On Being Witty: Causes, Correlates, and Consequences

Goodchilds, Jacqueline D.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-288950-9.50015-8

Cited by 31 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The theory predicts different correlates of humor depending on how humor is measured. Consistent with predictions from the model, when humor was assessed by procedures that largely tapped the motivational or communicative facets of wittiness (e.g., expression of humor in small groups), humor was related to social variables, but when the ability to create or comprehend humor was assessed, measures of verbal ability and creativity were the primary predictors of humor (see reviews by Goodchilds, 1972;McGhee, 1971;Nias, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 69%

Preliminary Validation of a Multidimensional Model of Wittiness

Feingold

Mazzella

1993

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research on wittiness has found that (a) self-ratings and peer ratings of wittiness are highly correlated, but neither type of rating is appreciably correlated with tneasured hutnor production, and {b) sociability is correlated with both types of wittitiess ratings hut not with hutnor productioti. An interpretation of these fitidings was provided by a tnultiditnensional model of wittiness that conceptualizes wittiness as a factorially cotnplex ditnension shaped by three cotnponent traits: hutnor tnotivation, humor cognition, and hutnor cotntnunication. We conducted three correlational studies to test the hypotheses, derived from the theory, that (a) wittiness ratings are influenced by hutnor tnotivation and hutnor cotntnunication, whereas hutnor production taps only hutnor cognition, and {b) sociability is positively correlated with hutnor motivation and humor communication but unrelated to humor cognition. Results were consistent across studies and generally confirmed the predictions.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 69%

Preliminary Validation of a Multidimensional Model of Wittiness

Feingold

Mazzella

1993

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Groch (1974) found that preschool females responded to the humor which males produced, and McGhee (1974) found that elementary-aged males were more successful than females at creating absurdity riddles. Among adults participating in a management development course, males, not females, caused group members to laugh (Goodchilds, 1972). These differences may diminish as we become more sensitive to variations in the socialization of males and females.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The comic wit, or the one who makes at least two other group members laugh out loud, is seen by other group members as influential, well-accepted, a leader, independent, and creative (Goodchilds, 1959(Goodchilds, , 1972Goodchilds 8c Smith, 1964;O'Connell, 1969aO'Connell, , 1969bSmith & Goodchilds, 1959). Wits see themselves as leaders (Smith 8c Goodchilds, 1959), intelligent, nonconforming (Goodchilds 8c Smith, 1964), creative (O'Connell, 1969a, and as active group participants (Goodchilds, 1972). Thus, adults who cause others to laugh are seen in very positive terms and also perceive themselves favorably.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Class Clowns: A Study of Middle School Students

Damico

Purkey

1978

American Educational Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a sample of 3,500 eighth-grade pupils, 96 class clowns were identified by peer nominations on a sociometricform. These pupils were compared to a randomly selected sample of 237 nonclown classmates on the bases of teacher ratings and student self-esteem and school-attitude measures. Clowns were found to be predominantly males. Clowns were seen by their teachers to be higher than nonchwns in Asserting, Unruliness, Attention Seeking, Leadership, and Cheerfulness, and to be lower in Accomplishing. Clowns report lower attitudes toward teacher and principal than do nonclowns and see themselves as leaders and as being vocal in expressing ideas and opinions in front of their classmates.

show abstract

“…This meant that humorists could challenge the model safely. If the group (and the tutor) accepted the challenge positively and laughed, they would gain the social and emotional rewards of a successful joker (Goodchilds, 1972); if anyone took the challenge seriously or found the sentiment offensive, the humorist could defuse the situation by protesting that they were "only joking". As Kahn (1989:p. 55) points out:…”

Section: Challenging the Nvqmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nothing Serious? Candidates’ Use of Humour in Management Training

Grugulis

2002

Human Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the use made of humour in three different private sector organizations. It draws on observations of managers working towards a management qualification and, from the jokes they exchange, it argues that studying humour may offer insights into sentiments not easily articulated in ‘serious’ conversation. Humour’s ambiguity enables contentious statements to be made without fear of recrimination. Equally, constructing jokes by juxtaposing two different frames of reference provides a glimpse of alternative (and shared) perceptions of ‘reality’. This sensitivity to complexity makes humour a particularly appropriate vehicle for conveying ambitions, subversions, triumphs and failures and this article considers some of the ‘serious’ messages underlying the jokes.

show abstract

On Being Witty: Causes, Correlates, and Consequences

Cited by 31 publications

References 25 publications

Preliminary Validation of a Multidimensional Model of Wittiness

Preliminary Validation of a Multidimensional Model of Wittiness

Class Clowns: A Study of Middle School Students

Nothing Serious? Candidates’ Use of Humour in Management Training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About