases against humor in
various ways and develop confidence that they can be humorous for various
purposes (Chen, 2006; Liao, 2003, p. 156; Yue et al., 2006). Consequently,
academic and popular attempts need to be made to promote humor for better
functioning, mental health, creative expression, personal refinement, and self-
actualization (Chen & Martin, 2007) as early as in elementary school (Liao,
2007, p. 318).
As Plato asserted, “What is honored in one’s country is what will be culti-
vated.” For thousands of years, Chinese culture has valued conformity, humility,
and social formality (Bond, 1996). Humor, being informal and impersonal, has
been inconsistent with those prized virtues (Chen, 1985) so that Chinese people
sometimes even try to avoid humorous people (Liao, 1998). However, I contend
that if China is to admit humor into its social fabric, to enjoy its known benefits
to health and life, Chinese people must become aware of their dispositional and
motivational biases against humor, must learn to genuinely appreciate humor,
and must overcome their biases and fears.
As what’s best humor for the Chinese, I want to finish this chapter by quoting
from Lin Yu-tang (1974):
Thoughtful humor, however, is based on the perception of human errors,

incongruities, cant, and hypocrisy, which admittedly are shared by all of us.
The comic spirit is that human understanding which, being higher than aca-
demic intelligence, rises above the confusion and self-deception of our com-
mon notions, and points its finger at life’s sham, futility, and follies.
Notes
1 Xiaolin 笑林 (literally meaning the Forest of Laughter), written by Handan Chun
邯鄲淳 (c. 220) in Wei period, scores itself as China’s first collection of jokes. It
seeks to expose human frailty and follies via the jokes it presents.
2 Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850–1909) was a German psychologist who pioneered
the experimental study of memory and is known for his discovery of the forgetting
curve and the spacing effect. He is also the first person to describe the learning
curve.
3 Qu Yuan (339 BC–278 BC) was a Chinese poet and a minister who lived during
the Warring States period of ancient China. He is known for his patriotic poetry
and verses, especially Chu Ci 楚辭. He is also remembered as the origin of the
Dragon Boat Festival 端午節.
4 Guo Zizhang (郭子章 1542–1618), a famous statesman and strategist in Wanli
萬曆 Period of Ming Dynasty.
5 Zhao Nan-xing | 赵南星, 1550–1627), a famous essayist and a minister in Ming
dynasty. He wrote political satires to critize the unjustice during the time.
6 Palindrome poem is a form of poem that reads the same forward or backward.
It stems from the Greek word palindromos: palin, meaning again, and dromos,
meaning running. The carefully placed words form the same sentence, whether it
is read forward or backward. For example, “Mirrored images reflect images mir-
rored,” which includes a word in the center as a reversal point for the sentence or
even the poem.
7 Sima Qian (司馬遷, 145 or 135–86 BC), formerly spelled as Ssu-ma Chien, was
a Chinese historian of the Han dynasty. He is a famous historian of Former Han
period 前漢 (206 BCE–8 CE). He was probably born in 145 or 135 BCE and
died during the late years of Emperor Wu 漢武帝 (r. 141–87 BCE). He compiled
the famous book of history Shiji 史記, the first large and universal history of China
that influenced countless generations of Chinese historians to come.
8 Wang Guo-wei (王國維; 1877–1927) was a Chinese scholar, writer, and poet. A
versatile and original scholar, he made important contributions to the studies of
ancient history, epigraphy, philology, vernacular literature, and literary theory.
9 Lin Yu-tang 林語堂 (1895–1976) was a Chinese writer, translator, and linguist.
His informal but polished style in both Chinese and English made him one of the
most influential writers of his generation. He also translated the word of humor
into Chinese and actively promoted it to Chinese people. His compilations and
translations of classic Chinese texts into English were bestsellers in the West.
10 Also known as Zhuangzhou 莊周, he is co-founder of the Taoism. The Book
of Zhuangzi is a collection of anecdotes, fables, and texts of Taoist ethics and
principles.
11 Tao Yuanming 陶淵明 (365–427), also known as Tao Qian 陶潜 or T’ao Ch’ien,
was a Chinese poet who lived in the middle of the Six Dynasties period (c. 220–
589 CE). He is regarded as the greatest poet of Six Dynasties period between the
Han and Tang dynasties. He is also the foremost of the “recluse” poets in Chinese
history.
12 Wang Shuo (王朔, 1958–) is a Chinese author, director, actor, and cultural icon.
He has written over 20 novels, television series, and movies. His works have been
translated into Japanese, Spanish, French, English, Italian, and many other lan-
guages. He promoted the use of jerk humor in his novels.
13 Stephen Chow (Chinese: 周星馳, Chow Sing-chi, 1962–) is a film director, actor,
comedian, writer, and film producer. He promoted the use of nonsense humor in
his movies.
14 Mencius or Mengzi (孟子; 372–289 BC; alt. 385–303/302 BC) was the best-
known Confucianist after Confucius himself. He emphasized the significance of
the common citizens in the state. He also believed that education should awaken
the innate abilities of the human mind.
15 The Liezi (列子, Lieh-tzu) is a Taoist text attributed to Lie Yukou 列御寇, a c.
5th-century BCE Hundred Schools of Thought philosopher, but most Chinese
and Western scholars believe it was compiled around the 4th century CE.
16 Han Fei (韓非 c. 280–233 BC), also known as Han Fei Zi, was an influential
political philosopher of the Warring States period “Chinese Legalist” school. He
synthesized the methods of his predecessors, as described in his eponymous work,
the Han Feizi. He is considered to be the greatest representative of ancient Chi-
nese Legalism.
17 Budai or Pu-Tai (布袋) is a Chinese folkloric deity, meaning “Cloth Sack.” Car-
rying a bag, Budai is always smiling or laughing and is thus nicknamed as the
Laughing Buddha (Chinese: 笑佛).
18 Su Shi (蘇軾 1037–1101), also known as Su Tungpo 蘇東坡, was among the
best-known Chinese in Chinese history. Being a writer, poet, painter, calligrapher,
pharmacologist, gastronome, and a statesman of the Song dynasty, Su Shi’s life is
colorful in many ways. A major personality of the Song era, Su was an important
figure in North Song dynasty (960–1127) politics, aligning himself with Sima
Guang (司马光, 1019–1086) and others against the New Policy 變法 led by Wang
Anshi (王安石, 1021–1086). Su Shi was demoted several times in his political
career, and he used humor actively to cope with it. His poetry has a long history
of popularity and influence in China, Japan, and other areas in the near vicinity
and is well known in the English-speaking parts of the world. Lin Yu-tang wrote
a book to memorize him, the Gay Genius.
References
Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Bond, M. H. (Ed.). (1996). The Handbook of Chinese Psychology (pp. 208–226).
Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Chen, C. C. (1985). A Study of Ancient Chinese Jokes (中國古代笑話研究). Master’s
thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Chen, G. H., & Martin, R. A. (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.
Chen, M. H. (2006). Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on team
creativity process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), 105–116.
Chen, X. Y. (1982). On origins of “humor” (幽默源流探微). Journal of Aesthetic
Study and Appreciation (美的研究與欣賞), 1, 60–65.
Chey, J. (2011). Youmo and the Chinese sense of humour. In J. Chey & J. M. Davis
(Eds.), Humour in Chinese Life and Letters: Classical and Traditional Approaches
(p. 2). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Davis, J. (2011). The Theory of Humours and the traditional Chinese medicine. In J.
Chey & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Humour in Chinese Life and Letters (pp. 31–36). Pok
Fu Lam: Hong Kong University Press.
Duan, B. L. (1992). Jokes: Human Comic Art (笑話：人間的喜劇藝術). Taipei:
Shu-hsin.
Dumoulin, H., Heisig, J. W., & Knitter, P. F. (2005). Zen Buddhism: A History (Vol-
ume 1: India and China). Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, Inc.
Freud, S. (1963). Jokes and the Unconscious. New York: Norton.
Grotjahn, M. (1957). Beyond Laughter: A Psychoanalytical Approach to Humor. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Ho, M. J., & Lin, S. H. (2000). The moderating effect of sense of humor to life stress
and physical-mental health for junior high school students. Bulletin of Educational
Psychology, 32(1), 123–156.
Hyers, M. C. (1974). Zen and the Comic Spirit. London: Rider.
Hyers, M. C. (1989). Humor in Zen: Comic midwifery. Philosophy East and West,
39(3), 267–277.
Kao, G. (1974). Chinese Wit and Humor. New York: Sterling.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1998). Is sense of humor a positive personality
characteristic. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality
Characteristic (pp. 159–178). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The Psychology of Living Buoyantly. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Levinson, D. (1994). Ethnic Relations: A Cross-Cultural Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara,
CA: ABC-CLIO Incorporated.
Liao, C. C. (1998). Jokes, Humor and Chinese People. Taipei: Crane.
Liao, C. C. (2001). Taiwanese Perceptions of Humor: A Sociolinguistic Perspective.
Taipei: Crane.
Liao, C. C. (2003). Humor versus huaji. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(1),
25–46.
Liao, C. C. (2007). One aspect of Taiwanese and American sense of humour: Atti-
tudes toward pranks. Journal of Humanities Research, 2, 2289–2324.
Lin, Y. T. (1971). Anthology of Banter (風頌集). Taipei: Chih-wen.
Lin, Y. T. (1974). Introduction. In G. Kao (Ed.), Introduction to Chinese Wit and
Humor. New York: Sterling.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Burlington,
MA: Academic Press.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation
between stressors and moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(6), 1313.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (2004). Sense of humor and physical health: Theo-
retical issues, recent findings, and future directions. Humor, 17(1/2), 1–20.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual dif-
ferences 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.
Moser, D. (2004). Stifled Laughter: How the Communist Party Killed Chinese
Humor. Retrieved December, 15, 2008, from http://www.danwei.org/tv/stifled_
laughter_how_the_commu.php.
Needham, J. (1956). Science and Civilisation in China, Vol. 2: History of Scientific
Thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Needham, J. (1976). History and human values: A Chinese perspective for world
science and technology. In H. Rose & S. Rose (Eds.), The Radicalisation of Science
(pp. 90–117). London: Macmillan.
Prebish, C. S. (1975). Buddhism: A Modern Perspective (pp. 29–45). University Park,
PA: Penn State University Press.
Qian, S. Q. (2007). Translating “humor” into Chinese culture. Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research, 20(3), 277–296.
Qian, S. (2011). Liberal Cosmopolitan: Lin Yutang and Middling Chinese Modernity
(Vol. 3). Boston: Brill.
Ruch, W. (1998). Foreword and overview: Sense of humor: A new look at an old
concept. Humor Research, 3, 3–14.
Ruch, W., & Hehl, F. J. (1998). A two-mode model of humor appreciation: Its rela-
tion to aesthetic appreciation and. The Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality
Characteristic, 3, 109.
Shi, K. Y. (1996). Wu-wei: The non-doing philosophy in Chinese humor. Research
Papers in Linguistics and Literature, 5, 87–98.
Simpson, J., & Weiner, E. S. (1989). Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: Claren-
don Press. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/
recent-updates-to-the-oed/previous-updates/september-2008-update/.
Sun, C. T. L. (2008). Themes in Chinese Psychology. Asia: Cengage Learning Asia.
Wang, J. L. (2002). The features and techniques of verbal humor. (論幽默語言的特
徵與技巧). Foreign Language Research (外語學刊) 3, 58–63.
Xu, W. (2011). The classical confucian concepts of human emotion and proper
humour. In J. Chey & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Humour in Chinese Life and Letters
(pp. 50–71). Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong University Press.
Yao, Y. W. (1989). Theater and Literature (戲劇與文學). Taipei: Lian-ching.
Yue, X. D. (1994). An ethnographic study of coping strategies among Chinese col-
lege students in Beijing. Education Research Journal, 9(1), 65–67.
Yue, X. D. (2010). Exploration of Chinese humor: Historical review, empirical find-
ings, and critical reflections. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,
23(3), 403–420.
Yue, X. D. (2011). The Chinese ambivalence to humor: Views from undergradu-
ates in Hong Kong and China. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,
24(4), 463–480.
Yue, X. D., Hao, X., Lan, L., & Yan, F. (2006, June). Humor and Youth Empower-
ment: A Self-cultivation Approach. Paper presented at the 2nd International Con-
ference on Youth Empowerment, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong,
China, 5–8 June.
2 Chinese and Western views
of humor
On December 14, 2008, an Iraqi journalist startled attendees at a press

conference at the prime minister’s palace in Baghdad, Iraq, by throwing a
shoe at U.S. President George W. Bush. After the incident, Bush joked: “If
you want the facts, it’s a size 10” (BBC, 2008).
A few weeks later, on February 2, 2009, a student threw a shoe at Chi-
nese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) as he spoke at the University of Cam-
bridge. The student was removed from the lecture hall, but Premier Wen
Jiabao was not amused and said “this despicable behavior will do nothing
to hold back the friendship of the Chinese and British people” (China
View, 2009).
Why would the former American leader George Bush and the former Chinese
leader Wen Jiabo show such vastly different reactions, one humorous and one
serious, to two almost similarly unexpected insults?
As this chapter reveals, humans have a universal capacity for humor, but dif-
ferent cultures have different perceptions of its appropriateness (Chen & Mar-
tin, 2007; Cheung & Yue, 2012; Jiang, Yue, & Lu, 2011; Yue, 2010). That is,
“Westerners are seriously humorous, Chinese people are humorously serious”
(Judge John C. H. Wu; quoted in Kao, 1974, p. xviii).
The Western ordinary view of humor

Former President George Bush’s humorous response showed that Westerners use
humor comfortably in formal situations. Indeed, they deeply value humor. West-
ern bookstores carry numerous self-help books about humor. “Sense of humor”
is at the top of favored traits in potential spouses. Westerners tend to view humor
as a commonly possessed, inborn characteristic to be used whenever possible, a
positive disposition essential for self-actualization and interpersonal relationships
(Apte, 1985; Chen & Martin, 2007; Maslow, 1968). Indeed,
Humor is ubiquitous in American society and nothing escapes from becom-

ing its target. Humor in its numerous techniques and forms is directed at the
18 Chinese and Western views of humor
population through all conceivable channels – newsprint, magazines, books,
visual and plastic arts, comedy performances, and amateur joke-telling con-
tests, as well as many types of artifacts such as T-shirts, watches, bumper
stickers, greeting cards, sculptures, toys, and so forth.
(Apte, 1985, p. 30)
The Western view of humor originated in ancient Greece where humor was val-
ued as a natural expression of amusement and delight in social interactions (Grant,
1924, 1970). For thousands of years, humor is taken as a natural talent that is
to be possessed by everyone in society and to be used in every occupation. In
American society, the 19th and early 20th centuries were considered the golden
age of humor (Bier, 1968; Blair & Hill, 1978). Freud (1928) regarded humor as
an effective defense mechanism for relieving negative emotions. Specifically, laugh-
ter releases excess nervous energy and provides alternative perspectives regarding
fear, sadness, or anger (Martin, 2007). Western psychologists have long shown that
humor and laughter enhance health (e.g., McDougall, 1922; Sully, 1902), promote
creativity (e.g., Guilford, 1950), and strengthen coping and optimism (e.g., Walsh,
1928). More recently, Western scholars have shown that humor is an indispensable
“panacea” for coping with daily annoyances (e.g., Kuiper & Martin, 1998; Lef-
court, Davidson, Shepherd, Phillips, Prkachin, & Mills, 1995; Moran & Massam,
1999), for promoting impression management (e.g., Mettee, Hrelec, & Wilkens,
1971), and for enhancing interpersonal attraction (e.g., Fraley & Aron, 2004).
In short, humor is an essentially social, context-driven phenomenon (e.g.,
Robinson & Smith-Lovin, 2001). Westerners have long considered humor to
be a core personality and self-actualization trait (Maslow, 1968; Mindess, Miller,
Turek, Bender, & Corbin, 1985; Mintz, 1983) and an essential characteristic of
creativity (Guildford, 1950; Sternberg, 1985). As such, Westerners were not sur-
prised when President Bush joked about the shoe, despite the formal situation.
Rather than feeling disrespected, he demonstrated wit and charisma in the face
of embarrassment.
Table 2.1 presents the major differences between four styles of humor. East-
erners tend to favor positive affiliative and self-enhancing humor rather than
aggressive and self-deprecating humor.
Table 2.1 Definitions and examples of humor types
Humor type Definition Examples
Affiliative Amuses others A very pretty young lady sat next to

Humor and facilitates Charles Darwin at a dinner party.
relationships Doubtful about the theory of evolution,
she asked, “Is it true that we were all
evolved from monkeys?” Sensing her
hostility, Charles Darwin politely replied,
“Oh yes, Madame, except that you were
evolved from a very charming monkey.”
(Continued)
Chinese and Western views of humor 19
Table 2.1 (Continued)
Humor type Definition Examples
Self-Enhancing Counters stress and “By all means, marry. If you get a good
Humor maintains positive wife, you’ll become happy; if you get a
outlooks during bad one, you’ll become a philosopher.”
difficult times – Socrates
Aggressive Sarcastically insults At the opening of a new play, George
Humor and ridicules others Bernard Shaw sent two tickets to Winston
Churchill. Shaw wrote, “Here is a ticket
for you and your friend – if you have one.”
Churchill sent back the tickets with a
message, “I can’t attend on opening
night, but I would love to go to the
second performance – if you have one.”
Self-Deprecating Disparages the Don’t think of yourself as an ugly person.
Humor self, ingratiates, Think of yourself as a beautiful monkey.
defends, denies
The Chinese extraordinary view of humor

In contrast, the Chinese tend to believe that humor is a personality trait specific
to professional humorists (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010, 2011). Chinese society views
humor as potentially jeopardizing hierarchical relationships by being socially
informal and intellectually shallow. Therefore, Chinese people tend to think that
“humor is good, but not for me” (e.g., Liao, 1998; Yue, 2011). Their view of
humor is largely attributed to “Confucian puritanism” (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010,
2011), which tended to despise humor:
Confucian decorum put a damper on light, humorous writing, as well as on

all imaginative literature, except poetry. Drama and the novel were despised
as unworthy of a respectable scholar’s occupation . . . This puritanic, austere
public attitude has persisted to this day.
(Lin, 1974, p. xxxi)
From the Confucian perspective, proper humor needs to be moderate, private,

good-natured, tasteful, and didactically useful (Xu, 2011). Confucian puritanism
teaches restraint from laughter to maintain dignity and social formality (Yue,
2010). The Confucian doctrine of moderation eschews loud, hilarious laughter,
which indicates extreme emotion and causes discomfort (Liao, 1998; Yue, 2010,
2011). Chinese people are constantly reminded to laugh gently and quietly. Chi-
nese women are even advised to cover their mouths when they laugh. Instead,
Chinese prefer “thoughtful smiles” over “hilarious laughter” (Lin Yutang, 1974):
Proper humor, seen from the Confucian perspective, means a form of pri-
vate, moderate, good-natured, tasteful and didactically useful mirth. This
humor ethic stems from the belief that emotion is indispensable, and that
unbridled passions are dangerous and must be expressed in a balanced way. It
also stems from a profound concern for social morality, order and harmony.
(Xu, 2011)
In short, the Chinese social identity is likened to a Galilean view of human nature
by which individuals are entrenched in a social network and their anxieties and
complexes are judged in terms of the roles they play in this network (Hsu, 1985;
Sun, 2008, p. 50). This is especially so after the emergence of Neo-Confucianism
in the 10th century, whereby more rigid standards were established against inap-
propriate levity and laughter in social interactions (Chey, 2011).
Orthodox Confucian literary writings

Orthodox Confucian writers avoided humorous writings because they feared that
sophistry would jeopardize social formality and thus overturn orthodoxy (Lin,
1974; Qian, 2011; Sample, 2011; Yue, 2010, 2011). As a result, humor was
scorned in China. After the downfall of the Qing dynasty in 1911, humor began
to thrive in China, despite the still heavily influential cultural biases against public
displays of humor (Davis, 2011; Xu, 2011). Consequently, Premier Wen’s stern
remarks in response to the shoe-throwing incident evidenced his culturally influ-
enced attention to dignity rather than humor.
Cross-cultural studies of humor in Chinese society

In the past two decades, there has been an increase in cross-cultural studies of
humor in relation to Chinese society. Studies conducted in Hong Kong showed
that Hong Kong students preferred wise and conservative jokes, whereas U.S.
students preferred sexual and aggressive jokes (Castell & Goldstein, 1976). Pre-
vious empirical studies found that men and women produced humor quite dif-
ferently; more recent research has developed several scales allowing respondents
to rate their use of humor in their daily lives (Chen, Watkins, & Martin, 2013).
Studies conducted in mainland China showed that Chinese undergraduates
were less likely to use humor to cope with stress and that they considered them-
selves to be less humorous than did Canadian undergraduates (Chen & Martin,
2005). Self-enhancing, self-effacing, and coping humor were found to be most
strongly related to mental health. Also, Chinese students tended to use humor
to cope with stress, alleviate negative emotions, increase affiliation, and enhance
the self. Specially, in contrast to Chinese men and Canadian students, Chinese
women tended to use self-disparaging humor to cope with stress, relieve negative
emotions, please others, and maintain group cohesiveness.
Another mainland China study investigated how extensively humor depends on
emic cultural values and the need to save face for the self and others (Chen et al.,
2013). Horizontal collectivism and desire to save face for others were positively
related to affiliative and self-enhancing humor. Self-face defense was positively related
to aggressive and self-deprecating humor. Cultural values and face-work together
explained an average of 11.25% of the total variances for the four humor styles.
Chinese undergraduates tended to associate humor with unpleasant adjectives
and seriousness with pleasant adjectives; American undergraduates showed the
opposite associations (Jiang et al., 2011). Chinese undergraduates in mainland
China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan reported that humor fails to contribute to cre-
ativity (Rudowicz, 2003; Rudowicz & Yue, 2000, 2003; Yue, 2011). Both Hong
Kong and Hohhot undergraduates associated humorists mostly with comedians,
actors, TV hosts/DJs, and politicians (Yue, Hao, & Goldman, 2010). Under-
graduates in mainland China saw less value in humor than did their counterparts
in Hong Kong (Yue, 2011; Yue, Liu, Jiang, & Hiranandani, 2014; Yue, Hao, &
Goldman, 2010; Yue, Wong, & Hiranandani, 2014).
Studies conducted in Taiwan reported that Taiwanese undergraduates gener-
ally considered that they lacked humor compared with their American coun-
terparts (Liao, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2003). They reported that they often used
jokes as substitutions for social reprimands (Liao, 1998, p. 352), that loud
laughter made people feel nervous and uncomfortable (Liao, 2001, p. 187) and
that self-deprecating humor was useful to avoid offending others (Liao, 1997,
p. 214). A sample of 1,039 Taiwanese junior high school students found that
a sense of humor significantly moderated stress and thus affected physical and
mental health: situational humor production and humorous coping skills were
negatively correlated with anxiety, insomnia, and social dysfunction (Ho & Shih,
2000).
Singaporean culture emphasizes conservative values and strictly forbids por-
nography. Although psychologists argued that forbidden or repressed sexual
expression would increase the use of sexual humor, Singaporean Chinese stu-
dents in fact used fewer sexual jokes and more humorless jokes than did American
students, suggesting that Singaporean Chinese students placed more emphasis on
conventional behavior and lifestyles (Nevo, Nevo, & Yin, 2001).
Studies of the Chinese extraordinary view of humor

Only a few studies have examined cross-cultural differences regarding perceptions
of humor and humorists, and they have shown that prototypical and creative Chi-
nese consistently devalue the need for humor (Rudowicz, 2003, Rudowicz & Yue,
2000; Yue, 2011; Yue, Hao, Lan, & Yan, 2006). Instead, they perceive humorists
as belonging mostly to entertainment professions (Yue, 2010, 2011).
Perception of Chinese and Western humorists

To reiterate, the Chinese generally have an extraordinary view of humor, while
Westerners have an ordinary view of humor (Yue, Jiang, Lu, & Hiranandani,
2016). The extraordinary view sees humor as controversial in social interactions
and as a personality trait limited to specialists in humor-related fields (e.g., Davis,
2011; Lin, 1974; Xu, 2011; Yue, 2010, 2011; Yue et al., 2014). The Western
ordinary view, in contrast, regards humor as a commonly held positive dispo-
sition for achieving self-actualization and enhancing interpersonal relationships
(e.g., Martin, 2007; Maslow, 1968).
To verify the dichotomous views, three separate but interrelated studies were
conducted (Yue et al., 2016). In Study 1, participants from Hong Kong and
Vancouver were asked to rate the importance of humor, self-humor, and sense of
humor. The Chinese were expected to give significantly lower ratings. In Study 2,
Hong Kong participants were primed with Western cultural icons or Chinese
cultural icons and were then asked to ascribe adjectives to a humorous person.
Chinese participants primed with Western culture icons were expected to use
more positive adjectives than those primed with Chinese cultural icons. In Study
3, participants from Hong Kong and Vancouver were asked to nominate up to
three humorists and to indicate their occupations. Canadian participants were
expected to nominate significantly more friends and family; Hong Kong par-
ticipants were expected to nominate significantly more humor-related specialists
(e.g., comedians, cartoonists).
For Study 1, 121 Canadian undergraduates (averaging 19.84 years old, SD =
2.54) were recruited from the University of British Columbia (61 women, 60
men), and 121 Chinese undergraduates (averaging 21.16 years old, SD = 1.55)
were recruited from the City University of Hong Kong (48 women, 73 men).
They answered two questions measuring their perceptions regarding the impor-
tance of humor and self-humor: “How important is humor to you?” “How do
you measure your level of humor?” Participants responded on an 11-point scale,
from 0 = lowest to 10 = highest.
Participants also responded to the Sense of Humor Questionnaire (Herzog &
Strevey, 2008), which has four dimensions: humor production (e.g., “I initiate or
start humor more than others”); coping humor (e.g., “Humor helps me cope”);
humor appreciation (e.g., “I appreciate those who generate humor”); and humor
tolerance (e.g., “No topic is off-limits for humor”). The internal reliability Cron-
bach’s alphas for the four dimensions were .87, .87, .84, .67, respectively.
Compared with the Chinese participants, the Canadians rated humor as signifi-
cantly more important and considered that they possessed humorous character-
istics. They also scored significantly higher on humor production, appreciation,
tolerance, and coping. Table 2.2 shows the results. The findings align with
Table 2.2 Humor perception differences between Canadians and Chinese students
Canadian Chinese
Students Students
Mean SD Mean SD T Cohen’s d
Importance of humor 8.56 1.17 7.60 1.55 5.49*** .70

Rating of self-humor 7.28 1.39 6.12 1.85 5.50*** .71
Humor production 49.52 8.99 44.85 8.02 4.26*** .55
Humor appreciation 55.01 6.30 45.89 6.84 10.79*** 1.39
Coping humor 45.70 9.82 41.81 5.98 3.72*** .48
Humor tolerance 16.43 5.66 13.91 3.09 4.28*** .55
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
previous findings that North Americans are more likely to appreciate and use
humor than Chinese (Chen & Martin, 2007; Liao, Chang, & Ming, 2006).
The findings verified the expected cultural differences that Canadian students
rated humor as being significantly more important and considered that they were
significantly more humorous. To determine whether similar findings could be
obtained using a different research paradigm, Study 2 was conducted using a
within-group paradigm to experimentally test cultural influences.
Study 2: priming Chinese and Western culture cues

Ninety-six Hong Kong college students (31 men, 65 women, averaging 24.01
years old, SD = 3.78 years) were recruited at the City University of Hong Kong.
Participants were randomly assigned to two experimental groups: a Chinese
picture-priming condition and a Western picture-priming condition. Following
the priming tasks (about 15 seconds), participants rated humor according to a
list of 40 adjectives (Zhang, Wang, & Qi, 1998). To reduce potential language
biases, oral instructions were given in Chinese and English and were counterbal-
anced across the priming conditions (e.g., Meier & Cheng, 2004).
The priming materials included 26 pictures (13 for each culture), redeveloped
for relevance to the Hong Kong context (Ng & Lai, 2009) on the basis of Hong,
Morris, Chiu, and Benet-Martinez (2000) by adding specific icons of Hong Kong
culture (e.g., Dim Sum). The pictures covered five cultural domains: (a) food
and drink, (b) music and art, (c) popular movie icons, (d) religion and legends,
and (e) folklore and famous buildings (Ng & Lai, 2009). In accordance with
common practice (Ng & Lai, 2009), each priming stimulus was presented for
five seconds at a computer monitor. Participants were randomly assigned to the
Western culture condition (48 participants: 13 men, 35 women), and the Chi-
nese culture condition (48 participants: 18 men, 30 women). After they viewed
the 13 pictures, they responded to “Which culture (Western or Chinese) do the
pictures depict?” and “Write down some of the cultural features or influences.”
The word list used in the study was previously selected from Zhang, Wang,
and Qi (1998). As the list was 20 years old, we conducted a pilot study with 15
undergraduate students to discard currently unfamiliar words. Forty words were
selected: 20 for the positive list and 20 for the negative list. Participants rated
“how well the word describes a humorous person” on a 5-point scale, from 1 =
not at all to 5 = very much.
Participants who were primed with Western icons showed significantly more
positive humor evaluations (M = 3.70, SD = 0.33) than those (M = 3.58, SD =
0.26) primed with Chinese icons (t(94) = 2.04, p < .05, d = .40). That is, exposure
to icons associated with Western or Chinese culture led participants to perceive
humor differently. The priming effect in Study 2 verified the Study 1 findings:
compared with Westerners, Chinese people tended to devalue humor in social
interactions (Yue, 2010, 2011; Yue et al., 2010).
Delighted with the findings, we proceeded to determine whether Canadian
students would adopt the Western view that humor was a common ordinary trait
while Chinese students would believe that humorists must have extraordinary
backgrounds or talents (Yue, 2011). Thus, we used the nomination method for
Study 3 (Yue, 2003, 2004a; Yue, Bender, & Cheung, 2011).
Study 3: nomination of humorists and benefits of humor

The same 121 Canadian undergraduates used in Study 1 were recruited from the
University of British Columbia (61 women, 60 men), averaging 19.84 years old,
SD = 2.54 years), and 99 Chinese undergraduates were recruited from City Univer-
sity of Hong Kong (46 women, 53 men, averaging 20.02 years old, SD = 1.36 years).
Participants nominated up to three of the people they considered to be most
humorous and indicated whether their nominees were relatives or friends. Two
research assistants helped participants identify nominee occupations to ensure
correct identifications. The inter-rater reliability was .97. Canadian participants
nominated significantly more relatives and friends (47.09%) than did their Chi-
nese counterparts (14.42%). Canadian participants also nominated individuals
from more varying occupations (e.g., journalists, teachers, athletes). Chinese
participants nominated mostly people working in entertainment industries (e.g.,
comedians, actors/actresses, singers) (81.73%) and rarely nominated relatives
and friends (14.42%). Figure 2.1 displays the distribution.
Chi-square test indicated that culture significantly interacted with categories,
x 2 = 62.21, df = 2, p < .001. The findings confirmed the expected perceptual
differences (Yue, 2010, 2011).
The nomination method used in Study 3 supported the cultural dichotomy:
Canadians viewed humor as an ordinary common phenomenon, and the Chinese
viewed humor as an extraordinary phenomenon restricted to humor specialists.
Consequently, Canadians tended to nominate friends and family members; the
Chinese tended to nominate comedians.
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
Chinese
40.00%
Canadian
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Entertainment Friends or Family Others
Members
Figure 2.1 Nominated humorists by Chinese and Canadian students

Nowadays, the concept of humor is a hot issue in the Western world. How-
ever, the meaning of humor was totally different in early 16th century. The earliest
meaning of humor is a medical term. For example, the Greeks believed that humor
represents liquid in our body. In the 17th century, humor was described as deviant
and abnormal behaviors. Such behaviors were considered ridiculous and sometimes
amusing. In the later development of humor, it was widely adopted to describe
amusing and incongruent behaviors. Eventually, humor became a social desirable
term and raised the interest of different approaches like linguistics and philology
in Western countries (Martin, 1998; Ruch, 1998). Humor evolution had taken a
different path in Chinese society. No appropriate word was used to describe humor
until the 19th century. Lin Yu-tang (林語堂, 1895–1976), a Western-educated
scholar from China, translated humor into Chinese – youmo 幽默 according to its
phonetical sound (1974). In Lin’s view, humor was an attitude towards life, a sort
of broadmindedness or optimism toward life, which also was an expanded con-
cept. Since that, humor has become a regular word in Chinese society (See, 1997;
Zhao, 2002). Before that, – huaji 滑稽 was used in expressing humor in Chinese
(Yue, 2009). The character – Hua refers to smoothen and slippery, and character –
means to check (Kao, 1974, p. xviii). However, it is inadequate to describe humor
since huaji is more or less a negative term. Taken this, huaji is doubted to be less
elegant and wise than humor (Liao, 2003). As a result, before – youmo occurred,
the language system failed to provide satisfying terms to describe humor. Review-
ing a historical view on humor, the differences in the evolution process of humor
reflected the tolerance of each language system. And the creation of a word implies
the importance of such descriptive term to each culture (Lerman, 1967).
Table 2.3 displays percentage of important benefits of humor rated by Cana-
dian and Chinese students. Canadian students scored consistently and signifi-
cantly higher on all 15 listed items except for love relation and relaxation than
their counterparts in Hong Kong. This implies that the use of everyday humor
is a lot more valued by Canadian students than by Hong Kong students, thus
offering a strong qualitative proof of the Western ordinary view of humor in
comparison with the Chinese extraordinary view of humor.
Evaluation of importance of collectivism and individualism

Singelis and associates (1995) divided individualism into horizontal individualism
and vertical individualism. Specifically, horizontal individualism (HI) sees people
as being independent and with similar status. People with high HI are more
likely to think that everyone is equal and unique. Vertical individualism (VI) sees
people as being independent, but different in status. People with high VI are
more likely to compare and compete with each other to gain a higher status. By
the same token, Singelis and associates (1995) also separated collectivism into
horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. That is, horizontal collectivism
(HC) sees people as being interdependent and equal to members in the group.
People with high HC are more likely to place group interests in front of their
own. Vertical collectivism (VC) sees people as being interdependent but unequal.
People with high VC are more likely to conform to authority and seniority.
Table 2.3 Percentages of participants’ perception of the benefits of humor
Canadian Hong Kong

(n = 121) (n = 121)
Yes No Yes No x2
Relation-Related Items
Friendship 48.35 1.65 45.04 4.96 4.28*
Love Relation 41.32 8.68 38.43 11.57 1.25
Family Relation 40.91 9.09 30.99 19.01 11.78**
Work Relation 38.43 11.57 29.75 20.25 8.40**
Work-Related Items
Academic Works 16.94 33.06 7.85 42.15 10.72**

Presentation Skills 31.82 18.18 15.29 34.71 26.54***
Meeting Skills 13.22 36.78 6.61 43.39 6.65*
Interview Skills 17.36 32.64 7.02 42.98 14.01***
Confidence Skills 43.39 6.61 27.27 22.73 30.32***
Work Performance 21.90 28.10 14.46 35.54 5.79*
Health-Related Items
Mental Health 41.74 8.26 26.86 23.14 24.86***

Physical Health 27.27 22.73 10.33 39.67 29.61***
Relaxation 35.95 14.05 36.36 13.64 0.02
Physical Attractiveness 36.78 13.22 21.90 28.10 22.09**
Entertainment 46.28 3.72 38.02 11.98 12.49***
Note: n = 242, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
In short, as much as individualism emphasizes an “I-ness” in social relations,

and collectivism advocates a “we-ness” in social relations. Based on previous as
well as above findings, Canadian students should prefer HI and VI more than
HC and VC than their counterparts in Hong Kong, and the reverse should be
found of the Hong Kong students’ preference of HC and VC over HI and VI for
Canadian students. This is largely evident in data presented in Table 2.4, in which
Canadian students valued HI significantly higher than Hong Kong students,
whereas Hong Kong students valued vertical collectivism significantly higher
than Canadian students. Implicitly, it means that Canadian students regarded
everyone as being more equal than Hong Kong students and that Hong Kong
students respected more authority and seniority than Canadian students. This
indirectly explains why Hong Kong people are more careful and conservative
with use of everyday humor than Westerners.
Study 4: cross-cultural comparison of perception of humor

and humorists
To collect further cross-cultural evidence of the Chinese extraordinary and the
Western ordinary views of humor, Wong (2010, under supervision of Yue)
Table 2.4 Evaluation of importance of collectivism and individualism for Canadian
and Hong Kong students
Canadian Hong Kong

Students Students
(n = 121) (n = 121)
Mean SD Mean SD T
Horizontal Individualism 30.93 3.94 29.00 3.50 4.04***

Vertical Individualism 25.81 5.84 24.96 4.11 1.30
Horizontal Collectivism 30.15 4.65 29.64 3.51 0.96
Vertical Collectivism 23.36 4.54 27.66 3.42 –8.31***
Note: ***p < .001.
Table 2.5 Importance of humor and self-humor among Hong Kong, Hangzhou, and
Vancouver students
Hong Kong Hangzhou Vancouver

Students Students Students
(n = 159) (n = 178) (n = 120)
M SD M SD M SD F-value
Importance of humor 7.55 1.81 8.30 1.42 8.55 1.17 17.42***

Self-humor 5.96 1.83 6.33 1.79 7.27 1.39 20.81***
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, **p < .001.
conducted a study using a sample of 457 Hangzhou, Hong Kong, and Van-
couver undergraduates: 159 from City University of Hong Kong (72 men; 87
women, averaging 22.97 years old, SD = 2.21); 178 from Hangzhou Normal
University (74 men; 104 women, averaging 19.37 years old, SD = 1.16); and 120
from University of British Columbia (59 men; 61 women, averaging 19.86 years
old, SD = 2.55). The three universities were comparable in size and prestige in
their respective regions.
Participants were asked to rate on a 1–10 Likert scale (1 = lowest, 10 = highest)
two questions: “How important is humor to you?” and “Rate your level of humor.”
Table 2.5 shows the importance of humor and self-humor across the three samples.
Vancouver Canadians and Hangzhou Chinese rated humor as significantly more
important than Hong Kong Chinese did (F = 17.42, p = .000). Vancouver students
also rated themselves as being significantly more humorous than Hong Kong and
Hangzhou students did (F = 20.81, p = .000). Taken together, Canadian students
valued humor more highly and considered themselves to be significantly more
humorous. This finding echoes findings presented above.
Perception of prototypical Chinese and Western humorists

Besides, participants were also asked to nominate up to three best-known humorists
they knew and explain why they nominated them (Yue, 2003, 2004b; Yue et al.,
2011). A three-step procedure was followed to code nominated humorists (Yue,
2003; Yue et al., 2011; Yue & Rudowicz, 2002). In Step 1, a master list with all
nominees was compiled. In Step 2, two independent coders (the first author and a
research assistant) assigned a category of achievement to each nominated humor-
ist. Humorists who were active in a number of domains were coded according to
the category best known to the public. The two coders mutually agreed to a single
category for each humorist, so that nominees were assigned to only one category.
In Step 3, all coded humorists were grouped into 14 broad occupational categories:
comedians, actors, singers, talk show/TV hosts/DJs, writers, businessmen, fictional
characters, sports stars, directors, teachers, family members and friends, and others.
Table 2.6 displays the percentages and ranking of nominated humorists in
the three samples. The Hong Kong and Hangzhou samples ranked comedians
first (57.6% and 54.1%, respectively), whereas the Vancouver samples ranked
relatives/friends first (50.8%). Hong Kong students chose actors as a close sec-
ond, while Vancouver students chose comedians second. All remaining nominees
were within a single digit, except the Vancouver sample, and the Hong Kong
and Hangzhou samples nominated family/friends/others at the same rate. The
findings confirmed that Hong Kong and Hangzhou samples nominated more
celebrities; the Vancouver sample nominated more noncelebrities.
Table 2.7 and Figure 2.2 show the percentage and chi-square results of nomi-
nated humorists by three categories, comedians, celebrities, and noncelebrities.
The combined total of celebrities and noncelebrities was 90.2% and 9.7% for
the Hong Kong sample, 90.8% and 9.2% for the Hangzhou sample, and 49.2%
and 50.8% for the Vancouver sample. Chi square test revealed that Hong Kong
Table 2.6 Categorical percentages and rank of nominated humorists*
Nominee Hong Kong Hangzhou Vancouver

(n = 159) (n = 178) (n = 120)
Rank Percentage Rank Percentage Rank Percentage
Celebrities
Comedians 1 57.6 1 54.1 2 23.8
Actors 2 13.4 2 11.9 3 20.0
Singers 3 8.6 11 0.4 6 1.0
Politicians 6 3.2 3 9.4 7 1.0
Talk Show/TV hosts/DJs 8 0.9 6 4.7 4 1.6
Writers 5 4.4 4 7.0 5 1.6
Businessmen 10 0.7 8 1.4 – –
Fictional characters 11 0.2 9 1.0 8 0.3
Sports stars 12 0.2 12 0.2 – –
Directors 9 0.9 10 0.6 – –
Noncelebrities
Relatives/Friends 4 8.1 5 6.8 1 50.8
Teachers 7 1.6 7 2.5 – –
Note: *The total of each percentage column equals approximately 100%.
Table 2.7 Nomination of humorists by Hong Kong, Hangzhou, and Vancouver
Students*
Nominee Hong Kong Hangzhou Vancouver x 2 (df = 4)

(n = 159) (n = 178) (n = 120)
Comedians 57.6 54.1 23.8

Other Celebrities 32.6 36.7 25.4
Noncelebrities 9.7 9.2 50.8
258.97***
Note: *The total of each column equals approximately 100%.
70
60
50
40
Comedians
30 Other Celebrities
20 Non-Celebrities
10
0
(n = 159) (n = 178) (n = 120)
Figure 2.2 Nomination of humorists by Hong Kong, Hangzhou, and Vancouver

students
(32.6%) and Hangzhou (36.7%) students nominated significantly more celebri-

ties than Canadian students did. The Vancouver sample (50.8%) nominated sig-
nificantly more noncelebrities (x2: (4, n = 457) = 258.97, p = .000).
Table 2.8 displays the percentage and ranking of the ten most frequently nomi-
nated humorists for each sample. Comedians and actors dominated the lists for
all three samples. Wong Chi Wah (Dayo) and Charlie Chaplin topped the list,
followed by Stephen Chow in Hong Kong and Hangzhou, while Russell Peters
and Jim Carrey topped the list for the Vancouver sample. It is worth noting that
many Canadians nominated themselves, but participants from Hong Kong and
Hangzhou rarely did so.
Hong Kong and Hangzhou Chinese students nominated significantly more
comedians than relatives and friends, while the opposite was true for Vancouver
students. Vancouver students ascribed significantly greater value to humor and
rated themselves as being more humorous than did Hong Kong and Hangzhou
students. This supports the assumption that Canadians consider humor to be
a commonly held, positive disposition that enhances interpersonal relationship
Table 2.8 The top ten most frequently nominated humorists*+

(n = 159) (n = 178) (n = 120)
Name Rank % Name Rank % Name Rank %
Wong Chi Wah* 黃子華 1 15.3 Charlie Chaplin* 1 14.2 Russel Peters* 1 4.4
Stephen Chow* 周星馳 2 13 Zhao Ben Shan* 趙本山 2 10.3 Jim Carrey* 2 2.8
Jim Carrey* 3 5.5 Stephen Chow* 周星馳 3 7.3 Adam Sandler 3 2.5
Charlie Chaplin* 4 4.0 Mr. Bean* 4 6.4 Dane Cook 4 2.2
Mysam Leung* 梁志健 5 3.8 Feng Gong* 馮鞏 5 5.4 Jerry Seinfeld 5 1.9
Eric Tsang* 曾志偉 6 3.6 Mark Twain 6 3.9 Robin Williams 6 1.7
Jan Lamb* 7 3.1 Zhou An Lai 周恩來 7 3.0 Myself 7 1.4
Mr. Bean* 8 2.9 Xiao Shenyang* 小瀋陽 8 2.4 Stephen Colbert 8 1.1
Eric Kot* 葛民輝 9 2.5 Ge You 葛優 9 2.2 Steve Carell 9 1.1
Jim Carrey* 10 2.5 Xie Na 謝娜 10 1.5 Dave Chapelle 10 0.8
Total 56.2 56.6 19.9

Note: The number of nominations in each sample was used to calculate column percentages. Unanimity of nominations and ranking within the sample determined
nominee position. Comedians are denoted with an asterisk (*).
(Chen & Martin, 2007; Yue, 2011, Yue & Jiang, 2013), which may be attrib-
uted to the influence of Western values of individualism emphasizing autonomy,
self-expression, novelty of thinking, and freedom of expression (Amabile, 1996;
Mayer, 1999; Ng, 2001; Sternberg & Lubert, 1999; Yue, 2004b). In contrast,
the Chinese tend to disdain and avoid humor (Cheung & Yue, 2012; Yue, 2011)
because of the influence of collectivism, which emphasizes hierarchical social
structure, respect for authority, and high valuation of social influences (Bond,
1996; King & Bond, 1985; Yue, 2004a; Yue & Rudowicz, 2002). Thus, in West-
ern society, humor can serve as an indispensable “panacea” for daily coping (e.g.,
Kuiper & Martin, 1998; Lefcourt et al., 1995; Moran & Massam, 1999), for
impression management (e.g., Mettee et al., 1971), and for enhancing interper-
sonal attraction (e.g., Fraley & Aron, 2004). In Chinese society, however, the
use of humor may potentially jeopardize hierarchical relationships by introducing
social informality and appearing to be intellectually shallow (e.g., Liao, 1998;
Yue, 2011). It is thus no surprise that the Canadian and Chinese students have
such different values regarding use of humor.
In a more recent study, Yue and Hiranandani (2014) reported that Hong Kong
students tended to perceive humorists as coming mostly from humor-related pro-
fessions, whereas Westerners tended to believe that humorists can come from all
backgrounds. That is, Chinese students in Hong Kong and Hangzhou (杭州)
nominated significantly more professional comedians, and the Vancouver stu-
dents nominated more relatives and friends. Those findings indicate further that
the Chinese tend to believe that humorists are extraordinary, whereas Canadi-
ans tend to believe that humorists are ordinary (Yue, 2011; Yue & Jiang, 2013;
Yue et al., 2016). Besides, participants in the Vancouver sample viewed humor
as a positive, commonly held disposition (Chen & Martin, 2007; Yue, 2011;
Yue & Jiang, 2013), whereas those in the Hangzhou sample ascribed less value
to humor and were less likely to use it (Yue, 2011).
Chinese meritorious evaluation bias of humor

To account for the above findings, it may be argued that the Chinese evaluate
humor or humorists according to a unique meritorious evaluation bias. Specifically,
they value humor or professional humorists in terms of their social merits or recog-
nition rather than their novelty or wit. Intuitively, humorists should be evaluated
according to the quality of their comedy routines or writing, not according to their
social positions or social contributions. But with Chinese meritorious evaluation
bias, a comedy, for instance, is judged according to social expectations: whether the
humor is delivered for the sake of “attaining virtue and benefiting the world.” That
is, Yu (1996) argued that “rendering meritorious service (ligong 立功, or establish-
ing deeds) has been the paramount goal of Confucian doctrines of a Ruist 儒家.
It typically involves saving those in distress, ridding the world of evil, and benefiting
the world by good works” (p. 232). In consequence, the likelihood that a person is
deemed as humorous depends upon the extent that his performance conforms to
social expectations of humor in Chinese society. Such an elite view of humorists
also deems that only tasteful and good-natured jokes are encouraged and valued in
public arenas. I will address this point in in later chapters.
Neuropsychological studies of Chinese humor

Humor is unique to mankind and plays an important role in social settings. How-
ever, the neurological mechanisms underlying humor comprehension are still
not fully understood. In recent years, new technologies have made it possible to
develop progressively more refined understandings of these mechanisms.
Humor and the theory of mind

The heory of mind (ToM) is the ability to understand and represent the psycho-
logical state of others (Wellman, Cross, & Watson, 2001). ToM is the ability to
infer the mental states of others (Premack & Woodruff, 1978) and is believed to
be essential to humor perception – the cognitive process and affective response
involved in perceiving amusing stimuli (Martin, 2007). Howe (2002) proposed
the mind-reading hypothesis of humor, arguing that the relationship between
the reader of a joke and the target of the humor in the joke was important in
humor perception. The actual source of amusement was the reader’s observation
that in the target’s mind, the collision between old perception and new reality
was resolved. Jung (2003) proposed the inner eye theory of laughter and stated
that to laugh at a joke required “understanding the desires or the beliefs of the
joke-teller and those of the characters in the joke.” These mind-reading theories
of humor are supported by both behavioral studies (Corcoran, Cahill, & Frith,
1997; Samson, 2012; Uekermann, Channon, Winkel, Schlebusch, & Daum,
2007) and neuroimaging studies (Bartolo, Benuzzi, Nocetti, Baraldi, & Nichelli,
2006; Samson, Zysset, & Huber, 2008).
Neuropsychological study of humor in Taiwan

One study by Chan et al. (2013) builds on the previous study within the frame-
work of Wyer and Collin’s comprehension – elaboration theory of humor pro-
cessing. The attempt was made to segregate the neural substrates of incongruity
detection and incongruity resolution during the comprehension of verbal jokes.
Although a number of fMRI studies have investigated the incongruity-resolution
process, the differential neurological substrates of comprehension are still not
fully understood. The study by Chan and colleagues (2013) utilized an event-
related fMRI design incorporating three conditions (unfunny, nonsensical and
funny) to examine distinct brain regions associated with the detection and resolu-
tion of incongruities. Stimuli in the unfunny condition contained no incongrui-
ties, stimuli in the nonsensical condition contained irresolvable incongruities, and
stimuli in the funny condition contained resolvable incongruities. The results
showed that the detection of incongruities was associated with greater activa-
tion in the right middle temporal gyrus and right medial frontal gyrus and the
resolution of incongruities with greater activation in the left superior frontal
gyrus and left inferior parietal lobule. Further analysis based on participants’ rat-
ing scores provided converging results. Our findings suggest a three-stage neural
circuit model of verbal humor processing: incongruity detection and incongru-
ity resolution during humor comprehension and inducement of the feeling of
amusement during humor elaboration.
Neuropsychological study humor in mainland China

Another study by Feng, Ye, Mao, and Yue (2014) studied the mind-reading
hypothesis of humor and the inner eye theory of laughter, which both claim that
readers’ mentalizing about characters in jokes is essential for perceiving humor.
On the basis of this notion, we hypothesized that point-to-other verbal jokes
(in which one character said funny things about the other character) induced
more ToM processing than point-to-self verbal jokes (in which one character said
funny things about him/herself to the other character).
Nonsensical Unfunny Funny

1
0.5
Signal Change (%)
-0.5
-1
R-MTG R-MFG
[57, 2, -8] [9, -13, 64]
Figure 2.3 Incongruity detection. Top: bars show beta values for two regions of
interest (ROIs) (peak voxels for each of the three conditions: nonsensical,
unfunny, and funny). Bottom: sagittal brain images for the two ROIs.
Greater activations were found for the nonsensical versus unfunny
conditions in the two ROIs, including the right middle temporal gyrus
(R-MTG) and right medial frontal gyrus (R-MFG).
Funny Nonsensical Unfunny

2
Signal Change (%)

1
L-SFG L-IPL
-1
[-12, 44, 46] [-60, -49, 40]
Figure 2.4 Incongruity resolution. Top: bars show beta values for two regions of interest
(ROIs) (peak voxels for each of the three conditions: funny, nonsensical,
and unfunny). Bottom: sagittal brain images for the two ROIs. Greater
activations were found for the funny versus nonsensical conditions in the
two ROIs, including left superior frontal gyrus (L-SFG) and left inferior
parietal lobule (L-IPL).
Twenty healthy subjects participated in this study, and three of them were
excluded (one due to incomplete data caused by the breakdown of fMRI scan-
ner; the other two due to excessive head motions), resulting in 17 valid sub-
jects (nine males, eight females; mean age and SD = 22.0 ± 2.2). All of them
were native speakers of Chinese, right-handed, and had normal or corrected-to-
normal vision. Since the present study mainly investigates the ToM processing in
perceiving humor, and we supposed that jokes differed in requirement of ToM
processing onlyon self/other dimension, the benign/detrimental dimension was
not considered in the data analysis of this study.
Three hundred and nine Chinese jokes (without vulgar language or sexual con-
tent) were collected from the Internet and magazines, and then two of the exper-
imenters chose 128 jokes for this experiment. Each joke contained two parts:
the setup and the punchline, whose definitions and examples can be found else-
where [8]. The unfunny versions of these jokes were generated by replacing the
funny punchlines with unfunny ones. The total 256 stories were then evaluated by
a separate group of subjects (N = 185) who were similar in age and background
to the experimental subjects. Although this study aimed to compare point-to-self
and point-to-other jokes, they were instructed to categorize these jokes into six
story types (self-enhancing jokes, self-defeating jokes, affiliative jokes, aggressive
jokes, other jokes, and unfunny stories) in order to balance the benign and detri-
mental jokes in either condition. The criteria of categorization were derived from
Martin et al.’s [24] definitions of the four types of humor. They also rated the
funniness and comprehensibility of these stories on a 9-point scale. In the end, 60
jokes (15 in each of the four humor types) and their unfunny counterparts were
selected according to the results of categorization and evaluation.
In the fMRI experiment, each subject viewed 24 point-to-self jokes, 24 point-
to-other jokes, and 12 unfunny baseline stories. They did not see the same setup
in two trials. The entire fMRI experiment was divided into four runs, with 15 tri-
als in each run: six point-to-self trials, six point-to-other trials, and three unfunny
baseline trials. These 15 trials were presented in a pseudo-randomized order.
Each stimulus was shown on the screen in one trial, and the procedure was similar
to that of Chan et al. [8]. In this procedure, the subjects first saw the setup, then
the punchline, and after that made a judgment to indicate whether they thought
the stimulus funny or not. After the fMRI experiment, the subjects made a cate-
gorization and evaluation of the same stimuli they had viewed within the scanner.
Our hypothesis was tested by comparing percent signal changes of these two
conditions in six core components of the ToM neural network. A whole-brain
analysis was also conducted. Results from both the ROI analysis and the whole-
brain analysis show that theory of mind network is more activated when subjects
read point-to-other jokes than when they read point-to-self jokes. Moreover, the
whole-brain results provide support for the viewpoint that the right hemisphere,
especially the right frontal lobe, is important in ToM and humor processing.
0.8 **
0.7 point-to-self
0.6 * *** ** point-to-other
% Signal Change
0.5
0.4 ns †
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1 mPFC L TPJ R TPJ L MTG/STS R MTG/STS L precuneus
-0.2
[4 58 28] [-52 -58 26] [54 -54 26] [-56 -28 -10] [56 -16 -20] [-10 -50 36]
Figure 2.5 Top: percent (%) signal changes in six ROIs. Bars show standard error.
Results of t-tests have been corrected for multiple comparisons. Bottom:
axial brain images for the six ROIs.
Note: *Significant at 0.05 level.**Significant at 0.01 level.***Significant at 0.001 level.
†Marginally significant. ns. Not significant.
Figure 2.6 Brain activation for point-to-other versus point-to-self jokes (p < 0.05,
AlphaSim corrected). Clusters of activation are superimposed on a standard
brain from a single normal subject (MRIcroN: ch2better.nii.gz).
In brief, previous fMRI studies of the relations between ToM and humor
mainly used cartoons as stimuli. This study used verbal jokes and showed that
point-to-other jokes induced more ToM processing than point-to-self jokes. In
the ROI analysis, the percent signal change in point-to-other jokes is signifi-
cantly higher than in point-to-self jokes in five of the six ROIs, the exception
being the right MTG/STS. The whole-brain analysis further reveals significant
activation of the right MTG/STS, which is located in a more superior position
than the ROI of MTG/STS. The ROI results shows greater involvement of the
ToM network in point-to-other jokes than in point-to-self jokes. The results of
the whole-brain analysis are also striking, as the activated regions include all the
core components of the ToM network mentioned above: mPFC, bilateral STS,
bilateral TPJ, and the precuneus, which consolidates the ROI results of this study.
Seen from a cross-cultural perspective, that point-to-other jokes induced more
ToM processing than point-to-self jokes could be attributed that the Chinese
were quite reluctant and self-conscious in telling aggressive jokes to release one’s
own tension in social interactions. For thousands of years, Chinese people have
been socialized to ensure that the jokes they tell would serve to enhance inter-
personal harmony rather than to jeopardize it (Liao, 2010; Lin Yu-tang, 1974;
Yue, 2010, 2011).
Summary
Humor is one of the areas in which cultural differences between countries
can appear more pronounced. Chinese culture, dominated by Confucianism,
considers respect for authority, conformity, conventionality, and seniority to
be most essential (Bond, 2010). To counter Confucian puritanic constraints in
everyday life, Chinese intellectuals have found humor to be an ideal release. Lin
Yu-tang insisted that humor should be equally part of both literature and life
(Qian, 2010); that Chinese gentlemen should have “(1) a serious desire to lie
or conceal one’s feelings by one’s words, (2) the ability to lie like a gentleman,
(3) the mental calm shown by taking both your own lie and that of your fellow-
man’s with a sense of humor” (Lin, 1937).
In his eminent book The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach, Martin
(2007, p. 26) remarked: “Although humor and laughter are universal in humans
and are likely a product of natural selection, the way people use and express them
in a given time and place is strongly influenced by cultural norms, beliefs, atti-
tudes, and values.”
A substantial drawback to humor research is that scant attention has been paid
to cultural influences on humor perception, particularly between Western and Chi-
nese cultures. Nevertheless, cultural influences must be considered, largely because
individuals absorb cultural values and color their thinking according to their West-
ern or Chinese monoculture (Martin, 2007). Thus, the current positive view of
humor largely reflects Western cultural favoritism (Martin, 2007). Most investiga-
tions of humor tend to take the Western ordinary view, highlighting humor’s vari-
ous potential benefits (e.g., Galloway & Cropley, 1999; Martin, 2007).
Our findings show that the Chinese, compared with Canadians, place signifi-
cantly less value on humor and rate themselves as being much less humorous.
They also associate more negative words with humor. They nominate significantly
more comedians as humorists rather than their own friends and family members.
The findings provide evidence that Chinese people tend to hold an extraordinary
view of humor, whereas the Westerners tend to hold an ordinary view of humor.
Our findings echo with previous findings that Chinese hold negative implicit
attitudes toward humor (Jiang et al., 2011), deny humor as a component of ideal
or creative Chinese thinking (Rudowicz & Yue, 2000, 2003; Yue, 2011), and use
less humor than Westerners do (Chen & Martin, 2005, 2007). Thus, the “sense
of humor” is a multifaceted construct. Individual differences, including gender
and cultural differences, cause humor to have varied components, forms, and
functions. These will be discussed more in later chapters.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bartolo, A., Benuzzi, F., Nocetti, L., Baraldi, P., & Nichelli, P. (2006). Humor com-
prehension and appreciation: An FMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
18(11), 1789–1798.
BBC. (2008). Shoes Thrown at Bush on Iraq Trip. Retrieved May 24, 2017, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7782422.stm.
Bier, J. (1968). The Rise and Fall of American Humor. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Blair, W., & Hill, H. (1978). America’s Humor: From Poor Richard to Doonesbury.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Bond, M. H. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology. USA: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Chan, Y. C., Chou, T. L., Chen, H. C., Yeh, Y. C., Lavallee, J. P., Liang, K. C., &
Chang, K. E. (2013). Towards a neural circuit model of verbal humor processing:
An fMRI study of the neural substrates of incongruity detection and resolution.
Neuroimage, 66, 169–176.
Chen, G. H., & Martin, R. A. (2005). Coping humor of 354 Chinese university
students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19, 307–309.
Chen, G. H., Watkins, D., & Martin, R. A. (2013). Sense of humor in China: The
role of individualism, collectivism, and facework. Psychologia, 56(1), 57–70.
Cheung, C. K., & Yue, X. D. (2012). Sojourn students’ humor styles as buffers to
achieve resilience. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(3), 353–364.
China View. (2009). Premier Wen Dismisses Shoe-Throwing. Retrieved May 24, 2017,
from http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/04/content_10761937.htm.
Corcoran, R., Cahill, C., & Frith, C. D. (1997). The appreciation of visual jokes in
people with schizophrenia: A study of ‘mentalizing’ ability. Schizophrenia Research,
24(3), 319–327.
Feng, S., Ye, X., Mao, L., & Yue, X. (2014). The activation of theory of mind net-
work differentiates between point-to-self and point-to-other verbal jokes: An fMRI
study. Neuroscience Letters, 564, 32–36.
Fraley, B., & Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on close-
ness in initial encounters. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 61–78.
Freud, S. (1928). Humor. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 9, 1–6.
Galloway, G., & Cropley, A. (1999). Benefits of humor for mental health: Empiri-
cal findings and directions for further research. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 12(3): 301–314.
Grant, M. A. (1924). The Ancient Rhetorical Theories of the Laughable: The Greek
Rhetoricians and Cicero (No. 21). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Rhetoricians and Cicero. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Studies in Lan-
guage and Literature (Work originally published 1924).
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
Herzog, T. R., & Strevey, S. J. (2008). Contact with nature, sense of humor, and
psychological well-being. Environment and Behavior, 40(6), 747–776.
Ho, M. J., & Shih, H. L. (2000). The moderating effect of sense of humor to life
stress and physical-mental health for junior high school students. Bulletin of Educa-
tional Psychology, 32(1), 123–156.
Hong, Y. I., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multi-cultural
minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psy-
chologist, 55, 709–720.
Howe, N. E. (2002). The origin of humor. Medical Hypotheses, 59(3), 252–254.
Hsu, E. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos. &
E. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and Selj Asian and Western Perspectives (pp. 26–54).
New York: Tavistock.
Jiang, F., Yue, X. D., & Lu, S. (2011). Different attitudes toward humor between
Chinese and American students: Evidence from the Implicit Association Test. Psy-
chological Reports, 109(1), 99–107.
Jung, W. E. (2003). The inner eye theory of laughter: Mindreader signals cooperator
value. Evolutionary Psychology, 1(1). doi:10.1177/147470490300100118.
King, A. Y., & Bond, M. H. (1985). The Confucian paradigm of man: A sociological
view. In W. S. Tseng & D.Y. H. Wu (Eds.), Chinese Culture and Mental Health
(pp. 29–45). New York: Academic Press.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1998). Laughter and stress in daily life: Relation to
positive and negative affect. Motivation and Emotion, 22(2), 133–153.
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Shepherd, R., Phillips, M., Prkachin, K., & Mills, D.
(1995). Perspective-taking humor: Accounting for stress moderation. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 14(4), 373.
Liao, C. C. (1997). Comparing Directives: American English, Mandarin and Taiwan-
ese English. Taipei: Crane.
Taipei: Crane.
Liao, C. C. (2003). Humor versus huaji. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(1), 25–46.
Liao, C. C., Chang, T. C., & Ming, Y. C. (2006). Sense of Humor: Americans vs Tai-
wanese. Paper presented at 18th International Society for Humor Studies Confer-
ence, Danish University of Education, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Liao, D. H. (2010). Relevance theory and the interpretation of English humor. Jour-
nal of Chongqing College Education, 2, 132–134.
Lin, Y. T. (1937). The Little Critic: Essays, Satires and Sketches on China (First Series:
1930–1932). Shanghai: Commercial Press, Limited.
McDougall, W. (1922). Why do we laugh? Scribners, 71, 359–363.
Martin, R. A. (1998). Approaches to the sense of humor: A historical review. In W. Ruch
(Ed.), The Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality Characteristic (pp. 15–60).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach (p. 15). Burling-
ton, MA: Academic Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Mayer, J. D. (1999). Emotional intelligence: Popular or scientific psychology? APA
Monitor, 30, 50.
Meier, M. K., & Cheng, B. Y. M. (2004). Language and self-construal priming: A
replication and extension in a Hong Kong sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-
chology, 35, 705–712.
Mettee, D. R., Hrelec, E. S., & Wilkens, P. C. (1971). Humor as an interpersonal
asset and liability. The Journal of Social Psychology, 85(1), 51–64.
Mindess, H., Miller, C., Turek, J., Bender, A., & Corbin, S. (1985). The Antioch
Humor Test: Making Sense of Humor. New York: Avon.
Mintz, L. E. (1983). Humor and popular culture. In J. Goldstein & P. McGhee
(Eds.), The Handbook of Humor Research, Applied Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 129–142).
New York: Springer.
Moran, C. C., & Massam, M. M. (1999). Differential influences of coping humor and
humor bias on mood. Behavioral Medicine, 25(1), 36–42.
Nevo, O., Nevo, B., & Yin, J. L. S. (2001). Singaporean humor: A cross-cultural,
cross-gender comparison. The Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 143–156.
Ng, A. K. (2001). Why Asians Are Less Creative Than Westerners. Singapore: Prentice
Hall.
Ng, S. H., & Lai, J. C. (2009). Effects of culture priming on the social connectedness
of the bicultural self: A self-reference effect approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology 40, 170–186.
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526.
Qian, S. (2010). Representing China: Lin Yutang vs. American “China Hands” in the
1940s. Journal of American-East Asian Relations, 17(2), 99–117.
Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2001). Getting a laugh: Gender, status, and
humor in task discussions. Social Forces, 80, 123–158.
Ruch, W. (1998). The Sense of Humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and culture: A two way interaction. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 273–290.
Rudowicz, E., & Yue, X. D. (2000). Concepts of creativity: Similarities and differ-
ences among mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwanese Chinese. The Journal of Cre-
ative Behavior, 34(3), 175–192.
Rudowicz, E., & Yue, X. D. (2003). Compatibility of Chinese and creative personali-
ties. Creative Research Journal, 14, 387–394.
Sample, J. C. (2011). Contextualizing Lin Yutang’s essay “on humour”: Introduc-
tion and translation. In J. Chey & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Humour in Chinese Life and
Letters: Classical and Traditional Approaches (pp. 179–180). Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
Samson, A. C. (2012). The influence of empathizing and systemizing on humor
processing: Theory of mind and humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 25(1), 75–98.
Samson, A. C., Zysset, S., & Huber, O. (2008). Cognitive humor processing: Differ-
ent logical mechanisms in nonverbal cartoons – An fMRI study. Social Neuroscience,
3(2), 125–140.
See, T. A. (1997). The Chinese in the Philippines: Problems and Perspectives (Vol. 3).
Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran, Incorporated.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal
and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and mea-
surement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607–627.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubert, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and para-
digms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3–15). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Sully, J. (1902). An Essay on Laughter: Its Forms, Its Causes, Its Development and Its
Value. London, UK: Longmans, Green, and Company.
Sun, C. T. L. (2008). Themes in Chinese Psychology. Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.
Uekermann, J., Channon, S., Winkel, K., Schlebusch, P., & Daum, I. (2007). Theory
of mind, humour processing and executive functioning in alcoholism. Addiction,
102(2), 232–240.
Walsh, J. J. (1928). Laughter and Health. New York: Appleton.
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind
development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655–684.
Xu, W. (2011). The classical Confucian concepts of human emotion and proper
(pp. 50–71). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.
Yue, X. D. (2003). Meritorious evaluation bias: How Chinese undergraduates per-
ceive and evaluate Chinese and foreign creators. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
37(3), 151–177.
Yue, X. D. (2004a). Enhancing university students’ creativity: Reflection and sugges-
tions. Journal of Higher Education, 1, 18.
Yue, X. D. (2004b). Whoever is influential is creative: How Chinese undergraduates
choose creative people in Chinese societies. Psychological Reports, 94(3), 1235–1249.
Yue, X. D. (2009). Exploring Chinese humor: Reviews and reflections. New Horizons
in Education, 57(1), 102–110.
Yue, X. D. (2010). Exploration of Chinese humor: Historical review, empirical findings,
and critical reflections. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 23(3),
403–420.
24(4), 463–480.
Yue, X. D., Bender, M., & Cheung, C. K. (2011). Who are the best known national
and foreign creators: A comparative study among undergraduates in China and
Germany? Journal of Creative Behaviour, 45, 23–37.
Yue, X., Hao, X., & Goldman, G. (2010). Humor styles, dispositional optimism, and
mental health among undergraduates in Hong Kong and China. Journal of Psychol-
ogy in Chinese Societies, 11(2), 173–188.
China, 5–8 June.
Yue, X. D., & Hiranandani, N. A. (2014). Perception of humorists: A cross-cultural
study of undergraduates in Hong Kong, Hangzhou, and Vancouver. Comprehensive
Psychology, 3, 7–17.
Yue, X. D., Jiang, F., Lu, S. (2013). Little-H View and Big-H View: A Multi-Method
Study of Cultural Differences on Humor Perception. Paper presented at the 24th
International Society for Humor Studies Conference, Williamsburg, VA, 4–7 June.
Yue, X. D., Jiang, F., Lu, S., & Hiranandani, N. (2016). To be or not to be humor-
ous? Cross cultural perspectives on humor. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–10.
Yue, X. D., Liu, K. W., Jiang, F., & Hiranandani, N. A. (2014). Humor styles, self-
esteem, and subjective happiness. Psychological Reports, 115(2), 517–525.
Yue, X. D., & Rudowicz, E. (2002). Perception of the most creative Chinese by
undergraduates in Beijing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Taipei. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 36(2), 88–104.
Yue, X. D., Wong, A. Y. M., & Hiranandani, N. A. (2014). Humor styles and loneli-
ness: A study among Hong Kong and Hangzhou undergraduates. Psychological
Reports, 115(1), 65–74.
Zhang, Z. Y., Wang, L., & Qi, M. (1998). Basic dimensions of Chinese personality
traits: A factor analysis of the self description in a sample of Chinese college stu-
dents. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 30, 85–92.
Zhao, Y. (2002). Measuring the social capital of laid-off Chinese workers. Current
Sociology, 50(4), 555–571.
3 Chinese ambivalence about
humor
Zai Yu 宰予,1 a brilliant and eloquent student of Confucius, tended to sleep

too much. One day, Confucius went to see his student but was annoyed to find
him sleeping. Confucius said that his lazy student was like rotten and uncarv-
able wood or a crumbling wall built from dung. Moreover, Confucius vowed
to doubt whatever Zaiyu said ever after, and to trust in observations only.
《論語.公冶長篇.第五章》：宰予晝寢,子曰：“朽木不可雕也,糞土之牆
不可圬也,于予與何誅!” “始吾於人也,聽其言而信其行；今吾於人也,聽其
言而觀其行.於予與改是。
The above story, told by Analects Lunyu《論語·雍也》, illustrates Confucius’s

ambivalent attitude toward his disciple Zaiyu and can also be considered a reflec-
tion of China’s ambivalent attitude toward humor, formed by historic influences
to be discussed in this chapter.
The Chinese ambivalence about humor

First of all, my explorations of humor in Chinese society have led me to devise the
term of Chinese ambivalence about humor to describe the phenomenon of a deeply
rooted paradoxical discomfort that the Chinese have toward the value, function,
and benefits of humor and humorists. It is typically reflected in three paradoxical
attitudes about humor by the Chinese, such as valuing humor but devaluing self-
humor, being humorous is different from being an orthodox Chinese, humor is impor-
tant, but not for everyone, etc. In my belief, the Chinese’s paradoxical discomfort
with humor is oriented in both Confucian puritanic bias against humor as well the
Communists’ lofty prejudice against humor. In an effort to better understand it, I
have conducted serial and comparative studies, which I will discuss in this chapter.
I will start with a cultural synthesis of why it has developed in Chinese society.
The Confucian puritanic bias against humor

I want to argue that phenomenon of Chinese ambivalence about humor is rooted
in the Confucian puritanic bias against humor. Specifically, Confucius believed
44 Chinese ambivalence about humor
that “a man had to be serious to be respected” 人無威而不治 (Liao, 2007). Since
the early Han dynasty (202 BC–220 AD), Confucianism has dominated Chi-
nese philosophy. Citizens have been taught to observe strict social formality, to
wholeheartedly respect their elders, to laugh only at the right time, for the right
subjects, and with the right persons (Yue, 2011). For thousands of years they
have been uncomfortable about using humor in public (Liao, 2001; Shi, 1996).
Confucianism and Puritanism are both based on religious dogma, prescribe self-
control and restraint, and have no objections to accumulating personal wealth
(Bendix, 1977).According to Lin Yu-tang (Kao, 1974, p. xxxi):
“There is, however, a peculiar twist which prevented the output of Chinese
humorous literature from being as prolific as it should have been. That is, Confu-
cian Puritanism. Confucian decorum put a damper on light, humorous writing,
as well as on all imaginative literature, except poetry. Drama and the novel were
despised as unworthy of a respectable scholar’s occupation. This puritanic, aus-
tere public attitude has persisted to this day.”
Under the influence of Confucian puritanism, humor has been considered
a show of intellectual and political shallowness equated with social informality,
improperness, and immaturity (Yue, 2010, 2011). Following Confucian conserva-
tism, humor and satire were regarded as inferior forms of aesthetic expression and
were thus devalued for centuries (Feinberg, 1971). The Confucian puritanic bias
against humor was mainly reflected in personal biases against humor, requirements
for gentlemen, the doctrine of moderation, and orthodox literary writings. As a
result, public display of humor has been cautioned against, if not disdained, for
thousands of years in China (Chen, 1985; Liao, 2001; Nevo, Nevo, & Yin, 2001;
Shi, 1996; Yue, Hao, Lan, & Yan, 2006). Table 3.1 describes the guiding Confu-
cian values that formed ethical prejudices against humor for thousands of years.
Table 3.1 Confucian puritanic bias against humor
Confucian values Brief description
The Narrow Confucius ordered executions of several comedians who

Valley Principle performed for the Duke Jing of Qi State 齐景公and Duke Ding
夾古原則 of Lu State 鲁定公when they met at the Narrow Valley 夾古
in 500 BC. The reason: “Whoever insulted royalties should be
executed,” later known as the “Narrow Valley Principle.”
Advocacy for Confucius emphasized that all gentlemen should “behave
Gentlemen seriously” and “restrain from laughter.” As a result, anyone who
君子之道 elicits laughter, such as comics and satirists, should be strictly
controlled.
The Doctrine of Confucius advocated avoiding extremes. Laughter is an evident
moderation show of extreme emotion and should be discouraged.
中庸之道
Confucian For hundreds of years, civil servant examinations tested
orthodox literary Confucian orthodox writings, which addressed mainly social
writings concerns and ethics (科舉考試). Comics and satirists were so
經世之學 disdained that they were strictly banned from such examinations.
Chinese ambivalence about humor 45
Xu (2011) argued that Confucius found three kinds of delight harmful:
delight in extravagant amusements, delight in dissolute adventures, and delight
in lavish feasting, Le jiaole 樂驕樂, le yiyou 樂佚游, le yanle 樂晏樂 (Lunyu 論
語, 16.5). Thus, it is no surprise that Liji 禮記 opens with these proscriptions:
never become arrogant; never indulge desires; never gratify the will to the full;
and never enjoy pleasures to the extreme, Ao bu ke zhang 傲不可長, yu bu ke
zong 慾不可縱, zhi be ke man 志不可滿, le bu ke ji 樂不可極 (Liji 禮記 13).
When Mencius2 said that Confucius never did anything immoderate, Zhongni
bu wei yishen zhe 仲尼不為已甚者 (Mengzi, 4B:10), that “anything” should
include humor.
The Confucian orthodox literary discrimination against humor

As recorded in Records of History-Confucius 《史記( ·孔子世家》 ), Confucius pre-
sided over a meeting of the Duke of Lu 魯定公 and Duke of Qi 齊景公 at the
place of Jiagu 夾穀 in 500 BC. The Duke of Qi brought in several comedians
for entertainment. Confucius felt that the performance was “improper” for the
dignitaries at present, so he ordered to have them executed and to have their
bodies scattered around.
《史記·孔子世家》 : . . . . . . 優倡侏儒為戲而前。孔子趨而進，曆階而登，不盡一
等，曰：“匹夫而營惑諸侯者罪當誅！請命有司！”有司加法焉，手足異處。
For thousands of years, Chinese intellectuals disdained humorous entertain-
ment (Liao, 2001, p. 18) and considered humorous writings to be unorthodox
and to tarnish the solemnity of classics (Kao, 1974). Liu Xie (劉勰, 465–522), a
scholar in the early Jin Dynasty (晉朝, 265–316), argued that commoners’ jokes
were worthless because they triggered only large laughter and failed to promote
morality. As a result, the Hall of Great and Good Taste never included humorous
writings (Kao, 1974, p. xviii). Instead, they could be found only in unorthodox
writings, such as the Ping-hua (平話, ordinary talks) of the Song dynasty (宋朝,
960–1279), the drama of the Yuan dynasty (1279–1368), Chuan-qi (傳奇, leg-
ends) of the Ming dynasty (明朝,1368–1644) and Xiao-shuo (小說, novels) of
the Qing dynasty (清朝,1644–1911) (Lin, 1971, p. 63).
In addition, Xu (2011) points out that due to the influence of Confucianism,
there has been a deep-rooted negativism in the early Chinese concept of humor.
Specifically, humor is betrayed by the use of the Chinese characters xue yan (謔
言, speech) and nue (虐, cruelty or malice). Such negativism is confirmed and
reinforced by subsequent pejorative usage of xue as well by its close association
with negative emotions, such as derision (chao 嘲), resentment (yuan 怨), and
anger (nu 怒). In short, Orthodox Chinese literature did not allow for humor-
ous expressions, as Confucian moralists assumed an attitude of hatred or fear for
humor (Sample, 2011). They worried that once a humorous writing style spread,
life would lose its seriousness, and orthodoxy would be overturned by sophistry.
This has determined why there has been a severe lack of humor writings in Chi-
nese literature.
A king’s words must be taken seriously 君無戲言

When Jiyong 姬誦 (1132–1083 年 BC) was a child, he swore that when
he became king he would give his younger brother Shuyu 叔虞 a piece of
land. But when he became King Cheng of the Zhou Dynasty 周成王, he
had completely forgotten his promise until his uncle Jidan 姬旦 (also called
Zhougong 周公) reminded him. King Cheng replied that he made the
promise only in child play. But Jidan replied sternly, “No, a king’s words
must be taken seriously 君無戲言. Everything is to be recorded in histori-
cal records.” King Cheng then gave Shuyu a land in North China.
《史記 .世家第九 .卷三十二》: 成王与叔虞戏，削桐叶为珪以与叔虞，
曰：“ 以此封若。” 史佚因请择日立叔虞。成王曰：“ 吾与之戏耳。” 史佚
曰： “天子无戏言。言则史书之，礼成之，乐歌之。 ”於是遂封叔虞於唐。唐
在河、汾之东，方百里，故曰唐叔虞。
Literary inquisition: the ancient Chinese political

prosecution of humor
Humor is never fully comprehensible apart from its social and political context
(Chey, 2011). Throughout Chinese history, rulers feared that writers would
potentially foment disrespect for the intelligence, integrity, and capability of the
ruling kings or emperors. Consequently, they conducted literary inquisitions
(文字獄), in which they imprisoned writers for negative or hostile political, ethical,
or ideological criticisms (Goodrich & Davison, 1935). Emperor Qin Shi Huang
(秦始皇, 250–210 B.C.), China’s first emperor, was the first to prosecute dissi-
dent intellectuals (Goodrich & Davison, 1935). Specifically, he ordered about 400
scholars to be buried alive for unorthodox writings that criticized his rule. This
travesty, known as the “burning of the books and burial alive the scholars” (焚書
坑儒, 213 BC), was a dreadful example of dictatorial control over dissidents. Many
Chinese emperors followed suit by prosecuting intellectuals who intentionally or
unintentionally expressed anger or resistance through essays, poems, novels, com-
ics, satires, or plays.
The literary inquisition reached a climax in the last two dynasties, the Ming
dynasty (1368–1644) and the Qing dynasty (1644–1911). The emperors
directly or indirectly persecuted or even executed thousands, both educated
and uneducated. Under such circumstances, humor was often regarded as face-
tious and undeserving of attention (Chen, 1985; Shi, 1996). Jokes and comics
were severely monitored and censored in formal interactions. Chinese ministers
avoided laughing casually in front of emperors for fear of laughing wrongly
(Liao, 2001, p. 24).
As Lin Yu-tang said, “orthodox Chinese literature did not allow for humorous
expression, so the Chinese people did not understand the nature of humor and
its function” (Chey, 2011).
You Zhan, the smart advisor

According to Records of History-Comedians 《史记
( ·滑稽列传》 ), Emperor
Qin 秦始皇 planned to enlarge his hunting ground to hundreds of miles
away. You Zhan 优旃, a court comedian, learned about it and advised
Emperor Qin, “Your majesty, you should think about rearing a lot of wild
beasts such that when enemies came, you could just let Pere David’s deers
to use their horns to drive them away. Emperor Qin laughed and gave up
the idea. When Emperor Qin II wanted to paint the capital’s city wall, You
Zhan came and advised him, “Your majesty, you should think about paint-
ing the wall with slippery materials such that when enemies came, they
could not climb up the wall.” The Emperor laughed and gave up the idea.
始皇尝议欲大苑囿，东至函谷关，西至雍、陈仓。优旃曰：“善。多纵
禽兽於其中，寇从东方来，令麋鹿触之足矣。 ”始皇以故辍止。
二世立，又欲漆其城。优旃曰：“善。主上虽无言，臣固将请之。漆
城虽於百姓愁费，然佳哉！漆城荡荡，寇来不能上。即欲就之，易为漆
耳，顾难为廕室。 ”於是二世笑之，以其故止。
《史记·滑稽列传》
The Communist’s lofty prejudice against humor

In addition to Confucian puritanism, Communist puritanism is largely respon-
sible for the Chinese prejudice against the public use of humor for later part of
20th century in China. After the downfall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, humor
experienced a short renaissance for about 20 years, when Lin Yu-tang and his
followers openly and actively promoted all kinds of humor and jokes. However,
starting in the late 1930s, humor again came under tighter political scrutiny and
censorship to maintain moral purity.
In particular, following the Communist takeover in 1949, the Chinese gov-
ernment gradually restricted the public use of humor, forbidding any satire or
criticism against the government and the leader to counter feudal or bourgeois
influences and to keep the new socialist China morally pure (Moser, 2004). From
1959 to 1960, during the Anti-Rightists Movement (反右運動),3 comic litera-
ture was often equated with “political poison.” From 1966 to 1976, during the
Cultural Revolution (文化大革命),4 public humor virtually ceased to exist (Yue et
al., 2006) and became a fragile and unsustainable tool of indoctrination (Moser,
2004). Lin (1974, p. xxxi) reflected:
The recognition of the role of humor in general Chinese writing, and as

an element of style, is what I fought for by founding and editing the first
Chinese humor magazine, the Analects, some twelve years ago. I ran right
into the Kuomintang (Nationalists, the ruling party of China in 1930–40s)
rulers who are still very serious, and also right into the communist and left-
ist writers, who, encumbered with youth’s crabbed sense of responsibility to
reshape the universe along Marxist lines, rather looked askance at a joke . . .
In desperation, I had to show them that humor was something considered
quite proper by foreigners, and therefore “modern.”
When the Cultural Revolution ended in the late 1970s, dissenting voices sur-
faced. Humor experienced another renaissance as performers were free to exercise
their creativity. This time, satirists found a safe and officially sanctioned target:
the Gang of Four (四人幫, the four most notorious radicals during the Cultural
Revolution (Jiang Qing 江青,5 Zhang Chunqiao 張春橋,6 Wang Hongwen 王洪
文,7 Yao Wenyuan 姚文元)8 and the excessive zealotry of the last decade. Jokes
about the Gang of Four began circulating publicly, and cross-talk performers
freely and viciously parodied politicians’ dialectal accents (Moser, 2004). As a
result, humor has thrived rapidly in China in the past three decades, despite some
residual calls for a return to moral purity.
In short, humor becomes a risky matter in situations where politics is highly
charged (Chey, 2011, p. 27). During the Cultural Revolution, political satires
almost vanished in China for a while out of fears for political prosecution (Ding,
2013). The renaissance of humor only came after downfall of the radicals like the
“Gang of Four.” Even so, the Communist’ doctrines for spiritual purification of
masses still hangs as a Sword of Damocles9 to any public use of humor in Main-
land China.
Manifestation of the Chinese ambivalence about humor
Valuing humor from the outside, but devaluing humor

as a personal quality
Chinese intellectuals have long argued that humor has no entertainment value
(Liao, 2001). Instead, following conservative and puritanic Confucianism, they
have devalued humor and satire as being inferior aesthetic expressions (Cheung &
Yue, 2012; Yue, 2011; Yue, Jiang, Lu, & Hiranandani, 2016) and unorthodox
(Kao, 1974). Jokes appearing in popular writings were, along with laughter, asso-
ciated with vulgarity and moral indecency (Qian, 2007).
With Chinese humor so marginalized, historically “the serious becomes too seri-
ous and the non-serious becomes too vulgar” (Lin, 1924, p. 1). Lin Yu-tang, also
affected by Confucian puritanism, proposed that humorous writings could jeop-
ardize social status (Liao, 2001). Consequently, Chinese history has no equivalent
of Western discussions of humor, such as Philebus, Plato’s comments on laughter
and humor, De oratore, Aristotle’s discussion of comedy, or Cicero’s treatise on
the rhetoric of wit and jest (Xu, 2011). Humor is risky in highly charged political
situations, in China and elsewhere. Although it belongs to all classes, elites may
be more immune from satirical attacks. For example, a blogger who posted jokes
about deposing Chen Shui Bian was arrested (Chey, 2011, p. 27).
To reiterate, the Chinese devaluation of humor originated from the Confucian
view that humor is intellectually shallow and overly informal (Bond, 1996; Jiang,
Yue, & Lu, 2011; King & Bond, 1985; Yue, 2010, 2011), “childish, primitive,”
and maliciously inquisitive (Hsia, 1978). Hence, Chinese people must carefully
negotiate the various social or cultural taboos by demonstrating wit rather than
raucous humor (Lin, 1974; Qian, 2007).
Numerous studies have shown differences in Eastern and Western attitudes
toward humor. For instance, Hong Kong undergraduate students tended to pre-
fer wise and conservative jokes, while U.S. undergraduate students tended to
prefer sexual and aggressive jokes (Castell & Goldstein, 1976). Similarly, Ameri-
can students tended to find sexual and aggressive jokes to be funnier, while Singa-
porean Chinese students preferred jokes that are harmless (Nevo et al., 2001). Lin
Yu-tang proposed that Chinese people should have “thoughtful smiles,” indicat-
ing a careful and insightful meeting of hearts rather than hilarious belly laughter
(Kao, 1974).
Similarly, Taiwanese undergraduates tended to feel that they lack humor and to
envy Americans for being humorous (Liao, 1998). Also, Chinese students tended
to be less humorous than Canadian students and tended to use less humor to cope
with stress (Chen & Martin, 2005). Huhhot undergraduates considered humor to
be highly important in everyday life but felt that humor was not one of their own
qualities (Yue et al., 2006). Chinese students held more negative implicit attitudes
toward humor than do American students (Jiang et al., 2011). East Asians, Chinese,
and Taiwanese reported lower evaluations of self-humor and less laughter than West-
erners did (Chen & Martin, 2005; Liao, 2001; Liao, Chang, & Chou, 2006; Tsai,
Louie, Chen, & Uchida, 2007). One study showed an interesting contrast: although
Chinese students implicitly tended to devalue humor, they reported appreciating
humor almost as highly as American students did (Jiang, Yue & Lu, 2011).
Thus, appreciation of Chinese humor requires a great deal of wit, intelligence,
and knowledge (Chen, 1982; Qian, 2007; Yue, 2011). From their beginning,
Chinese jokes expressed “denial humor” that criticizes reality and “complimen-
tary humor” that accepts reality, in contrast to Western “pure humor” that just
draws laughter (Chen, 1982). Consequently, orthodox Chinese consider humor
to be a desirable but unattainable personality trait.
Fudano (2000) reported that if a classroom teacher told an unfunny joke, Chi-
nese students would refrain from laughter, but Japanese students would laugh
politely. However, among close friends, the Chinese would laugh at unfunny
jokes, but Japanese would not. Yue et al. (2006) reported that Chinese students
failed to rank humor as an important factor for creativity or for the ideal Chinese
personality, but they listed a lot of positive adjectives for describing the essence
of humor. Alternatively, Chinese students devalued humor as an ideal compo-
nent of personality and creativity, but valued humor as a composite character of
self-refinement. In addition, the value of humor may differ according to gender:
“Although both sexes say they want a sense of humor, in our research women
interpreted this as ‘someone who makes me laugh,’ and men wanted ‘someone
who laughs at my jokes’” (Martin, 2007).
Humor is important, but not for me
Under Confucian puritanism, comedians have been considered to have poor
taste, and laughter has been considered cheap and contradictory to the Confu-
cian ideals of social conformity and humility (Yue, 2011). For example, Chi-
nese undergraduates in Beijing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Taipei failed to
consider humor to be an important factor in creativity or an ideal character-
istic for Chinese people (Rudowicz & Yue, 2000, 2003). Instead, humor was
only suitable for entertainers who had exclusive expertise or special talents (Yue,
Hao, & Goldman, 2010). In contrast, Western scholars considered humor to
be an essential attribute of creativity (e.g., Cropley, 1992; Hocevar & Bachelor,
1989; Runco & Bahleda, 1986; Sternberg, 1985; Wu, 1992) and a core element
of the American personality (Allport, 1937).
Westerners see humor as being closely associated with the quantity and quality
of creativity for individuals and groups (e.g., Cropley, 1992; Hocevar & Bach-
elor, 1989; Robinson, 1998; Runco & Bahleda, 1986; Sternberg, 1985; Wu,
1992) but consider humor to be relatively unimportant for occupations demand-
ing high creativity, such as scientists, inventors, and musicians. In contrast, the
Chinese consistently omit humor as being essential or even valued for creativity
(Rudowicz, 2003; Rudowicz & Yue, 2000, 2003; Yue et al., 2006).
Furthermore, Chinese see humor differently. Liao Chaozhi (2001, Feng Chia
University, Taizhong, Taiwan) did an experimental study on universal laughing
stuff, huaji and humor. The result showed that humor for a general Chinese was
more verbal than nonverbal (dependent t-test inference). A clown’s and Charlie
Chaplin’s performances were both humorous and huaji; however, a clown was
considered to be more huaji than humorous, while Chaplin was considered both
humorous and huaji. Two thousand years ago, huaji referred to verbal humor.
Nowadays it is still used, but the meaning has been changed to mean the equiva-
lent of English humor in its broadest sense, except the high-class verbal humor.
A person slipping on a banana skin is more huaji than humorous. Chaplin was
equally huaji and humorous because of his international fame as a humorous
comedian, which plays a role in students’ judgment. Huaji includes the low-
class laugh stuff, verbal or nonverbal. Humor is more for high-class verbal thing.
Being humorous and being huaji are two independent terms. Being humorous
is more related with smile than with laughter. Huaji is independent of smile or
laughter. Practical jokes such as slipping on banana skins can cause both smile
and laughter; however, they are very nonhumorous. To add to the comparative
understandings, I conducted two studies, which are reported next.
Empirical studies of the Chinese ambivalence

to humor
In what follows, I will examine several studies which I conducted that specifi-
cally examined the evidence of the Chinese ambivalence about humor in Chinese
society.
Perception of importance of humor to the Chinese
Yue et al. (2010) conducted a comparative study among Hong Kong and
Hohhot undergraduates (1) to verify ambivalent attitudes toward humor in
Chinese society and (2) to examine whether the Chinese personality is compat-
ible with humor. Participating were 159 undergraduates (80 men, 79 women,
mean age 20.05, from the City University of Hong Kong, and 178 under-
graduates (59 men, 119 women, mean age 20.18 from Inner Mongolia Normal
University in Hohhot. They completed a four-part questionnaire. In part one,
they (1) nominated up to three humorists and (2) rated on a 10-point Likert
scale (1 = lowest, 10 = highest) their level of humor and the importance of hav-
ing humor in everyday life. I have used this comparative method to study the
importance of creativity in undergraduate students in China (Rudowicz & Yue,
2000, 2003b).
In part two, respondents viewed a 60-word checklist and rated each word for
its importance to humor and to the Chinese personality, on a 1–5 Likert scale
(1 = least important, 5 = most important). The 60-word checklist included 24
attributes of creative people, 17 attributes of Chinese personalities, 11 attributes
of Western personalities, and eight fillers (Rudowicz & Hui, 1997). The measure
has been used to measure perceptions and compatibilities regarding creativity in
Chinese society (Rudowicz & Hui, 1997; Rudowicz & Yue, 2000).
High regard for overall humor but low regard for personal humor
Tables 3.2 and 3.3 show how Hong Kong and Hohhot respondents rated the
importance of humor and the extent of their self-humor. Respondents in both sam-
ples gave almost equally high ratings to the importance of humor (8.25 for the HK
sample and 8.22 for the Chinese sample). No significant gender differences were
found. Respondents in both samples gave significantly lower ratings for self-humor
Table 3.2 Hong Kong and Hohhot regional and gender differences in humor
perceptions
Hong Kong students Men (n = 80) Women (n = 79)

(n = 159)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t-value
Importance of Humor 8.25 1.51 8.26 1.20 0.044

Self-Humor Rating 6.47 1.80 5.93 1.64 1.990*
Chinese students Men (n = 59) Women (n = 119)

(n = 178)
Importance of Humor 8.17 1.62 8.27 1.48 –.409

Self-Humor Rating 5.93 1.66 5.72 1.58 .818
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Table 3.3 Hong Kong and Hohhot regional and gender differences in humor
perceptions
Hong Kong students Importance of Humor Self-Humor Rating

(n = 159)
Men (n =80) 8.25 1.51 6.47 1.80 10.02***

Women (n =79) 8.26 1.20 5.93 1.64 12.15***
Hohhot students Importance of Humor Rating of Self Humor

(n = 178)
Men (n = 59) 8.17 1.62 5.93 1.66 8.810***

Women (n = 119) 8.27 1.48 5.72 1.58 13.264***
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
(6.20 for the HK sample and 5.83 for the Chinese sample). Men in both samples
rated self-humor more highly than the women did, but the mean difference was
significant only for the Hong Kong sample. Both groups considered humor to be
highly important but did not consider themselves to be highly humorous. The men
generally considered themselves to be more humorous than the women did.
Incompatibility of Chinese humor with Chinese personality

Tables 3.4 and 3.5 show the rankings and mean scores of the top ten most highly
ranked characteristics of humor, their corresponding rankings, and mean scores
for Chinese personality. Choosing and comparing the top characteristics for issues
under study is called the “top factor approach” and has been previously used to
project distinct views (Cheung, Rudowicz & Yue, 2003; Yue, 2003a, 2004). For
instance, Rudowicz and Yue (2000) identified and compared the 14 top charac-
teristics from the 60-word checklist used in this study to examine the compatibil-
ity of creativity with Chinese personality. In this study, the top ten characteristics
were identified as presenting a characteristic view of the total composition for
comparing humor and Chinese personality.
Table 3.4 shows the top ten important characteristics for humor: quick to react,
imaginative, creative, joyful, flexible, observant, confident, articulate, talkative,
and wise. No mean scores for the top ten characteristics were lower than 4.00,
and no corresponding mean scores for Chinese personality were higher than
4.00. In addition, the ten characteristics for Chinese personality were all given
low ranks for their importance to Chinese personality except for wise (4), obser-
vant (8), and confident (11). All mean differences were significant. The top ten
important characteristics for humor were all overwhelmingly positive.
Table 3.5 shows the top ten most highly ranked characteristics of Chinese per-
sonality: caring for face, conservative, desiring success, wise, serious, ambitious, hum-
ble, observant, tolerant, and intelligent. No mean scores were higher than 4.00
Table 3.4 Comparison of top ten important characteristics for humor and Chinese
personality
Characteristics Ranking Important for Ranking Important for

humor Chinese personality
Quick to react 1 4.42* 26 3.23

Imaginative 2 4.41* 32 3.16
Creative 3 4.34* 40 3.09
Joyful 4 4.29* 43 2.97
Flexible 5 4.24* 30 3.18
Observant 6 4.22* 8 3.45
Confident 7 4.19* 11 3.41
Articulate 8 4.18* 24 3.25
Talkative 9 4.13* 21 3.26
Wise 10 4.10* 4 3.79
Note: *mean difference is significant p < .05.
Table 3.5 Comparison of ten important characteristics for Chinese personality and
humor
Characteristics Ranking Importance for Ranking Importance for

Chinese humor
Caring for face 1 4.18* 54 2.01

Conservative 2 3.91* 58 1.69
Desiring success 3 3.89* 38 2.93
Wise 4 3.79 12 4.10*
Serious 5 3.61* 48 2.66
Ambitious 6 3.52* 45 2.80
Humble 7 3.51* 46 2.79
Observant 8 3.45 6 4.22*
Tolerant 9 3.42 39 2.89
Intelligent 9 3.42 15 3.98*
Note: *mean difference is significant p < .05.
except for caring for face (4.07), and most were ranked low for their corresponding
importance for humor except for observant (6) and wise (12). All mean differences
were significant as well. Some of the ten important characteristics for Chinese per-
sonality were quite negative, such as caring for face, conservative, and serious.
The only overlapping characteristics on the two tables were observant and wise,
but their mean scores were higher for importance to humor (4.22, 4.10) than for
importance to Chinese personality (3.45, 3.79). The findings show that being
humorous is fundamentally different from being Chinese. In fact, Figures 3.1 and
3.2 show that the top ten characteristics trended in opposite directions regarding
their importance for humor and for Chinese personality. Figure 3.1 shows that
the top five characteristics for humor (quick to react, imaginative, creative, joyful,
flexible) were ranked as the bottom five for Chinese personality. Figure 3.2 shows
that the top three characteristics for Chinese personality (caring for face, conser-
vative, desiring success) were ranked as the bottom three for humor.
0
4.42 4.41 4.22 3.79
5
4.34 4.29 4.24 4.18
3.45 4.19
10
4.13
3.41 4.10
15
20
Ranks
3.23 3.26
25
3.25
30 3.16
3.18
35
3.09
40
45 2.97
50 ul
le
ise
te
e
t
e
nt
t
en
iv
iv
tiv
ac
yf
ib
la
W
va
at
id
at
cu
ex
Re
Jo
ea
lk
er
in
nf
rti
Fl
Cr
Ta
bs
ag
to
Co
A
O
Im
ck
ui
Q
Characteristics
Important for humor Important for Chinese character
Figure 3.1 Comparison of important characteristics for Chinese personality: compounded

means and ranks
0
3.79 3.61
5 4.18 3.52 3.51 4.22
3.91 3.89 3.42 3.42
10
4.10 3.45 3.98
15
20
25
Ranks
30
35
2.93
40
2.89
45
2.80 2.79
50
2.01 2.66
55
1.69
60
65
e
ss
ise
us
us
nt
nt
nt
ac
tiv
bl
ce
va
ra
ge
rio
tio
W
um
rF
va
le
uc
er
lli
bi
Se
To
r
fo
bs
te
rS
m
se
In
O
A
g
fo
rin
Co
g
Ca
n
iri
es
D
Characteristics
Important for Chinese character Important for humor
Figure 3.2 Comparison of important characteristics for Chinese personality vs important

characteristics for humor: compounded means and ranks
Nomination of extraordinary people as humorists
Table 3.6 shows that Hong Kong and Hohhot students nominated similar
humorists. Both nominated mostly comedians, TV hosts/DJs, and talk show
leaders, accounting for 65.34% of the total nominees for the Hong Kong sample
and 70.91% of the total nominees for the Chinese sample. Next, the Hong Kong
sample nominated 11.03% actors, while the Chinese sample nominated 9.18%
politicians and politicians. Both nominated less than 5% “other” groups. Finally,
3.10% of the Hong Kong sample and 2.15% of the Hohhot sample nominated
themselves as humorists.
Tables 3.7 and 3.8 display the ten most frequently nominated humorists. Come-
dians were in the top ten nominations in the Hong Kong sample, accounting for
64.2% of the total nominations. The top ten Hohhot nominations included six
comedians, two talk show hosts, one TV host, one politician, and one writer,
accounting for 68% of the total nominations. The Hong Kong sample was much
Table 3.6 Hong Kong and Hohhot humorist nominations
Hong Kong Sample (n = 159) Hohhot Sample (n = 178)
Humorists Ranking % Humorists Ranking %

Nominated Nominated
Comedians 1 62.71 Comedians 1 53.91

Actors 2 11.03 TV hosts/DJs 2 9.77
Politicians 3 4.73 Politicians 3 9.18
Writers 4 3.95 Talk show leaders 4 7.23
Teachers 5 3.92 Artists 5 4.88
Artists 6 2.15 Writers 6 4.69
TV hosts/DJs 7 1.32 Philosophers 7 1.56
Talk show leaders 8 1.31 Businessman 8 0.39
Others 8.10 Others 8.40
Note: Others include unknown family members, friends, and unidentified people.
Table 3.7 Hong Kong undergraduates: top ten humorists (n = 159)
Humorists Nominated Occupation Ranking %
周星馳 Stephen Chow Comedian 1 17.2

黃子華 Dayo Wong Comedian 2 10.8
詹瑞文 Jim Carrey Comedian 3 9.5
曾志偉 Eric Tsang Comedian 4 4.7
林海峰 Jan Lam Comedian 4 4.7
鄭中基 Ronald Cheng Comedian 5 4.3
Mr. Bean Comedian 6 3.9
森美 Mysam Leung Comedian/DJ 6 3.9
吳君如 Sandra Ng Comedian/actress 7 2.6
許冠文 Michael Hui Comedian 7 2.6
Total 64.20
Table 3.8 Hohhot undergraduates: top ten humorists (n = 178)
Humorists Nominated Occupation Ranking %
趙本山 Zhao Ben-shan Comedian 1 14.45

桌別林 Charlie Chaplin Comedian 2 11.52
周星馳 Stephen Chow Comedian 3 10.54
馮鞏/牛群 Feng Gong/Niu Qun Talk show leaders 4 5.66
葛優 Ge You Comedian/Actor 5 3.71
李詠 Li Yong TV Host 6 3.71
Mark Twain Writer 7 3.52
周恩來 Zhou an-lai Politician 8 3.32
範偉 Fan Wei Comedian 9 3.13
Mr. Bean Comedian 10 2.93
Total 62.49
more homogeneous in its nomination of humorists: the top ten most frequently
listed humorists were local comedians, except for Mr. Bean, while the top ten in
the Chinese sample were six Chinese (Zhao Ben-shan 趙本山, Feng Gong 馮鞏/
Niu Qun 牛群, Li Yong 李詠, Ge You 葛優, Zhou En-lai 周恩來, and Fan Wei
范偉), three foreigners (Charlie Chaplin, Mark Twain, Mr. Bean), and one Hong
Kong comedian (Stephen Chow).
In short, this study shows that Chinese undergraduates in both Hong Kong
and Hohhot, particularly women, considered humor as being highly important
for everyday life but mostly considered themselves to be nonhumorous. This
echoes the previous findings that Chinese people generally consider that they are
personally nonhumorous, although they may highly appreciate humor in general
(Chen, 2006; Chen & Martin, 2005, 2007; Liao, 1998, 2001; Yue et al., 2006).
This confirms the proposed cultural ambivalence; that is, the Chinese may greatly
appreciate and envy humor, but still despise or fear it (Liao, 2007).
This study also shows that humor is largely incompatible with the core Chinese
personality. The Hong Kong and Hohhot undergraduates shared perceptions of
the importance, make-up, and representatives of humor, probably because the
traditional Chinese social system tends to be rigid, defensive, and interdependent
and to stress social harmony through compromise and conformity (Bond, 1996;
Dunn, Zhang, & Ripple, 1988). Hence, aligned with Plato’s assertion that “what
is honored in one’s country is what will be cultivated,” for thousands of years,
Chinese culture has valued conformity, humility, and social formality (Bond,
1996). Consequently, humor is informal, impersonal, and conflicts with prized
virtues (Chen, 1985), so that humorous people are often avoided in Chinese
society (Liao, 1998). When 95% of a sample of 103 American undergraduates
report that they have an average or above average sense of humor, but less than
3% of the 159 undergraduates in Hong Kong and of the 178 undergraduates in
Hohhot do so, it is obvious that such personal attitudes make a big difference in
overall cultural attitudes (Liao, Chang, & Chou, 2005).
The analyses of the top ten most important characteristics for humor and for
Chinese personality reveal that Chinese see more positivity in being humorous
than they see in being an orthodox Chinese. Nonetheless, further studies exam-
ining the differences and similarities of the dispositional compositions of humor
and Chinese personality in Chinese societies are crucial.
Although the Westerners view humor as being closely associated with creativ-
ity (e.g., Cropley, 1992; Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989; Runco & Bahleda, 1986;
Sternberg, 1985; Wu, 1992) and as having a constructive impact on the quantity
of ideas and the quality of creative thinking in groups (e.g., Robinson, 1998), the
Chinese consider humor to be relatively unimportant for creatively demanding
occupations, such as scientists, inventors, and musicians, which explains why the
Chinese conception of creativity consistently overlooks creativity in lists regard-
ing qualities needed for being a typical and creative Chinese (Rudowicz, 2003;
Rudowicz & Yue, 2000, 2003; Yue et al., 2006).
Perception of importance of humor in friendship

Ng (2009, under the supervision of Yue) investigated humor in friendship in a
study of 200 secondary school students (86 men, 144 women) and 150 under-
graduate students (66 men, 84 women) in Hong Kong. Participants completed
questionnaires in which they (1) rated the importance of humor in friendship,
(2) rated the importance of self-humor in friendship, and (3) listed three advan-
tages or disadvantages of befriending humorous people (Liao, 2003). Table 3.9
shows the ratings. Humor in friendship was rated consistently and significantly
higher than-self humor in friendship for all groups (p < .001), implying that both
secondary school and undergraduate students, whatever gender, valued humor
but not self-humor in friendship.
Table 3.10 shows perceptions of the advantages of befriending humorous
people. Note that the top four factors (61.22% for total) indicate that Chinese
students seemed most concerned about what they could gain from a humorous
friendship and less concerned about how they might add humor to the friendship.
Table 3.11 displays the disadvantages of befriending a humorous person. Note
that 55.68% of the factors point to dangers (Being frivolous, 21.68%; Being
Table 3.9 Means and standard deviations for rating the importance of humor and of
self-humor
Importance Importance of
of humor in self-humor in
friendship friendship
Students M SD M SD t-value
Secondary Men (n = 86) 7.87 1.62 6.01 2.31 5.815***

School Women (n = 114) 7.85 1.26 6.51 1.52 9.276***
University Men (n = 66) 7.82 1.48 6.65 1.67 6.478***
Women (n = 84) 7.64 1.46 5.82 1.58 9.390***
Note: **p < .01;***p < .001.
Table 3.10 Advantages of befriending a humorous person
Ranking Advantages of Humor Humor Chinese Expressions Percentage
1 Being happy together (開心在一起) 22.45%

2 Enjoying friendship (容易相處/熟絡) 17.69%
3 Having more topics to discuss (更多話題) 10.54%
3 Being relaxed (輕鬆) 10.54%
4 Having fun (有趣) 6.00%
4 Releasing conflict (緩和衝突/緊張氣氛) 6.00%
5 Learning optimism (學習樂觀) 5.22%
6 Being comforted (安慰我) 2.27%
7 Improving health (常笑會健康一點) 1.59%
8 Developing creative thinking (訓練創意思維) 1.36%
Others 16.34%
Table 3.11 Disadvantages of befriending a humorous person
Ranking Disadvantages of Humor Humor Chinese Expressions Percentage
1 Being frivolous 對方不認真 21.68

2 Being disgusting 令人反感 11.23
3 Being annoyed by too many 太多笑話會令人煩躁 9.20
jokes
4 Being repetitious 對方不分輕重 7.96
5 Being the “butt” of jokes 成為笑柄 7.02
5 Being too superficial in the 不能成為深交 7.02
relationship
6 Jeopardizing the relationship 破壞關係 6.55
7 Wasting time 浪費時間 6.24
8 Not understanding whether 不理解對方何時認真或在說笑 4.68
the jokes are serious
9 Feeling inadequate about 顯得自己不幽默 2.96
lacking humor
10 Feeling embarrassed about 如未能理解笑話會感到尷尬 2.81
not getting the point
Others 12.65
disgusting, 11.23%; Being annoyed by too many jokes, 9.20%; Being too super-
ficial in the relationship, 7.02%; Jeopardizing the relationship, 6.55%), 18.88% of
the factors point to dangers of abuse or misuse of humor (Being repetitious, 7.96;
Wasting time, 6.24%; Not understanding whether the jokes are serious, 4.68%),
and 12.79% of the factors point to gelotophobia (Being the “butt” of jokes,
7.02%; Feeling inadequate for lacking humor, 2.96%; Feeling embarrassed about
not getting the point, 2.81). Taken together, Chinese students were gravely con-
cerned that humor in friendship might be misused or create misunderstandings.
In short, the above studies offer empirical evidence to the paradoxical discom-
forts represented by the Chinese ambivalence about humor. In later chapters, I will
address this concept in relation to other studies conducted in Chinese society.
Humor, face, and filial piety
Confucian puritanical biases, Communist prejudices, and the Chinese concept
of face and facework have generated the Chinese ambivalence toward humor.
Specifically, the Chinese strive to maintain face 面子 and conduct facework 面
子功夫 to assure that they and others will be maintain social recognition, inclu-
sion, and respectability (Gao, 1998; Goffman, 1967; Hallahan, Lee, & Herzog,
1997; Hwang, 1987). They consider that their efforts to save face and give face
to others to be wise and important investments in social networking (Lee, 1998)
and group cohesiveness (Fu, 2004; Lee, 1998). To summarize the importance of
face, Lin (1954) said: “The Chinese face can be washed, shaved, lost, awarded,
contested, and saved. Sometimes fighting for face seems to be of the first priority
in one’s life, and people would even go bankrupt over this” (Lin, 1954).
Individuals might save face by using humor to indicate that they were only
joking when they made a poorly received proposal or performed a disapproved
action; they can save face by “decommiting” their responsibility for the action
(Chen, Watkins, & Martin, 2013). Saving others face may have the most posi-
tive impact. Although the correlations were weak, saving self-face was found to
be positively correlated with anxiety and negatively correlated with self-esteem
(Fu, Watkins, & Hui, 2004). In contrast, saving others face was significantly
and positively correlated with inner peace and interpersonal harmony, but saving
self-face was slightly negatively correlated with such positive outcomes. Hence,
saving self-face appears to be associated with negative values such as anxiety and
defensiveness, while saving others face is related to positive values such as self-
esteem and harmony.
Face and facework explain individual and cultural differences in relation to
humor style preferences. People are strongly motivated to avoid communica-
tions that potentially threaten face or put themselves or others into awkward or
embarrassing situations (Goffman, 1967). Because humor can be ambiguous and
potentially retracted, it is a polite and useful tactic for protecting self-face and
others’ faces and thus facilitating social interactions (Cupach & Metts, 1994;
Keltner, Young, Heerey, Oemig, & Monarch, 1998; Zajdman, 1995). Humor
can be used to save face when individuals experience failure, when their mis-
takes are about to be unmasked, or they are caught telling a lie (Kane, Suls, &
Tedeschi, 1977). However, previous research has rarely empirically examined the
relationships between humor styles and facework.
Filial piety 孝順, on the other hand, has been a dominant Confucian ethic in
traditional Chinese societies as well. It identifies how children should behave
toward their parents and ancestors, living or dead (Zhang & Bond, 1998). It
requires that children must care for the material and mental well-being of their
aging parents, perform ceremonial duties of ancestral worship, ensure the conti-
nuity of the family line, and act in ways that bring honor and avoid disgrace to the
family name. Influenced by Western individualism, many modern Chinese think-
ers have severely criticized the concept of filial piety (Zhang & Bond, 1998),
arguing that it inhibits independence, freedom of expression, humor, creativity,
personal desires, and interests (Liu & Lin, 1988). Modern Chinese, especially
those exposed to Western freedom and independence ideologies, face internal
conflicts about whether they should adhere to traditional standards or should
adopt self-responsive, independent, and modern values. Endorsers of traditional
filial piety precepts also encounter emotional ambivalence and fear that if chil-
dren feel free to joke with their parents, they will upset the traditional parent/
child hierarchical relationship (Zhang & Bond, 1998). For instance, Yue and
Ng (1999) surveyed 90 undergraduate students and 77 old people in Beijing
about their views on filial piety and found that “respecting the elderly but not
necessarily obeying them” had become a new cultural protocol for fulfilling filial
obligations in Chinese society. It remains to be studied how humor could affect
intergenerational communication in Chinese society.
Lai (2010, under Yue’s supervision) examined the relationships of humor styles,
collectivism, and individualism in a sample of 291 Canadian and Hong Kong
undergraduate students (121 Canadian undergraduates, mean age of 19.84;
121 Hong Kong undergraduates, mean age of 21.16). Participants completed
the 32-item Humor Style Questionnaire (HSQ) (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen,
Gray, & Weir, 2003) and the 32-item Individualism and Collectivism Scale (ICS:
Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995). Canadian students scored sig-
nificantly lower on VC and significantly higher on HIs, implying that Canadi-
ans tended to view everyone as equals, whereas Hong Kong students tended to
respect people of higher status. For the Canadian sample, VI was significantly
correlated with aggressive and self-defeating humor, whereas HC was signifi-
cantly correlated with affiliative and self-enhancing humor, implying that when
Canadian students used maladaptive humor, they viewed other group members
as unequal, but when they used adaptive humor, they viewed other group mem-
bers as equal. For the Hong Kong sample, HI was significantly correlated with
affiliative and self-enhancing humor; HC was significantly correlated with affili-
ative humor, implying that when Hong Kong students used adaptive humor,
they viewed other group members as equal. The Hong Kong sample showed no
significant relationships between VC and self-defeating humor, perhaps because
Westerners are likely to tell self-defeating jokes to anyone, but Chinese will avoid
telling self-defeating jokes to people of high status (Liao, 2003).
In short, the East and the West have strong cultural differences in their atti-
tudes toward humor. The Chinese are keenly aware of social status and face-saving
in social interactions which make them particularly uneasy about aggressive humor.
Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism

and collectivism
According to Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, and Gelfand (1995), individual-
ism and collectivism can be classified as horizontal (H) or vertical (V).
Horizontal collectivism (HC) emphasizes equality where people perceive
themselves as in-group and share common goals with others, whereas, ver-
tical collectivism (VC) emphasizes hierarchy whereby people sacrifice their
personal goals for in-group goals but members of the in-group are different
from each other who have more status than others. Horizontal individual-
ist (HI) want to be unique and self-reliant who are not necessarily inter-
ested in becoming distinguished or want high status. Vertical individualist
(VI) try to compete with others for distinction and status.
Source: Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Hori-
zontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and mea-
surement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275.
Similarly, Chen, Watkin, and Martin (2013) examined the relationship between
humor styles and collectivism-individualism among a sample of 272 undergradu-
ate students in Guangzhou. Participants completed the Chinese Humor Style
Questionnaire (CHSQ) (Chen & Martin, 2007) and the Chinese Individual-
ism and Collectivism Scale (CICS) (Wang, Shi, Huang, 2003), and the Face-
work Scale (FS) (Cheung, Leung, Fan, Song, Zhang, & Zhang, 2001). HC was
positively and significantly correlated with affiliative and self-enhancing humor;
aggressive humor was significantly correlated with vertical individualism. All
these findings echo Lai’s finding in 2010. Also echoing Lai’s finding in 2010 is
that self-defeating humor was not correlated with vertical collectivism. Besides,
saving self-face was negatively correlated with affiliative humor but was positively
correlated with aggressive humor, meanwhile, saving others face was positively
correlated with affiliative humor and self-defeating humor. In conclusion, Chen,
Watkin, and Martin argued that horizontal collectivism served the two adaptive
humor styles. That is, Chinese people, while seeing themselves as interdependent
members of a group and treating each other equally, tended to use humor to
enhance group cohesion and interpersonal harmony. The same pattern applies
to another collectivist group, the Lebanese, as well (Kazarian & Martin, 2004).
This finding echoes Lai’s finding (2010) that Chinese people tended to be
keenly aware of one’s social status and face saving when they used humor in social
interactions, particularly when they used aggressive humor.
Summary
In this chapter, I describe the phenomenon of the Chinese ambivalence about
humor in relation to the Confucian puritanic bias against humor throughout Chi-
nese history as well the Communists’ lofty prejudice for humor in modern times.
They both point to a heightened need that humor ought to be used properly in
accordance with Confucian ethics of social harmony and the Communist doc-
trines of spiritual purification. I also review some of the empirical studies that
were conducted to specifically examine the phenomenon of the Chinese ambiva-
lence about humor in a variety of ways. The results typically show that though
the Chinese tend to value humor greatly, they usually show low regard for their
personal humor and do not consider humor as a desirable personality trait for
being an orthodox Chinese. They also tend to be highly conscious and cautious
of any misuses of humor in friendship. This has led the Chinese to treat humor
as a tasteful thing to admire but a risky thing to do. I will discuss the Chinese
ambivalence about humor more in later chapters.
Notes
1 Zaiyu (宰予, 522–458 BC) is one of the ten best disciples of Confucius (孔门十哲);
he is also highly an elegant speaker.
2 Mencius or Mengzi 孟子 (372–289 BC) was a Chinese philosopher who is the
most famous Confucian after Confucius himself. He is the principal interpreter of
Confucianism and supposedly studied with Confucius’s grandson, Zisi 子思.
3 Mao Zedong 毛澤東, Chairman of the Communist Party of China (CPC), instigated
the Anti-Rightist Movement 反右運動 (about 1957–1959) in the People’s Repub-
lic of China (PRC) to purge alleged “rightists” within the CPC. They persecuted
an estimated 550,000 intellectuals who favored capitalism over collectivization.
4 Mao initiated the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), a sociopolitical movement to
spread the so-called “true” Communist ideology in the PRC. Traditional Confu-
cian teachings were purged, and Maoist thought was imposed as the “correct”
and dominant ideology. The movement seriously and negatively paralyzed China’s
economic and social development and political status.
5 Jiang Qing 江青 (1913–1991) was born as Li Yunhe 李雲鶴 in Shandong Prov-
ince. She was a moderately successful actress in Shanghai from 1934 to 1937. She
married Mao in 1939 and served as his personal secretary in the 1940s and the
1950s. In the mid-1960s, she gradually obtained power and led the radicals dur-
ing the Cultural Revolution. She was put under house arrest in 1976, sentenced to
18 years of imprisonment in 1981, and committed suicide in 1991.
6 Zhang Chunqiao 張春橋 (1917–1991) was born in Shandong Province. He joined
the Shanghai chapter of the League of Chinese Left-Wing Writers in 1936 and
joined the Party about 1940. After the PRC was founded, he served as deputy
director of the East China branch of the New China News Agency (1950), manag-
ing director of the PLA Daily, and director of the Propaganda Department of the
Shanghai Party branch. He was heavily favored by Mao Zedong during the Cul-
tural Revolution and gradually rose to the top of the CPC. He was put under house
arrest in 1976 and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment in 1981.
7 Wang Hongwen 王洪文 (1935–1992) was born into a poor peasant family in Chang-
chun, Liaoning Province. He was still a boy when he joined the People’s Liberation
Army. He was a field messenger in the war in Korea. After demobilization, he worked
at the No. 17 Cotton Mill in Shanghai and became a leader during the Cultural
Revolution. Favored by Mao Zedong, he quickly rose to the top of the CPC. He was
put under house arrest in 1976 and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment in 1981.
8 Yao Wenyuan 姚文元 (1931–2005) was born in Zhejiang Province, the son of Yao
Benzi, a well-known leftist writer in the 1930s. He followed a career in literature
and literary criticism. After the PRC was founded, he advocated an orthodox lit-
erary line, and his writings played an important role in Cultural Revolution. As
such, he rose to the top of the CPC. He was put under house arrest in 1976 and
sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment in 1981.
9 Damocles is a figure featured in a single moral anecdote commonly referred to as
“the Sword of Damocles.” It symbolizes an allusion that an imminent and ever-
present peril will appear to those in positions of power.
References
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality. New York: Holt.
Bendix, R. (1977). Nation-Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social
Order. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Castell, P. J., & Goldstein, J. H. (1976). Social occasions for joking: A cross-cultural
study. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It’s A Funny Thing, Humour: Proceed-
ings of the International Conference on Humour and Laughter (pp. 183–197). Oxford,
UK: Pergamon Press.
Chen, C. C. (1985). A Study of Ancient Chinese Jokes (中國笑話研究). Unpublished
master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Chen, G. H., & Martin, R. A. (2005). Coping humor of 354 Chinese university stu-
dents. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19(5), 307–309.
Chen, G. H., & Martin, R. (2007). A comparison of humor styles, coping humor,
Cheung, C. K., Rudowicz, E., Yue, X., & Kwan, A. S. (2003). Creativity of university
students: What is the impact of field and year of study? Journal of Creative Behavior,
37(1), 42–63.
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., & Xie,
D. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs is the Five-Factor Model
complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 407–433.
Cropley, A. J. (1992). More Ways Than One: Fostering Creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dunn, J. A., Zhang, X. Y., & Ripple, R. E. (1988). Comparative study of Chinese
and American performance on divergent thinking tasks. New Horizons, 29, 7–20.
Feinberg, L. (1971). Asian Laughter: An Anthology of Oriental Satire and Humor.
New York: Weatherhill, Incorporated.
Fu, H. (2004). Personality Correlates of the Disposition Towards Interpersonal Forgiveness:
A Chinese Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Fu, H., Watkins, D., & Hui, E. K. P. (2004). Personality correlates of the disposition
towards interpersonal forgiveness: A Chinese perspective. International Journal of
Fudano, K. (2000). The Comparison of Laugh Behaviors Between Japan and China–
Based on the Questionnaires of the University Students in Osaka and Shanghai. Paper
presented at the 12th International Humor Conference, Kansai University, Osaka,
Japan, 24–27 July.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City,
NY: Anchor/Doubleday.
Goodrich, C., & Davison, S. (1935). The wage-earner in the Westward movement I.
Political Science Quarterly, 50(2), 161–185.
York: McGraw-Hill.
Hallahan, M., Lee, F., & Herzog, T. (1997). It’s not just whether you win or lose,
it’s also where you play the game a naturalistic, cross-cultural examination of the
positivity bias. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 768–778.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements
used in the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity
(pp. 53–75). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hsia, C.T. (1978). The Chinese sense of humor. Renditions, a Chinese-English Trans-
lation Magazine, 9. Retrieved May 24, 2017, from www.cuhk.edu.hk/rct/ren
ditions/sample/b09.html.
Kane, T. R., Suls, J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1977). Humour as a tool of social interaction.
In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It’s A Funny Thing, Humour: Proceedings
of the International Conference on Humour and Laughter (pp. 13–16). Oxford,
UK: Pergamon Press.
Kazarian, S. S., & Martin, R. A. (2004). Humour styles, personality, and well-being
among Lebanese university students. European Journal of Personality, 18(3),
209–219.
Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998).
Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 75, 1231–1247.
Lee, S. H. (1998). Facework in Chinese Cross-Cultural Adaptation. Ph.D. thesis, The
University of Texas at Arlington, USA.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The Psychology of Living Buoyantly. New York: Klu-
wer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Taipei: Crane.
25–46.
Liao, C. C., Chang, T. C., & Chou, M. Y. (2006, July). Sense of Humor: Americans
vs Taiwanese. Paper presented at 18th International Society for Humor Studies
Conference, Danish University of Education, Copenhagen, Denmark (pp. 3–7).
Lin, Y. T. (1924). Youmo zahua (幽默雜談 Discourse on humor). Chengbao Fukan,
131, 1–2.
MA: Academic Press.
Martin, R. A., Kuiper, N. A., Olinger, L., & Dance, K. A. (1993). Humor, coping
with stress, self-concept, and psychological well-being. Humor: International Jour-
nal of Humor Research, 6, 89–104.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual
differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Devel-
opment of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality,
37(1), 48–75.
Moser, P. (2004). Determinants of innovation evidence from 19th century World
Fairs. The Journal of Economic History, 64(02), 548–552.
Robinson, K. (1998). Creativity knows no stereotypes. Times Educational Supple-
ment, 3, 13.
Ruch, W. (Ed.). (1998). The Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality Character-
istic (Vol. 3). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Rudowicz, E., & Hui, A. (1997). The creative personality: Hong Kong perspective.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(1), 139.
ties. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3&4), 387–394.
Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and
everyday creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(2), 93–98.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal
and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and mea-
surement refinement. Cross-cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275.
Tsai, J. L., Louie, J. Y., Chen, E. E., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Learning what feelings to
desire: Socialization of ideal affect through children’s storybooks. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 17–30.
Wang, Y., Shi, K., & Huang, X. (2003). A confirmatory study on the structure of indi-
vidualism and collectivism in China. 心理科学 (Psychological Science), 6, 996–999.
Wu, J. J. (1992). Creativity and Humor: Chinese Perspective. Paper presented at the
Second Asian Conference on Giftedness, Taipei, Taiwan, 24–27 July.
Yue, X. D. (2003a). Meritorious evaluation bias: How Chinese undergraduates per-
37(3), 151–177.
Yue, X. D. (2003b). Meritorious attribution bias: How Chinese undergraduates per-
ceive Chinese and foreign creators. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37, 88–104.
Yue, X. D. (2004). Enhancing university students’ creativity: Reflection and sugges-
tions. Journal of Higher Education, 25(1), 84–91.
23(3), 403–420.
24(4), 463–480.
Yue, X., Hao, X., & Goldman, G. (2010). Humor styles, dispositional optimism, and
mental health among undergraduates in Hong Kong and China. Journal of Psychol-
ogy in Chinese Societies, 11(2), 173–188.
China, 5–8 June.
Zhang, J., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Personality and filial piety among college students
in two Chinese societies: The added value of indigenous constructs. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(3), 402–417.
Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy. Journal of
Pragmatics, 23, 325–339.
4 Humor and Chinese personality
According to Zhuangzi《莊子·列禦寇·莊子將死》, when Zhuangzi was

dying, his disciples wanted to give him a lavish funeral. Zhuangzi refused
and said: “I have heaven and earth for my outer and inner coffin, the sun
and moon for my pair of jade discs, the stars for my pearls, the myriad
creatures for my farewell presents. Is anything missing from my funeral
paraphernalia? What will you add to these?”
“But Master, we are afraid that the crows and the kites will eat you.”
“So what?” Zhuangzi replied. “Above ground, I’ll be eaten by the crows
and kites; below ground, I’ll be eaten by the ants and molecrickets. You
rob the one to give to the other; how come you like them so much better?”
“So, let it be.”
莊子將死，弟子欲厚葬之。莊子曰： “吾以天地為棺槨，以日月為連璧，
星辰為珠璣，萬物為齎送。吾葬具豈不備邪？何以加此？”
弟子曰：“吾恐烏鳶之食夫子也。 ”
莊子曰：“在上為烏鳶食，在下為螻蟻食，奪彼與此，何其偏也！”
《莊子·列禦寇·莊子將死》
“Let it be.” Zhuangzi’s laconic response encapsulates the Chinese approach to

humor and wit. In this chapter, I explore the Chinese personality as it has influ-
enced the development of Chinese humor.
Humor and personality

Humor, a psychological cognitive appraisal process, comprises perceptions of
playful incongruity, mirthful emotions, and vocal-behavioral expressions of laugh-
ter (Martin, 2003, p. 10). It is a form of mental play encompassing cognitive,
emotional, social, and expressive components (Martin, 2007). Humor involves
the perception of nonserious incongruity, a mental process called bi-association
(Koestler, 1964) or synergy (Apter, 1982) occurring when the same object or
situation evokes two contradictory images or conceptions simultaneously. Not all
incongruity is humorous, of course: it must be relatively unimportant or trivial
and accompanied by a lighthearted, playful attitude. When the sudden percep-
tion of incongruity between a concept and reality occurs, laughter is the simple
way to release the feelings of oddness and unease (Morreall, 1987; Murdock &
Ganim, 1993).
Personality refers to “psychological qualities that contribute to an individual’s
enduring and distinctive patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving” (Cervone &
Pervin, 2014, p. 8). On an individual level, personality is a pattern of distinguish-
ing thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that persist over time and situations. On
a cultural level, personality represents commonly shared traits or characteristics
that distinguish one cultural group from other cultural groups. For instance, the
Chinese people are known to be modest, conservative, and care very much for
interpersonal harmony, whereas the American are known to be assertive, direct,
and care very much for self-protection (e.g., Bond, 2010, Leung & Yue, 2010)
With regard to humor, Western scholars consider humor to a core element of
American personality (e.g., Allport, 1937, p. 224) and to be essential for creativ-
ity (e.g., Cropley, 1992; Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989; Runco & Bahleda, 1986;
Sternberg, 1985; Wu, 1992). Studies done in Western societies generally dem-
onstrate that adaptive humor styles (affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor)
are closely associated with creativity, optimism, playfulness, self-compassion, self-
esteem, and subjective happiness, whereas maladaptive humor styles are (aggres-
sive humor and self-defeating humor) are closely associated with depression,
loneliness, pessimism, and stress.
In Chinese society, as discussed early, humor has been uniquely disdained. For
centuries, Confucian puritanism despised comedians for potentially cheapening
society and lowering taste by contradicting Confucian ideals of social conformity
and humility (Liao, 2010; Yue, 2010, 2011). Numerous studies show that those
negative attitudes linger to the modern era. For example, a study in mainland
China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan showed that Chinese undergraduates believe that
humor was not important for creativity. Another study showed that the Chinese
did not consider humor to be a desirable Chinese characteristic (Rudowicz &Yue,
2000, 2003). A third study showed that Chinese undergraduates in Hohhot saw
comedy as a purview only for professional comedians (Yue et al., 2006, 2010).
It may be thus argued that Chinese people tended to believe that humor was an
exclusive expertise or special talent, inappropriate in the common sphere.
Where the Western tendency was toward “pure humor” designed to evoke
laughter, early Chinese humor tried to include socially critical “denial humor”
and socially favorable “complimentary humor.” In contrast with Western pure
humor, significant wit, intelligence, and knowledge were required to appreciate
Chinese humor (Chen, 1985; Qian, 2007.
Also differing significantly from Western concepts are Chinese perceptions
of individual behavior, educational goals, and proper practices (Yue, 2010).
The traditional Chinese social system is rather rigid, defensive, and discourages
independence. It stresses the importance of social harmony achieved through
Humor and Chinese personality 69
compromise, moderation, and conformity (Dunn, Zhang, & Ripple, 1988).
Proper behavioral guidance comes from higher authorities or past traditions.
Therefore, Chinese parents and teachers emphasize obedience, self-discipline,
moral conduct, and responsibility (Yang & Bond, 1990).
Humor and gender

Early studies of gender differences in humor focus on differential preferences for
joke (Martin, 2007). Women were found to prefer less aggressive, less sexual,
and more neutral and absurd jokes than men did (Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 1998;
Nevo, 1985) and to laugh in a more forthcoming than men (Joubert, 1980).
Women were also found to appreciative humor more than men, but the con-
verse was found when considering the creation of humor (Ziv, 1984). Men were
found to laugh in accordance with their conceptions of social roles and relations,
whilst women laughed in accordance with their emotional states (Svebak, 1974).
Besides, men and women had somewhat different conversational goals: for
women, the primary goal of friendly conversation was intimacy, whereas for men
the goal was positive self-presentation (Deborah Tannen, 1986, 1990). Women
more often used humor to enhance group solidarity and intimacy through self-
disclosure and mild self-deprecation, whereas men more often used humor for
the purpose of impressing others, appearing funny, and creating a positive per-
sonal identity.
In Kuipers’s classic study of gender difference toward jokes, both men and
women viewed joke telling as a masculine act, because it was too loud, rowdy,
and competitive to suit the cooperative communication style preferred by women
(1984, 1974). Specifically, woman loved jokes and knew a lot of them; however,
they usually preferred to leave the performance of telling the jokes to their hus-
bands. In such a way, the content and communication of jokes had a clear male
heterosexual perspective. The overt expressions of humor in women, however,
are encouraged in some parts of Western society, but are discouraged in tradi-
tional cultures in the East (e.g., Liao, 2010; Yue, 2010, 2011; Yue et al., 2014).
At least by Confucian ideals, women should try to avoid laughing loudly in the
company of men, as well as showing their teeth while laughing. This will be dis-
cussed further in Chapter 5.
Crawford (2003) argued that humor was often conceived as a mode of dis-
course and a strategy for social interactions whereby women and men used
humor in same-gender and mixed-gender settings for gender construction. In
other words, the unique properties of humor made it a valuable tool of gender
socialization. Past researchers and theorists also proposed that humor played an
important role in forming, maintaining, and regulating close interpersonal rela-
tionships (Lefcourt, 2001). Most people perceived humor as a desirable char-
acteristic in a potential friend or a romantic partner (Goodwin & Tang, 1991;
Sprecher & Regan, 2002).
For instance, Campbell, Martin, and Ward (2008) investigated 98 couples as
to how affiliative humor and aggressive humor were associated with relationship
satisfaction, greater perceived closeness, problem resolution, and emotional dis-
tress following a conflict discussion task. The results showed that people who used
more affiliative and less aggressive humor during the discussion would enable their
spouses to be more satisfied with their relationship and to report more perceived
closeness and better problem resolution following the conflict discussion.
Similarly, Cann and Calhoun (2001) conducted two studies to examine assump-
tions people would make about personal qualities associated with varying levels
of sense of humor. The first study involved 236 participants and used a set of
adjectives to rate individuals according to their levels of humor. Results showed
that individuals were rated as “well above average” on humor were rated higher
on socially desirable adjectives and lower on socially undesirable adjectives. The
second study examined 169 participants and used the Big Five personality traits
to rate individuals described as varying in sense of humor. Results showed that
individuals described as being “well above average” in humor were perceived as
and higher in agreeableness and lower in neuroticism.
With regard to studies of humor in Chinese societies, only a small number
of studies could be found on English academic journals. For example, Chen
and Martin (2007) surveyed 354 undergraduate students in Guangzhou about
their use of humor styles and reported that male students scored significantly
higher on aggressive humor than did female students. Zhao, Kong, and Wang
(2012) surveyed 525 undergraduate students in Fujian and Xi’an about their
use of humor styles and reported that compared with female students, those
male students who used less self-enhancing humor were more likely to experience
loneliness. My own studies generally showed that male students scored signifi-
cantly higher on aggressive humor and significantly lower on affiliative humor
than female students (e.g., Yue, 2010, Yue, Hao, & Goldman, 2010; Yue, Liu,
Jiang & Hiranandani, 2014). In later discussions, I will address more the gender
difference in humor studies among Chinese populations.
Humor and the Five-Factor Model of personality

Individual differences have been organized into five broad, bipolar, remarkably
universal dimensions, widely known as the Big Five, included in the acronym
OCEAN (John, 1990; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008; Costa & McCrae, 2008):
O = openness, C = conscientiousness, E = extraversion, A = agreeableness, and
N = neuroticism. An examination of people from more than 50 nations revealed
that the five dimensions accurately and universally describe personality (Schwartz,
2007). Although much literature has supported the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of
personality, researchers disagree on exact labels for each dimension. The generally
accepted FFM personality traits are:
1 Extraversion is characterized by excitability, sociability, talkativeness, asser-

tiveness, and emotional expressiveness. Highly extroverted people are out-
going and tend to gain energy from social situations. Introverted people
tend to be more reserved and must expend energy in social settings.
2 Agreeableness includes trust, altruism, kindness, affection, and other prosocial
behaviors. Highly agreeable people tend to be more cooperative, while those
who are low in agreeableness tend to be competitive and even manipulative.
3 Conscientiousness includes thoughtfulness, impulse control, and goal-directed
behaviors. Highly conscientious people tend to be well organized and mind-
ful of details.
4 Neuroticism is characterized by sadness, moodiness, and emotional instabil-
ity. Highly neurotic individuals tend to experience mood swings, anxiety,
irritability, and sadness. Individuals who are low in neuroticism tend to be
more stable and emotionally resilient.
5 Openness to Experience includes imagination and insight. Individuals who
are highly open to experience tend to have broad interests and to be adven-
turous and creative. People who are closed to experience are often more
traditional and think concretely rather than abstractly.
Mental health is significantly related to personality traits or types such as those

measured by the Myers–Briggs Type Indicators (e.g., Woodmansee, 2000) and
the Big Five measures (e.g., Joshanloo & Nosratabadi, 2009). Positive personal-
ity traits indicate good mental health; negative personality traits indicate poor
mental health (e.g., DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Gutiérrez, Jiménez, Hernández, &
Puente, 2005; Hayes & Joseph, 2003; Joshanloo & Nosratabadi, 2009). Neu-
roticism has been negatively related to all mental health indicators, such as self-
acceptance, with an average r = −.28 (Joshanloo & Nosratabadi, 2009). Moreover,
as Eysenck (1983) argues, “happiness is a thing called stable extraversion” (p. 87).
Personality traits are “the most robust predictors of happiness”: thus, extraversion,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness explain a considerable amount of variance in
happiness (Chamorro-Premuzic, Bennett, & Furnham, 2007).
Leung (2011, under the supervision of Yue), used the 32-item HSQ (Martin,
Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003), the 50-item Goldberg Big-Five Per-
sonality Test (GBFT: Goldberg, 1992), and the ten-item Perceived Stress Scale
(PSS: Cohen & Dillingham, 1994) to examine the relationship between personality,
humor styles, and perceived stress among 176 undergraduate students in Hong
Kong. The results showed that agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and
openness to experience were negatively correlated with perceived stress; neuroticism
was positively correlated with perceived stress; affiliative humor and self-enhancing
humor were positively correlated with extraversion and openness to experience; self-
enhancing humor was negatively correlated with neuroticism (see Table 4.1).
Tan and Yue (2016, under the supervision of Yue) used the 52-item Patho-
logical Narcissism Inventory (PNI, Pincus et al., 2009) and the HSQ (Martin
et al., 2003) to investigate the relationship between pathological narcissism, self-
esteem, and humor styles in the Chinese context in a sample of 257 undergradu-
ate students in Hong Kong. Narcissists typically have an inflated sense of their
own importance, a deep need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others.
But behind their ultra-confident mask lies fragile self-esteem vulnerable to the
slightest criticism. The study showed that self-esteem was positively associated
Table 4.1 Inter-correlations of humor styles, Big Five personality traits, and perceived stress
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Affiliative humor –
2. Self-enhancing humor .45** –
3. Aggressive humor .13 .22** –
4. Self-defeating humor .18** .21** .30** –
5. Extraversion .50** .30** .20** .16* –
6. Agreeableness .51** .36** –.19* .08 .37** –
7. Neuroticism –.18* –.37** .01 .08 –.18* –.16* –
8. Conscientiousness .15* .14 –.20** –.22** .10** .33** –.16* –
9. Openness to experience .44** .38** .14 –.02 .34** .28** .13 .23** –
Note: *p < .05 **p < .01.
with affiliative and self-enhancing humor but negatively associated with aggressive
and self-defeating humor. Both types of pathological narcissism were negatively
associated with affiliative humor but positively associated with self-enhancing and
maladaptive humor. The four humor styles significantly mediated the relationship
between pathological narcissism and self-esteem, but maladaptive humor styles
were highly likely to decrease self-esteem, while adaptive humor styles were less
likely to increase self-esteem (Figures 4.1 and 4.2).
Affiliative humor
−0.271** 0.409**
0.316** Self-enhancing humor 0.419**
Grandiose Total: -0.262**

Self-esteem
narcissism Direct: -0.073
−0.534**
0.307**
Aggressive humor
−0.472**
0.569**
Self-defeating humor
Figure 4.1 Path analysis of the relationship between grandiose narcissism and self-esteem
Note: **Significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Affiliative humor
−0.348** 0.365**
0.222** Self-enhancing humor 0.394**
Vulnerable Total: −0.363**

Self-esteem
narcissism Direct: −0.135*
−0.498**
0.355**
Aggressive humor
−0.391**
0.598**
Figure 4.2 Path analysis of the relationship between vulnerable narcissism and self-esteem
Note: **Significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Besides, vulnerable narcissism, compared with grandiose narcissism, was more
negatively correlated with self-esteem, consistent with previous findings that
vulnerable narcissism is more strongly associated with negative emotions (e.g.,
Thomas, Wright, Lukowitsky, Donnellan, & Hopwood, 2012) and leads to more
negative psychological outcomes including low self-esteem (Yue, Liu, Jiang, &
Hiranandani, 2014).
Humor, optimism, and subjective happiness

Modern positive psychology posits that humor is essential for cognitive flexibil-
ity, cognitive-affective shift, restructuring, resilience, adaptive coping, creativity,
social competence, self-protection, and emotional management (Abel, 1998;
Erickson & Feldstein, 2007; Kuiper & Borowicz-Sibenik, 2005; Martin, 2007).
Consequently, therapists often use humor to relieve distress and enhance coping
abilities (Martin, 2004, 2007).
Optimism is the belief in positive future outcomes and has been linked to psy-
chological and physical well-being (Lai, 1995; Scheier & Carver, 1985, 1992), the
ability to cope with stress and depression (Gillham & Seligman, 1999), reduced
depression, and more enjoyment from social interactions (Seligman, 1998).
Optimism is closely related to beliefs about self-efficacy, self-improvement, per-
sonal growth, and religion (Furnham, 1997; Moore & Aweiss, 2003; Pinquart,
Rainer, & Linda, 2004; Wood & VanderZee, 1997). Consequently, positive psy-
chology considers optimism to be strongly related to humor and indispensable
in the study of humor’s effects on distress (Erickson & Feldstein, 2007; Martin
et al., 2003; Schieman, Gundy, & Taylor, 2001).
Optimism and hope are positively related with health and subjective well-being
(Magaletta & Oliver, 1999; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). Optimists are
more likely to use adaptive humor styles, which then further enhance optimism.
Although humor and optimism are obviously positive psychological strengths
(Martin et al., 2003), only a few studies have investigated the relationship between
humor styles, optimism, and subjective well-being in the Chinese context.
Su Dongpo’s humor
Su Dongpo 蘇東坡 (also known as Su Shi 蘇軾, 1037–1101) was visiting
a temple. In the hall, he encountered the chief monk. The monk invited
him to sit, called for an assistant, and asked for “tea.” After they talked for
a while, the chief monk found Su Dongpo to be extremely knowledge-
able, invited him to his chamber, asked him to “sit please,” and said to the
assistant “tea please.” Finally, the monk asked the name of his guest and
was most surprised to hear that he was Su Dongpo! The monk immediately
invited him to his guest room, told him to “please sit down” and said to
the assistant “good tea please.”
When Su Dongpo was about to leave, the chief monk asked him to write
a couplet for the temple. Without hesitation, Su Dongpo wrote:
坐，請坐，請上坐。
茶，敬茶，敬香茶。
Sit, sit please, sit down please.
Tea, tea please, good tea please.
Optimism has been positively correlated with adaptive humor styles and
negatively correlated with maladaptive humor styles (Yue et al., 2008). Higher
life satisfaction scores have been positively correlated with affiliative and self-
enhancing humor styles, but negatively correlated with self-defeating humor
(Dyck & Holtzman, 2013). Individuals who scored high on optimism also scored
higher on subjective well-being (Scheier & Carver, 1993). Humor styles have
been positively correlated with optimism and subjective happiness, but maladap-
tive humor styles have been negatively correlated with optimism and subjec-
tive happiness (Dyck & Holtzman, 2013; Martin, 2007). Optimists tend to use
problem-focused strategies to cope with stress and score higher on subjective
well-being, perhaps because of their use of adaptive humor (Scheier & Carver,
1993).
Happiness is defined as a prevalence of positive over negative affect and an
overall satisfaction with life (Argyle, Martin, & Crossland, 1989; Bassi & Fave,
2004). However, people who come from different societies with different cul-
tural values have different meanings for happiness (Bruner, 1990; Lu, 2001;
Lu, Gilmour, & Kao, 2001). In addition, personality, humor, and happiness
can have varying relationships (Cheng & Furnham, 2001; Costa & McCrae,
1980; Lu & Hu, 2005; Lu & Shih, 1997), and gender also may alter the role of
happiness (Alesina, Di Tella, & MacCulloch, 2004; Kelley & Stack, 2000). The
Chinese characters Fu-qi 福氣 or Fu 福, referring to happiness, include material
abundance, physical health, virtue, and peace (Lu et al., 2001). The Taoist Yin-
Yang theory promotes homeostasis, in which conflict and contradiction must
be harmonized to achieve happiness (Lu & Gilmour, 2004), so that the Chi-
nese always carry happiness and unhappiness. Life satisfaction can be measured
according to overall positive and negative affect (Diener, 1984). Resilience
indicates the capacity to recover quickly from adversities (Herrman, Stewart,
Diaz-Granados, Berger, Jackson, & Yuen , 2011; Masten & Obradovic, 2006).
Past studies focused on cultural aspects when measuring happiness argued that
Hong Kong and Taiwan do not totally represent traditional Chinese because
both are greatly influenced by Western economic globalization, political interac-
tions, strategic alliances, and systemic cultural communications (Lu, 2001; Lu &
Gilmour, 2004; Lu & Shih, 1997).
Chen and Martin (2007) compared China and Canada in reactions to the
HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), and the 7-item Coping Humor Scale (CHS:
Martin & Lefcourt, 1983) and the 90-item Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90:
Derogatis, 1994) were administered to 354 Chinese undergraduate students.
As in the original Canadian samples, four humor factors were found in the
HSQ: affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-defeating humor. Chinese
participants, compared against Canadian norms, reported significantly lower
scores on the HSQ subscales and CHS, particularly on aggressive humor. In
both the Chinese and Canadian samples, younger rather than older partici-
pants reported more use of affiliative and aggressive humor. Affiliative, self-
enhancing, and coping humor was negatively correlated, while aggressive and
self-defeating humor were positively correlated with the subscales and General
Symptomatic Index of the SCL-90. Regression results indicated that mental
health is more strongly related to self-enhancing, self-deprecating, and coping
humor than affiliative and aggressive humor. Overall, the findings supported
the theoretical structure and usefulness of the HSQ and CHS in the Chinese
context.
Tsui and Yue (2013, under supervision of Yue) examined the relationship
between humor styles, optimism, and subjective well-being among a sample of
200 Hong Kong undergraduate students. Participants completed a question-
naire consisting of the four-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS: Diener,
Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the six-
item Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R; Lai & Yue, 2000), and the 12-item
Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE; Diener et al., 2009).
Women students scored significantly higher in the use of adaptive humor styles,
optimism, and subjective well-being. Optimism had positive effects on both the
use of affiliative and self-enhancing humor and subjective well-being. Besides,
the use of affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor had positive effects on
optimism and subjective well-being. Christian participants used more affiliative
humor and self-enhancing humor and showed higher optimism and subjective
well-being.
Affiliative humor
.36*** .04
.24 *** Self-enhancing humor .34***
Total effect = .39***

Optimism Satisfaction with life
Direct effect = .50***
−.06 −.21***
Aggressive humor
−.15* .13
Figure 4.3 Path model of relations between optimism, humor styles, and satisfaction
with life
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Kwok and Yue (2015) examined the relationship between optimism, humor
styles, and subjective happiness among 701 undergraduate students in Hong
Kong, Beijing, and Nanjing, including 170 students from Hong Kong (71 men,
99 women) and 516 undergraduate students from Beijing and Nanjing (278 men,
242 women). Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire consist-
ing of the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the six-item LOT-R (Lai & Yue, 2000),
and four-item Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS: Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1997).
The results showed that women used more affiliative humor and less aggressive
humor and self-defeating humor. Students in Hong Kong used more affiliative
humor and less self-defeating humor than students in Beijing and Nanjing. Adap-
tive humor styles (affiliative and self-enhancing humor) were positively correlated
with optimism and subjective happiness, while maladaptive humor styles were
negatively correlated with optimism and subjective happiness. Optimism was
positively correlated with subjective happiness. Adaptive humor styles were also
found to strengthen the relationship between optimism and subjective happiness,
while maladaptive humor styles were found to weaken the relationship between
optimism and subjective happiness.
For both Hong Kong and mainland students, subjective happiness was posi-
tively correlated with affiliative humor, self-enhancing humor, and optimism, but
negatively correlated with self-defeating humor. However, for mainland students,
subjective happiness and aggressive humor showed no significant correlation.
Thus, mainlanders who used less aggressive humor suffered less from the nega-
tive impact of aggressive humor on subjective happiness (Yue et al., 2014).
Chan and Yue (2015) examined effects of humor styles on psychological capital
and subjective happiness in a sample of 253 Hong Kong adults who completed a
questionnaire including the 32-item HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the 4-item SHS
(Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1997), the six-item LOT-R (Lai & Yue, 2000), the ten-
item General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), the six-
item Brief Resilience Scale (BRS; Smith, Dalen, Wiggins, Tooley, Christopher, &
Bernard, 2008), and the Dispositional Hope Scale (DHS; Snyder et al., 1991).
Affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor were found to be positively associ-
ated with subjective happiness. Self-enhancing humor was the strongest predictor
of subjective happiness. Aggressive and self-defeating humor had no impact on
Table 4.2 Multiple regression analyses on humor styles (N = 701)
Optimism Subjective Happiness
Affiliative Humor .16*** .25***

Self-Enhancing Humor .40*** .39***
Aggressive Humor –.09* –.05
Self-Defeating Humor –.15** –.16***
R2 .28*** .34
Note 1: The regression coefficients are standardized.
Note 2: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 4.3 Correlations between humor styles, optimism, and subjective happiness in
Hong Kong and mainland China participants
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mainland Students
1. Affiliative – .38** –.12** –.04 .36** .42**
Humor
Hong Kong Students

2. Self-Enhancing .52** – .04 .16** .43** .42**
Humor
3. Aggressive –.06 –.17* – .39** –.10* –.08
Humor
4. Self-Defeating –.23** –.28** .48** – –.11* –.12*
Humor
5. Optimism .39** .54** –.34** –.41** – .56**
6. Subjective .52** .69** –.28 –.39 .74** –
Happiness
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Affiliative humor
.35*** .44***
.46*** Self-enhancing humor .49***

Optimism Subjective happiness
−.17*** −.14***
Aggressive humor
−.20*** −.19***
Figure 4.4 The path model showing linkages among optimism, humor styles, and
subjective happiness
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
subjective happiness. Overall, participants who had higher psychological capital

factors (optimism, self-efficacy, resilience, and hope) had greater subjective hap-
piness. Hope and optimism, among all psychological capital factors, best pre-
dicted subjective happiness (see Table 4.4).
In short, as Martin (2007) suggested, humor could act both as a cause and a
consequence of dynamic optimism. That is, an optimist, being a cheerful type,
would more humor in everyday event than gloomy a pessimist. A pessimist, on
the other hand, if humorous at all, would display a more cynical, snide, nasty
form of humor. Moreover, as optimism requires openness to new possibilities and
different perspectives, it enables one to laugh at dogmatic thinking in ourselves as
well as in others. Most humor involves seeing old things from unexpected angles
(Martin, 2007).
Table 4.4 Multiple regression analysis of subjective happiness on psychological capital
and humor styles (N = 253)
Model Standardized R2 F T P
Coefficients
(constant)
Psychological Capital
Optimism .34 5.60 <.001
Self-Efficacy –.08 –1.34 .18
Resilience .13 2.33 .02
Hope .29 4.16 <.001
Humor Styles
Affiliative Humor .00 –.01 .99
Self-Enhancing Humor .21 3.75 <.001
Aggressive Humor –.11 –2.17 .03
Self-Defeating Humor .11 2.04 .04
.57 40.31***
Note: Model predicted subjective happiness scores ***p < .001.
Humor, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-compassion

Self-esteem refers to a person’s overall subjective emotional evaluation of his or her
own worth. It is a judgment of oneself as well as an attitude toward the self. Studies
done in the West generally showed that self-esteem was positively correlated with
adaptive humor styles, but not with maladaptive humor styles (Martin, 2007; Martin
et al., 2003). In particular, an affiliative humor style was found to be positively related
to various measures of self-esteem (e,g., Kuiper, Melissa, Catherine, & Gillian, 2004;
Martin et al., 2003); self-defeating humor was found to be negatively associated with
self-esteem (e.g., Thorson, Powell, Ivan, & William,1997). People who preferred
self-defeating humor tended to have damaged self-esteem because of their deroga-
tory view of the self (Stieger, Formann, & Burger, 2011). Moreover, the endorse-
ment of negative self-evaluative standards leads to greater use of self-defeating humor
and results in lower levels of social self-esteem (Martin et al., 2003).
To examine the relationship between humor styles, self-esteem, and subjective
happiness in Chinese society, Yue et al. (2014) used the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003),
the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965), and the SHS (Lyu-
bomirsky & Lepper, 1997) in a sample of 300 Hong Kong undergraduates (men =
119; women = 181). Self-esteem was positively associated with affiliative and self-
enhancing humor and negatively associated with self-defeating humor. Greater
use of adaptive humor predicted higher self-esteem. In addition, subjective hap-
piness was significantly and positively associated with affiliative and self-enhancing
humor, suggesting that Chinese students who used more adaptive humor tended
to be happier. In fact, affiliative humor has been shown to enhance interpersonal
Table 4.5 Correlations between humor styles, subjective happiness, and self-esteem
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Affiliative Humor
2. Self-Enhancing Humor .33†
3. Aggressive Humor .05 .02
4. Self-Defeating Humor .01 .28† .25†
5. Self-Esteem .28† .39† –.004 –.12
6. Subjective Happiness .32† .44† –.04 .04 .41†
Note: Cronbach’s alphas for this sample are shown in boldface on the diagonal. †p < .01.
intimacy and social support networks (Martin et al., 2003). Self-enhancing humor
has been shown to establish positive mindsets for happiness, hope, and optimism
(Thorson, Powell, Sarmany-Schuller, & Hampes, 1997; Yue et al., 2010).
Although both men and women students considered humor as important
in everyday life, they reported that they did not possess humor. Instead, they
believed that humor was the purview of professionals such as comedians, talk
show hosts, and radio DJs.
Self-efficacy is the extent or strength of one’s belief in one’s own ability to
complete tasks and reach goals. According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is dif-
ferent from self-esteem: it refers specifically to people’s perceptions of their abili-
ties. Self-efficacy beliefs are self-referents and are directed to perceived abilities
to perform certain tasks successfully (Henson, 2001). Previous studies generally
show a positive relationship between constructs of humor and self-efficacy (e.g.,
Martin, 2003; Evans-Palmer, 2010). For instance, the use of humor was found
helpful to the development of counselor self-efficacy of the African-American
college counselors (Vereen, Butler, Williams, Darg, & Downing, 2006). The use
of positive humor was also found helpful in the enhancement of manager’s job
self-efficacy and creative performance (Arendt, 2006). To examine the relation-
ship between humor types and self-efficacy in Chinese society, Yip used the ten-
item GSES (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) and the 24-item Multidimensional
Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS, Thorson & Powell, 1993) among a sample of 180
Hong Kong adults. The results showed that sense of humor was positively and
significantly correlated with self-efficacy (r = .485, p < .01). Besides, self-efficacy
was positively and significantly correlated with all six subscales of the MSHS.
Self-compassion, on the other hand, means to extend compassion to one’s
self in instances of perceived inadequacy, failure, or general suffering (Neff,
2003) and helps individuals to feel cared for, connected, and emotionally calm
(Gilbert & Irons, 2005). There are three major components of self-compassion
(Neff, 2003), including self-kindness versus self-judgment, humanity versus iso-
lation, and mindfulness versus over-identification. Previous studies showed that
self-compassion was positively related to happiness and optimism but was neg-
atively correlated to emotion regulation difficulties and negative affect (Neff,
2003; Neff, Kirkpatrick, & Rude, 2007). Self-compassion was also found to be
Table 4.6 Correlations between life satisfaction, humor styles, and self-compassion
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Life Satisfaction 1
2. Affiliative Humor .075 1
3. Self-Enhancing Humor .333*** .327*** 1
4. Aggressive Humor –.030 .001 –.044 1
5. Self-Defeating Humor –.068 .092 .132* .398*** 1
6. Self-Compassion .355*** .198** .441*** –.174** –.297*** 1
Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
Table 4.7 Regression analysis with humor styles predicting life satisfaction and self-
compassion
Life Satisfaction Self-Compassion
Predictors β t-value β t-value
Affiliative Humor –.031 –.523 .080 1.513

Self-Enhancing Humor .362 5.964*** .462 8.693***
Aggressive Humor .036 .583 –.009 –.173
Self-Defeating Humor –1.27 –2.025* –.361 –6.574***
R2 .126*** .328***
Note: ***p < .001, *p < .05.
associated with more positive emotions, less negative emotions, and less sever-
ity in depressive symptoms in both healthy and clinical samples (e.g., Diedrich,
Grant, Hofmann, Hiller, & Berking, 2014; Hofmann, Grossman, & Hinton,
2011; MacBeth & Gumley, 2012; Neff & McGehee, 2010; Odou & Brinker,
2014). Taken together, self-compassion enables people to take a broader and
more positive view of what adversities they experience in life (Neff, 2003, 2011).
To examine the relationship between humor, self compassion and life satis-
faction, Ho and Yue (2015) used the 32-item HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the
five-item SWLS (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), and the 26-item
Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003) among a sample of 277 Hong Kong
Chinese (125 men, 152 women, with a mean age of 23.85 years old). The results
show that life satisfaction was positively correlated with self-enhancing humor
(r = .333, p < .001) and self-compassion (r = .355, p < .001) (see Table 4.8).
Besides, self-compassion had a relatively stronger positive correlation with self-
enhancing humor (r = .441, p < .001) than affiliative humor (r = .198, p = .001).
Likewise, self-compassion had a relatively stronger negative correlation with self-
defeating humor (r = –.297, p < .001) than aggressive humor (r = -.174, p = .004).
Regression analysis further showed that humor styles significantly predicted life
satisfaction (R2 = .126, F[4,272] = 9.769, p < .001) and self-compassion (R2 =
.328, F[4,272] = 33.251, p < .001) (see Table 4.9). Specifically, self-enhancing
humor positively affected life satisfaction ( = .362, t = 5.964, p < .001) and
Table 4.8 Multiple regression analyses on humor styles and loneliness
Loneliness
Emotional Social
Hong Kong (N = 159)

Affiliative Humor –.27*** –.29***
Self-Enhancing Humor –.09 –.24**
Aggressive Humor .09 .01
Self-Defeating Humor .21** .19*
R2 .16*** .21***
Hangzhou (N = 178)
Affiliative Humor –.16* –.25***

Self-Enhancing Humor –.12 –.24***
Aggressive Humor .08 .03
Self-Defeating Humor .14 .16*
R2 .09** .18***
Note 1: The regression coefficients are standardized.
Note 2: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 4.9 Regional differences in the use of humor styles
Hong Kong Hangzhou

(n = 159) (n = 178)
M SD M SD t
Affiliative Humor 38.14 7.43 41.23 9.24 –3.35***

Self-Enhancing Humor 32.71 6.68 35.92 7.86 –4.01***
Aggressive Humor 26.86 6.67 22.10 6.39 6.69***
Self-Defeating Humor 27.74 7.87 24.84 7.69 3.42***
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
self-compassion (= .462, t = 8.693, p < .001). Self-defeating humor negatively

affected life satisfaction ( = –.127, t = –2.025, p = .044) and self-compassion
(= –.361, t = –6.574, p < .001). Affiliative humor and aggressive humor did
not show any significant effect on life satisfaction and self-compassion (ps > .05).
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were partially supported.
In short, the present findings suggested that self-compassion and self-enhancing
humor could function as a mechanism through which resilience influenced life
satisfaction. That is, self-enhancing humor and self-compassion have positive
properties that may allow individuals to be flexible enough to deal with the
vicissitudes of life. In addition, higher life satisfaction among the participants
was related to higher use of self-enhancing humor. This implies that compas-
sion for the self and use of self-enhancing humor could enhance life satisfaction.
As self-enhancing humor is related to perspective taking (Martin, 2007), it may
enable a person to maintain a humorous outlook on life and see the funny side
of one’s problems.
Humor, loneliness, shyness, and social competence

Loneliness is the state of being alone and feeling sad about it. Peplau and Perlman
(1982) argued that loneliness was caused by deficiencies in the lonely person’s
social relationships either qualitatively or quantitatively. Weiss (1974) classifies
loneliness into emotional and social loneliness. Emotional loneliness is caused
by the lack of a close, intimate attachment to another person, whereas social
loneliness is caused by the lack of social network in sharing common interests and
activities. Previous studies generally showed that higher use of affiliative and self-
enhancing humors was significantly associated with a lower degree of loneliness,
while higher use of self-defeating humor was significantly associated with a higher
degree of loneliness (Çeçen, 2007; Hampes, 2005).
To examine the relationship between and humor and loneliness in Chinese
society, Yue, Wong, and Hiranandani (2014) used the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003)
and the ten-item Emotional and Social Loneliness Scale (ESLS, Wittenberg &
Reis, 1986) among a sample of 159 Hong Kong undergraduate students (72
men, 87 women, with a mean age of 22.97 years old) and 178 Hangzhou under-
graduate students (74 men, 104 women, with an mean age of 19.37). As shown
in Table 4.8, for the Hong Kong sample, the four humor styles were found
to significantly predict both emotional loneliness (R2 = .16, F[4, 154] = 7.08,
p < .001) and social loneliness (R2 = .21, F[4, 154] = 10.17, p < .001). Spe-
cifically, emotional loneliness was negatively predicted by affiliative humor (t =
–3.38, p = .001) but was positively predicted by self-defeating humor (t = 2.65,
p = .009). Social loneliness was negatively predicted by both affiliative (t = –3.85,
p < .001), and self-enhancing humor (t = –3.09, p = .002), but positively pre-
dicted by self-defeating humor (t = 2.38, p = .02).
For the Hangzhou sample, the four humor styles were found to significantly pre-
dict both emotional (R2 = .09, F[4,173] = 4.10, p = .003) and social loneliness
(R2 = .18, F[4, 173] = 9.57, p < .001). That is, emotional loneliness was negatively
predicted by affiliative humor (t = –2.09, p = .04). Social loneliness was negatively
predicted by both affiliative (t = –3.42, p = .001), and self-enhancing humor (t =
–3.36, p = .001), but positively predicted by self-defeating humor (t = 2.16, p = .03).
Taken together, affiliative humor could predict both emotional and social lone-
liness, whereas self-enhancing humor could only predict social loneliness in both
samples. Besides, self-defeating humor could predict both types of loneliness
(emotional and social) in the Hong Kong sample but could only predict social
loneliness in the Hangzhou sample. To explore its underlying cause for the differ-
ences in the two samples, follow-up independent t-tests were conducted to check
for mean differences between the Hong Kong sample and the Hangzhou sample
(see Table 4.2). The results showed that Hangzhou students used significantly
more affiliative humor (t[335] = –3.35, p < .001) and self-enhancing humor
(t[335] = –4.01, p < .001) than their counterparts in Hong Kong. Hong Kong
students, in contrast, used significantly more aggressive humor (t[335] = 6.69,
p < .001) and self-defeating humor (t[335] = 3.42, p < .001) than the Hangzhou
participants did. This is consistent with what has been reported by Yue and his
associates, that mainland students favored adaptive humor, while Hong Kong
students favored malapdative humor (Yue, Hao, & Goldman, 2010).
This study shows that affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor predicted
low social loneliness in both the Hong Kong and Hangzhou samples. This sup-
ports the finding obtained in Hampes’s finding (2005) that people who used
more affiliative and self-enhancing humor tended to feel less lonely. Also con-
sistent with their findings is that self-defeating humor predicted high emotional
and social loneliness. It is only applied in the Hong Kong sample, not in the
Hangzhou sample. In other words, Hong Kong participants who used more
self-defeating humor tended to feel emotionally and socially lonelier. This might
be attributed to the greater valuation of collectivism in mainland China than in
Hong Kong (Yue, 2010, 2011; Yue et al., 2010). That is, individual identities
are entwined with the collective identity and one’s identity was expected to place
their importance in reciprocity, interdependence and interpersonal harmony,
according to Confucius (Bond, 1996; Ho, 1995). Since the British ruled Hong
Kong for 50 years, it could be expected that the West to some extent influenced
the Hong Kong people’s beliefs towards identities. As a result, interdependency
and interpersonal harmony are more valued in mainland China than in Hong
Kong, as also reported by the greater use of affiliative humor and less use of
aggressive humor were expected in Hangzhou rather than in Hong Kong (Jiang,
Yue, & Lu, 2011; Yue, 2011).
Shyness is the tendency to feel awkward, worried, or tense during social encoun-
ters, especially with unfamiliar people. Shy people tend to have fewer friends and
less satisfactory interpersonal involvements (Jones & Russel, 1982). They also
tend to talk less and give an unfriendly impression to others (Cheek & Buss,
1981). They lack social self-confidence (Manning & Ray, 1993; Miller, 1995),
social skills (Miller, 1995), and experience high social anxiety (Garcia et al., 1991;
Cheek & Melchior, 1990; Schmidt & Fox, 1995). Hampes (2006) found that
shyness was positively correlated to self-defeating humor and was negatively cor-
related to affiliative humor.
To examine the relationship between humor, loneliness, and shyness in Chinese
society, Chau (2013, under the supervision of Yue), used the HSQ (Martin et al.,
2003), the ten-item Loneliness Scale (LS, Russell, 1996), and the 20-item Shyness
Scale (SS: Cheek & Melichor, 1985) among a sample of 201 Hong Kong (n = 152)
and mainland (n = 42) students. As shown in Table 4.10, loneliness was negatively
correlated with affiliative humor (r = –.593, p < .01), and self-enhancing humor
(r = –.557, p < .01), but was positively correlated with aggressive humor (r =
.589, p < .01) and self-defeating humor (r = .572, p < .01). Besides, shyness was
negatively correlated with affiliative humor (r = –.603, p < .01), and self-enhancing
humor (r = –.573, p < .01), but was positively correlated with aggressive humor
(r = .586, p < .01) and self-defeating humor (r = .578, p < .01). The patterns of
correlation applied for both samples, suggesting people in either Hong Kong or
Table 4.10 Correlations between humor styles, shyness, and loneliness (N = 201)
1 2 3 4 5 6
HSQ
1. Affiliative Humor –
2. Self-Enhancing Humor .851** –
3. Aggressive Humor –.450** –.372** –
4. Self-Defeating Humor –.448** –.441** .880** –
5. Shyness –.603** –.573** .586** .578** –
6. Loneliness –.593** –.557** .589** .572** .866** –
Note 1: HSQ = Humor Styles Questionnaire.

Note 2: *p < .05. **p < .01.
mainland China would feel less lonely and shy when they use affiliative and self-
enhancing humor and avoid using aggressive and self-defeating humor.
Besides, self-defeating humor has been found to exert little or no impact on
loneliness or shyness. That might be attributed to that self-defeating humor is cul-
turally incompatible to Chinese people. Specifically, as self-defeating humor is used
at the expense of the self and is characterized by the excessive use of self-disparaging
humor (Martin et al., 2003), it doesn’t save “face” and Guanxi in Chinese culture,
as it might do in Western society (Zhao et al., 2012). Thus, Chinese people, espe-
cially shy people, are not inclined to use self-defeating humor to reduce loneliness.
Finally, social competence refers to a person’s ability to get along with other
people. Socially competent individuals possess the social, emotional, and intellec-
tual skills and behaviors needed to adapt and succeed in society (Buhrmester, Fur-
man, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988). Individuals who have self-esteem, a construct
derived from individual assessment of one’s value and worth (Kwan, Bond, &
Singelis, 1997), respect themselves and their abilities. Thus self-esteem refers to
“the degree to which one values their self-image or the amount of approval one
has for the self-concepts they hold about oneself” (Rosenberg, 1979). Concern-
ing gender differences, a recent German study suggested that femininity is posi-
tively correlated with interpersonal competence in terms of self-disclosure and
emotional support. This indicated that women were more likely to have higher
competence (Kanning, 2006).
A recent Chinese study of middle school students used the Interpersonal
Competence Questionnaire (ICQ) and found that girls showed higher levels in
three of five domains: personal disclosure, emotional support, and conflict man-
agement. No gender differences were found in initiation and negative assertion
(Wang & Zou, 2006). Besides, Yip and Martin (2006) found affiliative humor
and self-enhancing humor to be positively correlated with social competence.
Study participants who scored highly on the two adaptive humor styles reported
significantly greater competence in initiating relationships and personal disclosure
(Kuiper, Grimshaw, Leite, & Kirsh, 2004; Yip & Martin, 2006). Not surprisingly,
a maladaptive humor style was negatively correlated with social competence.
Aggressive humor was associated with weak self-reported abilities in emotional
support and conflict management (Kuiper et al., 2004; Yip & Martin, 2006).
Finally, self-defeating humor was negatively correlated with negative assertion
(Yip & Martin, 2006).
Chung and Yue (2016) examined the relationship between humor, social
competence, and self-esteem among a sample of 312 Hong Kong students (142
men; 170 women) using the HSQ, the ICQ (Buhrmester et al., 1988), and the
RSES (Rosenberg, 1965). The results showed that students with higher social
competence tended to have a greater sense of humor, used more adaptive and
self-defeating humor styles, and used less aggressive humor. In addition, students
who frequently used self-defeating humor had higher social competence and
higher self-esteem. The relationship between social competence and self-esteem
was partially mediated by the use of adaptive humor styles and aggressive humor
in social contexts (see Figure 4.5).
The above findings imply that more socially competent individuals tended to
use more socially desirable humor, which enhanced their interpersonal relation-
ships and led to higher self-esteem. In contrast, less socially competent individu-
als tended to produce less socially adaptive humor, leading to lower self-esteem.
In addition, as humor is regarded as a sign of intellectual shallowness and social
informality by Confucian puritanism (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010), and since Chinese
people tended to use self-defeating statements to show humility and to comply in
a hierarchical relationship (Sun, 2008), the use of self-defeating humor could be
taken as an act of improper manner and personal immaturity (Yue, 2010, 2011).
Culturally speaking, the Chinese preference for socially adaptive humor styles,
particularly in the mainland sample, reflects the stronger concern for interpersonal
harmony, interdependence, and tradition, which are supposedly more pronounced
in mainland China (Bond, 1996; Kwan et al., 1997; Sun, 2008). Such values would
be particularly at odds with socially maladaptive humor styles that might, on the one
hand, create social strife, and, on the other hand, would draw unnecessary atten-
tion to the self – both representing devalued behaviors in a predominantly collec-
tivist or interdependent context (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). After all, affiliative
humor tends to be associated with collectivistic values, as they emphasize greatly
Affiliative humor
.57*** .28***
.55 *** Self-enhancing humor .28***

Social Self-esteem
competence Direct effect = .48***
.48*** .02
Aggressive humor
−.34*** −.10*
Figure 4.5 Path model of relations between social competence, humor styles, and
self-esteem
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
interdependence and interpersonal harmony (e.g., Chen & Martin, 2007; Yue et al.,
2010). Aggressive humor, in contrast, tends to be associated with individualistic
cultural values, as individuals value greatly independency and assertiveness (Kazar-
ian & Martin, 2006; Martin, 2007). In the present study, mainland students seem
to be more collectivistic than their Hong Kong counterparts in their use of humor.
Humor, romance, and marital satisfaction

Humor was found to be an important ingredient for romance and marital success
for both men and women (Lauer, Lauer, & Kerr, 1990). Humor could increase
intimacy among couples (Cann, Calhoun, & Banks, 1997; McBrien, 1993) and
was commonly used for resolving marital conflicts for intercultural marriages
(Donovan, 2004).
To examine how humor affected romantic relationship, Kwok and Yue (2010)
surveyed 152 Hong Kong undergraduate students (71 men, 81 women; 19 to
24 years old). Participants completed the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the 34-item
Relational Humor Inventory (RHI, DeKoning & Weiss, 2002), and the 7-item
Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS, Hendrick, 1988). Affiliative humor and
self-enhancing humor were found to be positively correlated with positive humor
use; aggressive humor and self-defeating humor were positively correlated with
negative humor use. Relationship satisfaction was positively correlated with the
use of positive and couple humor but was negatively correlated with negative
humor use. Couple humor predicted relationship satisfaction; affiliative humor,
self-defeating humor, and negative humor predicted relationship dissatisfaction.
Results showed that men were more likely to demonstrate aggressive humor
than women. Individuals who were currently in romantic relationships were
more likely to use positive couple humor, to be satisfied in their relationships,
and to perceive their partners as using positive humor. In contrast, individuals
who were not currently in romantic relationships were more likely to use negative
instrumental humor, to be dissatisfied with their relationships, and to perceive
that their previous partners used negative and instrumental humor.
In addition, Yiu (2013, under the supervision of Yue) used the HSQ and the
Enrich Marital Satisfaction Scale (EMSS, Fowers & Olson, 1993) among a sam-
ple of 106 Hong Kong adults (40 men, 66 women, with a mean age of 25.43
years old). Results showed that marital satisfaction was positively correlated with
affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor, and was negatively correlated with
aggressive humor and self-defeating humor. These findings echoed previous find-
ings that the use of negative humor predicted hostility in romantic relationships
(De Koning & Weiss, 2002; Shapiro & Gottman, 2004), while couple humor
predicted relational satisfaction (Ziv, 1988; Ziv & Gadish, 1989).
Why the Chinese favor affiliative humor and disfavor

self-defeating humor
The studies discussed above generally reveal that (1) the Chinese use affiliative
humor more frequently than they use self-enhancing humor, aggressive humor,
or self-defeating humor, and (2) the Chinese generally avoid self-defeating
humor. To account for these findings, I have identified a major cultural force: the
Confucian admonitions to speak benevolently and avoid shame.
The Confucian ethic of acting benevolently

To explain why the Chinese favor affiliative humor in social interactions, I want
to point to the Confucian ethic for acting benevolently, rooted in the Confucian
doctrines of benevolence and social harmony. Specifically, psychosocial homeo-
stasis is focused deeply on kinship, intimacy, and trust through verbalized com-
munication, emotional support, and mutual receptivity. As such, Chinese social
relations are characterized by relational formalism, interdependence, harmony,
fatalism, and determinism. That is, the Chinese are socialized to care for others’
opinions, respect social norms, and maintain conformity (Sun, 2008, pp. 51–54).
Confucius called this benevolence “ren” 仁. In fact, the central theme of Confu-
cius’s writings is the need to seek and maintain ren 仁 is. For example, he said in
Analects 《論語
( .裡仁》):
《論語.裡仁.第四章》：苟志於仁矣，無惡也。
If a man sets benevolent goals, he will not do bad things.
《論語.颜渊.第十六章》：君子成人之美，不成人之惡。小人反是。
A gentleman helps others to achieve their moral perfection but not their evil
conducts. A villain does the opposite.
《論語.裡仁.第五章》：君子去仁，惡乎成名？
If one loses benevolence, he is no gentleman.
《論語.裡仁.第五章》：己所不欲，勿施於人。
Do not do to others what you do not do to yourself.
So, for thousands of years, the Chinese ideal has called for benevolence, nobil-
ity, and empathy in social interactions and interpersonal relations. Conversations
must properly assure the maintenance of interpersonal harmony. Any humor
must be intelligent and kind so that no one will be hurt. Consequently, Chinese
humor is characterized by careful, insightful, “thoughtful smiles” indicating a
meeting of the hearts rather than casual “hilarious laughter” coming from the
belly (Lin Yu-tang, quoted in Kao, 1974).
The Confucian ethic of avoiding shame

To explain why the Chinese disfavor self-defeating humor, I want to point to the
Confucian ethic for avoiding shame, also rooted in the Confucian doctrines of
benevolence and social harmony. More specifically, for thousands of years, two
idioms warned against drawing contempt or humiliation. The first, zi qu qi ru
自取其辱, originating from Analects (論語.裡仁), means to avoid drawing con-
tempt. The second, zi tao mei qu 自討沒趣, means to avoid seeking fun. Both
idioms stress the need to guard against public contempt or humiliation.
For instance, when Zigong 子贡 asked Confucius how to make friends, Con-
fucius replied, “Speak truthfully and offer polite guidance. If you fail to gain a
friend, just give up. Bragging or trying too hard will only draw contempt.”
《論語 . 顏淵 . 第二十三章》
：子貢問友，子曰：
“ 忠告而善道之，
不可則止，毋
自辱焉,自作自受。 ”
On another occasion, Confucius said, “You will humiliate yourself if you serve
your master too obsequiously; you will distance your friend if you get too close
to him.”
《論語.裡仁.第二十六章》
：“事君數，斯辱矣，朋友數，斯疏矣。
”
Both quotations imply that dignity is essential in interactions with friends

or superiors. Actively seeking hedonism can bring humiliation. Thus, Chinese
would find it highly discomforting to use self-defeating humor because of the
risks to “face” among family and friends and threats to guanxi in social networks.
Furthermore, the use of self-defeating humor risks the appearance of being non-
benevolent, in defiance of the Confucian precepts of being sincere while talking.
《論語.學而.第三章》：巧言令色，鮮仁矣。
A clever tongue and fine appearance are rarely signs of benevolence.
In contrast, individualism-oriented Western societies may have entirely differ-

ent perceptions of self-defeating humor (Ho, Wang, Huang, & Chen, 2011). In
Western societies, people value competition and attention, so that modesty is seen
as “reduced self-recognition” rather than “no self-recognition at all” (Ho et al.,
2010). They are likely to see self-defeating humor as indicating that speakers have
sufficient self-confidence to laugh at themselves. In collectivism-oriented Ori-
ental societies, however, people value cooperation, social integration, and “face
and favor” gained through exchanges of good will and empathy (Hwang, 1987).
Speakers who use self-defeating humor then risk losing face by appearing to lack
self-confidence and modesty, which then embarrasses all parties involved. Mak-
ing fun of oneself is no way to make friends or resolve conflicts for the Chinese.
Summary
The studies reported above generally reveal that optimism, use of humor styles,
and subjective well-being are closely related. They also show that the Confucian
doctrines of the mean or moderation are the basis for the Chinese sensitivity to
social contexts and desire for socially harmonious humor (Zhao, 2001). Conse-
quently, the cultivated Chinese reject radical, aggressive, and self-defeating humor.
Instead, they approve of humor used for affiliation, self-enhancement, interper-
sonal harmony, guanxi, and face. The above findings also demonstrate that the
Chinese tend to favor affiliative humor and disfavor self-defeating humor. To
account for them, the Confucian ethic of acting benevolently and the Confucian
ethic of avoiding shame are used to explain the cultural justifications behind such
preferences. In later chapters, I will address these findings and concepts further.
References
Abel, M. H. (1998). Interaction of humor and gender in moderating relationships
between stress and outcomes. The Journal of Psychology, 132(3), 267–276.
Alesina, A., Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2004). Inequality and happiness: Are
Europeans and Americans different? Journal of Public Economics, 88(9), 2009–2042.
Apter, R. (1985). A peculiar burden: Some technical problems of translating opera for
performance in English. Meta: Journal des traducteurs Meta: Translators’ Journal,
30(4), 309–319.
Arendt, L. A. (2006). Leaders’ Use of Positive Humor: Effects on Followers’ Self-Efficacy
and Creative Performance. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.
Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personal-
ity and social encounters. In J. P. Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent Advances in
Social Psychology: An International Perspective (pp. 189–203). Amsterdam, North-
Holland: Elsevier.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman & Company.
Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. (2004). Adolescence and the changing context of optimal
experience in time: Italy 1986–2000. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(2), 155–179.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The New Managerial Grid: Strategic New
Insights Into a Proven System for Increasing Organization Productivity and Indi-
vidual Effectiveness, Plus a Revealing Examination of How Your Managerial Style
Can Affect Your Mental and Physical Health. Houston: Gulf Pub. Co.
Bond, M. H. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of Meaning (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains
of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55(6), 991.
Campbell, L., Martin, R. A., & Ward, J. R. (2008). An observational study of humor
use while resolving conflict in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 41–55.
Cann, A., & Calhoun, L. G. (2001). Perceived personality associations with differ-
ences in sense of humor: Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low senses
of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(2), 117–130.
Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Banks, J. S. (1997). On the role of humor appreciation
in interpersonal attraction: It’s no joking matter. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 10(1), 77–90.
Çeçen, A. R. (2007). Humor styles in predicting loneliness among Turkish university
students. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(6), 835–844.
Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality Psychology. Singapore: John Wiley &
Sons Singapore Pte. Ltd.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Bennett, E., & Furnham, A. (2007). The happy personality:
Mediational role of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 42(8), 1633–1639.
Chan, S. W., & Yue, X. D. (2015). Humour Styles, Psychological Capital and Subjec-
tive Happiness. Paper presented at the Hong Kong Psychological Society Annual
Conference, Hong Kong Shue Yan University, Hong Kong, 13 June.
Chau, C. C. (2013). Shyness, Humor Styles and Loneliness in Hong Kong Undergradu-
ate Students. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 41(2), 330.
Cheek, J. M., & Melichor, L. A. (1985). Measuring the three components of shyness.
In M. H. Davis & S. L. Franzoi (Co-chairs), Emotion, Personality, and Personal
Well-Being II. Symposium conducted at the annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, Los Angeles, USA.
Cheek, J. M., & Melchior, L. A. (1990). Shyness, self-esteem, and self-consciousness.
In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Social and Evaluation Anxiety (pp. 47–82).
New York: Plenum.
master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2001). Attributional style and personality as predictors
of happiness and mental health. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2(3), 307–327.
Chung, W. M., & Yue, X. D. (2016). Humor, Social Competence, and Self-Esteem:
A Study Among 312 University Students in Hong Kong. Unpublished thesis, City
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Cohen, H., & Dillingham, W. B. (Eds.). (1994). Humor of the Old Southwest. Athens,
GA: University of Georgia Press.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived
stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on
subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The revised neo personality inventory (neo-pi-r).
The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment, 2, 179–198.
Crawford, M. (2003). Gender and humor in social context. Journal of Pragmatics,
35(9), 1413–1430.
Cropley, A. J. (1992). More Ways Than One: Fostering Creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis
of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124,
197–229.
Derogatis, L. R. (1994). Symptom Checklist-90-R: Administration, Scoring & Procedure
Manual for the Revised Version of the SCL-90. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer
Systems.
Diedrich, A., Grant, M., Hofmann, S. G., Hiller, W., & Berking, M. (2014). Self-
compassion as an emotion regulation strategy in major depressive disorder. Behav-
iour Research and Therapy, 58, 43–51.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction
with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., &
Oishi, S. (2009). New measures of well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing Well-
Being (pp. 247–266). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Donovan, S. P. (2004). Stress and Coping Techniques in Successful Intercultural Mar-
riages. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, USA.
Dyck, K. T., & Holtzman, S. (2013). Understanding humor styles and well-being:
The importance of social relationships and gender. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 55(1), 53–58.
Erickson, S. J., & Feldstein, S. W. (2007). Adolescent humor and its relationship to
coping, defense strategies, psychological distress, and well-being. Child Psychiatry
and Human Development, 37(3), 255–271.
Evans-Palmer, T. (2010). The potency of humor and instructional self-efficacy on art
teacher stress. Studies in Art Education, 52(1), 69–83.
Eysenck, H. J. (1983). Stress, disease, and personality: The inoculation effect. In
C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Stress Research (pp. 121–146). New York: Wiley.
Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1993). ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale: A brief
research and clinical tool. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2), 176.
Furnham, A. (1997). The half full or half empty glass: The views of the economic
optimist vs pessimist. Human Relations, 50(2), 197–209.
García-López, L., Olivares, J., Hidalgo, M., Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (2001).
Psychometric properties of the social phobia and anxiety inventory, the Social Anxi-
ety Scale for Adolescents, the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale, and the Social
Avoidance and Distress Scale in an adolescent Spanish-speaking sample. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23(1), 51–59.
Gilbert, P., & Irons, C. (2005). Focused therapies and compassionate mind training
for shame and self-attacking. In P. Gilbert (Ed.), Compassion: Conceptualisations,
Research and Use in Psychotherapy (pp. 326–351). London: Routledge.
Gillham, J. E., & Seligman, M. E. (1999). Footsteps on the road to a positive psy-
chology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, S163–S173.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor struc-
ture. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26.
Goodwin, R., & Tang, D. (1991). Preferences for friends and close relationships part-
ners: A cross-cultural comparison. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(4), 579–581.
Gutiérrez, J. L. G., Jiménez, B. M., Hernández, E. G., & Pcn, C. (2005). Personality
and subjective well-being: Big five correlates and demographic variables. Personal-
ity and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1561–1569.
Hampes, W. P. (2005). Correlations between humor styles and loneliness. Psychologi-
cal Reports, 96(3), 747–750.
Hampes, W. P. (2006). Humor and shyness: The relation between humor styles and
shyness. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(2), 179–187.
Hayes, N., & Joseph, S. (2003). Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-
being. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 723–727.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93–98.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Teacher Self-Efficacy: Substantive Implications and Measure-
ment Dilemmas. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Educational Research
Exchange, College Station, TX, 26 January.
Herrman, H., Stewart, D. E., Diaz-Granados, N., Berger, E. L., Jackson, B., & Yuen,
T. (2011). What is resilience? The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(5), 258–265.
Ho, D. Y. (1995). Selfhood and identity in Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hindu-
ism: Contrasts with the West. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 25(2), 115–139.
Ho, M. L., & Yue, X. D. (2015). The Relationship Between Life Satisfaction, Resil-
ience, Humor Styles and Self-Compassion. Unpublished thesis, City University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Hofmann, S. G., Grossman, P., & Hinton, D. E. (2011). Loving-kindness and com-
passion meditation: Potential for psychological interventions. Clinical Psychology
Review, 31(7), 1126–1132.
Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal
of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.
John, O. E. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in
the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of Per-
sonality Theory and Research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford Press.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative
big five trait taxonomy. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 3, 114–158.
Jones, W. H., & Russell, D. (1982). The social reticence scale: An objective instru-
ment to measure shyness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(6), 629–631.
Joshanloo, M., & Nosratabadi, M. (2009). Levels of mental health continuum and
personality traits. Social Indicators Research, 90(2), 211–224.
Joubert, L. (1980). Treatise on Laughter (Vol. 45879). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of
Alabama Press.
Kanning, U. P. (2006). Development and validation of a German-language version of
the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ). European Journal of Psycho-
logical Assessment, 22(1), 43.
Kazarian, S. S., & Martin, R. A. (2006). Humor styles, culture-related personality,
well-being, and family adjustment among Armenians in Lebanon. Humor: Interna-
tional Journal of Humor Research, 19(4), 405–423.
Kelley, T. M., & Stack, S. A. (2000). Thought recognition, locus of control, and
adolescent well-being. Adolescence, 35(139), 531–550.
Koestler, A. (1964). The Act of Creation. New York: Macmillan.
Koning, E. de, & Weiss, R. L. (2002). The relational humor inventory: Functions of
humor in close relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(1), 1–18.
Kuiper, N. A., & Borowicz-Sibenik, M. (2005). A good sense of humor doesn’t
always help: Agency and communion as moderators of psychological well-being.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38(2), 365–377.
Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G. (2004). Humor is not always
the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-
being. Humor, 17(1/2), 135–168.
Kwan, V. S., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life
satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73(5), 1038.
Kwok, C., & Yue, X. D. (2010). Humor Styles, Humor Use in Romantic Relationships
and Relationship Satisfaction: A Study Among 152 Undergraduates in Hong Kong.
Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Kwok, C. H., & Yue, X. D. (2015). The Relationship Between Humor Styles, Optimism
and Subjective Happiness: A Study of 701 University Students in Hong Kong and Main-
land China. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Lai, J. C. (1995). The moderating effect of optimism on the relation between hassles
and somatic complaints. Psychological Reports, 76(3), 883–894.
Lai, J. C., & Yue, X. (2000). Measuring optimism in Hong Kong and mainland Chi-
nese with the revised Life Orientation Test. Personality and Individual Differences,
28(4), 781–796.
Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1998). Exploring paradigms: The study of
gender and sense of humor near the end of the 20th century. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The
Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality Characteristic (Vol. 3, pp. 231–270).
Lauer, R. H., Lauer, J. C., & Kerr, S. T. (1990). The long-term marriage: Percep-
tions of stability and satisfaction. The International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 31(3), 189–195.
Leung, H. Y., & Yue, X. D. (2010). A Study of Personality, Humor Styles on Perceived
Stress Among Hong Kong Students. Undergraduate thesis, City University of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong.
Liao, W. C. (2010). The relationship between ethics training and employee satis-
faction: A mediator of corporate responsibility practices. The Journal of Human
Resource and Adult Learning, 6(1), 9.
Lu, L. (2001). Understanding happiness: A look into the Chinese folk psychology.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 2(4), 407–432.
Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happiness: Individual
oriented and social oriented SWB. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 269–291.
Lu, L., Gilmour, R., & Kao, S. F. (2001). Cultural values and happiness: An East-
West dialogue. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 477–493.
Lu, L., & Hu, C. H. (2005). Personality, leisure experiences and happiness. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 6(3), 325–342.
Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997). Sources of happiness: A qualitative approach. The Jour-
nal of Social Psychology, 137(2), 181–187.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, R. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison:
A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 73(6), 1141.
MacBeth, A., & Gumley, A. (2012). Exploring compassion: A meta-analysis of the
association between self-compassion and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology
Review, 32(6), 545–552.
McBrien, R. J. (1993). Laughing together: Humor as encouragement in couples
counseling. Individual Psychology: Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice,
49, 419–427.
Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will, and ways: Their
relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general well-being. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 55(5), 539–551.
Manning, P., & Ray, G. (1993). Shyness, self-confidence, and social interaction. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 56(3), 178–192.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cogni-
tion, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.
Martin, D. M. (2004). Humor in middle management: Women negotiating the para-
doxes of organizational life. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2),
147–170.
Martin, R. A. (2003). Sense of humor. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive
Psychological Assessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures (pp. 313–326). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). Sense of humor as a moderator of the
relation between stressors and moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45(6), 1313.
37(1), 48–75.
Masten, A. S., & Obradovic, J. (2006). Competence and resilience in development.
Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 13–27.
Miller, R. S. (1995). On the nature of embarrassabllity: Shyness, social evaluation,
and social skill. Journal of Personality, 63(2), 315–339.
Moore, D., & Aweiss, S. (2003). Outcome expectations in prolonged conflicts: Percep-
tions of sense of control and relative deprivation. Sociological Inquiry, 73(2). 190–211.
Morreall, J. (1987). The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. New York: State Univer-
sity of New York Press.
Murdock, M. C., & Ganim, R. M. (1993). Creativity and humor: Integration and
incongruity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(1), 57–70.
Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-com-
passion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250.
Neff, K. D. (2011). Self-compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social and Person-
ality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 1–12.
Neff, K. D., Kirkpatrick, K. L., & Rude, S. S. (2007). Self-compassion and adaptive
psychological functioning. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 139–154.
Neff, K. D., & McGehee, P. (2010). Self-compassion and psychological resilience
among adolescents and young adults. Self and Identity, 9(3), 225–240.
Nevo, O. (1985). Does one ever really laugh at one’s own expense? The case of Jews
and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 799.
Odou, N., & Brinker, J. (2014). Exploring the relationship between rumination, self-
compassion, and mood. Self and Identity, 13(4), 449–459.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In L. A. Peplau &
D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Ther-
apy (pp. 1–18). New York: Wiley.
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G., & Levy, K.
N. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inven-
tory. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 365.
Pinquart, M., Rainer, K. S., & Linda, P. J. (2004). Moderating effects of adolescents’
self-efficacy beliefs on psychological responses to social change. Journal of Adoles-
cent Research, 19(3). 340–359.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image (Vol. 11, p. 326).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.
Rudowicz, E., & Hui, A. (1994). Creativity and Chinese socialization practices: A
study of Hong Kong Chinese primary school children. The Australian Journal of
Gifted Education, 3(1), 4–8.
ties. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3–4), 387–394.
Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific and
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and
factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20–40.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and
physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 16, 210–228.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The ben-
efits of being optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(1), 26–30.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from
neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the
Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063.
Schieman, S., Gundy, K. V., & Taylor, K. (2001). Status, role, and resource explana-
tions for age patterns in psychological distress. Journal of Health & Social Behavior,
42, 80–96.
Schmidt, L. A., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Individual differences in young adults’ shyness
and sociability: Personality and health correlates. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 19(4), 455–462.
Schwartz, N. (2007). Evaluating surveys and questionnaires. In R. J. Sternberg,
H. L. Roediger III, and D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical Thinking in Psychology
(pp. 54–74). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Optimistic self-beliefs as a resource factor in cop-
ing with stress. In S. E. Hobfoll & M. W. de Vries (Eds.), Extreme Stress and Commu-
nities: Impact and Intervention (pp. 159–177). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Seligman, M. (1998). What is the good life? APA Monitor, 29(10), 2.
Shapiro, A. F., & Gottman, J. M. (2004). The specific affect coding system (SPAFF).
In P. Kerig & D. H. Baucom (Eds.), Couple Observational Coding System (pp. 191–
207). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J.
(2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. Interna-
tional Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S.
T., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an
individual differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60, 570–585.
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than
others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 19(4), 463–481.
Stemberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity and wisdom. Jour-
Stieger, S., Formann, A. K., & Burger, C. (2011). Humor styles and their relationship to
explicit and implicit self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 747–750.
Sun, C. T. L. (2008). Themes in Chinese Psychology. Cengage Learning Asia.
Svebak, S. (1974). Revised questionnaire on the sense of humor. Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Psychology, 15(1), 328–331.
Tan, X. D., & Yue, X. D. (2016). Pathological Narcissism, Self-Esteem and Humor
Styles. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Tannen, D. (1986). Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American con-
versational and literary narrative. Direct and Indirect Speech, 3, 11–32.
Tannen, D. (1990, August). Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and domi-
nance. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 16(1), 519–529.
Thomas, K. M., Wright, A. G., Lukowitsky, M. R., Donnellan, M. B., & Hopwood,
C. J. (2012). Evidence for the criterion validity and clinical utility of the Pathologi-
cal Narcissism Inventory. Assessment, 19(2), 135–145.
Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993). Development and validation of a multidimen-
sional sense of humor scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(1), 13–23.
Thorson, J. A., Powell, F. C., Sarmany-Schuller, I., & Hampes, W. P. (1997). Psycho-
logical health and sense of humor. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(6), 605–619.
Tsui, W., & Yue, X. D. (2013). Humor Styles, Optimism and Subjective Well-Being.
Vereen, L. G., Butler, S. K., Williams, F. C., Darg, J. A., & Downing, T. K. (2006).
The use of humor when counseling African American college students. Journal of
Counseling and Development: JCD, 84(1), 10.
Wang, Y. C., & Zou, H. (2006). Qu Zhi-Yong Institute of Developmental Psychology,
Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875; The Revision of Interpersonal Compe-
tence Questionnaire in Middle School Students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 5,
20–25.
Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing
Unto Others (pp. 17–26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1986). Loneliness, social skills, and social percep-
tion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 121–130.
Wood, J. V., & VanderZee, K. (1997). Social comparison among cancer patients:
Under what conditions are comparisons upward and downward? In B. P. Buunk &
F. X. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, Coping, and Welt-Being: Perspectives From Social
Comparison Theory (pp. 299–328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Woodmansee, M. F. (2000). Mental Health and Prayer: An Investigation of Prayer,
Temperament, and the Effects of Prayer on Stress When Individuals Pray for Others.
Doctoral dissertation, Spalding University, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
Yang, K. S., & Bond, M. H. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with
indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case. Journal of Personality and
Yip, J. A., & Martin, R. A. (2006). Sense of humor, emotional intelligence, and social
competence. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 1202–1208.
Yiu, S. S. (2013). Humor Styles and Marital Satisfaction: A Study of Married Couples
in Hong Kong. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
23(3), 403–420.
24(4), 463–480.
Yue, X. D., Hao, X., & Goldman, G. (2010). Humor styles, dispositional optimism,
and mental health among undergraduates in Hong Kong and China. Journal of
Psychology in Chinese Societies, 11(2), 173–188.
China, 5–8 June.
Reports, 115(1), 65–74.
Zhang, J. X., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Personality and filial piety among college stu-
dents in two Chinese societies the added value of indigenous constructs. Journal of
Zhang, J. X., & Schwarzer, R. (1995). Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: A Chinese
adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychologia: An International Journal
of Psychology in the Orient, 38(3), 174–181.
Zhao, J., Kong, F., & Wang, Y. (2012). Self-esteem and humor style as mediators of
the effects of shyness on loneliness among Chinese college students. Personality
and Individual Differences, 52(6), 686–690.
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer.
Ziv, A. (1988). Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 57(1), 4–15.
Ziv, A., & Gadish, O. (1989). Humor and marital satisfaction. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 129(6), 759–768.
5 Humor and Chinese emotions
The Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon (Huangdi Neijin《黃帝內經》 )1

teaches that anger hurts the liver, joy hurts the heart, sadness hurts the lungs,
worry hurts the spleen, surprise hurts the kidney.
《黃帝內經》 : 怒傷肝，喜傷心，思傷脾，悲憂傷肺，恐驚傷腎。
The Chinese teaching that too much joy harms the heart has profoundly influ-
enced how the Chinese view humor, laughter, and mirthful emotions.
Traditional Chinese beliefs and emotional expressivity

Emotion is any highly intense mental experience that has high hedonic pleasure/
displeasure content (Cabanac, 2002). Chinese people practice the “seven emo-
tions and six desires” (七情六欲, qi qing liu yu) as a general way to regulate
emotions (Sun, 2013). The seven emotions are joy 喜, anger 怒, sadness 哀, hap-
piness 樂, fear 懼, love 愛, hate 惡, and desire 欲. The six desires are to live 生,
to avoid death 死, to taste 舌, to see 目, to hear 耳, and to smell 鼻. In Chinese
society, behavior is focused on affirming social order, not expressing emotions
(Potter, 1999). Chinese culture encourages emotional restraint (Bond, 1993).
Specifically, Chinese people consider emotions to be irrelevant and emphasize
somatic aspects of relationships instead (Kleinman & Good, 1985; Sun, 2013).
If we are to understand why the Chinese tend to avoid expressing emotions,
we must understand how they view their feelings (Sun, 2013). Potter (1988)
explained that the Chinese people perceive emotion to be irrelevant for achieving
goals or affecting others. Despite the differences in outer expressions, Tsai and
Levenson (1997) found that European Americans and Chinese Americans have
similar physiological responses to emotions.
As Confucian doctrine of moderation advocates balancing physical tension
with relaxation in channeling emotions via the practices of Rites (禮記, 254, 272,
294) (Xu, 2011), the Chinese have learned, for thousands of years, to express
emotions with lower frequency, intensity, and duration (Bond, 1993; Sun, 2008;
Yik, 2010). Moreover, due to the Confucian belief that lack of emotional control
or moderation reflects poorly on individuals and their families, the Chinese have
long been pushed to conceal their joy or sadness in front of others 喜怒不形於色
(Klineberg, 1938; Sun, 2013) so as to maintain interpersonal harmony. Thus
conceived, it is no wonder that Chinese traditional medicine argues that exces-
sive emotional expressions would upset the physical balance and potentially cause
organ dysfunction (Leung, 1988; Potter, 1999; Xu, 2011).
Humor and laughter

Laughter, an innate expression of human emotion, is accompanied by distinct
facial and vocal patterns (e.g., Chen, Chan, Ruch, & Proyer, 2013) and plays an
important role in daily life. The psychological literature regards laughter as an
expression of maturity. Gordon Allport, father of American personality psychol-
ogy, said that maturity included philosophically embracing a life that includes
laughter and personal satisfaction (Chen et al., 2013) such that the ability to
laugh at oneself indicated tolerance and maturity. In recent years, health care
providers and the general public have increasingly learned that humor and laugh-
ter bring positive health benefits (Martin, 2001). The notion that laughter has
salutary properties is very old, dating back at least to the proverb that “a merry
heart doeth good like a medicine” (Proverbs 17: 22; King James Bible). Gold-
stein (1982) traced the historical origins of this idea in the writings of a number
of physicians and philosophers beginning in the 13th century. Humor and laugh-
ter are now known to improve digestion, provide emotional catharsis, enrich the
blood, increase respiration and circulation, and exercise the muscles, lungs, and
inner organs (Martin, 2001).
However, the Chinese have tended to emphasize the concept of face in social
interactions and interpersonal relationship (Gabrenya & Hwang, 1996; Ho,
1974; King & Bond, 1985). To avoid conflicts, the Chinese usually modify their
thoughts and behaviors (Sun, 2013). Hence, if they are laughed at, they will
modify their behavior to avoid evoking mockery or disrespect (Sun, 2013). For
instance, Hofstede and Hofstede (2001) showed that when Taiwanese people
were targets of jokes, they felt sad, angry, and hurt and may show negative behav-
iors such as resistance, even when the perpetrator is a close friend, although to a
lesser extent. The importance of face intensifies the feeling, especially when the
lampooning occurs in a public setting. The study also revealed that Taiwanese
undergraduate students commonly joke with each other, but most do not know
how to deal with the embarrassment if they are the target of ridicule.
Confucian ethic of displaying proper humor and laughter

For thousands of years, the Confucian puritanical attitude toward humor and the
Chinese medical doctrine of moderation have determined what is proper joking
and laughter behavior (Xu, 2011; Yue, 2010, 2011).
Specifically, as I have shown in previous chapters, Confucius advocated caution
in the public use of humor to avoid jeopardizing formality and hierarchy in social
Humor and Chinese emotions 101
interactions. For example, according to the Grand Records-Confucius 《史記 ( ·孔
子世家.十七》 ), in 500 BC, when Confucius presided over a meeting between
Duke Ding of Lu State 鲁定公 Duke Jing of Qi State 齐景公, Duke Jing arranged
a performance by court jesters. Confucius was upset with their levity before the
dignitaries and asked Duke Jing to have the jesters executed and to scatter their
severed limbs. Obviously, Confucius strongly believed that public humor must be
proper and cautious. Ever since that incident, entertainment for dignitaries must
be formal and solemn (Xu, 2011).
Also according to Lunyu-Xianwen (Analects,《論語》《憲問篇》第十四), Con-
fucius asked Gongming Jia 公明賈 whether Gongsun Wenzi 公叔文子2 had ever
laughed. Gongming Jia replied that indeed Gongsun Wenzi laughed, but only
when he was truly delighted so that others would not tire of his laughter.
子問公叔文子于公明賈曰：“ 信乎，夫子不言，不笑，不取乎？” 公明賈對
曰：“以告者過也。夫子時然後言，人不厭其言；樂然後笑，人不厭其笑；義然
後取，人不厭其取。 ”.
This incident set the norm: a Ruist (儒家), or a Confucian gentleman (junzi
君子), should avoid laughing too freely (不苟笑) because too much mirth would
weary others and allow undue familiarity (Xu, 2011).
Furthermore, Confucius’s Private Words, Chapter Nineteen 《孔子家語》
( 第十
九) records that Confucius once ate millets before eating a peach, contrary to
custom. People laughed at him but covered their mouths with their hands.
《孔子家語》第十九篇： “孔子先食黍而後食桃，左右皆掩口而笑。 ”.
From then on, Ruists (儒家), or Confucians, covered their mouths with their
hands whenever they laughed (掩口笑), gradually forming the norm for social
interactions, particularly for women.
Consequently, Chinese people, particularly intellectuals, follow Confucian
doctrines in their approach to proper humor.
The Chinese medical doctrine of moderation

The Chinese medical doctrine of moderation has been another source of influ-
ence on Chinese proper use of humor and laughter. According to Medical Texts-
Flow compiled by Mengyao He 《醫碥 ( ·氣》何梦瑶)3: joy slows the body’s flow
气. Smooth flow prevents disease, but too much joy overexcites the flow. When-
ever individuals laugh so hard they cannot stop, their flow is blocked and they
may become angry.
“喜則氣緩·志氣通暢和緩本無病。然過於喜則心神散蕩不藏，為笑不休，為
氣不收，甚則為狂。 ”
As such, gentle laughter is an act of grace for good health. Wild laughter (浪
笑), on the contrary, harms health and public image (Sun, 2013). Therefore,
to assure that emotion is righteous, it must be expressed properly and moder-
ately, since going too far is as bad as falling short guo you buji 過猶不及 (Lunyu,
11.16). This is very much in line with the Chinese medical doctrine of xin ping
qi he 心平氣和 that advocates people to keep a calm mood so as to have a peace-
ful disposition (Tiquia, 2010). Or, as Defrancis put it (2010), one should try to
be even-tempered to become good-humored. A popular analogy for the perfect
balance between excess and deficiency is the precisely level (ping 平) arm of a
steelyard (heng 衡). This is also based on the Confucian ethic for avoiding shame
as discussed in Chapter 4 as well.
Only a few rare and sporadic empirical studies have examined emotional
responses to humor, particularly in Chinese society. Next, as I discuss elements of
humor and psychological responses, I refer to various studies that show contrasts
and comparisons between the Chinese and individuals of other Asian and West-
ern cultures. The studies help us better understand the unique Chinese approach
to humor forged by unique philosophical and medical histories. In what fol-
lows, I will review some empirical studies that examine role of humor in Chinese
expression of emotions.
Humor, loneliness, and shyness

Loneliness is defined as “a sense of isolation that persists over time” (Perse &
Rubin, 1990). Lonely people tend to lack communication skills, so they exclude or
detach themselves from social activities and may participate in one-sided relation-
ships. Loneliness is positively related to neuroticism and negatively related to extra-
version (e.g., Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Hensley, Martin, Margrett, MacDonald,
Siegler, & Poon, 2012; Saklofske & Yackulic, 1989). Emotional loneliness is caused
by the lack of a close, intimate attachment to another person; social loneliness is
caused by a lack of social networks of sharing interests and activities (Weiss, 1974).
Hampes (2005) examined the relationship between humor styles and loneliness
among students in a community college in the midwestern United States and
found that affiliative and self-enhancing humor were significantly associated with
low loneliness, while self-defeating humor was significantly associated with high
loneliness. Similarly, in a sample of Turkish undergraduates, Çeçen (2007) found
that affiliative, self-enhancing, and self-defeating humors were all significantly
associated with loneliness. In a sample of 342 undergraduate students in Jiangxi,
Sun, Guo, and Lee (2009) found that all four humor styles were significantly cor-
related with loneliness, with positive correlation with affiliative and self-enhancing
humor and negative correlation with aggressive and self-defeating humor.
Shyness refers to apprehension, discomfort, or awkwardness felt in the com-
pany of others. Shy persons tend to have fewer friends, experience less relational
satisfaction, are less likely to converse with others, and appear to be unfriendly
(Cheek & Buss, 1981; Jones & Russel, 1982). They also tend to have low self-
esteem, little self-confidence, and few social skills (Manning & Ray, 1993; Miller,
1995). Shyness naturally leads to loneliness (Russell, Peplau, & Ferguson, 1978;
Schmidt & Fox, 1995). Hampes (2006) reported that shyness was positively cor-
related with self-defeating humor and negatively correlated with affiliative humor.
Lung and Yue (2013, under supervision of Yue) used the HSQ (Martin, Puhlik-
Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003), the SS (Cheek & Melichor, 1985), and the LS
(Russell, 1996) to examine the relationship between humor, loneliness, and shyness
among a sample of 201 Hong Kong undergraduate students. The results showed
that loneliness and shyness were negatively correlated with adaptive humor styles
(affiliative and self-enhancing humor) but positively correlated with maladaptive
humor (aggressive and self-defeating humor) (see Table 5.1). This study echoed
previous findings that highly lonely people use more maladaptive humor styles,
while less lonely people use more adaptive humor styles (e.g., Sun et al., 2009). It
also provides empirical evidence of the Confucian ethics of performing benevolent
talks and avoiding shame in social interactions, as discussed in Chapter 4.
When shyness effects were adjusted, loneliness was negatively affected by affili-
ative humor ( = –.111, t = –2.547, p = .012) and self-enhancing humor
(= –.09, t = –2.09, p = .038) and positively affected by aggressive humor (= .123,
t = 2.87, p = .018) and self-defeating humor (= .107, t = 2.5, p = .013). Thus,
all four humor styles mediated the effect of shyness on loneliness. This implies that
shy people could counteract their loneliness by using more adaptive humor styles
and avoiding maladaptive humor styles.
Yue, Wong, and Hiranandani (2014) examined how social competence affected
loneliness via the mediation of humor styles among a sample of 159 Hong Kong
undergraduate students (72 men, 87 women) and 178 Hangzhou undergrad-
uate students (74 men, 104 women). Participants completed a questionnaire
consisting of the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the ICQ (Buhrmester, Furman,
Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988), and the ESLS (Wittenberg, Santarius, & Kulcinski,
1986). The results showed that Hong Kong students were significantly more
likely to use maladaptive humor styles and less likely to use adaptive humor styles
(see Table 5.2). Men used significantly more maladaptive humor styles. Adaptive
Table 5.1 Correlations between humor styles, shyness, and loneliness (N = 201)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Affiliative Humor –
2. Self-Enhancing Humor .851** –
3. Aggressive Humor –.450** –.372** –
4. Self-Defeating Humor –.448** –.441** .880** –
5. Shyness –.603** –.573** .586** .578** –
6. Loneliness –.593** –.557** .589** .572** .866** –
Note: *p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 5.2 Regional differences in the use of humor styles
Hong Kong Hangzhou

(n = 159) (n = 178)
M SD M SD T
Affiliative Humor 38.14 7.43 41.23 9.24 –3.35***

Self-Enhancing Humor 32.71 6.68 35.92 7.86 –4.01***
Aggressive Humor 26.86 6.67 22.10 6.39 6.69***
Self-Defeating Humor 27.74 7.87 24.84 7.69 3.42***
Note: ***p < .001.
Affiliative
.42*** −.17**
.41*** Self-enhancing −.09
Social Total effect = −.42***

Loneliness
competence
Direct effect = −.29***
−.20*** Aggressive .00
−.14* .17**
Self-defeating
Figure 5.1 Path model of relations between social competence, humor styles, and
loneliness. The coefficients in the figure are standardized.
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
32
30
High Humor
28
Loneliness
Medium
26 Humor
24 Low Humor
22
20
Low ICQ Medium High ICQ
ICQ
Social Competence
Figure 5.2 The regression lines predicting loneliness from social competence at
different levels of self-defeating humor
humor styles were found to be positively associated with social competence and
negatively associated with loneliness, while maladaptive humor styles were nega-
tively associated with social competence and positively associated with loneliness.
The use of affiliative and self-deprecating styles partially mediated the relation-
ship between social competence and loneliness. Self-defeating humor moderated
the effect of social competence on loneliness.
In addition, path analysis showed that when the effect of social competence was
adjusted, loneliness was negatively affected by affiliative humor (= –.17, t = –.23,
p = .001) and positively influenced by self-defeating humor ( = .17, t = 3.18,
p = .002). The effects of self-enhancing humor (= –.09, t = –1.63, p = .105)
and aggressive humor (= .00, t = .04, p = .968) were not significant. The effect
of social competence on loneliness remained significant (= –.29, t = –5.06, p <
.001). Both affiliative and self-defeating humor partially mediated the effect of
social competence on loneliness.
Humor and gelotophobia

Gelotophobia is defined as the fear of being laughed at (Ruch & Proyer, 2009).
Gelotophobes are likely to perceive laughter and smiles as being negatively and
aversively focused on themselves (Proyer, Ruch, & Chen, 2012), so that they feel
threatened when they hear laughter (Kazarian, Ruch, & Proyer, 2009). Geloto-
phobia can manifest as social withdrawal, low self-esteem, lethargy, an apparent
lack of humor (Ruch & Proyer, 2008a, 2009), and difficulty in finding life satis-
faction and pleasure. Gelotophobes tend to be uncomfortable using aggressive or
self-defeating humor and cannot appreciate the positive aspects of humor (Ruch,
Altfreder, & Proyer, 2009). The most likely victims of gelotophobia appear to be
women (Ruch, Proyer, & Popa, 2008).
Davis (2011) argued that gelotophobia was related to hierarchical levels: in
a strongly hierarchical society, being the target of laughter might be equivalent
to low status and authority. Thus, laughter would evoke fear in those of lower
hierarchical status by reminding them of their lower status. In such societies,
daring to laugh at someone of higher status might even have life-threatening
consequences.
One test showed that Chinese undergraduate students, perhaps because of
their “face-saving” nature (Cheung et al., 2001; Hwang, 1987), scored higher
on gelotophobia than did Austrian and Swiss undergraduate students (Proyer
et al., 2012). Meeting the cut-off points for gelotophobia were 5.8% of the Aus-
trian students, 7.10% of the Chinese students, and 7.23% of the Swiss students.
Gelotophobia was negatively associated with life satisfaction and life engagement
(i.e., flow experiences) in all three samples. For the Chinese sample, gelotophobia
was related to reduced pleasure and meaning in life.
Chen and Liu (2012) examined the relationship between gelotophobia and
thinking styles4 among a sample of 431 undergraduate students in Guangzhou
(250 women, 181 men) who completed self-report measures of the gelotophobia
scale (GELOPH-15) (Ruch & Proyer, 2008b) and thinking styles scale (Think-
ing Styles Inventory – Revised) (TSI-R) (Sternberg, Wagner, & Zhang, 2003).
Gelotophobia was negatively and significantly related to four Type I thinking
styles (legislative, judicial, liberal, and hierarchical thinking) and one Type III
thinking style (external), while it was positively and significantly related to a Type
II thinking style (conservative). Thinking styles uniquely explained 18% of the
total variance in gelotophobia scores, suggesting that people might counter gelo-
topobia by changing some malleable aspects of their thinking styles (Fan, 2006;
Zhang & Sternberg, 2006).
Hiranandani and Yue (2014) examined the relationship between humor styles
and gelotophobia in a Chinese–Indian sample. They predicted that individuals
who used more adaptive humor (affiliative and self-enhancing humor) would be
less vulnerable to gelotophobia and those who used more maladaptive humor
(aggressive and self-defeating humor) would be more vulnerable to gelotopho-
bia. They also expected that low self-esteem would predict high vulnerability to
gelotophobia and vice versa. Participants included 203 undergraduate students
(57.6% women, 42.4% men), mean age 20.82 years old; 101 students were Chi-
nese (24.8% men, 75.2% women), mean age 20.57 years old (SD = 1.53); 102
students were Indian (59.8% men, 40.2% women), mean age 21.06 years old (SD
= 1.69). They completed the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the Gelotophobia Scale
(GELOP-15, Ruch & Proyer, 2008) and the RSES (Rosenberg, 1965).
The results showed that for the Chinese sample, gelotophobia was negatively
and significantly correlated with affiliative humor but positively and significantly
correlated with self-enhancing humor and aggressive humor (see Table 5.3).
Self-esteem was negatively and significantly correlated with affiliative humor and
self-enhancing humor but positively correlated with self-defeating humor. For
the Indian sample, gelotophobia was negatively and significantly correlated with
affiliative humor but positively and significantly correlated with self-defeating
humor and self-esteem. Self-esteem was negatively and significantly correlated
with affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor but positively correlated with
Table 5.3 Humor styles, gelotophobia, and self-esteem for the Chinese and the
Indians
1 2 3 4 5 6
Indians
1. Affiliative Humor – .42** –.04 –.13 –.35** –.34**
2. Self-Enhancing Humor .29** – .07 .19 –.33** .01
Chinese
3. Aggressive Humor .22* .08 – .25* .11 .11

4. Self-Defeating Humor .14 .39** .27** – .22* .36**
5. Self-Esteem –.20* –.28** .01 .27** – .24*
6. Gelotophobia –.32** –.17 0.7 .16 .47** –
Note 1: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Note 2: Upper diagonal indicates Indians; lower diagonal indicates Chinese.
self-defeating humor. Taken together, these findings support the expected associ-
ation between gelotophobia and self-esteem, particularly for the Chinese sample.
Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show how humor styles mediate self-esteem and gelotopho-
bia. For the Indian sample, both affiliative humor and self-defeating humor could
mediate the relationship between self-esteem and gelotophobia. Specifically, the
positive association between gelotophobia and self-esteem in the pathway suggests
that Indian students with higher self-esteem demonstrate less use of affiliative
Affiliative
−.35*** −.29**

Self-esteem Gelotophobia
Direct effect = .14
.22* .32**
Self-defeating
Figure 5.3 Mediating effects of humor styles on self-esteem and gelotophobia

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Affiliative
–.20* –.24**

Self-esteem Gelotophobia
Figure 5.4 Mediating effects of humor styles on self-esteem and gelotophobia

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
humor, which in turn induces higher gelotophobia. An alternative pathway could
be that Indians with higher self-esteem engage more in self-defeating humor,
which induces higher gelotophobia as well. For the Chinese sample, only affilia-
tive humor could mediate the relationship between self-esteem and gelotophobia.
That is, Chinese students with higher self-esteem showed less use of affiliative
humor, which leads to higher gelotophobia. These findings imply that Chinese
and Indian students with higher self-esteem would use less affiliative humor and
be more vulnerable to gelotophobia. Indian students with higher self-esteem
would use more self-defeating humor and be more vulnerable to gelotophobia.
This study revealed that Chinese students displayed significantly more gelo-
tophobia than Indian students, perhaps because Chinese people used much
less humor in everyday life and were thus more afraid of being humor targets.
Chinese and Indian students showed no significant difference in their use of
aggressive and self-defeating humor styles, perhaps because both cultures value
collectivism (Sinha, Vohra, Singhal, Sinha, & Ushashree, 2002; Tamis-LeMonda,
Way, Hughes, Yoshikawa, Kalman, & Niwa, 2008).
This study echoed the observation that gelotophobes would use or appreciate
more affiliative and self-enhancing humor (Ruch et al., 2009) by confirming the
expected negative association between gelotophobia and adaptive humor styles
and the positive association between gelotophobia and maladaptive humor styles,
particularly for the Chinese sample. The study does not, however, confirm the
expected negative association between gelotophobia and self-esteem, particularly
for Chinese students. The mediating effects of humor styles could explain the
finding; that is, both Chinese and Indian students with higher self-esteem would
use less affiliative humor and be more vulnerable to gelotophobia, and Indian
students with higher self-esteem would use more self-defeating humor and be
more vulnerable to gelotophobia.
Humor and self-compassion

Self-compassion means that individuals extend compassion to themselves in the
face of perceived inadequacy, failure, or general suffering. Self-compassion has
three major components: self-kindness versus self-judgment, a sense of com-
mon humanity versus isolation, and mindfulness versus over-identification (Neff,
2003). Self-kindness means that individuals use gentleness and understanding
rather than criticism when judging their personal sufferings and inadequacies.
Sense of common humanity means that individuals recognize that they share
common experiences with others and do not suffer alone. Mindfulness means
that they take a balanced approach to negative emotions, neither suppressing,
exaggerating, nor over-identifying with their suffering. All components of self-
compassion are ways to escape being swept away by negativity (Neff, 2003).
Self-compassion has been shown to be positively related to happiness, opti-
mism, and positive affect but negatively correlated to emotion regulation dif-
ficulties and negative affect (Neff, 2003, Neff, Kirkpatrick, & Rude, 2007).
Self-compassion has also been shown to be associated with less severe depres-
sive symptoms in both healthy and clinical samples (e.g., Diedrich et al., 2014;
Hofmann, Grossman, & Hinton, 2011; MacBeth & Gumley, 2012; Neff &
McGehee, 2010; Odou & Brinker, 2014).
Ho and Yue (2015) examined the relationship between humor, life satisfac-
tion, and self-compassion among a sample of 277 Hong Kong adults (125 men,
152 women; mean age 23.85 years old). They used the HSQ (Martin et al.,
2003), the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS: Neff, 2003), and the Chinese version of
the CSLS (Yuen, 2002). They found that self-compassion was positively associ-
ated with adaptive humor styles (affiliative and self-enhancing humor) and life
satisfaction, but negatively associated with negative humor styles (aggressive and
self-defeating humor) and life satisfaction (see Table 5.4).
Regression analyses further showed that self-enhancing humor positively
affected life satisfaction (= .362, t = 5.964, p < .001) and self-compassion (=
.462, t = 8.693, p < .001), whereas self-defeating humor negatively affected life
satisfaction (= –.127, t = –2.025, p = .044) and self-compassion (= –.361, t =
–6.574, p < .001) (see Table 5.4). Affiliative humor and aggressive humor did not
significantly affect life satisfaction and self-compassion (ps > .05) (see Table 5.5).
In addition, a significant mediating effect was found for the four humor styles
on the relationship between self-compassion and life satisfaction (see Figure 5.5).
Specifically, self-enhancing humor partially mediated the effect of self-compassion
on life satisfaction, i.e., self-compassion and self-enhancing humor could enhance
life satisfaction.
Table 5.4 Correlations between life satisfaction, humor styles, and self-compassion
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Life Satisfaction 1
2. Affiliative Humor .075 1
3. Self-Enhancing Humor .333*** .327*** 1
4. Aggressive Humor –.030 .001 –.044 1
5. Self-Defeating Humor –.068 .092 .132* .398*** 1
6. Self-Compassion .355*** .198** .441*** –.174** –.297*** 1
Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
Table 5.5 Regression analysis with humor styles predicting life satisfaction and
self-compassion
Life Satisfaction Self-Compassion
Predictors  t-value  t-value
Affiliative Humor –.031 –.523 .080 1.513

Self-Enhancing Humor .362 5.964*** .462 8.693***
Aggressive Humor .036 .583 –.009 –.173
Self-Defeating Humor –1.27 –2.025* –.361 –6.574***
R2 .126*** .328***
Note: ***p < .001, *p < .05.
Affiliative humor
.198** .005
Self-enhancing
.441*** humor .219***

Self-compassion Life satisfaction
–.174** Aggressive humor .032
–.297*** .041
Self-defeating
humor
Figure 5.5 Path model of relations between self-compassion, humor styles and life
satisfaction
Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01.
In short, this study showed that self-enhancing humor and self-compassion

led to more positive judgments about life and thus higher life satisfaction. In
fact, self-enhancing humor and self-compassion shared similar characteristics,
although they used a different mechanism in influencing life satisfaction judg-
ment. For self-enhancing humor, a humorous outlook on life has a broadening
effect, while self-kindness has a broadening effect on self-compassion, recogniz-
ing common humanity, and a balanced mindset. Neff (2003) contended that
self-compassion stemmed not from positive self-evaluations but from recognizing
the need to be kind to the self in distressful situations. Self-compassionate people
exhibited emotional equitability when faced with negative thoughts about them-
selves or their lives (Leary, Tate, Adams, Batts Allen, & Hancock, 2007).
Humor and playfulness

Playfulness is defined as the “predisposition to frame (or reframe) a situation in
such a way as to provide oneself (and possibly others) with amusement, humor,
and/or entertainment” (Barnett, 2007, p. 955). Playfulness is generally consid-
ered an inborn trait that allows individuals to inject enjoyment into life (Barnett,
2007; Glynn & Webster, 1992; Guitard, Ferland, & Dutil, 2005; Proyer, 2012a).
Playfulness is found in all age groups (Proyer, 2013b), but as people mature, their
childhood play is converted to playfulness attitudes (Solnit, 1998).
Playfulness has been linked to pleasure and positive emotions (Guitard et al.,
2005), with benefits that counteract and prevent psychological, behavioral, and
physical problems (Reddy, Files-Hall, & Schaefer, 2005). For instance, play-based
interventions among children effectively reduce hospital fears (Rae, Worchel,
Upchurch, Sanner, & Daniel, 1989), darkness phobias (Santacruz, Mendez, &
Sanchez-Meca, 2006), separation anxiety (Barnett, 1984), and aggressive behaviors
(Ray, Blanco, Sullivan, & Holliman, 2009). Playfulness increases positive emotions
and decreases negative emotions (Chang, Qian, & Yarnal, 2013). Depression, for
example, is shown to be an outcome of a lack of playfulness (e.g., Joseph, Linley,
Harwood, Lewis, & McCollam, 2004; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999).
Highly playful adults have been found to be outgoing, humorous, and happy (Bar-
nett, 2007). Playfulness also contributes to life satisfaction and engagement (Proyer,
2013a) and is a strong predictor of psychological well-being, physical wellness, cre-
ativity, and academic achievement (e.g., Proyer, 2011, 2013a; Tegano, 1990).
Playfulness has been found to be associated with the endorsement of plea-
surable orientations (Proyer, 2012c), enjoyment of leisure activities (Mannell,
1984), and reduced boredom (Barnett, 2011). Although the link between adult
playfulness and psychological well-being indicators has been demonstrated con-
sistently, few have investigated how the relationships work. Questions remain
regarding how playful adults would express their playfulness through humor
(e.g., Barnett, 2007). In other words, playful adults may manifest their playful-
ness by joking around and telling funny stories, thus enhancing their social and
mental well-being.
Yu, Wu, Chen, and Lin (2007) examined the relationship between playful-
ness with job satisfaction and job performance in a sample of 1,493 Taiwanese
employees from the fields of art, media, education, hi-tech, agriculture, and
manufacturing. Playfulness was found to be positively related to job satisfac-
tion, innovative behaviors, and job performance. Playfulness trait and playful-
ness state had differential relationships with outcome variables: playfulness was a
means for socializing, releasing tension, and stimulating creativity at work. This
echoes Lieberman’s observation that playfulness significantly contributes to
psychological well-being, cognitive abilities, social skills, and creativity at work
(Lieberman, 1977).
Yue, Leung, and Hiranandani (2016) examined the relationship between adult
playfulness, humor, and depression among a sample of 166 Hong Kong under-
graduate students (66 men, 100 women) and 159 Guangzhou undergraduate
students (48 men, 105 women) using the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the ten-
item Short Measure for Adult Playfulness (SMAP) (Proyer, 2012b), and the
Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS: Zung, 1965) (see Table 5.6). Hong
Kong students rated themselves as being slightly less playful but significantly
more depressed than their counterparts in Hong Kong (t (309) = 4.45, p <
.001.). Hong Kong students also scored significantly lower on use of self-enhanc-
ing humor (t(318) = –3.25, p < .001), but significantly higher on use of self-
defeating humor (t(300.64) = 4.77, p < .001) and aggressive humor (t(318) =
3.66, p < .001) (see Table 5.6).
Table 5.6 Regional differences between Hong Kong and Guangzhou students in
adult playfulness, depression, and humor styles
Hong Kong Students Guangzhou Students

(n = 166) (n = 159)
Mean SD Mean SD t-value
Adult playfulness 23.88 5.20 24.44 5.52 –.94

Depression 40.41 8.08 36.17 8.71 4.45***
Affiliative humor 38.99 6.60 39.79 8.37 –.93
Self-enhancing humor 33.21 6.81 35.88 7.74 –3.25***
Self-defeating humor 28.28 7.05 25.29 7.55 4.77***
Aggressive humor 26.24 6.02 22.67 7.31 3.66***
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Besides, adult playfulness was negatively correlated with depression (r[307] =

–.22, p < .01). Affiliative humor (r[308] = .53, p < .01) and self-enhancing
humor (r[316] = .40, p < .01) were positively associated with playfulness. No
significant correlation was found between playfulness and self-defeating humor
(r[316] = .02, p = .75) and aggressive humor (r[317] = –.09, p = .13). Nonethe-
less, depression was negatively correlated with affiliative humor (r[300] = –.37,
p < .01) and self-enhancing humor (r[306] = –.38, p < .01), but was positively
correlated with self-deprecating (r[307] = .20, p < .01) and aggressive humor
(r[307] = .38, p < .01).
Depression was significantly related to affiliative humor (B = –.39, t = –6.42,
p < .001), self-enhancing humor (B = –.39, t = –6.25, p < .001), aggressive
humor (B = .43, t = 6.30, p < .001), and self-defeating humor (B.18, t = 2.74,
p < .001) (see Table 5.6). Humor styles had a significant total mediating effect
on the relationship between playfulness and depression (95%, CI[-2.41, -.86]).
Particularly, affiliative humor (95%, CI[–1.96, –.47]) and self-enhancing humor
(95%, CI[–1.24, –.45]) were significant mediators between the relationship. The
results suggest that affiliative and self-enhancing humor styles mediate the rela-
tionships between playfulness and depression (see Figure 5.6).
Note: Model 1 predicted depression on adult playfulness scores, Model 2 pre-
dicted Humor styles on Adult playfulness; Model 3 predicted Depression scores;
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Moreover, the Hong Kong students used significantly less self-enhancing
humor and significantly more aggressive and self-defeating humor styles than
their counterparts in Guangzhou. This finding echoed previous findings that
Hong Kong Chinese tended to use significantly more maladaptive humor and
less adaptive humor than mainland Chinese (Yue, Hao, & Goldman, 2010; Yue
et al., 2014), perhaps due to the greater valuation of collectivism in mainland
China, implying that Guangzhou students place more value on interpersonal har-
mony, interdependence, and saving others face (Bond, 1996; Kwan, Bond, &
Singelis, 1997; Sun, 2008; Yue, 2011; Yue et al., 2014). Thus, aggressive humor
Affiliative humor
–.22***
.53***
Self-enhancing humor –.29***

.40***
Direct effect = –.22***

Adult playfulness Depression
–.09 .23***
Aggressive humor
.02 .14*
Figure 5.6 Path model for relationships between adult playfulness, humor styles, and
depression
Note: *p < .05, **p <.01, ***p < .001.
was the worst predictor of both playfulness and depression, perhaps because
the Chinese moderated interpersonal conflicts and tended to use less aggressive
humor and more affiliative humor (Yue, 2010, 2011). The Chinese are highly
attuned to face values and interpersonal harmony in social interactions (Cheung
et al., 2001; Hiranandani & Yue, 2014; Hwang, 1987; Yue, 1994; Yue, Liu,
Jiang, & Hiranandani, 2014).
This study also shows that affiliative and self-enhancing humor significantly
predicted adult playfulness, implying that highly playful people preferred using
affiliative and self-enhancing humor rather than self-deprecating and aggres-
sive humor. This affirms that affiliative and self-enhancing humor are negatively
correlated with depression, echoing previous findings that low depression is
significantly related to affiliative and self-enhancing humor (Frewen, Brinker,
Martin, & Dozois, 2008; Kuiper & McHale, 2009). Just as playfulness was found
to decrease depression and increase positive emotions (Chang et al., 2013), the
study confirms that depression or depressed symptoms could be an outcome of
lack of playfulness (Joseph et al., 2004; Watson et al., 1999).
In short, this study confirms the expected positive relationship between play-
fulness and humor (Barnett, 2007; Proyer & Ruch, 2011). It also reveals that
affiliative and self-enhancing humor significantly and negatively mediate the rela-
tionship between adult playfulness and depression. Since play behaviors decrease
among adults, playful adults could manifest their playfulness by using adaptive
humor styles (Barnett, 2007) for reduced depression levels (Chang et al., 2013;
Frewen et al., 2008; Kuiper & McHale, 2009). Alternatively, affiliative and
self-enhancing humor could strengthen the relationship between adult playful-
ness and depression.
Summary
Traditional Chinese medicine identifies seven kinds of emotions (joy, anger,
worry, happiness, sadness, fear, and terror) as normal human expressions and
advocates them to be complementary rather than contradictory to each other.
As such, it calls for xin ping qi he 心平氣和 in one’s emotional regulation, i.e.,
to keep a calm mind so as to obtain a peaceful disposition. Alternatively speak-
ing, one should try to be even-tempered to become good-humored (Defrancis,
2010). Ancient Confucian teachings and Chinese classic medicine have caused
the Chinese to have unique cultural attitude toward excessive emotional expres-
sions. Besides, Chinese culture is strongly collectivist, authority-oriented, and
relationship-focused (Bond, 2010; Sun, 2013). Consequently, the Chinese have
adopted interdependent and holistic approaches to social harmony, and have
eschewed frivolous emotional expressivity. Thus, to understand the Chinese
approach to humor, one needs to recognize the Chinese traditional medicine’s
emphasis on moderating different emotions. The studies reviewed above provide
empirical evidence to importance of performing benevolent talks and avoiding
shame while joking. After all, maintaining a moderate mood and elegant laughter
have been central to Confucian ethics for social formality and proper personal
conduct (Bond, 2010; Sun, 2013).
Notes
1 Huang Di Nei Jing 《黃帝內經》
( Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon) is the earliest
and most important written work of traditional Chinese medicine. It was compiled
about 2,200 years ago during the Warring States period (475–221 BC) and is con-
sidered to be the most fundamentally representative medical text.
2 Gongsun Wenzi (公叔文子，又名公叔发, 公叔拔) was a minister in the state of Wei
卫国 during the spring and autumn period. He was the grandson of Duke Xian of
Wei (卫献公).
3 Medical Texts 《醫碥》was compiled by Mengyao He 何夢瑤 (1692–1764) in the
Qing dynasty. It has seven volumes and 44 chapters.
4 Thinking styles refer to preferred ways of judging daily events: Type I thinking
styles include cognitively complex creative, legislative, judicial, hierarchical, global,
and liberal styles; Type II styles are less complex, more normative executive, local,
monarchic, and conservative; and Type III styles are oligarchic, anarchic, inter-
nal, and external (Zhang, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005a; Zhang & Postiglione, 2001;
Zhang & Sternberg, 2000).
References
Barnett, L. A. (1984). Young children’s resolution of distress through play. Child
Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 25(3), 477–483.
Barnett, L. A. (2007). The nature of playfulness in young adults. Personality and
Individual Differences, 43(4), 949–958.
Barnett, L. A. (2011). How do playful people play? Gendered and racial leisure perspec-
tives, motives, and preferences of college students. Leisure Sciences, 33(5), 382–401.
Bond, M. H. (1993). Emotions and their expression in Chinese culture. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 17(4), 245–262.
University Press.
Cabanac, M. (2002). What is emotion? Behavioural Processes, 60(2), 69–83.
Çeçen, A. R. (2007). Humor styles in predicting loneliness among Turkish university
students. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(6), 835–844.
Chang, P. J., Qian, X., & Yarnal, C. (2013). Using playfulness to cope with psycho-
logical stress: Taking into account both positive and negative emotions. Interna-
tional Journal of Play, 2(3), 273–296.
Chen, G. H., & Liu, Y. (2012). Gelotophobia and thinking styles in Sternberg’s
theory. Psychological Reports, 110(1), 25–34.
Chen, H. C., Chan, Y. C., Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2013). Being laughed at and
laughing at others in Taiwan and Switzerland: A cross-cultural perspective. Modern
and Contemporary Approaches to Humour in China, 2, 215–229.
Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2002). Personality, peer relations, and self-confidence
as predictors of happiness and loneliness. Journal of Adolescence, 25(3), 327–339.
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., &
Xie, D. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the Five-Factor
Model complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 407–433.
Defrancis, J. (2010). ABC Chinese-English Dictionary (p. 678). Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press.
Dumoulin, H., Heisig, J. W., & Knitter, P. (2005). Zen Buddhism: A History (Volume
1: India and China). Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, Inc.
Fan, W.-Q. (2006). Thinking Styles Among University Students in Shanghai: A Com-
parison of Traditional and Hypermedia Instructional Environments. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Frewen, P. A., Brinker, J., Martin, R. A., & Dozois, D. J. (2008). Humor styles and
personality-vulnerability to depression. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 21(2), 179–195.
Gabrenya Jr, W. K., & Hwang, K. K. (1996). Chinese social interaction: Harmony
and hierarchy on the good earth. In M. H. Bond (Eds.), The Handbook of Chinese
Psychology (pp. 309–321). New York: Oxford University Press.
Glynn, M. A., & Webster, J. (1992). The adult playfulness scale: An initial assessment.
Psychological Reports, 71(1), 83–1033.
Goldstein, J. H. (1982). A laugh a day. The Sciences, 22(6), 21–25.
Guitard, P., Ferland, F., & Dutil, É. (2005). Toward a better understanding of play-
fulness in adults. OTJR, 25(1), 9–22.
cal Reports, 96(3), 747–750.
Hensley, B., Martin, P., Margrett, J. A., MacDonald, M., Siegler, I. C., Poon, L.
W., & The Georgia Centenarian Study 1. (2012). Life events and personality pre-
dicting loneliness among centenarians: Findings from the Georgia Centenarian
Study. The Journal of Psychology, 146(1–2), 173–188.
Hiranandani, N. A., & Yue, X. D. (2014). Humour styles, gelotophobia and self-
esteem among Chinese and Indian university students. Asian Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 17(4), 319–324.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1974). Face, social expectations, and conflict avoidance. In Readings in
Cross-cultural Psychology, Proceedings of the Inaugural Meeting of the International
Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology Held in Hong Kong (pp. 240–251).
Review, 31(7), 1126–1132.
Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values,
Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and power: The Chinese power game. American Journal
of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.
Joseph, S., Linley, P. A., Harwood, J., Lewis, C. A., & McCollam, P. (2004). Rapid
assessment of well-being: The Short Depression-Happiness Scale (SDHS). Psychol-
ogy and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 77(4), 463–478.
Kazarian, S., Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). Gelotophobia in the Lebanon: The
Arabic version of a questionnaire for the subjective assessment of the fear of being
laughed at. Arab Journal of Psychiatry, 20, 42–56.
view. In W. S. Tseng & D. Y. H. Wu (Eds.), Chinese Culture and Mental Health
Kleinman, A., & Good, B. (1985). Culture and Depression: Studies in the Anthropol-
ogy and Cross-Cultural Psychiatry of Affect and Disorder. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Klineberg, O. (1938). Emotional expression in Chinese literature. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 33(4), 517.
Kuiper, N. A., & McHale, N. (2009). Humor styles as mediators between self-evaluative
standards and psychological well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 143(4), 359–376.
Lam, M. O. (1996). Conceptions of an Ideal Pupil and a Creative Pupil among Pri-
mary School Teachers Using Different Teaching Approaches in Hong Kong. Unpub-
lished master’s thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Allen, A. B., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self-
compassion and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events: The implications of
treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 887–904.
Leung, K. (1988). Theoretical advances in justice behavior: Some cross-cultural
inputs. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Cross-Cultural Challenge to Social Psychology
(pp. 218–229). Newbury Park: Sage.
Lieberman, A. F. (1977). Preschoolers’ competence with a peer: Relations with attach-
ment and peer experience. Child Development, 48(4), 1277–1287.
Lung, C. C., & Yue, X. D. (2013). Shyness, Humor Styles and Loneness in Hong Kong
Undergraduate Students. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong.
Review, 32(6), 545–552.
Mannell, R. C. (1984). Personality in leisure theory: The self-as-entertainment con-
struct. Loisir et Societe/Society and Leisure, 7(1), 229–240.
Manning, P., & Ray, G. (1993). Shyness, self-confidence, and social interaction. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 56(3), 178–192.
Martin, R. A. (2001). Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues
and research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 504.
37(1), 48–75.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Hand-
book of Creativity (pp. 449–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the
ACM, 38(11), 39–41.
Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-
compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250.
Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1990). Chronic loneliness and television use. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 37–53.
Potter, P. B. (1999). The Chinese legal system: Continuing commitment to the pri-
macy of state power. The China Quarterly, 159, 673–683.
Potter, S. H. (1988). The cultural construction of emotion in rural Chinese social life.
Ethos, 16(2), 181–208.
Proyer, R. T. (2011). Being playful and smart? The relations of adult playfulness with
psychometric and self-estimated intelligence and academic performance. Learning
Proyer, R. T. (2012a). Examining playfulness in adults: Testing its correlates with per-
sonality, positive psychological functioning, goal aspirations, and multi-methodically
assessed ingenuity. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 54(2), 103–127.
Proyer, R. T. (2012b). Development and initial assessment of a short measure for adult
playfulness: The SMAP. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(8), 989–994.
Proyer, R. T. (2013a). The well-being of playful adults: Adult playfulness, subjective
well-being, physical well-being, and the pursuit of enjoyable activities. European
Journal of Humour Research, 1, 84–98.
Proyer, R. T. (2013b). Playfulness over the life-course and its relation to happiness:
Results from an online survey. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie. doi:10.1007/
s00391-013-0539-z.
Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2011). The virtuousness of adult playfulness: The relation
of playfulness with strengths of character. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research
and Practice, 1(1), 1.
Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Chen, G. (2012). Gelotophobia: Life satisfaction and happi-
ness across cultures. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 25(1), 23–40.
Rae, W. A., Worchel, F. F., Upchurch, J., Sanner, J. H., & Daniel, C. A. (1989). The
psychosocial impact of play on hospitalized children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
14(4), 617–627.
Ray, D. C., Blanco, P. J., Sullivan, J. M., & Holliman, R. (2009). An exploratory
study of child-centered play therapy with aggressive children. International Journal
of Play Therapy, 18(3), 162–175.
Reddy, L. A., Files-Hall, T., & Schaefer, C. E. (2005). Announcing empirically based
play interventions for children. In L. A. Reddy, T. M. Files-Hall, and C. E. Schaefer
(Eds.), Empirically Based Play Interventions for Children (pp. 3–10). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2008a). The fear of being laughed at: Individual and group
differences in Gelotophobia. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,
21(1), 47–67.
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2008b). Who is gelotophobic? Assessement criteria for the
fear of being laughed at. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 67(1), 19–27.
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). Who fears being laughed at? The location of Gelo-
tophobia in the Eysenckian PEN-model of personality. Personality and Individual
Differences, 46, 627–630.
Ruch, W., Altfreder, O., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). How do gelotophobes interpret
laughter in ambiguous situations? An experimental validation of the concept.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 63–89.
Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., & Popa, D. E. (2008). The fear of being laughter at (Geloto-
phobia) and personality. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 21(1),
53–68.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of lone-
liness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42(3), 290–294.
Saklofske, D. H., & Yackulic, R. A. (1989). Personality predictors of loneliness. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 10(4), 467–472.
Santacruz, I., Mendez, F. J., & Sanchez-Meca, J. (2006). Play therapy applied by
parents for children with darkness phobia comparison of two programmes. Child &
Family Behavior Therapy, 28(1), 19–35.
ferences, 19(4), 455–462.
Sinha, J. B., Vohra, N., Singhal, S., Sinha, R. B. N., & Ushashree, S. (2002). Nor-
mative predictions of collectivist-individualist intentions and behaviour of Indians.
International Journal of Psychology, 37(5), 309–319.
Solnit, A. J. (1998). Beyond play and playfulness. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,
53, 102–110.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity and wisdom. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives (pp. 125–147).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and
paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3–15). New York:
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Zhang, L.-F. (2003). Thinking Styles Inventory –
Revised. Unpublished test, Yale University, USA.
Sun, C. T.-L. (2008). Themes in Chinese Psychology. Singapore: Cengage Learning
Asia Pte. Ltd.
Sun, C. T.-L. (2013). Themes in Chinese Psychology (2nd ed.). Singapore: Cengage
Learning Asia Pte. Ltd.
Sun, Y. L., Guo, S. P., & Lee, H. H. (2009). The relationship between humor styles and
loneliness among university students. China Journal of Health Psychology, 17, 153–155.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Way, N., Hughes, D., Yoshikawa, H., Kalman, R. K., & Niwa,
E. Y. (2008). Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism
and collectivism in cultures and individuals. Social Development, 17(1), 183–209.
Tegano, D. W. (1990). Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to cre-
ativity. Psychological Reports, 66(3), 1047–1056.
Tiquia, R. (2011). The Qi that got lost in translation: Traditional Chinese medicine,
humour and healing. In J. Chey & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Humour in Chinese Life
and Letters: Classical and Traditional Approaches (p. 2). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Tsai, J. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Cultural influences on emotional responding
Chinese American and European American dating couples during interpersonal
conflict. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(5), 600–625.
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation
systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobio-
logical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 820.
Wittenberg, L. J., Santarius, J. F., & Kulcinski, G. L. (1986). Lunar source of 3 He
for commercial fusion power. Fusion Science and Technology, 10(2), 167–178.
Wu, W. T. (1996). Many faces of creativity. In S. Cho, J. H. Moon, & J. O. Park (Eds.),
Selected Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness (pp. 123–128),
Seoul, Korea.
Xu, W. (2011). The classical Confucian concepts of human emotion and proper humour.
In J. Chey & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Humour in Chinese Life and Letters (pp. 50–71).
Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.
Yik, M. (2010). How unique is Chinese emotion? In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Chinese Psychology (pp. 205–220). New York: Oxford.
Yu, P., Wu, J. J., Chen, I. H., & Lin, Y. T. (2007). Is playfulness a benefit to work?
Empirical evidence of professionals in Taiwan. International Journal of Technology
Management, 39(3–4), 412–429.
23(3), 403–420.
24(4), 463–480.
Yue, X. D., Leung, C. L., & Hiranandani, N. A. (2016). Adult playfulness, humor
styles, and subjective happiness. Psychological Reports, 119(3), 630–640.
Yue, X. D., & Rudowicz, E. (2002). The most creative Chinese minds as perceived by
university students. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(2), 88–104.
Reports, 115(1), 65–74.
Yuen, M. (2002). Chinese Satisfaction With Life Scale Research Edition. Retrieved
May 24, 2017, from http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/ediener/Documents/
SWLS_Chinese.pdf.
Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of Intellectual Styles. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Zung, W. W. (1965). A self-rating depression scale. Archives of General Psychiatry,
12(1), 63–70.
6 Humor and Chinese mental
well-being
According to Ru Men Shi Qin《儒門事親》1 a classic of Chinese medicine,

the sheriff of the town of Xi (息城), was overwhelmed with grief, tears,
and heartache after learning that some robbers had murdered his father.
A month later, a lump developed inside his chest. He consulted many
doctors, but to no avail until he turned to Doctor Zhang Zihe (張子和).
After the doctor questioned the patient carefully, he suddenly began to act
strangely, like a witch, and to make ridiculous remarks. The patient was so
entertained that he could not help laughing each time he thought about
how the doctor had acted. Days later, the lump miraculously disappeared.
His heartache was gone forever.
Humor and mental health

Mental health has been defined as the absence of psychological disturbance or
emotional distress. For individuals to thrive and flourish, they must be able to (1)
regulate negative emotions and enjoy positive emotions, (2) cope with stress and
adapt to change, and (3) establish close, meaningful, and enduring relationships
(Martin, 2007, p. 269).
Psychologists have long recognized connections between mental health and
humor (Martin, 2007, p. 277). Freud (1928) called humor the “highest of
the defense mechanisms . . . something fine and elevating” (pp. 216, 217).
Wickberg (1998) regarded humor as a sympathetic, tolerant, and benevolent
form of amusement distinguished from sarcasm, cynicism, and cruelty. Humor
elicits mirthful laughter, which then evokes cheerfulness and energy and coun-
ters depression, anxiety, irritableness, and tension (Martin, 2007, p. 269). By
boosting positive moods and counteracting negative emotions, humor helps in
regulating or managing emotions, an essential aspect of mental health (Gross &
Munoz, 1995).
Studies of students have revealed moderate negative correlations between
humor and measures of neuroticism, anxiety, and depression and positive correla-
tions with self-esteem, as revealed by the Coping Humor Scale (CHS) (Martin &
122 Humor and Chinese mental well-being
Lefcourt, 1983), Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) (Mar-
tin & Lefcourt, 1983), Sense of Humor Questionnaire Meta-message Sensitivity
(SHQ-M) (Svebak, 1996), and Liking of Humor (SHQ-L) (Deaner & McCon-
atha, 1993; Kuiper & Borowicz-Sibenik, 2005; Kuiper & Martin, 1993).
Humor styles and mental health

Humor styles have been classified as affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and
self-defeating (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003). Affiliative
humor enhances interpersonal harmony, social relations, and group cohesiveness;
self-enhancing humor protects the self without damaging others; self-defeating
humor seeks approval at personal expense; aggressive humor protects the self by
attacking others.
Affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor are considered adaptive humor
styles and have been heavily linked with higher subjective psychological well-being
(Tümkaya, 2011), self-esteem (Ozyesil, 2012), cheerfulness and optimism (Mar-
tin et al., 2003), life satisfaction and positive affect (Karou-ei, Doosti, Dehshiri, &
Heidari, 2009), life adjustment, and resilience (Cheung & Yue, 2012), lower
loneliness (Hampes, 2005) and less depression (Kuiper & McHale, 2009). In
contrast, self-defeating and aggressive humor are considered maladaptive humor
styles and are related to negative psychological constructs such as depression, anxi-
ety (Martin et al., 2003), and negative affect (Karou-ei et al., 2009).
Individuals who score highly on self-enhancing humor tend to have lower lev-
els of depression, anxiety, and negative affect, and higher levels of self-esteem and
positive affect (Kuiper, Grimshaw, Leite, & Kirsh, 2004). Affiliative humor has a
similar but generally weaker pattern of correlations. Self-defeating humor has the
opposite correlation pattern by being associated with higher depression, anxiety,
negative affect, and lower self-esteem. Aggressive humor, however, seems to be
unrelated to emotional well-being measures (Martin, 2007). One study showed
that individuals with higher self-esteem reported greater use of affiliative humor
and lower use of self-defeating humor (Saroglou & Scariot, 2002). Self-defeating
humor and aggressive humor have both been associated with lower academic
motivation (Martin, 2007).
We view self-enhancing humor as an especially healthy humor style. Indeed,
self-enhancing humor is particularly and positively related to emotional well-
being (Martin, 2007). Affiliative humor is somewhat more weakly related to
emotional health, producing correlations more aligned with findings in previous
trait humor measures. In contrast, self-defeating humor is consistently negatively
associated with well-being measures, indicating that individuals who use humor
to ingratiate themselves at their own expense and to deny their own negative
emotions have particularly unhealthy functioning. On the other hand, aggres-
sive humor appears to be largely unrelated to overall psychological well-being.
Although earlier theorists such as Freud, Maslow, and Allport viewed aggres-
sive humor as particularly problematic for overall psychological health, not all
researches support the view (Martin, 2007).
Humor and Chinese mental well-being 123
Humor and mental health in Chinese societies
In Chinese societies, affiliative and self-enhancing humor styles impact mental
health much more strongly than do aggressive and self-defeating humor styles
(e.g., Chen & Martin, 2007; Liao, 2001; Nevo, Nevo, & Yin, 2001; Yue, 2010,
2011; Yue, Hao, & Goldman, 2010). In comparison with their Western counter-
parts, Chinese undergraduate students use more adaptive humor and assign less
value to humor (Chen & Martin, 2007; Liao, 2001; Yue, 2010, 2011; Yue et al.,
2010; Yue, Jiang, & Lu, 2013), perhaps because the collectivist culture encour-
ages the use of adaptive and healthy humor styles rather than maladaptive and
unhealthy humor styles (e.g., Chen & Martin, 2007; Kazarian & Martin, 2006; Yue
et al., 2010; Yue & Hiranandani, 2016). In contrast with individualistic cultures,
the Chinese tend to be more concerned with face values and interpersonal har-
mony (Bond, 2010; Ho, 1995; Hwang, 1987; Sinha, Vohra, Singhal, Sinha, &
Ushashree, 2002; Tamis-LeMonda, Way, Hughes,Yoshikawa, Kalman, & Niwa,
2008) and are thus more inclined to use affiliative and self-enhancing humor
and less inclined to use aggressive and self-defeating humor (Chen & Martin,
2007; Yue, Bender, & Cheung, 2011). Consequently, adaptive humor styles have
a greater impact on their mental health. Moreover, Confucian puritanism has
taught them to view humor with ambivalence and to use it with caution, perhaps
explaining why studies have found nonsignificant results regarding the use of
maladaptive humor styles (Yue, 2011; Yue et al., 2011, 2014).
Humor styles and mental health among Hong Kong adults

First of all, Chen and Martin (2007) examined the relationship between humor
styles, coping humor, and mental health among 240 undergraduate students in
Guangzhou. Participants completed the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the Chinese
Translation of Coping Humor Scale (CHS; Martin & Lefcourt, 1983), and the
Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90; Derogatis, 1994; Derogatis et al., 1974; Wang,
1984). Results showed that affiliative, self-enhancing, and coping humor were
all significantly associated with good mental health, whereas aggressive and self-
defeating humor were associated with poor mental health, though the relation-
ships were somewhat weaker and less consistent with affiliative and aggressive
humor. Regression results further showed that self-enhancing, self-defeating, and
coping humor contributed significantly to the General Symptomatic Index of
the SCL-90. In other words, mental health is more strongly related to use of
self-enhancing and coping humor as well as to self-defeating humor and is less
strongly related to affiliative and aggressive humor.
Leung and Yue (2010) used the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003) and PSS (Cohen,
Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) to examine the relationship between humor
styles and perceived stress among a sample of 176 undergraduate students in
Hong Kong. Results showed that perceived stress was negatively associated
with affiliative and self-enhancing humor but positively associated with self-
defeating humor (Table 6.1).
Table 6.1 Correlations between humor styles and perceived stress
1 2 3 4 5
3. Aggressive humor .13 .22** –
4. Self-defeating humor .18** .21** .30** –
5. Perceived stress –.26** –.47** .01 .35** –
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 6.2 Regression analyses of humor styles and subjective happiness
Subjective Happiness Measures
Optimism Flourishing Positive Negative Satisfaction

Experience Experience with Life
Affiliative Humor .292*** .269*** .181*** –.130 .152***

Self-enhancing Humor .203*** .360*** .327*** –.233*** .416***
Aggressive Humor .012 –.287 –.061 .021 –.203**
Self-defeating Humor –.211*** .045 –.062 .224*** –.074
R2 .185*** .326*** .156*** .096*** .243***
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Tsui used the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the LOT-R (Lai & Yue, 2000), the
Flourishing Scale (FS) (Diener et al., 2009), the SWLS (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Griffin, 1985), and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) (Diener
et al., 2009) to examine the relationship between humor styles, flourishing, positive
and negative experience, and satisfaction with life among a sample of 200 undergrad-
uate students in Hong Kong (Table 6.2). Results showed that all four humor styles
were significantly associated with flourishing, optimism, and satisfaction with life.
Moreover, satisfaction with life had a positive effect on affiliative humor ( = .152,
t = 2.286, p < .05) and self-enhancing humor (= .416, t = 6.014, p < .001) but had
a negative effect on aggressive humor (= –.203, t = –3.094, p < .01). Flourishing
levels had a positive effect on affiliative humor (= .269, t = 4.304, p < .001) and
self-enhancing humor (= .360, t = 5.522, p < .001) but had a negative effect on
self-defeating humor ( = –.287, t = –4.650, p < .001). Positive experience had a
positive effect on affiliative humor (= .181, t = 2.590, p < .01) and self-enhancing
humor ( = .327, t = 4.484, p < .001). Negative experience negatively affected
self-enhancing humor (= –.233, t = –3.089, p < .01) but positively affected self-
defeating humor (= .224, t = 3.028, p < .01). Those findings echo previous find-
ings that adaptive humor styles increase mental health, whereas maladaptive humor
styles decrease mental health.
Chan and Yue (2012) used the 24-item MSHS (Thorson & Powell, 1993),
the PSS (Cohen et al., 1983), the SHS (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), and the
Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) (Zung, 1971) to study a sample of 147 police
officers in Hong Kong. Regression analyses showed that subjective happiness
(R2 = .51, F(4,145) = 33.15, p < .001), perceived stress (R2 = .18, F(4,145) =
6.84, p < .001), and anxiety (R2 = .34, F(4,145) = 16.45, p < .001) were sig-
nificantly related to the four sense of humor dimensions. Humor production
significantly predicted perceived stress (= –.46, p < .01) and subjective happi-
ness (= .27, p < .05), whereas coping humor (= –.43, p < .001) and attitude
toward humor (= –.35, p < .001) significantly predicted subjective happiness.
Nonetheless, all four dimensions of sense of humor did not significantly predict
anxiety. These findings echoed previous findings that healthy humor boosts sub-
jective happiness and reduces perceived stress (Kerkkänen, Kuiper, & Martin,
2004; Martin et al., 2003).
Ho and Yue (2015) surveyed 277 adults using the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003),
the SWLS (Diener et al., 1985), and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) (Smith,
Dalen, Wiggins, Tooley, Christopher, & Bernard, 2008). They reported that
self-enhancing humor significantly predicted life satisfaction and mediated the
relationship between resilience and life satisfaction. By its implication, more use
of self-enhancing humor was associated with higher life satisfaction. Moreover,
self-enhancing humor functioned as a mechanism through which resilience influ-
enced life satisfaction. That is, self-enhancing humor has positive properties that
may allow individuals to be flexible enough to deal with the vicissitudes of life.
Yue, Liu, Jiang, and Hiranandani (2014) used the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003),
the ten-item RSES (Rosenberg, 1965), and the four-item SHS (Lyubomirsky &
Lepper, 1999) to examine the relationship between humor styles, self-esteem, and
subjective happiness in a sample of 300 Hong Kong undergraduates (men = 119;
women = 181). Self-esteem was found to be positively associated with affiliative
and self-enhancing humor and negatively associated with self-defeating humor.
Subjective happiness was significantly and positively associated with affiliative and
self-enhancing humor, implying that happier Chinese students tend to use more
adaptive humor.
Humor styles, optimism, and mental health among

Hong Kong and mainland university students
Yue et al. (2010) examined relationship among humor styles and aspects of
mental health among 800 Chinese undergraduate students in Hong Kong and
Hohhot in Inner Mongolia: 300 (119 men, 181 women; mean age 20.96) from
the City University of Hong Kong (香港城市大學), and 500 (136 men, 364
women; mean age 20.44) from the Inner Mongolia Normal University (內蒙古
師範大學). Study participants were selected from different faculties and in dif-
ferent years of enrollment to avoid possible subject or year bias and to provide
a representative sample of the student population in each university. Ninety-six
percent of the sampled students were ethnic Han Chinese and came from differ-
ent provinces in northern China. They completed the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003)
and the Symptom Checklist-90 – Revised (SCL-90-R).
Table 6.3 displays the correlations between the nine primary symptom dimen-
sions of the SCL-90-R, humor styles, and optimism. Affiliative humor, self-
enhancing humor, and optimism were significantly and negatively correlated with
each of the nine primary psychological distress symptoms. Furthermore, aggres-
sive humor and self-defeating humor were significantly and positively correlated
with each symptom.
Table 6.4 displays the mean differences of humor styles among Hong Kong
and Hohhot students. In general, both groups mostly used affiliative humor
and rarely used self-defeating humor. Hong Kong students reported using more
aggressive humor (t = –19.262, p < .001), while Hohhot students used more
affiliative humor (t = 7.947, p < .001). The results are consistent with other find-
ings on Chinese preferences regarding styles of humor (Yue et al., 2006).
Table 6.3 Correlation analysis of SCL-90 symptoms, humor styles, and dispositional
optimism
Affiliative Self-Enhancing Aggressive Self-Deprecating

Humor Humor Humor Humor
Somatization –.22** –.14** .38** .29**

Obsessive compulsivity –.23** –.16** .26** .28**
Interpersonal sensitivity –.28** –.18** .28** .22**
Depression –.27** –.23** .29** .23**
Anxiety –.26** –.18** .33** .25**
Hostility –.18** –.13** .38** .28**
Phobic anxiety –.26** –.014** .31** .25**
Paranoid ideation –.023** –.015** .35** .29**
Psychoticism –.26** –.14** .36** .28**
Total –.26** –.18** .35** .27**
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 6.4 Use of humor styles by Hong Kong and Hohhot Chinese students
Hohhot Students Hong Kong Students

(n = 500) (n = 300)
M SD M SD t-Value
Affiliative humor 38.78 7.96 34.84 5.94 7.947***
Self-enhancing humor 23.17 6.13 21.27 3.95 5.339***
Aggressive humor 15.81 7.07 25.19 6.40 −19.262***
Self-defeating humor 12.78 5.94 18.24 4.60 −14.496***
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Compared with their Hong Kong counterparts, Hohhot students used sig-
nificantly more affiliative and self-enhancing humor styles and significantly less
aggressive or self-defeating humor, perhaps because contemporary Chinese
social systems still greatly value social harmony in interpersonal communication
(Chang, 2001) and adaptive humor enhances social relations (Chen & Martin,
2007). In addition, the traditional Chinese social system is still rigid, defensive,
and discourages independence; it stresses that compromise and conformity are
essential for social harmony (Bond, 1996; Dunn, Zhang, & Ripple, 1988). To
be consistent with the prized virtues in Chinese society, humor must be informal
and impersonal (Chen, 1985).
Yue, Leung, and Hiranandani (2016) studied the relationship between humor
styles, subjective happiness, and depression by using the HSQ (Martin et al.,
2003), the four-item SHS (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), and the 20-item SDS
(Zung, 1965) in a sample of 166 Hong Kong students (66 men, 39.8%; 100
women, 60.2%) and 159 Guangzhou students (48 men, 30.2%; 105 women,
66.0%). As Table 6.5 shows, subjective happiness was positively associated with
affiliative humor (r[307] = .38, p < .01) and self-enhancing humor (r[315] =
.45, p < .01), but was negatively correlated with aggressive humor (r[316] =
–.13, p < .05). In contrast, depression was negatively associated with affiliative
humor (r[300] = –.37, p < .01) and self-enhancing humor (r[306] = –.38, p <
.01) and positively associated with self-defeating humor (r[307] = .20, p < .01)
and aggressive humor (r[307] = .38, p < .01). These results echoed previous
findings that adaptive humor styles more strongly predicted mental health, while
maladaptive humor styles were less associated with subjective happiness.
As Table 6.6 shows, Guangzhou students, compared with Hong Kong stu-
dents, used significantly more self-enhancing humor and significantly less aggres-
sive or self-defeating humor. This echoes previous findings that mainland students
were more likely than Hong Kong students to use more adaptive humor styles
and less maladaptive humor styles (Chen & Martin, 2005; Yue et al., 2010).
In short, Hong Kong students have been more exposed to Western indi-
vidualistic values and would understandably use less affiliative humor and more
aggressive humor than their counterparts in mainland China. Indeed, previ-
ous studies show that American students who have a higher sense of humor
Table 6.5 Correlation between humor styles, subjective happiness, and depression
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. Self-defeating humor –.01 .14* –
4. Aggressive humor –.20** –.17** .42** –
5. Subjective happiness .38** .45** –.07 –.13* –
6. Depression –.37** –.38** .20** .38** –.52** –
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 6.6 Regional differences between Hong Kong and Guangdong students in
sense of humor and humor styles
Hong Kong Students Guangdong Students

(n = 166) (n = 159)
Mean SD Mean SD t-Value
Affiliative humor 38.99 6.60 39.79 8.37 –.93

Self-enhancing humor 33.21 6.81 35.88 7.74 –3.25***
Self-defeating humor 28.28 7.05 25.29 7.55 4.77***
Aggressive humor 26.24 6.02 22.67 7.31 3.66***
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
have been shown to possess more positive personality traits (Ho & Lin, 2000).
People who score higher on some measures of humor tend to have higher self-
esteem (Kuiper & Martin, 1993). Consequently, adaptive humor styles tend to
contribute to physical and mental health, positive affect, and improved social
relations (Martin, 2007).
Humor, adjustment, and resilience among mainland

students studying in Hong Kong
Adjustment and resilience are known to contribute to well-being and are both
essential for sojourning undergraduate students to achieve more effective accul-
turation under acculturative stress (De Garms et al., 2006; Liebkind, Jasinokaja-
Lahti, & Solheim, 2004). Students who can adjust achieve the cognitive dimension
of more life satisfaction and the affective dimension of lower depression (Harker,
2001), so that they are resilient and able to function under acculturative stress
(Becker & Newsom, 2005; Flores, Cicchetti, & Rogosch, 2005).
Sojourning students encounter particularly difficult adjustment and accultur-
ative stresses beyond study challenges. In comparison with long-term resident
students, sojourner students have short stays in the host society and thus often
lack adequate resources (Chow, 1999; Kim, Brenner, Liang, & Asay, 2003)
such as earnings from work to help them adjust (Cooper, Coll, Thorni, &
Orellana, 2005; Portes, 1995b). In addition, younger sojourners have more
adjustment difficulties than older sojourners and are likely to be alone, with-
out marital partners or family support (Angel, Buckley, & Sakamoto, 2001;
Sodowsky et al., 1997).
Acculturative stress most greatly threatens sojourners’ adjustment or well-
being (Hashim & Yang, 2003; Liebkind & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2000) through
difficulties with language, study, culture, interpersonal relations (Coatsworth,
Maldonado-Molina, Pantin, & Szapocznik, 2005; Hernandez & Charney, 1998),
prejudice, discrimination, social isolation, and cultural shock (Angel et al., 2001;
Chang, 2009; Liebkind et al., 2004; Sodowsky et al., 1997), leading to anxiety,
uncertainty, poor adjustment (Chang, 2009), alienation (Cooper et al., 2005),
and opposition as further barriers to adjustment (Bobo & Fox, 2003). Relational
stress weakens social capital, solidarity, and mutual assistance (De Garms et al.,
2006; Portes, 1995b) and foments attachment anxiety (Wang & Mallinckrodt,
2006). Study stress interferes with academic performance and has spillover effects
in various life domains (Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). Inadequate mastery of
the host language leads to language stress.
Humor and acculturative stress

Resilient students can buffer adjustment stresses to acquire well-being, perhaps
through humor that allows cognitive reframing and emotional management
(Martin, 2007), facilitates communication and influence, relieves tension, saves
faces, allows individuals to test others’ reactions, and kills pain (Abel, 1998; Mar-
tin, 2007; Parrish & Quinn, 1999). Humor therapeutically facilitates creativity,
restructures cognitive patterns, and provides access to social support (Martin,
2004, 2007).
Empirical research has been only conceptual and speculative in showing how
humor facilitates adjustment (Pitts, 2009). Moreover, empirical evidence has
suggestively but not explicitly indicated how humor contributes to general resil-
ience (Celso et al., 2003; Tupade & Fredrickson, 2007).
Humor inherently involves incongruity, multiple interpretations, and shifting
perspectives for reappraising stressful situations from new and less-threatening
viewpoints (Martin, 2007, p. 282). Consequently, situations become less stress-
ful and more manageable, thus evoking less stressful responses (Dixon, 1980).
Humorous people are “skilled in rapid perceptual-cognitive switches in frames
of reference” (O’Connell, 1976, p. 327) and thus can reappraise problem situ-
ations, distance themselves from immediate threats, and reduce the often para-
lyzing feelings of anxiety and helplessness. Similarly, humor has the function of
“preserving the self . . . It is the healthy way of feeling a ‘distance’ between one’s
self and the problem, a way of standing off and looking at one’s problem with
perspective” (May, 1953, p. 54).
When humor is a trait or stable disposition, it mitigates acculturative stress
(Erickson & Feldstein, 2007). According to superiority theory (Martin, 1998),
feelings of mastery or control rather than feelings of malice or hostility are the
basis for humor. When acculturative stress diminishes mastery or control, indi-
viduals are unlikely to produce humor. This theory is consistent with research
showing that worry, fear, pain, and bodily preoccupation negatively affect humor
and that marital satisfaction positively affects humor (Kuiper & Nicholl, 2004;
Martin, 2007). According to psychoanalytic theory, however, fear, anger, and
sadness arouse stress-induced repression and other mature defenses that are con-
ducive to humor (Martin, 1998, 2007; Wyer & Collins, 1992). Psychoanalytic
theory and superiority theory then offer divergent expectations regarding how
acculturative stress affects humor styles. Regardless of the direction of impact,
humor is likely to mitigate stress and uphold resilience (Kuiper et al., 1993).
Similarly, humor has a buffering effect on general depression and problems (Abel,
2002; Nezlek & Derks, 2001).
Humor, life satisfaction, and resilience

Cheung and Yue (2012) used the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003) to examine how
humor styles affected resilience among 215 Mainland students who came to
study in Hong Kong (mean age 21.9, SD = 2.9 years). The study was under-
taken to find ways to buffer study stress by harnessing the benefits of humor
practice.
Life satisfaction was measured by the SWLS (Diener et al., 1985), according
to ten items, such as satisfaction with studies and with interpersonal relation-
ships. Based on a 10-point rating scale, each item generated a score from 0
to 100, after a linear transformation to normalize the range of scores. The
composite of life satisfaction attained internal consistency reliability of .917.
In addition, depressed mood included six items from the Depression Scale of
the Center for Epidemiologic Studies (Cheung & Bagley, 1998): for example,
feeling lonely. Respondents indicated how many days in the past week they had
experienced each feeling. Based on an 8-point rating scale, the items yielded
a score from 0 to 100, after a linear transformation to normalize the range of
scores. The composite of life satisfaction attained internal consistency reliability
of .801.
Participants indicated reactions to acculturative stress since they came to
Hong Kong, based on 18 items regarding difficulties with language, studies,
cultural changes, and relationships. Each item took a four-point frequency scale
to generate a score from 0 to 100, after a linear transformation to normalize the
score range. Language difficulties included four items, for a composite reliabil-
ity coefficient of .799: for example, “not accustomed to thinking in English.”
Study difficulties included five items, for a composite reliability coefficient of
.715: for example, “worrying about graduat[ing] on time.” Cultural difficulties
included four items, for a composite reliability coefficient of .723: for example,
“feeling maladjusted because of cultural differences between Hong Kong and
Mainland China.” Relational difficulties included four items, for a composite
reliability coefficient of .760: for example, “not having new social networks in
Hong Kong.”
Acculturative stress and life satisfaction

Life satisfaction was moderately high (M = 63.7, Table 6.7) and depressed mood
was very low (M = 22.9). Acculturative stress was at a modest average level
and relatively higher in terms of relational (M = 57.2) and language difficulties
(M = 52.5). Cultural (M = 42.0) and study difficulties (M = 49.5) were relatively
lower. Affiliative humor (M = 63.6) and self-enhancing humor styles (M = 55.9)
were at an average, modest level. In contrast, aggressive humor (M = 33.6) and
self-defeating humor (M = 38.3) were moderately low.
Table 6.7 Standardized regression coefficients for predicting life satisfaction and
depression
All Men Women
Variable Scoring M SD M SD M SD
Age Years 21.9 2.9 22.4* 2.7 21.7 3.0
Doctoral study 0, 100 13.3 34.0 20.0* 40.3 9.4 29.3
Master’s study 0, 100 20.2 40.3 15.7 36.7 23.1 42.3
Bachelor’s study 0, 100 66.5 47.3 64.3 48.3 67.5 47.0
Years of study Years 1.9 1.2 2.2 1.2 1.8 1.0
Woman 0, 100 62.6 48.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Acquiescence 0–100 47.7 7.3 47.5 6.8 47.3 5.9
Affiliative humor 0–100 63.6 17.7 59.9 17.9 65.5* 17.2
Self-enhancing humor 0–100 55.9 14.7 55.0 12.8 57.6 15.5
Aggressive humor 0–100 33.6 13.1 38.1* 13.5 31.1 12.5
Self-defeating humor 0–100 38.3 14.3 42.8 14.1 37.0 13.8
Language difficulties 0–100 52.5 24.6 54.5 21.7 50.3 25.9
Study difficulties 0–100 49.5 21.6 48.4 21.5 49.8 21.8
Cultural difficulties 0–100 42.0 22.5 40.0 21.5 42.2 23.4
Life satisfaction 0–100 63.7 16.6 63.6 15.8 65.6 16.6
Depressed mood 0–100 22.9 20.8 27.0 22.7 21.5 20.3
Note: *significantly higher at the .05 level.
As indicators of adjustment, life satisfaction maintained a rather strong cor-

relation with depression (partial r = –.460, Table 6.8). Various aspects of accul-
turative stress also held moderate to strong correlations among themselves
(partial r = .317–.497). In contrast, the four styles of humor displayed differen-
tial correlations; the strongest was between affiliative and self-enhancing humor
(partial r = .395). Another significant correlation was between aggressive and
self-defeating humor (partial r = .299). Other correlations among humor styles
were not significant, indicating that the styles had considerable independence.
Predicting adjustment and resilience

Regression analysis revealed that affiliative humor had a significant positive effect
( = .214, Table 6.9) on life satisfaction and a negative effect ( = –.146) on
depressed mood when other predictors in the regression model were present.
Moreover, self-defeating humor had a significant negative effect on life satis-
faction ( = –.135). In addition, study and cultural difficulties had significant
negative effects on life satisfaction (= –.413 and = .355) and positive effects on
depressed mood ( = .236 and .247). Additionally, relational difficulties had a
significant negative effect on life satisfaction (= –.161, Table 6.10). Except for
acquiescence, background characteristics had no different effects on life satisfac-
tion or depression.
Resilience indicated adjustment to acculturative stress. Humor style and accul-
turative stress interacted to have a buffering effect, implying that humor style
Table 6.8 Partial correlations
Correlate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Life satisfaction 1.000
2. Depressed mood –.460‡ 1.000
3. Affiliative humor .302‡ –.245† 1.000
4. Self-enhancing .305‡ –.279‡ .395‡ 1.000
humor
5. Aggressive humor –.166* .243† –.093 –.152 1.000
6. Self-defeating –.113 .097 .037 .133 .299‡ 1.000
humor
7. Language –.325‡ .183* –.138 –.147 .107 .019 1.000
difficulties
8. Study difficulties –.516‡ .335‡ –.159* –.211† .133 –.016 .474‡ 1.000
9. Cultural –.505‡ .368‡ –.088 –.289‡ .243† .062 .361‡ .317‡ 1.000
difficulties
Note: *p < .05. †p < .01. ‡p < .001.
Table 6.9 Standardized regression coefficients for predicting life satisfaction and
depression
Predictor Life satisfaction Depressed mood
Age .085 .102

Doctoral study .053 –.104
Master’s study –.036 .006
Years of study .092 –.102
Woman .059 –.111
Acquiescence .510*** .141
Affiliative humor .214** –.146#
Self-enhancing humor .059 –.093
Aggressive humor .017 .104
Self-defeating humor –.135# .071
Language difficulties .045 –.065
Study difficulties –.413*** .236**
Cultural difficulties –.355*** .247**
Separate additional interactive predictor
Study difficulties × Self-enhancing humor .116# –.077

Study difficulties × Affiliative humor .121# –.125#
Cultural difficulties × Self-enhancing humor .050 –.098
Cultural difficulties × Affiliative humor .024 –.139*
Language difficulties × Self-enhancing humor .070 –.055
Language difficulties × Affiliative humor .084 –.144*
Relational difficulties × Self-enhancing humor .100 –.092
Relational difficulties × Affiliative humor .063 –.203**
R2 .501 .475
Note 1: Controlling for significant background characteristics and other significant predictors,
but not other interaction terms.
Note 2: # p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 6.10 Standardized regression coefficients for predicting humor styles
Predictor Affiliative Self- enhancing Aggressive Self- deprecating
Age –.045 .077 –.399** –.231

Doctoral study .009 –.153 .201 .147
Master’s study –.012 –.045 .136 .006
Years of study –.002 .126 .073 .093
Woman .127 .094 –.272** –.148#
Acquiescence –.261** .268** –.084 .218*
Language difficulties –.063 .031 .024 .029
Study difficulties –.111 –.133 .102 –.034
Cultural difficulties .001 –.232* .313** .109
R2 .254 .172 .216 .187
Note 1: Controlling for significant background characteristics and all other significant
predictors, but not other interaction terms.
Note 2: *p, .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
contributes to resilience. Specifically, affiliative and self-enhancing humor had sig-

nificant interactive effects with study difficulties (= .121 and .116, Table 6.10).
In contrast, affiliative humor had the strongest interactions with relational dif-
ficulties (= –.203).
Predicting humor styles

Acculturative stress and background characteristics other than acquiescence failed
to predict humor styles. Only cultural difficulties had a significant negative effect
on self-enhancing humor (= –.232, Table 6.10) and a significant positive effect
on aggressive humor (= .313). As such, humor styles could not be attributed to
acculturative stress. Only a few background characteristics significantly affected
humor styles: women students were significantly lower in aggressive and self-
defeating humor, older students were significantly lower in aggressive humor,
and law students were significantly higher in affiliative and self-enhancing humor.
Affiliative humor tended to raise life satisfaction and impede depressed mood.
Self-defeating humor appeared to damage life satisfaction. Both affiliative and
self-enhancing humor buffered the acculturative stress of study difficulties.
Moreover, affiliative humor appeared to buffer all four kinds of difficulties in
stemming depressed mood. Taken together, the hypotheses were well supported:
affiliative and self-enhancing humor help mainland students achieve adjustment
and resilience to the harmful effects of acculturative stress.
In addition, study difficulties and cultural difficulties appeared to diminish
life satisfaction and foment depression, whereas relational difficulties seemed to
dampen life satisfaction only. In contrast, language difficulties had no signifi-
cant effect on life satisfaction or depression. Hence, study and cultural difficulties
seemed to be most harmful. More relevant factors will have the greatest effects
(Beach & Tesser, 2000). Consequently, study difficulties will be highly relevant to
sojourner students who come to Hong Kong for their studies. Similarly, culture is
a source of personal/social identity and self-esteem (Crocker et al., 1994; Garstka
et al., 2004). Thus, cultural difficulties are of central concern to sojourner stu-
dents who encounter cultural gaps (Mossakowski, 2003; Ward, 2005).
Cultural difficulties are most representative of acculturative stress and nota-
bly detrimental to sojourner adjustment (Hashim & Yang, 2003; Liebkind &
Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2000). In contrast, language difficulties may be less detrimen-
tal, especially in the face of overshadowing study and cultural difficulties. That
is, language difficulties may be harmful only when they provoke study and cul-
tural difficulties, echoing the view that language proficiency fosters adjustment
(Hyun, 2001). One reason is that language proficiency may make sojourners
aware of discrimination in the host society (Goto et al., 2002). Besides, rela-
tional difficulties are less harmful than cultural and study difficulties and are thus
not central concerns. One possibility is that students place more value on their
relations with families and old friends, rather than on their new and temporary
relations developed in the host society. Apparently, sojourners derive closeness
and help from their old or same-origin friends (Kovacev & Shute, 2004; Portes,
1995a).
Affiliative humor, but not other humor styles, appears to consistently con-
tribute to adjustment, perhaps because it favorably includes the initiation and
maintenance of intimacy and social relationships (Martin, 2007; Martin et al.,
2003; Yip & Martin, 2006). In contrast, self-enhancement humor may fail to
foster adjustment because it can smack of arrogance, egocentrism, individual-
ism, masculinity, and ignorance of others (Frewen et al., 2008; Kazarian & Mar-
tin, 2006; Martin et al., 2003). Hence, affiliative humor has merit in fostering
adjustment, gaining support, or increasing sociability or interpersonal attraction
(Martin, 2004, 2007). In contrast, self-enhancing humor may please the user but
fail to help secure adjustment by failing to draw support and resources. Never-
theless, aggressive and self-defeating humor do not appear to consistently afflict
adjustment, perhaps because such humor styles still have some salutary elements
to neutralize their harm. Aggressive humor can evoke feelings of superiority and
self-assurance regarding adjustment (Martin, 2007). In line with psychoanalytic
theory about the defensive function of humor, self-defeating humor may gain
sympathy and support for sustained adjustment (Martin, 2007; Skerkat & Elli-
son, 1999).
Affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor tend to manifest the most consis-
tent benefits, probably because sojourners’ most salient concerns are study stress
and academic resilience. This echoes the view that the more important issues will
contribute more stongly to resilience (Sherman & Cohen, 2006). When sojourn-
ers consider study to be an important issue, both humor styles would provide
stress-buffering benefits.
Affiliative humor appears to reduce depression under all four forms of accul-
turative stress. This consistent contribution to resilience attests to the centrality
of affiliation or social support for realizing benefits from humor (Martin, 2007).
Moreover, affiliative humor appears to show the greatest benefit in buffering rela-
tional stress to counter depression. This buffering reflects that affiliative humor
is the best match for quelling affiliative problems and easing acculturative stress
(Zagefka & Brown, 2002).
Finally, humor styles are largely independent of acculturative stress. Cultural
difficulties have exceptional impacts on self-enhancing humor and aggressive
humor, again indicating that cultural difficulties have centrality in being most
likely to compromise self-esteem (Wenkuyten & Nekuee, 1999), which would in
turn diminish self-enhancing humor and provoke aggressive humor (Martin et al.,
2003; Pulkkinen, 2009).
Summary
In contrast with Western culture, Chinese culture has been heavily influenced
by collectivism and Confucianism. Consequently, the Chinese are more likely to
embrace adaptive and healthy humor styles, for the greatest influence on men-
tal health, while maladaptive and unhealthy humor styles are less influential.
Although studies of Chinese undergraduates indicate that they tend to appreciate
and use humor less than their Western counterparts do (e.g., Chen & Martin,
2007; Liao, 2001; Nevo et al., 2001; Yue, 2010, 2011; Yue et al., 2010, 2014),
humor still plays an important role in Chinese mental health. As in Western cul-
tures, humor and laughter bring cheerfulness and energy, while reducing depres-
sion, anxiety, irritability, and tension (Martin, 2007, p. 269). Thus, humor boosts
positive moods and counteracts negative emotions for everyone.
In fact, humor has long been considered a gift for all human beings to be
used for good purposes. Thus, humor should play a strong role in advancing
national health and improving international communication. Nonhostile, philo-
sophical, self-defeating but self-accepting humor is the basis for a well-adjusted
and self-actualized populace (Allport, 1961; Maslow, 1954; O’Connell, 1976).
The healthiest forms of humor may be more likely to trigger chuckles rather than
hearty laughs (Martin, 2007, p. 269), but whatever the form, all cultures should
take humor seriously and enjoy it, without mystification or stigmatization.
Following the conceptual division by Hoffding,2 humor can have great import
or small or local significance (Vejleskov, 2001), but both are important. “Great
humor” represents a philosophy of life; “small humor” involves simple laughing
and joking. Whether great or small, humor should boost the mental health of a
nation and its people, particularly in Chinese society.
Notes
1 Ru Men Shi Qin《儒門事親》 , a 15-volume classic of Chinese herbal medicine,
written by Mr. Zhang Zihe (also called Zhang Congzheng 張從正), advocated
many innovative treatments.
2 Hans Vejleskov, “A distinction between ‘small humor’ and ‘great humor’ and its
relevance to the study of children’s humor.” Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, Vol. 14 (4), 2001, p. 323. Hoffding (1843–1931) was a psycho-
logical philosopher (later vice-chancellor) at the University of Copenhagen and a
forerunner of the Gestalt school of psychology. His major work on humor is Den
store Humor [The Great Humor], Copenhagen: Gryldendal, 1916.
References
between stress and outcomes. Journal of Psychology, 132, 267–276.
Abel, M. H. (2002). Humor, stress, and coping strategies. Humor: International
Allport, G. W. (1961). Patterns of Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Angel, J., Buckley, C. J., & Sakamoto, A. (2001). Duration or disadvantages?
Exploring nativity, ethnicity, and health in midlife. Journal of Gerontology, 56B,
S275–S284.
Beach, S. R., & Tesser, A. (2000). Self-evaluation maintenance and evolution. In J.
Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of Social Comparison (pp. 123–140). New York:
Springer.
Becker, G., & Newsom, E. (2005). Resilience in the face of serious illness among
chronically ill African Americans in later life. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences,
60B, S214–S223.
Bobo, L. D., & Fox, C. (2003). Race, racism, and discrimination: Bridging problems,
mothers, and theory in social psychological research. Social Psychology Quarterly,
66, 319–332.
University Press.
Celso, B. G., Ebener, D. J. & Burkhead, E. J. (2003). Humor coping, health status,
and life satisfaction among older adults residing in assisted living facilities. Aging &
Mental Health, 7, 438–445.
Chan, Y. T., & Yue, X. D. (2012). Humor and Psychological Well-being of Police Offi-
cers in Hong Kong: A Comprehensive Discussion on Possible Interactions. Unpub-
lished thesis, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Chang, H. C. (2001). Harmony as performance: The turbulence under Chinese
interpersonal communication. Discourse Studies, 3(2), 155–179.
Chang, W. W. (2009). Schema adjustment in cross cultural encounters: A study of
expatriate international aid service workers. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33, 57–68.
Chen, C. C. (1985). A Study of Ancient Chinese Jokes [中國笑話研究]. Unpublished
master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Chen, G. H., & Martin, R. A. (2005). Coping humor of 354 Chinese university
students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19, 307–309.
Cheung, C-K., & Bagley, C. (1998). Validating an American scale in Hong Kong:
The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). The Journal of
Chow, J. (1999). Multiservice centers in Chinese American immigrant communities:
Practice principles and challenges. Social Work, 44, 70–81.
Coatsworth, J. D., Maldonado-Molina, M., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2005). A
person-centered and ecological investigation of acculturation strategies in Hispanic
Immigrant Youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 157–174.
Cooper, C. R., Coll, C. T. G., Thorni, B., & Orellana, M. F. (2005). Beyond demo-
graphic categories: How immigration, ethicity, and race matter for children’s iden-
tities and pathways through school. In C. R. Cooper, C. T. G. Coll, W. T. Bratko,
H. Davis, & C. Chatman (Eds.), Developmental Pathways Through Middle Child-
hood: Rethinking Contexts and Diversity as Resources (pp. 181–233). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-esteem
and psychological well-being among White, Black, and Asian college students. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 503–513.
Deaner, S. L., & McConatha, J. T. (1993). The relation of humor to depression and
personality. Psychological Reports, 72(3), 755–763.
Derogatis, L. R. (1994). Symptom Checklist-90-R: Administration, Scoring & Pro-
cedure Manual for the Revised Version of the SCL-90. Minneapolis, MN: National
Computer Systems.
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974). The
Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behav-
ioral science, 19(1), 1–15.
Dixon, N.F. (1980). Humour: A cognitive alternative to stress? In I-G. Sarason and
C.D. Spielberger (Eds.). Stress and Anxiety (pp. 281–289). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
coping, defense strategies, psychological distress, and well-being. Child Psychia-
try & Human Development, 37(3), 255–271.
Flores, E., Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2005). Predictors of resilience in mal-
treated and nonmaltreated Latino Children. Developmental Psychology, 41, 338–351.
Frewen, P. A., Dozois, D. J., Neufeld, R. W., & Lanius, R. A. (2008). Meta-analysis
of alexithymia in posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21(2),
243–246.
Garms, D. S. de, & Martinez, C. R., Jr. (2006). A culturally informed model of aca-
demic well-being for Latino youth: The importance of discriminating experiences
and social support. Family Relations, 55, 267–278.
Garstka, T. A., Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Hummert, M. L. (2004).
How young and older adults differ in their responses to perceived age discrimina-
tion. Psychology and Aging, 19, 326–335.
Goto, S. G., Gee, G. C., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2002). Strangers still? The experience of
discrimination among Chinese Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2),
211–224.
Gross, J. J., & Muñoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 2(2), 151–164.
cal Reports, 96(3), 747–750.
Harker, K. (2001). Immigrant generation, assimilation, and adolescent psychological
well-being. Social Forces, 79, 969–1004.
Hashim, I. H., & Yang, Z. (2003). Cultural and gender differences in perceiving
stressors: A cross-cultural investigation of African and Western students in Chinese
Colleges. Stress and Health, 19, 217–225.
Hernandez, D. J., & Charney, E. (1998). From Generation to Generation: The Health and
Well-Being of Children in Immigrant Families. Washington, DC: National Academy.
Ho, D. Y. (1995). Selfhood and identity in Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and
Hinduism: Contrasts with the West. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,
25(2), 115–139.
Ho, M. J., & Lin, S. H. (2000). The moderating effect of sense of humor on life stress
and physical-mental health for junior high school students. Bulletin of Educational
iences, Humor Styles and Self-Compassion. Unpublished thesis, City University of
Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal
of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.
Hyun, H. J. (2001). Sociocultural change and traditional values: Confucian values
among Korean and Korean Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-
tions, 25, 203–229.
Karou-ei, R., Doosti, Y. A., Dehshiri, G. R., & Heidari, M. H. (2009). Humor styles,
subjective happiness, and emotional intelligence in college students. Journal of Ira-
nian Psychologists 5(18), 159–169.
Kerkkanen, P., Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (2004). Sense of humor, physical
health, and well-being at work: A three-year longitudinal study of Finnish police
officers. Humor, 17(1/2), 21–36.
Kim, B. S. K., Brenner, B. R., Liang, C. T. H., & Asay, P. A. (2003). A qualita-
tive study of adaptation experiences of 1.5-generation Asian Americans. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 156–170.
Kovacev, L. & Shute, R. (2004). Acculturation and social support in relation to psy-
chosocial adjustment of adolescent refugees resulted in Australia. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 259–267.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1993). Humor and self-concept. Humor: Interna-
tional Journal of Humor Research, 6, 251–270.
Kuiper, N. A., & McHale, N. (2009). Humor styles as mediators between self-
evaluative standards and psychological well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 143(4),
359–376.
Kuiper, N. A., & Nicholl, S. (2004). Thoughts of feeling better? Sense of humor and
physical health. Humor, 17(1/2), 37–66.
being. Humor, 17(1/2), 135–168.
Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1993). Coping humour, stress, and
cognitive appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne
des sciences du comportement, 25(1), 81.
28(4), 781–796.
Kong, Hong Kong.
Taipei: Crane.
Liebkind, K., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2000). The influence of experiences of determi-
nation on psychological stress: A comparison of seven immigrant groups. Journal
of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 1–16.
Liebkind, K., Jasinokaja-Lahti, I., & Solheim, E. (2004). Cultural identity, perceived
discrimination, and parental support is determinant of immigrants school adjust-
ments. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 635–656.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Prelimi-
nary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.
147–170.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach (p. 15).
Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
45(6), 1313–1324.
37(1), 48–75.
Martin, R. M. (2004). Humor in middle management: Women negotiating the para-
147–170.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). The instinctoid nature of basic needs. Journal of Personal-
ity, 22(3), 326–347.
May, R. (1953). Man’s Search for Himself. New York: Norton.
Mossakowski, K. N. (2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does ethnic iden-
tity protect mental health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3), 318–331.
Nezlek, J. B., & Derks, P. (2001). Use of humor as a coping mechanism, psychologi-
cal adjustment, and social interaction. Humor, 14(4), 395–414.
O’Connell, W. E. (1976). Freudian humour: The eupsychia of everyday life. In A. J.
Chapman & H. Foot (Eds.), Humor and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applica-
tions (pp. 313–329). London: Wiley.
Ozyesil, Z. (2012). The prediction level of self-esteem on humor style and positive-
negative affect. Psychology, 3(8), 638.
Parrish, M. M., & Quinn, P. (1999). Laughing your way to peace of mind: How
a little humor helps caregivers survive. Clinical Social Work Journal, 27(2),
203–211.
Pitts, M. J. (2009). Identity and the role of expectations, stress, and talk in short-term
student sojourner adjustment: An application of the integrative theory of com-
munication and cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33(6), 450–462.
Portes, A. (1995a). Children of immigrants: Segmented assimilation and its deter-
minants. In A. Portes (Ed.), The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Net-
works, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship (pp. 248–280). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Portes, A. (1995b). Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration: A con-
ceptual overview. In A. Portes (Ed.), The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays
on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship (pp. 1–41). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Pulkkinen, L. (2009). Personality–a resource or risk for successful development. Scan-
dinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(6), 602–610.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image (Vol. 11, p. 326).
Saroglou, V., & Scariot, C. (2002). Humor Styles Questionnaire: Personality and
educational correlates in Belgian high school and college students. European Jour-
nal of Personality, 16(1), 43–54.
Sherkat, D. E., & Ellison, C. G. (1999). Recent developments and current controver-
sies in the sociology of religion. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 363–94.
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-
affirmation theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183–242.
Sodowsky, G. R., & Lai, E. W. M. (1997). Asian immigrant variables and structural
models of cross-cultural distress. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & N. Landale (Eds.),
Immigration and the Family: Research and Policy on U.S. Immigrants (pp. 211–
234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Svebak, S. (1996). The development of the Sense of Humor Questionnaire: From
SHQ to SHQ–6. Humor, 9, 341–362.
Tümkaya, S. (2011). Humor styles and socio-demographic variables as predictor of
subjective well-being of Turkish university students. Egitim ve Bilim, 36(160), 158.
Tupade, M. M. & Fredrickson, B. L. (2007). Regulation of positive emotions: Emo-
tion regulation strategies that promote resilience. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8,
311–333.
Vejleskov, H. (2001). A distinction between “small humor” and “great humor” and
its relevance to the study of children’s humor. Humor, 14(4), 323–338.
Wang, C. C., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2006). Acculturation, attachment, and psychoso-
cial adjustment of Chinese/Taiwanese international students. Journal of Counseling
Wang, Z. Y. (1984). The self-report symptom inventory (SCL-90). Shanghai Archives
of Psychiatry, 2, 68–70.
Ward, G. (2005). Cultural Transformation and Religious Practice. Cambridge, UK:
Wenkuyten, M. & Nekuee, S. (1999). Subjective well-being, discrimination and cul-
tural conflict: Iranians living in the Netherlands. Social Indicators Research, 47,
281–306.
Wickberg, D. (1998). The Senses of Humor: Self and Laughter in Modern America.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimina-
tion and ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ social and socio-
emotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197–1232.
Wyer, R. S., & Collins, J. E. (1992). A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological
Review, 99(4), 663.
23(3), 403–420.
24(4), 463–480.
Yue, X. D., & Hiranandani, N. A. (2016). Whoever is influential is successful too:
How Chinese undergraduates choose admirable people in Chinese societies. Psy-
chology & Behavior Analysis, 2, 115.
and foreign creators: A comparative study among undergraduates in China and
Germany? Journal of Creative Behaviour, 45, 23–37.
China, 5–8 June.
Yue, X. D., Jiang, F., & Lu, S. (2013). Little-h View and Big-H View: A Multi-method
Reports, 115(1), 65–74.
Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strate-
gies, relative fit and intergroup relations: immigrant-majority relations in Ger-
many. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(2), 171–188.
12(1), 63–70.
Zung, W. W. (1971). A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics, 12(6),
371–379.
7 Humor and Chinese creativity
When Confucius and his disciples travelled to the State of Yan (燕國), he
was stopped by a little boy named Xiang Tuo (項橐).1 Having heard that
Confucius was the best scholar in the country, Xiang asked him four rid-
dles: “What fire is without smoke? What water is without fish? What hill is
without rocks? What tree has no branches?”
Confucius thought for a while and replied, “wherever there is fire, there
is smoke; wherever there is water, there are fish; wherever there is a hill,
there are rocks; wherever there is a tree, there are branches.” Xiang laughed
and replied, “lampyridae have no smoke; well-water has no fish; a small hill
has no rocks; and a dead tree has no branches.”
Impressed by Xiang Tuo’s wit, Confucius told his disciples: “If you do
not keep learning, you never know when a youngster like this will catch
you up!”
The story of Confucius and Xiang Tao provides a background to this chapter, in
which I discuss the Chinese approach to humor and creativity.
Definition of creativity
Most individuals possess some innate creativity (Guilford, 1968) for deriving
novel, appropriate, useful, valuable, pleasing, or meaningful responses to tasks
and challenges (Amabile, 1996, p. 35; Stein, 1975; Sternberg, 1988) by using
complex traits, skills, and capacities, including curiosity, unconventional thinking,
openness to experience, tolerance of ambiguity, and the ability to work autono-
mously (Albert, 1996).
Creativity indicates divergent rather than convergent thinking processes
(Guilford, Kettner, & Christensen, 1956). Convergent thinking is a process
of deductive reasoning revealing the most suitable solution from a series of
options. Divergent thinking, in contrast, generates numerous solutions or var-
ied responses. The more ideas generated, the more creative the likely outcomes.
Thus, “the exploration of divergent thinking would seem to be a fruitful route
to take in the investigation of creativity” (Guilford et al., 1956, p. 279). Diver-
gent thinking can be measured in terms of separate but interrelated operations:
fluency, flexibility, and originality (Guilford et al., 1956; Torrance, 1974). Flu-
ency represents the ability to generate innovative ideas within a category; flex-
ibility represents the ability to break apart and reform configurations of classes,
relations, and systems; and originality represents the ability produce unusual or
unique ideas.
The Western and Chinese implicit concepts of creativity

Cultural norms and social practices affect how individuals judge creativity (Ama-
bile, 1996), the appropriateness of creative expressions, and the functions of cre-
ative expressions (Ludwig, 1992).
The Western perception of creativity is typically associated with individualis-
tic and expressive principles of liberal individualism, freedom of expression, self-
actualization, and equality (Lubart, 1999). Westerners expect creative work to
be novel, original, and appropriate within task constraints (e.g., Amabile, 1996;
Mayer, 1999; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). They expect creative persons to be free
spirits, individualistic, confident, to have good aesthetic and artistic taste, and to
have a sense of humor (Helson, Robert, & Agronick, 1995; Runco & Bahleda,
1987; Sternberg, 1985; Westby & Dawson, 1995). As such, Westerners con-
sider artists, musicians, and poets to be prototypical representatives of creativity
(Leung, Au, & Leung, 2004; Weiner, 2000) and tend to value creativity in sci-
ence and problem-solving much more than creativity in politics (Lubart, 1990).
In short, Westerners use aesthetic salience and creative expression as the primary
standards for evaluating creativity (Yue, 2004).
Chinese individuals, in contrast, associate creativity with the promotion of
collectivism, social harmony, social conformity, and reinterpretation of tradi-
tions. Chinese perceptions of creativity tend to be collectivistic and pragmatic
(e.g., Chu, 1970; Kuo, 1996; Ng, 2001; Rudowicz, 2003), oriented toward
fulfilling social obligations (Leung et al., 2004; Yue, 2004; Yue & Leung,
2003) and embracing strong ethical and instrumental standards (e.g., Chan,
1997; Yue & Ho, 2002; Wang, Duan, & You, 1997). They consider the essen-
tial worth of a creative person to be the ability to inspire, contribute to social
progress, gain public appreciation (Rudowicz & Hui, 1997), “render merito-
rious service” in life (ligong 立功, or establishing deeds), and be altruistically
dedicated to society (Yu, 1996). Chinese individuals are constantly reminded
to “sacrifice the small me so as to complete the big me” (Ng, 2001) and
are told that they are creative only when their achievements impress others
(Albert, 1975; Policastro & Gardner, 1995; Wen, 1989). Furthermore, Chi-
nese intellectuals consider the highest achievement is to provide meritorious
service (Wen, 1989). Their role is to express and manifest their ideas in society,
develop their internal morality, and be altruistically dedicated to society, which
aligns with the Confucian principle of “conquering selfishness to restore ritual
propriety” (Yu, 1996, p. 233).
Humor and Chinese creativity 145
Chinese children are socialized to respect parents, teachers, and elders and to
restrain from expressing personal feelings and critical opinions (Cheng, 1986;
Farver, Kim, & Lee-Shin, 2000; Gardener, 1989; Ng, 2001). Accordingly, they
learn to judge creative individuals primarily according to merit and utility (Yue,
2003, 2004; Yue & Rudowicz, 2002).
To account for the cultural differences, Yu (1996) pointed out that “rendering
meritorious service (ligong 立功, or establishing deeds) typically involves saving
those in distress, ridding the world of evil, and benefiting the world by good
works” (p. 232). In short, in contrast with the Western concept of creativity, the
Chinese concept of creativity emphasizes ethical judgments regarding the value
and outcomes of creativity (Yu, 2008, 2010).
Studies of Chinese implicit concept of creativity

Studies on implicit concepts of creativity in Chinese societies have been generally
rare, inconsistent, and largely lack empirical substantiation (Rudowicz & Yue,
2000). Of the few studies conducted, Rudowicz and Hui (1997) examined the
core concepts of creative individuals in Hong Kong and found that contributions
to social progress and improvement were among key factors. The purpose of the
study was to explore the factors associated with variations in Chinese perceptions.
Study participants were asked to describe a creative and a noncreative individual
and to rate the importance of characteristics associated with a creative person.
Their replies showed that the core components highly overlapped across gender,
age, education, and occupational status. They identified five strong factors as
characteristics of a creative person: innovative abilities, intellectual abilities, dyna-
mism, boldness, and social style. The descriptions seemed to specifically reflect
the Chinese collectivism-oriented culture, which is antithetical to the Western
tradition of individualism.
Rudowicz and Yue (2000) surveyed 451 undergraduate students from Beijing
(N = 192), Guangzhou (N = 70), Hong Kong (N = 117), and Taipei (N = 72)
about their concepts regarding features of creative behavior/people. Among the
top ten factors across the four samples were “creative, original, innovative, obser-
vant, intelligent, willing to try, and flexible.” In contrast with the Hong Kong
and Taipei samples, Beijing and Guangzhou participants perceived wisdom and
individualism to be important, but changeability was insignificant. Humor as a
characteristic was consistently missing. That is, they did not believe that humor
is related to creativity.
Niu and Sternberg (2002) examined Eastern/Western views of creativity
and reported that the views are similar but not identical. Specifically, Easterners
were more likely to judge creativity by social and moral values and connections
between the new and the old. Westerners, in contrast, tended to focus more on
specific and individual characteristics of creative individuals.
Chan (2005) studied 212 gifted students to understand their perceptions
regarding creativity, family resilience, and emotional intelligence. The results
indicated that family resilience and emotional intelligence had separate, direct,
and additive effects on their self-perceived creativity. Students who perceived that
they had emotional intelligence and that their families were resilient also per-
ceived themselves as engaging in create behaviors and activities.
Yi, Hu, Plucker, and McWilliams (2013) examined Chinese children regard-
ing creativity development and Chinese schools regarding creative climate. They
discovered that children in elementary schools had significantly higher creativity
scores than children in secondary schools. Teachers also indicated that elemen-
tary schools have significantly higher creative organizational climates than do
secondary schools. The study concluded that as children grow older, their cre-
ative thinking decreases, and their schools offer increasingly less creative climates.
Moreover, the creativity and climate scores were highly correlated, and path anal-
ysis results suggested that creative organizational climate in schools significantly
impacts all seven dimensions of creativity measured.
Meritorious evaluation bias in Chinese implicit

concept of creativity
In Chinese societies, creativity is generally goal-oriented and merit-based (Clark &
James, 1999), directed toward fulfilling ethical and instrumental standards (Chan,
1997; Shi & Zha, 2000; Wang, Duan, & You, 1997; Wu, 1996). Such goals are
derived from the embedded Confucian ethics of intellectual obligations to society
(Yue, 2004). Specifically, to “render meritorious service” at times of distress is
an important Confucian goal. Thus, the goal of intellectuals is to avoid bringing
attention to themselves, to develop the internal moral self, and to contribute
altruistically to society, as designated by the Confucian ethic of “conquering self-
ishness to restore ritual propriety” 克己復禮 (Yu, 1996, p. 232–233). In other
words, Chinese intellectuals strive to fulfill their duties to family, clan, and society
(e.g., De Vos, 1973; Hsu, 1981).
In addition, Chinese socialization trains children to respect parents, teach-
ers, and elders, and to restrain from expressing their personal feelings and criti-
cal opinions (Cheng, 1986; Farver et al., 2000; Gardener, 1989; Ng, 2001).
Accordingly, the Chinese evaluation of creativity embodies two salient features: a
high valuation of meritorious salience of creativity and a pervasive application of
a utilitarian practice as the primary standard against which creative individuals are
judged (Yue, 2003, 2004; Yue & Rudowicz, 2002).
Yue, Hao, Lan, and Yan (2006) conceptualized the Chinese merit-based view
of creativity as the meritorious evaluation bias in which the Chinese credit creative
people according to their social merit and demonstrated excellence. In other
words, meritorious evaluation bias assumes that creativity must benefit society
and must then be evaluated according to whether it provides desirable outcomes
(Kasof, 1995, p. 339). To verify the meritorious evaluation bias, a number of
studies of Chinese and Hong Kong students were conducted to better understand
the Chinese attitude toward creative individuals throughout history (Yue, 2004;
Yue, Bender, & Cheung, 2011). The studies indicated that Chinese were less
likely to nominate artists, musicians, and entertainers as the best representatives
of creativity and are most likely to nominate politicians, scientists, and inventors
who have contributed to social progress rather than to aesthetics. In addition,
participants rated politicians, scientists/inventors most highly on social contribu-
tion but rated writers, poets, artists, and entertainers most highly on creativity.
Thus, Chinese undergraduates tended to see the greatest meritorious salience in
individuals who served in political and scientific/technological fields.
Intuitively speaking, social contributions should be secondary or totally irrel-
evant when judging one’s creativity. Nevertheless, Chinese undergraduates
identified individuals who made social contributions as being the most creative,
supporting the meritorious evaluation bias; that is, and the belief that creativity
has an inherent value in primarily benefitting society. Unsurprisingly, the Chi-
nese will consider prototypical creative individuals to be those who distinguish
themselves as contributors to society, such as Cai Lun 蔡倫2 and Deng Xiao-Ping
鄧小平, rather than those who distinguish themselves in the realm of aesthetics,
such as Li Bai and Louis Cha.
The Western implicit belief that humor and creativity are parallel
Western literature (Runco, 1987; Sternberg, 1985; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988) sug-
gests that creativity includes implicit and explicit motivation, confidence, and pref-
erence for aesthetic experiences, theoretical thinking, independence, and sense of
humor. Thus humor and creativity have an almost one-to-one association (Helson,
1988; Runco & Bahleda, 1987; Sternberg, 1985; Westby & Dawson, 1995).
More specifically, Koestler (1964) argued that humor was an essential ele-
ment of creative thinking. Kerlinger and Pedhazur (1973) found that humor
and creativity both require the use of imagination, flexibility, originality, open-
mindedness, sharp sensitivity, and insight. Silverman (1993) reported that humor
was a central feature of gifted students. Western studies tend to agree that cre-
ativity and humor are positively correlated (Brodzinsky & Rubien, 1976; Rouff,
1975; Treadwell, 1970; Verma & Sinha, 1981; Wycoff & Pryor, 2003; Ziv, 1976,
1980). Moreover, Western researchers have found creative traits to be highly cor-
related with and to predict creative thinking (Halpin, Halpin, & Torrance, 1974;
Soueif & El-Sayed, 1970).
Parallels between humor and creativity have been noted for decades (e.g.,
Koestler’s The Act of Creation, 1964). The parallels largely occur because both
involve divergent thinking (e.g., Guilford, 1959; Ziv & Gadish, 1989) that yields
incongruity, surprise, and novelty (Ferris, 1972; Murdock & Ganim, 1993;
Treadwell, 1970; Wicker, 1985; Ziv, 1980). Both involve cognitive reappraisal
that can enhance positive and optimal individual development. Hence, people
who have a good sense of humor are likely to be more creative and vice versa.
Chinese creativity-humor-non-parallel phenomenon

The Chinese implicit view of creativity, in contrast, is weakly associated with
humor (Rudowicz & Yue, 2002, Yue, 2001). Moreover, the Chinese rarely
consider comedians, cartoonists, and comic writers to be prototypical representa-
tives of creativity (Yue, 2004; Yue, Bender, & Cheung, 2011). Instead, they will
see creativity more in those who contribute to social harmony, social conformity,
and social responsibilities than in those who contribute to arts, drama, and litera-
ture (e.g. Bender & Cheung, 2011; Chu, 1970; Kuo, 1996; Ng, 2001; Rudow-
icz, 2003; Yue, 2004; Yue & Leung, 2003; Yue & Rudowicz, 2002).
Besides, Yue and associates reported that Chinese people had quite contradic-
tory perceptions of humor; they appreciate it, fear it, and think that only certain
individuals have it as a trait (Yue, 2010, 2011; Yue & Hiranandani, 2014). More-
over, they omit humor when they list core personality traits (Rudowicz & Yue,
2002; Yue, 2001). Where Westerners think that humor is a personality trait that
is highly correlated with and predictive of creative thinking abilities (Halpin et al.,
1974; Soueif & El-Sayed, 1970), the Chinese perception differs fundamentally.
For instance, Chang, Chen, Hsu, Chan, and Chang (2015) investigated 1,252
Taiwanese youngsters to study the relationship between creativity and four atti-
tudes toward humor: general humor endorser, humor denier, positive humor
endorser, and negative humor endorser. The results revealed that the students
selected general humor endorsers as having the most creative potential and cre-
ative attitudes. The findings supported the intrapersonal variability perspective
of creativity: more creative individuals are able to consider different or opposing
elements.
Humor perception differs across cultures, Yue and Hiranandani (2014) exam-
ined the cultural differences of humor perception and nomination of humorists in
457 undergraduate students from Hong Kong, Hangzhou, and Vancouver. The
“big humor/little humor” phenomenon explicates cross-cultural meanings and
implications of humor expressions and functions. “Big humor” is a conception
that humor is created by professionals, whereas the “little humor” view is that
people possess humor as a personality trait. Participants were asked to nominate
up to three humorists they know and to specify their reasons for nomination. They
also self-evaluated, on a scale of 1 to 10, the importance of humor and their own
humor. Results showed that students from Vancouver nominated ordinary peo-
ple more, valued humor more, and considered themselves more humorous than
students in Hong Kong and Hangzhou. This can be attributed to the idea that
Chinese samples tended to hold the “little humor” view, whereas the Vancouver
sample tended to hold the “big humor” view (Yue, 2010, 2011). That is, Chi-
nese students in either Hong Kong or Hangzhou nominated significantly more
comedians than relatives and friends as representatives of humor, and the opposite
was observed for the Vancouver students’ nomination of humorists. In the Van-
couver sample, humor was taken as a positive disposition as well as a common
personal trait (Chen & Martin, 2007; Yue, 2011; Yue & Jiang, 2013), whereas
for undergraduates in Hangzhou, humor was not as much valued or probably
practiced (Yue, 2011). In addition, according to Confucianism in the Chinese
society, humor was considered to show intellectual shallowness and social infor-
mality (Yue, Wong, & Hiranandani, 2014). This could explain why the Chinese
students would regard humor as being less important and consider themselves as
possessing less humor than Westerners (Jiang et al., 2011).
In short, Western thinkers generally see creativity traits to be closely associ-
ated with humor, but Chinese do not. To explain for it, I want to propose the
concept of Chinese creativity-humor-non-parallel phenomenon, by which I mean
there is a lack of clear and consistent associations between constructs of humor
and constructs of creativity for the Chinese populations. The phenomenon is
partly rooted in the Chinese ambivalence about humor, by which the Chinese tend
to have paradoxical discomforts regarding use of humor in daily social interac-
tions, particularly in public occasions (also see Chapter 3), and the phenomenon
is partly attributed to the Chinese meritorious evaluation bias against humor or
creativity, by which the Chinese tend to hold a utilitarian view of humor or cre-
ativity such that it only becomes valued when it can serve the needs of social or
cultural developments of the society (also see Chapter 2). At their root lies the
Confucian ethics of social formality and proper personal conducts as well as the
Confucian ethic for “rendering meritorious services” for intellectuals in society
(Bond, 2010; Yu, 1996).
In what follows, I will review some of the studies that provide empirical evi-
dence of the Chinese creativity-humor-non-parallel phenomenon.
Studies of Chinese creativity-humor-

non-parallel phenomenon
Previous studies have found little evidence that Chinese individuals link humor
styles with creativity (Chang, Chen, Hsu, Chan, & Chang, 2015). Of the few
studies regarding the relationship between dimensions of divergent thinking
and styles of humor, Chan and Yue (2008) examined 236 Hong Kong students
(118 undergraduates and 118 secondary school students, 107 young men and
129 young women, with a mean age 18.5) using the Divergent Subscale of the
Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory 2 (CPAI-2) (Cheung, Leung, Fan,
Song, Zhang, & Zhang, 1996),3 the Verbal test of Wallach–Kogan Creativity
Tests (WKCTs: Wallach & Kogan, 1965), and the HSQ (Martin, Puhlik-Doris,
Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003).
Results showed an inconsistent association between dimensions of divergent
thinking and styles of humor, although dimensions of divergent thinking and
styles of humor were highly or relatively correlated (see Table 7.1).
Table 7.1 Correlations among WKCT and HSQ (N = 236)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Originality –
2. Fluency .86** –
3. Flexibility .86** .89** –
4. Affiliative Humor .10 .08 .08 –
5. Self-Enhancing Humor .05 .05 .05 .28** –
6. Aggressive Humor 0.2 –.01 –.01 .05 .23** –
7. Self-Defeating Humor –.05 –.06 –.06 –.03 .17** .53** –
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Creative thinking, traits, and humor styles
Yue and Hui (2015) examined the relationship between creative thinking and
humor styles among a sample of 222 students from the City University of Hong
Kong (129 men, 85 women) with a mean age of 23.37 (SD = 5.25). They com-
pleted the HSQ (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003), the CPAI-2
(Cheung et al., 1996), and the WKCT4 (Wallach & Kogan, 1965).
Table 7.2 presents the Pearson correlations among creative thinking, creative
personality traits, and humor styles. Creative thinking (fluency, flexibility, and origi-
nality) were all positively and moderately correlated (rs = .71 to .92, p < .001).
Novelty, diversity, and divergent thinking were mildly correlated with the other
creative personality traits (rs = .28 to .56, p < .001). Affiliative, self-enhancing,
aggressive, and self-defeating humor were all positively correlated (rs = .10 to .53,
p < .05). However, creative thinking and humor styles were not related (rs = –.12
to .13, p > .05), but affiliative humor was positively correlated with fluency and
originality (rs = .15 to .16, p < .05). Novelty was positively correlated with affiliative
humor (r = .29, p < .01), self-enhancing humor (r = .24, p < .01), and aggressive
humor (r = .19, p < .05), whereas diversity was associated with aggressive humor
(r = .16, p < .05) and self-defeating humor (r = .19, p < .05). Divergent thinking
was positively correlated with affiliative humor (r = .32, p < .01), aggressive humor
(r = .17, p < .05), and self-defeating humor (r = .16, p < .05).
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine how the
four humor styles and creative personality traits affect creative thinking. In each
regression model, creative thinking served as the dependent variable. Age and
gender were entered in the first step for control. The three personality traits were
entered as the second step, and the four humor styles were included in the third
step. Table 7.3 shows the results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses.
Using creative thinking abilities as the criterion variable, the combination of
age and gender had a significant effect, R2 = .10, F(2, 198) =10.36, p = .000.
Entering the creative personality traits in the second step significantly improved
the model fit, ΔR2 = .05, F(3, 193) = 3.72, p = .012. The combination of age,
gender, and creativity personality traits had a significant effect (R2 = .15, F(5,
198) = 6.55, p = .00). However, entering humor styles in the third step did not
significantly improve the model fit, ΔR2 = .02, F(4, 189) = 1.50, p = .203. How-
ever, the combination of age, gender, creativity personality traits, and humor style
had a significant effect (R2 = .17, F(9, 198) = 4.34, p = .00).
Taken together, the findings show again that creative thinking is not consis-
tently associated with humor styles, replicating the findings of Yue and colleagues
(Rudowicz, 2003; Rudowicz & Yue, 2000, 2002; Rudowicz, Tokarz, & Beau-
vale, 2009) that Chinese undergraduates in mainland China, Hong Kong, and
Taiwan did evaluate humor as being an important contributing factor to creativ-
ity. The results could be attributed to the Chinese ambivalent attitudes to humor
(Yue, 2011) and the meritorious bias regarding the utility of creativity (Yue,
2004). Specifically, as Chinese people tend to judge creativity in relation to its
Table 7.2 Correlations between creative thinking, creative personality traits, and humor styles (N = 222)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Creative Thinking
1. Fluency –
2. Flexibility .922*** –
3. Originality .737*** .712*** –
Creative Personality Traits
4. Novelty .153* .139* .190** –
5. Diversity .158* .114 .090 .513*** –
6. Divergent Thinking .107 .090 .173** .558*** .277*** –
Humor Styles
7. Affiliative Humor .151* .130 .161* .289*** .164* .322*** –
8. Self-Enhancing Humor –.037 –.099 .021 .237*** .189** .172* .331*** –
9. Aggressive Humor –.046 –.082 .015 .188** –.028 .163* .135* .133* –
10. Self-Defeating Humor –.077 –.119 .017 .078 –.106 .093 .104 .161* .526*** –
Note: +p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 7.3 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses on creative thinking abilities
(N = 222)
Creative Thinking
Step 1: Age and Gender
Gender –.31* –.35*** –.33***
Age –.02 –.02 –.03
Step 2: Creative Personality Traits
Novelty .10 .16
Diversity .09 .72
Divergent Thinking .02 .01
Step 3: Humor Styles
Affiliative .12
Self-Enhancing .11
Aggressive .02
Self-Deprecating –.09
R2 10*** .15*** .17***
ΔR2 　 .05* .02
Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Block 1: Age, Gender,
Block 2: Divergent Thinking,
Block 3: Affiliative, Self-Enhancing, Aggressive, and Self-Defeating.
social utility (Yue, 2001; Yue & Leung, 2003) and to believe that humor upsets
social formality (Yue, 2010), they tend to see little connection between creativity
and humor and to believe that humor is not an appropriate or significant indica-
tor of creative thinking (Rudowicz et al., 2009; Yue, Hao, & Goldman, 2010).
In other words, the Confucian emphasis on maintaining social hierarchy and
proper social manners has biased Chinese culture against humor, so humor and
creativity are discouraged (Yue, 2010).
The study also found that creative personality traits are positively and moder-
ately correlated with humor styles. It is intriguing to note that novelty is posi-
tively associated with affiliative humor, self-enhancing humor, and aggressive
humor. This seems to suggest that novelty helps enhance humor production
for various purposes. In fact, incongruity is theorized to be directly essential
to humor (Veale, 2004). When discrepancies occur between our expectations
and actual states in the cognitive dimension, humorous responses are elicited.
Adaptive humor and novel humor styles appropriately enhance creative person-
ality, but aggressive humor style is inappropriate and maladaptive for fostering
creativity.
The moderate association between creative thinking and creative disposi-
tions might be attributed to the multifaceted nature of creativity measures.
After all, the instrument used for the study was designed to assess verbal cre-
ativity. Baer (2010) argued that creativity, as a multifaceted construct, has
general indicators applicable in all domains and specific indicators uniquely
found in special domains. Consequently, measurements must be cautiously
used and findings must be cautiously interpreted. Some have even questioned
whether measures of divergent thinking are really correlated with real-life cre-
ative outputs (Baer, 1993; Sawyer, 2006; Wallach, 1971). The Chinese ambiva-
lence to humor may cause the moderate association between creative thinking
abilities and creative dispositions (Yue, 2010). That is, the Chinese values
humor more as a personality trait than as a talent (Yue et al., 2010). The
Chinese also place little value on having humor themselves, but still associate
humor with positive descriptors (Yue, 2011), an observation that remains to
be further investigated.
Creative thinking, humor styles, and humor types

Chan and Yue (2008) examined the relationship between creative thinking, humor
styles and humor types among a sample of 352 Hong Kong undergraduate stu-
dents (139 men, 219 women, with a mean age 20.35 years old). They used the
Guilford’s Alternative Uses Task (AUT) (Guilford, 1967), the HSQ (Martin
et al., 2003), and the 24-item MSHS (Thorson & Powell, 1993). Table 7.4 pres-
ents the Pearson correlations among creative thinking, humor styles, and humor
types. Creative thinking (fluency, flexibility, and originality) were all positively and
moderately correlated (rs = .89 to .98, p < .001). Affiliative, self-enhancing, aggres-
sive, and self-defeating humor were all positively correlated (rs = .12 to .40, p <
.05). Nonetheless, creative thinking and humor styles were not related, except for
affiliative humor (rs = .18 to .20, p < .01). Specifically, novelty was positively cor-
related with affiliative humor (r = .20, p < .01), self-enhancing humor (r = .22, p <
.01), and aggressive humor (r = .18, p < .05). In addition, creative thinking and
humor types were not related, except for adaptive humor (rs = .12 to .14, p < .01)
and appreciation of humor (rs = .15 to .17, p < .01). Adaptive humor was positively
and related to fluency (r = .12, p < .05), flexibility (r = .13, p < .05), and originality
(r = .14, p < .01), whereas appreciation of humor was positively related to fluency
(r = .17, p < .01), flexibility (r = .15, p < .01), and originality (r = .17, p < .01).
It is worth noting that adaptive humor styles and humor types are all positively
and consistently correlated with each other (rs = .11 to .56, p < .01), implying that
affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor were more predictive of use of humor
types than aggressive and self-enhancing humor. Also worth noting is that humor
types are all consistently correlated with each other (rs = .12 to .64, p < .001), imply-
ing humor types in the MSHS cross validate each other. Finally, aggressive humor
and self-defeating humor are more weakly correlated with humor types than affili-
ative humor and self enhancing humor; this echoes previous findings that the two
maladaptive humor styles seemed to show less content validity than the two adaptive
humor styles (e.g., Chen & Martin, 2007; Yue et al., 2010, 2011, 2014).
In conclusion, the above studies examined the association between creative
thinking, creative traits, humor styles, and humor types in a Chinese culture
context. The results showed that neither humor styles nor humor types were
Table 7.4 Correlations between creative thinking, humor styles, and humor types (N = 352)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Creative Thinking
1. Fluency –
2. Flexibility .917*** –
3. Originality .981*** .892*** –
Humor Styles
4. Affiliative Humor .200*** .220*** .188*** –
5. Self-Enhancing Humor .119 .127* .127** .405*** –
6. Aggressive Humor –.043 –.051 –.021 .022 .059 –
7. Self-Defeating Humor .008 .008 .035 .112* .263*** .282*** –
Humor Types
8. Humor Prod & Soc Use .055 .064 .055 .641*** .493*** .156** .254*** –
9. Adaptive Humor .120* .113* .141** .455*** .559*** .054 .259** .644*** –
10. Negation to Use Humor .026 .056 .009 .261*** .105* –.108* .122* –.037 .125* –
11. Attitude towards Humor .099 .098 .074 .469*** .156** –.072 .151*** .215*** .190*** .483*** –
12. Appreciation of Humor .172** .155** .170** .389*** .179** –.052 .006 .247*** .350*** .318*** .538*** –
Note: +p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
consistently associated with creative thinking or creative trait, confirming past
research showing that Chinese and Western individuals have different concep-
tions and values regarding creativity and humor (Yue, 2010). However, the Chi-
nese associate humor styles with creative personality traits, possibly because they
believe that creative personality traits are innately related to humor. China’s social
learning environment has caused individuals to disconnect humor from creative
thinking. Thus, further research might consider whether eastern cultures could
adapt Western attitudes in which creative personality traits are considered innate
talents that could be developed for greater creativity.
Summary
The above-discussed lack of a clear association between humor and creativity in
Chinese society may be attributed to the Confucian respect for authority and
seniority, as well as the Confucian puritanical bias against humor (e.g., Bond,
2010; Yue, 2011). For thousands of years, the Chinese have been used to judg-
ing creativity by its utilitarian values and expressing humor in restrained ways.
Inappropriate levity and laughter are frowned upon, especially after the 10th
century under the influence of the philosophical reforms commonly known as
Neo-Confucianism, which calls for stricter observation of Confucian beliefs of
social harmony and proper personal conduct.5
Notes
1 The story was originally recorded in《三字經》Three Character Classic：昔仲尼，
師項橐，古聖賢，尚勤學 (Confucius once met Xiang Tuo and learned from him,
even though he was just a child).
2 Cai Lun (蔡倫; AD 48–121), an official in the Han dynasty, is believed to have
standardized paper-making by adding essential new materials, essentially inventing
modern paper, although China had early forms of paper in the 2nd century BC.
3 The CPAI includes 541 items: 28 individual personality traits subscales, 12 clinical
scales, and three validity scales. The general personality questionnaire and clinical
scales of the internal consistency are between .63–.70. In this study, we used three
subscales: novelty, diversity, and divergent thinking. Each scale has two compo-
nents. One point was awarded for a yes answer and zero for a no answer; the reverse
items were recoded accordingly. Higher scores in the three creative personality
subscales indicated a more creative disposition, and vice versa.
4 The WKCT (Wallach & Kogan, 1965) includes five divergent thinking mea-
sures, including three language and two visual creativity measures. We used only
alternate items in the dimension of verbal creativity and three indicators to mea-
sure: 1) fluency: number of responses; 2) flexibility: types of responses; and
3) originality: unique responses. Before analyzing our dataset, we invited two
experts to rate responses for flexibility and originality. The overall inter-rater
reliability was .80.
5 Neo-Confucianism (also known as lixue 理學) is an attempt to create a more ratio-
nalist and secular form of Confucianism by rejecting superstitious and mystical ele-
ments of Taoism and Buddhism that have coexisted with Confucianism since the
Han dynasty (202 BC–220 AD).
References
Albert, R. S. (1975). Toward a behavioral definition of genius. American Psychologist,
30(2), 140.
Albert, R. S. (1996). Some reasons why childhood creativity often fails to make it past
puberty into the real world. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
1996(72), 43–56.
Baer, J. (1993). Divergent Thinking and Creativity: A Task-Specific Approach. Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehen-
sive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 592.
University Press.
Brodzinsky, D. M., & Rubien, J. (1976). Humor production as a function of sex of
subject, creativity, and cartoon content. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 44(4), 597.
Chan, D. W. (2005). Self-perceived creativity, family hardiness, and emotional intelli-
gence of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Prufrock Journal, 16(2–3), 47–56.
Chan, J. (1997). Creativity in the Chinese culture. In J. Chan, R. Li, & J. Spinks
(Eds.), Maximizing Potential: Lengthening and Strengthening Our Stride. Proceed-
ings of the 11th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children (pp. 212–218).
Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong, Social Sciences Research Center.
Chan, M. S., & Yue, X. D. (2008). A Study of Relationship between Creativity and
Humor among 236 Adolescents in Hong Kong. Unpublished undergraduate thesis,
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Chang, J. H., Chen, H. C., Hsu, C. C., Chan, Y. C., & Chang, Y. L. (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.
Cheng, C. Y. (1986). The concept of face and its Confucian roots. Journal of Chinese
Philosophy, 13(3), 329–348.
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. (1996).
Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Journal of
Cross Cultural Psychology, 27, 181–199.
Chu, Y. K. (1970). Oriental views of creativity. In A. Angoff and B. Shapiro (Eds.), Psi
Factors in Creativity (pp. 35–50). New York: Parapsychology Foundation.
Clark, K., & James, K. (1999). Justice and positive and negative creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 12(4), 311–320.
Farver, J. A. M., Kim, Y. K., & Lee-Shin, Y. (2000). Within cultural differences exam-
ining individual differences in Korean American and European American preschool-
ers’ social pretend play. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(5), 583–602.
Ferris, D. R. (1972). Humor and creativity: Research and theory. The Journal of Cre-
Gardner, H. (1989). The key in the slot: Creativity in a Chinese key. Journal of Aes-
thetic Education, 23(1), 141–158.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. Creativity and Its Cultivation, 10, 141–161.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, Creativity, and Their Educational Implications.
San Diego: RR Knapp.
Guilford, J. P., Kettner, N. W., & Christensen, P. R. (1956). A factor-analytic study
across the domains of reasoning, creativity and evaluation. Psychological Monographs,
73(9), 1–31.
Halpin, G., Halpin, G., & Torrance, E. P. (1974). Relationships between creative
thinking abilities and a measure of the creative personality. Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 34(1), 75–82.
Helson, R. (1988). The creative personality. In K. Gronhaug & G. Kaufmann (Eds.),
Innovation: A Cross Disciplinary Perspective (pp. 29–64). Oslo, Norway: Norwe-
gian University Press.
Helson, R., Roberts, B., & Agronick, G. (1995). Enduringness and change in creative
personality and the prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and
Hsu, F. L. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to Differences. Honolulu: Univer-
sity of Hawaii Press.
Kasof, J. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective. Creativity
Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J. (1973). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kuo, Y. Y. (1996). Taoistic psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
30(3), 197–212.
Leung, K., Au, A., & Leung, B. W. C. (2004). Creativity and innovation: East-West
comparisons with an emphasis on Chinese societies. In S. Lau, A. N. N. Hui, &
G. Y. C. Ng (Eds.), Creativity: When East Meets West (pp. 113–135). Singapore:
World Scientific Publishing.
Lubart, T. I. (1990). Creativity and cross-cultural variation. International Journal of
Psychology, 25(1), 39–59.
Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
Creativity (pp. 339–350). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ludwig, A. M. (1992). Culture and creativity. American Journal of Psychotherapy,
46(3), 454–469.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individ-
ual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personal-
ity, 37(1), 48–75.
Ng, A. K. (2001). Why Asians Are Less Creative Than Westerners. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. (2002). Contemporary studies on the concept of creativity:
The East and the West. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(4), 269–288.
Policastro, E., & Gardner, H. (1995). Naive judgment and expert assessment:
A critique of the attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8(4),
391–395.
Rouff, L. L. (1975). Creativity and sense of humor. Psychological Reports, 37, 1022.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(1), 139.
Rudowicz, E., Tokarz, A., & Beauvale, A. (2009). Desirability of personal character-
istics associated with creativity: Through the eyes of Polish and Chinese university
students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(2), 104–115.
ties. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3–4), 387–394.
Runco, M. A. (1987). Interrater agreement on a socially valid measure of students’
creativity. Psychological Reports, 61(3), 1009–1010.
Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1987). Birth-order and divergent thinking. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 148(1), 119–125.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1),
41–48.
Shi, J., & Zha, Z. (2000). Psychological research on and education of gifted and tal-
ented children in China. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik
(Eds.), International Handbook for Research on Gifted and Talented (pp. 757–764).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the Gifted and Talented. Denver, CO: Love.
Soueif, M. I., & El-Sayed, A. M. (1970). Curvilinear relationships between creative
thinking abilities and personality trait variables. Acta Psychologica, 34, 1–21.
Stein, M. I. (1975). Creativity: The Process and Its Stimulation. Basel, Switzerland: Geigy.
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and
Tardif, T. Z., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). What do we know about creativity? In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives
(pp. 429–440). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
sional sense of humor scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 13–23.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J.
Treadwell, Y. (1970). Humor and creativity. Psychological Reports, 26(1), 55–58.
Veale, T. (2004). Incongruity in humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon? Humor: Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research, 17(4), 419–428.
Verma, L. K., & Sinha, R. (1981). Mental health and creativity. The Journal of Cre-
Vos, G. A. de. (1973). Personality Patterns and Problems of Adjustment in American-
Japanese Intercultural Marriages (Vol. 49). Taipei: Chinese Association for Folklore.
Wallach, M. A. (1971). The Intelligence/Creativity Distinction. New York: General
Learning Press.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study
of the Creativity-Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wang, D. D., Duan, X. Q., & You, L. (1997). Creative education: On way toward
training creative talents for the 21st century. In J. Chan, R. Li, & J. Spinks (Eds.),
Maximizing Potential: Lengthening and Strengthening Our Stride. Proceedings of
the 11th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children (pp. 689–690). Hong
Kong: The University of Hong Kong, Social Sciences Research Center.
Weiner, R. P. (2000). Creativity and Beyond. Cultures, Values, and Change. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Wen-Wei, P. (1989). Self-directed learning: A matched control trial. Teaching and
Learning in Medicine: An International Journal, 1(2), 78–81.
Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom?
Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 1–10.
Wicker, F. W. (1985). A rhetorical look at humor as creativity. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 19(3), 175–184.
Seoul, Korea.
Wycoff, E. B., & Pryor, B. (2003). Cognitive processing, creativity, apprehension,
and the humorous personality. North American Journal of Psychology, 5(1), 31–35.
Yi, X., Hu, W., Plucker, J. A., & McWilliams, J. (2013). Is there a developmental
slump in creativity in China? The relationship between organizational climate and
creativity development in Chinese adolescents. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
47(1), 22–40.
Yu, A. B. (1996). Ultimate life concerns, self, and Chinese achievement motivation.
In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Handbook of Chinese Psychology (pp. 227–246). Hong
Kong: Oxford University Press.
Yu, T. (2008). The revival of Confucianism in Chinese schools: A historical-political
review. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(2), 113–129.
Yue, X. (2003). Meritorious evaluation bias: How Chinese undergraduates perceive
and evaluate Chinese and foreign creators. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(3),
151–177.
Yue, X. D. (2001). Understanding creativity and creative people in Chinese society: A
comparative study among university students in Beijing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong,
and Taipei. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 33(2), 148–154.
23(3), 403–420.
24(4), 463–480.
Yue, X. D., Bender, M., & Cheung, C. K. (2011). Who are the best-known national
and foreign creators—A comparative study among undergraduates in China and
Germany. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(1), 23–37.
Yue, X. D., Hao, X., Lan, L., & Yan, F. (2006). Humor and Youth Empowerment: A
Self-cultivation Approach. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on
Youth Empowerment, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, 5–8
June.
Yue, X. D., & Ho, K. K. (2002). A study of the meritorious evaluation bias among
Hong Kong primary and secondary school teachers in the selection of creative Chi-
nese individuals. New Horizons in Education, 45(1), 28–33.
Yue, X. D., & Hui, A. N. (2015). Humor styles, creative personality traits, and cre-
ative thinking in a Hong Kong sample. Psychological Reports, 117(3), 845–855.
Yue, X. D., & Leung, K. (2003). Motives and attitudes for creativity: Views from
undergraduates in Hong Kong and Guangzhou. New Horizon in Education, 47, 1–5.
Yue, X. D., Wong, A. Y. M., & Hiranandani, N. A. (2014). Humor styles and Lone-
liness: A study among Hong Kong and Hangzhou undergraduates. Psychological
reports, 115(1), 65–74.
Ziv, A. (1976). Facilitating effects of humor on creativity. Journal of Educational
Ziv, A. (1980). Humor and creativity. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 5(3),
159–170.
Psychology, 129(6), 759–768.
8 Workplace humor
in Chinese society
The boss is great!
The boss’s cursing is a criticism,

The boss’s lying is a talent,
The boss’s revenge is an education,
The boss’s bragging is a skill,
The boss’s bribe-taking is a kindness,
The boss’s bribing is a publication relation act,
The boss’s mistake is an exploration.
領導罵人是批評，領導撒謊是水準，領導報復是教育，領導吹牛是能力，
領導受賄是親民，領導行賄是公關，領導失誤是探索。
Source: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6c53b8a30101oaap.html
Humor and workplaces

The above joke comes from a competition of workplace humor organized by xin-
lang 新浪, a big internet company in China. It reflects a typical flavor of Chinese
self-enhancing humor: subtle, obedient, yet aggressive in a delicate way. In this
chapter, I will review some of the workplace humor studies that were conducted
in Chinese society.
American President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said: “A sense of humor is part
of the art of leadership, of getting along with people, of getting things done.”
Indeed, workplaces throughout the world can be rife with conflicts, politics, and
pressure and often need humor as a psychological mechanism for establishing
and maintaining close partnerships, building exciting and vibrant relationships,
and diffusing conflict among colleagues (e.g., Bippus, 2003; Kane, Suls, & Tede-
schi, 1977; Long & Graesser, 1988; Martineau, 1972; Mesmer-Magnus, Glew, &
Viswesvaran, 2012; Mulkay, 1988; Norrick, 1993).
162 Workplace humor in Chinese society
Humor functions on three levels: (1) the specific stimulus that elicits the humor,
(2) cognitive or emotional perceptions regarding the humor, and (3) external
responses and behaviors (Nazareth, 1988). It generally arises from inherently
ambiguous and contradictory messages with multiple interpretations (Martin,
2007). Message senders and receivers can use the multi-interpretation property
to resolve conflicts. That is, when serious messages are conveyed humorously,
both senders and receivers can comfortably dismiss the seriousness if messages
evoke discomfort or dislike. Consequently, skillfully used humor can counter the
conflict inherent in all relationships by lightening the tension so that conflict
turns to laughter and conflicting parties restore their connections. Such ameliora-
tive qualities are particularly useful in workplace settings.
With regard to theories of humor at workplaces, Cooper (2008) proposes a
relational process model of humor which suggests that humor could be used within
dyadic interpersonal contexts to stimulate positive affect via four mechanisms:
reinforcing positive affect between the two individuals, increasing perceived simi-
larity, encouraging closeness through greater self-disclosure, and reducing the
salience of hierarchical differences between members of the dyad. Thus conceived,
humor can be used to tactfully disclose personal values, attitudes, or emotional
states. If message senders discover that the message has evoked aversion, hurt
feelings, or defenses, the sender can dismiss the tension by saying, for example,
“I was only joking.” Humor can be used to enforce social norms and discourage
deviant behaviors or attitudes, as social play for achieving social goals, whether
congenial and prosocial or aggressive and coercive (Martin, 2007, p. 150).
In addition, Robert and Wilbanks (2012) posits a wheel model of humor which
suggests that humor impacts positive affect that might be caught by members of
a group via emotional displays or emotional contagion processes. Ultimately, it
can create a climate that encourages people to use humor to communicate with
each other intelligently. Alternatively speaking, when used skillfully, humor can
help ease tension among colleagues, turn the conflicts into laughter, and restore
connections between the conflicting parties.
Workplace humor has been greatly discussed but rarely studied (Martin, 2007,
p. 361). Most English studies of humor have been in Western contexts, but
studies of workplace humor in Chinese workplaces are rare and sporadic (Chen,
2011; Yue et al., 2016). In this chapter, I will review some of these studies that
were conducted in Chinese societies and were published on Academic journals
in English.
Humor styles, conflict styles, and leader effectiveness

Conflict style refers to ways of responding to conflict (Cann, Norman, Wel-
bourne, & Calhoun, 2008), depending on two main foci: concern for self and
concern for others (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1976). Spe-
cifically, concern for the self is expressed when individuals try to solve conflicts by
advancing their own priorities, whereas concern for others is expressed when they
try to ensure that the other party gets a desirable conflict resolution.
Workplace humor in Chinese society 163
Conflicts may be resolved according to concerns for the self and concerns for
others through the following approaches. (See Figure 8.1; Rahim, 1983; Rahim &
Magner, 1995.)
1 Integrating involves collaboration between parties to reach solutions, fulfill-

ing concerns both for the self and for the other party.
2 Obliging emphasizes commonalities over differences, fulfilling concerns for
the other party and de-emphasizing concerns for the self.
3 Dominating assumes an “I win – you lose” orientation, fulfilling concerns
for the self and undercutting concerns for the other party.
4 Avoiding requires withdrawing from responsibility for actions, attributing
responsibility to others, and ignoring undesirable information. It involves
low concern for both the self and the other party.
5 Compromising has a “we lose together/win together” orientation, involv-
ing moderate concern for the self and the other party.
In a study of the relationships between conflict styles and humor styles (Cann
et al., 2008), 437 American undergraduate students (186 men, 251 women; mean
age of 20.7) completed the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003) and the Rahim Organi-
zational Conflict Inventory (ROCI-II: Rahim & Magner, 1995). Results showed
that self-defeating humor was related to an obliging conflict style; self-enhancing
humor was associated with an integrating conflict style; aggressive humor was cor-
related with a dominating conflict style. This implies that those who tend toward
self-defeating humor would employ avoidance elements and yield to others more
readily in conflict settings. An integrating conflict style was associated with all
humor styles except self-defeating humor. This suggests that people who use inte-
grating conflict strategy are less likely to use aggressive, demeaning humor.
With regard to similar studies in Chinese society, Hung (2012, under super-
vision of Yue) examined the relationship between humor styles, conflict styles,
and self-esteem among 312 university students in Hong Kong (127 men, 184
women; mean age of 21.8). Participants completed the HSQ (Martin et al.,
2003), the ROCI-II (Rahim & Magner, 1995), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale (RSES) (Rosenberg, 1965). Results showed that affiliative humor and
Concern for Self

High Low
High Integrating Obliging
Concern for Others Compromising
Dominating Avoiding
Low
Figure 8.1 Rahim conflict resolution styles

Source: Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy
of Management Journal, 26, 368–376.
self-enhancing humor were positively and significantly correlated with inte-
grating, obliging, and compromising conflict resolution styles oriented toward
concerns about the other party. Aggressive humor and self-defeating humor
styles were negatively correlated with avoiding and dominating conflict resolu-
tion styles oriented toward self-concern. These findings echo previous findings
(Cann et al., 2008), showing that people who use integrating conflict strategy
are less likely to use demeaning, aggressive humor. The findings are also consis-
tent with my findings (Yue, 2010, 2011; Yue et al., 2016) that Chinese people
are highly conscious of face value and interpersonal harmony when they use
humor.
Besides, self-esteem was found to be positively and significantly correlated with
adaptive humor styles and with conflict resolution styles oriented toward con-
cerns about the other party. Self-esteem was negatively correlated with aggres-
sive humor, self-defeating humor, and dominating humor, but the correlation
was significant only for self-defeating humor. These findings also echo previ-
ous findings that Chinese tend to use more adaptive humor styles and compro-
mising approaches and to avoid maladaptive humor styles and confrontational
approaches (Yue, 2010, 2011; Yue et al., 2016).
In another study of the relationship between humor styles, conflict styles, and
job satisfaction (Leung & Yue, 2010), 362 Hong Kong working adults (179 men,
183 women; mean age of 23.5) completed the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the
ROCI-II (Rahim & Magner, 1995), and the 16-item Minnesota Job Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MJSQ: Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Results showed that older
participants were more likely than younger participants to handle subordinate/
supervisor conflicts by using integrating conflict styles. Affiliative humor and self-
enhancing humor were significantly and positively correlated with integrating
and compromising conflict styles, suggesting that adaptive humor styles are used
to resolve conflicts. Aggressive humor was significantly and positively correlated
with dominating conflict style; self-defeating humor was significantly and posi-
tively correlated with dominating and obliging conflict styles. The findings imply
that maladaptive humor styles would intensify conflicts. In addition, affiliative
humor and self enhancing humor were significantly and positively correlated with
both intrinsic and general job satisfaction, implying that adaptive humor styles
enhance job satisfaction. However, maladaptive aggressive styles showed no sig-
nificant correlation with job satisfaction.
These studies have confirmed that adaptive humor styles would decrease
work tension and facilitate conflict resolution (Martin, 2007; Martin et al.,
2003), particularly for the Chinese. The findings may be attributed to the influ-
ence of Confucian doctrines of keeping interpersonal harmony and avoiding
direct conflict (Yue et al., 2016). Moreover, they serve to abandon the notion
that “good humor will stimulate affect.” It all depends on whether humor
would serve the needs of the speaker in work contexts, being either a supervisor
or a subordinate, or the needs of the culture, being for sake of either facework
面子功夫 or guanxi 關係 in cultural contexts (e.g., Kwang-kuo, 1987; Liu,
Li, & Yue, 2010).
Besides, in a study of humor as how it affects innovative behavior and leader-
ship effectiveness (Ho, Wang, Huang, & Chen, 2011), 381 working adults in
Taipei (43% men, 56% women, 25 to 34 years old) completed the HSQ (Martin
et al., 2003), Innovative Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ) (Scott & Bruce, 1994),
and Leadership Effectiveness Questionnaire (LEQ) (Douglas & Ammeter,
2004). Results showed that innovative behavior and leadership effectiveness were
significantly and positively associated with affiliative and self-enhancing humor
but negatively and significantly associated with aggressive humor. Innovative
behavior and leadership effectiveness were positively and significantly associ-
ated with each other. The findings imply that leaders who share more innovative
behavior and friendly humor at work are more likely to be perceived as innova-
tive and effective. Regression analysis further showed that self-enhancing humor
significantly and positively influenced perceptions that leaders were innovative,
suggesting that leaders who tell cheerful and optimistic jokes will be perceived as
showing more innovative behavior. Aggressive humor, in contrast, had a signifi-
cantly negative influence on perceptions of innovative behavior, suggesting that
leaders who tease or make fun of others will be perceived as being less innovative.
Collectivism and individualism influences were cited as the reasons that self-
defeating humor has completely different implications in Oriental and Western
societies (Ho et al., 2011). Specifically, in collectivism-based Oriental societies,
as people value greatly interpersonal harmony and take modesty as a virtue, they
tend to show humbleness and etiquette by eschewing personal recognition and
using self-defeating humor to make fun of themselves and to maintain interper-
sonal harmony. In individualism-based Western societies, however, people value
greatly competition and recognition. They tend to regard modesty as “reduced
self-recognition” and try to avoid it (Ho et al., 2011). Consequently, they would
be more uncomfortable with leaders who derogate or ridicule others. This pro-
vides further evidence to the Chinese ethic of avoiding shame, as discussed in
Chapter 4.
In a similar way, Kim, Lee, and Wong (2015) examined how social distance and
affective trust affect the relationships between supervisor humor, subordinates’
psychological well-being, and job performance among 322 matched supervisor–
subordinate dyads in 14 South Korean organizations. Participants completed the
HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the Affective Trust in Supervisor Scale (McAllis-
ter, 1995), the six-item Social Distance Scale (Graham, 1995), the 14-item PSS
(Cohen et al., 1983), and the seven-item Job Performance Scale (JPS: Williams &
Anderson, 1991). Supervisors’ self-enhancing humor was found to be positively
associated with subordinates’ psychological well-being and job performance.
Supervisors’ affiliative humor was positively associated with subordinates’ psy-
chological well-being, but aggressive humor was negatively associated. In addi-
tion, social distance indirectly determined whether supervisor humor was related
to subordinates’ psychological well-being. Moreover, affiliative humor and social
distance had a stronger relationship under high affective trust. The authors con-
cluded that supervisor humor might sometimes yield poor results. They encour-
aged supervisors to build strong trust relationships with subordinates to ensure
that humor was effective and constructive. Though the study was conducted in
South Korea, the findings are highly applicable to explaining the relationships
between supervisor humor, subordinates’ psychological well-being, and job per-
formance in Chinese contexts as well. They all show that if humor is to be appre-
ciated in Chinese or Oriental workplaces, it must be used carefully in accordance
with Confucian doctrines of interpersonal harmony and social formality (Bond,
2010; Yue, 2010, 2011; Yue et al., 2016).
Humor climate and job satisfaction

Humor climate reflects the presence of positive forms of humor among cowork-
ers and, supported by supervisors, should be associated with higher job satis-
faction and commitment. However, a climate characterized by higher levels of
negative humor in any form would be expected to relate to lower satisfaction and
commitment (Cann, Watson, & Bridgewater, 2014).
Coworkers and supervisors who share workplaces featuring positive humor
climates will show higher job satisfaction and commitment. However, those
who share workplaces characterized by negative humor in any form will have
lower job satisfaction and commitment (Cann, Watson, & Bridgewater, 2014).
Supervisors who use humor skillfully are generally better liked (Holmes & Marra,
2002; Hughes & Avey, 2009). They build and support better work relationships
(Cooper, 2008), facilitate group processes (Romero & Pescosolidio, 2008), help
workers deal with stress (Doosje et al., 2010), and enhance creativity for better
problem-solving (Holmes & Marra, 2002).
The Humor Climates Questionnaire (HCQ: Cann et al., 2014) was developed
to test multidimensional humor climates and to predict whether employees will
be committed to the organization and satisfied with their jobs. The questionnaire
measures work climates featuring:
1 Positive Humor. In this work climate, affiliative humor includes everyone;

self-enhancing humor dispels work stress; all members have greater job satis-
faction (e.g., Martin et al., 2003; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006).
2 Negative Humor Toward the Outgroup. In this work climate, humor is
diverted toward outside factors, such as policies and working environments,
to change negative attitudes toward power relationships (Holmes & Marra,
2002).
3 Negative Humor Toward the Ingroup. This work climate features the
use of aggressive humor to ridicule and tease group members (Martin et al.,
2003). Negative humor targeting ingroup members might encourage group
solidarity but ultimately damages trust among group members (Blanchard,
Stewart, Cann, & Follman, 2014).
4 Supervisor Support for Humor. In this work climate, supervisors support
the use of humor in the workplace, leading to greater job satisfaction among
workers (e.g., Blanchard et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2003; Mesmer-Magnus
et al., 2012).
The HCQ (Cann et al., 2014) was validated using a sample of 199 American
undergraduates (57 men, 142 women; mean age 22). Results showed that the
use of ingroup negative humor was associated with less satisfaction with cowork-
ers. Supervisor support was consistently positively related to positive assessments
of job experiences. Also, supervisor support was the only significant predictor
of commitment to continue with the organization. In this instance, supervisor
support for humor was associated with lower perceived constraints against turn-
over. Outgroup humor was associated with dissatisfaction with management poli-
cies or procedures. The study concluded that the HCQ is useful for identifying
humor climate differences and capturing variances beyond individual differences
in humor styles.
In another study of humor styles and job satisfaction in American business con-
texts (Robert, Dunne, & Iun, 2016), 241 subordinates nested within 70 leaders
in 54 organizations revealed that the relationship between leader humor and job
satisfaction was dependent on the quality of the leader–subordinate relationship
and not the positive/negative tone of the leader’s humor. Specifically, both posi-
tive and negative (i.e., affiliative and aggressive) leader humor styles were posi-
tively associated with job satisfaction when the relationship was positive, but both
types were negatively associated with job satisfaction when the relationship was
negative. Finally, study also suggested that the effects of positive humor increased
with increasing subordinate tenure
In a study of humor climate and humor use effects on job satisfaction in Hong
Kong (Li & Yue, 2015), 120 working adults (43 men, 77 women) completed
the 32-item HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the HCQ (Cann et al., 2014), and
the MJSQ (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). Results showed that
supervisor support was negatively and significantly correlated with negative
humor directed toward the ingroup and the outgroup, but positively corre-
lated with positive humor climate, implying that supervisors’ supportive atti-
tudes are critical if workplaces are to use humor positively and avoid the use of
negative humor. Negative humor toward the ingroup was positively and signifi-
cantly correlated with negative humor toward the outgroup. Negative humor
toward ingroups and outgroups was also positively and significantly correlated
with aggressive and self-defeating humor, implying that negative humor climates
reinforce the use of maladaptive humor styles. Finally, negative humor toward
the outgroup was positively and significantly correlated with MJSQ, suggesting
that negative humor climates decrease job satisfaction. The findings echo previ-
ous findings (e.g., Cann et al., 2014) that employee morale and job satisfaction
greatly depend on whether supervisors and employees cultivate positive humor
climates.
In another study of humor styles, job satisfaction, and occupational burnout
(Hai, 2011, under supervision of Yue) in Hong Kong, 129 working adults (48
men, 78 women) completed the 32-item HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), and the
Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey (MBI-GS: Maslach & Jackson,
1981). Cynicism was found to be significantly and negatively correlated with
aggressive and self-defeating humor styles. Self-defeating humor was negatively
and significantly correlated with emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced
professional efficacy. Job satisfaction was positively correlated with affiliative
and self-enhancing humor. These findings echo previous findings that adaptive
humor reduces burnout and increases work accomplishments (e.g., Wojtyna &
Stawiarska, 2009).
In addition, Decker, Yao, and Calo (2011) examined how humor affected
impressions of leadership styles and job performance in China. One hundred sixty-
four Chinese businesspersons (85 men, 79 women) from MBA program classes in
Beijing, Dalian, and Shanghai completed the 24-item MSHS (Thorson & Pow-
ell, 1993). The researchers enlarged the questionnaire by adding seven items
concerning perceptions of enjoyment of humor and use of humor at work from
Decker and Rotondo (1999) and nine items assessing impressions of supervi-
sors’ leadership from Decker and Rotondo (2001). No gender difference was
observed on the MSHS, but men reported using more insult and sexual humor.
A comparison of Chinese and American men showed similarity in enjoyment
and use of sexual humor, but Chinese men used less insult humor (cf. Decker &
Rotondo, 1999). Supervisors’ reported use of positive humor was positively asso-
ciated with leadership ratings. Their use of negative humor was the best predictor
that subordinates would use negative humor, supporting assertions that supervi-
sor support generates humor climates (e.g., Cann et al., 2014; Holmes & Marra,
2002; Hughes & Avey, 2009). The authors cautioned that respondents may have
over-reported their use of positive humor and under-reported their use of nega-
tive humor because Chinese people tend to prefer adaptive humor styles over
maladaptive humor styles (Yue, 2011; Yue et al., 2014).
In a similar study of how supervisor humor affected employee strain and
addictive behaviors, Huo, Lam, and Chen (2012) surveyed 243 frontline
employees working at four telecommunication equipment manufacturing
companies within an IT corporation in Shanghai. Participants completed the
eight-item Aggressive subscale of the 32-item HSQ (Martin et al., 2003), the
Occupational Burn-out Scale (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1997), the 20-item
Internet Addiction Scale (IAS: Young, 2004), the CAGE (cut down, annoyed,
guilty, eye opener) questionnaire (Ewing, 1984), and the seven-item Fager-
strom Tolerance Questionnaire (FTQ: Prokhorov, Pallonen, Fava, Ding, &
Niaura, 1996). Employees reported feeling greater strain when they perceived
that their supervisors used aggressive humor; employees who perceived that
their supervisors rarely used aggressive humor did not show such strain. The
strained reactions affected coworkers and increased the likelihood of addictive
behaviors such as Internet addictions, problem drinking, and problem smok-
ing. In conclusion, the authors agreed that a good sense of humor is critical
to excellent leadership and effective communication (e.g., Bruce, 2002), but
aggressive humor may cause subordinates to feel strain and to adopt addic-
tive behaviors. Reactions will be even more negative and stressful if certain
employees are targeted while other team members are not subjected to the
same experience.
Humor, job self-efficacy, and teaching effectiveness

Social cognitive theory explains that social belief systems affect all strategies, goals,
actions, and abilities to deal with unfavorable conditions. At the core of social
belief systems is self-efficacy, that is, individuals’ perceptions of their abilities and
talents (Bandura, 1997). People with high self-efficacy will perform tasks with
better confidence and efficiency (Bandura, 1977) and are thus likely to meet chal-
lenges with self-confidence and determination (Bandura, 1977; Henson, 2001;
Pajares, 2002). The job satisfaction literature has widely studied self-efficacy, but
not its effects on humor in Chinese society. To fill that gap, Yip (2014, under
supervision of Yue) examined the relationship between humor types and work
self-efficacy. A sample of 180 Hong Kong working adults (78 men, 102 women;
mean age of 26.5) completed the MSHS (Thorson & Powell, 1993) and the
ten-item General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES, Schwarzer & Jerusalem,
1995). All six subscales of MSHS (humor creativity, use of humor for social
purposes, coping humor, appreciation of humorous people, and appreciation of
humor) were positively and significantly correlated with self-efficacy. The find-
ings imply that a sense of humor increases self-efficacy in the workplace.
Chen (2011) developed the Humor Production Scale for Teachers-Revised-R
(HPST-R) and administered it to 388 teachers in Guangzhou. The HPST-R has
12 items and measures the extent to which teachers use humor in the classroom
on a 7-point Likert Scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The results
showed that men used significantly more humor in the classroom than women
teachers did. Teachers in humanities, linguistics, and social sciences were signifi-
cantly more likely to use humor than teachers in sciences and technology. Age,
years of teaching, academic degrees, or academic ranks showed no significant
differences. The use of humor significantly impacted student ratings of teaching
effectiveness. Specifically, for women teachers (n = 218), the use of humor was
somewhat strongly correlated with student ratings, but for men teachers, the cor-
relation was only moderate. In conclusion, the study confirmed the hypothesized
humor effect on favorable student ratings. Chen called on Chinese teachers to be
more aware of the positive effects of humor in classroom teaching and to develop
instructional plans with “more humor-oriented teaching materials – perhaps even
to search out intentional humor in advance (for instance, collecting appropriate
anecdotes and cartoons)” (p. 212).
In a related study examining how American and Taiwanese nursing faculty
members differed in teaching therapeutic humor in the classroom and using it in
clinical education (Chiang, Adamle, & Chiang, 2009), 40 nursing faculty of three
nursing programs (two in the United States and one in Taiwan) answered open-
ended questionnaires to be used for content analysis in a qualitative approach.
Results showed that Taiwanese faculty members reported teaching many con-
cepts related to therapeutic humor in the classroom but practicing little thera-
peutic humor in clinical settings. In contrast, American faculty members reported
that they taught fewer concepts related to therapeutic humor in the classroom
but practiced a great deal of humor in clinical settings. The differences are attrib-
uted to cultural variations: Taiwanese follow the cultural “reverence for illness.”
They believe that therapeutic humor is formal, family-centered and must comply
with familial relations, roles, duties, and responsibilities, while Americans con-
sider therapeutic humor to be an informal subject and not part of the required
nursing curricula.
Summary
Over the past 50 years, researchers have called for a greater focus on the role
that humor might play in influencing interpersonal experiences at work and the
actual quality of the work performed (e.g., Bradney,1957; Robert & Yan, 2007).
Humorous communication takes many different forms, but can be broadly cat-
egorized as (1) performance humor and (2) conversational humor. Performance
humor includes forms such as standup comedy, humorous literature, TV sitcoms,
comic strips, and comedy films. Conversational humor refers to more spontane-
ous forms that arise in everyday social interactions, such as verbal witticisms,
irony, jokes, puns, teasing, and amusing personal anecdotes. People can produce
humor by amusing others and making them laugh or appreciate humor by enjoy-
ing the humor created by others.
Supervisors should understand the relationship between humor styles and
organizational outcomes so that they can use humor for more positive results.
China is categorized as a high-context culture, where people base their com-
munication largely on personal observations and interpretations (Hall, 1976).
Thus, aggressive humor might jeopardize harmonious interpersonal relationships
in China where individuals would strongly dislike the “singling out” effect (Huo,
Lam, & Chen, 2012). In other words, a supervisor’s affiliative humor might
cause subordinates to be more loyal and work more productively, but a supervi-
sor’s aggressive humor could cause subordinates to show stress, strain, and addic-
tive behaviors. Where individuals revere the Confucian call for social harmony
of guanxi 關係 and the need for facework 面子功夫 (e.g., Bond, 2010; Hwang,
1987; Liu, Li, & Yue, 2010), they may enjoy social interactions that include
intelligent humor and pleasant conversation, but they will be deeply insulted if
humor causes someone to “lose face,” especially in business settings (also see
Chapter 4).
In conclusion, to promote humor in China’s workplaces, organizations
should develop seminars that train managers and team members in the use
of humor that is relevant and appropriate to the Chinese concept of face and
favor in social relations (e.g., Hwang, 1987). Modules could be designed
to teach people how to select culturally appropriate humor styles, how to
recognize gender and ethnic differences in attitudes toward and perceptions
of humor, and how to select the most appropriate humor styles to convey
intended messages. To delineate types of humor, American writer and artist
James Thurber said: “The wit makes fun of other persons; the satirist makes
fun of the world; the humorist makes fun of himself” (Murrow, 1959). It
applies to Chinese people as well!
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman &
Company.
Bippus, A. M. (2003). Humor motives, qualities, and reactions in recalled conflict epi-
sodes. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports), 67(4),
413–426.
Insights into a Proven System for Increasing Organization Productivity and Indi-
Blanchard, A. L., Stewart, O. J., Cann, A., & Follman, L. (2014). Making sense of
humor at work. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(1), 49.
Bradney, P. (1957). The joking relationship in industry. Human Relations, 10(2),
179–187.
Bruce, A. (2002). How to Motivate Every Employee: 24 Proven Tactics to Spark Produc-
tivity in the Workplace. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cann, A., Norman, M. A., Welbourne, J. L., & Calhoun, L. G. (2008). Attachment
styles, conflict styles and humour styles: Interrelationships and associations with
relationship satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 22(2), 131–146.
Cann, A., Watson, A. J., & Bridgewater, E. A. (2014). Assessing humor at work: The
humor climate questionnaire. Humor, 27(2), 307–323.
Chen, G. H. (2011). Chinese concepts of humour and the role of humour in teach-
ing. In J. Chey & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Humour in Chinese Life and Letters: Classical
and Traditional Approaches (p. 2). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Chiang-Hanisko, L., Adamle, K., & Chiang, L.-C. (2009). Cultural differences in
therapeutic humor in nursing education. Journal of Nursing Research, 17(1), 52–61.
Cooper, C. (2008). Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process
model. Human Relations, 61(8), 1087–1115.
Decker, W. H., & Rotondo, D. M. (1999). Use of humor at work: Predictors and
implications. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 961–968.
Decker, W. H., & Rotondo, D. M. (2001). Relationships among gender, type of humor,
and perceived leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(4), 450–465.
Decker, W. H., Yao, H., & Calo, T. J. (2011). Humor, gender, and perceived leader
effectiveness in China. Advanced Management Journal, 76(1), 1–14.
Doosje, S., De Goede, M., Van Doornen, L., & Goldstein, J. (2010). Measure-
ment of occupational humorous coping. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 23(3), 275–305.
Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004). An examination of leader political skill and its
effect on ratings of leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 537–550.
Ewing, J. A. (1984). Detecting alcoholism: The CAGE questionnaire. JAMA,
252(14), 1905–1907.
Graham, E. E. (1995). The involvement of sense of humor in the development of
social relationships. Communication Reports, 8(2), 158–169.
Hai, D., & Yue, X. D. (2011). Burnout, Humor Styles and Job Satisfacation: A Study
Hall, M. (1976). The Theory of Groups (Vol. 288). New York: American Mathematical Soc.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A
conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 34(3), 177.
Ho, L. H., Wang, Y. P., Huang, H. C., & Chen, H. C. (2011). Influence of humor-
ous leadership at workplace on the innovative behavior of leaders and their leader-
ship effectiveness. African Journal of Business Management, 5(16), 66–73.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002). Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes
to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1683–1710.
Hughes, L. W., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Transforming with levity: Humor, leadership,
and follower attitudes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(6),
540–562.
Hung, Y. T., & Yue, X. D. (2012). Humor Styles, Conflict Styles, Attachment Styles,
Self-esteem: A Correlation Study in Hong Kong. Unpublished thesis, City University
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Huo, L., Li, C. W., Huang, T. H., Lam, Y. C., Xia, W., Tu, C., . . . & Yamaguchi, H.
(2014). Activation of Keap1/Nrf2 signaling pathway by nuclear epidermal growth
factor receptor in cancer cells. American Journal of Translational Research, 6(6), 649.
Huo, Y., Lam, W., & Chen, Z. (2012). Am I the only one this supervisor is laughing
at? Effects of aggressive humor on employee strain and addictive behaviors. Person-
nel Psychology, 65(4), 859–885.
Kane, T. R., Suls, J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1977). Humor as a tool of social interaction.
UK: Pergamon Press.
Kim, T.-Y., Lee, D.-R., & Wong, N. Y. S. (2015). Supervisor humor and employee
outcomes: The role of social distance and affective trust in supervisor. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 31(1), 125–139.
Kwang-kuo, H. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal
of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.
Kong, Hong Kong.
Li, M. C., & Yue, X. D. (2015). Sense of Humor at Work: How Do Individual Humor
Styles and the Humor Climate Affect Job Satisfaction Among the Chinese Workplace.
Liu, J. H., Li, M., & Yue, X. (2010). Chapter 34: Chinese social identity and inter-
group relationships: The influence of benevolent authority. In M. Bond (Ed.), Hand-
book of Chinese Psychology (pp. 579–598). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Long, D. L., & Graesser, A. C. (1988). Wit and humor in discourse processing. Dis-
course Processes, 11(1), 35–60.
MA: Academic Press.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individ-
ual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personal-
ity, 37(1), 48–75.
Martineau, R. P. (1972). On 2-modular representations of the Suzuki groups. Ameri-
can Journal of Mathematics, 94(1), 55–72.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burn-
out. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). Maslach burnout inventory. In
C. P. Zalaquett & R. J. Wood (Eds.), Evaluating Stress: A Book of Resources (Vol. 3,
pp. 191–218). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interper-
sonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). A meta-analysis of posi-
tive humor in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 155–190.
Mulkay, M. J. (1988). On Humor: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society. Oxford,
UK: Polity Press.
Murrow, E. R. (1959). Television and Politics. Communication in the Modern World:
The British Association Granada Lectures. London: The British Association for the
Advancement of Science, and Granada TV.
Nazareth, J. (1988). The Psychology of Military Humor. New Delhi: Lonor.
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Repetition in canned jokes and spontaneous conversational
joking. Humor, 6(4), 385–402.
Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. The-
ory into Practice, 41(2), 116–125.
Prokhorov, A. V., Pallonen, U. E., Fava, J. L., Ding, L., & Niaura, R. (1996). Mea-
suring nicotine dependence among high-risk adolescent smokers. Addictive Behav-
iors, 21(1), 117–127.
Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of
handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 122–132.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy
of Management Journal, 26, 368–376.
Robert, C., Dunne, T. C., & Iun, J. (2016). The impact of leader humor on subor-
dinate job satisfaction: The crucial role of leader-subordinate relationship quality.
Group & Organization Management, 41(3), 375–406.
Robert, C., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2012). The wheel model of humor: Humor events and
affect in organizations. Human Relations, 65(9), 1071–1099.
Robert, C., & Yan, W. (2007). The case for developing new research on humor
and culture in organizations: Toward a higher grade of manure. In J. J. Martoc-
chio & H. Liao (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management
(pp. 205–267). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, K. W. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. The
Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58–69.
Romero, E., & Pescosolidio, A. (2008). Humor and group effectiveness. Human
Relations, 61(3), 395–418.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image (Vol. 11, p. 326).
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path
model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 37(3), 580–607.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman,
S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio.
Causal and Control Beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., & Weider-Hatfield, D. (1988). Assessing the Rahim
Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (ROCI-II). Management Communication
Quarterly, 1(3), 351.
Thomas, K.W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago:
Rand-McNally.
Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993). Sense of humor and dimensions of personal-
ity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(6), 799–809.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational com-
mitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal
of Management, 17(3), 601–617.
Wojtyna, E., & Stawiarska, P. (2009). Humor styles and psychosocial working condi-
tions in relation to occupational burnout among doctors. Polish Psychological Bul-
letin, 40(1), 20–28.
Yip, S. C. (2014). The Relationship of Sense of Humor and Self-efficacy: An Explora-
tion on Hong Kong Working People. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong.
Young, K. S. (2004). Internet addiction: A new clinical phenomenon and its conse-
quences. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(4), 402–415.
23(3), 403–420.
Yue , X. D. (2011). The Chinese ambivalence to humor: Views from undergraduates
in Hong Kong and China. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 24(4),
463–480.
Yue, X., Jiang, F., Lu, S., & Hiranandani, N. (2016). To be or not to be humorous?
Cross cultural perspectives on humor. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–10.
Yue, X. D., Liu, K. W. Y., Jiang, F., & Hiranandani, N. A. (2014). Humor styles, self-
Glossary
Affiliative humor is a style of humor in which humor is used to amuse oth-

ers, reduce tension, and facilitate relationships by telling jokes, making witty
remarks, and enjoying spontaneous witty banter.
Aggressive humor is a style of humor in which humor is used to cope with stress
or adversity by finding amusement in the life’s various incongruities.
Analects 論語 is a collection of sayings and ideas attributed to Confucius and his
contemporaries. Traditional beliefs are that Confucius’s followers compiled
the Analects during the Warring States period (475 BC–221 BC) and final-
ized it during the mid-Han dynasty (206 BC–220 AD). During the early
Han dynasty, the Analects was considered a “commentary” on the Five Clas-
sics, but it gradually grew to become a central text of Confucianism by the
end of the Han dynasty.
Big five personality traits, or Five-Factor Model (FFM), are five broad dimen-
sions some psychologists use to describe the human personality and psyche:
openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism, often called OCEAN. Each dimension includes several corre-
lated and specific secondary factors.
Budai, also called Pu-Tai 布袋, meaning “cloth sack,” is a Chinese folkloric deity.
He carries a bag, is always smiling or laughing, and is nicknamed the Laugh-
ing Buddha (Chinese: 笑佛).
Buddhism is a religion and dharma that encompasses various traditions, beliefs,
and spiritual practices largely based on teachings attributed to the Buddha.
Buddhism originated in India between the 4th and 6th centuries BCE and
spread through much of Asia. During the Middle Ages, it declined in India
but thrived in China, Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia.
Buddhist perspective on humor is that humor is positive and valuable. Chinese
Buddhism, Ch’an or Zen Buddhism 禪宗 frequently associate the Laughing
Buddha 大肚笑佛, or Budai, the Chinese representation of Maitreya 彌勒佛
“the laughing one,” with good luck, friendliness, and prosperity.
Chinese ambivalence about humor occurs because the Chinese have a deep
paradoxical discomfort about the value, function, and benefits of humor and
humorists. They (1) value humor but devalue self-humor; (2) believe that
orthodox Chinese are behaving inappropriately if they try to be humorous;
and (3) believe humor is important, but not for everyone.
176 Glossary
Chinese creativity-humor-non-parallel phenomenon occurs because the Chi-
nese implicitly believe that humor and creativity are weakly associated. They
rarely consider comedians, cartoonists, and humor writers to be creative.
Chinese extraordinary view of creativity occurs as the result of the Chinese
belief in collectivism, social harmony, and social conformity. They see creativ-
ity in ethical, instrumental, pragmatic activity that fulfills social obligations.
They believe that only outstanding people possess special creativity gifts.
Chinese meritorious evaluation bias of creativity comes from the merit-based
view in which the Chinese attribute creativity to individuals who have dem-
onstrated excellence and have received social recognition. To be considered
creative, individuals and their works must provide socially desirable outcomes.
Chinese meritorious evaluation bias of humor ccurs because the Chinese
admire professional humorists for their social merit or recognition rather
than for their novelty or wit. Humor is evaluated according to whether it
provides socially desirable outcomes.
Cold humor, or leng youmo 冷幽默, first appeared in Taiwan in 1970 as a varia-
tion of Western forms of black humor (Liao, 2001). Cold humor expresses
dry, harsh, bitter cynicism regarding social hierarchies or inequalities found
in significant Chinese and Taiwanese cultural values, taboos, and events.
Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook
that emphasizes the group and its interests. Collectivists focus on communal,
societal, or national interests in political, economic, and educational systems.
Conflict resolution styles are used to reduce or eliminate conflict in families
or organizations by competing, compromising, collaborating, avoiding, or
accommodating (Thomas, 1976).
Confucianism, or Ruism 儒學, originated from the teachings of Confucius
(551–479 BCE). Since the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE), it has domi-
nated Chinese culture and society as a tradition, a philosophy, a religion, a
humanistic or rationalistic religion, a way of governing, or simply a way of life.
Confucian perspective on humor has evolved partly because Confucianism sets
rigid standards and moral imperatives for proper behaviors. Especially since
the 10th century under philosophical reforms known as “Neo-Confucian-
ism” (Chey, 2011, p. 14), inappropriate displays of humor or laughter in
public social interactions have been forbidden. Lin Yu-tang, China’s humor
master, proposed that educated people should write humorously but behave
seriously (文章可幽默，做人要認真) (Liao, 2001).
Confucian ethic of acting benevolently encourages respect for others’ opin-
ions, social norms, and conformity to achieve social harmony. At the center
of Confucius’s writings was benevolence, which he called “ren” 仁.
Confucian ethic of avoiding shame is also rooted in the Confucian doctrines of
benevolence and social harmony. For thousands of years, the Chinese have
guarded against public contempt or humiliation of self or others by adhering
to the values of zi qu qi ru 自取其辱 (avoid drawing contempt) and zi tao
mei qu (avoid seeking fun).
Glossary 177
Confucian puritanism is a term first used by Lin Yu-tang (1924) to describe
persisting austere Confucian effects on Chinese society regarding positive
attitudes toward decorum and disdainful attitudes toward light, humorous
writing, drama, the novel, and all imaginative literature, except poetry.
Confucian puritanical bias against humor reflects personal biases against
humor based on Confucian orthodox literary writings and the doctrines of
social conformity and moderation. For thousands of years, Chinese intellec-
tuals have criticized and disdained public displays of humor.
Confucius 孔子 (551 BC–479 BC) founded Confucianism, advocating justice,
sincerity, correctness of social relationships, and personal and governmen-
tal morality. The principles were based on common Chinese traditions and
beliefs that individuals must be loyal to their families and venerate their
ancestors, that children should respect their elders, and that wives should
respect their husbands. Family hierarchical structure then became the basis
for ideal government.
Coping humor is a style of humor used to master, minimize, or tolerate stress by
solving personal and interpersonal problems.
Creativity is indicated by the formation or production of new, novel, or innova-
tive ideas, such as scientific theories, musical compositions, jokes, literary
works, or paintings.
Face refers to a personal sense of dignity or prestige in social contexts or social
relations. “To save face” means that the individual has become stronger,
more popular, or established in society. “To lose face” indicates that the
individual has lost respect.
Huaji 滑稽, is the earliest Chinese term for humor. Specifically, the character
hua 滑 means “smoothening” or “slippery”; the character ji 稽, means “to
check” (to see whether it tallies) or a “trick,” which is a perfect pun for the
character chi 雞, which means “chicken” (Kao, 1974, p. xviii).
Gelotophobia, a social phobia, is the fear of being the brunt of laughter.
Although most people dislike being the target of laughter, a subgroup of
people are exceedingly fearful that others are laughing at them, even without
indication. Since 2008, gelotophobia has been studied intensively in psy-
chology, sociology, and psychiatry.
Guanxi largely originates from Confucian precepts to maintain social and eco-
nomic order through hierarchical associations. Guanxi and guanxi networks
are founded on mutual obligations, reciprocity, and trust.
Humor, a broad and multifaceted concept, is defined as “the faculty of observing
what is ludicrous, amusing or expressing it; jocose imagination or treatment
of a subject” (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed.). Humor includes
amusing, comical, funny, and mirthful actions or speeches.
Humor styles can be (1) adaptive and healthy (affiliative and self-enhancing
humor) or (2) maladaptive and unhealthy (aggressive and self-defeating
humor). Adaptive humor styles can be beneficial; maladaptive styles can be
destructive (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003).
178 Glossary
Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social out-
look that emphasizes individual moral worth. Individualists value the exer-
cise of personal goals and desires and grant precedence to independence
and self-reliance over state or social group interests. They oppose social or
governmental institutions that impose external interference over individual
interests.
Jerk humor, also known as pi zi you mou 痞子幽默, is a type of humor character-
ized by cynical and sarcastic deprecation of the self and others. It first appeared
as personal braggadocio and is highly popular among young people in main-
land China and Taiwan (Liao, 2001).
Laozi 老子, also Lao-Tzu or Lao-Tze, is the reputed author of the Tao Te Ching,
the founder of philosophical Taoism, and a deity in religious Taoism and
traditional Chinese religions. Tang dynasty emperors, modern Chinese peo-
ple, anti-authoritarian movements, and proponents of Chinese legalism all
embrace Laozi and his work.
Laughing Buddha, Budai, or Pu-Tai (布袋) is a Chinese folkloric deity, meaning
“cloth sack.” He is always depicted as carrying a bag and smiling or laugh-
ing; hence the nickname: Laughing Buddha (Chinese: 笑佛).
Lin Yu-tang 林語堂 (1895–1976) is a Chinese writer, translator, and linguist.
His informal but polished style in both Chinese and English made him one
of the most influential writers of his generation. He also translated the word
humor into Chinese and actively advocated the use of humor to Chinese
people. His compilations and translations of classic Chinese texts into English
were bestsellers in the West in the 1930s.
Nonsense humor first appeared in south China in the late Qing Dynasty but
thrived in Hong Kong in the early 1980s. It is characterized by cute and
malicious self-entertaining wit or sarcasm. Stephen Chow 周星馳, the
famous Hong Kong actor and comedian, championed nonsense humor by
acting in and directing nonsensical movies.
Occupational stress occurs when workers encounter unexpected responsibili-
ties and pressures that conflict with their knowledge, skills, or expectations;
when they feel that their supervisors or colleagues do not support them; or
when they feel that they lack control over work processes.
Optimism, the belief in positive future outcomes, has been linked to psycho-
logical and physical well-being (Lai, 1995; Scheier & Carver, 1985, 1992),
the ability to cope with stress and depression (Gillham & Seligman, 1999),
reduced depression, and more enjoyment from social interactions (Seligman,
1998).
Playfulness is defined as the “predisposition to frame (or reframe) a situation
in such a way as to provide oneself (and possibly others) with amusement,
humor, and/or entertainment” (Barnett, 2007, p. 955). It is generally con-
sidered an inborn ability to inject enjoyment into life. All age groups show
playfulness (Proyer, 2013a), but childhood playfulness usually matures into
playfulness attitudes.
Glossary 179
Puritanism played a major role in English history during the first half of the 17th
century. Church of England clergy founded Puritanism as an activist move-
ment. They were exiled under Mary I, but returned to England shortly after
the accession of Elizabeth I in 1558. John Pym, one of the strongest stokers
of anti-Catholicism, led a movement that took control during the Grand
Remonstrance of 1641.
Resilience is the ability to successfully adapt or function competently in the face
of social disadvantages, health problems, highly stressful conditions coming
from family or relationship problems, or workplace and financial worries.
Resilience indicates a process of coping rather than an innate trait.
Self-compassion indicates that individuals are sympathetic toward themselves
despite perceived inadequacies, failure, or general suffering. They will show:
(1) self-kindness rather than self-judgment, (2) a sense of common human-
ity rather than a sense of isolation, and (3) mindfulness rather than over-
identification (Neff, 2003).
Self-defeating humor is a humor style in which self-disparaging humor is used
to delight or entertain.
Self-efficacy, also called personal efficacy, is self-confidence in the ability to com-
plete tasks, reach goals, overcome challenges, and make good choices.
Self-enhancing humor is a humor style in which a humorous outlook is main-
tained in addressing various incongruities of life, stress, or adversity.
Self-esteem indicates that individuals have positive overall subjective emotional
evaluations of their worth and take pride in their accomplishments.
Subjective well-being (SWB), sometimes interchanged with subjective hap-
piness, depends on how favorably individuals emotionally and cognitively
judge the quality of their lives and their general and specific situations.
SWB tends to be stable over time and is strongly related to desirable per-
sonality traits.
Taoism, a religious or philosophical tradition of Chinese origin, emphasizes liv-
ing in harmony with the Tao (道, literally “Way”), considered to be the
source, pattern, and substance of everything. Unlike Confucianism, Taoism
has no rigid rituals or social order. Various schools focus on different ethics,
but they generally emphasize wu wei (effortless action), naturalness, simplic-
ity, and spontaneity.
Taoist perspective on humor diverges from Confucianism’s fundamental rigid
rituals and social order. Instead, Taoism values naturalness, spontaneity, sim-
plicity, and detachment from desires. It has historically been the tool for anti-
establishment thinking (Chey, 2011) and inherently advocates humor in the
natural way of wu wei 無為 and let go 放開 (Yue, 1994, 2010). Lin Yu-tang
identified Laozi and Zhuangzi, the co-founders of Taoism, as the ancestors
of Chinese humor (Liao, 2001, p. 88).
Xiaolin 笑林, the Forest of Laughter, written by Handan Chun 邯鄲淳 (c. 220)
in the Wei period, is considered China’s first collection of jokes. The humor
exposes human frailty and follies.
180 Glossary
Western ordinary view of creativity holds that all individuals can be creative;
all can produce novel, original, and appropriate works. The view is typically
associated with principles of liberal individualism, freedom of expression,
self-actualization, and ideas of equality.
Western ordinary view of humor holds that all individuals have a natural talent
for humor and can use it appropriately in all occupations. The view origi-
nated in ancient Greece, where humor was valued as a natural expression of
amusement and delight in social interactions (Grant, 1924, 1970).
Zhuangzi 莊子, also known as Zhuangzhou 莊周, was co-founder of Taoism. The
Book of Zhuangzi is a collection of anecdotes, fables, and texts of Taoist ethics
and principles.
References

between stress and outcomes. Journal of Psychology, 132, 267–276.
Albert, R. S. (1975). Toward a behavioral definition of genius. American Psychologist,
30(2), 140.
Albert, R. S. (1996). Some reasons why childhood creativity often fails to make it past
puberty into the real world. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
72, 43–56.
Alesina, A., Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2004). Inequality and happiness: Are
Europeans and Americans different? Journal of Public Economics, 88(9), 2009–2042.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Patterns of Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Angel, J., Buckley, C. J., & Sakamoto, A. (2001). Duration or disadvantages? Explor-
ing nativity, ethnicity, and health in midlife. Journal of Gerontology, 56B, S275–S284.
Apter, R. (1985). A peculiar burden: Some technical problems of translating opera for
performance in English. Meta: Journal des traducteurs Meta: Translators’ Journal,
30(4), 309–319.
Arendt, L. A. (2006). Leaders’ Use of Positive Humor: Effects on Followers’ Self-Efficacy
and Creative Performance. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.
Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personal-
ity and social encounters. In J. P. Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent Advances in
Social Psychology: An International Perspective (pp. 189–203). Amsterdam, North-
Holland: Elsevier.
Baer, J. (1993). Divergent Thinking and Creativity: A Task-Specific Approach. Hills-
dale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehen-
sive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 592.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman &
Company.
Barnett, L. A. (1984). Young children’s resolution of distress through play. Child
Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 25(3), 477–483.
Barnett, L. A. (2007). The nature of playfulness in young adults. Personality and
Individual Differences, 43(4), 949–958.
182 References
Barnett, L. A. (2011). How do playful people play? Gendered and racial leisure perspec-
tives, motives, and preferences of college students. Leisure Sciences, 33(5), 382–401.
Bartolo, A., Benuzzi, F., Nocetti, L., Baraldi, P., & Nichelli, P. (2006). Humor com-
prehension and appreciation: An FMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
18(11), 1789–1798.
Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. (2004). Adolescence and the changing context of optimal
experience in time: Italy 1986–2000. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(2), 155–179.
BBC. (2008). Shoes Thrown at Bush on Iraq Trip. Retrieved May 24, 2017, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7782422.stm.
Beach, S. R., & Tesser, A. (2000). Self-evaluation maintenance and evolution. In J. Suls &
L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of Social Comparison (pp. 123–140). New York: Springer.
Becker, G., & Newsom, E. (2005). Resilience in the face of serious illness among
chronically ill African Americans in later life. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences,
60B, S214–S223.
Bendix, R. (1977). Nation-Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social
Order. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bier, J. (1968). The Rise and Fall of American Humor. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Bippus, A. M. (2003). Humor motives, qualities, and reactions in recalled conflict
episodes. Western Journal of Communication, 67(4), 413–426.
Blair, W., & Hill, H. (1978). America’s Humor: From Poor Richard to Doonesbury.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Insights Into a Proven System for Increasing Organization Productivity and Indi-
Blanchard, A. L., Stewart, O. J., Cann, A., & Follman, L. (2014). Making sense of
humor at work. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(1), 49.
Bobo, L. D., & Fox, C. (2003). Race, racism, and discrimination: Bridging problems,
mothers, and theory in social psychological research. Social Psychology Quarterly,
66, 319–332.
Bond, M. H. (1993). Emotions and their expression in Chinese culture. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 17(4), 245–262.
Bond, M. H. (Ed.). (1996). Chinese values. In The Handbook of Chinese Psychology
(pp. 208–226). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
University Press.
Bradney, P. (1957). The joking relationship in industry. Human Relations, 10(2), 179–187.
Brodzinsky, D. M., & Rubien, J. (1976). Humor production as a function of sex of
subject, creativity, and cartoon content. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 44(4), 597.
Bruce, A. (2002). How to Motivate Every Employee: 24 Proven Tactics to Spark Produc-
tivity in the Workplace. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of Meaning (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Cabanac, M. (2002). What is emotion? Behavioural Processes, 60(2), 69–83.
References 183
Campbell, L., Martin, R. A., & Ward, J. R. (2008). An observational study of humor
use while resolving conflict in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 41–55.
Cann, A., & Calhoun, L. G. (2001). Perceived personality associations with differ-
ences in sense of humor: Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low senses
of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(2), 117–130.
Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Banks, J. S. (1997). On the role of humor appreciation
in interpersonal attraction: It’s no joking matter. Humor: International Journal of
Cann, A., Norman, M. A., Welbourne, J. L., & Calhoun, L. G. (2008). Attachment
styles, conflict styles and humour styles: Interrelationships and associations with
relationship satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 22(2), 131–146.
Cann, A., Watson, A. J., & Bridgewater, E. A. (2014). Assessing humor at work: The
humor climate questionnaire. Humor, 27(2), 307–323.
Castell, P. J., & Goldstein, J. H. (1976). Social occasions for joking: A cross-cultural
study. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It’s A Funny Thing, Humour: Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on Humour and Laughter (pp. 183–197).
Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Çeçen, A. R. (2007). Humor styles in predicting loneliness among Turkish univer-
sity students. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(6),
835–844.
Celso, B. G., Ebener, D. J. & Burkhead, E. J. (2003). Humor coping, health status,
and life satisfaction among older adults residing in assisted living facilities. Aging &
Mental Health, 7, 438–445.
Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality Psychology. Singapore: John Wiley &
Sons Singapore Pte. Ltd.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Bennett, E., & Furnham, A. (2007). The happy personality:
Mediational role of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 42(8), 1633–1639.
Chan, D. W. (2005). Self-perceived creativity, family hardiness, and emotional intelli-
gence of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Prufrock Journal, 16(2–3), 47–56.
Chan, D. W. (2008). Giftedness of Chinese students in Hong Kong: Perspectives
from different conceptions of intelligences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 40–54.
Chan, J. (1997). Creativity in the Chinese culture. In J. Chan, R. Li, & J. Spinks
(Eds.), Maximizing Potential: Lengthening and Strengthening Our Stride: Proceed-
ings of the 11th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children (pp. 212–218).
Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong, Social Sciences Research Center.
Chan, M. S., & Yue, X. D. (2008). A Study of Relationship between Creativity and
Humor among 236 Adolescents in Hong Kong. Unpublished undergraduate thesis,
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Chan, S. W., & Yue, X. D. (2015). Humour Styles, Psychological Capital and Subjec-
tive Happiness. Paper presented at the Hong Kong Psychological Society Annual
Conference, Hong Kong Shue Yan University, Hong Kong, 13 June.
Chan, Y. C., Chou, T. L., Chen, H. C., Yeh, Y. C., Lavallee, J. P., Liang, K. C., &
Chang, K. E. (2013). Towards a neural circuit model of verbal humor processing:
An fMRI study of the neural substrates of incongruity detection and resolution.
Neuroimage, 66, 169–176.
Chan, Y. T., & Yue, X. D. (2012). Humor and Psychological Well-being of Police Offi-
cers in Hong Kong: A Comprehensive Discussion on Possible Interactions. Unpub-
lished thesis, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
184 References
Chang, H. C. (2001). Harmony as performance: The turbulence under Chinese
interpersonal communication. Discourse Studies, 3(2), 155–179.
Chang, P. J., Qian, X., & Yarnal, C. (2013). Using playfulness to cope with psycho-
logical stress: taking into account both positive and negative emotions. Interna-
tional Journal of Play, 2(3), 273–296.
Chang, W. W. (2009). Schema adjustment in cross cultural encounters: A study of
expatriate international aid service workers. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33, 57–68.
Chau, C. C. (2013). Shyness, Humor Styles and Loneliness in Hong Kong Undergradu-
ate Students. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Cheek, J. M., & Melchior, L. A. (1990). Shyness, self-esteem, and self-consciousness.
In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Social and Evaluation Anxiety (pp. 47–82).
New York: Plenum.
master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Chen, C. H. (1999). 症狀自評量表 (SCL-90) [Symptom Checklist-90, SCL-90].
In W. Xiangdong, W. Xilin, & M. Hong (Eds.), Rating Scales for Mental Health
(supplement; pp. 31–35). Beijing: Chinese Mental Health Journal Press.
Chen, G. H. (2011). Chinese concepts of humour and the role of humour in teach-
ing. In J. Chey & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Humour in Chinese Life and Letters: Classical
and Traditional Approaches (p. 2). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Chen, G. H., & Liu, Y. (2012). Gelotophobia and thinking styles in Sternberg’s
theory. Psychological Reports, 110(1), 25–34.
Chen, G. H., & Martin, R. A. (2005). Coping humor of 354 Chinese university stu-
dents. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19, 307–309.
Chen, G. H., & Martin, R. A. (2007a). A comparison of humor styles, coping humor,
Chen, G. H., & Martin, R. A. (2007b). A preliminary study of the relationship
between humor styles and mental health. Psychological Science, 30, 219–223.
Chen, H. C., Chan, Y. C., Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2013). Being laughed at and
laughing at others in Taiwan and Switzerland: A cross-cultural perspective. Modern
and Contemporary Approaches to Humour in China, 2, 215–229.
Cheng, C. Y. (1986). The concept of face and its Confucian roots. Journal of Chinese
Philosophy, 13(3), 329–348.
Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2001). Attributional style and personality as predictors
of happiness and mental health. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2(3), 307–327.
References 185
Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2002). Personality, peer relations, and self-confidence
as predictors of happiness and loneliness. Journal of Adolescence, 25(3), 327–339.
Cheung, C-K., & Bagley, C. (1998). Validating an American scale in Hong Kong:
The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). The Journal of
Cheung, C. K., Rudowicz, E., Yue, X., & Kwan, A. S. (2003). Creativity of university
students: What is the impact of field and year of study? Journal of Creative Behavior,
37(1), 42–63.
Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Zhang, J., Leung, K., Leong, F., & Huiyeh, K. (2008).
Relevance of openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture aspects of its
cultural relevance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), 81–108.
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R. M., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P.
(1996). Development of the Chinese personality assessment inventory. Journal of
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., & Xie,
D. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the Five-Factor Model
complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 407–433.
Cheung, W. M., Tse, S. K., & Tsang, H. W. (2003). Teaching creative writing skills
to primary children in Hong-Kong: Discordance between the views and practices
of language teachers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37, 77–98.
Chiang-Hanisko, L., Adamle, K., & Chiang, L. C. (2009). Cultural differences in
therapeutic humor in nursing education. Journal of Nursing Research, 17(1), 52–61.
China View. (2009). Premier Wen Dismisses Shoe-Throwing. Retrieved May 24, 2017,
from http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/04/content_10761937.htm.
Chow, J. (1999). Multiservice centers in Chinese American immigrant communities:
Practice principles and challenges. Social Work, 44, 70–81.
Chu, Y. K. (1970). Oriental views of creativity. In A. Angoff and B. Shapiro (Eds.), Psi
Factors in Creativity (pp. 35–50). New York: Parapsychology Foundation.
Chung, W. M., & Yue, X. D. (2016). Humor, Social Competence, and Self-esteem:
A Study Among 312 University Students in Hong Kong. Unpublished thesis, City
Clark, K., & James, K. (1999). Justice and positive and negative creativity. Creativity
Coatsworth, J. D., Maldonado-Molina, M., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2005). A
person-centered and ecological investigation of acculturation strategies in Hispanic
Immigrant Youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 157–174.
Cohen, H., & Dillingham, W. B. (Eds.). (1994). Humor of the Old Southwest. Athens,
GA: University of Georgia Press.
Cooper, C. (2008). Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process
model. Human Relations, 61(8), 1087–1115.
Cooper, C. R., Coll, C. T. G., Thorni, B., & Orellana, M. F. (2005). Beyond demo-
graphic categories: How immigration, ethicity, and race matter for children’s
186 References
identities and pathways through school. In C. R. Cooper, C. T. G. Coll, W. T.
Bratko, H. Davis, & C. Chatman (Eds.), Developmental Pathways Through Middle
Childhood: Rethinking Contexts and Diversity as Resources (pp. 181–233). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Corcoran, R., Cahill, C., & Frith, C. D. (1997). The appreciation of visual jokes in
people with schizophrenia: A study of ‘mentalizing’ ability. Schizophrenia Research,
24(3), 319–327.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on
subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The revised neo personality inventory (neo-
pi-r). The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment, 2, 179–198.
Crawford, M. (2003). Gender and humor in social context. Journal of Pragmatics,
35(9), 1413–1430.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-esteem
and psychological well-being among White, Black, and Asian college students. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 503–513.
Cropley, A. J. (1992). More Ways Than One: Fostering Creativity. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing.
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, J. (2011). The theory of humours and the traditional Chinese medicine. In J.
Deaner, S. L., & McConatha, J. T. (1993). The relation of humor to depression and
personality. Psychological Reports, 72(3), 755–763.
Decker, W. H., & Rotondo, D. M. (1999). Use of humor at work: Predictors and
implications. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 961–968.
Decker, W. H., & Rotondo, D. M. (2001). Relationships among gender, type of humor,
and perceived leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(4), 450–465.
Decker, W. H., Yao, H., & Calo, T. J. (2011). Humor, gender, and perceived leader
effectiveness in China. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 76(1), 43.
Defrancis, J. (2010). ABC Chinese-English Dictionary (p. 678). Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137
personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229.
Derogatis, L. R. (1994). Symptom Checklist-90-R: Administration, Scoring & Pro-
cedure Manual for the Revised Version of the SCL-90. Minneapolis, MN: National
Computer Systems.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.
Dixon, N.F. (1980). Humour: A cognitive alternative to stress? In I-G. Sarason and C. D.
Spielberger (Eds.). Stress and Anxiety (pp. 281–289). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
References 187
Donovan, S. P. (2004). Stress and Coping Techniques in Successful Intercultural Mar-
riages. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, USA.
Doosje, S., De Goede, M., Van Doornen, L., & Goldstein, J. (2010). Measurement of
occupational humorous coping. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,
23(3), 275–305.
Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004). An examination of leader political skill and its
effect on ratings of leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 537–550.
Duan, B. L. (1992). Jokes: Human Comic Art (笑話：人間的喜劇藝術). Taipei: Shu-hsin.
Dumoulin, H., Heisig, J. W., & Knitter, P. (2005). Zen Buddhism: A History (Volume
1: India and China). Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, Inc.
Dyck, K. T., & Holtzman, S. (2013). Understanding humor styles and well-being:
The importance of social relationships and gender. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 55(1), 53–58.
coping, defense strategies, psychological distress, and well-being. Child Psychiatry
and Human Development, 37(3), 255–271.
Evans-Palmer, T. (2010). The potency of humor and instructional self-efficacy on art
teacher stress. Studies in Art Education, 52(1), 69–83.
Ewing, J. A. (1984). Detecting alcoholism: The CAGE questionnaire. JAMA, 252(14),
1905–1907.
Eysenck, H. J. (1983). Stress, disease, and personality: The inoculation effect. In
C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Stress Research (pp. 121–146). New York: Wiley.
Fan, W.-Q. (2006). Thinking Styles Among University Students in Shanghai: A Com-
parison of Traditional and Hypermedia Instructional Environments. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Farver, J. A. M., Kim, Y. K., & Lee-Shin, Y. (2000). Within cultural differences exam-
ining individual differences in Korean American and European American preschool-
ers’ social pretend play. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(5), 583–602.
Feinberg, L. (1971). Asian Laughter: An Anthology of Oriental Satire and Humor.
New York: Weatherhill, Incorporated.
Feng, S., Ye, X., Mao, L., & Yue, X. D. (2014). The activation of theory of mind
network differentiates between point-to-self and point-to-other verbal jokes: An
fMRI study. Neuroscience Letters, 564, 32–36.
Ferris, D. R. (1972). Humor and creativity: Research and theory. The Journal of Cre-
Flores, E., Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2005). Predictors of resilience in
maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino Children. Developmental Psychology, 41,
338–351.
Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1993). ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale: A brief
research and clinical tool. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2), 176.
Fraley, B., & Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on close-
ness in initial encounters. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 61–78.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analy-
sis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social
Freud, S. (1963). Jokes and the Unconscious. New York: Norton.
188 References
Frewen, P. A., Brinker, J., Martin, R. A., & Dozois, D. J. (2008). Humor styles and
personality-vulnerability to depression. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 21(2), 179–195.
Frewen, P. A., Dozois, D. J., Neufeld, R. W., & Lanius, R. A. (2008). Meta-analysis
of alexithymia in posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21(2),
243–246.
Fu, H. (2004). Personality Correlates of the Disposition Towards Interpersonal For-
giveness: A Chinese Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong.
Fu, H., Watkins, D., & Hui, E. K. P. (2004). Personality correlates of the disposition
towards interpersonal forgiveness: A Chinese perspective. International Journal of
Fudano, K. (2000). The Comparison of Laugh Behaviors Between Japan and China–
Based on the Questionnaires of the University Students in Osaka and Shanghai. Paper
presented at the 12th International Humor Conference, Kansai University, Osaka,
Japan, 24–27 July.
Furnham, A. (1997). The half full or half empty glass: The views of the economic
optimist vs pessimist. Human Relations, 50(2), 197–209.
Gabrenya Jr., W. K., & Hwang, K. K. (1996). Chinese social interaction: Harmony
and hierarchy on the good earth. In M. H. Bond (Eds.), The Handbook of Chinese
Psychology (pp. 309–321). New York: Oxford University Press.
Galloway, G., & Cropley, A. (1999). Benefits of humor for mental health: Empiri-
cal findings and directions for further research. Humor: International Journal of
Gao, K., Qiu, B., Xia, J., & Yu, A. (1998). Light dependency of the photosynthetic
recovery of Nostoc flagelliforme. Journal of Applied Phycology, 10(1), 51–53.
Gardener, H. (1989). The key in the slot: Creativity and a Chinese key. Journal of
Aesthetic Education, 23(1), 141–158.
Gardner, S. K. (2010). Contrasting the socialization experiences of doctoral students
in high-and low-completing departments: A qualitative analysis of disciplinary con-
texts at one institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 61–81.
Garms, D. S. de, & Martinez, C. R., Jr. (2006). A culturally informed model of aca-
demic well-being for Latino youth: The importance of discriminating experiences
and social support. Family Relations, 55, 267–278.
Garstka, T. A., Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Hummert, M. L. (2004). How
young and older adults differ in their responses to perceived age discrimination.
Psychology and Aging, 19, 326–335.
Gilbert, P., & Irons, C. (2005). Focused therapies and compassionate mind training
for shame and self-attacking. In P. Gilbert (Ed.), Compassion: Conceptualisations,
Research and Use in Psychotherapy (pp. 326–351). London: Routledge..
Gillham, J. E., & Seligman, M. E. (1999). Footsteps on the road to a positive psy-
chology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, S163–S173.
Glynn, M. A., & Webster, J. (1992). The adult playfulness scale: An initial assessment.
Psychological Reports, 71(1), 83–1033.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City,
NY: Anchor/Doubleday.
Goldberg, L. R (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26.
Goldstein, J. H. (1982). A laugh a day. The Sciences, 22(6), 21–25.
References 189
Goodrich, C., & Davison, S. (1935). The wage-earner in the Westward movement I.
Political Science Quarterly, 50(2), 161–185.
Goodwin, R., & Tang, D. (1991). Preferences for friends and close relationships
partners: A cross-cultural comparison. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(4),
579–581.
Graham, E. E. (1995). The involvement of sense of humor in the development of
social relationships. Communication Reports, 8, 158–169.
Rhetoricians and Cicero (No. 21). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Rhetoricians and Cicero. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Studies in Lan-
guage and Literature (Work originally published 1924).
Gross, J. J., & Muñoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 2(2), 151–164.
York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. Creativity and Its Cultivation, 10, 141–161.
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, Creativity, and Their Educational Implications.
San Diego: RR Knapp.
Guilford, J. P., Kettner, N. W., & Christensen, P. R. (1956). A factor-analytic study
across the domains of reasoning, creativity and evaluation. Psychological Mono-
graphs, 73(9), 1–31.
Guitard, P., Ferland, F., & Dutil, É. (2005). Toward a better understanding of play-
fulness in adults. OTJR, 25(1), 9–22.
Gutiérrez, J. L. G., Jiménez, B. M., Hernández, E. G., & Pcn, C. (2005). Personality
and subjective well-being: Big five correlates and demographic variables. Personal-
ity and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1561–1569.
Hai, D., & Yue, X. D. (2011). Burnout, Humor Styles and Job Satisfacation: A Study
Hall, M. (1976). The Theory of Groups (Vol. 288). New York: American Mathematical
Soc.
Hallahan, M., Lee, F., & Herzog, T. (1997). It’s not just whether you win or lose,
it’s also where you play the game a naturalistic, cross-cultural examination of the
positivity bias. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 768–778.
Halpin, G., Halpin, G., & Torrance, E. P. (1974). Relationships between creative
thinking abilities and a measure of the creative personality. Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 34(1), 75–82.
cal Reports, 96(3), 747–750.
Harker, K. (2001). Immigrant generation, assimilation, and adolescent psychological
well-being. Social Forces, 79, 969–1004.
Hashim, I. H., & Yang, Z. (2003). Cultural and gender differences in perceiving
stressors: A cross-cultural investigation of African and Western students in Chinese
Colleges. Stress and Health, 19, 217–225.
Hayes, N., & Joseph, S. (2003). Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-
being. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 723–727.
190 References
Helson, R., Roberts, B., & Agronick, G. (1995). Enduringness and change in creative
personality and the prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93–98.
Hensley, B., Martin, P., Margrett, J. A., MacDonald, M., Siegler, I. C., Poon, L.
W., & The Georgia Centenarian Study 1. (2012). Life events and personality pre-
dicting loneliness among centenarians: Findings from the Georgia Centenarian
Study. The Journal of Psychology, 146(1–2), 173–188.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Teacher Self-Efficacy: Substantive Implications and Mea-
surement Dilemmas. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Educational
Research Exchange, College Station, TX, 26 January.
Hernandez, D. J., & Charney, E. (1998). From Generation to Generation: The Health and
Well-Being of Children in Immigrant Families. Washington, DC: National Academy.
Herrman, H., Stewart, D. E., Diaz-Granados, N., Berger, E. L., Jackson, B., & Yuen,
T. (2011). What is resilience? The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(5), 258–265.
Herzog, T. R., & Strevey, S. J. (2008). Contact with nature, sense of humor, and
psychological well-being. Environment and Behavior, 40(6), 747–776.
Hiranandani, N. A., & Yue, X. D. (2014). Humour styles, gelotophobia and self-
esteem among Chinese and Indian university students. Asian Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 17(4), 319–324.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1974). Face, social expectations, and conflict avoidance. In Readings in
Cross-cultural Psychology, Proceedings of the Inaugural Meeting of the International
Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology Held in Hong Kong (pp. 240–251).
Ho, D. Y. F. (1995). Selfhood and identity in Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism,
and Hinduism: contrasts with the West. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,
25(2), 115–139.
Ho, L. H., Wang, Y. P., Huang, H. C., & Chen, H. C. (2011). Influence of humor-
ous leadership at workplace on the innovative behavior of leaders and their leader-
ship effectiveness. African Journal of Business Management, 5(16), 6673.
Ho, M. J., & Shih, H. L. (2000). The moderating effect of sense of humor to life
stress and physical-mental health for junior high school students. Bulletin of Educa-
tional Psychology, 32(1), 123–156.
Review, 31(7), 1126–1132.
Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values,
Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002). Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes
to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1683–1710.
Hong, Y. I., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multi-cultural
minds: a dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psy-
chologist, 55, 709–720.
References 191
Horner, I. B. (1983). The Book of the Discipline (Vinaya-pitaka), Volume III. (Sutta-
vibhanga). London: Pali Text Society.
Howe, N. E. (2002). The origin of humor. Medical Hypotheses, 59(3), 252–254.
Hsia, C. T. (1978). The Chinese sense of humor. Renditions, a Chinese-English Trans-
lation Magazine, 9. Retrieved May 24, 2017, from www.cuhk.edu.hk/rct/rendi
tions/sample/b09.html.
Hsu, F. L. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to Differences. Honolulu: Univer-
sity of Hawaii Press.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G.
Devos, F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives
(pp. 25–55). New York: Tavistock.
Hsue, B. K. (1991). Soft Humor of Chinese (中國人的軟幽默). Taipei: Bo-yuan.
Hughes, L. W., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Transforming with levity: Humor, leadership,
and follower attitudes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(6),
540–562.
Hung, Y. T., & Yue, X. D. (2012). Humor Styles, Conflict Styles, Attachment Styles,
Self-esteem: A Correlation Study in Hong Kong. Unpublished thesis, City University
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Huo, Y., Lam, W., & Chen, Z. (2012), Am I the only one this supervisor is laughing
at? Effects of aggressive humor on employee stress and addictive behaviors. Person-
nel Psychology, 65, 859–885.
Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and power: The Chinese power game. American Journal
of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.
Hyers, M. C. (1974). Zen and the Comic Spirit. London: Rider.
Hyers, M. C. (1989). Humor in Zen: Comic midwifery. Philosophy East and West,
39(3), 267–277.
John, O. E. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in
the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of Per-
sonality Theory and Research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford Press.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative
big five trait taxonomy. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 3, 114–158.
Joseph, S., Linley, P. A., Harwood, J., Lewis, C. A., & McCollam, P. (2004). Rapid
assessment of well-being: The Short Depression-Happiness Scale (SDHS). Psychol-
ogy and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 77(4), 463–478.
Joshanloo, M., & Nosratabadi, M. (2009). Levels of mental health continuum and
personality traits. Social Indicators Research, 90(2), 211–224.
Joubert, L. (1980). Treatise on Laughter (Vol. 45879). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of
Alabama Press.
Jung, W. E. (2003). The inner eye theory of laughter: Mindreader signals cooperator
value. Evolutionary Psychology, 1(1). doi:10.1177/147470490300100118.
Kane, T. R., Suls, J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1977). Humour as a tool of social interaction.
UK: Pergamon Press.
192 References
Kanning, U. P. (2006). Development and validation of a German-language version of
the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ). European Journal of Psycho-
logical Assessment, 22(1), 43.
Karou-ei, R., Doosti, Y. A., Dehshiri, G. R., & Heidari, M. H. (2009). Humor styles,
subjective happiness, and emotional intelligence in college students. Journal of Ira-
nian Psychologists, 5(18), 159–169.
Kasof, J. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective. Creativity
Kazarian, S., Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). Gelotophobia in the Lebanon: The
Arabic version of a questionnaire for the subjective assessment of the fear of being
laughed at. Arab Journal of Psychiatry, 20, 42–56.
Kelley, T. M., & Stack, S. A. (2000). Thought recognition, locus of control, and
adolescent well-being. Adolescence, 35(139), 531–550.
Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998).
Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 75, 1231–1247.
Kerkkanen, P., Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (2004). Sense of humor, physical
health, and well-being at work: A three-year longitudinal study of Finnish police
officers. Humor, 17(1/2), 21–36.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J. (1973). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kim, B. S. K., Brenner, B. R., Liang, C. T. H., & Asay, P. A. (2003). A qualita-
tive study of adaptation experiences of 1.5-generation Asian Americans. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 156–170.
Kim, T.-Y., Lee, D.-R., & Wong, N. Y. S. (2015). Supervisor humor and employee
outcomes: The role of social distance and affective trust in supervisor. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 31(1), 125–139.
Kleinman, A., & Good, B. (1985). Culture and Depression: Studies in the Anthropol-
ogy and Cross-Cultural Psychiatry of Affect and Disorder. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Klineberg, O. (1938). Emotional expression in Chinese literature. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 33(4), 517.
Koning, E. de, & Weiss, R. L. (2002). The relational humor inventory: Functions of
humor in close relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(1), 1–18.
being. Humor, 17(1/2), 135–168.
References 193
Kuiper, N. A., & McHale, N. (2009). Humor styles as mediators between self-
evaluative standards and psychological well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 143(4),
359–376.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1993). Humor and self-concept. Humor: Interna-
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1998). Is sense of humor a positive personality
characteristic. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality
Characteristic (pp. 159–178). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1998). Laughter and stress in daily life: Relation to
positive and negative affect. Motivation and Emotion, 22(2), 133–153.
Kuo, Y. Y. (1996). Taoistic psychology of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior,
30(3), 197–212.
Kwang-kuo, H. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal
of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.
Kwok, C., & Yue, X. D. (2010). Humor Styles, Humor Use in Romantic Relationships
and Relationship Satisfaction: A Study Among 152 Undergraduates in Hong Kong.
Kwok, C. H., & Yue, X. D. (2015). The Relationship Between Humor Styles, Opti-
mism and Subjective Happiness: A Study of 701 University Students in Hong
Kong and Mainland China. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong.
Lai, C. W. L. (2010). A Cross Cultural Study of Humor. Unpublished thesis, City
Lai, J. C. (1995). The moderating effect of optimism on the relation between hassles
and somatic complaints. Psychological Reports, 76(3), 883–894.
28(4), 781–796.
Lam, M. O. (1996). Conceptions of an Ideal Pupil and a Creative Pupil among Pri-
mary School Teachers Using Different Teaching Approaches in Hong Kong. Unpub-
lished master’s thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1998). Exploring paradigms: The study of
gender and sense of humor near the end of the 20th century. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The
Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality Characteristic (Vol. 3, pp. 231–270).
Lauer, R. H., Lauer, J. C., & Kerr, S. T. (1990). The long-term marriage: Percep-
tions of stability and satisfaction. The International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 31(3), 189–195.
Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Allen, A. B., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self-
compassion and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events: The implications of
treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 887–904.
Lee, C. M. (2003). Cross-cultural communication theories. Cross-cultural and Inter-
cultural Communication, 5, 7–33.
Lee, S. H. (1998). Facework in Chinese Cross-cultural Adaptation. Ph.D. thesis, The
University of Texas at Arlington, USA.
194 References
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Shepherd, R., Phillips, M., Prkachin, K., & Mills, D.
(1995). Perspective-taking humor: Accounting for stress moderation. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 14(4), 373.
Kong, Hong Kong.
Leung, K. (1988). Theoretical advances in justice behavior: Some cross-cultural
inputs. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Cross-cultural Challenge to Social Psychology
(pp. 218–229). Newbury Park: Sage.
Leung, K., Au, A., & Leung, B. W. C. (2004). Creativity and innovation: East-West
comparisons with an emphasis on Chinese societies. In S. Lau, A. N. N. Hui, &
G. Y. C. Ng (Eds.), Creativity: When East Meets West (pp. 113–135). Singapore:
World Scientific Publishing.
Levinson, D. (1994). Ethnic Relations: A Cross-Cultural Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara,
CA: ABC-CLIO Incorporated.
Li, M. C., & Yue, X. D. (2015). Sense of Humor at Work: How Do Individual Humor
Styles and the Humor Climate Affect Job Satisfaction Among the Chinese Workplace.
Liao, C. C. (1997). Comparing Directives: American English, Mandarin and Taiwan-
ese English. Taipei: Crane.
Taipei: Crane.
25–46.
Liao, C. C., Chang, T. C., & Chou, M. Y. (2006, July). Sense of Humor: Americans
vs Taiwanese. Paper presented at 18th International Society for Humor Studies
Conference, Danish University of Education, Copenhagen, Denmark (pp. 3–7).
Liao, C. C., Chang, T. C., & Ming, Y. C. (2006). Sense of Humor: Americans vs Tai-
wanese. Paper presented at 18th International Society for Humor Studies Confer-
ence, Danish University of Education, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Liao, C. C., & Yano, Y. (2005). Comparing Taiwanese and Japanese perceptions of
humor through watching a movie. Humanities Research Journal, 1, 103–128.
Liao, W. C. (2010). The relationship between ethics training and employee satis-
faction: A mediator of corporate responsibility practices. The Journal of Human
Resource and Adult Learning, 6(1), 9.
Lieberman, A. F. (1977). Preschoolers’ competence with a peer: Relations with
attachment and peer experience. Child Development, 48(4), 1277–1287.
Liebkind, K., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2000). The influence of experiences of determi-
nation on psychological stress: A comparison of seven immigrant groups. Journal
of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 1–16.
Liebkind, K., Jasinokaja-Lahti, I., & Solheim, E. (2004). Cultural identity, perceived
discrimination, and parental support is determinant of immigrants school adjust-
ments. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 635–656.
References 195
Lin, C. Y., Wu, C. Y., Wu, C. Y., Lee, T. C., Yang, F. L., Hu, C., & Tseng, T. Y.
(2007). Effect of top electrode material on resistive switching properties of film
memory devices. IEEE Electron Device Letters, 28(5), 366–368.
Lin, Y. T. (1924). Youmo zahua (幽默雜談 Discourse on humor). Chengbao Fukan,
13, 1–2.
Lin, Y. T. (1937). The Little Critic: Essays, Satires and Sketches on China (First Series:
1930–1932). Shanghai: Commercial Press, Limited.
Lin, Y. T. (1954). Face and Rule by Law. Retrieved May 24, 2017, from www.b111.
net/xiandai/lyt-wj/013.htm.
Humor. New York: Sterling Publishing Co. Inc.
Liu, J. H., Li, M., & Yue, X. D. (2010). Chapter 34: Chinese social identity and inter-
group relationships: The influence of benevolent authority. In M. Bond (Ed.), Hand-
book of Chinese Psychology (pp. 579–598). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Liu, P. Z., Wang, Z. X., & Liu, C. C. (1997). Beijing Hua Luogeng School: A cradle
for gifted children. In J. Chan, R. Li, & J. Spinks (Eds.), Maximizing Potential:
Lengthening and Strengthening Our Stride. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference
on Gifted and Talented Children (pp. 573–577). Hong Kong: The University of
Hong Kong, Social Sciences Research Center.
Liu, Z. F., & Lin, G. (1988). ChuanTongYuZhongGuoRen [Traditional and Chinese
people]. Hong Kong: Joint Publishing Company.
Long, D. L., & Graesser, A. C. (1988). Wit and humor in discourse processing. Dis-
course Processes, 11(1), 35–60.
Lu, L. (2001). Understanding happiness: A look into the Chinese folk psychology.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 2(4), 407–432.
Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happiness: Individual
oriented and social oriented SWB. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 269–291.
Lu, L., Gilmour, R., & Kao, S. F. (2001). Cultural values and happiness: An East-
West dialogue. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 477–493.
Lu, L., & Hu, C. H. (2005). Personality, leisure experiences and happiness. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 6(3), 325–342.
Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997). Sources of happiness: A qualitative approach. The Jour-
nal of Social Psychology, 137(2), 181–187.
Lubart, T. I. (1990). Creativity and cross-cultural variation. International Journal of
Psychology, 25(1), 39–59.
Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
Creativity (pp. 339–350). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ludwig, A. M. (1992). Culture and creativity. American Journal of Psychotherapy,
46(3), 454–469.
Lung, C. C., & Yue, X. D. (2013). Shyness, Humor Styles and Loneness in Hong Kong
Undergraduate Students. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Prelimi-
nary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, R. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison:
A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 73(6), 1141.
196 References
Review, 32(6), 545–552.
Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will, and ways: Their
relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general well-being. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 55(5), 539–551.
Mannell, R. C. (1984). Personality in leisure theory: The self-as-entertainment con-
struct. Loisir et Societe/Society and leisure, 7(1), 229–240.
Manning, P., & Ray, G. (1993). Shyness, self-confidence, and social interaction.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(3), 178–192.
147–170.
Martin, R. A. (2001). Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues
and research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 504.
Martin, R. A. (2003). Sense of humor. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Posi-
tive Psychological Assessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures (pp. 313–326).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
MA: Academic Press.
45(6), 1313–1324.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (2004). Sense of humor and physical health: Theo-
retical issues, recent findings, and future directions. Humor, 17(1/2), 1–20.
37(1), 48–75.
Martineau, W. H. (1972). On 2-modular representations of the Suzuki groups.
American Journal of Mathematics, 94(1), 55–72.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). Maslach burnout inventory. In
C. P. Zalaquett & R. J. Wood (Eds.), Evaluating Stress: A Book of Resources (Vol. 3,
pp. 191–218). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Masten, A. S., & Obradovic, J. (2006). Competence and resilience in development.
Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 13–27.
May, R. (1953). Man’s Search for Himself. New York: Norton.
Mayer, J. D. (1999). Emotional intelligence: Popular or scientific psychology? APA
Monitor, 30, 50.
References 197
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interper-
sonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.
McBrien, R. J. (1993). Laughing together: Humor as encouragement in couples
counseling. Individual Psychology: Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice,
49, 419–427.
McDougall, W. (1922). Why do we laugh? Scribners, 71, 359–363.
Meier, M. K., & Cheng, B. Y. M. (2004). Language and self-construal priming: A
replication and extension in a Hong Kong sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-
chology, 35, 705–712.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). A meta-analysis of posi-
tive humor in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 155–190.
Mettee, D. R., Hrelec, E. S., & Wilkens, P. C. (1971). Humor as an interpersonal
asset and liability. The Journal of Social Psychology, 85(1), 51–64.
Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the
ACM, 38(11), 39–41.
Miller, R. S. (1995). On the nature of embarrassabllity: Shyness, social evaluation,
and social skill. Journal of Personality, 63(2), 315–339.
Mindess, H., Miller, C., Turek, J., Bender, A., & Corbin, S. (1985). The Antioch
Humor Test: Making Sense of Humor. New York: Avon.
Mintz, L. E. (1983). Humor and popular culture. In J. Goldstein & P. McGhee
(Eds.), The Handbook of Humor Research, Applied Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 129–142).
New York: Springer.
Moore, D., & Aweiss, S. (2003). Outcome expectations in prolonged conflicts: Per-
ceptions of sense of control and relative deprivation. Sociological Inquiry, 73(2),
190–211.
Moran, C. C., & Massam, M. M. (1999). Differential influences of coping humor and
humor bias on mood. Behavioral Medicine, 25(1), 36–42.
Morreall, J. (1987). The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. New York: State Univer-
sity of New York Press.
Moser, D. (2004). Stifled Laughter: How the Communist Party Killed Chinese Humor.
Retrieved December, 15, 2008, from http://www.danwei.org/tv/stifled_laughter_
how_the_commu.php.
Moser, P. (2004). Determinants of innovation evidence from 19th century World
Fairs. The Journal of Economic History, 64(2), 548–552.
Mossakowski, K. N. (2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does ethnic iden-
tity protect mental health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3), 318–331.
Mulkay, M. J. (1988). On Humor: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society. Oxford,
UK: Polity Press.
Murrow, E. R. (1959). Television and Politics. In Communication in the Modern
World: The British Association Granada Lectures. London: The British Association
for the Advancement of Science, and Granada TV.
Nazareth, J. (1988). The Psychology of Military Humor. New Delhi: Lonor.
Needham, J. (1956). Science and Civilisation in China, Vol. 2: History of Scientific
Thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Needham, J. (1976). History and human values: A Chinese perspective for world
science and technology. In H. Rose & S. Rose (Eds.), The Radicalisation of Science
(pp. 90–117). London: Macmillan.
198 References
Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-
compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250.
Neff, K. D. (2011). Self-compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social and Person-
ality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 1–12.
Nevo, O. (1985). Does one ever really laugh at one’s own expense? The case of Jews
and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 799.
Ng, A. K. (2001). Why Asians Are Less Creative Than Westerners. Singapore: Prentice
Hall.
Ng, S. H., & Lai, J. C. (2009). Effects of culture priming on the social connectedness
of the bicultural self: A self-reference effect approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. (2002). Contemporary studies on the concept of creativity:
The East and the West. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(4), 269–288.
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Repetition in canned jokes and spontaneous conversational
joking. Humor, 6(4), 385–402.
O’Connell, W. E. (1976). Freudian humour: The eupsychia of everyday life. In A. J.
Chapman & H. Foot (Eds.), Humor and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applica-
tions (pp. 313–329). London: Wiley.
Ozyesil, Z. (2012). The prediction level of self-esteem on humor style and positive-
negative affect. Psychology, 3(8), 638.
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of Social Cognitive Theory and of Self-efficacy. Retrieved
February 7, 2017, from http://des.emory.edu/mfp/efftalk.html.
Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, 29(4), 740–770.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy
(pp. 1–18). New York: Wiley.
Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1990). Chronic loneliness and television use. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 37–53.
Pinquart, M., Rainer, K. S., & Linda, P. J. (2004). Moderating effects of adolescents’
self-efficacy beliefs on psychological responses to social change. Journal of Adoles-
cent Research, 19(3), 340–359.
Policastro, E., & Gardner, H. (1995). Naive judgment and expert assessment: A cri-
tique of the attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8(4), 391–395.
Portes, A. (1995a). Children of immigrants: Segmented assimilation and its determi-
nants. In A. Portes (Ed.), The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks,
Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship (pp. 248–280). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Portes, A. (1995b). Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration: A con-
ceptual overview. In A. Portes (Ed.), The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays
on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship (pp. 1–41). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
References 199
Potter, P. B. (1999). The Chinese legal system: Continuing commitment to the pri-
macy of state power. The China Quarterly, 159, 673–683.
Potter, S. H. (1988). The cultural construction of emotion in rural Chinese social life.
Ethos, 16(2), 181–208.
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526.
Prokhorov, A. V., Pallonen, U. E., Fava, J. L., Ding, L., & Niaura, R. (1996). Mea-
suring nicotine dependence among high-risk adolescent smokers. Addictive Behav-
iors, 21(1), 117–127.
Proyer, R. T. (2011). Being playful and smart? The relations of adult playfulness with
psychometric and self-estimated intelligence and academic performance. Learning
Proyer, R. T. (2012a). Examining playfulness in adults: Testing its correlates with
personality, positive psychological functioning, goal aspirations, and multi-
methodically assessed ingenuity. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 54(2),
103–127.
Proyer, R. T. (2012b). Development and initial assessment of a short measure for adult
playfulness: The SMAP. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(8), 989–994.
Proyer, R. T. (2013a). The well-being of playful adults: Adult playfulness, subjective
well-being, physical well-being, and the pursuit of enjoyable activities. European
Journal of Humour Research, 1, 84–98.
Proyer, R. T. (2013b). Playfulness over the life-course and its relation to happi-
ness: Results from an online survey. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie.
doi:10.1007/s00391-013-0539-z.
Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2011). The virtuousness of adult playfulness: The relation
of playfulness with strengths of character. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research
and Practice, 1(1), 1.
Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Chen, G. (2012). Gelotophobia: Life satisfaction and
happiness across cultures. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 25(1),
23–40.
Qian, S. (2010). Representing China: Lin Yutang vs. American “China Hands” in the
1940s. Journal of American-East Asian Relations, 17(2), 99–117.
Rae, W. A., Worchel, F. F., Upchurch, J., Sanner, J. H., & Daniel, C. A. (1989). The
psychosocial impact of play on hospitalized children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
14(4), 617–627.
Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of
handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 122–132.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy
of Management Journal, 26(2), 368–376.
Ray, D. C., Blanco, P. J., Sullivan, J. M., & Holliman, R. (2009). An exploratory
study of child-centered play therapy with aggressive children. International Journal
of Play Therapy, 18(3), 162–175.
200 References
Reddy, L. A., Files-Hall, T., & Schaefer, C. E. (2005). Announcing empirically based
play interventions for children. In L. A. Reddy, T. M. Files-Hall & C. E. Schaefer
(Eds.), Empirically Based Play Interventions for Children (pp. 3–10). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Robert, C., Dunne, T. C., & Iun, J. (2016). The Impact of leader humor on subor-
dinate job satisfaction: The crucial role of leader-subordinate relationship quality.
Group & Organization Management, 41(3), 375–406.
Robert, C., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2012). The wheel model of humor: Humor events and
affect in organizations. Human Relations, 65(9), 1071–1099.
Robert, C., & Yan, W. (2007). The case for developing new research on humor and
culture in organizations: Toward a higher grade of manure. In J. J. Martocchio & H.
Liao (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 205–267).
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2001). Getting a laugh: Gender, status, and
humor in task discussions. Social Forces, 80, 123–158.
Robinson, K. (1998). Creativity knows no stereotypes. Times Educational Supple-
ment, 3, 13.
Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, K. W. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. The
Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58–69.
Romero, E., & Pescosolido, A. (2008). Humor and group effectiveness. Human
Relations, 61(3), 395–418.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image (Vol. 11, p. 326). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Rouff, L. L. (1975). Creativity and sense of humor. Psychological Reports, 37, 1022.
Ruch, W. (Ed.). (1998). The Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality Character-
istic (Vol. 3). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Ruch, W., Altfreder, O., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). How do gelotophobes interpret
laughter in ambiguous situations? An experimental validation of the concept.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 63–89.
Ruch, W., & Hehl, F. J. (1998). A two-mode model of humor appreciation: Its rela-
tion to aesthetic appreciation and. The Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality
Characteristic, 3, 109.
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2008a). The fear of being laughed at: Individual and
group differences in Gelotophobia. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 21(1), 47–67.
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2008b). Who is gelotophobic? Assessement criteria for the
fear of being laughed at. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 67(1), 19–27.
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). Who fears being laughed at? The location of Gelo-
tophobia in the Eysenckian PEN-model of personality. Personality and Individual
Differences, 46, 627–630.
Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., & Popa, D. E. (2008). The fear of being laughter at (Geloto-
phobia) and personality. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 21(1),
53–68.
Rudowicz, E., & Hui, A. (1994). Creativity and Chinese socialization practices: A
study of Hong Kong Chinese primary school children. The Australian Journal of
Gifted Education, 3(1), 4–8.
References 201
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(1), 139–157.
Rudowicz, E., & Ng, T. T. (2003). On Ng’s why asians are less creative than western-
ers. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2–3), 301–302.
Rudowicz, E., Tokarz, A., & Beauvale, A. (2009). Desirability of personal character-
istics associated with creativity: Through the eyes of Polish and Chinese university
students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(2), 104–115.
ties. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3, 4), 387–394.
Runco, M. A. (1987). Interrater agreement on a socially valid measure of students’
creativity. Psychological Reports, 61(3), 1009–1010.
Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and
Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1987). Birth-order and divergent thinking. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 148(1), 119–125.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of lone-
liness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42(3), 290–294.
Saklofske, D. H., & Yackulic, R. A. (1989). Personality predictors of loneliness. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 10(4), 467–472.
Sample, J. C. (2011). Contextualizing Lin Yutang’s essay “on humour”: Introduc-
tion and translation. In J. Chey & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Humour in Chinese Life and
Letters: Classical and Traditional Approaches (pp. 179–180). Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
Samson, A. C. (2012). The influence of empathizing and systemizing on humor
processing: Theory of mind and humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 25(1), 75–98.
Samson, A. C., Zysset, S., & Huber, O. (2008). Cognitive humor processing: Differ-
ent logical mechanisms in nonverbal cartoons – An fMRI study. Social Neuroscience,
3(2), 125–140.
Santacruz, I., Mendez, F. J., & Sanchez-Meca, J. (2006). Play therapy applied by
parents for children with darkness phobia comparison of two programmes. Child &
Family Behavior Therapy, 28(1), 19–35.
Saroglou, V., & Scariot, C. (2002). Humor Styles Questionnaire: Personality and
educational correlates in Belgian high school and college students. European Jour-
nal of Personality, 16(1), 43–54.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1),
41–48.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992) Effects of optimism on psychological and
physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 16, 210–228.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The ben-
efits of being optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(1), 26–30.
202 References
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism
from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation
of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6),
1063.
Schieman, S., Gundy, K. V., & Taylor, K. (2001). Status, role, and resource explana-
tions for age patterns in psychological distress. Journal of Health & Social Behavior,
42, 80–96.
ferences, 19(4), 455–462.
Schwartz, N. (2007). Evaluating surveys and questionnaires. In R. J. Sternberg, H.
L. Roediger III, D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical Thinking in Psychology (pp. 54–74).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Wein-
man, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s
Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Optimistic self-beliefs as a resource factor in
coping with stress. In S. E. Hobfoll & M. W. de Vries (Eds.), Extreme Stress and
Communities: Impact and Intervention (pp. 159–177). Dordrecht, The Nether-
lands: Kluwer.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path
model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal,
37(3), 580–607.
Seligman, M. (1998). What is the good life? APA Monitor, 29(10), 2.
Shapiro, A. F., & Gottman, J. M. (2004). The specific affect coding system
(SPAFF). In P. Kerig & D. H. Baucom (Eds.), Couple Observational Coding Sys-
tem (pp. 191–207). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-
affirmation theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183–242.
Shi, J., & Zha, Z. (2000). Psychological research on and education of gifted and
talented children in China. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. F.
Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook for Research on Gifted and Talented
(pp. 757–764). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the Gifted and Talented. Denver, CO: Love.
Simonton, D. K. (1994). Scientific eminence, the history of psychology, and term
paper topics: A metascience approach. Teaching of Psychology, 21(3), 169–171.
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model
of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104(1), 66.
Simpson, J., & Weiner, E. S. (1989). Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: Claren-
don Press. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/
recent-updates-to-the-oed/previous-updates/september-2008-update/.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Hori-
zontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and
measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275.
References 203
Sirgy, M. J., Grzeskowiak, S., & Rahtz, D. (2007). Quality of college life (QCL)
of students: Developing and validating a measure of well-being. Social Indicators
Research, 80(2), 343–360.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S.
T., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an
individual differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60, 570–585.
Sodowsky, G. R., & Lai, E. W. M. (1997). Asian immigrant variables and structural
models of cross-cultural distress. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & N. Landale (Eds.),
Immigration and the Family: Research and Policy on U.S. Immigrants (pp. 211–234).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Solnit, A. J. (1998). Beyond play and playfulness. The Psychoanalytic Study of the
Child, 53, 102–110.
Soueif, M. I., & El-Sayed, A. M. (1970). Curvilinear relationships between creative
thinking abilities and personality trait variables. Acta Psychologica, 34, 1–21.
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than
others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 19(4), 463–481.
Stein, M. I. (1975). Creativity: The Process and Its Stimulation. Basel, Switzerland: Geigy.
Stein, M. I. (1975). Stimulating Creativity (Volume 2): Group Procedures. New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity and wisdom. Jour-
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubert, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Zhang, L.-F. (2003). Thinking Styles Inventory –
Revised. Unpublished test, Yale University, USA.
Stieger, S., Formann, A. K., & Burger, C. (2011). Humor styles and their relationship
to explicit and implicit self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5),
747–750.
Sully, J. (1902). An Essay on Laughter: Its Forms, Its Causes, Its Development and Its
Value. London, UK: Longmans, Green, and Company.
Sun, C. T. L. (2008). Themes in Chinese Psychology. Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.
Sun, C. T.-L. S. (2013). Themes in Chinese Psychology (2nd ed). Singapore: Cengage
Learning Asia Pte. Ltd.
Sun, Y. L., Guo, S. P., & Lee, H. H. (2009). The relationship between humor styles
and loneliness among university students. China Journal of Health Psychology, 17,
153–155.
Svebak, S. (1974). Revised questionnaire on the sense of humor. Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Psychology, 15(1), 328–331.
Svebak, S. (1996). The development of the Sense of Humor Questionnaire: From
SHQ to SHQ-6. Humor, 9, 341–362.
204 References
Sze, T. W., & Yue, X. D. (2013). Humor Styles, Optimism and Subjective Well-Being.
Tan, X. D., & Yue, X. D. (2016). Pathological Narcissism, Self-Esteem and Humor
Styles. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Tannen, D. (1986). Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American con-
versational and literary narrative. Direct and Indirect Speech, 3, 11–32.
Tannen, D. (1990). Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance.
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 16(1), 519–529.
Tardif, T. Z., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). What do we know about creativity? In R. J.
Tegano, D. W. (1990). Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to cre-
ativity. Psychological Reports, 66(3), 1047–1056.
Thomas, K. M., Wright, A. G., Lukowitsky, M. R., Donnellan, M. B., & Hopwood,
C. J. (2012). Evidence for the criterion validity and clinical utility of the Pathologi-
cal Narcissism Inventory. Assessment, 19(2), 135–145.
Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265–274.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1978). Comparison of four instruments measur-
ing conflict behavior. Psychological Reports, 42(3), 1139–1145.
Thorson, J. A., Powell, F. C., Sarmany-Schuller, I., & Hampes, W. P. (1997). Psycho-
logical health and sense ofhumor. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(6), 605–619.
Tiquia, R. (2011). The Qi that got lost in translation: Traditional Chinese medicine,
humour and healing. In J. Chey & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Humour in Chinese Life
and Letters: Classical and Traditional Approaches (p. 2). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J.
Treadwell, Y. (1970). Humor and creativity. Psychological Reports, 26(1), 55–58.
Tsai, J. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Cultural influences on emotional responding
Chinese American and European American dating couples during interpersonal
conflict. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(5), 600–625.
Tsai, J. L., Louie, J. Y., Chen, E. E., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Learning what feelings to
desire: Socialization of ideal affect through children’s storybooks. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 17–30.
Tsui, W., & Yue, X. D. (2013). Humor Styles, Optimism and Subjective Well-Being.
Unpublished thesis. City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Tümkaya, S. (2011). Humor styles and socio-demographic variables as predictor of
subjective well-being of turkish university students. Egitim ve Bilim, 36(160), 158.
References 205
Tupade, M. M. & Fredrickson, B. L. (2007). Regulation of positive emotions: Emo-
tion regulation strategies that promote resilience. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8,
311–333.
Uekermann, J., Channon, S., Winkel, K., Schlebusch, P., & Daum, I. (2007). Theory
of mind, humour processing and executive functioning in alcoholism. Addiction,
102(2), 232–240.
Veale, T. (2004). Incongruity in humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon? Humor:
Vejleskov, H. (2001). A distinction between “small humor” and “great humor” and
its relevance to the study of children’s humor. Humor: International Journal of
Vereen, L. G., Butler, S. K., Williams, F. C., Darg, J. A., & Downing, T. K. (2006).
The use of humor when counseling African American college students. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 84(1), 10.
Verma, L. K., & Sinha, R. (1981). Mental health and creativity. The Journal of Cre-
Vos, G. A. de. (1973). Personality Patterns and Problems of Adjustment in American-
Japanese Intercultural Marriages (Vol. 49). Taipei: Chinese Association for Folklore.
Wallach, M. A. (1971). The Intelligence/Creativity Distinction. New York: General
Learning Press.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). A new look at the creativity intelligence distinc-
tion. Journal of Personality, 33(3), 348–369.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study
of the Creativity-Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Walsh, J. J. (1928). Laughter and Health. New York: Appleton.
Wang, C. C., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2006). Acculturation, attachment, and psychoso-
cial adjustment of Chinese/Taiwanese international students. Journal of Counseling
Wang, D. D., Duan, X. Q., & You, L. (1997). Creative education: On way toward
training creative talents for the 21st century. In J. Chan, R. Li, & J. Spinks (Eds.),
Maximizing Potential: Lengthening and Strengthening Our Stride. Proceedings of
the 11th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children (pp. 689–690). Hong
Kong: The University of Hong Kong, Social Sciences Research Center.
Wang, J. L. (2002). The features and techniques of verbal humor (論幽默語言的特徵
與技巧). Foreign Language Research (外語學刊), 3, 58–63.
Wang, Y., Shi, K., & Huang, X. (2003). A confirmatory study on the structure of indi-
vidualism and collectivism in China. 心理科学 (Psychological Science), 6, 996–999.
Wang, Y. C., & Zou, H. (2006). Qu Zhi-Yong Institute of Developmental Psychol-
ogy, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875; The Revision of Interpersonal
Competence Questionnaire in Middle School Students. Chinese Mental Health
Journal, 5, 20–25.
Ward, G. (2005). Cultural Transformation and Religious Practice. Cambridge, UK:
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation
systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobio-
logical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 820.
Weider-Hatfield, D. (1988). Assessing the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-
II (ROCI-II). Management Communication Quarterly, 1(3), 351.
206 References
Weiner, R. P. (2000). Creativity and Beyond: Cultures, Values, and Change. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for
the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind
development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655–684.
Wen-wei, P. (1989). Self-directed learning: A matched control trial. Teaching and
learning in medicine: An International Journal, 1(2), 78–81.
Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom?
Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 1–10.
Wickberg, D. (1998). The Senses of Humor: Self and Laughter in Modern America.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wicker, F. W. (1985). A rhetorical look at humor as creativity. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 19(3), 175–184.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational com-
mitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and task behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17, 601–617.
Wittenberg, L. J., Santarius, J. F., & Kulcinski, G. L. (1986). Lunar source of 3 He
for commercial fusion power. Fusion Science and Technology, 10(2), 167–178.
Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1986). Loneliness, social skills, and social percep-
tion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 121–130.
Wojtyna, E., & Stawiarska, P. (2009). Humor styles and psychosocial working condi-
tions in relation to occupational burnout among doctors. Polish Psychological Bul-
letin, 40(1), 20–28.
Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimina-
tion and ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ social and socio-
emotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197–1232.
Wong, Y. M. A. (2011). Humor Styles, Social Competence and Loneliness: A Study
among 337 Youngsters in Hong Kong and Hangzhou. Unpublished thesis, City Uni-
versity of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Wood, J. V., & VanderZee, K. (1997). Social comparison among cancer patients: Under
what conditions are comparisons upward and downward? In B. P. Buunk & F. X.
Gibbons (Eds.), Health, Coping, and Welt-being: Perspectives From Social Comparison
Theory (pp. 299–328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Woodmansee, M. F. (2000). Mental Health and Prayer: An Investigation of Prayer,
Temperament, and the Effects of Prayer on Stress When Individuals Pray for Others.
Doctoral dissertation, Spalding University, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
Seoul, Korea.
Wycoff, E. B., & Pryor, B. (2003). Cognitive processing, creativity, apprehension,
and the humorous personality. North American Journal of Psychology, 5(1), 31–35.
Wyer, R. S., & Collins, J. E. (1992). A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological
Review, 99 (4), 663.
References 207
Yang, K. S., & Bond, M. H. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with
indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case. Journal of Personality and
Yao, Y. W. (1989). Theater and Literature (戲劇與文學). Taipei: Lian-ching.
Yi, X., Hu, W., Plucker, J. A., & McWilliams, J. (2013). Is there a developmental
slump in creativity in China? The relationship between organizational climate and
creativity development in Chinese adolescents. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
47(1), 22–40.
Yik, M. (2010). How unique is Chinese emotion? In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Chinese Psychology (pp. 205–220). New York: Oxford.
Yip, S. C. (2014). The Relationship of Sense of Humor and Self-efficacy: An Explora-
tion on Hong Kong Working People. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong.
Yiu, S. S. (2013). Humor Styles and Marital Satisfaction: A Study of Married
Couples in Hong Kong. Unpublished thesis, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong.
Young, K. S. (2004). Internet addiction: A new clinical phenomenon and its conse-
quences. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(4), 402–415.
Yu, A. B. (1996). Ultimate life concerns, self, and Chinese achievement motivation.
In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Handbook of Chinese Psychology (pp. 227–246). Hong
Kong: Oxford University Press.
Yu, P., Wu, J. J., Chen, I. H., & Lin, Y. T. (2007). Is playfulness a benefit to work?
Empirical evidence of professionals in Taiwan. International Journal of Technology
Management, 39(3–4), 412–429.
Yu, T. (2008). The revival of Confucianism in Chinese schools: A historical-political
review. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(2), 113–129.
Yue, X. D. (2003). Meritorious evaluation bias: How Chinese undergraduates per-
37(3), 151–177.
Yue, X. D. (2004). Whoever is influential is creative: How Chinese undergradu-
ates choose creative people in Chinese societies. Psychological Reports, 94(3),
1235–1249.
Yue, X. D. (2009). Exploring Chinese humor: Reviews and reflections. New Horizon
in Education, 57(1), 102–110.
23(3), 403–420.
24(4), 463–480.
208 References
and foreign creators – A comparative study among undergraduates in China and
Germany. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(1), 23–37.
China, 5–8 June.
Yue, X. D., & Hiranandani, N. A. (2016). Whoever is influential is successful too:
How Chinese undergraduates choose admirable people in Chinese societies. Psy-
chology & Behavior Analysis, 2, 115.
Yue, X. D., & Ho, K. K. (2002). A study of the meritorious evaluation bias among
Hong Kong primary and secondary school teachers in the selection of creative Chi-
nese individuals. New Horizons in Education, 45(1), 28–33.
Yue, X. D., & Hui, A. N. (2015). Humor styles, creative personality traits, and cre-
ative thinking in a Hong Kong Sample. Psychological Reports, 117(3), 845–855.
Yue, X. D., Jiang, F., & Lu, S. (2013). Little-h View and Big-H View: A Multi-method
Yue, X. D., & Leung, K. (2003). Motives and attitudes for creativity: Views from
undergraduates in Hong Kong and Guangzhou. New Horizon in Education, 47,
1–5.
Yue, X. D., & Ng, S. H. (1999). Filial obligations and expectations in China: Current
views from young and old people in Beijing. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2,
215–226.
Yue, X. D., Wong, A. Y. M., & Hiranandani, N. A. (2014). Humor styles and lone-
liness: a study among Hong Kong and Hangzhou undergraduates. Psychological
Reports, 115(1), 65–74.
Yuen, M (2002). Chinese Satisfaction With Life Scale Research Edition. Retrieved
May 24, 2017, from http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~ediener/Documents/
SWLS_Chinese.pdf.
Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy. Journal of
Pragmatics, 23, 325–339.
Zha, Z. X. (1994). Fifteen years of study on the psychology and education of gifted
children. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 4, 338–346. (In Chinese).
References 209
Zhang, J. X., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Personality and filial piety among college stu-
dents in two Chinese societies the added value of indigenous constructs. Journal of
Zhang, J. X., & Schwarzer, R. (1995). Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: A Chinese
adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychologia: An International Journal
of Psychology in the Orient, 38(3), 174–181.
Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of Intellectual Styles. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Zhang, Z. Y., Wang, L., & Qi, M. (1998). Basic dimensions of Chinese personality
traits: A factor analysis of the self-description in a sample of Chinese college stu-
dents. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 30, 85–92.
Zhao, J., Kong, F., & Wang, Y. (2012). Self-esteem and humor style as mediators of
the effects of shyness on loneliness among Chinese college students. Personality
Ziv, A. (1976). Facilitating effects of humor on creativity. Journal of Educational
Ziv, A. (1980). Counselling and intellectual giftedness. International Journal for the
Advancement of Counselling, 2, 275–280.
Ziv, A. (1980). Humor and creativity. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 5(3),
159–170.
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer.
Ziv, A. (1988). Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 57(1), 4–15.
Psychology, 129(6), 759–768.
12(1), 63–70.
Index
acculturative stress: affiliative humor and Chinese Individualism and Collectivism

133–5; cultural difficulties and 133–5; Scale (CICS) 61
effects on sojourning students 128–9; Chinese philosophies 8
humor and 129–30; life satisfaction Chu Ci (Qu) 2
and 130–1 Cicero 48
adjustment: among mainland students cold humor 6
studying in Hong Kong 128–35; cold jokes 7
predicting 131–3 collectivism 25–6, 60–1, 165
Affective Trust in Supervisor Scale 165 comedians 2, 5, 50
affiliative humor 18, 87–9, 106, 108, commoners’ jokes 2, 45
112, 122, 131, 133–5, 150, 152, Communist puritanism 47–8, 59
163, 165–6 conflict resolution 163
aggressive humor 19, 111, 133–4, 150, conflict styles 162–6
152, 164, 165 Confucianism: bias against humor
aggressive jokes 49 43–5; Chinese humor and 8–9,
agreeableness 70, 71 11, 148; doctrine of moderation
Allport, Gordon 100, 122 99–102; emphasis on maintaining
Analects (Confucius) 6, 43, 47, 88, 101 social hierarchy and proper social
Anti-Rightists Movement 47 manners 152; ethic for “rendering
ao bu ke zhang 45 meritorious services” 149; ethic of
Aristotle 48 acting benevolently 88, 103; ethic
of avoiding shame 88–9, 102, 103;
banter jokes 3 ethic of “conquering selfishness to
banters 3 restore ritual propriety” 146; ethic of
beliefs 99–100 displaying proper humor and laughter
benevolence 88, 103 100–1, 103; ethics for social formality
“big humor/little humor” phenomenon and proper personal conduct 114;
148 ethics of intellectual obligations to
black humor 6 society 146; ethics of social formality
Book of Zhuangzi 6, 9 and proper personal conducts 149;
Budai 10 literary discrimination against humor
Buddha 10 45; literary writings 20; principle of
Buddhism 8, 10–11 “conquering selfishness to restore
Bush, George W. 17, 18 ritual propriety” 144
Confucian puritanism 19, 43–5, 48–50, 59
Ch’an Buddhism 10 Confucius 8–9, 10, 45, 49, 89, 101
Chen Shui Bian 48 conscientiousness 70, 71
chi 2 conservative jokes 20, 49
Chinese Humor Style Questionnaire coping humor 20, 22, 75–6, 123,
(CHSQ) 61 125, 169
212 Index
Coping Humor Scale (CHS) 75–6, 50–61; high regard for overall humor
121, 123 51–2; incompatibility of Chinese
creative thinking: humor styles and humor with Chinese personality 52–4;
150–5; humor types and 153–5; low regard for personal humor 51–2;
personality and 150–3 nomination of extraordinary people
creativity: Chinese concept of 144–5; as humorists 55–7; perception of
definition of 143–4; humor and importance of humor in friendship
143–55; personality and 150–3; studies 57–8; perception of importance of
of Chinese concept of 145–6; studies humor to Chinese 51; on resilience
of Chinese implicit concept of 145–6; 129
Western concept of 144–5, 147 Enrich Marital Satisfaction Scale
creativity-humor-non-parallel (EMSS) 87
phenomenon: characteristics of 147–9; extraversion 70
studies of 149–55
cross-cultural studies: of Chinese face 59–61, 100
extraordinary view of humor 21; facework 59–61, 164
Chinese meritorious evaluation Facework Scale (FS) 61
bias of humor 31–2; comparison of Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire
perception of humor and humorists (FTQ) 168
26–7; evaluation of importance filial piety 59–61
of collectivism and individualism Five-Factor Model of personality 70–4
25–6; of humor in Chinese society fMRI studies 32–6
20–32; nomination of humorists and Freud, Sigmund 18, 121, 122
benefits of humor 24–5; perception friendship 57–8
of Chinese and Western humorists 21;
perception of prototypical Chinese Gang of Four 48
and Western humorists 27–31; gelotophobia 105–8
priming Chinese and Western Gelotophobia Scale (GELOP) 106
culture cues 23–4 gender 69–70
cultural difficulties 133–4 General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale
Cultural Revolution 47–8 (GPSES) 169
cut down, annoyed, guilty, eye opener General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES) 77, 80
questionnaire (CAGE) 168 Gongming Jia 101
Gonshu Wenzi 8
delight 45 guanxi 85, 89, 164, 170
“denial humor” 68 Guo Zi-zhang 2
De oratore (Aristotle) 48
depression 112, 130 Handan Chun 2
Dispositional Hope Scale (DHS) 77 happiness 74–9
herbal names 3, 4
Ebbinghaus, Hermann 2 horizontal collectivism (HC) 25–6,
Eisenhower, Dwight D. 161 60–1
Emotional and Social Loneliness Scale horizontal individualism (HI) 25–6, 61
(ESLS) 83, 103 hua 2
emotional intelligence 145–6 huaji 2, 6, 25, 50
emotions: gelotophobia and 105–8; humor: acculturative stress and 129–30;
humor and 99–114; kinds of 114; affiliative 18, 87–9, 106, 108, 112,
laughter and 100–2; loneliness and 122, 131, 133–5, 150, 152, 163,
102–5; playfulness and 110–14; self- 165–6; aggressive 19, 111–12, 133–4,
compassion and 108–10; shyness and 150, 152, 164, 165; ancient Chinese
102–5; traditional Chinese beliefs and political prosecution of 46; benefits
emotional expressivity 99–100 of 11–12, 24–5; black 6; Buddhism
empirical studies: on adjustment 129; and 10–11; Chinese ambivalence
of Chinese ambivalence to humor about 43–62; Chinese emotions and
Index 213
99–114; Chinese extraordinary view Western ordinary view of 17–19, 21;
of 19–20, 21; Chinese meritorious wheel model of 162
evaluation bias of 31–2; Chinese humor climate 166–8
negative implicit attitudes toward 37; Humor Climates Questionnaire
Chinese neuropsychological study (HCQ) 166–7
of 33–6; Chinese philosophies 8; humorists: comparison of perception
Communist’s lofty prejudice against of humor and 26–7; nomination of
47–8; comparison of perception of 24–5, 28, 55–7, 148; perception of
humorists and 26–7; Confucianism Chinese and Western 21; perception
and 8–9; Confucian orthodox of prototypical Chinese and Western
literary discrimination against 45; 27–31
Confucian puritanic bias against 43–5; humorous jokes 2, 3
considerations of 11–12; creativity Humor Production Scale for Teachers-
and 143–55; cross-cultural studies Revised-R (HPST-R) 169
20–32; definition of 1; devaluing as Humor Style Questionnaire (HSQ) 60,
personal quality 48–9; development 76–7, 79, 81, 83–7, 103, 106, 111,
of modern 5–8; elaboration theory 130, 163, 164, 167
of 32; empirical studies of Chinese humor styles: acculturative stress and
ambivalence to 50–61; examples of 7; 129–30; conflict styles and 162–6;
face and 59–61; filial piety and 59–61; creative thinking and 150–5; leader
Five-Factor Model of personality and effectiveness and 162–6; and mental
70–4; forms of 3, 6, 7, 170; functions health among Hong Kong adults
162; gelotophobia and 105–8; 123–5; mental health and 122–3;
gender and 69–70; importance in predicting 133–5
friendship 57–8; life satisfaction and humor types: creative thinking and
130–1; loneliness and 83–7; major 153–5; definitions and examples of 2,
techniques in Chinese history 3–4; 18–19, 170–1; in fMRI experiment
manifestation of Chinese ambivalence 35; self-efficacy and 80, 169
about 48–50; marital satisfaction and
87, 129; mental health and 121–2; I Ching 9
mental health in Chinese societies individualism 25–6, 60–1, 165
and 123–8; meritorious evaluation inner eye theory of laughter 32, 33
bias 31–2, 146–7, 149; mind-reading Innovative Behavior Questionnaire
hypothesis of 33; neuropsychological (IBQ) 165
studies of Chinese 32–6; optimism Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire
and 74–9; origin of Chinese 2; other (ICQ) 85–6, 103
forms of 3–5; personality and 12, 18, ironic jokes 2
49, 67–9; playfulness and 110–14;
relational process model of 162; jerk humor 6
resilience 131–3; romance and 87; jerk literature 6
self-accepting 135; self-compassion ji 2
and 79–83, 108–10; self-defeating Jing, Duke of Qi State 101
87–9, 108, 111–12, 135, 150, Job Performance Scale (JPS) 165
164, 165; self-deprecating 18, 19; job satisfaction 164
self-efficacy and 79–83, 169–70; joke books 1, 3, 6
self-enhancing 19, 106, 108, 112, jokes: banter 3; Chinese ambivalence
122, 133–4, 150, 152, 164, 165; self- about humor and 48–9, 58;
esteem and 79–83; self-humor 51–2; Chinese philosophies and 45; cold
shyness and 83–7; social competence 7; commoners’ 2, 45; conservative
and 83–7; subjective happiness and 20, 49; “denial humor” and 49;
74–9; Taiwanese neuropsychological earliest Chinese 3, 5; Gang of Four
study of 32–3; Taoism and 9–10; 48; gender difference toward 69;
theory of mind and 32; therapeutic Hong Kong students’ preference
169–70; valuing from outside 48–9; 20, 49, 60; humorous 2, 3; ironic
214 Index
2; mean 2; obscene 2; pai shuo 3; university students 125–8; predicting
political 7; political prosecution of adjustment and resilience 131–3;
46–7; practical 50; sarcastic 3; satire predicting humor styles 133–5;
and 3; self-defeating 60; sexual 20, resilience among mainland students
49; Singaporean preference 21; as studying in Hong Kong and 128–35
substitutions for social reprimands 21; meritorious evaluation bias: in Chinese
Taiwanese use of 21, 100; types of concept of creativity 146–7; creative
2, 7, 11, 32–6; unfunny 49–50; use thinking and 150; creativity-humor-
in fMRI studies 32–6; U.S. students’ non-parallel phenomenon and 149;
preference 20, 49, 60; witty 2; in cross-cultural studies of humor in
workplace humor 165, 170 Chinese society 31–2
Minnesota Job Satisfaction
Laozi 8, 9–10 Questionnaire (MJSQ) 164, 167
“Laughing Buddha” 10 moderation 99–102
laughter: belly 12, 49, 88; Chinese Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale
philosophies and 8–10, 19–20, 44–5, (MSHS) 80, 153, 169
48, 50, 114, 155; gelotophobes and Myers–Briggs Type Indicators 71
105; health and 18, 121, 135; humor
and 100–2; inner eye theory of 32, 33; negative humor 166
jokes and 3; loud 21; Plato’s comments neuropsychological studies: of Chinese
on 48; social nature of 1; types 6; humor 32–6; humor and the theory
unfunny jokes and 49; universal nature of mind 32; of humor in mainland
of 37; vocal-behavioral expressions of China 33–6; of humor in Taiwan 32
67–8; workplace humor and 162 neuroticism 70, 71
leader effectiveness 162–6 nonsense humor 6
Leadership Effectiveness Questionnaire
(LEQ) 165 obscene jokes 2
le bu ke ji 45 openness 70, 71
le jiaole 45 optimism 74–9
let go 9 oumuya 5
le yanle 45
le yiyou 45 pai shuo jokes 3
life satisfaction 130–1 pai you 5
Lin Yu-tang 2–3, 10–12, 25, 46, 48 palindrome poem 4–5
literary inquisition 46 parables 2
loneliness 83–7, 102–5 Pathological Narcissism Inventory
Loneliness Scale (LS) 84 (PNI) 71
Lun-yu (Analects Fortnightly) 6, 8 personality: creativity and 150–3; Five-
Factor Model of 70–4; humor and
“Maitreya” 10 12, 18, 49, 67–9; Western view of
marital satisfaction 87, 129 humor and 18
Maslow, Abraham 122 Philebus (Plato) 48
mean jokes 2 Plato 12, 48
medical doctrine of moderation 101–2 playfulness 110–14
Mencius 8, 45 poems 3
mental health: acculturative stress political jokes 7
and 129–31; adjustment among positive humor 166
mainland students studying in practical jokes 50
Hong Kong and 128–35; humor Psychology of Humor: An Integrative
and 121–2; and humor in Chinese Approach, The (Martin) 37
societies 123–8; and humor styles “pure humor” 11, 49, 68
among Hong Kong adults 123–5; life
satisfaction and 130–1; and optimism Qing-yan anthology 2
among Hong Kong and mainland Qin Shi Huang 46, 47
Index 215
quips 3, 4 Taiwan 32
Qu Yuan 2 Taoism 8, 9–10, 11
Tao Te Ching 9
Rahim Organizational Conflict Tao Yuan-ming 6
Inventory (ROCI-II) 163 teaching effectiveness 169–70
Relational Humor Inventory (RHI) 87 theory of mind 32
Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) 87 therapeutic humor 169–70
resilience: among mainland students thinking styles 105–6
studying in Hong Kong 128–35; Thinking Styles Inventory – Revised
creativity and 145–6; predicting 131–3 (TSI-R) 106
Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R) 76 Thurber, James 170
riddles 3
romance 87 unfunny jokes 49–50
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES)
79, 86, 106, 163 vertical collectivism (VC) 25–6, 60–1
vertical individualism (VI) 25–6, 61
sarcastic jokes 3 Wang Guo-wei 5
satire 3, 48 Wen Jiabao 17
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) 76, Western humor: attitudes toward
81, 130 49–50; black humor 6; creativity and
Scale of Positive and Negative 57, 144–5, 147, 155; discussions
Experience (SPANE) 76 of 48; forms of 11; mental health
self-accepting humor 135 and 123, 127, 135; ordinary view of
self-compassion 79–83, 108–10 17–19, 21; personality and 68, 85,
Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) 81, 109 89; workplace humor 162
self-defeating humor 87–9, 108, 111, witty jokes 2
135, 150, 164, 165 wordplays 3, 4
self-defeating jokes 60 workplace humor: conflict styles
self-deprecating humor 18 and 162–6; humor climate and
self-efficacy 79–83, 169–70 166–8; humor styles and 162–6;
self-enhancing humor 19, 106, 108, job satisfaction and 166–8; leader
112, 122, 133, 150, 152, 164, 165 effectiveness and 162–6; negative
self-esteem 79–83 humor 166; positive humor 166;
self-humor 51–2 promotion of 170; self-efficacy and
sexual jokes 20, 49 169–70; supervisor humor 168;
shame 88–9, 102, 103, 165 supervisor support for 166; teaching
Short Measure for Adult Playfulness effectiveness and 169–70; theories of
(SMAP) 111 161–2
shyness 83–7, 102–5 wu wei 9
smiles 6, 19
social competence 83–7, 103 Xiaolin (Handun) 1
social contributions 147 xin ping qi he 101–2
Social Distance Scale 165
social identity 20 youmo 2, 5–6, 11, 25
stress 128–31 You Zhan 47
students 128–35, 148 yu bu ke zong 45
subjective happiness 74–9
Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) 77 Zen Buddhism 10
subjective well-being 74–6, 89 Zhao Nan-xing 3
Su Dongpo 11, 74–5 zhi be ke man 45
supervisor humor 168 zhongni bu wei yishen zhe 45
Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90) 123 Zhuangzi 8, 9–10

Humor and Chinese Culture - A Psychological Perspective PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Humor and Chinese Culture - A Psychological Perspective PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This book addresses psychological studies of humor in Chinese societies. It starts

For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com/Routledge-

Archaeology of Psychotherapy in Korea

Hidden Youth and the Virtual World

Psychoanalysis in Hong Kong

Psycho-Criminological Perspective of Criminal Justice in Asia

Humor and Chinese Culture

1 Humor, philosophy, and Chinese culture 1

2 Chinese and Western views of humor 17

3 Chinese ambivalence about humor 43

4 Humor and Chinese personality 67

5 Humor and Chinese emotions 99

6 Humor and Chinese mental well-being 121

7 Humor and Chinese creativity 143

8 Workplace humor in Chinese society 161

A man from the state of Lu wanted to carry a super-long bamboo pole

Hua-ji: the origin of Chinese humor

Table 1.1 Major humor techniques in Chinese history

Techniques Brief description Examples

Jia yu 佳語 Clever remarks/ There is an end to my life, but not to my

Techniques Brief description Examples

A Chinese palindrome poem by Su Shi

賞花歸去馬如飛, Watching flowers then galloping fast,

Note: What is underlined is to be repeated in next line.

Development of modern humor in China

Any country’s culture, lifestyle, literature, or thought needs to be enriched

Forms Brief Description

Table 1.3 Examples of humor in China

Confucianism and Chinese humor

Taoism and Chinese humor

Buddhism and Chinese humor

Taoism Confucianism Buddhism

Humor Promotes emotional Violates proper Embodies the spirit of

cardinal relations in human interactions. Taoism values humor as a means for

Thoughtful humor, however, is based on the perception of human errors,

On December 14, 2008, an Iraqi journalist startled attendees at a press

The Western ordinary view of humor

Humor is ubiquitous in American society and nothing escapes from becom-

Table 2.1 Definitions and examples of humor types

Humor type Definition Examples

Affiliative Amuses others A very pretty young lady sat next to

Humor type Definition Examples

The Chinese extraordinary view of humor

Confucian decorum put a damper on light, humorous writing, as well as on

From the Confucian perspective, proper humor needs to be moderate, private,

Orthodox Confucian literary writings

Cross-cultural studies of humor in Chinese society

Studies of the Chinese extraordinary view of humor

Perception of Chinese and Western humorists

Importance of humor 8.56 1.17 7.60 1.55 5.49*** .70

Study 2: priming Chinese and Western culture cues

Study 3: nomination of humorists and benefits of humor

Figure 2.1 Nominated humorists by Chinese and Canadian students

Evaluation of importance of collectivism and individualism

Canadian Hong Kong

Academic Works 16.94 33.06 7.85 42.15 10.72**

Mental Health 41.74 8.26 26.86 23.14 24.86***

In short, as much as individualism emphasizes an “I-ness” in social relations,

Study 4: cross-cultural comparison of perception of humor

Canadian Hong Kong

Horizontal Individualism 30.93 3.94 29.00 3.50 4.04***

Hong Kong Hangzhou Vancouver