Amy M. Bippus

Humor motives, qualities, and reactions in recalled conflict episodes

This study examines factors affecting respondents’ perceptions of the effects of humor used by a conflict partner. Attributions about the speakers reasons for using humor and humorous message qualities were considered for the outcomes respondents experienced with regard to self‐reported conflict interactions. Attributions about the speakers reasons for using humor were strongly associated with all three outcomes of Escalation, Progress, and Loss of Face, and the quality of the humor itself was also highly correlated with both Escalation and Progress. These findings support Attribution Theory in that internal attributions of reasons for humor usage were associated with more negative outcomes, while more external reasons were associated with more positive outcomes for conflict episodes.

Assessment of Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) Training: A Case Study of a Training Program and Its Impact on GTAs

Graduate teaching associates (GTAs) play a vital role as instructors at many universities but often are not confident in their ability to perform their job-related duties. Based on Banduras (1997) theory of self-efficacy, this project examined a teacher-training program for GTAs and assessed its outcomes. Our results revealed that GTAs reported being more likely to choose prosocial behavioral alternation techniques to manage students after training. They also reported significantly higher self-efficacy across three instructional areas: management, student involvement, and instructional strategies. Finally, GTAs expressed a belief that they could count on more mentoring support than they believed they had prior to training. Only the perceptions of peer support remained unchanged.

Humor Usage in Comforting Episodes: Factors Predicting Outcomes.

This investigation explores the factors affecting the outcomes experienced by distressed persons when their comfort providers use humor during comforting interactions. The results indicate that the skillfulness of the comforting behavior (Reframing from Negativity, Other Orientation, Problem Solving and Different Perspective), as well as specific qualities of the humor used (Quality and Consciousness) and the relationship between the interactants (Relationship Satisfaction and Perceived Understanding) predicted the Empowerment, Positive Mood, and Stopped Rumination participants reported following their comforting interactions. Implications and future research directions are discussed in terms of comforting research and the consideration of humor in interpersonal communication research.

Does it make a difference if they hurt you in a funny way? Humorously and non‐humorously phrased hurtful messages in personal relationships

Combining scholarship on hurtful messages with research on humor as a communication strategy, this investigation compared humorously and non‐humorously phrased comments that hurt recipients’ feelings. The topics of hurtful messages, the relationship between recipients and the person who hurt their feelings, as well as recipients’ perceptions about the amount of hurt elicited and about the speakers intentions and feelings were examined. The results indicated that humorous messages used to convey hurtful information were seen as less intentionally hurtful, as expressing less intense feelings across most message topics, and as causing less hurt as compared to non‐humorously phrased comments. These findings suggest that incorporating humor may make hurt‐evoking statements more palatable to recipients than non‐humorously phrased hurtful comments. The implications of this project for future research on hurtful communication and humor usage in personal relationships are discussed.

Evaluations of Supportive Messages Provided by Friends and Romantic Partners: An Attachment Theory Approach

In a questionnaire study of 270 college students we investigated relationships of adult attachment‐style dimensions and perceptions of comforting messages received from friends and romantic partners. We found that comfort with closeness, preoccupied with relationships, and fear of intimacy all associated with factors developed by Bippus (2001) on evaluations of comforting communication. These same three attachment‐style dimensions were significantly related with perceptions of social support, further supporting the link between adult attachment orientations and feelings about others’ supportiveness. Gender differences in evaluations of comforting messages were also examined. These findings will be discussed in terms of attachment theory.

An Intergroup Investigation of Disparaging Humor

This article takes an intergroup approach to studying disparaging humor. Specifically, this study tests the in-group favoritism/out-group rejection tenet of social identity theory in the context of disparaging gender-based jokes. The experiment manipulated the number of jokes men and women read about their gender and the opposite gender, and then measured joke funniness, in- and out-group typicality, and collective self-esteem. The findings revealed that both men and women exhibited in-group bias by rating jokes about the opposite gender funnier and more typical than jokes about their own gender, although only the findings for women were significant. Women’s evaluations of male-targeted joke(s) were particularly affected by the number of jokes they read. Explained from a social identity theory perspective, the findings underscore how jokes contribute to intergroup division and the utility of intergroup theory in understanding the social cognitive processes of jokes.

Humorous Responses to Interpersonal Complaints: Effects of Humor Style and Nonverbal Expression

ABSTRACT Based on disposition theory (Zillmann & Cantor, 1996), this study assessed reactions to vignettes in which individuals humorously respond to complaints from their partners. Vignettes varied based upon the sex and affective expression (positive/negative) of the speaker, and style of humor used (affiliative, aggressive, self-enhancing, self-defeating). Although males were rated as funnier than females, speakers were generally rated as more funny and likeable, and evoked less counterarguing, when they had positive facial expressions even when using negative humor styles. Aggressive humor garnered the highest evaluations of funniness, likeability, and credibility, but also the most counterarguing.

Causal Attributions for Collaborative Public Speaking Presentations in College Classes

The present study applied attribution theory in examining how college students interpret success and failure for themselves and their partners in collaborative presentations. Questionnaires were completed by 174 students based on a 2 (positive vs. negative feedback) × 2 (self vs. other) design. The results revealed that people who received positive feedback made similar attributions about themselves and their presentation partners. However, as predicted, people attributed their own poor performance less to internal causes and more to the nature of the assignment than they did their partners’ poor performance. Explanations of the findings and the implications for future research are discussed.

Comparing Romantic Partners' Perceptions of Hurtful Communication During Conflict Conversations

Romantic partners discussed an issue of conflict in their relationship and then a modified stimulated recall methodology was used to examine partners’ perceptions of hurtful messages. Individuals attributed more hurtful statements to their partners than to themselves and interactants often did not agree upon which comments were potentially hurt eliciting. The volume of hurtful statements and the extent to which partners matched when identifying hurtful communication were associated with relational quality—for males only. This study provides a methodological expansion that supports and provides nuance to prior hurtful-message research. It further underscores the importance of gleaning perceptions of hurt from both parties on the same hurt-evoking interaction soon after it occurs.

Gender disparaging jokes: An investigation of sexist-nonstereotypical jokes on funniness, typicality, and the moderating role of ingroup identification

Abstract This experiment relied on social identity theory to investigate jokes that express superiority and denigration toward social groups. In particular, the social identity of gender is examined in the context of sexist-nonstereotypical jokes. Results revealed that sexist-nonstereotypical jokes had the greatest impact on women. Specifically, women rated jokes about men funnier than jokes about themselves, and highly identified women found jokes targeting men significantly funnier than jokes targeting women. These results, and others relating to prototypicality, offer insight into how disparaging intergroup jokes function to accentuate and attenuate intergroup relations.