UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY. The Direct and Moderating Role of Humour Styles at Work: Organizational Citizenship

Transcription

1 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY The Direct and Moderating Role of Humour Styles at Work: Organizational Citizenship Behaviours, Counterproductive Workplace Behaviours, Anxiety and Depression as Organizational Outcomes by Caitlin Comeau A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PSYCHOLOGY CALGARY, ALBERTA SEPTEMBER, 2016 Caitlin Comeau 2016

2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Kibeom Lee for his endless guidance and assistance throughout my entire thesis experience. I would also like to thank my thesis committee for their valued contributions to this project. Last but not least, I would like to thank my friends and family for their support throughout this entire process.

3 Abstract Past research suggests that a sense of humour plays a role in the workplace. The present study builds upon this work by exploring how individual differences in various positive and negative humour styles (affiliative, self-enhancing, self-defeating, aggressive humour) related to organizational citizenship behaviours, counterproductive workplace behaviours, and workplace anxiety and depression. Survey results from 190 employed undergraduate participants indicated that affiliative humour use is associated with reduced anxiety, depression and counterproductive workplace behaviours, and with increased engagement in organizational citizenship behaviours. In addition, self-enhancing humour moderated the relationship of organizational stressors with OCBs, anxiety and depression. In order to assess the interpersonal aspects of humour, convergence between self- and observer reported humour styles was examined. The relatively low correlation indicates we may need to move beyond the traditional measurement of self- and observer agreement to capture the unique variance of each perspective. Implications of these findings and future research directions are discussed. Keywords: humour styles, affiliative humour, self-enhancing humour, self-defeating humour, aggressive humour, organizational citizenship behaviours, counterproductive workplace behaviours, anxiety, depression, self and observer reports ii

4 Table of Contents Abstract... ii Table of Contents... iv List of Tables... vi List of Figures and Illustrations... vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Humour styles The role of humour in the workplace Direct effects of humour on workplace outcomes Organizational citizenship behaviours Counterproductive workplace behaviours Depression Anxiety Moderating effects of humour on the organizational stressor-strain relationship Affiliative humour Self-enhancing humour Self-defeating humour Aggressive humour Self and Observer reports CHAPTER 2: METHOD Participants Measures Organizational stressors Humour styles Organizational citizenship behaviours Counterproductive work behaviours Depression and anxiety Control variables Procedure Analysis CHAPTER 3: RESULTS Preliminary analysis Self-Peer agreement of humour styles Direct effects of humour on workplace outcomes Moderating effects of humour styles of humour on the organizational stressor- iv

5 strain relationship Self-reported Self-enhancing humour Observer-reported affiliative humour CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION Self and observer convergence of humour styles Humour styles in predicting workplace outcomes Humour styles moderating the stressor-strain relationship Limitations and future directions Conclusions and Implications REFERENCES APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS APPENDIX B: PREDICTOR MEASURES APPENDIX C: OUTCOME MEASURES APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF GENERAL HUMOUR MAIN EFFECTS APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF NON-SIGNIFICANT WORKPLACE MODERATION EFFECTS APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF GENERAL HUMOUR MODERATION EFFECTS iv

6 List of Tables Table 1. Means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations Table 2. Summary of convergent self-observer correlations Table 3. Summary of main effects and regression coefficients for OCB Table 4. Summary of main effects and regression coefficients for CWB Table 5. Summary of main effects and regression coefficients for anxiety and depression Table 6. Summary of significant moderation results for self-enhancing humour Table 7. Summary of significant moderation results for affiliative humour Table 8. Summary of hypotheses and if they received support...38 vii

7 List of Figures Figure 1. Moderating Effect of Self-Enhancing Humour on the relationship between organizational stressors and anxiety Figure 2. Moderating Effect of Self-Enhancing Humour on the relationship between organizational stressors and depression Figure 3. Moderating Effect of Self-Enhancing Humour on the relationship between organizational stressors and OCB Figure 4. Moderating Effect of Affiliative Humour on the relationship between organizational stressors and CWB vii

8 The Direct and Moderating Role of Humour at Work: Organizational Citizenship Behaviours, Counterproductive Workplace Behaviours, Anxiety and Depression as Organizational Outcomes Organizational humour is defined as amusing communications with the aim to produce positive or negative emotions and cognitions in the individual, group, or organization (adapted from Romero & Cruthirds 2006, p. 59). The use of humour at work is a pervasive and prevalent phenomenon and over the past 3 decades, has been studied extensively. Humour acts as social lubricant by masking the unpleasant content of messages, making both co-worker and subordinate interactions less tense (Terrion & Ashford, 2002). The use of humour requires mental flexibility to yoke together incongruous ideas, which in turn, facilitates intellectual stimulation that can be transferred to one s work (Holmes, 2007), enhancing productivity and performance (Bizi et al., 1988; Lehmann-Brook & Allen, 2014). Research also indicates that humour buffers against the detrimental effects of work stressors by restructuring a situation so it is less threatening (Abel, 2002; Cann & Calhoun, 2001). With the development of the Humour Styles Questionnaire (HSQ), Martin, Puhlick- Doris, Larsen, Gray, and Weir (2003) found that a sense of humour can be differentiated into adaptive and maladaptive styles. Maladaptive styles are expressed at the expense of the self or others in the form of disparaging jokes or ridicule (Martin et al., 2003) which ultimately reduces cooperation, alienates coworkers and enhances negative affect and stress (Romero & Arednt, 2011; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). It is evident from this brief summary that humour has complex contributions in the workplace. However, there are still potential links between humour and certain organizational variables that have yet to be delineated. While workplace humour has been implicated in 1

9 enhanced performance behaviors (Bizi et al., 1988; Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014), researchers have yet to examine how using humour relates to workplace behaviours that fall outside the assigned tasks and responsibilities, such as organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB) and counterproductive work behaviours (CWB). Given that OCBs are defined as behaviours that go beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization (Law, Wong, & Chen, 2005), and a positive sense of humour fosters feelings of mastery, allowing individuals to stretch beyond their assumed limits (Corey, 1996), it is possible that humour may foster OCBs. In contrast, individuals who engage in maladaptive humour styles are predisposed to be angry, hostile and aggressive (Martin et al., 2003), all of which are personality traits that precipitate behaviours that are harmful to the legitimate interests of the organization (Baumeister & Exline, 1999; Gruys & Sackett, 2003). As such, the first aim of this study is to examine how humour styles may differentially relate to OCBs and CWBs. Research has also yet to examine if humour plays a role in anxiety or depression caused by work-related factors. While positive and negative humour has been implicated in buffering or exacerbating depression and anxiety (Frewen, Brinker, Martin, & Dozois, 2008; Kuiper, Grimshaw, Leite, & Kirsh, 2004) through impaired relationships (Frewen et al., 2008) and intolerance of uncertainty in life events (Kuiper, Klein, Vertes, & Maiolino, 2014b) respectively, it may be the case that humour has similar effects on workplace uncertainties and co-worker relationships. As such, the second aim is to assess how humour styles may differentially relate to work-induced anxiety and depression. OCBs, CWBs, anxiety and depression have workplace stressors as an antecedent (Jain, Giga, & Cooper, 2013; Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002) and have been considered strains in the organizational stressor-strain relationship (O Brien, 2008; Spector & Jex, 1998). 2

10 The behaviours and cognitions that accompany the use of humour as a coping strategy to deal with workplace stressors (Martin et al., 2003; Romero & Cruthirds, 2011) may have important implications for OCBs, CWBs, anxiety and depression. As such, the third aim was to examine how humour styles could buffer or exacerbate the relationship between stress and OCB, CWB, anxiety and depression. While there is a strong theoretical foundation for the benefits of adaptive humour in the workplace, most organizational humour research has generally overlooked maladaptive humour styles and their potential detrimental effects. The limited research that has analyzed negative humour in the workplace is largely correlational with little to no theoretical reasoning behind the observed relationships. Thus, this study will provide a theoretical account on the effects of adaptive humour styles on organizational outcomes and extend it to maladaptive humour. Previous organizational humour research has failed to analyze humour beyond initiator self-reports. Given that interpersonal humour styles involve more than one party, perceptual ratings of humour from both the initiator and the receiver(s) should be gathered. Only then can we be certain that the humour was not only interpreted as amusing by the receiver, but that the goal of humour (i.e. social bonding) was achieved (Sosik, 2012). For example, Romero and Arendt (2011) argue for the interpersonal effects of humor on organizational outcomes, but focuse on individual-level self-reported humor styles. Also, it has been shown that positive humour styles are more socially desirable than negative styles (Cann & Matson, 2014) therefore, individuals may skew their reports as a result of self-enhancement bias. Martin et al. s (2003) prominent four-factor theoretical-empirical model of humour will now be presented below as a framework for the potential effects of humour on OCBs, CWBs, anxiety and depression. Next is a summary of the relevant humour literature, followed by an 3

11 overview of the direct and moderating effects of humour. Finally, an in-depth summary of the importance of observer reports in humour will be presented. 1.1 Humour Background Sense of humour refers to a stable personality trait and has been conceptualized as the ability to understand, generate and express humour, and is present in differing degrees among individuals (Martin et al., 2003; Martin, 2007). Adaptive styles, which consist of either affiliative or self-enhancing humour are benign or beneficial to the self and others, while maladaptive humour styles, including self-defeating and aggressive humour, are damaging to the actor or the target (Kuiper et al., 2004). The section below will briefly describe each humour style and their relationship to personality and organizational outcomes. Affiliative Humour. Affiliative humour is described as a spontaneous, non-hostile style of humour that includes jokes and banter; and is used to enhance relationships, group cohesion and reduce conflict (Samson, Lackner, Weiss & Papousek, 2011). An example item of affiliative humour from the Humour Styles Questionnaire is I laugh and joke a lot with my closest friends (Martin et al., 2003). Affiliative humour is related to higher levels of extraversion, cheerfulness, perceived control (Martin et al., 2003), satisfaction with coworkers, team cooperation, organizational commitment and lower levels of workplace stress (Romero & Arendt, 2011). Self-enhancing Humour. Self-enhancing humour is considered to be an adaptive coping strategy in which the individual maintains a humourous and realistic outlook on life, despite adversity or stress (Freud, 1928; Martin, 2007), where they may say funny things about themselves while maintaining self-acceptance (Vaillant, 1977). An example item of selfenhancing humour is even when I am by myself, I am often amused by the absurdities of life (Martin et al., 2003). Self-enhancing humour is related to higher levels of self-esteem, optimism 4

12 (Martin et al., 2003), organizational commitment (Romero & Arendt, 2011) and satisfaction with social support and is related to lower levels of depression, anxiety and bad mood (Martin et al., 2003). Aggressive Humour. Aggressive humour involves the tendency to express humour without the regard for its impact or as a means to manipulate others, manifesting itself in the use of teasing, ridicule, derision or put-down jokes (Martin et al., 2003). An example item of aggressive humour is if someone makes a mistake, I will often tease them about it (Martin et al., 2003). Aggressive humour is related to lower levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, team cooperation and satisfaction with coworkers and higher levels of neuroticism and workplace stress (Martin et al., 2003; Romero & Arendt, 2011). Self-Defeating Humour. Self-defeating humour involves excessively self-disparaging dimensions, including doing or saying things at one s own expense as a means of ingratiation or to gain approval. Although individuals who use this form of humour are considered witty or amusing, there is an element of emotional neediness and low self-esteem (Martin, 2007; Kuiper, Kirsh, & Leite, 2010). An example of this form of humour is I often try to make people like or accept me more by saying something funny about my weaknesses, blunders or faults (Martin et al., 2003). Self-defeating humour is related to higher levels of neuroticism, depression and anxiety and related to lower levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness and team cooperation (Martin et al., 2003; Romero & Arendt, 2011). 1.2 The Role of Humour in the Workplace In the 1980s, researchers began to explore the possibility that humour may be related to a variety of organizational outcomes (e.g. Bizi et al., 1988; Remington, 1985; Decker, 1987; Parsons 1988; Remington, 1985). Specifically, humour facilitates socialization, employee 5

13 bonding, rapport, job satisfaction, and morale (Duncan & Feisal, 1989; Holmes & Mara, 2002; O Quin & Derks, 1997; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Humour creates positive feelings among employees, highlighting the group as an identifiable identity and conveys trust to other members where knowledge and ideas are shared freely. This, in turn, is associated with making interactions less tense, thereby bonding group members and promoting cohesion (Terrion & Ashford, 2002), ultimately creating and maintaining organizational culture (Clouse & Spurgeon, 1995). Humour also has implications for leader effectiveness. Leaders may use humour as a means to reduce social distance by causing followers to perceive their leader as part of the group (Meyer, 1990). In contrast, leader aggressive humour may be used as a means to gain behavioral compliance from subordinates and reinforce their power position (Decker, 1987). Using aggressive humour in this context is associated with reduced leader respect, decreased work behaviour and harm to organizational image (Vinson, 2006). Positive humour has been found to alleviate employee boredom and foster creativity (Duncan, 1982; Holmes, 2007), productivity and performance (Bizi et al., 1988). The use of humour requires innovation, mental flexibility and originality, which in turn, facilitates intellectual stimulation that can be transferred to one s work (Corey, 1996). Research also suggests that humour buffers against the deleterious effects of workplace stress (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Humour provides a means to release tension, regain perspective, express feelings and to communicate stressful ideas in a less distressing manner (Abel, 2002; Graham, Papa, & Brooks, 1992; Mesmer, 2000; Rosenberg, 1998), which in turn, is associated with lower levels of burnout (Talbot & Lumden, 2000). 6

14 From an empirical perspective, these findings highlight the importance of workplace humour. However, inconsistent theoretical conceptualizations of humour raise important questions for future research. Our review of the extant literature highlighted that there is no one humour scale that is consistently used (i.e. Coping Humour Scale, Multidimensional Humour Scale, Situational Response Humour Questionnaire). Each scale operationalizes humour (in terms of dimensions, styles and quantifications) very differently. Conceptually, it makes sense that intra-psychic and interpersonal humour styles have differential relationships to organizational outcomes (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). However, the existing humour scales do not allow us to easily tease apart these dimensions. In a similar vein, the dearth of empirical studies analyzing maladaptive humour styles highlight that most humour scales overlook the potential adverse impacts of negative humour. It appears that in order to advance our understanding of the role of humour in the workplace, researchers need to universally and consistently adopt a model accounting for the positive and negative dimensions of humour, such as Martin et al. s (2003) four-factor model of humour, a scale that has been shown to outperform extant humour questionnaires statistically and theoretically (see Martin et al., 2003). To our knowledge, only one empirical workplace humour study has utilized Martin et al. s (2003) model of humour (Romero & Arendt, 2011) highlighting the differential effects of interpersonal, intrapsychic, positive and negative humour in the workplace. This study examined relationships between the four humor styles and stress, satisfaction with co-workers, team cooperation and organizational commitment. However, this study is largely correlational with little theoretical reasoning behind the observed relationships. As such, it is our hope that the present study extends previous organizational humour research by adopting a theoretically driven account of the four-factor model of humour to explain the relationship between humour and OCBs, CWBs, 7

15 anxiety and depression. Given the significant cognitive and affective implications of workplace humour on behavioral and emotional outcomes, it is surprising humour has not been applied to OCB, CWB and work-induced psychological impairments. The section below will delineate the mechanisms behind the proposed relationships. 1.3 Direct Effects of Humour on Workplace Outcomes Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Counterproductive Workplace Behaviours Both organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behaviours consist of active and volitional acts engaged in by the individual, as opposed to accidental or unintentional actions (Jian, Giga, & Cooper, 2012). OCBs are behaviours that contribute to maintaining an organization s social system and indirectly benefiting the work group and organization as a whole (Smith et al., 1983). Citizenship behaviours differ based on their target (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). OCBs can be targeted toward an individual (OCB-I), such as helping a coworker, or OCBs can be targeted toward the organization (OCB-O), such as attending a function that is not required. Conversely, counterproductive work behaviours are actions that are viewed by the organization as contrary to its legitimate interests (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). Similar to OCB, CWBs can be targeted at the individual or the organization Direct Effects of Humour on OCBs Positive humour. Both affiliative and self-enhancing humour afford freedom of thought, mental flexibility and tolerance of novelty, providing a sense of mastery and pathways to venture beyond the norm (Bateson, 1972; Bergson, 1911) motivating individuals to stretch beyond their assumed limits (Berg, 1990). This could manifest itself in the workplace by going beyond one s organizational duties. The sense of proficiency and mastery that accompanies positive humour (Corey, 1996) could also promote self-development, a form of OCB aimed at improving skills 8

16 and knowledge (Organ, 1990). Moreover, when humour is shared between co-workers, the feelings of social bonding and closeness predispose one to act altruistically (Curry & Dunbar, 2013), which may manifest itself in interpersonal OCBs. In addition, it is believed that the cognitive coping skills that one gains from using selfenhancing humour can be transferred to OCBs. Self-enhancing humour involves maintaining a realistic and optimistic perspective on an adverse situation (Freud, 1928; Lippitt, 1982). This line of thinking is quite similar to those who engage in the sportsmanship dimension of OCB, which is defined as a willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without complaining (Organ, 1990). It is argued that the cognitive reasoning that accompanies self-enhancing humour may predispose individuals to deal effectively with organizational annoyances or disappointments, a more subtle form of OCBs. Hypothesis 1a: affiliative humour is positively associated with OCBs. Hypothesis 1b: self-enhancing humour is positively associated with OCBs. Negative humour. To our knowledge, there is no previous research examining possible negative associations between negative humour and pro-social, helping behaviours. Although self-defeating and aggressive humour styles have shown some associations with neuroticism, and (low) agreeableness, respectively (Martin et al., 2003; Mendiburo-Segeul, Paez, & Martinez- Sanches, 2015), the relationships of these personality traits and OCB tend to be quite modest (Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011; Organ, 1994). As such, the relationship between negative humour style and OCB will be investigated in an exploratory fashion Direct Effects of Humour on CWB Positive humour. Affiliative and self-enhancing humour styles are unrelated to aggression and hostility (Martin et al., 2003). As such, we do not expect to find a direct causal 9

17 effect of positive humour reducing counterproductive work behaviours. Therefore, we do not submit a hypothesis about the relation between positive humour style and CWB. Negative humour. Given that individuals who engage in aggressive humour are predisposed to engage in aggressive, hostile and manipulative behaviours (Martin et al., 2003), it then follows that they may be predisposed to engage in CWBs. Indeed, aggressive humour manifests trait verbal aggression (Avtgis & Taber, 2006), which is one of the widely observed manifestations of CWBs. Individuals who were primed with a hostile comedy show were more likely to be aggressive toward a job applicant in comparison to individuals who watched a neutral comedy show (Berkowitz, 2003). Self-defeating humour is also related to high levels of hostility and aggression (Martin et al., 2003), which may manifest itself as CWBs. It is argued that self-defeating humour precipitates CWBs by means of depression. Self-defeating humour is an established predictor of life-induced depression (Frewen et al., 2008) and a potential predictor of work-induced depression. In short, self-defeating humour is motivated by the desire to facilitate social bonds, however, it alienates one from others, leading to loneliness and ultimately depression (Tucker et al., 2013). Depressed individuals often exhibit anger and irritability, which manifests itself as overt hostility (Schless et al., 1974). Given that hostility is a well-established antecedent to CWB (Lee, 2000) self-defeating humour may be indirectly associated with increased CWBs through depression. Hypothesis 2a: Aggressive humour is positively associated with CWBs. Hypothesis 2b: Self-defeating humour is positively associated with CWBs. Anxiety and Depression Anxiety is defined as feelings of worry or nervousness typically about something with an 10

18 uncertain outcome and can be accompanied by irritability, unease or difficulty concentrating (American Psychological Association, 2013). Depression is defined as a loss of interest or pleasure in daily activities and impairments in social or occupational functioning which may be accompanied by feelings of hopelessness, fatigue or suicidal ideations (APA, 2013) Direct Effects of Humour on Depression Positive humour. Affiliative and self-enhancing humour styles are correlated with measures related to high levels of social competence, such as self-esteem, social intimacy, personal disclosure and initiating relationships (Martin et al., 2003; Kuiper & Martin, 1998), all of which are negatively related to interpersonal risk factors of depression (i.e. lack of belonging and burdensomeness) and depression itself (Rasmussen & Wingate, 2011). It is argued that affiliative and self-enhancing humour protects against loneliness at work and interpersonal dysfunction with coworkers (Tucker et al., 2013), safeguarding against the development of depression. Moreover, self-enhancing humour alone is negatively related to concerns of what others think and pleasing others (Frewen et al., 2008), which is a risk factor for depression (Marcus & Nardone, 1992). Therefore, it is hypothesized that self-enhancing humour not only is aprotective factor against feelings of loneliness in the workplace, but also buffers against concerns of social rejection from co-workers. Hypothesis 3a: Affiliative humour is negatively associated with workplace depression. Hypothesis 3b: Self-enhancing humour is negatively associated with workplace depression. Negative humour. Self-defeating humour is positively related to measures of interpersonal dysfunction, such as shyness and decreased levels of self-esteem (Martin, 2007). Feeling cut off or rejected by coworkers is a significant risk factor for the development of 11

19 workplace depression (Bilsker, Gilbert, & Samra, 2007). It is argued that self-enhancing humour is a risk factor for loneliness at work and interpersonal dysfunction with coworkers, precipitating depression. Although self-defeating humour may be used with the motivation to enhance social bonds with co-workers, the alienation that results ultimately leads to feelings of seclusion and failure. When experiencing this lack of connectedness and loneliness, individuals who use selfdefeating humour are more at risk of suicidal ideations and depression (Tucker et al., 2013). Moreover, self-defeating humour is positively related to sociotropy (Frewen et al., 2008), in which in which one s self-worth is based on others evaluations of oneself and their sense of perceived likeability, which is a risk factor of depression (Marshall et al., 2008). Therefore, it is hypothesized that self-defeating humour is not only a risk factor for feelings of loneliness in the workplace, but also exacerbates concerns of social rejection from co-workers. Hypothesis 4: Self-defeating humour is positively associated with workplace depression. Previous research has failed to find a relationship between aggressive humour and anxiety or depression (Kuiper et al., 2004; Martin et al., 2003; Martin 2007). This may be because aggressive humour has to do with one s view of others. One might have an entirely negative view of others and use humour to put them down while maintaining a positive view of one s self. Thus, although aggressive humour will be included in the analysis, it is not expected to have relationships with work-induced anxiety or depression Direct Effects of Humour on Anxiety Positive humour. Affiliative humour generates enhanced opportunities for positive emotions to be expressed and shared, including mirth, enjoyment and exhilaration (Martin, 2007). Moreover, individuals who use self-enhancing humour view their life surroundings and circumstances from a contemplative and optimistic humourous stance. Taken together, these 12

20 emotions and cognitions contribute to a more positive and healthy self-concept, which are generally in opposition of feelings that routine events are viewed as ambiguous, uncertain and unmanageable (Kuiper et al., 2014a). As such, it is hypothesized that affiliative and selfenhancing humour prevent individuals from being intolerant of workplace uncertainties, an antecedent to workplace anxiety (Dugas, Freeston, & Ladouceur,1997). Hypothesis 5a: Affiliative humour is negatively associated with workplace anxiety. Hypothesis 5b: Self-enhancing humour is negatively associated with workplace anxiety. Self-defeating humour. Consistent self-defeating humour use leads to a negative view of the self, which is associated with a strong negative bias in perceiving and responding to daily situations (Martin, 2007; Kuiper et al., 2014a). Specifically, these individuals believe they lack the confidence and skill set to effectively manage life s uncertainties. Moreover, the lack of social support that accompanies self-defeating humour may limit future opportunities to discuss and offset their negative view of the self (Martin, 2007; Kuiper et al., 2014a) and their beliefs that they cannot manage workplace uncertainties that accompany their negative self-concept, ultimately contributing to anxiety. It then follows that individuals who use self-defeating humor at work may appraise routine work events as ambiguous or uncertain and believe they have less resilience to manage said events. These individuals may then experience heightened intolerance of uncertainty in the workplace, excessive worry and, ultimately, the onset of anxiety. Hypothesis 6: Self-defeating humour is positively associated with workplace anxiety. 1.4 The Moderating Effect of Humour on the Organizational Stressor-Strain Relationship Virtually all employees, regardless of the occupation, are exposed to workplace stressors on a daily basis. Workplace stressors include organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, and work overload and can lead to feelings of stress (Spector & Jex, 1998). The job demands- 13

21 resources model is a conceptual framework in which the effects of workplace stressors are often examined. Job demands refer to the physical, social or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort (Richter & Hacker, 1998). Job resources refer to those physical, social or organizational aspects of the job that may aid in achieving work goals, reducing job demands or stimulate growth and development. A lack of resources complicates the meeting of job demands, and over time we begin to experience strain, such as psychological disorders or behavioral impairments (Jex & Beehr, 1991; Spector & Fox, 2002). Research suggests organizational stressors adversely impacts organizational citizenship behaviours, counterproductive work behaviours (Boye & Jones, 1997; O Brien, 2008), anxiety and depression (Spector & Jex, 1998). Past research in the humour domain suggests that an individual s sense of humour is an resource worthy of consideration in the life stressor-strain relationship primarily because of its relationship with positive appraisals of challenge in lieu of threat (Kuiper et al., 1995; Abel, 2002). Individuals who are categorized as high humour users appraised less stress than individuals defined as low humour users (Abel, 2002) and report lower levels of depression, mood disturbances, anxiety or immunoglobin-a, an immune system suppressant (Martin & Lefcourt, 1983; Nezu, Nezu, & Blisset, 1988). While several positive and negative personality traits have been implicated in exacerbating or buffering the work stressor-strain relationship, and adaptive humour has been implicated in buffering the life stressor-strain relationship, there is a lack of research examining how both positive and negative humour styles affects the work stressor-strain relationship. Given that positive and negative humour styles are associated with exacerbating or buffering (i) feelings of stress towards workplace stressors and (ii) general anxiety and depression and (iii) its 14

22 potential effects on extra-role workplace behaviours, it is plausible that humour styles may have important moderation effects for the organizational stressor-strain relationship of OCB and CWB as well as workplace depression and anxiety. Below, the potential moderating effects of each humour style are discussed. The Moderating Effect of Humour on Workplace Stressors Affiliative humour. Investigators have found that positive humour is negatively related to evaluations of past stressors and anticipated future stressors (Cann, Holt, & Calhoun, 1999) suggesting that positive humour styles have a stress-buffering effect (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). During times of interpersonal conflict at work, individuals may turn to affiliative humour as an adaptive coping strategy, lessening the likelihood that the stressor becomes a perceived stress. Affiliative humour is a strategic form of non-hostile communication by delivering a negative or critical message in a nonthreatening way (Bippus, Dunbar, & Liu, 2012). By facilitating laughter and feelings of mirth (Martin, 2007), affiliative humour is a social lubricant that creates a positive environment, reduces anger and facilitates open communication (Martin et al., 2003; Romero & Arendt, 2011) which in turn, leads to the lowest co-worker ratings of counter-arguing out of all four of the humour styles (Bippus et al., 2012). Individuals who engage in affiliative humour elicit positive affect and are perceived as more likeable (Bolinger, 2001; Dyck & Holtzman, 2013), which may lead to long-lasting and supportive relationships with co-workers. It is argued that affiliative humour will facilitate coworker social support (Dyck & Holtzman, 2013; Factor, 1997), which is a key buffer against feelings of workplace stress (Karasek et al., 1982; Parasuraman et al., 1992). Hypothesis 7: Affiliative humour will moderate the relationship between stressors and workplace strains (e.g., anxiety, depression, OCB, and CWB), such that the relationship between 15

23 stressors and strains will be weaker when affiliative humour is high Self-enhancing humour. When demands exceed one s control, a stressful working environment can negatively impact individuals perceived competence and ability to manage a given situation (Edwards & Cooper, 1990). It is argued that self-enhancing humour may reduce feelings of workplace stress by facilitating a sense of objectivity and empowerment. Selfenhancing humour permits individuals to explore cognitive alternatives (Abel & Maxwell, 2002), allowing them to positively appraise, emotionally distance and reframe a stressful event in a more optimistic manner (Kuiper et al., 1995) ultimately providing a sense of control, mastery and competence to manage the stressor. Therefore, in situations of work overload or organizational constraints, individuals who use self-enhancing humour may perceive it as a positive challenge rather than an overwhelming organizational demand, which would buffer the negative effects of organizational stressors. Hypothesis 8: Self-enhancing humour will moderate the relationship between stressors and workplace strains, such that the relationship between stressors and workplace strains will be weaker when self-enhancing humour is high Self-defeating humour. Previous research suggests that negative humour styles are significant risk factors for exacerbating feelings of stress (Romero & Cruthids, 2006). In stressful situations, self-defeating humour is used as a form of defensive denial as a means to suppress one s underlying emotions, rather than dealing with them constructively (Kuiper, Comeau, Klein, & Maolino, 2014b). Given that self-defeating humour creates a persona of emotional neediness and is ultimately not well-received by others (Martin, 2007; Kuiper, Kirsh, & Leite, 2010), the negative evaluations and social isolation from co-workers that ensues may intensify feelings of work stress (Martin, 2007; Kuiper et al., 2014b; Kuiper et al., 2010). 16

24 Hypothesis 9: Self-defeating humour will moderate the relationship between stressors and workplace strains, such that the relationship between stressors and workplace strains will be stronger when self-defeating humour is high Aggressive humour. Individuals may turn to the use of aggressive humour as a means to handle interpersonal conflict. However, this coping strategy may exacerbate the problem unknowingly, which could ultimately intensify feelings of stress. Aggressive humour is used as a tactic to express hostility or aggression in an indirect manner, with the goal of softening the critical comments so they are not taken negatively (Martin et al., 2003). However, this tactic is not well-received by others, as this destructive form of communication is related to higher levels of co-worker counter-arguing (Bipus, Dunbar, & Liu, 2012). Moreover, individuals who engage in aggressive humour have a tendency to interpret stressful situations in a hostile manner (Martin et al., 2003). When hostility increases, the ability to manage interpersonal conflict and organizational stressors is reduced (Ivanko et al., 2004). Therefore, employees frequently engaging in aggressive humour are more likely to show stronger stress symptoms resulting from experiencing organizational stressors. Hypothesis 10: Aggressive humour will moderate the relationship between stressors and workplace strains, such that the relationship between stressors and workplace strains will be stronger when aggressive humour is high. 1.5 Self- and Observer Reports The current study will extend humour research by measuring humour by including ratings by well-acquainted others. The section below will elaborate on why the use of observer-reports could be particularly important for the measurement of humour. A prominent study of workplace humour conducted by Romero and Arendt (2011) 17

25 examined the relationships between humour styles and workplace stress, co-worker satisfaction, team cooperation and organizational commitment. Romero and Cruthirds (2006) established a definition of organizational humour as an interpersonal process involving amusing communications (p.649), which has been commonly used in this and other organizational humour studies. However, Romero and Arendt (2011) assessed individual levels of perception of humour (p.649) and the data used to test the hypothesis was examined at the individual level of analysis (Sosik, 2012), suggesting a lack of data-theory alignment (Dansereau et al., 1984). To elaborate, affiliative and aggressive humours are interpersonal processes, with an initiator, target and receiver of humour (Martin, 2007). Therefore, perceptual ratings of humour from both the initiator and the receiver(s) should be gathered to be certain that the goal of humour was achieved (i.e. did humour actually reduce interpersonal tensions?). While Romero and Arendt (2011) used a humour measure that does tap the interpersonal and intra-psychic nature of humour (e.g. Humour Styles Questionnaire, Martin et al., 2003), they used self-report measures, which only targets the initiator of the humour (Sosik, 2012). While the intra-psychic function of humour may be tapped by data from the initiator of humour, the interpersonal forms of humour were not tapped because data was not collected from the receiver as well. While positive humour is associated with positive characteristics such as likeability, intelligence and creativity (Martin et al., 2003), maladaptive humour styles are associated with undesirable personality characteristics such as psychopathy, Machiavellianism and early maladaptive schemas (Dozois, Martin, & Bieling, 2009). As such, individuals may skew their reports as a result of self-enhancement bias (Cann & Matson, 2014). Indeed, it has been shown that positive humour styles are associated with a good sense of humour and are more socially desirable than negative styles (Cann & Matson, 2014). 18

26 Goals, Summary and Contributions of the Proposed Research The main contribution of this study is to examine the possible relationships between humour styles and OCB, CWB, work-induced anxiety and depression. While this personality dimension is theoretically relevant to extra-role behaviours and psychological impairments, workplace humour research to date has not examined these proposed relationships. Also, the current study will expand upon past organizational stressor-strain research by introducing humour styles as potential moderators. Previous workplace humour research has yet to examine the stress-moderating effects beyond coping humour (now considered self-enhancing humour), suggesting there are still significant gaps in the literature examining the prediction of strain outcomes when also including our current conceptualization of humour. This research will introduce a theoretically driven account of the direct and moderating effects of a four-factor model on humour, highlighting the differential effects of interpersonal, intra-psychic, positive and negative humour on organizational outcomes. With these questions, we aim to further our understanding the role of an often-overlooked personality trait in workplace outcomes. Through the use of self and other reports of humour styles, we aim to provide a more accurate measure of interpersonal humour in the workplace. Given that little to no previous research has gathered observer reports of humour, we hope that the incremental accuracy of humour measurement will highlight the importance of this method, and will pioneer this technique for future humour researchers to use. CHAPTER 2: METHOD 2.1 Participants The sample was comprised of undergraduate students who are also employed in entrylevel part-time positions. One hundred dyads (200 participants) were solicited for the study and 19

27 the final sample included 95 dyads. Participants arrived in pairs to provide both self and observer ratings. On average, the self-observer pairs knew one another for 3.77 years (SD = 3.73) and knew one another fairly well (M = 7.81, SD = 1.56; 10-point scale). Eighty-two percent of the dyads where friends, 15% romantic partners and 2% family members. On average, participants had been employed with their organization for one year and 10 months and 91% described their position as non-managerial. The most common positions were in customer service (27%), sales (36%) and hospitality (18%). The age of participants included in the analysis ranged from 18 to 35 with a mean age of (SD = 2.60). The sample was mostly comprised of females (76%) with the rest identifying as male. The ethnic distribution of participants is as follows: Caucasian (50.5%), Chinese (14.2%), South Asian (9.5%), Black (3.2%), Arab/West Asian (8.9%), Filipino (2.6%), South East Asian (2.6%), Latin American (1.1%), Japanese (1.1%), Korean (5.3%), Other (1.1%). 2.2 Measures Organizational stressors Organizational constraints. Employees perceived organizational constraints were measured using Spector and Jex s (1998) Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS). The OCS consists of 11 items that measures 11 areas in which employees could perceive constraints (e.g. faulty equipment). Participants were asked to indicate how often they experienced each of the constraints on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (less than once a month or never) to 4 (several times per day). A sample item is How often do you find it difficult or impossible to do your job because of incorrect instructions?. Previous research suggests the scale has a very good alpha value ranging from.86 to.88 (Spector & Jex, 1998). Interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal conflict at work was measured using the 20

28 Interpersonal Conflict at Work four-item scale (Spector & Jex, 1998). Participants were asked to indicate how often they experienced each of the conflict situations on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). A sample item is how often do you get into arguments with others at work?. Previous research suggests the scale has a good alpha value ranging from.74 to.86 (Spector & Fox, 1998). Workload. Workload was measured using the five-item Quantitative Workload Inventory (Spector & Jex, 1998). The scale measures the extent to which an employee is required to work fast and hard, the quantity of work and their amount of free time. High values represent a heavier workload. Participants were asked to indicate how often they experienced each of the questions on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (less than once per month) to 5 (several times per day). A sample item is how often do you have more work than you can do well?. Previous research suggests the scale has a good internal consistency alpha value of.82 (Spector & Jex, 1998) Humour styles questionnaire. The Humour Styles Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003) includes 32 items that are divided into four scales (8 items each) assessing affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive and self-defeating humour. Items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) and 7 (totally agree). Example items are: I laugh and joke a lot with my friends (affiliative humour); If I m feeling depressed, I can usually cheer myself up with humour (self-enhancing humour); If someone makes a mistake, I will often tease them about it (aggressive humour) and; I let people laugh at me or make fun at my expense more than I should (self-defeating humour). In order to assess workplace humour in addition to general humour, the questionnaire was modified to include at work in the items. The reliabilities for each of these scales are good, with Cronbach s alphas 21

29 ranging from.77 for aggressive humour to.81 for self-enhancing humour (Martin et al., 2007). Inter-correlations between the scales are low, indicating the scales are measuring four distinct humour styles. Outcome Variables Organizational citizenship behaviours. The Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Checklist (Lee & Allen, 2000) includes nine items measuring the engagement in pro-social extrarole behaviours targeted towards individuals or the organization. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they have engaged in each of the behaviours on the present job on a 1 (never) to 7 (always) Likert scale. A sample item for the organizational-targeted OCB is volunteered for extra work assignments and a sample item for the co-worker targeted OCB is helped a co-worker who had much to do. The coefficient alpha (internal consistency reliability) for the 16 item scale is.88 for the OCB-O items and.83 for the OCB-I items (Lee & Allen, 2000) Counterproductive work behaviours. The Counterproductive Behaviour Checklist (Spector et al., 2006) includes 10 items measuring organizational and interpersonally targeted CWBs. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they have engaged in the CWB in the past year on a 1 (never) to 5 (every day) Likert scale. Example items for the organizational-targeted OCB is came in late to work without permission and a sample item for the co-worker targeted CWB is started an argument with someone at work. The cronbach alphas are.84 for interpersonal subscales and.85 for organizational subscales Depression and Anxiety. The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21; Antony et al., 1998) is a 21 item scale with a three factor structure examining depression, anxiety and stress. For the purpose of this study, we only used the depression and anxiety scale and 22

30 adapted the remaining 13 items to represent depression and anxiety at work. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they have experienced the statements on a 1 (never) to 7 (daily) Likert scale. A sample item for the depression scale is I felt that I have nothing to look forward at work and a sample item for the anxiety scale is I felt that I was so close to panic at work. The cronbach alphas are.94 for the depression sub-scale and.91 for the anxiety scale Control Variables Humour Climate Questionnaire. The humour Climate Questionnaire (Cann et al., 2014) is a 16 item questionnaire used to quantify the broad presence of humour in the workplace. This questionnaire is used to assess situational or climate characteristics that may facilitate or suppress the use of humour at work. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with the statement on a 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) Likert scale. An example item from this scale is trying to use humour at work could get someone in trouble with their supervisor. Demographics. Participants were asked their age, gender, type of position (managerial or non-managerial), type of employment (full time or part time), organizational tenure and job tenure. Acquaintance with Friend. Rather than limiting the sample to coworkers, observer ratings were provided by anyone who knows the participant well. Participants were asked to report their relationship with their friend (friend, romantic partner, family member, spouse), number of years they have been acquainted with that person, and how well they know their friend on a scale from 1 (not well) to 10 (very well). 2.3 Procedure Students from a variety of work positions were recruited through psychnet for course 23