ORIGINAL RESEARCH printed: 04 October 2016
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.Zero1495
Edited by:
Vinai Norasakkunkit, Gonzaga College, USA
Reviewed by:
Jenn-Yeu Chen, Nationwide Taiwan Regular College,
Taiwan Chris Sinha,
Hunan College, UK
*Correspondence:
Feng Jiang fengjiang0205@gmail.com
Specialty part:
This text was submitted to Cultural Psychology,
a bit of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Acquired: 04 Might 2016 Accepted: 16 September 2016
Printed: 04 October 2016
Quotation:
Yue X, Jiang F, Lu S and Hiranandani N (2016) To Be or Not To
Be Humorous? Cross Cultural Views on Humor. Entrance. Psychol. 7:1495.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.Zero1495
To Be or Not To Be Humorous? Cross Cultural Views on Humor Xiaodong Yue1, Feng Jiang2*, Su Lu3 and Neelam Hiranandani1
1 Division of Social Science, Metropolis College of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2 Division of Group and Human Sources Administration, Central College of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China, three Division of Human Sources Administration, College of Worldwide Enterprise and Economics, Beijing, China
Humor appears to manifest in another way in Western and Japanese cultures, though little is thought about how tradition shapes humor perceptions. The authors recommend that Westerners regard humor as a standard and optimistic disposition; the Chinese language regard humor as a particular disposition specific to humorists, with controversial points. In Examine 1, Hong Kong individuals primed with Western tradition consider humor extra positively than they do when primed with Chinese language tradition. In Examine 2a, Canadians consider humor as being extra essential compared with Chinese language individuals. In Examine 2b, Canadians anticipate unusual folks to own humor, whereas Chinese language anticipate specialised comedians to be humorous. The implications and limitations are mentioned.
Key phrases: Chinese language, humor notion, humor analysis, cultural priming, Western
INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2008, an Iraqi journalist startled attendees at a press convention on the prime minister’s palace in Baghdad, Iraq, by throwing a shoe at U.S. President George W. Bush. After the incident, Bush joked: “If you’d like the info, it’s a measurement 10” (BBC, 2008). A number of weeks later, on February 2, 2009, a scholar threw a shoe at Chinese language Premier Wen Jiabao as he was giving a speech on the College of Cambridge. The coed was faraway from the lecture corridor, however Premier Wen was not amused: “this despicable conduct will do nothing to carry again the friendship of the Chinese language and British folks” (China View, 2009). Two leaders, Western and Chinese language, and two vastly di�erent reactions to an sudden insult, one humorous and one critical: the incidents spotlight culturally di�erent attitudes towards humor, the topic of this text.
Humor is a broad and multifaceted idea. The Oxford English dictionary defines humor as “the school of observing what’s ludicrous or amusing or of expressing it; jocose creativeness or therapy of a topic” (SOED, third version). Humor encompasses amusement and comedian reactions (Simpson and Weiner, 1989), psychological cognitive value determinations comprising perceptions of playful incongruity, mirthful feelings, and vocal-behavioral expressions of laughter (Martin, 2007, p. 10). Though humor is a common human expertise, folks of di�erent societies understand and use humor di�erently (Martin, 2007; Yue, 2010). Within the context of cross-cultural di�erences between Westerners and the Chinese language, Decide Wu stated: “Whereas Westerners are critically humorous, Chinese language persons are humorously critical” (quoted in Kao, 1974, p. xviii).
Types of humor are categorized as self-enhancing, a�liative, self-defeating, and aggressive (Kuiper et al., 2004; Martin, 2007). The 4 humor sorts have been investigated throughout cultures to indicate that each Westerners and Easterners are saddened and repelled by aggressive humor (Kuiper et al., 2010). North People react positively to self-enhancing humor, whereas Easterners don’t (Kuiper et al., 2004; Chen and Martin, 2005). The cultural di�erences are attributed to the Western individualistic versus Japanese collectivistic cultural distinctions. In different phrases, Easterners have a
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 2
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
collectivistic orientation that blurs the excellence between self and others in order that they’ve weaker perceptions concerning self- oriented (self-enhancing) and other-oriented (a�liative) humor.
Usually, Western people tolerate and use humor greater than Chinese language people do (e.g., Liao, 1998; Chen and Martin, 2007; Davis, 2011; Yue, 2011). Analysis has targeted on particular humor kinds however not on normal perceptions of humor. The shoe- throwing incidents that sparked such numerous reactions impressed us to look at how folks from di�erent cultural backgrounds view humor on the whole, reasonably than specializing in the particular kinds. We suggest that Westerners will see humor as a optimistic disposition that enhances self-actualization and interpersonal relationships, and that everybody possesses the favored trait (e.g., Maslow, 1968; Martin, 2007). In distinction, the Chinese language will view humor as a controversial disposition in social interactions and a character trait possessed largely by specialists in humor- associated fields (e.g., Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010, 2011; Davis, 2011; Xu, 2011). Subsequent we current an in depth description of the 2 views on humor.
The Western View on Humor Westerners are inclined to take humor as a pure function of life and to make use of it wherever and at any time when attainable (Apte, 1985). The truth is, Westerners have valued humor for the reason that period of Plato and Aristotle as a pure expression of amusement, enjoyable, and enjoyment of social interactions (Grant, 1924/1970). The 19th and early 20th centuries are considered the start of a golden age of humor, significantly for American society (Bier, 1968; Blair and Hill, 1978):
Humor is ubiquitous in American society and nothing escapes from changing into its goal. Humor in its quite a few strategies and kinds is directed on the inhabitants by way of all conceivable channels – newsprint, magazines, books, visible and plastic arts, comedy performances, and newbie joke-telling contests, in addition to many kinds of artifacts similar to T-shirts, watches, bumper stickers, greeting playing cards, sculptures, toys, and so forth (Apte, 1985, p. 30).
Freud (1928) posited that humor is an e�ective protection mechanism in opposition to adverse feelings. On one hand, laughter releases extra nervous power; alternatively, humor supplies various views about worry, disappointment, or anger within the face of incongruous or amusing elements (Martin, 2007). Early 20th century Western psychologists argued that humor and laughter improve human well being (e.g., Sully, 1902; McDougall, 1922), promote creativity (e.g., Guilford, 1950; Richards, 1990), and strengthen coping and optimism (e.g., Walsh, 1928).
Western analysis reveals that humor might be an indispensable “panacea” in day by day life to facilitate coping (e.g., Lefcourt et al., 1995; Kuiper and Martin, 1998; Moran and Massam, 1999; Lefcourt, 2001), promote impression administration (e.g., Mettee et al., 1971), and improve interpersonal attraction (e.g., Fraley and Aron, 2004). As well as, Westerners have a tendency to treat humor as a core trait of self-actualization (Maslow, 1968; Mintz, 1983; Mindess et al., 1985) and a necessary attribute of creativity (Guilford, 1950; Sternberg, 1985).
Furthermore, within the West, people who have interaction in humorous conduct are sometimes perceived as optimistic and engaging (Bressler et al., 2006). Westerners are inclined to charge humor as a really perfect and significant private attribute for relationship or romantic companions (Hansen and Hicks, 1980; Regan and Joshi, 2003). Past romantic a�liations, Westerners have optimistic perceptions about humorous people. For instance, a research in organizational contexts revealed that subordinates view humorous supervisors as extra motivating, assured, pleasant, clever, and nice leaders (Decker, 1987; Priest and Swain, 2002). Equally, in aggressive sports activities contexts, gamers needed to play for a humorous coach and perceived the coach as competent (Grisa�e et al., 2003). In brief, in Western society, individuals who have a humorousness are positively perceived as extra extroverted and socially fascinating; in distinction, those that lack a humorousness draw adverse perceptions (Allport, 1961; Cann and Calhoun, 2001; Priest and Swain, 2002).
As such, it’s no shock that President Bush joked in regards to the measurement of the shoe that was thrown at him. True to Western perceptions of humor, he demonstrated wit and charisma within the face of an embarrassing state of affairs.
The Chinese language View on Humor In China, humor was first documented about 2,000 years in the past (Yue, 2010; Chey, 2011; Davis, 2011). The Chinese language time period huaji is regarded instead phrase for humor that means wit, irony, and sarcasm (Chen, 1985; Liao, 2003). The earliest type of Chinese language humor might be pai shuo, which suggests small discuss or jokes (see Yue, 2010, for a assessment). Within the 1920s, Lin Yu-tang (1895–1976), a widely known author and scholar, used the Chinese language character youmo because the Chinese language model of humor. Since then, youmo has extensively represented wit, irony, and hilarity (Lin, 1974).
Though humor has a gone, for the previous 2000 years it has been devalued below Confucianism (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010, 2011; Xu, 2011). Lin (1974) used the time period Confucian Puritanism to depict how humor was despised:
Confucian decorum put a damper on gentle, humorous writing, in addition to on all imaginative literature, besides poetry. Drama and the novel had been despised as unworthy of a decent scholar’s occupation…… This puritanical, austere public perspective has endured to today (Lin, 1974, p. xxxi).
As such, the Confucian approach of a gentleman requires restraint from laughter to reveal dignity and social formality (Yue, 2010; Xu, 2011). The Confucian doctrine of moderation advocates in opposition to hilarious laughter as a result of it expresses excessive emotion (Liao, 1998). The Confucian orthodox literary writings forbade humorous expressions as being beneath correct literature (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010; Qian, 2011). Confucius even stated “a person must be critical to be revered” (Liao, 2007). Because of this, the Chinese language really feel that they need to giggle solely at sure occasions, along with sure topics, and solely with sure folks (Yue, 2011).
In the event that they selected to giggle, Chinese language folks had been suggested to giggle gently. Chinese language ladies had been suggested to cowl their mouths with their palms (Lin, 1934). In brief, owing to Confucian considerations
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # three
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
for sustaining correct social order and hierarchy, correct humor is “a type of personal, average, good-natured, tasteful, and didactically helpful mirth” (Xu, 2011, p. 70). Consequently, Chinese language folks have lengthy scorned public humor. Confucian moralists feared that after humorous writing kinds unfold, life would lose its seriousness, and sophistry would overturn orthodoxy (Yue, 2010, 2011; Pattern, 2011).
Although humor has thrived in China for the reason that downfall of the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), Chinese language persons are nonetheless closely influenced by cultural biases in opposition to public humor which can be deeply rooted in Confucianism (Davis, 2011; Xu, 2011). For instance, humor has been constantly omitted from the checklist of qualities required for being a typical and inventive Chinese language thinker (Rudowicz and Yue, 2000, 2003; Rudowicz, 2003; Yue et al., 2006; Yue, 2011). Loud laughter tends to make Chinese language folks really feel nervous and uncomfortable (Liao, 1998). As well as, Chinese language college students have a tendency to contemplate themselves as being much less humorous than Canadian college students, they usually have a tendency to make use of much less humor to deal with stress (Chen and Martin, 2005). Equally, American college students rated sexual and aggressive jokes as funnier than Singaporean Chinese language college students who most well-liked innocent humor (Nevo et al., 2001). These findings help the declare that Chinese language favor a “considerate smile” to “hilarious laughter” (Lin, 1974). Thus, it’s no shock that Premier Wen would reply sternly to the shoe-throwing incident to maintain his dignity.
In line with these observations, Yue (2011) systematically reviewed Chinese language perceptions and recognized three Chinese language ambivalences towards humor. First, the Chinese language are inclined to worth humor however devalue humor as a trait of self. Chinese language conventional social norms worth seriousness, so Chinese language folks are inclined to worry that being humorous will jeopardize their social standing. As an illustration, though Chinese language undergraduates self-reported that humor is essential in on a regular basis life, they reported that they weren’t humorous themselves (Yue et al., 2006; Yue, 2011). Second, as Yue (2011) defined, being humorous is inappropriate for orthodox Chinese language as a result of Confucianism has equated humor with mental shallowness and social informality (Yue, 2010). For instance, Chinese language college students don’t rank humor as attribute of a really perfect Chinese language character (Rudowicz and Yue, 2003; Yue et al., 2006). Chen (1985) argued that Chinese language jokes have all the time targeted on “denial humor” that criticizes actuality and “complimentary humor” that praises actuality, in distinction with the “pure humor” that makes folks giggle in Western jokes. Third, the Chinese language are inclined to consider that humor is essential however just for skilled entertainers with unique experience and particular expertise.
Though the 4 kinds of humor have been examined cross- culturally, few empirical research have examined cross-cultural di�erences on normal humor perceptions (e.g., Nevo et al., 2001; Jiang et al., 2011). Jiang et al. (2011) discovered that Chinese language undergraduates tended to affiliate humor with disagreeable adjectives and seriousness with nice adjectives; the other was true for American undergraduates. Such a discovering signifies that Westerners and Chinese language could maintain di�erent views towards humor on the whole. As well as, little work has been performed to supply a complete image of the cultural di�erences on humor notion. Subsequently, we performed two research
to systematically confirm the proposed dichotomy between the Western and Chinese language view on humor.
OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH
Two research had been performed to look at Western versus Chinese language views on humor. In Examine 1, Hong Kong Chinese language individuals (bicultural samples) had been first primed with both Western tradition icons or Chinese language tradition icons. Then they had been requested to make use of adjectives from an inventory to explain a humorous particular person. We anticipated the priming with Western tradition icons would trigger Hong Kong individuals to assign considerably extra optimistic adjectives, whereas the priming with Chinese language tradition icons would have the other e�ect. In Examine 2a, individuals from Canada and China had been requested to charge the significance of humor, self-humor, and humorousness. We anticipated that the Chinese language would give considerably decrease rankings to all three. In Examine 2b, individuals from Canada and China had been requested to determine the names and occupations of as much as three humorous individuals. We anticipated that Canadian individuals would nominate considerably extra unusual folks than Chinese language individuals, and Chinese language individuals would nominate considerably extra humor-relevant specialists similar to comedians and cartoonists. Taken collectively, we hoped to seek out constant findings for the proposed dichotomy between Western and Chinese language views on humor.
STUDY 1
We performed Examine 1 as a between topic design by priming Chinese language and Western cultural di�erences. Bicultural Hong Kong persons are thought-about acceptable for cultural priming research. (For particulars, see Hong et al., 2000). Our goal was to find out whether or not research individuals uncovered to photos related to Chinese language or Western tradition can be induced to understand di�erent qualities in a humorous particular person.
Technique Individuals and Design
Ninety-six Hong Kong faculty college students (31 males, 65 ladies) had been recruited. They averaged 24.01 years previous (SD = three.78 years). Individuals had been randomly assigned to 2 experimental teams: the Chinese language picture-priming situation or the Western picture-priming situation. Following the priming (about 15 s), individuals had been requested to guage a humorous particular person by selecting from an inventory of 40 adjectives (Zhang et al., 1998). Oral directions got in Chinese language and English and had been counterbalanced throughout the priming situation to cut back potential language biases (e.g., Meier and Cheng, 2004). After the experiment, all individuals had been debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.
Supplies and Procedures
Priming We used 26 priming photos, 13 for every tradition (Figures 1 and a couple of), from priming supplies developed by Ng and Lai (2009) and primarily based on the work of Hong et al. (2000). Furthermore, the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org three October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # eight
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
whereas Westerners worth it (Kuiper et al., 2010). The di�erent cultural views could result in cultural biases. As an illustration, Chinese language youngsters are inclined to see humor as aggressive and disruptive (Chen et al., 1992). Consequently, People and Chinese language who attempt to talk cross culturally many discover that cultural variations concerning humor could disrupt their communications.
Third, we aren’t saying that Chinese language folks lack humor. Quite the opposite, considerable proof reveals that humor has been widespread and fashionable all through Chinese language historical past (Xiao, 1996). As a substitute, we argue that Confucian biases have induced public humor to be extra “in deeds than in phrases, extra practiced than preached” in China (Kao, 1974, p. xxii). Thus, earlier than a Chinese language chief similar to Wen Jiabao might joke about an embarrassing state of affairs, the overall Chinese language inhabitants should first see humor as optimistic and fascinating. They need to transcend Confucian puritanism that frowns on humor and as a substitute study to worth, admire, and use humor at any time when and wherever attainable (Chen and Martin, 2005; Yue, 2010, 2011).
As Lin Yutang stated, “the key of humor is to be pure and to be oneself, to face oneself within the mirror and to tear down the hypocritical disguise” (Qian, 2011, p. 211). In spite of everything, the flexibility to giggle at ourselves comes from broad-minded detachment concerning our personal imperfections. And this stays to be additional examined in later research.
Limitations and Future Instructions The present research has a number of inherent limitations that ought to be famous. First, Hong Kong Chinese language, not Mainland Chinese language, participated in Examine 2. As Hong Kong is extremely westernized, the scholars could not completely signify Chinese language society. The findings could lend credence to the expectation that Mainland Chinese language will present even higher di�erences with Westerners. Consequently, future investigations ought to replicate the present findings with extra Mainland Chinese language samples. Second, though the outcomes of Examine 2a are according to what we present in Research 1 and 2b, it nonetheless bears the contamination of culture-related response biases (e.g., Chen et al., 1995; Heine et al., 2002). As we all know, folks from di�erent cultures have a tendency to make use of di�erent referents of their self-reported values. Thus, Canadians within the present analysis evaluated humor compared with different Canadians, whereas Chinese language evaluated humor compared with different Chinese language. As well as, Chinese language are extra possible than Canadians to make use of the midpoint on self-reported scales (e.g., Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Chen et al., 1995). For future investigations, it will be essential to measure individuals’ analysis on each humor and seriousness. In doing so, we are able to look at the di�erences of ranking patterns as a substitute of direct ranking scores between Chinese language and Canadians. In different phrases,
it permits us to research whether or not Canadian individuals would charge humor as being extra essential to them than being critical, whereas the other sample can be true for Chinese language individuals. Third, the nomination methodology (Examine 2b) helped to validate the 2 contrasting views of humor between the West and the East, however social media influences and leisure improvement might be confounding elements (e.g., Buijzen and Valkenburg, 2004). Subsequently, future research ought to management for interfering elements. Fourth, all samples had been confined to school college students. For broader generalization, future research ought to recruit individuals of varied ages and from numerous backgrounds.
CONCLUSION
The present analysis supplies new proof and a broader perspective for finding out cultural di�erences concerning humor notion. Westerners view humor as a generally owned trait and as a optimistic disposition for self-actualization. In distinction, the Chinese language think about humor to be restricted to humor professionals and fewer fascinating for social interactions. Two research using priming paradigm, questionnaire measurement, and nomination approach introduced on this paper reveal the dichotomy. We hope that these findings stimulate future research that enterprise additional into the frontier space of humor.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors conceptualized the manuscript, XY and FJ wrote the primary full draft, XY and SL contributed extra writing, FJ, SL, and NH contributed knowledge assortment and Assessment, all authors edited the manuscript and accredited the ultimate model.
FUNDING
The present work was supported by Analysis grant of Metropolis College of Hong Kong (No. 7004315) awarded to XY, and Nationwide Pure Science Basis of China awarded to FJ (No.71401190) and SL (No.71401036).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We want to thanks Mr. Chun Wing Lai for serving to knowledge assortment.
REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1961). Sample and Progress in Persona. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston. Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Method. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell College Press. BBC (2008). Footwear Thrown at Bush on Iraq Journey. Obtainable at: http://information.bbc.co.uk/
2/hello/7782422.stm
Bier, J. (1968). The Rise and Fall of American Humor. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Blair, W., and Hill, H. (1978). America’s Humor: From Poor Richard to Doonesbury. New York, NY: Oxford College Press.
Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., and Balshine, S. (2006). Manufacturing and appreciation of humor as sexually chosen traits. Evol. Hum. Behav. 27, 121–130. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.09.Zero01
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org eight October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 9
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
Buijzen, M., and Valkenburg, P. M. (2004). Creating a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media Psychol. 6, 147–167. doi: 10.1207/ s1532785xmep0602_2
Cann, A., and Calhoun, L. G. (2001). Perceived character associations with di�erences in humorousness: stereotypes of hypothetical others with excessive or low senses of humor. Humor 14, 117–130. doi: 10.1515/humr.14.2.117
Chen, C., Lee, S. Y., and Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response fashion and cross-cultural comparisons of ranking scales amongst East Asian and North American college students. Psychol. Sci. 6, 170–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x
Chen, C. C. (1985). A Examine of Historical Chinese language Jokes (in Chinese language). Grasp’s thesis, Nationwide Taiwan Regular College, Taipei.
Chen, G. H., and Martin, R. D. (2005). Coping humor of 354 Chinese language college college students. Chin. Psychological Well being J. 19, 307–309.
Chen, G. H., and Martin, R. D. (2007). A comparability of humor kinds, coping humor, and psychological well being between Chinese language and Canadian college college students. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 20, 215–234. doi: 10.1515/HUMOR. 2007.Zero11
Chen, X., Rubin, Ok. H., and Solar, Y. (1992). Social fame and peer relationships in Chinese language and Canadian youngsters: a cross-cultural research. Youngster Dev. 63, 1336–1343. doi: 10.2307/1131559
Chey, J. (2011). “Youmo and Chinese language humorousness,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 1–29.
China View (2009). Premier Wen Dismisses Shoe-Throwing. Obtainable at: http://information.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/04/content_10761937.htm
Davis, J. (2011). “The Concept of Humours and the Conventional Chinese language Drugs,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 31–36.
Decker, W. H. (1987). Managerial humor and subordinate satisfaction. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 15, 225–232. doi: 10.2224/sbp.1987.15.2.225
Fraley, B., and Aron, A. (2004). The e�ect of a shared humorous expertise on closeness in preliminary encounters. Pers. Relat. 11, 61–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1475- 6811.2004.00071.x
Freud, S. (1928). Humor. Int. J. Psychoanal. 9, 1–6. Galloway, G., and Cropley, A. (1999). Advantages of humor for psychological well being:
empirical findings and instructions for additional analysis. Humor 12, 301–314. doi: 10.1515/humr.1999.12.three.301
Grant, M. A. (1924/1970). The Historical Rhetorical Theories of the Laughable: the Greek Rhetoricians and Cicero. Madison, WI: College of Wisconsin Research in Language and Literature.
Grisa�e, C., Blom, L. C., and Burke, Ok. L. (2003). The e�ects of head and Helpant coaches’ makes use of of humor on collegiate soccer gamers’ analysis of their coaches. J. Sport Behav. 26, 103–108.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. Am. Psychol. 5, 444–454. doi: 10.1037/h00 63487
Hansen, S. L., and Hicks, M. W. (1980). Intercourse position attitudes and perceived dating- mating decisions of youth. Adolescence 15, 83–90.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, Ok., and Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s unsuitable with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective likert scales? The reference- group e�ect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 903–918. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514. 82.6.903
Herzog, T. R., and Strevey, S. J. (2008). Contact with nature, humorousness, and psychological well-being. Environ. Behav. 40, 747–776. doi: 10.1177/0013916507308524
Hong, Y. I., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., and Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multi- cultural minds: a dynamic constructivist strategy to tradition and cognition. Am. Psychol. 55, 709–720. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.709
Jiang, F., Yue, X. D., and Lu, S. (2011). Di�erent attitudes in direction of humor between Chinese language and American college students: proof from the implicit affiliation check. Psychol. Rep. 109, 99–107. doi: 10.2466/09.17.21.PR0.109.four.99-107
Kao, G. (1974). Chinese language Wit and Humor. New York, NY: Sterling. Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., and Kirsh, G. (2004). Humor will not be all the time
the perfect medication: particular elements of humorousness and psychological well-being. Humor 17, 135–168. doi: 10.1515/humr.2004.002
Kuiper, N. A., Kazarian, S. S., Sine, J., and Bassil, M. (2010). The affect of humor in North American versus Center East cultures. Eur. J. Psychol. 6, 149–173. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v6i3.212
Kuiper, N. A., and Martin, R. A. (1998). “Humorousness–A optimistic character attribute,” in Sense of Humor: Explorations of Optimistic Persona Attribute, ed. W. Ruch (New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter), 159–178.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The Psychology of Dwelling Buoyantly. New York, NY: Kluwer Tutorial.
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, Ok., Shepherd, R., Phillips, M., Prkachin, Ok., and Mills, D. (1995). Perspective-taking humor: accounting for stress moderation. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 14, 373–391. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1995.14.four.373
Liao, C. C. (1998). Jokes, Humor and Chinese language Individuals. Taipei: Crane. Liao, C. C. (2003). Humor versus huaji. J. Lang. Linguist. 2, 25–46. Liao, C. C. (2007). One facet of Taiwanese and American sense of humour:
attitudes towards pranks. J. Humanit. Res. 2, 289–324. Liao, C. C., Chang, T. C., and Ming, Y. C. (2006). Humorousness: people
vs taiwanese. Paper Offered at 18th Worldwide Society of Humor Research Convention, Copenhagen: Danish College of Schooling.
Lin, Y. T. (1934). On humor. Analects Fortnightly 33, 434–438. Lin, Y. T. (1974). “Introduction to Chinese language wit and humor,” in Chinese language wit and
humor, ed. G. Kao (New York, NY: Sterling). Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. (1991). Tradition and the self: implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Martin, R. A. (2002). Is laughter the perfect medication? Humor, laughter, and bodily well being. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11, 216–220. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721. 00204
Martin, R. A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Method. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Tutorial Press.
Maslow, A. (1968). Towards a Psychology of Being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McDougall, W. (1922). A brand new idea of laughter. Psyche 2, 292–303. Meier, M. Ok., and Cheng, B. Y. M. (2004). Language and self-construal priming:
a replication and extension in a Hong Kong pattern. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35, 705–712. doi: 10.1177/0022022104270112
Mettee, D. R., Hrelec, E. S., and Wilkens, P. C. (1971). Humor as an interpersonal asset and legal responsibility. J. Social Psychol. 85, 51–64. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1971.9918544
Mindess, H., Miller, C., Turek, J., Bender, A., and Corbin, S. (1985). The Antioch Humor Take a look at: Making Sense of Humor. New York, NY: Avon.
Mintz, L. E. (1983). “Humor and fashionable tradition,” in Handbook of Humor Analysis, eds P. E. McGhee and J. H. Goldstein (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag).
Moran, C., and Massam, M. M. (1999). Di�erential influences of coping humor and humor bias on temper. Behav. Med. 25, 36–42. doi: 10.1080/089642899095 96737
Nevo, O., Nevo, B., and Yin, J. L. (2001). Singaporean humor: a cross- cultural, cross-gender comparability. J. Gen. Psychol. 128, 143–156. doi: 10.1080/00221300109598904
Ng, S. H., and Lai, J. C. (2009). E�ects of tradition priming on the social connectedness of the bicultural self: a self-reference e�ect strategy. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 40, 170–186. doi: 10.1177/0022022108328818
Priest, R. F., and Swain, J. E. (2002). Humor and its implications for management e�ectiveness. Humor 15, 169–189. doi: 10.1515/humr.2002.Zero10
Qian, S. (2011). “Discovering humor in trendy china,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 192–218.
Regan, P. C., and Joshi, A. (2003). Ultimate accomplice preferences amongst adolescents. Soc. Behav. Pers. 31, 13–20. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2003.31.1.13
Richards, R. (1990). On a regular basis creativity, eminent creativity, and well being: aftervie” for CRJ points on creativity and well being. Creat. Res. J. three, 300–326. doi: 10.1080/10400419009534363
Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and tradition: a two approach interplay. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 47, 273–290. doi: 10.1080/00313830308602
Rudowicz, E., and Yue, X. D. (2000). Ideas of creativity: similarities and di�erences amongst Hong Kong, Mainland and Taiwanese Chinese language. J. Creat. Behav. 34, 175–192. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01210.x
Rudowicz, E., and Yue, X. D. (2003). Compatibility of Chinese language and inventive personalities. Creat. Res. J. 14, 387–394. doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ 1434_9
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 10
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
Pattern, J. (2011). “Contextualizing Lin Yutang’s essay on humor,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 169–189.
Simpson, J. A., and Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. New York, NY: Oxford College Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and knowledge. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49, 607–627. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49. three.607
Sully, J. (1902). Essays on Laughter. New York, NY: Longmans, Inexperienced. Triandis, H. C., and Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal
and vertical individualism and collectivism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 118–128. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118
Walsh, J. J. (1928). Laughter and Well being. New York, NY: Appleton. Xiao, L. (1996). Chinese language Humorous Tales (in Chinese language). Beijing: Chinese language
Broadcasting Press. Xu, W. (2011). “The classical confucian ideas of human emotion and correct
humour,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 50–71.
Yue, X. D. (2010). Exploration of Chinese language humor: historic assessment, empirical findings, and significant reflections. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 23, 403–420.
Yue, X. D. (2011). The Chinese language ambivalence to humor: views from undergraduates in Hong Kong and China. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 24, 463–480. doi: 10.1515/humr.2011.Zero26
Yue, X. D., Hao, X., Lan, L., and Yan, F. (2006). Humor and youth empowerment: a self-cultivation strategy, Paper Offered on the 2nd Worldwide Convention on Youth Empowerment, Pok Fu Lam: Metropolis College of Hong Kong.
Zhang, Z. Y., Wang, L., and Qi, M. (1998). Primary dimensions of Chinese language character traits: an element Assessment of the self description in a pattern of Chinese language faculty college students. Acta Psychol. Sin. 30, 85–92.
Battle of Curiosity Assertion: The authors declare that the analysis was performed within the absence of any industrial or monetary relationships that might be construed as a possible battle of curiosity.
Copyright © 2016 Yue, Jiang, Lu and Hiranandani. That is an open-access article distributed below the phrases of the Inventive Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or copy in different boards is permitted, offered the unique writer(s) or licensor are credited and that the unique publication on this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted educational apply. No use, distribution or copy is permitted which doesn’t adjust to these phrases.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH printed: 04 October 2016
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH printed: 04 October 2016
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.Zero1495
Edited by:
Vinai Norasakkunkit, Gonzaga College, USA
Reviewed by:
Jenn-Yeu Chen, Nationwide Taiwan Regular College,
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH printed: 04 October 2016
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.Zero1495
Edited by:
Vinai Norasakkunkit, Gonzaga College, USA
Reviewed by:
Jenn-Yeu Chen, Nationwide Taiwan Regular College,
Taiwan Chris Sinha,
Hunan College, UK
*Correspondence:
Feng Jiang fengjiang0205@gmail.com
Specialty part:
This text was submitted to Cultural Psychology,
a bit of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Acquired: 04 Might 2016 Accepted: 16 September 2016
Printed: 04 October 2016
Quotation:
Yue X, Jiang F, Lu S and Hiranandani N (2016) To Be or Not To
Be Humorous? Cross Cultural Views on Humor. Entrance. Psychol. 7:1495.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.Zero1495
To Be or Not To Be Humorous? Cross Cultural Views on Humor Xiaodong Yue1, Feng Jiang2*, Su Lu3 and Neelam Hiranandani1
1 Division of Social Science, Metropolis College of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2 Division of Group and Human Sources Administration, Central College of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China, three Division of Human Sources Administration, College of Worldwide Enterprise and Economics, Beijing, China
Humor appears to manifest in another way in Western and Japanese cultures, though little is thought about how tradition shapes humor perceptions. The authors recommend that Westerners regard humor as a standard and optimistic disposition; the Chinese language regard humor as a particular disposition specific to humorists, with controversial points. In Examine 1, Hong Kong individuals primed with Western tradition consider humor extra positively than they do when primed with Chinese language tradition. In Examine 2a, Canadians consider humor as being extra essential compared with Chinese language individuals. In Examine 2b, Canadians anticipate unusual folks to own humor, whereas Chinese language anticipate specialised comedians to be humorous. The implications and limitations are mentioned.
Key phrases: Chinese language, humor notion, humor analysis, cultural priming, Western
INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2008, an Iraqi journalist startled attendees at a press convention on the prime minister’s palace in Baghdad, Iraq, by throwing a shoe at U.S. President George W. Bush. After the incident, Bush joked: “If you’d like the info, it’s a measurement 10” (BBC, 2008). A number of weeks later, on February 2, 2009, a scholar threw a shoe at Chinese language Premier Wen Jiabao as he was giving a speech on the College of Cambridge. The coed was faraway from the lecture corridor, however Premier Wen was not amused: “this despicable conduct will do nothing to carry again the friendship of the Chinese language and British folks” (China View, 2009). Two leaders, Western and Chinese language, and two vastly di�erent reactions to an sudden insult, one humorous and one critical: the incidents spotlight culturally di�erent attitudes towards humor, the topic of this text.
Humor is a broad and multifaceted idea. The Oxford English dictionary defines humor as “the school of observing what’s ludicrous or amusing or of expressing it; jocose creativeness or therapy of a topic” (SOED, third version). Humor encompasses amusement and comedian reactions (Simpson and Weiner, 1989), psychological cognitive value determinations comprising perceptions of playful incongruity, mirthful feelings, and vocal-behavioral expressions of laughter (Martin, 2007, p. 10). Though humor is a common human expertise, folks of di�erent societies understand and use humor di�erently (Martin, 2007; Yue, 2010). Within the context of cross-cultural di�erences between Westerners and the Chinese language, Decide Wu stated: “Whereas Westerners are critically humorous, Chinese language persons are humorously critical” (quoted in Kao, 1974, p. xviii).
Types of humor are categorized as self-enhancing, a�liative, self-defeating, and aggressive (Kuiper et al., 2004; Martin, 2007). The 4 humor sorts have been investigated throughout cultures to indicate that each Westerners and Easterners are saddened and repelled by aggressive humor (Kuiper et al., 2010). North People react positively to self-enhancing humor, whereas Easterners don’t (Kuiper et al., 2004; Chen and Martin, 2005). The cultural di�erences are attributed to the Western individualistic versus Japanese collectivistic cultural distinctions. In different phrases, Easterners have a
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 2
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
collectivistic orientation that blurs the excellence between self and others in order that they’ve weaker perceptions concerning self- oriented (self-enhancing) and other-oriented (a�liative) humor.
Usually, Western people tolerate and use humor greater than Chinese language people do (e.g., Liao, 1998; Chen and Martin, 2007; Davis, 2011; Yue, 2011). Analysis has targeted on particular humor kinds however not on normal perceptions of humor. The shoe- throwing incidents that sparked such numerous reactions impressed us to look at how folks from di�erent cultural backgrounds view humor on the whole, reasonably than specializing in the particular kinds. We suggest that Westerners will see humor as a optimistic disposition that enhances self-actualization and interpersonal relationships, and that everybody possesses the favored trait (e.g., Maslow, 1968; Martin, 2007). In distinction, the Chinese language will view humor as a controversial disposition in social interactions and a character trait possessed largely by specialists in humor- associated fields (e.g., Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010, 2011; Davis, 2011; Xu, 2011). Subsequent we current an in depth description of the 2 views on humor.
The Western View on Humor Westerners are inclined to take humor as a pure function of life and to make use of it wherever and at any time when attainable (Apte, 1985). The truth is, Westerners have valued humor for the reason that period of Plato and Aristotle as a pure expression of amusement, enjoyable, and enjoyment of social interactions (Grant, 1924/1970). The 19th and early 20th centuries are considered the start of a golden age of humor, significantly for American society (Bier, 1968; Blair and Hill, 1978):
Humor is ubiquitous in American society and nothing escapes from changing into its goal. Humor in its quite a few strategies and kinds is directed on the inhabitants by way of all conceivable channels – newsprint, magazines, books, visible and plastic arts, comedy performances, and newbie joke-telling contests, in addition to many kinds of artifacts similar to T-shirts, watches, bumper stickers, greeting playing cards, sculptures, toys, and so forth (Apte, 1985, p. 30).
Freud (1928) posited that humor is an e�ective protection mechanism in opposition to adverse feelings. On one hand, laughter releases extra nervous power; alternatively, humor supplies various views about worry, disappointment, or anger within the face of incongruous or amusing elements (Martin, 2007). Early 20th century Western psychologists argued that humor and laughter improve human well being (e.g., Sully, 1902; McDougall, 1922), promote creativity (e.g., Guilford, 1950; Richards, 1990), and strengthen coping and optimism (e.g., Walsh, 1928).
Western analysis reveals that humor might be an indispensable “panacea” in day by day life to facilitate coping (e.g., Lefcourt et al., 1995; Kuiper and Martin, 1998; Moran and Massam, 1999; Lefcourt, 2001), promote impression administration (e.g., Mettee et al., 1971), and improve interpersonal attraction (e.g., Fraley and Aron, 2004). As well as, Westerners have a tendency to treat humor as a core trait of self-actualization (Maslow, 1968; Mintz, 1983; Mindess et al., 1985) and a necessary attribute of creativity (Guilford, 1950; Sternberg, 1985).
Furthermore, within the West, people who have interaction in humorous conduct are sometimes perceived as optimistic and engaging (Bressler et al., 2006). Westerners are inclined to charge humor as a really perfect and significant private attribute for relationship or romantic companions (Hansen and Hicks, 1980; Regan and Joshi, 2003). Past romantic a�liations, Westerners have optimistic perceptions about humorous people. For instance, a research in organizational contexts revealed that subordinates view humorous supervisors as extra motivating, assured, pleasant, clever, and nice leaders (Decker, 1987; Priest and Swain, 2002). Equally, in aggressive sports activities contexts, gamers needed to play for a humorous coach and perceived the coach as competent (Grisa�e et al., 2003). In brief, in Western society, individuals who have a humorousness are positively perceived as extra extroverted and socially fascinating; in distinction, those that lack a humorousness draw adverse perceptions (Allport, 1961; Cann and Calhoun, 2001; Priest and Swain, 2002).
As such, it’s no shock that President Bush joked in regards to the measurement of the shoe that was thrown at him. True to Western perceptions of humor, he demonstrated wit and charisma within the face of an embarrassing state of affairs.
The Chinese language View on Humor In China, humor was first documented about 2,000 years in the past (Yue, 2010; Chey, 2011; Davis, 2011). The Chinese language time period huaji is regarded instead phrase for humor that means wit, irony, and sarcasm (Chen, 1985; Liao, 2003). The earliest type of Chinese language humor might be pai shuo, which suggests small discuss or jokes (see Yue, 2010, for a assessment). Within the 1920s, Lin Yu-tang (1895–1976), a widely known author and scholar, used the Chinese language character youmo because the Chinese language model of humor. Since then, youmo has extensively represented wit, irony, and hilarity (Lin, 1974).
Though humor has a gone, for the previous 2000 years it has been devalued below Confucianism (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010, 2011; Xu, 2011). Lin (1974) used the time period Confucian Puritanism to depict how humor was despised:
Confucian decorum put a damper on gentle, humorous writing, in addition to on all imaginative literature, besides poetry. Drama and the novel had been despised as unworthy of a decent scholar’s occupation…… This puritanical, austere public perspective has endured to today (Lin, 1974, p. xxxi).
As such, the Confucian approach of a gentleman requires restraint from laughter to reveal dignity and social formality (Yue, 2010; Xu, 2011). The Confucian doctrine of moderation advocates in opposition to hilarious laughter as a result of it expresses excessive emotion (Liao, 1998). The Confucian orthodox literary writings forbade humorous expressions as being beneath correct literature (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010; Qian, 2011). Confucius even stated “a person must be critical to be revered” (Liao, 2007). Because of this, the Chinese language really feel that they need to giggle solely at sure occasions, along with sure topics, and solely with sure folks (Yue, 2011).
In the event that they selected to giggle, Chinese language folks had been suggested to giggle gently. Chinese language ladies had been suggested to cowl their mouths with their palms (Lin, 1934). In brief, owing to Confucian considerations
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # three
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
for sustaining correct social order and hierarchy, correct humor is “a type of personal, average, good-natured, tasteful, and didactically helpful mirth” (Xu, 2011, p. 70). Consequently, Chinese language folks have lengthy scorned public humor. Confucian moralists feared that after humorous writing kinds unfold, life would lose its seriousness, and sophistry would overturn orthodoxy (Yue, 2010, 2011; Pattern, 2011).
Although humor has thrived in China for the reason that downfall of the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), Chinese language persons are nonetheless closely influenced by cultural biases in opposition to public humor which can be deeply rooted in Confucianism (Davis, 2011; Xu, 2011). For instance, humor has been constantly omitted from the checklist of qualities required for being a typical and inventive Chinese language thinker (Rudowicz and Yue, 2000, 2003; Rudowicz, 2003; Yue et al., 2006; Yue, 2011). Loud laughter tends to make Chinese language folks really feel nervous and uncomfortable (Liao, 1998). As well as, Chinese language college students have a tendency to contemplate themselves as being much less humorous than Canadian college students, they usually have a tendency to make use of much less humor to deal with stress (Chen and Martin, 2005). Equally, American college students rated sexual and aggressive jokes as funnier than Singaporean Chinese language college students who most well-liked innocent humor (Nevo et al., 2001). These findings help the declare that Chinese language favor a “considerate smile” to “hilarious laughter” (Lin, 1974). Thus, it’s no shock that Premier Wen would reply sternly to the shoe-throwing incident to maintain his dignity.
In line with these observations, Yue (2011) systematically reviewed Chinese language perceptions and recognized three Chinese language ambivalences towards humor. First, the Chinese language are inclined to worth humor however devalue humor as a trait of self. Chinese language conventional social norms worth seriousness, so Chinese language folks are inclined to worry that being humorous will jeopardize their social standing. As an illustration, though Chinese language undergraduates self-reported that humor is essential in on a regular basis life, they reported that they weren’t humorous themselves (Yue et al., 2006; Yue, 2011). Second, as Yue (2011) defined, being humorous is inappropriate for orthodox Chinese language as a result of Confucianism has equated humor with mental shallowness and social informality (Yue, 2010). For instance, Chinese language college students don’t rank humor as attribute of a really perfect Chinese language character (Rudowicz and Yue, 2003; Yue et al., 2006). Chen (1985) argued that Chinese language jokes have all the time targeted on “denial humor” that criticizes actuality and “complimentary humor” that praises actuality, in distinction with the “pure humor” that makes folks giggle in Western jokes. Third, the Chinese language are inclined to consider that humor is essential however just for skilled entertainers with unique experience and particular expertise.
Though the 4 kinds of humor have been examined cross- culturally, few empirical research have examined cross-cultural di�erences on normal humor perceptions (e.g., Nevo et al., 2001; Jiang et al., 2011). Jiang et al. (2011) discovered that Chinese language undergraduates tended to affiliate humor with disagreeable adjectives and seriousness with nice adjectives; the other was true for American undergraduates. Such a discovering signifies that Westerners and Chinese language could maintain di�erent views towards humor on the whole. As well as, little work has been performed to supply a complete image of the cultural di�erences on humor notion. Subsequently, we performed two research
to systematically confirm the proposed dichotomy between the Western and Chinese language view on humor.
OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH
Two research had been performed to look at Western versus Chinese language views on humor. In Examine 1, Hong Kong Chinese language individuals (bicultural samples) had been first primed with both Western tradition icons or Chinese language tradition icons. Then they had been requested to make use of adjectives from an inventory to explain a humorous particular person. We anticipated the priming with Western tradition icons would trigger Hong Kong individuals to assign considerably extra optimistic adjectives, whereas the priming with Chinese language tradition icons would have the other e�ect. In Examine 2a, individuals from Canada and China had been requested to charge the significance of humor, self-humor, and humorousness. We anticipated that the Chinese language would give considerably decrease rankings to all three. In Examine 2b, individuals from Canada and China had been requested to determine the names and occupations of as much as three humorous individuals. We anticipated that Canadian individuals would nominate considerably extra unusual folks than Chinese language individuals, and Chinese language individuals would nominate considerably extra humor-relevant specialists similar to comedians and cartoonists. Taken collectively, we hoped to seek out constant findings for the proposed dichotomy between Western and Chinese language views on humor.
STUDY 1
We performed Examine 1 as a between topic design by priming Chinese language and Western cultural di�erences. Bicultural Hong Kong persons are thought-about acceptable for cultural priming research. (For particulars, see Hong et al., 2000). Our goal was to find out whether or not research individuals uncovered to photos related to Chinese language or Western tradition can be induced to understand di�erent qualities in a humorous particular person.
Technique Individuals and Design
Ninety-six Hong Kong faculty college students (31 males, 65 ladies) had been recruited. They averaged 24.01 years previous (SD = three.78 years). Individuals had been randomly assigned to 2 experimental teams: the Chinese language picture-priming situation or the Western picture-priming situation. Following the priming (about 15 s), individuals had been requested to guage a humorous particular person by selecting from an inventory of 40 adjectives (Zhang et al., 1998). Oral directions got in Chinese language and English and had been counterbalanced throughout the priming situation to cut back potential language biases (e.g., Meier and Cheng, 2004). After the experiment, all individuals had been debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.
Supplies and Procedures
Priming We used 26 priming photos, 13 for every tradition (Figures 1 and a couple of), from priming supplies developed by Ng and Lai (2009) and primarily based on the work of Hong et al. (2000). Furthermore, the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org three October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # eight
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
whereas Westerners worth it (Kuiper et al., 2010). The di�erent cultural views could result in cultural biases. As an illustration, Chinese language youngsters are inclined to see humor as aggressive and disruptive (Chen et al., 1992). Consequently, People and Chinese language who attempt to talk cross culturally many discover that cultural variations concerning humor could disrupt their communications.
Third, we aren’t saying that Chinese language folks lack humor. Quite the opposite, considerable proof reveals that humor has been widespread and fashionable all through Chinese language historical past (Xiao, 1996). As a substitute, we argue that Confucian biases have induced public humor to be extra “in deeds than in phrases, extra practiced than preached” in China (Kao, 1974, p. xxii). Thus, earlier than a Chinese language chief similar to Wen Jiabao might joke about an embarrassing state of affairs, the overall Chinese language inhabitants should first see humor as optimistic and fascinating. They need to transcend Confucian puritanism that frowns on humor and as a substitute study to worth, admire, and use humor at any time when and wherever attainable (Chen and Martin, 2005; Yue, 2010, 2011).
As Lin Yutang stated, “the key of humor is to be pure and to be oneself, to face oneself within the mirror and to tear down the hypocritical disguise” (Qian, 2011, p. 211). In spite of everything, the flexibility to giggle at ourselves comes from broad-minded detachment concerning our personal imperfections. And this stays to be additional examined in later research.
Limitations and Future Instructions The present research has a number of inherent limitations that ought to be famous. First, Hong Kong Chinese language, not Mainland Chinese language, participated in Examine 2. As Hong Kong is extremely westernized, the scholars could not completely signify Chinese language society. The findings could lend credence to the expectation that Mainland Chinese language will present even higher di�erences with Westerners. Consequently, future investigations ought to replicate the present findings with extra Mainland Chinese language samples. Second, though the outcomes of Examine 2a are according to what we present in Research 1 and 2b, it nonetheless bears the contamination of culture-related response biases (e.g., Chen et al., 1995; Heine et al., 2002). As we all know, folks from di�erent cultures have a tendency to make use of di�erent referents of their self-reported values. Thus, Canadians within the present analysis evaluated humor compared with different Canadians, whereas Chinese language evaluated humor compared with different Chinese language. As well as, Chinese language are extra possible than Canadians to make use of the midpoint on self-reported scales (e.g., Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Chen et al., 1995). For future investigations, it will be essential to measure individuals’ analysis on each humor and seriousness. In doing so, we are able to look at the di�erences of ranking patterns as a substitute of direct ranking scores between Chinese language and Canadians. In different phrases,
it permits us to research whether or not Canadian individuals would charge humor as being extra essential to them than being critical, whereas the other sample can be true for Chinese language individuals. Third, the nomination methodology (Examine 2b) helped to validate the 2 contrasting views of humor between the West and the East, however social media influences and leisure improvement might be confounding elements (e.g., Buijzen and Valkenburg, 2004). Subsequently, future research ought to management for interfering elements. Fourth, all samples had been confined to school college students. For broader generalization, future research ought to recruit individuals of varied ages and from numerous backgrounds.
CONCLUSION
The present analysis supplies new proof and a broader perspective for finding out cultural di�erences concerning humor notion. Westerners view humor as a generally owned trait and as a optimistic disposition for self-actualization. In distinction, the Chinese language think about humor to be restricted to humor professionals and fewer fascinating for social interactions. Two research using priming paradigm, questionnaire measurement, and nomination approach introduced on this paper reveal the dichotomy. We hope that these findings stimulate future research that enterprise additional into the frontier space of humor.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors conceptualized the manuscript, XY and FJ wrote the primary full draft, XY and SL contributed extra writing, FJ, SL, and NH contributed knowledge assortment and Assessment, all authors edited the manuscript and accredited the ultimate model.
FUNDING
The present work was supported by Analysis grant of Metropolis College of Hong Kong (No. 7004315) awarded to XY, and Nationwide Pure Science Basis of China awarded to FJ (No.71401190) and SL (No.71401036).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We want to thanks Mr. Chun Wing Lai for serving to knowledge assortment.
REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1961). Sample and Progress in Persona. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston. Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Method. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell College Press. BBC (2008). Footwear Thrown at Bush on Iraq Journey. Obtainable at: http://information.bbc.co.uk/
2/hello/7782422.stm
Bier, J. (1968). The Rise and Fall of American Humor. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Blair, W., and Hill, H. (1978). America’s Humor: From Poor Richard to Doonesbury. New York, NY: Oxford College Press.
Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., and Balshine, S. (2006). Manufacturing and appreciation of humor as sexually chosen traits. Evol. Hum. Behav. 27, 121–130. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.09.Zero01
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org eight October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 9
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
Buijzen, M., and Valkenburg, P. M. (2004). Creating a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media Psychol. 6, 147–167. doi: 10.1207/ s1532785xmep0602_2
Cann, A., and Calhoun, L. G. (2001). Perceived character associations with di�erences in humorousness: stereotypes of hypothetical others with excessive or low senses of humor. Humor 14, 117–130. doi: 10.1515/humr.14.2.117
Chen, C., Lee, S. Y., and Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response fashion and cross-cultural comparisons of ranking scales amongst East Asian and North American college students. Psychol. Sci. 6, 170–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x
Chen, C. C. (1985). A Examine of Historical Chinese language Jokes (in Chinese language). Grasp’s thesis, Nationwide Taiwan Regular College, Taipei.
Chen, G. H., and Martin, R. D. (2005). Coping humor of 354 Chinese language college college students. Chin. Psychological Well being J. 19, 307–309.
Chen, G. H., and Martin, R. D. (2007). A comparability of humor kinds, coping humor, and psychological well being between Chinese language and Canadian college college students. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 20, 215–234. doi: 10.1515/HUMOR. 2007.Zero11
Chen, X., Rubin, Ok. H., and Solar, Y. (1992). Social fame and peer relationships in Chinese language and Canadian youngsters: a cross-cultural research. Youngster Dev. 63, 1336–1343. doi: 10.2307/1131559
Chey, J. (2011). “Youmo and Chinese language humorousness,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 1–29.
China View (2009). Premier Wen Dismisses Shoe-Throwing. Obtainable at: http://information.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/04/content_10761937.htm
Davis, J. (2011). “The Concept of Humours and the Conventional Chinese language Drugs,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 31–36.
Decker, W. H. (1987). Managerial humor and subordinate satisfaction. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 15, 225–232. doi: 10.2224/sbp.1987.15.2.225
Fraley, B., and Aron, A. (2004). The e�ect of a shared humorous expertise on closeness in preliminary encounters. Pers. Relat. 11, 61–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1475- 6811.2004.00071.x
Freud, S. (1928). Humor. Int. J. Psychoanal. 9, 1–6. Galloway, G., and Cropley, A. (1999). Advantages of humor for psychological well being:
empirical findings and instructions for additional analysis. Humor 12, 301–314. doi: 10.1515/humr.1999.12.three.301
Grant, M. A. (1924/1970). The Historical Rhetorical Theories of the Laughable: the Greek Rhetoricians and Cicero. Madison, WI: College of Wisconsin Research in Language and Literature.
Grisa�e, C., Blom, L. C., and Burke, Ok. L. (2003). The e�ects of head and Helpant coaches’ makes use of of humor on collegiate soccer gamers’ analysis of their coaches. J. Sport Behav. 26, 103–108.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. Am. Psychol. 5, 444–454. doi: 10.1037/h00 63487
Hansen, S. L., and Hicks, M. W. (1980). Intercourse position attitudes and perceived dating- mating decisions of youth. Adolescence 15, 83–90.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, Ok., and Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s unsuitable with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective likert scales? The reference- group e�ect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 903–918. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514. 82.6.903
Herzog, T. R., and Strevey, S. J. (2008). Contact with nature, humorousness, and psychological well-being. Environ. Behav. 40, 747–776. doi: 10.1177/0013916507308524
Hong, Y. I., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., and Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multi- cultural minds: a dynamic constructivist strategy to tradition and cognition. Am. Psychol. 55, 709–720. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.709
Jiang, F., Yue, X. D., and Lu, S. (2011). Di�erent attitudes in direction of humor between Chinese language and American college students: proof from the implicit affiliation check. Psychol. Rep. 109, 99–107. doi: 10.2466/09.17.21.PR0.109.four.99-107
Kao, G. (1974). Chinese language Wit and Humor. New York, NY: Sterling. Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., and Kirsh, G. (2004). Humor will not be all the time
the perfect medication: particular elements of humorousness and psychological well-being. Humor 17, 135–168. doi: 10.1515/humr.2004.002
Kuiper, N. A., Kazarian, S. S., Sine, J., and Bassil, M. (2010). The affect of humor in North American versus Center East cultures. Eur. J. Psychol. 6, 149–173. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v6i3.212
Kuiper, N. A., and Martin, R. A. (1998). “Humorousness–A optimistic character attribute,” in Sense of Humor: Explorations of Optimistic Persona Attribute, ed. W. Ruch (New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter), 159–178.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The Psychology of Dwelling Buoyantly. New York, NY: Kluwer Tutorial.
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, Ok., Shepherd, R., Phillips, M., Prkachin, Ok., and Mills, D. (1995). Perspective-taking humor: accounting for stress moderation. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 14, 373–391. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1995.14.four.373
Liao, C. C. (1998). Jokes, Humor and Chinese language Individuals. Taipei: Crane. Liao, C. C. (2003). Humor versus huaji. J. Lang. Linguist. 2, 25–46. Liao, C. C. (2007). One facet of Taiwanese and American sense of humour:
attitudes towards pranks. J. Humanit. Res. 2, 289–324. Liao, C. C., Chang, T. C., and Ming, Y. C. (2006). Humorousness: people
vs taiwanese. Paper Offered at 18th Worldwide Society of Humor Research Convention, Copenhagen: Danish College of Schooling.
Lin, Y. T. (1934). On humor. Analects Fortnightly 33, 434–438. Lin, Y. T. (1974). “Introduction to Chinese language wit and humor,” in Chinese language wit and
humor, ed. G. Kao (New York, NY: Sterling). Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. (1991). Tradition and the self: implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Martin, R. A. (2002). Is laughter the perfect medication? Humor, laughter, and bodily well being. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11, 216–220. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721. 00204
Martin, R. A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Method. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Tutorial Press.
Maslow, A. (1968). Towards a Psychology of Being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McDougall, W. (1922). A brand new idea of laughter. Psyche 2, 292–303. Meier, M. Ok., and Cheng, B. Y. M. (2004). Language and self-construal priming:
a replication and extension in a Hong Kong pattern. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35, 705–712. doi: 10.1177/0022022104270112
Mettee, D. R., Hrelec, E. S., and Wilkens, P. C. (1971). Humor as an interpersonal asset and legal responsibility. J. Social Psychol. 85, 51–64. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1971.9918544
Mindess, H., Miller, C., Turek, J., Bender, A., and Corbin, S. (1985). The Antioch Humor Take a look at: Making Sense of Humor. New York, NY: Avon.
Mintz, L. E. (1983). “Humor and fashionable tradition,” in Handbook of Humor Analysis, eds P. E. McGhee and J. H. Goldstein (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag).
Moran, C., and Massam, M. M. (1999). Di�erential influences of coping humor and humor bias on temper. Behav. Med. 25, 36–42. doi: 10.1080/089642899095 96737
Nevo, O., Nevo, B., and Yin, J. L. (2001). Singaporean humor: a cross- cultural, cross-gender comparability. J. Gen. Psychol. 128, 143–156. doi: 10.1080/00221300109598904
Ng, S. H., and Lai, J. C. (2009). E�ects of tradition priming on the social connectedness of the bicultural self: a self-reference e�ect strategy. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 40, 170–186. doi: 10.1177/0022022108328818
Priest, R. F., and Swain, J. E. (2002). Humor and its implications for management e�ectiveness. Humor 15, 169–189. doi: 10.1515/humr.2002.Zero10
Qian, S. (2011). “Discovering humor in trendy china,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 192–218.
Regan, P. C., and Joshi, A. (2003). Ultimate accomplice preferences amongst adolescents. Soc. Behav. Pers. 31, 13–20. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2003.31.1.13
Richards, R. (1990). On a regular basis creativity, eminent creativity, and well being: aftervie” for CRJ points on creativity and well being. Creat. Res. J. three, 300–326. doi: 10.1080/10400419009534363
Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and tradition: a two approach interplay. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 47, 273–290. doi: 10.1080/00313830308602
Rudowicz, E., and Yue, X. D. (2000). Ideas of creativity: similarities and di�erences amongst Hong Kong, Mainland and Taiwanese Chinese language. J. Creat. Behav. 34, 175–192. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01210.x
Rudowicz, E., and Yue, X. D. (2003). Compatibility of Chinese language and inventive personalities. Creat. Res. J. 14, 387–394. doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ 1434_9
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 10
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
Pattern, J. (2011). “Contextualizing Lin Yutang’s essay on humor,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 169–189.
Simpson, J. A., and Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. New York, NY: Oxford College Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and knowledge. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49, 607–627. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49. three.607
Sully, J. (1902). Essays on Laughter. New York, NY: Longmans, Inexperienced. Triandis, H. C., and Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal
and vertical individualism and collectivism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 118–128. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118
Walsh, J. J. (1928). Laughter and Well being. New York, NY: Appleton. Xiao, L. (1996). Chinese language Humorous Tales (in Chinese language). Beijing: Chinese language
Broadcasting Press. Xu, W. (2011). “The classical confucian ideas of human emotion and correct
humour,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 50–71.
Yue, X. D. (2010). Exploration of Chinese language humor: historic assessment, empirical findings, and significant reflections. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 23, 403–420.
Yue, X. D. (2011). The Chinese language ambivalence to humor: views from undergraduates in Hong Kong and China. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 24, 463–480. doi: 10.1515/humr.2011.Zero26
Yue, X. D., Hao, X., Lan, L., and Yan, F. (2006). Humor and youth empowerment: a self-cultivation strategy, Paper Offered on the 2nd Worldwide Convention on Youth Empowerment, Pok Fu Lam: Metropolis College of Hong Kong.
Zhang, Z. Y., Wang, L., and Qi, M. (1998). Primary dimensions of Chinese language character traits: an element Assessment of the self description in a pattern of Chinese language faculty college students. Acta Psychol. Sin. 30, 85–92.
Battle of Curiosity Assertion: The authors declare that the analysis was performed within the absence of any industrial or monetary relationships that might be construed as a possible battle of curiosity.
Copyright © 2016 Yue, Jiang, Lu and Hiranandani. That is an open-access article distributed below the phrases of the Inventive Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or copy in different boards is permitted, offered the unique writer(s) or licensor are credited and that the unique publication on this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted educational apply. No use, distribution or copy is permitted which doesn’t adjust to these phrases.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
Taiwan Chris Sinha,
Hunan College, UK
*Correspondence:
Feng Jiang fengjiang0205@gmail.com
Specialty part:
This text was submitted to Cultural Psychology,
a bit of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Acquired: 04 Might 2016 Accepted: 16 September 2016
Printed: 04 October 2016
Quotation:
Yue X, Jiang F, Lu S and Hiranandani N (2016) To Be or Not To
Be Humorous? Cross Cultural Views on Humor. Entrance. Psychol. 7:1495.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.Zero1495
To Be or Not To Be Humorous? Cross Cultural Views on Humor Xiaodong Yue1, Feng Jiang2*, Su Lu3 and Neelam Hiranandani1
1 Division of Social Science, Metropolis College of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2 Division of Group and Human Sources Administration, Central College of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China, three Division of Human Sources Administration, College of Worldwide Enterprise and Economics, Beijing, China
Humor appears to manifest in another way in Western and Japanese cultures, though little is thought about how tradition shapes humor perceptions. The authors recommend that Westerners regard humor as a standard and optimistic disposition; the Chinese language regard humor as a particular disposition specific to humorists, with controversial points. In Examine 1, Hong Kong individuals primed with Western tradition consider humor extra positively than they do when primed with Chinese language tradition. In Examine 2a, Canadians consider humor as being extra essential compared with Chinese language individuals. In Examine 2b, Canadians anticipate unusual folks to own humor, whereas Chinese language anticipate specialised comedians to be humorous. The implications and limitations are mentioned.
Key phrases: Chinese language, humor notion, humor analysis, cultural priming, Western
INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2008, an Iraqi journalist startled attendees at a press convention on the prime minister’s palace in Baghdad, Iraq, by throwing a shoe at U.S. President George W. Bush. After the incident, Bush joked: “If you’d like the info, it’s a measurement 10” (BBC, 2008). A number of weeks later, on February 2, 2009, a scholar threw a shoe at Chinese language Premier Wen Jiabao as he was giving a speech on the College of Cambridge. The coed was faraway from the lecture corridor, however Premier Wen was not amused: “this despicable conduct will do nothing to carry again the friendship of the Chinese language and British folks” (China View, 2009). Two leaders, Western and Chinese language, and two vastly di�erent reactions to an sudden insult, one humorous and one critical: the incidents spotlight culturally di�erent attitudes towards humor, the topic of this text.
Humor is a broad and multifaceted idea. The Oxford English dictionary defines humor as “the school of observing what’s ludicrous or amusing or of expressing it; jocose creativeness or therapy of a topic” (SOED, third version). Humor encompasses amusement and comedian reactions (Simpson and Weiner, 1989), psychological cognitive value determinations comprising perceptions of playful incongruity, mirthful feelings, and vocal-behavioral expressions of laughter (Martin, 2007, p. 10). Though humor is a common human expertise, folks of di�erent societies understand and use humor di�erently (Martin, 2007; Yue, 2010). Within the context of cross-cultural di�erences between Westerners and the Chinese language, Decide Wu stated: “Whereas Westerners are critically humorous, Chinese language persons are humorously critical” (quoted in Kao, 1974, p. xviii).
Types of humor are categorized as self-enhancing, a�liative, self-defeating, and aggressive (Kuiper et al., 2004; Martin, 2007). The 4 humor sorts have been investigated throughout cultures to indicate that each Westerners and Easterners are saddened and repelled by aggressive humor (Kuiper et al., 2010). North People react positively to self-enhancing humor, whereas Easterners don’t (Kuiper et al., 2004; Chen and Martin, 2005). The cultural di�erences are attributed to the Western individualistic versus Japanese collectivistic cultural distinctions. In different phrases, Easterners have a
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 2
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
collectivistic orientation that blurs the excellence between self and others in order that they’ve weaker perceptions concerning self- oriented (self-enhancing) and other-oriented (a�liative) humor.
Usually, Western people tolerate and use humor greater than Chinese language people do (e.g., Liao, 1998; Chen and Martin, 2007; Davis, 2011; Yue, 2011). Analysis has targeted on particular humor kinds however not on normal perceptions of humor. The shoe- throwing incidents that sparked such numerous reactions impressed us to look at how folks from di�erent cultural backgrounds view humor on the whole, reasonably than specializing in the particular kinds. We suggest that Westerners will see humor as a optimistic disposition that enhances self-actualization and interpersonal relationships, and that everybody possesses the favored trait (e.g., Maslow, 1968; Martin, 2007). In distinction, the Chinese language will view humor as a controversial disposition in social interactions and a character trait possessed largely by specialists in humor- associated fields (e.g., Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010, 2011; Davis, 2011; Xu, 2011). Subsequent we current an in depth description of the 2 views on humor.
The Western View on Humor Westerners are inclined to take humor as a pure function of life and to make use of it wherever and at any time when attainable (Apte, 1985). The truth is, Westerners have valued humor for the reason that period of Plato and Aristotle as a pure expression of amusement, enjoyable, and enjoyment of social interactions (Grant, 1924/1970). The 19th and early 20th centuries are considered the start of a golden age of humor, significantly for American society (Bier, 1968; Blair and Hill, 1978):
Humor is ubiquitous in American society and nothing escapes from changing into its goal. Humor in its quite a few strategies and kinds is directed on the inhabitants by way of all conceivable channels – newsprint, magazines, books, visible and plastic arts, comedy performances, and newbie joke-telling contests, in addition to many kinds of artifacts similar to T-shirts, watches, bumper stickers, greeting playing cards, sculptures, toys, and so forth (Apte, 1985, p. 30).
Freud (1928) posited that humor is an e�ective protection mechanism in opposition to adverse feelings. On one hand, laughter releases extra nervous power; alternatively, humor supplies various views about worry, disappointment, or anger within the face of incongruous or amusing elements (Martin, 2007). Early 20th century Western psychologists argued that humor and laughter improve human well being (e.g., Sully, 1902; McDougall, 1922), promote creativity (e.g., Guilford, 1950; Richards, 1990), and strengthen coping and optimism (e.g., Walsh, 1928).
Western analysis reveals that humor might be an indispensable “panacea” in day by day life to facilitate coping (e.g., Lefcourt et al., 1995; Kuiper and Martin, 1998; Moran and Massam, 1999; Lefcourt, 2001), promote impression administration (e.g., Mettee et al., 1971), and improve interpersonal attraction (e.g., Fraley and Aron, 2004). As well as, Westerners have a tendency to treat humor as a core trait of self-actualization (Maslow, 1968; Mintz, 1983; Mindess et al., 1985) and a necessary attribute of creativity (Guilford, 1950; Sternberg, 1985).
Furthermore, within the West, people who have interaction in humorous conduct are sometimes perceived as optimistic and engaging (Bressler et al., 2006). Westerners are inclined to charge humor as a really perfect and significant private attribute for relationship or romantic companions (Hansen and Hicks, 1980; Regan and Joshi, 2003). Past romantic a�liations, Westerners have optimistic perceptions about humorous people. For instance, a research in organizational contexts revealed that subordinates view humorous supervisors as extra motivating, assured, pleasant, clever, and nice leaders (Decker, 1987; Priest and Swain, 2002). Equally, in aggressive sports activities contexts, gamers needed to play for a humorous coach and perceived the coach as competent (Grisa�e et al., 2003). In brief, in Western society, individuals who have a humorousness are positively perceived as extra extroverted and socially fascinating; in distinction, those that lack a humorousness draw adverse perceptions (Allport, 1961; Cann and Calhoun, 2001; Priest and Swain, 2002).
As such, it’s no shock that President Bush joked in regards to the measurement of the shoe that was thrown at him. True to Western perceptions of humor, he demonstrated wit and charisma within the face of an embarrassing state of affairs.
The Chinese language View on Humor In China, humor was first documented about 2,000 years in the past (Yue, 2010; Chey, 2011; Davis, 2011). The Chinese language time period huaji is regarded instead phrase for humor that means wit, irony, and sarcasm (Chen, 1985; Liao, 2003). The earliest type of Chinese language humor might be pai shuo, which suggests small discuss or jokes (see Yue, 2010, for a assessment). Within the 1920s, Lin Yu-tang (1895–1976), a widely known author and scholar, used the Chinese language character youmo because the Chinese language model of humor. Since then, youmo has extensively represented wit, irony, and hilarity (Lin, 1974).
Though humor has a gone, for the previous 2000 years it has been devalued below Confucianism (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010, 2011; Xu, 2011). Lin (1974) used the time period Confucian Puritanism to depict how humor was despised:
Confucian decorum put a damper on gentle, humorous writing, in addition to on all imaginative literature, besides poetry. Drama and the novel had been despised as unworthy of a decent scholar’s occupation…… This puritanical, austere public perspective has endured to today (Lin, 1974, p. xxxi).
As such, the Confucian approach of a gentleman requires restraint from laughter to reveal dignity and social formality (Yue, 2010; Xu, 2011). The Confucian doctrine of moderation advocates in opposition to hilarious laughter as a result of it expresses excessive emotion (Liao, 1998). The Confucian orthodox literary writings forbade humorous expressions as being beneath correct literature (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010; Qian, 2011). Confucius even stated “a person must be critical to be revered” (Liao, 2007). Because of this, the Chinese language really feel that they need to giggle solely at sure occasions, along with sure topics, and solely with sure folks (Yue, 2011).
In the event that they selected to giggle, Chinese language folks had been suggested to giggle gently. Chinese language ladies had been suggested to cowl their mouths with their palms (Lin, 1934). In brief, owing to Confucian considerations
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # three
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
for sustaining correct social order and hierarchy, correct humor is “a type of personal, average, good-natured, tasteful, and didactically helpful mirth” (Xu, 2011, p. 70). Consequently, Chinese language folks have lengthy scorned public humor. Confucian moralists feared that after humorous writing kinds unfold, life would lose its seriousness, and sophistry would overturn orthodoxy (Yue, 2010, 2011; Pattern, 2011).
Although humor has thrived in China for the reason that downfall of the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), Chinese language persons are nonetheless closely influenced by cultural biases in opposition to public humor which can be deeply rooted in Confucianism (Davis, 2011; Xu, 2011). For instance, humor has been constantly omitted from the checklist of qualities required for being a typical and inventive Chinese language thinker (Rudowicz and Yue, 2000, 2003; Rudowicz, 2003; Yue et al., 2006; Yue, 2011). Loud laughter tends to make Chinese language folks really feel nervous and uncomfortable (Liao, 1998). As well as, Chinese language college students have a tendency to contemplate themselves as being much less humorous than Canadian college students, they usually have a tendency to make use of much less humor to deal with stress (Chen and Martin, 2005). Equally, American college students rated sexual and aggressive jokes as funnier than Singaporean Chinese language college students who most well-liked innocent humor (Nevo et al., 2001). These findings help the declare that Chinese language favor a “considerate smile” to “hilarious laughter” (Lin, 1974). Thus, it’s no shock that Premier Wen would reply sternly to the shoe-throwing incident to maintain his dignity.
In line with these observations, Yue (2011) systematically reviewed Chinese language perceptions and recognized three Chinese language ambivalences towards humor. First, the Chinese language are inclined to worth humor however devalue humor as a trait of self. Chinese language conventional social norms worth seriousness, so Chinese language folks are inclined to worry that being humorous will jeopardize their social standing. As an illustration, though Chinese language undergraduates self-reported that humor is essential in on a regular basis life, they reported that they weren’t humorous themselves (Yue et al., 2006; Yue, 2011). Second, as Yue (2011) defined, being humorous is inappropriate for orthodox Chinese language as a result of Confucianism has equated humor with mental shallowness and social informality (Yue, 2010). For instance, Chinese language college students don’t rank humor as attribute of a really perfect Chinese language character (Rudowicz and Yue, 2003; Yue et al., 2006). Chen (1985) argued that Chinese language jokes have all the time targeted on “denial humor” that criticizes actuality and “complimentary humor” that praises actuality, in distinction with the “pure humor” that makes folks giggle in Western jokes. Third, the Chinese language are inclined to consider that humor is essential however just for skilled entertainers with unique experience and particular expertise.
Though the 4 kinds of humor have been examined cross- culturally, few empirical research have examined cross-cultural di�erences on normal humor perceptions (e.g., Nevo et al., 2001; Jiang et al., 2011). Jiang et al. (2011) discovered that Chinese language undergraduates tended to affiliate humor with disagreeable adjectives and seriousness with nice adjectives; the other was true for American undergraduates. Such a discovering signifies that Westerners and Chinese language could maintain di�erent views towards humor on the whole. As well as, little work has been performed to supply a complete image of the cultural di�erences on humor notion. Subsequently, we performed two research
to systematically confirm the proposed dichotomy between the Western and Chinese language view on humor.
OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH
Two research had been performed to look at Western versus Chinese language views on humor. In Examine 1, Hong Kong Chinese language individuals (bicultural samples) had been first primed with both Western tradition icons or Chinese language tradition icons. Then they had been requested to make use of adjectives from an inventory to explain a humorous particular person. We anticipated the priming with Western tradition icons would trigger Hong Kong individuals to assign considerably extra optimistic adjectives, whereas the priming with Chinese language tradition icons would have the other e�ect. In Examine 2a, individuals from Canada and China had been requested to charge the significance of humor, self-humor, and humorousness. We anticipated that the Chinese language would give considerably decrease rankings to all three. In Examine 2b, individuals from Canada and China had been requested to determine the names and occupations of as much as three humorous individuals. We anticipated that Canadian individuals would nominate considerably extra unusual folks than Chinese language individuals, and Chinese language individuals would nominate considerably extra humor-relevant specialists similar to comedians and cartoonists. Taken collectively, we hoped to seek out constant findings for the proposed dichotomy between Western and Chinese language views on humor.
STUDY 1
We performed Examine 1 as a between topic design by priming Chinese language and Western cultural di�erences. Bicultural Hong Kong persons are thought-about acceptable for cultural priming research. (For particulars, see Hong et al., 2000). Our goal was to find out whether or not research individuals uncovered to photos related to Chinese language or Western tradition can be induced to understand di�erent qualities in a humorous particular person.
Technique Individuals and Design
Ninety-six Hong Kong faculty college students (31 males, 65 ladies) had been recruited. They averaged 24.01 years previous (SD = three.78 years). Individuals had been randomly assigned to 2 experimental teams: the Chinese language picture-priming situation or the Western picture-priming situation. Following the priming (about 15 s), individuals had been requested to guage a humorous particular person by selecting from an inventory of 40 adjectives (Zhang et al., 1998). Oral directions got in Chinese language and English and had been counterbalanced throughout the priming situation to cut back potential language biases (e.g., Meier and Cheng, 2004). After the experiment, all individuals had been debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.
Supplies and Procedures
Priming We used 26 priming photos, 13 for every tradition (Figures 1 and a couple of), from priming supplies developed by Ng and Lai (2009) and primarily based on the work of Hong et al. (2000). Furthermore, the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org three October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # eight
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
whereas Westerners worth it (Kuiper et al., 2010). The di�erent cultural views could result in cultural biases. As an illustration, Chinese language youngsters are inclined to see humor as aggressive and disruptive (Chen et al., 1992). Consequently, People and Chinese language who attempt to talk cross culturally many discover that cultural variations concerning humor could disrupt their communications.
Third, we aren’t saying that Chinese language folks lack humor. Quite the opposite, considerable proof reveals that humor has been widespread and fashionable all through Chinese language historical past (Xiao, 1996). As a substitute, we argue that Confucian biases have induced public humor to be extra “in deeds than in phrases, extra practiced than preached” in China (Kao, 1974, p. xxii). Thus, earlier than a Chinese language chief similar to Wen Jiabao might joke about an embarrassing state of affairs, the overall Chinese language inhabitants should first see humor as optimistic and fascinating. They need to transcend Confucian puritanism that frowns on humor and as a substitute study to worth, admire, and use humor at any time when and wherever attainable (Chen and Martin, 2005; Yue, 2010, 2011).
As Lin Yutang stated, “the key of humor is to be pure and to be oneself, to face oneself within the mirror and to tear down the hypocritical disguise” (Qian, 2011, p. 211). In spite of everything, the flexibility to giggle at ourselves comes from broad-minded detachment concerning our personal imperfections. And this stays to be additional examined in later research.
Limitations and Future Instructions The present research has a number of inherent limitations that ought to be famous. First, Hong Kong Chinese language, not Mainland Chinese language, participated in Examine 2. As Hong Kong is extremely westernized, the scholars could not completely signify Chinese language society. The findings could lend credence to the expectation that Mainland Chinese language will present even higher di�erences with Westerners. Consequently, future investigations ought to replicate the present findings with extra Mainland Chinese language samples. Second, though the outcomes of Examine 2a are according to what we present in Research 1 and 2b, it nonetheless bears the contamination of culture-related response biases (e.g., Chen et al., 1995; Heine et al., 2002). As we all know, folks from di�erent cultures have a tendency to make use of di�erent referents of their self-reported values. Thus, Canadians within the present analysis evaluated humor compared with different Canadians, whereas Chinese language evaluated humor compared with different Chinese language. As well as, Chinese language are extra possible than Canadians to make use of the midpoint on self-reported scales (e.g., Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Chen et al., 1995). For future investigations, it will be essential to measure individuals’ analysis on each humor and seriousness. In doing so, we are able to look at the di�erences of ranking patterns as a substitute of direct ranking scores between Chinese language and Canadians. In different phrases,
it permits us to research whether or not Canadian individuals would charge humor as being extra essential to them than being critical, whereas the other sample can be true for Chinese language individuals. Third, the nomination methodology (Examine 2b) helped to validate the 2 contrasting views of humor between the West and the East, however social media influences and leisure improvement might be confounding elements (e.g., Buijzen and Valkenburg, 2004). Subsequently, future research ought to management for interfering elements. Fourth, all samples had been confined to school college students. For broader generalization, future research ought to recruit individuals of varied ages and from numerous backgrounds.
CONCLUSION
The present analysis supplies new proof and a broader perspective for finding out cultural di�erences concerning humor notion. Westerners view humor as a generally owned trait and as a optimistic disposition for self-actualization. In distinction, the Chinese language think about humor to be restricted to humor professionals and fewer fascinating for social interactions. Two research using priming paradigm, questionnaire measurement, and nomination approach introduced on this paper reveal the dichotomy. We hope that these findings stimulate future research that enterprise additional into the frontier space of humor.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors conceptualized the manuscript, XY and FJ wrote the primary full draft, XY and SL contributed extra writing, FJ, SL, and NH contributed knowledge assortment and Assessment, all authors edited the manuscript and accredited the ultimate model.
FUNDING
The present work was supported by Analysis grant of Metropolis College of Hong Kong (No. 7004315) awarded to XY, and Nationwide Pure Science Basis of China awarded to FJ (No.71401190) and SL (No.71401036).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We want to thanks Mr. Chun Wing Lai for serving to knowledge assortment.
REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1961). Sample and Progress in Persona. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston. Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Method. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell College Press. BBC (2008). Footwear Thrown at Bush on Iraq Journey. Obtainable at: http://information.bbc.co.uk/
2/hello/7782422.stm
Bier, J. (1968). The Rise and Fall of American Humor. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Blair, W., and Hill, H. (1978). America’s Humor: From Poor Richard to Doonesbury. New York, NY: Oxford College Press.
Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., and Balshine, S. (2006). Manufacturing and appreciation of humor as sexually chosen traits. Evol. Hum. Behav. 27, 121–130. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.09.Zero01
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org eight October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 9
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
Buijzen, M., and Valkenburg, P. M. (2004). Creating a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media Psychol. 6, 147–167. doi: 10.1207/ s1532785xmep0602_2
Cann, A., and Calhoun, L. G. (2001). Perceived character associations with di�erences in humorousness: stereotypes of hypothetical others with excessive or low senses of humor. Humor 14, 117–130. doi: 10.1515/humr.14.2.117
Chen, C., Lee, S. Y., and Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response fashion and cross-cultural comparisons of ranking scales amongst East Asian and North American college students. Psychol. Sci. 6, 170–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x
Chen, C. C. (1985). A Examine of Historical Chinese language Jokes (in Chinese language). Grasp’s thesis, Nationwide Taiwan Regular College, Taipei.
Chen, G. H., and Martin, R. D. (2005). Coping humor of 354 Chinese language college college students. Chin. Psychological Well being J. 19, 307–309.
Chen, G. H., and Martin, R. D. (2007). A comparability of humor kinds, coping humor, and psychological well being between Chinese language and Canadian college college students. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 20, 215–234. doi: 10.1515/HUMOR. 2007.Zero11
Chen, X., Rubin, Ok. H., and Solar, Y. (1992). Social fame and peer relationships in Chinese language and Canadian youngsters: a cross-cultural research. Youngster Dev. 63, 1336–1343. doi: 10.2307/1131559
Chey, J. (2011). “Youmo and Chinese language humorousness,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 1–29.
China View (2009). Premier Wen Dismisses Shoe-Throwing. Obtainable at: http://information.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/04/content_10761937.htm
Davis, J. (2011). “The Concept of Humours and the Conventional Chinese language Drugs,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 31–36.
Decker, W. H. (1987). Managerial humor and subordinate satisfaction. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 15, 225–232. doi: 10.2224/sbp.1987.15.2.225
Fraley, B., and Aron, A. (2004). The e�ect of a shared humorous expertise on closeness in preliminary encounters. Pers. Relat. 11, 61–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1475- 6811.2004.00071.x
Freud, S. (1928). Humor. Int. J. Psychoanal. 9, 1–6. Galloway, G., and Cropley, A. (1999). Advantages of humor for psychological well being:
empirical findings and instructions for additional analysis. Humor 12, 301–314. doi: 10.1515/humr.1999.12.three.301
Grant, M. A. (1924/1970). The Historical Rhetorical Theories of the Laughable: the Greek Rhetoricians and Cicero. Madison, WI: College of Wisconsin Research in Language and Literature.
Grisa�e, C., Blom, L. C., and Burke, Ok. L. (2003). The e�ects of head and Helpant coaches’ makes use of of humor on collegiate soccer gamers’ analysis of their coaches. J. Sport Behav. 26, 103–108.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. Am. Psychol. 5, 444–454. doi: 10.1037/h00 63487
Hansen, S. L., and Hicks, M. W. (1980). Intercourse position attitudes and perceived dating- mating decisions of youth. Adolescence 15, 83–90.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, Ok., and Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s unsuitable with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective likert scales? The reference- group e�ect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 903–918. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514. 82.6.903
Herzog, T. R., and Strevey, S. J. (2008). Contact with nature, humorousness, and psychological well-being. Environ. Behav. 40, 747–776. doi: 10.1177/0013916507308524
Hong, Y. I., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., and Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multi- cultural minds: a dynamic constructivist strategy to tradition and cognition. Am. Psychol. 55, 709–720. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.709
Jiang, F., Yue, X. D., and Lu, S. (2011). Di�erent attitudes in direction of humor between Chinese language and American college students: proof from the implicit affiliation check. Psychol. Rep. 109, 99–107. doi: 10.2466/09.17.21.PR0.109.four.99-107
Kao, G. (1974). Chinese language Wit and Humor. New York, NY: Sterling. Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., and Kirsh, G. (2004). Humor will not be all the time
the perfect medication: particular elements of humorousness and psychological well-being. Humor 17, 135–168. doi: 10.1515/humr.2004.002
Kuiper, N. A., Kazarian, S. S., Sine, J., and Bassil, M. (2010). The affect of humor in North American versus Center East cultures. Eur. J. Psychol. 6, 149–173. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v6i3.212
Kuiper, N. A., and Martin, R. A. (1998). “Humorousness–A optimistic character attribute,” in Sense of Humor: Explorations of Optimistic Persona Attribute, ed. W. Ruch (New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter), 159–178.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The Psychology of Dwelling Buoyantly. New York, NY: Kluwer Tutorial.
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, Ok., Shepherd, R., Phillips, M., Prkachin, Ok., and Mills, D. (1995). Perspective-taking humor: accounting for stress moderation. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 14, 373–391. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1995.14.four.373
Liao, C. C. (1998). Jokes, Humor and Chinese language Individuals. Taipei: Crane. Liao, C. C. (2003). Humor versus huaji. J. Lang. Linguist. 2, 25–46. Liao, C. C. (2007). One facet of Taiwanese and American sense of humour:
attitudes towards pranks. J. Humanit. Res. 2, 289–324. Liao, C. C., Chang, T. C., and Ming, Y. C. (2006). Humorousness: people
vs taiwanese. Paper Offered at 18th Worldwide Society of Humor Research Convention, Copenhagen: Danish College of Schooling.
Lin, Y. T. (1934). On humor. Analects Fortnightly 33, 434–438. Lin, Y. T. (1974). “Introduction to Chinese language wit and humor,” in Chinese language wit and
humor, ed. G. Kao (New York, NY: Sterling). Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. (1991). Tradition and the self: implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Martin, R. A. (2002). Is laughter the perfect medication? Humor, laughter, and bodily well being. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11, 216–220. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721. 00204
Martin, R. A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Method. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Tutorial Press.
Maslow, A. (1968). Towards a Psychology of Being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McDougall, W. (1922). A brand new idea of laughter. Psyche 2, 292–303. Meier, M. Ok., and Cheng, B. Y. M. (2004). Language and self-construal priming:
a replication and extension in a Hong Kong pattern. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35, 705–712. doi: 10.1177/0022022104270112
Mettee, D. R., Hrelec, E. S., and Wilkens, P. C. (1971). Humor as an interpersonal asset and legal responsibility. J. Social Psychol. 85, 51–64. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1971.9918544
Mindess, H., Miller, C., Turek, J., Bender, A., and Corbin, S. (1985). The Antioch Humor Take a look at: Making Sense of Humor. New York, NY: Avon.
Mintz, L. E. (1983). “Humor and fashionable tradition,” in Handbook of Humor Analysis, eds P. E. McGhee and J. H. Goldstein (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag).
Moran, C., and Massam, M. M. (1999). Di�erential influences of coping humor and humor bias on temper. Behav. Med. 25, 36–42. doi: 10.1080/089642899095 96737
Nevo, O., Nevo, B., and Yin, J. L. (2001). Singaporean humor: a cross- cultural, cross-gender comparability. J. Gen. Psychol. 128, 143–156. doi: 10.1080/00221300109598904
Ng, S. H., and Lai, J. C. (2009). E�ects of tradition priming on the social connectedness of the bicultural self: a self-reference e�ect strategy. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 40, 170–186. doi: 10.1177/0022022108328818
Priest, R. F., and Swain, J. E. (2002). Humor and its implications for management e�ectiveness. Humor 15, 169–189. doi: 10.1515/humr.2002.Zero10
Qian, S. (2011). “Discovering humor in trendy china,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 192–218.
Regan, P. C., and Joshi, A. (2003). Ultimate accomplice preferences amongst adolescents. Soc. Behav. Pers. 31, 13–20. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2003.31.1.13
Richards, R. (1990). On a regular basis creativity, eminent creativity, and well being: aftervie” for CRJ points on creativity and well being. Creat. Res. J. three, 300–326. doi: 10.1080/10400419009534363
Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and tradition: a two approach interplay. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 47, 273–290. doi: 10.1080/00313830308602
Rudowicz, E., and Yue, X. D. (2000). Ideas of creativity: similarities and di�erences amongst Hong Kong, Mainland and Taiwanese Chinese language. J. Creat. Behav. 34, 175–192. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01210.x
Rudowicz, E., and Yue, X. D. (2003). Compatibility of Chinese language and inventive personalities. Creat. Res. J. 14, 387–394. doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ 1434_9
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 10
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
Pattern, J. (2011). “Contextualizing Lin Yutang’s essay on humor,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 169–189.
Simpson, J. A., and Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. New York, NY: Oxford College Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and knowledge. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49, 607–627. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49. three.607
Sully, J. (1902). Essays on Laughter. New York, NY: Longmans, Inexperienced. Triandis, H. C., and Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal
and vertical individualism and collectivism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 118–128. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118
Walsh, J. J. (1928). Laughter and Well being. New York, NY: Appleton. Xiao, L. (1996). Chinese language Humorous Tales (in Chinese language). Beijing: Chinese language
Broadcasting Press. Xu, W. (2011). “The classical confucian ideas of human emotion and correct
humour,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 50–71.
Yue, X. D. (2010). Exploration of Chinese language humor: historic assessment, empirical findings, and significant reflections. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 23, 403–420.
Yue, X. D. (2011). The Chinese language ambivalence to humor: views from undergraduates in Hong Kong and China. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 24, 463–480. doi: 10.1515/humr.2011.Zero26
Yue, X. D., Hao, X., Lan, L., and Yan, F. (2006). Humor and youth empowerment: a self-cultivation strategy, Paper Offered on the 2nd Worldwide Convention on Youth Empowerment, Pok Fu Lam: Metropolis College of Hong Kong.
Zhang, Z. Y., Wang, L., and Qi, M. (1998). Primary dimensions of Chinese language character traits: an element Assessment of the self description in a pattern of Chinese language faculty college students. Acta Psychol. Sin. 30, 85–92.
Battle of Curiosity Assertion: The authors declare that the analysis was performed within the absence of any industrial or monetary relationships that might be construed as a possible battle of curiosity.
Copyright © 2016 Yue, Jiang, Lu and Hiranandani. That is an open-access article distributed below the phrases of the Inventive Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or copy in different boards is permitted, offered the unique writer(s) or licensor are credited and that the unique publication on this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted educational apply. No use, distribution or copy is permitted which doesn’t adjust to these phrases.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.Zero1495
Edited by:
Vinai Norasakkunkit, Gonzaga College, USA
Reviewed by:
Jenn-Yeu Chen, Nationwide Taiwan Regular College,
Taiwan Chris Sinha,
Hunan College, UK
*Correspondence:
Feng Jiang fengjiang0205@gmail.com
Specialty part:
This text was submitted to Cultural Psychology,
a bit of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Acquired: 04 Might 2016 Accepted: 16 September 2016
Printed: 04 October 2016
Quotation:
Yue X, Jiang F, Lu S and Hiranandani N (2016) To Be or Not To
Be Humorous? Cross Cultural Views on Humor. Entrance. Psychol. 7:1495.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.Zero1495
To Be or Not To Be Humorous? Cross Cultural Views on Humor Xiaodong Yue1, Feng Jiang2*, Su Lu3 and Neelam Hiranandani1
1 Division of Social Science, Metropolis College of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2 Division of Group and Human Sources Administration, Central College of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China, three Division of Human Sources Administration, College of Worldwide Enterprise and Economics, Beijing, China
Humor appears to manifest in another way in Western and Japanese cultures, though little is thought about how tradition shapes humor perceptions. The authors recommend that Westerners regard humor as a standard and optimistic disposition; the Chinese language regard humor as a particular disposition specific to humorists, with controversial points. In Examine 1, Hong Kong individuals primed with Western tradition consider humor extra positively than they do when primed with Chinese language tradition. In Examine 2a, Canadians consider humor as being extra essential compared with Chinese language individuals. In Examine 2b, Canadians anticipate unusual folks to own humor, whereas Chinese language anticipate specialised comedians to be humorous. The implications and limitations are mentioned.
Key phrases: Chinese language, humor notion, humor analysis, cultural priming, Western
INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2008, an Iraqi journalist startled attendees at a press convention on the prime minister’s palace in Baghdad, Iraq, by throwing a shoe at U.S. President George W. Bush. After the incident, Bush joked: “If you’d like the info, it’s a measurement 10” (BBC, 2008). A number of weeks later, on February 2, 2009, a scholar threw a shoe at Chinese language Premier Wen Jiabao as he was giving a speech on the College of Cambridge. The coed was faraway from the lecture corridor, however Premier Wen was not amused: “this despicable conduct will do nothing to carry again the friendship of the Chinese language and British folks” (China View, 2009). Two leaders, Western and Chinese language, and two vastly di�erent reactions to an sudden insult, one humorous and one critical: the incidents spotlight culturally di�erent attitudes towards humor, the topic of this text.
Humor is a broad and multifaceted idea. The Oxford English dictionary defines humor as “the school of observing what’s ludicrous or amusing or of expressing it; jocose creativeness or therapy of a topic” (SOED, third version). Humor encompasses amusement and comedian reactions (Simpson and Weiner, 1989), psychological cognitive value determinations comprising perceptions of playful incongruity, mirthful feelings, and vocal-behavioral expressions of laughter (Martin, 2007, p. 10). Though humor is a common human expertise, folks of di�erent societies understand and use humor di�erently (Martin, 2007; Yue, 2010). Within the context of cross-cultural di�erences between Westerners and the Chinese language, Decide Wu stated: “Whereas Westerners are critically humorous, Chinese language persons are humorously critical” (quoted in Kao, 1974, p. xviii).
Types of humor are categorized as self-enhancing, a�liative, self-defeating, and aggressive (Kuiper et al., 2004; Martin, 2007). The 4 humor sorts have been investigated throughout cultures to indicate that each Westerners and Easterners are saddened and repelled by aggressive humor (Kuiper et al., 2010). North People react positively to self-enhancing humor, whereas Easterners don’t (Kuiper et al., 2004; Chen and Martin, 2005). The cultural di�erences are attributed to the Western individualistic versus Japanese collectivistic cultural distinctions. In different phrases, Easterners have a
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 2
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
collectivistic orientation that blurs the excellence between self and others in order that they’ve weaker perceptions concerning self- oriented (self-enhancing) and other-oriented (a�liative) humor.
Usually, Western people tolerate and use humor greater than Chinese language people do (e.g., Liao, 1998; Chen and Martin, 2007; Davis, 2011; Yue, 2011). Analysis has targeted on particular humor kinds however not on normal perceptions of humor. The shoe- throwing incidents that sparked such numerous reactions impressed us to look at how folks from di�erent cultural backgrounds view humor on the whole, reasonably than specializing in the particular kinds. We suggest that Westerners will see humor as a optimistic disposition that enhances self-actualization and interpersonal relationships, and that everybody possesses the favored trait (e.g., Maslow, 1968; Martin, 2007). In distinction, the Chinese language will view humor as a controversial disposition in social interactions and a character trait possessed largely by specialists in humor- associated fields (e.g., Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010, 2011; Davis, 2011; Xu, 2011). Subsequent we current an in depth description of the 2 views on humor.
The Western View on Humor Westerners are inclined to take humor as a pure function of life and to make use of it wherever and at any time when attainable (Apte, 1985). The truth is, Westerners have valued humor for the reason that period of Plato and Aristotle as a pure expression of amusement, enjoyable, and enjoyment of social interactions (Grant, 1924/1970). The 19th and early 20th centuries are considered the start of a golden age of humor, significantly for American society (Bier, 1968; Blair and Hill, 1978):
Humor is ubiquitous in American society and nothing escapes from changing into its goal. Humor in its quite a few strategies and kinds is directed on the inhabitants by way of all conceivable channels – newsprint, magazines, books, visible and plastic arts, comedy performances, and newbie joke-telling contests, in addition to many kinds of artifacts similar to T-shirts, watches, bumper stickers, greeting playing cards, sculptures, toys, and so forth (Apte, 1985, p. 30).
Freud (1928) posited that humor is an e�ective protection mechanism in opposition to adverse feelings. On one hand, laughter releases extra nervous power; alternatively, humor supplies various views about worry, disappointment, or anger within the face of incongruous or amusing elements (Martin, 2007). Early 20th century Western psychologists argued that humor and laughter improve human well being (e.g., Sully, 1902; McDougall, 1922), promote creativity (e.g., Guilford, 1950; Richards, 1990), and strengthen coping and optimism (e.g., Walsh, 1928).
Western analysis reveals that humor might be an indispensable “panacea” in day by day life to facilitate coping (e.g., Lefcourt et al., 1995; Kuiper and Martin, 1998; Moran and Massam, 1999; Lefcourt, 2001), promote impression administration (e.g., Mettee et al., 1971), and improve interpersonal attraction (e.g., Fraley and Aron, 2004). As well as, Westerners have a tendency to treat humor as a core trait of self-actualization (Maslow, 1968; Mintz, 1983; Mindess et al., 1985) and a necessary attribute of creativity (Guilford, 1950; Sternberg, 1985).
Furthermore, within the West, people who have interaction in humorous conduct are sometimes perceived as optimistic and engaging (Bressler et al., 2006). Westerners are inclined to charge humor as a really perfect and significant private attribute for relationship or romantic companions (Hansen and Hicks, 1980; Regan and Joshi, 2003). Past romantic a�liations, Westerners have optimistic perceptions about humorous people. For instance, a research in organizational contexts revealed that subordinates view humorous supervisors as extra motivating, assured, pleasant, clever, and nice leaders (Decker, 1987; Priest and Swain, 2002). Equally, in aggressive sports activities contexts, gamers needed to play for a humorous coach and perceived the coach as competent (Grisa�e et al., 2003). In brief, in Western society, individuals who have a humorousness are positively perceived as extra extroverted and socially fascinating; in distinction, those that lack a humorousness draw adverse perceptions (Allport, 1961; Cann and Calhoun, 2001; Priest and Swain, 2002).
As such, it’s no shock that President Bush joked in regards to the measurement of the shoe that was thrown at him. True to Western perceptions of humor, he demonstrated wit and charisma within the face of an embarrassing state of affairs.
The Chinese language View on Humor In China, humor was first documented about 2,000 years in the past (Yue, 2010; Chey, 2011; Davis, 2011). The Chinese language time period huaji is regarded instead phrase for humor that means wit, irony, and sarcasm (Chen, 1985; Liao, 2003). The earliest type of Chinese language humor might be pai shuo, which suggests small discuss or jokes (see Yue, 2010, for a assessment). Within the 1920s, Lin Yu-tang (1895–1976), a widely known author and scholar, used the Chinese language character youmo because the Chinese language model of humor. Since then, youmo has extensively represented wit, irony, and hilarity (Lin, 1974).
Though humor has a gone, for the previous 2000 years it has been devalued below Confucianism (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010, 2011; Xu, 2011). Lin (1974) used the time period Confucian Puritanism to depict how humor was despised:
Confucian decorum put a damper on gentle, humorous writing, in addition to on all imaginative literature, besides poetry. Drama and the novel had been despised as unworthy of a decent scholar’s occupation…… This puritanical, austere public perspective has endured to today (Lin, 1974, p. xxxi).
As such, the Confucian approach of a gentleman requires restraint from laughter to reveal dignity and social formality (Yue, 2010; Xu, 2011). The Confucian doctrine of moderation advocates in opposition to hilarious laughter as a result of it expresses excessive emotion (Liao, 1998). The Confucian orthodox literary writings forbade humorous expressions as being beneath correct literature (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010; Qian, 2011). Confucius even stated “a person must be critical to be revered” (Liao, 2007). Because of this, the Chinese language really feel that they need to giggle solely at sure occasions, along with sure topics, and solely with sure folks (Yue, 2011).
In the event that they selected to giggle, Chinese language folks had been suggested to giggle gently. Chinese language ladies had been suggested to cowl their mouths with their palms (Lin, 1934). In brief, owing to Confucian considerations
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # three
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
for sustaining correct social order and hierarchy, correct humor is “a type of personal, average, good-natured, tasteful, and didactically helpful mirth” (Xu, 2011, p. 70). Consequently, Chinese language folks have lengthy scorned public humor. Confucian moralists feared that after humorous writing kinds unfold, life would lose its seriousness, and sophistry would overturn orthodoxy (Yue, 2010, 2011; Pattern, 2011).
Although humor has thrived in China for the reason that downfall of the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), Chinese language persons are nonetheless closely influenced by cultural biases in opposition to public humor which can be deeply rooted in Confucianism (Davis, 2011; Xu, 2011). For instance, humor has been constantly omitted from the checklist of qualities required for being a typical and inventive Chinese language thinker (Rudowicz and Yue, 2000, 2003; Rudowicz, 2003; Yue et al., 2006; Yue, 2011). Loud laughter tends to make Chinese language folks really feel nervous and uncomfortable (Liao, 1998). As well as, Chinese language college students have a tendency to contemplate themselves as being much less humorous than Canadian college students, they usually have a tendency to make use of much less humor to deal with stress (Chen and Martin, 2005). Equally, American college students rated sexual and aggressive jokes as funnier than Singaporean Chinese language college students who most well-liked innocent humor (Nevo et al., 2001). These findings help the declare that Chinese language favor a “considerate smile” to “hilarious laughter” (Lin, 1974). Thus, it’s no shock that Premier Wen would reply sternly to the shoe-throwing incident to maintain his dignity.
In line with these observations, Yue (2011) systematically reviewed Chinese language perceptions and recognized three Chinese language ambivalences towards humor. First, the Chinese language are inclined to worth humor however devalue humor as a trait of self. Chinese language conventional social norms worth seriousness, so Chinese language folks are inclined to worry that being humorous will jeopardize their social standing. As an illustration, though Chinese language undergraduates self-reported that humor is essential in on a regular basis life, they reported that they weren’t humorous themselves (Yue et al., 2006; Yue, 2011). Second, as Yue (2011) defined, being humorous is inappropriate for orthodox Chinese language as a result of Confucianism has equated humor with mental shallowness and social informality (Yue, 2010). For instance, Chinese language college students don’t rank humor as attribute of a really perfect Chinese language character (Rudowicz and Yue, 2003; Yue et al., 2006). Chen (1985) argued that Chinese language jokes have all the time targeted on “denial humor” that criticizes actuality and “complimentary humor” that praises actuality, in distinction with the “pure humor” that makes folks giggle in Western jokes. Third, the Chinese language are inclined to consider that humor is essential however just for skilled entertainers with unique experience and particular expertise.
Though the 4 kinds of humor have been examined cross- culturally, few empirical research have examined cross-cultural di�erences on normal humor perceptions (e.g., Nevo et al., 2001; Jiang et al., 2011). Jiang et al. (2011) discovered that Chinese language undergraduates tended to affiliate humor with disagreeable adjectives and seriousness with nice adjectives; the other was true for American undergraduates. Such a discovering signifies that Westerners and Chinese language could maintain di�erent views towards humor on the whole. As well as, little work has been performed to supply a complete image of the cultural di�erences on humor notion. Subsequently, we performed two research
to systematically confirm the proposed dichotomy between the Western and Chinese language view on humor.
OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH
Two research had been performed to look at Western versus Chinese language views on humor. In Examine 1, Hong Kong Chinese language individuals (bicultural samples) had been first primed with both Western tradition icons or Chinese language tradition icons. Then they had been requested to make use of adjectives from an inventory to explain a humorous particular person. We anticipated the priming with Western tradition icons would trigger Hong Kong individuals to assign considerably extra optimistic adjectives, whereas the priming with Chinese language tradition icons would have the other e�ect. In Examine 2a, individuals from Canada and China had been requested to charge the significance of humor, self-humor, and humorousness. We anticipated that the Chinese language would give considerably decrease rankings to all three. In Examine 2b, individuals from Canada and China had been requested to determine the names and occupations of as much as three humorous individuals. We anticipated that Canadian individuals would nominate considerably extra unusual folks than Chinese language individuals, and Chinese language individuals would nominate considerably extra humor-relevant specialists similar to comedians and cartoonists. Taken collectively, we hoped to seek out constant findings for the proposed dichotomy between Western and Chinese language views on humor.
STUDY 1
We performed Examine 1 as a between topic design by priming Chinese language and Western cultural di�erences. Bicultural Hong Kong persons are thought-about acceptable for cultural priming research. (For particulars, see Hong et al., 2000). Our goal was to find out whether or not research individuals uncovered to photos related to Chinese language or Western tradition can be induced to understand di�erent qualities in a humorous particular person.
Technique Individuals and Design
Ninety-six Hong Kong faculty college students (31 males, 65 ladies) had been recruited. They averaged 24.01 years previous (SD = three.78 years). Individuals had been randomly assigned to 2 experimental teams: the Chinese language picture-priming situation or the Western picture-priming situation. Following the priming (about 15 s), individuals had been requested to guage a humorous particular person by selecting from an inventory of 40 adjectives (Zhang et al., 1998). Oral directions got in Chinese language and English and had been counterbalanced throughout the priming situation to cut back potential language biases (e.g., Meier and Cheng, 2004). After the experiment, all individuals had been debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.
Supplies and Procedures
Priming We used 26 priming photos, 13 for every tradition (Figures 1 and a couple of), from priming supplies developed by Ng and Lai (2009) and primarily based on the work of Hong et al. (2000). Furthermore, the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org three October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # eight
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
whereas Westerners worth it (Kuiper et al., 2010). The di�erent cultural views could result in cultural biases. As an illustration, Chinese language youngsters are inclined to see humor as aggressive and disruptive (Chen et al., 1992). Consequently, People and Chinese language who attempt to talk cross culturally many discover that cultural variations concerning humor could disrupt their communications.
Third, we aren’t saying that Chinese language folks lack humor. Quite the opposite, considerable proof reveals that humor has been widespread and fashionable all through Chinese language historical past (Xiao, 1996). As a substitute, we argue that Confucian biases have induced public humor to be extra “in deeds than in phrases, extra practiced than preached” in China (Kao, 1974, p. xxii). Thus, earlier than a Chinese language chief similar to Wen Jiabao might joke about an embarrassing state of affairs, the overall Chinese language inhabitants should first see humor as optimistic and fascinating. They need to transcend Confucian puritanism that frowns on humor and as a substitute study to worth, admire, and use humor at any time when and wherever attainable (Chen and Martin, 2005; Yue, 2010, 2011).
As Lin Yutang stated, “the key of humor is to be pure and to be oneself, to face oneself within the mirror and to tear down the hypocritical disguise” (Qian, 2011, p. 211). In spite of everything, the flexibility to giggle at ourselves comes from broad-minded detachment concerning our personal imperfections. And this stays to be additional examined in later research.
Limitations and Future Instructions The present research has a number of inherent limitations that ought to be famous. First, Hong Kong Chinese language, not Mainland Chinese language, participated in Examine 2. As Hong Kong is extremely westernized, the scholars could not completely signify Chinese language society. The findings could lend credence to the expectation that Mainland Chinese language will present even higher di�erences with Westerners. Consequently, future investigations ought to replicate the present findings with extra Mainland Chinese language samples. Second, though the outcomes of Examine 2a are according to what we present in Research 1 and 2b, it nonetheless bears the contamination of culture-related response biases (e.g., Chen et al., 1995; Heine et al., 2002). As we all know, folks from di�erent cultures have a tendency to make use of di�erent referents of their self-reported values. Thus, Canadians within the present analysis evaluated humor compared with different Canadians, whereas Chinese language evaluated humor compared with different Chinese language. As well as, Chinese language are extra possible than Canadians to make use of the midpoint on self-reported scales (e.g., Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Chen et al., 1995). For future investigations, it will be essential to measure individuals’ analysis on each humor and seriousness. In doing so, we are able to look at the di�erences of ranking patterns as a substitute of direct ranking scores between Chinese language and Canadians. In different phrases,
it permits us to research whether or not Canadian individuals would charge humor as being extra essential to them than being critical, whereas the other sample can be true for Chinese language individuals. Third, the nomination methodology (Examine 2b) helped to validate the 2 contrasting views of humor between the West and the East, however social media influences and leisure improvement might be confounding elements (e.g., Buijzen and Valkenburg, 2004). Subsequently, future research ought to management for interfering elements. Fourth, all samples had been confined to school college students. For broader generalization, future research ought to recruit individuals of varied ages and from numerous backgrounds.
CONCLUSION
The present analysis supplies new proof and a broader perspective for finding out cultural di�erences concerning humor notion. Westerners view humor as a generally owned trait and as a optimistic disposition for self-actualization. In distinction, the Chinese language think about humor to be restricted to humor professionals and fewer fascinating for social interactions. Two research using priming paradigm, questionnaire measurement, and nomination approach introduced on this paper reveal the dichotomy. We hope that these findings stimulate future research that enterprise additional into the frontier space of humor.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors conceptualized the manuscript, XY and FJ wrote the primary full draft, XY and SL contributed extra writing, FJ, SL, and NH contributed knowledge assortment and Assessment, all authors edited the manuscript and accredited the ultimate model.
FUNDING
The present work was supported by Analysis grant of Metropolis College of Hong Kong (No. 7004315) awarded to XY, and Nationwide Pure Science Basis of China awarded to FJ (No.71401190) and SL (No.71401036).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We want to thanks Mr. Chun Wing Lai for serving to knowledge assortment.
REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1961). Sample and Progress in Persona. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston. Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Method. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell College Press. BBC (2008). Footwear Thrown at Bush on Iraq Journey. Obtainable at: http://information.bbc.co.uk/
2/hello/7782422.stm
Bier, J. (1968). The Rise and Fall of American Humor. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Blair, W., and Hill, H. (1978). America’s Humor: From Poor Richard to Doonesbury. New York, NY: Oxford College Press.
Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., and Balshine, S. (2006). Manufacturing and appreciation of humor as sexually chosen traits. Evol. Hum. Behav. 27, 121–130. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.09.Zero01
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org eight October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 9
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
Buijzen, M., and Valkenburg, P. M. (2004). Creating a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media Psychol. 6, 147–167. doi: 10.1207/ s1532785xmep0602_2
Cann, A., and Calhoun, L. G. (2001). Perceived character associations with di�erences in humorousness: stereotypes of hypothetical others with excessive or low senses of humor. Humor 14, 117–130. doi: 10.1515/humr.14.2.117
Chen, C., Lee, S. Y., and Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response fashion and cross-cultural comparisons of ranking scales amongst East Asian and North American college students. Psychol. Sci. 6, 170–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x
Chen, C. C. (1985). A Examine of Historical Chinese language Jokes (in Chinese language). Grasp’s thesis, Nationwide Taiwan Regular College, Taipei.
Chen, G. H., and Martin, R. D. (2005). Coping humor of 354 Chinese language college college students. Chin. Psychological Well being J. 19, 307–309.
Chen, G. H., and Martin, R. D. (2007). A comparability of humor kinds, coping humor, and psychological well being between Chinese language and Canadian college college students. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 20, 215–234. doi: 10.1515/HUMOR. 2007.Zero11
Chen, X., Rubin, Ok. H., and Solar, Y. (1992). Social fame and peer relationships in Chinese language and Canadian youngsters: a cross-cultural research. Youngster Dev. 63, 1336–1343. doi: 10.2307/1131559
Chey, J. (2011). “Youmo and Chinese language humorousness,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 1–29.
China View (2009). Premier Wen Dismisses Shoe-Throwing. Obtainable at: http://information.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/04/content_10761937.htm
Davis, J. (2011). “The Concept of Humours and the Conventional Chinese language Drugs,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 31–36.
Decker, W. H. (1987). Managerial humor and subordinate satisfaction. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 15, 225–232. doi: 10.2224/sbp.1987.15.2.225
Fraley, B., and Aron, A. (2004). The e�ect of a shared humorous expertise on closeness in preliminary encounters. Pers. Relat. 11, 61–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1475- 6811.2004.00071.x
Freud, S. (1928). Humor. Int. J. Psychoanal. 9, 1–6. Galloway, G., and Cropley, A. (1999). Advantages of humor for psychological well being:
empirical findings and instructions for additional analysis. Humor 12, 301–314. doi: 10.1515/humr.1999.12.three.301
Grant, M. A. (1924/1970). The Historical Rhetorical Theories of the Laughable: the Greek Rhetoricians and Cicero. Madison, WI: College of Wisconsin Research in Language and Literature.
Grisa�e, C., Blom, L. C., and Burke, Ok. L. (2003). The e�ects of head and Helpant coaches’ makes use of of humor on collegiate soccer gamers’ analysis of their coaches. J. Sport Behav. 26, 103–108.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. Am. Psychol. 5, 444–454. doi: 10.1037/h00 63487
Hansen, S. L., and Hicks, M. W. (1980). Intercourse position attitudes and perceived dating- mating decisions of youth. Adolescence 15, 83–90.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, Ok., and Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s unsuitable with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective likert scales? The reference- group e�ect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 903–918. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514. 82.6.903
Herzog, T. R., and Strevey, S. J. (2008). Contact with nature, humorousness, and psychological well-being. Environ. Behav. 40, 747–776. doi: 10.1177/0013916507308524
Hong, Y. I., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., and Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multi- cultural minds: a dynamic constructivist strategy to tradition and cognition. Am. Psychol. 55, 709–720. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.709
Jiang, F., Yue, X. D., and Lu, S. (2011). Di�erent attitudes in direction of humor between Chinese language and American college students: proof from the implicit affiliation check. Psychol. Rep. 109, 99–107. doi: 10.2466/09.17.21.PR0.109.four.99-107
Kao, G. (1974). Chinese language Wit and Humor. New York, NY: Sterling. Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., and Kirsh, G. (2004). Humor will not be all the time
the perfect medication: particular elements of humorousness and psychological well-being. Humor 17, 135–168. doi: 10.1515/humr.2004.002
Kuiper, N. A., Kazarian, S. S., Sine, J., and Bassil, M. (2010). The affect of humor in North American versus Center East cultures. Eur. J. Psychol. 6, 149–173. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v6i3.212
Kuiper, N. A., and Martin, R. A. (1998). “Humorousness–A optimistic character attribute,” in Sense of Humor: Explorations of Optimistic Persona Attribute, ed. W. Ruch (New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter), 159–178.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The Psychology of Dwelling Buoyantly. New York, NY: Kluwer Tutorial.
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, Ok., Shepherd, R., Phillips, M., Prkachin, Ok., and Mills, D. (1995). Perspective-taking humor: accounting for stress moderation. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 14, 373–391. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1995.14.four.373
Liao, C. C. (1998). Jokes, Humor and Chinese language Individuals. Taipei: Crane. Liao, C. C. (2003). Humor versus huaji. J. Lang. Linguist. 2, 25–46. Liao, C. C. (2007). One facet of Taiwanese and American sense of humour:
attitudes towards pranks. J. Humanit. Res. 2, 289–324. Liao, C. C., Chang, T. C., and Ming, Y. C. (2006). Humorousness: people
vs taiwanese. Paper Offered at 18th Worldwide Society of Humor Research Convention, Copenhagen: Danish College of Schooling.
Lin, Y. T. (1934). On humor. Analects Fortnightly 33, 434–438. Lin, Y. T. (1974). “Introduction to Chinese language wit and humor,” in Chinese language wit and
humor, ed. G. Kao (New York, NY: Sterling). Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. (1991). Tradition and the self: implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Martin, R. A. (2002). Is laughter the perfect medication? Humor, laughter, and bodily well being. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11, 216–220. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721. 00204
Martin, R. A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Method. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Tutorial Press.
Maslow, A. (1968). Towards a Psychology of Being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McDougall, W. (1922). A brand new idea of laughter. Psyche 2, 292–303. Meier, M. Ok., and Cheng, B. Y. M. (2004). Language and self-construal priming:
a replication and extension in a Hong Kong pattern. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35, 705–712. doi: 10.1177/0022022104270112
Mettee, D. R., Hrelec, E. S., and Wilkens, P. C. (1971). Humor as an interpersonal asset and legal responsibility. J. Social Psychol. 85, 51–64. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1971.9918544
Mindess, H., Miller, C., Turek, J., Bender, A., and Corbin, S. (1985). The Antioch Humor Take a look at: Making Sense of Humor. New York, NY: Avon.
Mintz, L. E. (1983). “Humor and fashionable tradition,” in Handbook of Humor Analysis, eds P. E. McGhee and J. H. Goldstein (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag).
Moran, C., and Massam, M. M. (1999). Di�erential influences of coping humor and humor bias on temper. Behav. Med. 25, 36–42. doi: 10.1080/089642899095 96737
Nevo, O., Nevo, B., and Yin, J. L. (2001). Singaporean humor: a cross- cultural, cross-gender comparability. J. Gen. Psychol. 128, 143–156. doi: 10.1080/00221300109598904
Ng, S. H., and Lai, J. C. (2009). E�ects of tradition priming on the social connectedness of the bicultural self: a self-reference e�ect strategy. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 40, 170–186. doi: 10.1177/0022022108328818
Priest, R. F., and Swain, J. E. (2002). Humor and its implications for management e�ectiveness. Humor 15, 169–189. doi: 10.1515/humr.2002.Zero10
Qian, S. (2011). “Discovering humor in trendy china,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 192–218.
Regan, P. C., and Joshi, A. (2003). Ultimate accomplice preferences amongst adolescents. Soc. Behav. Pers. 31, 13–20. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2003.31.1.13
Richards, R. (1990). On a regular basis creativity, eminent creativity, and well being: aftervie” for CRJ points on creativity and well being. Creat. Res. J. three, 300–326. doi: 10.1080/10400419009534363
Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and tradition: a two approach interplay. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 47, 273–290. doi: 10.1080/00313830308602
Rudowicz, E., and Yue, X. D. (2000). Ideas of creativity: similarities and di�erences amongst Hong Kong, Mainland and Taiwanese Chinese language. J. Creat. Behav. 34, 175–192. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01210.x
Rudowicz, E., and Yue, X. D. (2003). Compatibility of Chinese language and inventive personalities. Creat. Res. J. 14, 387–394. doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ 1434_9
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
fpsyg-07-Zero1495 October four, 2016 Time: 13:22 # 10
Yue et al. Tradition and Humor
Pattern, J. (2011). “Contextualizing Lin Yutang’s essay on humor,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 169–189.
Simpson, J. A., and Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. New York, NY: Oxford College Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and knowledge. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49, 607–627. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49. three.607
Sully, J. (1902). Essays on Laughter. New York, NY: Longmans, Inexperienced. Triandis, H. C., and Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal
and vertical individualism and collectivism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 118–128. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118
Walsh, J. J. (1928). Laughter and Well being. New York, NY: Appleton. Xiao, L. (1996). Chinese language Humorous Tales (in Chinese language). Beijing: Chinese language
Broadcasting Press. Xu, W. (2011). “The classical confucian ideas of human emotion and correct
humour,” in Humour in Chinese language Life and Letters, eds J. Chey and J. M. Davis (Pok Fu Lam: Hong Kong College Press), 50–71.
Yue, X. D. (2010). Exploration of Chinese language humor: historic assessment, empirical findings, and significant reflections. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 23, 403–420.
Yue, X. D. (2011). The Chinese language ambivalence to humor: views from undergraduates in Hong Kong and China. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 24, 463–480. doi: 10.1515/humr.2011.Zero26
Yue, X. D., Hao, X., Lan, L., and Yan, F. (2006). Humor and youth empowerment: a self-cultivation strategy, Paper Offered on the 2nd Worldwide Convention on Youth Empowerment, Pok Fu Lam: Metropolis College of Hong Kong.
Zhang, Z. Y., Wang, L., and Qi, M. (1998). Primary dimensions of Chinese language character traits: an element Assessment of the self description in a pattern of Chinese language faculty college students. Acta Psychol. Sin. 30, 85–92.
Battle of Curiosity Assertion: The authors declare that the analysis was performed within the absence of any industrial or monetary relationships that might be construed as a possible battle of curiosity.
Copyright © 2016 Yue, Jiang, Lu and Hiranandani. That is an open-access article distributed below the phrases of the Inventive Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or copy in different boards is permitted, offered the unique writer(s) or licensor are credited and that the unique publication on this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted educational apply. No use, distribution or copy is permitted which doesn’t adjust to these phrases.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 October 2016 | Quantity 7 | Article 1495
