Message Production

Affiliative and Aggressive Humor, Attachment Dimensions, and Interaction Goals Nathan Miczo, Joshua M. Averbeck, & Theresa Mariani

This study examined humor production in relation to attachment dimensions and

interaction goals. Participants (N¼ 172) completed measures of attachment dimensions

(anxiety, avoidance), humor production (affiliative humor, aggressive humor), and

primary and secondary goals. Anxiety was negatively related to affiliative humor,

whereas avoidance was positively related to aggressive humor. Affiliative humor was

related to effectiveness and being playful in the interaction, as well as the secondary goals

of arousal management and clarity. Aggressive humor was not related to any of the goals.

Keywords: Affiliative Humor; Aggressive Humor; Attachment Theory; Humor

Production; Interaction Goals

‘‘Humor flowers from interpersonal relationships’’ (Ziv, 1984, p. 28). Not all com-

municators have a green thumb, however, and, whereas many of the blossoms of

humor enrich and nourish the soil of relationships, others may be likened to rela-

tional poison. Though communication research on humor continues to accumulate,

theoretical contributions have lagged behind compared to other types of messages

(e.g., persuasive, comforting). One recent attempt to examine humor from a message

production standpoint is the security theory of humor (STH; Miczo, 2004). STH

Nathan Miczo (PhD, 2004, University of Arizona) is Associate Professor in the Department of Communication,

Western Illinois University; Joshua M. Averbeck (MA, 2007, Western Illinois University) is currently a Doctoral

Student at The University of Oklahoma; Theresa Mariani (MS, 1991, Western Illinois University) is currently a

Master’s Student at Western Illinois University. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the

Interpersonal Division, National Communication Association convention, Chicago, IL, November 2007.

Correspondence to: Nathan Miczo, Sallee Hall 221, Department of Communication, Western Illinois

University, Macomb, IL 61455. E-mail: [email protected]

Communication Studies

Vol. 60, No. 5, November–December 2009, pp. 443–459

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2009 Central States Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/10510970903260301

begins with the oft-repeated contention that the creation of humor is facilitated by a

sense of security and safety (Morreall, 1983). Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982, 1988)

offers a comprehensive account of individual differences in feelings of security and,

thus, provides a framework for examining humor production skills. Two of the central

facets of STH are (a) the distinction between affiliative and aggressive humor and (b)

the employment of humor playfully (i.e., for its own sake) versus in the service of a

specific purpose or goal. The present investigation was undertaken to examine both

of these issues. Although prior research has established links between forms of

apprehension and humor (Miczo, 2004; Miczo &Welter, 2006), this study will directly

test the attachment-humor link by utilizing an established measure of attachment

dimensions. Further, this study will examine the issue of goal pursuit and humor.

Conceptualization of Humor

From a message perspective, humor can be defined as a message that contains incon-

gruous elements, playfully enacted (Oring, 1992). The incongruity can involve, for

example, an opposition between overlapping scripts (Attardo, 2001), or a violation

of expectations (Archakis & Tsakona, 2005). Some authors further specify that this

incongruity must be sudden (Gruner, 1997; Holland, 1982). In jokes, the incongruity

occurs between the setup and the punchline; in many other forms of humor, the

incongruity must be inferred from contextual cues (e.g., the sender’s tone of voice

or facial expression). Given that sudden shifts in scripts or expectancy violations

can cause consternation or apprehension, many humorous messages contain play

frames, or other types of devices, which serve to signal that the message is only for

fun and can be taken nonliterally (Goffman, 1974=1986, 1981). Humor’s deniability

is part of its versatility. The skilled humorist must possess the ability to recognize or

generate incongruities and=or the ability to encode these insights (or to deliver jokes)

to produce desired effects (Carrell, 1997).

Functions of Humor

The effects that humorists seek to produce, however, are not all of one type. One

approach to understanding these types is to focus on the functions of humor. Meyer

(2000) identified four rhetorical functions of humorous communication. Identifica-

tion involves creating a bond between speaker and audience in order to build support

and to increase credibility and cohesiveness. Clarification allows speakers to condense

their views into memorable phrases or anecdotes, as well as allowing them to com-

ment upon expected or appropriate behavior without being critical of audience

members. The enforcement function involves speakers criticizing or ridiculing

audience members concerning a group member’s violation of normative behavior.

Differentiation emphasizes contrast; speakers contrast themselves with an opponent,

or contrast their group from another group. Meyer argued, however, that these four

functions could be orbited around two more fundamental functions: unification and

division. Humor that draws speaker and audience together (identification and

444 N. Miczo et al.

clarification) serves a unifying function, whereas humor that creates distinctions

between the speaker and another person=group (enforcement and differentiation)

serves a division function.

The idea of two primary functions of humor echoes through this approach, as well

as the approaches of others (cf. Lefcourt, 2001; Ziv, 1984). In STH, these two types of

humor are labeled affiliative and aggressive. Affiliative humor is an integrative form

of humor that serves to enhance positive feelings and solidify relational bonds.

Aggressive humor is a disintegrative form of humor that serves to diminish morale

and to create distance in relational bonds. The central proposition of STH is that

a sense of security affects the development of the abilities necessary to enact humor-

ous messages. A major goal of the theory is to provide a coherent framework for

explaining the use of both unifying and divisive forms of humor. Attachment theory

provides such a framework.

Humor Production and Attachment Theory

According to Bowlby (1982, 1988), evolutionary forces have shaped the adaptive value of

two behavioral systems. The attachment behavioral system involves proximity seeking

and maintenance and is activated when an individual feels threatened or scared. When

this system is quiescent, the exploratory behavioral system operates, motivating the indi-

vidual to engage the environment, to seek out novel stimuli, and to play (Grossman,

Grossman, & Zimmerman, 1999). During infancy, attachment behaviors become cen-

tered on a primary caregiver, and an attachment forms. Attachment, then, is an affec-

tional bond that develops between an individual and someone perceived to be a

source of comfort, security, and wisdom. The quality of that bond is affected by the

quality of care-provision, which in turn, affects the balance of the two behavioral systems.

When the caregiver is responsive and available, a secure bond develops, and the

exploratory behavior system will operate until an explicit threat is perceived. When

the caregiver is nonresponsive and unavailable, the bond is insecure, and the explora-

tory behavior system will be inhibited (Grossman, Grossman, & Zimmerman, 1999).

In such cases, there are two primary responses. In some cases, individuals will be

hypersensitive to the presence of the caregiver, such that the mere absence of that

person induces anxiety and the activation of the attachment system. In other cases,

individuals may become hyposensitive to the caregiver’s presence, suppressing the

attachment system and relying on themselves to cope with threats.

These differential outcomes of the attachment relationship were initially

confirmed by Mary Ainsworth and colleagues (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,

1978), who found three different patterns among infants before, during, and after

brief separation from their primary caregivers: secures were comfortable with their

caregiver, distressed upon separation, but sought out the caregiver for comfort upon

reunion; anxious-ambivalents were clingy, extremely distressed by separation, and

angry upon reunion; avoidants appeared to show very little concern with the presence

or absence of the caregiver. Both of the insecure types also showed less exploratory

and play behavior. In extending the theory into the realm of adult romantic

Humor, Attachment, Goals 445

relationships, Hazan and Shaver (1987) adopted this three-category approach and a

flood of subsequent research confirmed differences in relational outcomes by attach-

ment style. Bartholomew (1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) revised the three-

category approach by proposing underlying dimensions based on model of self and

model of other. Crossing these dimensions yields a four-category typology of styles.

With respect to exploratory behavior among adults, Green and Campbell (2000) sug-

gested that anxious individuals explore social environments in the hope of securing

relational partners, whereas avoidants are drawn to nonsocial environments. Both,

however, demonstrated lower levels of exploration compared to secures.

More recently, the typological approach has been criticized on both conceptual

and methodological grounds. Both Fraley and Waller (1998) and Brennan, Clark,

and Shaver (1998) have pointed out that Ainsworth and associates themselves uncov-

ered, via discriminant analysis, two dimensions underlying infant reactions in the

Strange Situation. Those dimensions were Anxiety (over abandonment) and Avoid-

ance (of intimacy). Fraley and Waller found that these dimensions best described

prototype scores on Griffin and Bartholomew’s (1994) Relationship Styles Question-

naire. Similarly, Brennan, Clark, and Shaver’s analysis revealed that a large number of

attachment-related items could be defined by the dimensions of Anxiety and Avoid-

ance. The present investigation follows the lead of these researchers in adopting a

dimensional, rather than a categorical, approach.

Links between attachment insecurity and humor can be derived from the competen-

cies proposed as underlying humor creation. Though anxious individuals may be

drawn toward opportunities to explore social relationships, their motivation is to

secure the favor and approval of close others. In many cases, this goal is best pursued

by adhering to norms rather than risking their violation. It is therefore possible that

they either do not notice the incongruities of social life, or they shy away from enter-

taining them. Paradoxically, although humor is relationally valued, anxious individuals

may be less able to practice humor because their serious attitude toward relationships

inhibits playfulness, including the playful attitude that perceives opportunities for

humor. Further, given the self-focus and self-consciousness typically associated with

anxiety (Segrin, 2001), anxious individuals should be less likely to enact humor by

clowning around or acting silly. These suppositions lead to the first hypothesis:

H1: Anxious attachment is negatively related to affiliative humor.

The ability to create humor revolves around responses to incongruities. That is,

incongruities must be perceived and that perception must not generate anxiety

and fear (i.e., emotionally threatening incongruities are not likely to be perceived

as funny). A certain amount of distance, or detachment, seems necessary for such

perceptions and can therefore facilitate humor creation. Fraley, Davis, and Shaver

(1998) have argued that avoidant adults are able to detach themselves from their

emotions. Therefore, avoidant individuals should be able to craft humorous mes-

sages. But what sort of humor will they employ? Affiliative humor functions to unify

and to create social cohesion and pleasant interactions. The goal of the avoidant,

however, is to create distance, minimizing the risk of intimacy. This can be

446 N. Miczo et al.

accomplished through aggressive humor. Emphasizing the contrast between the other

and the self, or criticizing the other, even when done humorously, is likely to reduce

the opportunities for closeness and connection that are a primary function of

affiliative humor. This reasoning results in the second hypothesis:

H2: Avoidant attachment is positively related to aggressive humor.

Interaction Goals and Humor

It is generally accepted that communication is driven in large part by communicators’

goals. Goals are desired end states that organize and motivate planning and beha-

vioral performance (Dillard, 1990). One of the more popular approaches is the dis-

tinction between primary and secondary goals (Dillard, Segrin, & Harden, 1989).

Primary goals define the purpose and meaning of the interaction; that is, they speak

to the question ‘‘What kind of communication episode is this?’’ Secondary goals

concern all other motivational considerations that shape primary goal pursuit. Such

considerations include message-related concerns (e.g., directness vs. indirectness),

self-focused concerns (e.g., not wanting to appear inept), and partner-focused

concerns (e.g., not wanting to hurt partner’s feelings).

STH draws a distinction between humor that is crafted within either a telic or a

paratelic orientation. Telic activities are directed toward some end and, thus, corre-

spond to a goals-based approach. The paratelic mode, by contrast, occurs when an

activity is pursued for its own sake, without any discernible goal in mind. It is difficult,

however, to test this idea directly. If we assume that all communication is goal driven,

then it is axiomatically impossible to interact in the paratelic mode. On the other hand,

if we treat goal creation as the outcome of a goaling process (akin to the relationship

between plans and planning), then the paratelic becomes a possibility. Empirically, the

problem is that, to gather data, researchers typically have to provide the primary goal.

For example, to study persuasion, a researcher might provide respondents with a

hypothetical scenario where the person needed something from another. Rather than

ask whether or not they would form a persuasion goal (for example, by including the

option of foregoing the need), respondents might be asked what kind of message they

would select, or how they would plan on crafting the persuasive message.

The present investigation attempts to minimize the provision of a primary goal but

we are not able to circumvent the issue entirely. Rather than ask respondents to recall a

time where they made someone else laugh, we asked them to recall a time where they

attempted to be funny. This may seem like semantic quibbling, and we acknowledge

that many respondents may interpret the latter as a request for the former, but the dis-

tinction is nevertheless important. Recall that a primary goal organizes the flow of the

interaction and, therefore, having the primary goal of making someone laugh is not

the same as making someone laugh while in pursuit of some other primary goal or,

possibly, having no primary goal whatsoever. It may then be possible to ask indivi-

duals if, indeed, they had a goal and if they were effective in achieving that goal.

If there is a goal underlying these interactions, what is the goal? In humor research,

the two modes of humor correspond to Gruner’s (1996) distinction between humor

Humor, Attachment, Goals 447

and wit. Humor refers to ‘‘a playful poking of fun with the sole aim of amusement’’

(p. 288). Wit, on the other hand, is defined as ‘‘some form of (usually) verbal clever-

ness which has the potential for amusing, but is also intended (however consciously

or unconsciously) to achieve one or more other purposes’’ (p. 288, italics in original).

Humor, as opposed to wit, then overlaps considerably with playfulness. Play has been

conceptualized as an activity conducted for its own sake (i.e., a paratelic activity)

(Miller, 1973; Weisler & McCall, 1976). As a subspecies of exploratory behavior, play

involves the same approach orientation and engagement with the environment as

exploration, but that involvement typically occurs only in, and for so long as, the

context is positive and pleasant. Conceptually and empirically, playfulness overlaps

with the ‘‘comic spirit’’ that animates affiliative humor (Brône, Feyaerts, & Veale,

2006; Hyers, 1996; Morreall, 1983). Aune and Wong (2002), for example, found a

positive relationship between playfulness and humor orientation. The following

hypothesis reflects this reasoning:

H3: Affiliative humor is positively related to playfulness.

To explore the nature of playfulness as a primary goal of affiliative humor, the

following research questions are posed:

RQ1: Is affiliative humor related to forming a goal?

RQ2: Is affiliative humor related to concerns with effectiveness?

The relationship between a telic orientation and aggressive humor is more difficult to

discern. Technically, humor can be a message choice during any type of communication

episode. It can be used during conflict (Bippus, 2003), in comforting (Bippus, 2000), or

relieving tension (Sparks Bethea, Travis, & Pecchioni, 2000). In each of these cases, the

humor serves a purpose, even if it is affiliative. That being said, however, there is good

reason to expect aggressive humor to be generally telic. Gruner (1997) argued that the

aim of wit was often ridicule. Consistent with Meyer’s (2000) analysis, aggressive humor

is geared toward norm enforcement and ‘‘putting others in their place.’’ Though such

humor must employ play frames and may thereby result in amusement, the humor

producer more often chooses disparagement humor to send a message to either targets

or third-party receivers. This reasoning lead to the following hypothesis:

H4: Aggressive humor is positively related to (a) having a goal and (b) concerns with effectiveness, while being negatively related to (c) playfulness.

Secondary goals, or conversational constraints, are derived from more diffuse,

fundamental concerns regarding the conduct of interactions. The telic=paratelic distinction revolves around primary goals, the explicit conscious desires that frame

a communicative episode. Even in the paratelic mode, then, when there is no primary

goal, communicators may still operate within interactional constraints and, thus, be

able to report on secondary goals.

Humor can be risky. It can involve saying things that touch upon taboo topics, are

considered shocking, or might be offensive to some members of an audience. The

enactment of humor depends greatly upon timing and delivery, and=or utilizing

448 N. Miczo et al.

clownish techniques that make one appear silly or foolish (Morreall, 1983). Many of

these concerns are mirrored in current typologies of secondary goals. Dillard, Segrin,

and Harden (1989) describe concerns about managing arousal, being socially appro-

priate, and adhering to internal standards of behavior. Kim (1994) proposed a set of

constraints including avoiding hurting the other’s feelings, avoiding negative evalua-

tion, and being clear in one’s message.

The different types of humor should lead to differential emphasis placed upon

secondary goals. Dillard, Segrin, and Harden (1989) argued that ‘‘persons have a

desire to maintain a state of arousal which falls within certain idiosyncratically pre-

ferred boundaries’’ (p. 20). Given that anxiety inhibits playfulness and thus humor,

concerns with managing arousal should be negatively related to the use of affiliative

humor. Further, if anxiety is not a relevant dimension to divisive humor, aggressive

humorists should be less concerned with managing arousal.

H5: Arousal management is negatively related to (a) affiliative and (b) aggressive humor.

Both Dillard, Segrin, and Harden (1989) and Kim (1994, 1995) identify a set of

goals that concern being appropriate, not hurting the other’s feelings, and avoiding

negative evaluation. Broadly speaking, these goals share a concern with supporting

the other’s face needs. Those using affiliative humor should operate to support those

needs given their concerns with developing relationships, while aggressive humorists

should be less concerned with these constraints.

H6: The goals of appropriateness, not hurting a partner’s feelings, and avoiding negative evaluation are positively related to (a) affiliative humor and negatively related to (b) aggressive humor.

The situation is less clear regarding clarity and maintaining internal standards.

Clarity concerns the ‘‘degree to which the intention of the message is explicitly and

unambiguously communicated to a listener’’ (Kim, 1995, p. 152). The use of humor

itself may involve less of a concern with being clear, or it may be the case that aggres-

sive humorists are concerned with getting their point across while affiliative humorists

do not have a particular point. Internal standards refer to one’s own personal values

and beliefs about how one ought to conduct oneself in interaction (Dillard, Segrin, &

Harden, 1989). Humorists might in general be less concerned with internal standards,

or the concern might differ depending upon the type of humor in question.

RQ3: What are the relationships between identity and clarity goals and (a) affiliative humor and (b) aggressive humor?

Method

Participants

Participants were 172 undergraduate students enrolled in communication courses at

a medium-sized Midwestern university. The sample was roughly evenly split between

the sexes (51% male) and ranged in age from 18–38 (M¼ 21.40, SD¼ 2.23). Ethnic

Humor, Attachment, Goals 449

classification was 80% White=Caucasian, 12% Black=African American, 3.5% for

both Asian=Pacific Islander and Hispanic=Latin American, and 1% Other. Juniors

and seniors made up 81% of the sample. One participant did not provide informa-

tion on age.

Procedures

Students received extra credit as compensation for their participation. The survey

consisted of four sections. The first and second sections contained measures of

attachment and humor production, respectively. The third section asked participants

to describe an interpersonal interaction where they attempted to be funny and then

asked questions related to their primary and secondary goals. All items in these

sections were measured utilizing 5-point Likert-type scales. The final section con-

sisted of demographic items. This study was approved by the university Institutional

Review Board.

Measures

Attachment

Attachment was measured with Brennan, Clark, and Shaver’s (1998) Experiences in

Close Relationships scale. This scale contains two 18-item subscales: anxiety over

abandonment (e.g., ‘‘I worry about being abandoned’’) and avoidance of intimacy

(e.g., ‘‘I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down’’). Items were coded

so that higher scores reflect greater anxiety (M¼ 2.82, SD¼ .61, a¼ .87) and greater

avoidance (M¼ 2.31, SD¼ .58, a¼ .88).

Affiliative humor

Affiliative humor was assessed with the Humor Orientation Scale (HOS;

Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1991). The HOS is a 17-item measure of an

individual’s ability to use humor both frequently (e.g., ‘‘I can be funny without

having to rehearse a joke’’) and effectively (e.g., ‘‘People usually laugh when I tell

a joke or story’’). The scale was coded so that higher scores reflect greater humor

orientation (M¼ 3.68, SD¼ .57, a¼ .90).

Aggressive humor

Aggressive humor was measured with the Humor Aggressiveness Scale (HAS; Miczo

& Welter, 2006). The HAS is a modified version of Infante and Wigley’s (1986)

Verbal Aggressiveness Scale, which was modified in two ways: only the 10 negatively

worded items were retained and all items were written to include a negative instance

of humor. Thus, the HAS captures an individual’s tendency to use humor to attack

another’s self-concept. The scale was coded so that higher scores reflect greater

humor aggressiveness (M¼ 2.76, SD¼ .66, a¼ .84).

450 N. Miczo et al.

Primary goals

In order to capture the formation of goals in a specific situation, participants were

instructed to describe in as much detail as possible an instance in which they attempted

to be funny. Wording was constructed to minimize the implication of a specific goal,

such as to make someone else laugh. Measures of primary goals typically provide ques-

tions about the importance of a specific goal (e.g., ‘‘It was very important to me to con-

vince this person to do what I wanted him or her to do’’ [Dillard, Segrin, & Harden,

1989] or ‘‘In this situation, making the other person to comply with my request is very

important’’ [Kim, 1994]). In this investigation, the issue was whether or not partici-

pants formed a primary goal at all, if that primary goal was defined by playfulness,

and if they were effective at their goal. An attempt was therefore made to construct

scales to assess these constructs. Initially, five items were utilized to capture the idea

of having a goal and being effective in achieving that goal; four of those items were

drawn from the conversational effectiveness scale (Canary & Spitzberg, 1987) as well

as including an additional item (‘‘I had a definite goal in this situation’’). Another five

items were written to capture the idea of an interaction with no ulterior motive or

design (i.e., an interaction conducted playfully, for its own sake). In order to examine

whether or not these items captured the constructs of interest, they were subjected to

principal components factor analysis with oblique rotation. Three factors were uncov-

ered that together accounted for 63.86% of the variance in primary goal formation.

The first factor, effectiveness, consisted of the four items from the conversational effec-

tiveness scale (M¼ 3.63, SD¼ .74, a¼ .79). The second factor consisted of two items

(‘‘I didn’t have a specific goal in this situation,’’ ‘‘I had a definite goal in this situation’’)

reflecting the idea of a having a definite goal during the interaction, and so this factor

was named telic (M¼ 2.63, SD¼ .99, a¼ .77). The final factor, play, was comprised of

three of the items that described a playful interaction (M¼ 3.82, SD¼ .76, a¼ .74).

Table 1 presents the items comprising each factor, as well as factor loadings.

Table 1 Factor Analysis of Primary Goals Measure

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Effectiveness (35.25% of variance)

1. I was in control of the conversation. .79 �.02 .23

2. I was effective in this situation. .74 �.10 �.14

3. I got what I wanted from the other person(s) in this interaction. .67 �.04 �.31

4. The conversation went pretty much the way I wanted. .68 .12 �.33

Telic Orientation (18.31% of variance)

1. I had a definite goal in this situation. �.21 .80 .01

2. I didn’t have a specific goal in this situation. (R) �.18 .82 �.09

Play (10.30% of variance)

1. This conversation was playful. .01 �.12 �.85

2. I let the interaction take its own course. �.08 .18 �.75

3. This interaction was fun. .28 �.10 �.71

Humor, Attachment, Goals 451

Secondary goals

Items measuring secondary goals were drawn from two sources. From Dillard, Segrin,

and Harden (1989), the following subscales were utilized: four items assessed arousal

management (e.g., ‘‘I was afraid of being uncomfortable or nervous’’; M¼ 2.87,

SD¼ .75, a¼ .75); four items measured identity concerns (e.g., ‘‘I was concerned

about being true to myself and my values’’; M¼ 2.87, SD¼ .75, a¼ .68). Initially,

two items were drawn from their interaction subscale concerning appropriateness,

and two 2-item subscales were utilized from Kim (1994) (avoiding negative evalua-

tion and concern with not hurting partner’s feelings). Given poor reliabilities for

these measures, they were combined to form a single secondary goal labeled social

appropriateness (M¼ 3.01, SD¼ .77, a¼ .82). Additionally, Kim’s two-item subscale

of clarity demonstrated poor reliability (a¼ .49) and therefore only one item was

retained to measure this goal (‘‘In this situation, I feel it is very important to make

my point as clearly and directly as possible’’; M¼ 3.49, SD¼ .95).

Results

Humor and Attachment

Hypotheses 1 and 2 concerned relationships between humor production and

attachment dimensions: H1 predicted a negative relationship between affiliative

humor and anxiety while H2 predicted a positive relationship between aggressive

humor and avoidance. Table 2 presents correlation analyses between all variables.

Table 2 Correlations among Attachment Dimensions, Humor Variables, and

Interaction Goals

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Attachment Dimensions

1. Anxiety –

2. Avoidance �.02 –

Humor Production

3. HOS �.25�� �.06 –

4. HAS .01 .27�� .16� –

Primary Goal Concerns

5. Effectiveness .08 �.02 .27�� .05 –

6. Telic .02 �.20� .15 �.06 .26�� –

7. Play �.04 �.10 .20�� �.01 .50�� .05 –

Secondary Goal Concerns

8. Arousal .23�� .13 �.27�� .04 �.41�� �.17� �.49�� –

9. Identity .28�� �.06 �.12 �.12 �.19� �.12 �.24�� .51�� –

10. Appropriateness .25�� �.05 �.01 �.11 �.09 �.06 �.10 .46�� .70�� –

11. Clarity .22�� .01 .17� .03 .20�� .24�� .00 �.00 .28�� .22��

�p< .05. ��p< .01.

452 N. Miczo et al.

Both hypothesized correlations were significant and in the predicted direction:

humor orientation was negatively correlated with anxiety, r¼�.25, p< .01; humor

aggressiveness was positively related to avoidance, r¼ .27, p< .05. Thus, H1 and

H2 were supported.

Humor and Goals

Hypothesis 3 predicted that affiliative humor is positively related to playfulness. The

correlation between these variables was significant, r¼ .20, p< .01, supporting H3.

Research questions 1 and 2 concerned relationships between affiliative humor goal

formation (RQ1) and effectiveness (RQ2). Correlation analyses reveal that affiliative

humor was not related to goal formation, r¼ .15, ns, power¼ .51,1 but it was

positively associated with effectiveness, r¼ .27, p< .01. Thus, although those higher

in affiliative humor were not highly likely to report having a definite goal, they did

report being effective in their interactions.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that aggressive humor is positively related to (a) having a

goal and (b) concerns with effectiveness, while being negatively related to (c) playful-

ness. As is evident in Table 2, aggressive humor was not related to any of these

variables: aggressive humor and goal formation, r¼�.06, ns, power¼ .12; aggressive

humor and effectiveness, r¼ .05, ns, power¼ .10; aggressive humor and playfulness,

r¼�.01, ns, power¼ .05. Hypothesis 4 is not supported.

H5 predicted negative relationships between the arousal management goal and

both affiliative and aggressive humor. There was a significant negative correlation

between arousal management and affiliative humor, r¼�.27, p< .01; the correlation

between arousal management and aggressive humor was nonsignificant, r¼ .04, ns,

power¼ .08. Thus, H5 received partial support.

Hypothesis 6 predicted a positive relationship between social appropriateness and

affiliative humor and a negative relationship between social appropriateness and aggres-

sive humor. There were no significant correlations between these variables: affiliative

humor and social appropriateness, r¼�.01, ns, power¼ .05; aggressive humor and

social appropriateness, r¼�.11, ns, power¼ .30. Thus, H6 is not supported.

RQ3 concerned relationships between identity and clarity goals and both types of

humor. The correlation analyses in Table 2 reveal a single significant association: a

positive relationship between affiliative humor and clarity, r¼ .17, p< .05.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this investigation was to test the central claim of the security

theory of humor; namely, that differences in attachment-related security are related

to humor production abilities. Whereas prior research has established a link between

forms of communication anxiety and affiliative humor, this is the first direct test uti-

lizing established measures of attachment. Results revealed that attachment anxiety

was negatively related to affiliative humor, while attachment avoidance was positively

related to aggressive humor. The secondary purpose of this investigation was to

Humor, Attachment, Goals 453

continue exploring links between cognition and humor production. Given the

widespread assumption of communication as a goal-driven process (Wilson, 1997),

an attempt was made to link humor to primary and secondary goals. Affiliative

humor was related to both being playful and being effective in the interaction; it

was also related to the secondary goals of arousal management and clarity. Aggressive

humor, on the other hand, was not related to any of the goals.

Humor and Attachment

Affiliative humor (as measured by the HOS) has been linked to various forms of

socially based anxiety, including unwillingness to communicate (Miczo, 2004) and

intercultural communication apprehension (Miczo & Welter, 2006). The present

finding of a negative relationship between affiliative humor and attachment anxiety

rounds out this picture and supports the central proposition of STH that a sense of

security underlies affiliative humor use. On the other hand, prior research on aggres-

sive humor has suggested that it is not related to anxiety. Understanding what it is

related to has proven more difficult. Miczo and Welter (2006) found a positive

relationship between aggressive humor and ethnocentrism. That result dovetails

nicely with the present finding of a positive relationship between aggressive humor

and avoidance. The common thread that unites ethnocentrism and avoidance is dis-

tance. Ethnocentrics prefer distance between themselves and other groups, whereas

avoidants prefer distance with relational partners. Aggressive humor, then, is a means

of distance regulation, allowing avoidants to live with and among others while also

establishing distance from them.

Incorporating measures of attachment provides the most direct test of the theory’s

propositions to date. Given the limitations of categorical measures of attachment,

this study adopted the dimensional approach, which revolves around the dimensions

of anxiety and avoidance. The significant findings in this investigation confirm that

different dynamics underlie the production of different forms of humor. In the study

of humor, this speaks to the debate about whether or not all humor can be subsumed

by superiority theories, which claim that all laughter is laughing at another and all

humor involves a ‘‘butt’’ to be laughed at. For example, Gruner (1997) explained

humor in terms of winners and losers, while, more recently, Billig’s (2005) social cri-

tique of humor posited ridicule and norm enforcement as the essence of humor.

Oring (1992) has pointed out a number of shortcomings of such attempts, in parti-

cular that they assume the very conclusion that needs to be tested. If the superiority

theory’s claims regarding the separation and norm enforcement functions explained

all humor, then one would expect avoidance to be correlated to both forms of humor.

Similarly, it might have been the case that anxious individuals would use humor to

bolster their self-esteem, suggesting a positive correlation between anxiety and

aggressive humor. Neither of these possibilities was supported. Rather the pattern

of results, as well as the low correlation between the two forms of humor, suggests

that affiliative and aggressive humor are distinct and have different antecedents.

454 N. Miczo et al.

Finally, establishing links between attachment security and humor production not

only speaks to ongoing debates in humor research but also suggests avenues for

exploration based on potential differences between the two dimensions themselves.

Specifically, Fraley and Waller (1998) suggested that anxiety ‘‘captures variation in

physiological and emotional parameters’’ (p. 107), while avoidance concerns more

cognitive processes. If that is true, and low levels of anxiety are related to more affilia-

tive humor usage, then that would suggest a strong affective component to affiliative

humor. While this may sound obvious, this is precisely the component that is diffi-

cult to capture via self-report measures of humor usage. It may be the case that a

great deal of affiliative humor is conveyed nonverbally during interaction. Conver-

sely, the cognitive underpinnings of avoidance ought also to factor into the prefer-

ence for aggressive humor. Aggressive humor may involve a more thoughtful

process, which might also suggest why thinkers through the ages have made it the

focus of their attention. In sum, greater attention to this emotion-cognitive distinc-

tion may allow greater specification of the particular forms of humor that are

strongly (though not completely) associated with affiliative and aggressive functions.

Humor and Goals

Before discussing the humor-goals relationship, the question of primary goals is

briefly addressed. The telic=paratelic distinction in STH is grounded in prior humor

research emphasizing the ludic nature of humor (Brônte, Feyaerts, & Veale, 2006;

Hyers, 1996; Morreall, 1983). It leaves open the possibility of an interaction per-

formed for its own sake. At issue is whether or not the ‘‘sole aim of amusement’’

(Gruner, 1996, p. 288) can and should be considered a primary goal in the way that

seeking compliance or providing comfort are primary goals. The present results offer

mixed support for this question. On the one hand, affiliative humor was positively

correlated with being playful and effective in one’s interaction. If play is accorded

the status of a primary goal in its own right, this supports the idea that all commu-

nication behavior is goal driven. Thus, Gruner’s sole aim of amusement is still an

aim. On the other hand, affiliative humor was not related to having a definite goal

and aggressive humor was not related to any of the primary goal variables. This

may suggest that playfulness is not perceived as a definite goal, even though it defines

the purpose of the interaction. Thus, while humor has often been relegated to a tech-

nique of persuasion, comforting (Bippus, 2000), or conflict (Bippus, 2003), it should

have the status of a desirable end state in its own right.

Affiliative humor and goals

As mentioned above, affiliative humor was positively related to both effectiveness and

playfulness. The most likely interpretation is that those who were higher on affiliative

humor reported that when trying to be funny, they were trying to have a fun, enjoy-

able interaction and if they did that they were effective. With respect to secondary

goals, affiliative humor was negatively related to arousal management and positively

Humor, Attachment, Goals 455

related to clarity. The former result is consistent with prior research using personal-

ity-based measures of anxiety. That is, individuals who use more affiliative humor

not only report lower anxiety but they also specifically report less of a concern with

managing arousal when attempting to be funny. The result for clarity is more difficult

to discern. Given that clarity was positively correlated with identity concerns and

social appropriateness, it is possible that affiliative humorists who were more playful

were also more concerned about being clear than they were concerned about internal

standards and external concerns with appropriateness. A tenuous leap, perhaps, but

one that seems intuitively plausible and requires further examination.

Aggressive humor and goals

Aggressive humor was not related to any of the goals examined here. This may have

to do with the kind of interaction asked of participants. Apparently, many of the

students responded to the directions by describing the kinds of everyday humor that

occurs between friends and close partners. For this type of interaction, the goals ques-

tions asked may simply not have been relevant to those who are higher in aggressive

humor. If the requested situation had involved some form of interaction that

involved creating distance between participants and partners, then the goals exam-

ined here might have been more salient. It is also possible that the types of goals that

are generally salient to avoidant individuals are somewhat different than those

relevant to anxious and secure individuals.

Limitations

There were a number of limitations with the study that must be acknowledged. First,

although the utilization of a particular theory is usually considered a strength, every

theory necessarily places boundary conditions around a phenomenon. Thus, STH is

concerned with two types of humor and the factors related to their encoding, while

ignoring, for the most part, the structure=content of those humorous messages or

their effect on audiences. Second, the study utilized a college student sample. On

the one hand, college students are often involved in a number of social situations that

renders humor a particularly salient variable for them; on the other hand, the

assumption that the underlying theoretical processes hold across developmental

stages needs to be established empirically.

Third, there was a discrepancy between the self-report humor measures (which are

general) and the request for a specific instance where respondents attempted to be

funny. This was deemed necessary in order to prompt participants to think about

specific goals rather than goal pursuit more broadly, which may be accessible for sec-

ondary goals but seems tenuous for primary goals. However, on any given occasion, a

person’s attempt to be funny may or may not be related to their humor production

ability. This ought to be especially true for those who are low in the ability (i.e., the

reported episode may be atypical of their communication style). Finally, there were

limitations with the measures. Several of the goals measures exhibited poor reliability,

456 N. Miczo et al.

which necessitated losing some of the fine grain of secondary goal pursuit. Also, the

humor measures used were not specifically developed from STH nor were they devel-

oped by the same researchers. Thus, the scales may contain sources of variance not

attributable to affiliative and aggressive humor use. These last two points may par-

tially explain the low correlations found in this study. Proclivities toward humor

usage are only one of many factors that affect the process of goal formation and,

of course, no attempt was made to control for elapsed time since the recalled humor-

ous episodes. Finally, continual refinement of the measurement of both attachment

and humor might provide stronger relationships in the future.

Conclusions

Humor is a luxury. Inhibited by threats to physical and emotional safety as well as

practical motivations (Morreall, 1983), humor is one of those excesses that gives

human life its particular flavor, both bitter and sweet. The present study supports

the viability of the link between attachment security and humor production as

postulated by STH. It takes us a step closer to articulating the individual differences

and social orientations that underlie both the ability to create humor as well as the

specific type of humor employed. It also directs us down new avenues of research,

shedding light on the dark alleyways where unanswered questions still lurk. As we

continue to uncover the flowers of humor, as Ziv (1984) might say, we may be able

to learn how to be better gardeners of our own interpersonal relationships.

Note

[1] Power analyses were conducted using the G�Power program (Faul & Erdfelder, 1992).

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psycho-

logical study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Archakis, A., & Tsakona, V. (2005). Analyzing conversational data in GTVH terms: A new approach

to the issue of identity construction via humor. Humor, 18, 41–68.

Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Aune, K. S., & Wong, N. C. H. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of adult play in romantic

relationships. Personal Relationships, 9, 279–286.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 7, 147–178.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a

four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.

Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour. London: Sage.

Bippus, A. M. (2000). Humor usage in comforting episodes: Factors predicting outcomes. Western

Journal of Communication, 64, 359–384.

Bippus, A. M. (2003). Humor motives, qualities, and reactions in recalled conflict episodes.Western

Journal of Communication, 67, 413–426.

Booth-Butterfield, S., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (1991). Individual differences in the communication

of humorous messages. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 205–218.

Humor, Attachment, Goals 457

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1 Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York:

Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment.

In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76).

New York: Guilford.

Brône, G., Feyaerts, K., & Veale, T. (2006). Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor.

Humor, 19, 203–228.

Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict

strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93–118.

Carrell, A. (1997). Joke competence and humor competence. Humor, 10, 173–185.

Dillard, J. P. (1990). The nature and substance of goals in tactical communication. In M. J. Cody &

M. L. Mclaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 70–90). Clevedon,

England: Multilingual Matters.

Dillard, J. P., Segrin, C., & Harden, J. M. (1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of

interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs, 56, 19–38.

Faul, F., & Erdfelder, E. (1992). GPOWER: A priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analyses for

MS-DOS [Computer Program]. Bonn, FRG: Bonn University, Dept. of Psychology.

Fraley, R. C., Davis, K. E., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Dismissing-avoidance and the defensive organiza-

tion of emotion, cognition, and behavior. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attach-

ment theory and close relationships (pp. 249–279). New York: Guilford.

Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patters: A test of the typological model. In J.

A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114).

New York: Guilford.

Goffman, E. (1974=1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: North-

eastern University Press.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Green, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Attachment and exploration in adults: Chronic and

contextual accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 452–461.

Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of self and other: Fundamental dimensions

underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,

430–445.

Grossmann, K. E., Grossmann, K., & Zimmermann, P. (1999). A wider view of attachment and

exploration: Stability and change during the years of immaturity. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 760–786).

New York: Guilford.

Gruner, C. R. (1996). Wit and humour in mass communication. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot

(Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 287–311). New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Gruner, C. R. (1997). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New Brunswick,

NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.

Holland, N. N. (1982). Laughing: A psychology of humor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Hyers, C. (1996). The spirituality of comedy: Comic heroism in a tragic world. New Brunswick,

NJ: Transaction.

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J., III. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and

measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69.

Kim, M.-S. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational

constraints. Human Communication Research, 21, 128–151.

458 N. Miczo et al.

Kim, M.-S. (1995). Toward a theory of conversational constraints: Focusing on individual-level

dimensions of culture. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory

(pp. 148–169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The psychology of living buoyantly. New York: Kluwer.

Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication.

Communication Theory, 10, 310–331.

Miczo, N. (2004). Humor ability, unwillingness to communicate, loneliness, and perceived stress:

Testing a security theory. Communication Studies, 55, 209–226.

Miczo, N., & Welter, R. E. (2006). Aggressive and affiliative humor: Relationships to aspects of

intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 61–77.

Miller, S. (1973). Ends, means, and galumphing: Some leitmotifs of play. American Anthropologist,

75, 87–98.

Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Oring, E. (1992). Jokes and their relations. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky.

Segrin, C. (2001). Interpersonal processes in psychological problems. New York: Guilford.

Sparks Bethea, L., Travis, S. S., & Pecchioni, L. (2000). Family caregivers’ use of humor in con-

veying information about caring for dependent older adults. Health Communication, 12,

361–376.

Weisler, A., & McCall, R. B. (1976). Exploration and play: Résumé and redirection. American

Psychologist, 31, 492–508.

Wilson, S. R. (1997). Developing theories of persuasive message production: The next generation.

In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 15–43).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and sense of humor. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Humor, Attachment, Goals 459