Sunteți pe pagina 1din 13

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

http://psp.sagepub.com/ Humor in Romantic Contexts: Do Men Participate and Women Evaluate?


Christopher J. Wilbur and Lorne Campbell Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2011 37: 918 originally published online 26 April 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0146167211405343 The online version of this article can be found at: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/37/7/918

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin can be found at: Email Alerts: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/37/7/918.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 26, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

405343
and CampbellPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin

PSP37710.1177/0146167211405343Wilbur

Article

Humor in Romantic Contexts: Do Men Participate and Women Evaluate?


Christopher J. Wilbur1 and Lorne Campbell1

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(7) 918929 2011 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0146167211405343 http://psp.sagepub.com

Abstract Several lines of research illustrate that humor plays a pivotal role in relationship initiation. The current article applies sexual selection theory to argue that humor production is a fitness indicator, allowing men to transmit information tacitly about their underlying qualities. And whereas prior research has emphasized womens appreciation of humor as a signal of interest, the focus here is on how women evaluate prospective suitors humorous offerings. Two studies, including an ecologically valid study of online dating advertisements, provided evidence for mens production and womens evaluation of humor in romantic contexts. A third study revealed that womens evaluations of potential mates humor are predictive of their romantic interest. Moreover, this article shows that preferences for and perceptions of humor are associated with preferences for and perceptions of intelligence and warmth, consistent with the argument that one function of humor is as a fitness indicator that provides information about underlying mate quality. Keywords attraction, humor, mate preferences, relationship initiation, sexual selection Received September 27, 2010; revision accepted February 3, 2011
Men will confess to treason, murder, arson, false teeth, or a wig. How many of them will own up to a lack of humor? Frank Moore Colby

American historian and essayist Frank Moore Colbys facetious remark underscores a curious truth concerning human nature: People keenly desire that others perceive them as a humorous person. Indeed, one survey revealed that 94% of respondents claimed to possess an above-average sense of humor (Lefcourt & Martin, 1986). Why is conveying humora seemingly superfluous traitso vital? Among other functions, humor has been implicated in promoting mental health (e.g., Galloway & Cropley, 1999), softening the edge of critical remarks (e.g., Keltner, Young, Heery, Oemig, & Monarch, 1998), and facilitating communication within romantic relationships (e.g., Campbell, Martin, & Ward, 2008). In the present research, we apply sexual selection theory (Darwin, 1871/1981) to understand the function of humor in romantic relationship initiation, describing how men produce humor to signal information about their underlying traits and how women evaluate humorous offerings to make prudent romantic decisions. Prior research adopting a similar perspective has focused on womens humor appreciation, which entails overt displays of enjoying anothers humorous attempts, such as laughing and compliments (Bressler, Martin, & Balshine, 2006).

Humor appreciation can be feigned, however, and might be displayed for various reasons even when an individual does not find the humorist to be particularly amusing. In contrast, humor evaluation entails deliberative judgment, which may or may not be explicitly articulated, as to whether a target is indeed amusing. The present research complements the work of Bressler et al. (2006) by examining whether women evaluate the humorous offerings of male suitors and whether these evaluations carry implications for their relationship decisions. A second contribution of the present research is the demonstration of systematic associations between humor and traits desired in romantic partners, such as intelligence and warmth. Support for these observations bolsters a sexual selection account of humor in relationship initiation. Darwin (1871/1981) advanced sexual selection theory to explain how some traits, seemingly superfluous or even detrimental to survival, could persist by virtue of their appeal to prospective mates. Members of the sex that invests less heavily in offspring typically compete with one another for mating opportunities, either directly (intrasexual competition)
1

University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

Corresponding Author: Christopher J. Wilbur, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5C2, Canada Email: cjwilbur@uwo.ca

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

Wilbur and Campbell or indirectly by displaying evidence of their quality to potential mates (intersexual competition). Often, the traits or behaviors required to compete successfully are costly in other ways (e.g., require substantial physiological resources, pose a risk of negative outcomes), and the ability to withstand such costs signals to potential partners that the signaler is a particularly high-quality mate. To illustrate, unique to several species of bowerbirds is a puzzling behavior: the construction by males of elaborate nests (bowers) adorned with colorful decorations in the form of shells, leaves, flowers, and so on. Tremendous time and effort are invested in this activity that has no apparent survival utility. Yet males who can successfully construct and defend their ostentatious creations are chosen more frequently as mates. The ability to construct and defend bowers is predictive of immunocompetence, and discerning females thus rely on bower-holding as a marker of males underlying quality (Borgia, Egeth, Uy, & Patricelli, 2004). In a similar vein, Miller (2000a, 2000b, 2007) conjectured that several human virtues, including humor, evolved via sexual selection as fitness indicators, which encompass markers of genetic quality or traits associated with being a good partner or parent. According to Miller, humor is a prime candidate as a reliable indicator of desirable underlying traits, such as intelligence and warmth, because proficient attempts at humor demand cognitive flexibility, theory of mind, and communicative skill. Indeed, showcasing a sense of humor is rated as the single most effective mate attraction tactic (Buss, 1988). Simply describing ones purported qualities offers little information to prospective partners because without any substantiating evidence, such boasts are nondiagnostic. In the present research, we test whether humor functions as a fitness indicator by examining whether men produce humor in romantic contexts and whether women evaluate humor in romantic contexts. Moreover, we assess relations between humor production and underlying traits. We argue that humor is a preferred quality in romantic partners to the extent that it signals the possession of fundamentally important traits. Miller (2007) suggests that the relatively unusual human predilection (compared to other mammals) toward biparental care typically results in sex similarities in the display of fitness indicators. Variance in reproductive success is higher among men, however, and consequently, men might advertise their qualities more vigorously than women. Indeed, Griskevicius, Cialdini, and Kenrick (2006) found that mens creative outputs were influenced by activation of both shortterm and long-term mating mind-sets, whereas womens creative outputs were influenced only when particularly primed to attract an explicitly committed mate. In research specifically examining the role of humor in romantic attraction, Bressler and his colleagues (Bressler & Balshine, 2006; Bressler et al., 2006) observed that humorous men are preferred by women as romantic partners but that humorous women are not especially preferred by men. Instead, men

919 value a prospective mates receptivity to their own humor. We extend the work of Bressler and colleagues by showing that women carefully evaluate mens humor production because humor production signals information about underlying traits commonly desired in romantic partners. Recently, Li et al. (2009) proposed that humor serves the purpose of expressing interest in developing or maintaining a relationshiphumor is an interest indicator rather than a fitness indicator. The fitness indicator model suggests that womens attraction develops in response to mens humor displays. The interest indicator model suggests that attraction precedes humor displays and that both men and women use humor to signal their attraction. Li et al. demonstrated that men and women asked to imagine being attracted to a target reported a greater propensity to produce and respond to humor in interaction with the target. A second study revealed that men and women rate humorous comments made by attractive targets as funnier than identical comments made by less attractive targets. People have strongly positive explicit and implicit responses to physically attractive individuals (Sritharan, Heilpern, Wilbur, & Gawronski, 2010), so it is not surprising that both men and women use humor production and appreciation to convey their interest in especially attractive targets. A third study found that third-party observers perceive mens humor initiation and womens positive responses to humor as indicative of romantic interest. As Li et al. (2009) make clear, the fitness indicator model and the interest indicator model explain different, but complementary, roles of humor in the process of relationship initiation. Presently, we adopt a fitness indicator perspective that is particularly relevant early in the impression formation process, before substantial attraction has developed and when physical attractiveness may not be readily discernible. Consistent with the fitness indicator function, Li et al. noted that humorous comments enhanced the appeal of physically unattractive targets and that positive reactions to humor were influenced by perceptions of warmth implied by the humor. The interest indicator model emphasizes that both men and women should equally initiate and respond to humor after developing an interest in forging a relationship. Sexual selection theory, from which the fitness indicator model is derived, implies sex differences in relationship initiation strategies premised on womens greater minimum obligatory investment in children (Trivers, 1972). As mentioned previously, mens reproductive success varies greatly, and consequently, men tend to apply more overt relationship initiation strategies than women, including physical approach of prospective partners and initiation of physical contact (e.g., Clark, Shaver, & Abrahams, 1999; Finkel & Eastwick, 2009). Interestingly, these sex differences are observed in contemporary dating contexts as well: Men, compared to women, express greater desire for further contact with partners met in speed dating events (e.g., Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, & Simonson, 2006; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005).

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

920 Our framework synthesizes sexual selection theory and the interest indicator model by proposing that humorous productions are used to indicate romantic interest, but predominantly by men as a means of advertising information about their underlying qualities during initial courtship. Women evaluate these humorous offerings carefully in service of selecting the best possible suitor. The present research borrows from the work of Bressler and his colleagues (Bressler & Balshine, 2006; Bressler et al., 2006), but whereas they stressed womens signaling of interest via appreciation of mens humor, our efforts are geared toward adducing evidence that women evaluate mens humorous productions. Women should not report indiscriminate tendencies to appreciate the humor of all possible suitors; rather, women should be attuned to the quality of prospective partners humorous offerings to select the best possible mate. Provocative neuroimaging data support such a distinction: When observing humorous stimuli, left prefrontal cortex and right nucleus accumbens activation is stronger in women than in men (Azim, Mobbs, Jo, Menon, & Reiss, 2005). The left prefrontal cortex is implicated in language comprehension and in decoding the semantic meaning of stimuli; the right nucleus accumbens mediates the experience of reward, particularly when unexpected, as are the punchlines to jokes. These neuroimaging data imply, then, that women recruit resources for making sense of jokes and experience reward from viewing particularly amusing stimuli, processes consistent with evaluative responses. Intelligence and warmth are two traits that are particularly valued in romantic partners (e.g., Evans & Brase, 2007; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002), and using humor to convey these attributes might be especially effective for tacitly advertising mate quality. Although some studies (Bressler & Balshine, 2006; Lundy, Tan, & Cunningham, 1998) have found negative relations between perceptions of humor and perceptions of intelligence, other studies have found positive relations between perceptions of humor and perceptions of intelligence, as well as between perceptions of humor and perceptions of traits related to warmth (Cann & Calhoun, 2001). Although a consensual definition for humor remains elusive, agreement largely exists on two key dimensions: (a) the production of humor involves the creation of incongruity in the perceivers mind, which requires a nonobvious resolution, typically resulting in a mirthful response, and (b) humor production is often, though not always, meant to convey a good-natured disposition (Martin, 2007). This definition implies that humor can simultaneously connote ones intelligence (i.e., the ability to create an incongruity requiring a clever resolution) and ones warmth (i.e., displaying a good-natured disposition). We hypothesized that men are inclined to produce humor to attract prospective romantic partners, whereas women are inclined to evaluate these humorous offerings. To gather evidence for our hypothesis, we conducted three studies. With Study 1, we aimed to document the expected sex

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(7) differences in humor use. With Study 2, we intended to show that these sex differences are evident in an ecologically valid setting by analyzing profiles from an online dating website. In Study 2, we also explored the associations of humor with underlying traits by testing whether offers of and requests for humor were systematically linked to offers of and requests for intelligence and warmth. In Study 3, we created fictitious online dating profiles that opened with a joke to seek direct evidence that womens (but not mens) evaluation of a prospective partners humor carries implications for their romantic interest. In Study 3, we also examined relations between humor evaluations and perceptions of targets intelligence and warmth.

Study 1
With Study 1, we sought to provide initial evidence for differences between men and women in how they use humor in getting to know prospective romantic partners. Specifically, we predicted that men would be more inclined toward using humor production as a strategy for attracting prospective romantic partners, whereas women would be more inclined toward evaluating a suitors humorous offerings. To this end, a large sample of men and women reported on the types of humor strategies they would employ in service of getting to know a prospective romantic partner.

Method
Participants. Four hundred ninety-eight introductory psychology students (320 women, 178 men) at a large Canadian university participated in Study 1 in exchange for course credit. The majority of participants (70.2%) identified themselves as White, 12.9% of participants identified themselves as Asian, and 16.9% of participants identified themselves as being of another ethnicity. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 49 years old, with a median age of 18 years old. Procedure. Participants completed Study 1 as part of a larger online mass testing questionnaire. Participants first read a paragraph asking them to imagine trying to get to know a prospective romantic partner. This paragraph also instructed participants to think about the sorts of strategies they might use in this context. After reading the paragraph, participants rated the likelihood of using several humor strategies in service of getting to know a potential romantic partner. Questionnaire. The strategy questionnaire contained 22 statements relevant to humor production (e.g., I would make a lot of jokes), humor evaluation (I would assess how good s/he is at telling jokes compared to other people I know), and humor appreciation (I would tell him/her that s/he was funny). Participants reported the likelihood of using each of these strategies on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not all likely to do, 4 = somewhat likely to do, 7 = extremely likely to do).

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

Wilbur and Campbell


Table 1. Pattern Matrix Factor Loading for the Humor Strategies Questionnaire Items Factor 1 Humor appreciation I would compliment him/her on his/her witty remarks. I would act amused by his/her jokes. I would tell him/her that he/she was funny. I would laugh when he/she said something funny to encourage him/her to keep it up. I would laugh at his/her jokes. I would show my appreciation for his/her humor. I would tell some funny stories. I would try to act in an amusing manner. I would make witty remarks. I would be really comical. I would try to make him/her laugh. I would make a lot of jokes. I would look to see if other people find him/her to be funny. I would try to determine if his/her jokes seem to flow spontaneously rather than being forced. I would assess how good he/she is at telling jokes compared to other people I know. I would attempt to evaluate how naturally amusing he/she is. .56 .43 .75 .74 .85 .71 .18 .14 .06 .17 .28 .04 .20 .09 .12 .15 2 Humor production .06 .16 .06 .01 .04 .10 .59 .63 .59 .87 .61 .75 .06 .03 .08 .02 3 Humor evaluation .05 .00 .01 .07 .19 .05 .15 .03 .07 .14 .22 .07 .42 .66 .67 .66

921

Note: The first six items listed assess humor appreciation; the next six items assess humor production; the next four items assess humor evaluation. Loadings on the relevant factor are in boldface.

To provide evidence for the three-factor structure of this questionnaire, the 22 items were subjected to an exploratory principal axis factor analysis, specifying three factors, with an oblique promax rotation. Inspection of the scree plot indicated that a three-factor solution was a reasonable fit to the data. The first factor included 6 items designed to assess humor appreciation. The second factor included 6 items designed to assess humor production. The third factor included 4 items designed to assess humor evaluation (all loadings .42 on the intended factor and .28 on the remaining factors). Five items were not included in creating the subscales because they exhibited relatively low loadings on all factors or substantial cross-loadings on more than one factor. An additional item was not included, as it loaded on a factor for which it was not theoretically intended. See Table 1 for all scale items and factor loadings. The six items loading on the humor production factor were averaged to create humor production scores ( = .86). The four items loading on the humor evaluation factor were averaged to create humor evaluation scores ( = .73). The six items loading on the humor appreciation factor were averaged to create humor appreciation scores ( = .83). The correlations of humor production with humor evaluation and humor appreciation were .32 and .69, respectively.

The correlation of humor evaluation with humor appreciation was .38.

Results
To ascertain whether men and women differed in their relative uses of humor production, humor evaluation, and humor appreciation, we conducted a 2 3 mixed model ANOVA, with participant sex (male, female) as a between-subjects factor and humor facet (production, evaluation, appreciation) as a within-subjects factor. Consistent with our prediction, a significant two-way interaction emerged between participant sex and humor facet, F(2, 992) = 21.37, p < .001 (see Figure 1). We performed planned comparisons between mens and womens humor subscale scores for each humor facet separately to probe further the nature of the observed interaction. As predicted, men (M = 5.34, SD = 1.03) reported higher levels of humor production than women (M = 5.02, SD = 1.09), F(1, 496) = 9.99, p = .002, d = .29. Also as predicted, women (M = 3.97, SD = 1.29) reported higher levels of humor evaluation than men (M = 3.58, SD = 1.28), F(1, 496) = 10.22, p = .001, d = .30. Although not explicitly predicted, consistent with past research, women (M = 5.19, SD = 1.00) reported higher levels of humor appreciation than men (M = 4.95, SD = .98), F(1, 496) = 6.66, p = .01, d = .24.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

922

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(7) gleaned from an online dating service and coded them for instances of humor production offers and humor production requests. We also examined associations of humor production offers and requests with offers and requests for intelligence and warmth. In Study 2, we distinguished humor production from the broader sense of humor construct, a distinction that is often conflated in research on humor. A sense of humor does not necessarily entail a proclivity to produce jokes but rather comprises a worldview through which an individual sees the lighter side of life, which in turn promotes coping with and adapting to adverse circumstances (McGhee, 1979). As a sense of humor is a pervasive, dispositional approach to life, it is likely valued by both men and women. On the other hand, humor production, as discussed previously, entails acute attempts to invoke an amused response in another. Humor production is an active means of advertising ones underlying qualities, and as men, compared to women, tend to employ more direct strategies of relationship initiation (e.g., Clark et al., 1999; Finkel & Eastwick, 2009), men should also exhibit a greater tendency to offer humor production in online dating environments.

men women

Likelihood of Use

3 Humor Produc on Humor Evalua on Humor Apprecia on

Figure 1. Mean likelihood ratings of using different humor facets in getting to know a prospective romantic partner (Study 1)

Discussion
The results of Study 1 suggest that men are more inclined than women to produce humor when getting to know a prospective romantic partner and that women are more inclined than men to evaluate the humor of potential mates. Women, compared to men, also exhibited a greater likelihood of humor appreciation. Study 1 focused on mens and womens self-reports of how they might behave when interacting with a potential romantic partner, but these data cannot speak to whether sexdifferentiated humor strategies unfold in ecologically valid mating contexts. To address this issue, we undertook Study 2 with the aim of providing evidence that sex differences in humor production and humor evaluation are apparent among people seeking actual romantic partners in an online dating environment. Recent surveys indicate that more than 800 dating websites exist and that in the United States alone, 3 million users have developed long-term relationships with partners met through dating websites (Sritharan et al., 2010). Accordingly, assessing the strategies of online dating users is a particularly timely endeavor. Study 2 also provided an opportunity to examine associations among humor, intelligence, and warmth.

Method
We examined dating profiles posted on the website lavalife .com. Users of this website can create profiles to post in any or all of the following sections: Dating, Relationship, and Intimate Encounters. Given our interest in examining humor preferences among potential relationship partners, we confined our search to profiles in the Relationship section. Selection of profiles. By logging into an account created for this study, the first author specified and saved search criteria for profile age, Canadian city of residence, gender, and language. This process resulted in 12 separate saved searches: male profiles in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, London, Toronto, and Montreal, and female profiles in these same six Canadian cities. All profiles described individuals between 21 and 35 (inclusive) years of age and were written in English. Research assistants were instructed to examine profiles from these saved searches and record the user names of profiles containing a humor-related word or phrase (from the list of humor production and sense of humor phrases described in the Coding Procedure section). One research assistant recorded user names for profiles from Vancouver, London, and Montreal; a second research assistant recorded user names for profiles from Calgary, Winnipeg, and Toronto. After the research assistants had generated the lists of user names, the first author looked up the profiles by searching the Lavalife website by user name and copied each users written profile into one of two Microsoft Word documents (Set 1 or Set 2) and assigned each a code number. In sum, 266 profiles (133 men, 133 women) were included in the

Study 2
Study 2 involved an analysis of online dating profiles to uncover predicted sex differences in humor production and humor evaluation in an ecologically valid context. We predicted that men, in contrast to women, would more frequently offeror advertise, in other wordsa propensity for humor production. On the other hand, we predicted that women, compared to men, would more frequently request a partner with a penchant for humor production. To test these predictions, we examined a large number of dating profiles

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

Wilbur and Campbell documents, with each Canadian city being more or less equally represented. Among the profiles for which ethnicity was provided, 85.5% identified themselves as White; percentages of various other ethnic groups were small. The median age was 29 years old, and mean age did not differ between men and women. Photographs and demographic information of the users were not included in the Word documents to eliminate bias introduced by these factors when coding the profiles. A second group of research assistants coded the profiles for instances of humor production offers and requests, as well as offers of and requests for other traits. Two coders were provided with a document containing the written profiles of individuals located in Vancouver, London, or Montreal (Set 1). Two other coders were provided with a document containing the written profiles of individuals located in Calgary, Winnipeg, or Toronto (Set 2). Coding procedure. Coders read each written profile and recorded on a form whether each of the following traits was offered, requested, or both: humor production, general sense of humor, attractiveness, status/resources, warmth/trustworthiness, intelligence, and ambition. Coders were instructed to record an offer or request as present only if key phrases found in the profile matched those on a prespecified list and only if those key phrases were written in such a way as to imply a clear offer or request (e.g., I am . . . or I want . . .). Humor production phrases included on the list were amusing, aspiring stand-up comic, can make me/you giggle, can make me/you laugh, comical, funny, hilarious, likes to make jokes, and witty. General sense of humor phrases included on the list were doesnt take self too seriously, laughs at self, loves to laugh, sees lighter side of life, has sense of humor. If coders encountered a particular word or phrase not found on the list but thought the word or phrase adequately represented one of the trait categories, they wrote that word or phrase on a designated line on the coding form. If this word or phrase was the only criterion for indicating a trait offer or request to be present, the coder recorded the presence of that trait offer or request as indeterminate. Set 1. Seventy-eight profiles were coded separately by two coders. Kappa, a measure of interrater agreement for nominal variables, was computed for offers and requests of each trait. To calculate a kappa coefficient, the nominal categories for one coder must be identical to the nominal categories for the other coder. For some variables, however, one coder had coded some profiles as indeterminate, while the other coder did not have any indeterminates for that variable. For these variables, indeterminates were temporarily coded as yes for interrater agreement analyses, and these analyses were then repeated with indeterminates coded as no. For all variables, interrater agreement was sufficiently high (all s between .51 and 1.00, all ps < .01). Given the high interrater agreement and for the sake of efficiency, each coder coded

923
Table 2. Numbers of Men and Women Who Did and Did Not Offer Humor Production Offered? Yes No Total Male profiles 40 93 133 (33) (100) Female profiles 26 107 133 (33) (100) Total 66 200 266

Note: Expected counts are in parentheses.

her own unique additional set of 25 profiles, thus resulting in a grand sum of 128 coded profiles from Set 1. Set 2. One hundred thirty-eight profiles were coded separately by two coders. The resultant two SPSS data files were merged into one, but unfortunately the original two files and the hard copies of the completed code sheets were misplaced before computing interrater agreement. Given the high interrater agreement obtained for Set 1, however, we are confident that interrater agreement for Set 2 would have been adequate. Furthermore, the coding task in this study was straightforwardcoders simply had to indicate whether specified words were present or absent in the written profiles. Resolving discrepancies. After coders had completed their task, discrepancies were resolved through discussion with the first author. For offers and requests coded as indeterminate by both coders, a colleague was asked to read a list of the indeterminates from Set 1 and another colleague was asked to read a list of the indeterminates from Set 2, removed from the context of the profile. The colleagues indicated whether the indeterminate phrases exemplified their intended categories, and the presence of offers and requests reflected by these phrases was adjusted accordingly.

Results
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted on humor production offers and humor production requests separately to test the hypothesis that men, compared to women, would more frequently offer humor production whereas women, compared to men, would more frequently request humor production. Humor production offers. Men, compared to women, were more likely to offer humor production, 2(1, N = 266) = 3.95, p = .047. As can be seen in Table 2, men offered humor production more frequently, and women offered humor production less frequently, than the statistically expected rates assuming no sex differences. We calculated an odds ratio, which equaled 1.77, meaning that men were 1.77 times more likely to offer humor production than were women. Humor production requests. Women, compared to men, tended toward a greater likelihood of requesting humor production, 2(1, N = 266) = 3.68, p = .055. As can be seen in Table 3, women requested humor production more frequently, and men requested humor production less frequently, than the statistically expected rates assuming no sex differences. We

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

924
Table 3. Numbers of Men and Women Who Did and Did Not Request Humor Production Requested? Yes No Total Male profiles 23 110 133 (29.5) (103.5) Female profiles 36 97 133 (29.5) (103.5) Total 59 207 266

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(7) sense of humor were not associated with requests for intelligence by either men, 2(1, N = 133) = 1.31, p = .252, or women, 2(1, N = 133) = 2.67, p = .103. In fact, this trend among women was that female profiles requesting a general sense of humor less frequently requested intelligence than the statistically expected rate. Only a minority of other associations between humor production and other traits emerged. Offers of humor production were marginally associated with offers of attractiveness among men only, 2(1, N = 133) = 3.67, p = .055. Similarly, requests for humor production were associated with requests for attractiveness among men only, 2(1, N = 133) = 5.54, p = .019. Status requests and ambition offers and requests yielded expected cell counts of less than five when testing for associations with humor production. Associations between humor production offers and status offers, between humor production offers and warmth offers, and between humor production requests and warmth requests, were nonsignificant for both men and women, all 2s 2.46, all ps .117. The lack of associations between humor production and warmth is particularly intriguing in that one might reasonably expect humorous individuals to be characterized by a degree of warmth. This stereotype, however, might more appropriately characterize individuals with a generally cheerful and positive disposition. Indeed, women (but not men) who offered a general sense of humor more frequently offered warmth, 2(N = 133) = 9.49, p = .002, and men (but not women) who requested a general sense of humor more frequently requested warmth, 2(N = 133) = 8.59, p = .003.

Note: Expected counts are in parentheses.

again calculated an odds ratio, which equaled 1.78, meaning that women were 1.78 times more likely to request humor production than were men. Association of humor production offers and humor production requests. We also performed chi-square tests of independence between humor production offers and humor production requests to ascertain whether people who offered humor production were also likely to request humor production. These tests were performed separately for male and female profiles. For both male profiles, 2(1, N = 133) = .919, p = .338, and female profiles, 2(1, N = 133) = 1.01, p = .316, humor production offers were not systematically associated with humor production requests. It thus appears that offering humor production and requesting humor production are distinct, sex-differentiated strategies. General sense of humor offers and requests. We also tested whether men were more likely than women to offer a good sense of humor more generally and whether women were more likely than men to request a good sense of humor. Concerning general sense of humor offers, men did not offer this trait more frequently than did women, 2(1, N = 266) = 1.62, p = .204. Concerning general sense of humor requests, women did not request this trait more frequently than did men, 2(1, N = 266) = 1.59, p = .207. Associations of humor production with other traits. We performed chi-square analyses to test whether humor production offers and requests were systematically related to offers of and requests for other traits (i.e., intelligence, attractiveness, status, ambition, and warmth), examining male and female profiles separately. Intriguingly, offers of humor production were associated with offers of intelligence by both men, 2(1, N = 133) = 8.27, p = .004, and women, 2(1, N = 133) = 5.26, p = .022, such that profiles that offered humor production, compared to those that did not, more frequently offered intelligence as well. Similarly, requests for humor production were associated with requests for intelligence by both men, 2(1, N = 133) = 10.17, p = .001, and women, 2(1, N = 133) = 6.73, p = .009, such that profiles that requested humor production, compared to those that did not, more frequently requested intelligence as well. In contrast, offers of a general sense of humor were not associated with offers of intelligence by either men, 2(1, N = 133) = .110, p = .741, or women, 2(1, N = 133) = .394, p = .530. Similarly, requests for a general

Discussion
The findings of Study 2 uncover that mens proclivity for producing humor and womens desire to seek humorous partners are apparent in ecologically valid dating contexts. Among profiles explicitly mentioning humor, men more frequently advertised their willingness to produce humor; in reciprocal fashion, women expressed a greater desire to locate a humorous partner. These sex-differentiated strategies are largely independent, as offers of and requests for humor production were not systematically associated for men or women. Although our predicted sex differences emerged, the relative importance of humor in relationship initiation might be questioned by recent findings showing that humor is mentioned in fewer than 10% of newspaper dating advertisements (De Backer, Braeckman, & Farinpour, 2008). Our argument is that humor production functions more as a means than as an endsignaling the possession of desired, more fundamentally important traits. In this way, humor plays an implicit role in demonstrating mate quality and consequently might not receive frequent explicit mention as an offered or requested trait in and of itself. In line with the above argument, offers of and requests for humor production were associated with offers of and

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

Wilbur and Campbell requests for intelligence. Miller (2000a) surmised that humor might have evolved as a fitness indicator, but prior research supporting his claim (Bressler & Balshine, 2006; Bressler et al., 2006) has generally taken this link as a given rather than providing evidence for its existence. The present study offers such evidence. Whereas humor production was associated with intelligence, womens offers and mens requests for a sense of humor more broadly construed were systematically associated with womens offers and mens requests for warmth, respectively. It might be that different facets of humor act as signals of discrete underlying traits; for example, clever jokes and witticisms might indicate an intelligent mind, whereas a positive, amused outlook on life might indicate a warm, upbeat disposition. We elaborate on the need to examine different types of humor in the General Discussion. Interestingly, we observed a relation between humor production and intelligence for both mens and womens offers and requests. These findings suggest that both mens and womens humor production can advertise underlying mental quality (see Griskevicius et al., 2006, Study 3, for similar findings regarding creativity). We argue that mens tendency toward humor production and womens tendency toward humor evaluation are components of strategies that men and women enact in the service of particular goals and are not the result of differential abilities. Sex differences in the application of these strategies can be explained by differential parental investment. Although humor production used by either sex might convey similar information, it may be more advantageous for men to advertise their humor for attracting mates and for women to evaluate these humorous displays when choosing among potential suitors.

925 The majority of participants (62.3%) identified themselves as White, 17.6% of participants identified themselves as Asian, and 20.1% of participants identified themselves as being of another ethnicity. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 24 years old, with a median age of 18 years old. Procedure. Participants were run individually as part of a larger set of studies. An experimenter greeted participants, seated them at a computer, and obtained informed consent. The experimenter explained to participants that all instructions would be presented via computer and asked them to follow instructions carefully. Participants were then left alone to complete the study. Participants first answered several demographic questions. They were then informed that they would examine an online dating profile that had ostensibly been submitted to a developing campus dating service and would answer several questions concerning the person described by the profile. The dating profile was adapted from Sritharan et al. (2010), including basic information pertaining to the users demographics. The profile did not contain a photograph, however, so that we could more cleanly assess the effect of humor on attraction without the noise introduced by physical attractiveness. For the purposes of the present study, we created an About Me section that purportedly described the user in his or her own words. This section started with one of the following one-liner jokes: 1. Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery. 2. What do you get if you cross a dinosaur with a plate? A tyrannosaucer. 3. On April Fools Day, a mother put a firecracker under the pancakes. She blew her stack. 4. Sign in restaurant window: Eat now, pay waiter. 5. Whats the strongest bird? A crane. The description proceeded to portray the person as mildly interesting and quirky. The profile remained on the screen for 90 seconds to ensure that participants took time to carefully examine the information. After viewing the profile, participants were prompted to provide their impressions of the individual on several personality traits and to rate their romantic interest in the individual.

Study 3
Studies 1 and 2 provide encouraging evidence that men produce humor to advertise their worth as romantic partners and that women evaluate mens humorous offerings. Study 3 was designed to test more explicitly that womens evaluations of mens humor bear a strong relation to their romantic partner choices. If women do indeed use a mans humorous attempts to gauge his romantic suitability, their humor evaluations should be strongly associated with their romantic interest. We presented men and women with a fictitious online dating profile that opened with one of several one-liner jokes. We predicted that mens ratings of the profiles humor would bear no relation to their romantic interest, whereas womens ratings of the profiles humor would be significantly correlated with their romantic interest.

Measures
Trait ratings. Participants rated the individual described by the profile on the following traits: intelligent, warm, funny, ambitious, arrogant, optimistic, clever, nice, humorous, boring, and leader-like. Responses were made using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, 7 = extremely). We averaged ratings of funny and humorous into a humor composite variable (r = .78), ratings of intelligent and clever into an intelligence composite variable (r = .32), and ratings of warm and nice into a warmth composite variable (r = .61) for use in further analyses.

Method
Participants. One hundred fourteen introductory psychology students (73 women, 41 men) at a large Canadian university participated in Study 3 in exchange for course credit.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

926 Dependent measures. Participants indicated how interested they would be in getting to know the target better, having the target as a long-term romantic partner, and whether they could see the target as a potential marriage partner, using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, 7 = very). We averaged scores on these items to create a romantic interest composite variable ( = .89).
5

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(7)

Roman c Interest in Target

Results
Overview. We regressed romantic interest on dummycoded participant sex, centered humor ratings, and the interaction term. Two outliers were removed before analysis.1 We expected an interaction such that womens humor ratings would predict their romantic interest, but mens humor ratings would not. In addition, consistent with Study 2, we examined relations between humor ratings and ratings of targets intelligence and warmth. Test of hypothesis. Consistent with our hypothesis, a significant interaction between participant sex and humor ratings emerged, b = .456, t = 2.044, p = .043. An inspection of the simple slopes revealed that humor ratings were not associated with romantic interest among male participants, b = .124, t = 0.649, p = .518, whereas humor ratings were positively associated with romantic interest among female participants, b = .580, t = 5.035, p < .001 (see Figure 2). Womens humor evaluations, compared to mens, appear to carry greater implications for their romantic desire. Associations of humor with other traits. Womens ratings of targets humor were significantly correlated with both their ratings of targets intelligence (r = .44, p < .001) and their ratings of targets warmth (r = .36, p = .002). Interestingly, mens ratings of targets humor were not significantly correlated with either their ratings of targets intelligence (r = .08, p = .66) or their ratings of targets warmth (r = .19, p = .27). As indicated by twotailed tests, the sex difference in correlations between humor ratings and intelligence ratings was marginally significant (z = 1.88, p = .06); the sex difference in correlations between humor ratings and warmth ratings was not (z = 0.88, p = .38).

3 men women 2 Prole Evaluated as nonhumorous Prole Evaluated as Humorous

Figure 2. Mens and womens predicted romantic interest in an online dating profile as a function of their humor evaluations (Study 3)
Note: Nonhumorous evaluations and humorous evaluations are plotted at 1 SD below the mean and 1 SD above the mean, respectively, on humor ratings.

for good humor might be one test men must pass to pique womens romantic desire. On the other hand, mens evaluations of womens humor were not related to their romantic interest. Sex differences in how men and women evaluate potential mates humor might reflect differences in what characteristics men and women infer from a potential mates humorous offerings. We observed that womens ratings of a male targets humor were related to their inferences about his intelligence and warmth; mens ratings of a female targets humor showed little association with their ratings of her intelligence or warmth. Sex differences in these trait inferences were particularly pronounced for inferences of intelligence. Women appear to ascertain the qualities of prospective romantic partners through an assessment of their humor. Perhaps men infer less from humor, as they tend to be more focused on physical appearance (e.g., Li et al., 2002).

Discussion
In Study 3, we exposed participants to one of several jokes and assessed their evaluations of the targets humorous attempts and whether these evaluations predicted consequent romantic interest. We observed that womens evaluations of mens humor are, in fact, predictive of their romantic interest. Past research (Bressler & Balshine, 2006; Bressler et al., 2006) has characterized women as indicating their romantic interest through signaling their appreciation of mens humor. Although women show signs of romantic interest through appreciation of mens jokes, whether they have any romantic interest in the first place is largely contingent on how they evaluate the qualities of prospective suitors. The results of Study 3 suggest that demonstrating a flair

General Discussion
Three studies provided converging evidence that in initial courtship, men use humor to convey information about underlying traits and women evaluate mens humorous productions to make prudent mating decisions. Specifically, in Study 1, men reported a greater likelihood of producing humor in service of attracting prospective mates. Women, on the other hand, indicated a greater propensity toward evaluating mens humor. Study 2 extended these findings to an ecologically valid context: An analysis of online dating advertisements revealed that men more frequently offer humor production than do women, whereas women more frequently request humor production than do men. Study 3 provided evidence that womens evaluation of mens humorous attempts have implications for their mating decisions: Womens perceptions of humor in male dating

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

Wilbur and Campbell profiles predicted their extent of expressed romantic interest. Mens perceptions of womens humor were not associated with their expressed romantic interest. Applying sexual selection theory (Darwin, 1871/1981) toward understanding how men and women use humor in mating contexts uncovers subtle differences previously obfuscated by the general conclusion that men and women equally value a mates sense of humor (Feingold, 1992). Men and women have divergent conceptions of what it means to have a sense of humor. In line with previous research (Bressler & Balshine, 2006; Bressler et al., 2006), we observed that men produce humor as a means of advertising their romantic suitability. Whereas past research has focused on womens appreciation of prospective partners humor, we provide evidence that accords more strongly with the tenets of sexual selection theory: Women, as the more investing sex, judiciously evaluate the humorous offerings of prospective mates to make sensible mating decisions. Another contribution of the present research is that it builds on and extends Millers (2000a) conjecture that humor functions as a fitness indicator. In Study 2, we observed that online dating advertisements offering humor production were more likely to offer intelligence concurrently and that requesters of humor production were more likely to request intelligence concurrently. Although these patterns cannot demonstrate that advertisers of humor production actually are as intelligent as they claim, the data do provide initial support that individuals might use humor production as a means of conveying their self-perceived intelligence. Humor production offers and requests bore no relation to offers and requests for warmth, but womens offers of and mens requests for a partner with a general sense of humor were systematically associated with womens offers and mens requests for a warm partner, respectively. Thus, a sense of humor, when construed as a general cheerful or optimistic disposition, might signal that a person is warm and agreeable, whereas humor production, specifically construed as active attempts at telling jokes and amusing stories, might signal information about ones intelligence. In Study 3, we observed that womens ratings of the humor in online dating profiles were correlated with their ratings of both the targets intelligence and the targets warmth. Interestingly, mens ratings of target humor were not significantly correlated with their ratings of target intelligence or target warmth. At first glance, these observations appear at odds with those from Study 2. One key difference between the two studies, however, is that Study 2 coded the traits people claim to offer and request whereas Study 3 involved participants making their own assessments of a targets humor and other traits. Thus, it could be, for example, that women offer humor production and intelligence and men request both traits because of a shared assumption that humorous productions connote intelligence. But perhaps when actually confronted with a humorous partner, women

927 are more inclined than men to read into a partners humor given their greater selectivity in mate choice. We also view our findings as complementing findings inspired by the interest indicator model (Li et al., 2009). We suggest that men exhibit a predilection toward producing humor and women are especially sensitive to evaluating humor in the earliest stages of courtship (e.g., when just getting to know someone, when perusing a selection of online dating profiles). Under such circumstances, differential parental investment might explain why men produce humor and women evaluate humor. When two prospective partners have developed more rapport and mutual interest, or when the two partners enter into a romantic relationship, both men and women might tend toward using humor similarly as a means of indicating their interest in developing or reaffirming the relationship, as posited by the interest indicator model. Humor serves multiple purposes in human affairs, and our focus here is on the role of humor as a fitness indicator. As such, we argue that humor is not a valued trait in its own right; rather, it is valued in romantic partners to the extent that it honestly signals the presence of fundamentally important traits, such as intelligence and warmth. Other fitness indicators might suffice to convey the same information, and indeed Miller (2000a, 2000b, 2007) notes that several such indicators exist, including heroism, moral character, and artistic creativity. We suggest that humor might be an especially suitable means to advertise fitness because expressions of humor in romantic contexts can subtly convey interest in incremental fashion (cf. Li et al., 2009). If such expressions are not met favorably, the advertiser avoids the sting of rejection that results from bolder, more direct ploys. Li et al. (2009) provided evidence that humor is a more effective signal of interest than general intelligent conversation, and future research should continue to examine the effectiveness of humor, compared to other putative fitness indicators, in relationship initiation. The particular means or combination of means that an individual employs to impart a desired impression likely depends on contextual factors and on which option best serves ones specific mating goals. Humor might also be a particularly efficient fitness indicator because of the interplay among humor production, humor evaluation, and humor appreciation. Humor production transmits information about underlying quality, evaluation of humor production attempts subsequently ensues, and overt cues of appreciation, such as smiling and laughing, signal in return a positive evaluation and a desire to further the relationship. In this light, our findings complement prior research on the role of humor appreciation in signaling romantic interest (Bressler & Balshine, 2006; Bressler et al., 2006; Li et al., 2009). Mens reported preferences for women who appreciate their humorous attempts likely stem from humor appreciation signaling substantiation of mens mate value.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

928

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(7) women are inclined to evaluate mens humorous offerings. We also uncovered associations between humor and underlying traits, such as intelligence and warmth. Humor is a multipurpose tool applicable to a wide variety of social domains (Martin, 2007), and future research on the social use of humor that is sensitive to the different functions (e.g., advertising traits, building rapport), forms (e.g., affiliative, aggressive), and facets (e.g., humor production, humor appreciation, humor evaluation) of humor has great potential to address why Frank Moore Colbys speculation rings so true. Authors Note
A portion of this research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Memphis, TN (January 2007) and the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX (January 2011). We thank Eli Finkel, Jim Olson, and Geoffrey Miller for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Future Directions
One limitation of the present research, and that of most research exploring humor and mating, is that we did not distinguish between various types of humor. Our analogy that humor is a vehicle for carrying information about underlying traits could be strengthened further by showing that particular types of humor are each most telling of particular traits. We observed in Study 2 that a sense of humor, construed as a cheery, positive disposition, and humor production, construed as active creation of humor, bore relations to discrete traits (warmth vs. intelligence, respectively). But humor production itself could be deconstructed further to test whether different modes of creating humor signal different underlying qualities. One classification scheme delineates four types of humor: self-enhancing humor, affiliative humor, aggressive humor, and self-defeating humor (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003). Future research should examine how these different types of humor map onto underlying qualities, including those not examined in the present research (e.g., extraversion, emotional stability). Future research should also examine specific mating contexts to assess the moderating influence of short-term versus long-term mating goals. A particularly interesting question to address is whether different types of humor are preferred in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Women are drawn to behaviorally dominant men as short-term sexual partners but prefer warmer, gentler partners as long-term mates (Gangestad, Garver-Apgar, Simpson, & Cousins, 2007). It may be, then, that men using aggressive humor would have more success seeking short-term mates, whereas men using affiliative humor would have greater success seeking long-term mates. Humor serves myriad functions across contexts and the different ways in which men and women use and respond to humor across contexts should be directly compared. For example, women exhibit a propensity for humor production when in the company of other women to promote group cohesion (Crawford & Gressley, 1991), but tend toward humor evaluation when interacting with prospective romantic partners. Research explicitly comparing the use of humor in romantic relationships with the use of humor in platonic or familial relationships is lacking.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests


The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: a Canada Graduate Scholarship awarded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first author and a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and a Premiers Research Excellence Award given to the second author.

Note
1. We computed Cooks D for each case, which enables identification of specific cases that drastically influence the regression equation. Two cases exhibited Cooks D values more than 1.6 times greater than the next highest value in the entire data set and more than 3.2 times greater than the Cooks D values of nearly 95% of the data set. Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) note that such outliers can exert profound effects on the nature of the regression equation, and thus, we removed the two outlying cases. When the two cases are included in data analyses, the predicted simple slopes of womens humor evaluations predicting romantic interest (b = .524, t = 4.49, p < .01) and mens humor evaluations having no association with their romantic interest (b = .219, t = 1.22, p = .225) exhibit the same pattern as the simple slopes generated from the reduced data set, and the reported interaction term trends toward significance (p = .156).

Conclusion
Men and women both value a prospective romantic partners sense of humor (Feingold, 1992) and recognize the utility that displaying a sense of humor can have for attracting mates (Buss, 1988). More recent research has importantly uncovered that men and women differ in what facets of a sense of humor they value (Bressler & Balshine, 2006; Bressler et al., 2006). We buttress these findings by showing that men are inclined to produce humor in romantic contexts and that

References
Azim, E., Mobbs, D., Jo, B., Menon, V., & Reiss, A. L. (2005). Sex differences in brain activation elicited by humor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16496-16501.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

Wilbur and Campbell


Borgia, G., Egeth, M., Uy, A., & Patricelli, G. L. (2004). Juvenile infection and male display: Testing the bright male hypothesis across individual life histories. Behavioral Ecology, 15, 722-728. Bressler, E. R., & Balshine, S. (2006). The influence of humor on desirability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 29-39. Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006). Production and appreciation of humor as sexually selected traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 121-130. Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616-628. Campbell, L., Martin, R. A., & Ward, J. R. (2008). An observational study of humor use while resolving conflict in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15, 41-55. Cann, A., & Calhoun, L. G. (2001). Perceived personality associations with differences in sense of humor: Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low senses of humor. Humor, 14, 117-130. Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 709-722. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Crawford, M., & Gressley, D. (1991). Creativity, caring, and context: Womens and mens accounts of humor preferences and practices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 217-231. Darwin, C. (1981). The descent of man, and sexual selection in relation to sex (Vols. 1 and 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1871) De Backer, C., Braeckman, J., & Farinpour, L. (2008). Mating intelligence in personal ads. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the minds reproductive system (pp. 77-101). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Evans, K., & Brase, G. L. (2007). Assessing sex differences and similarities in mate preferences: Above and beyond demand characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 781-791. Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125-139. Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2009). Arbitrary social norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity. Psychological Science, 20, 1290-1295. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673-697. Galloway, G., & Cropley, A. (1999). Benefits of humor for mental health: Empirical findings and directions for future research. Humor, 12, 301-314.

929
Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A., & Cousins, A. J. (2007). Changes in womens mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151-163. Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 63-76. 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 Psychology, 75, 1231-1247. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). Hurrydate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227-244. Lefcourt, H. M., & Martin, R. A. (1986). Humor and life stress: Antidote to adversity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Li, N. P., Bailey, M. J., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955. Li, N. P., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K. M., Jonason, P. K., Pasisz, D. J., & Aumer, K. (2009). An evolutionary perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest indication? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 923-936. Lundy, D. E., Tan, J., & Cunningham, M. R. (1998). Heterosexual romantic preferences: The importance of humor and physical attractiveness for different types of relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 311-325. Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48-75. McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Miller, G. F. (2000a). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Miller, G. F. (2000b). Sexual selection for indicators of intelligence. In G. Bock, J. Goode, & K. Webb (Eds.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 260-275). Chichester, England: Wiley. Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 97-125. Sritharan, R., Heilpern, K., Wilbur, C. J., & Gawronski, B. (2010). I think I like you: Spontaneous and deliberate evaluations of potential romantic partners in an online dating context. European Journal of Social Psychology. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com by Neagu Adriana on October 29, 2012

S-ar putea să vă placă și