10.5193/JEE33.4.338 Journal of Experiential Education 2011, Volume 33, No. 4 pp. 338-353 Joking Culture: The Role of Repeated Humorous Interactions on Group Processes During Challenge Course Experiences Erin Rothwell, Kassidy Siharath, Steven Bell, Kim Nguyen, and Carla Baker When groups form, they develop their own culture from the shared meaning created from their interactions. Humor is part of every social group, and when repeatedly referenced, it forms a joking culture. The joking culture of small groups influences group processes by smoothing group interaction, forming a collective identity, separating the group from others, and securing appropriate behavior. Adventure education challenge courses include humor as part of their context; therefore, studying the joking culture of groups during challenge course experiences may provide additional insight and tools for improving group outcomes. Two ethnographic examples of continued joking from a participant observation approach are provided to demonstrate the presence of continued joking during challenge course experiences. Keywords: Joking, Small Croup Culture, Croup Processes, Ethnography, Croups, Challenge Courses, Adventure Education Erin Rothwell is an Assistant Research Professor in the College of Nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA. E-mail: erin.rothwell@nurs.utah.edu Kassidy Siharath was a graduate student in the Department of Public Health at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City USA. Steven Bell is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA. '-/naj7: steven.bell@healui.utah.edu Kim Nguyen was an undergraduate student in the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA. Carla Raker was an undergraduate student in the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
2011, Volume 33, No. 4 339 Humor can be a significant component of challenge course experiences. It can be a onetime gesture or it can be repeatedly referenced throughout the group interaction. When humor is repeatedly referred back to through group interaction, it creates a joking culture (Fine & De Soucey, 2005). Culture formation is an outcome from group interactions that members of the group can use to interpret the experience and to provide as a basis for future interactions (Fine & De Soucey, 2005; Spradley, 1979). Within the small-group context. Fine (1979) has termed the cultural elements of an interacting small group as an idioculture. Within the context of adventure education specifically, challenge courses studying the joking culture of groups may he applicahle for increasing understanding of how groups function and may provide tools for group leaders to promote the developmental and cohesive qualities of a group. Challenge course experiences use humor as part of their context, which may make these settings more conducive for promoting a joking culture within interacting groups. To demonstrate the presence and influence of continued joking within the challenge course setting, two detailed ethnographic examples are presented from a participant observation approach. Challenge Courses and Humor Not only do we live and work in groups, but we also play in groups (Poole, HoUingshead, McGrath, Moreland, & Rohrbaugh, 2004). In fact, the most common modality for delivery of services in adventure education is the utilization of groups. Yet there has been little research on the cultural elements of small groups within adventure education. Every group to some extent has their own culture that can influence interactions and interpretations among the participants (Fine, 1979). Thus, studying the cultural aspects of a small group may help to improve programming and leadership efforts for adventure education programs. One area in adventure education, challenge courses, tends to place more emphasis on grouporiented outcomes by having groups remain as one entity throughout the entire experience (Schoel & Maizel, 2002; Schoel, Prouty, & Radcliff, 1988). Ghallenge courses, therefore, may be more influenced by the impact of small group culture. Ghallenge courses create intense experiences for groups that highlight how groups function and what they value (Glass & Benshoff, 2002; Priest, 1998; Wolfe & Samdahl, 2005). Due to the intensity of a challenge course, these experiences can provide valuable feedback and help to
340 Journal of Experiential Education improve group dynamics because they serve as a microscopic experience that is not as readily achieved in everyday settings (Johnson, 1992; S. Priest & Gass, 1997; Schoel & Maizel, 2002). They provide feedback for individuals to learn about the group and how he or she interacts within the group. Also, when asked to perform in a different environment, group members no longer have the typical resources available, and they rely on assumptions for how the group should function when approached with a group task. This can expose group norms and values that are not as noticeable in an everyday setting, or for developing groups, it can highlight group assumptions of how the group should function. Thus, challenge courses can serve as valuable group interventions because they aim to provide positive, intense experiences in a different context to improve grouprelated outcomes (Johnson, 1992; S. Priest & Gass, 1997). The intensity is partially achieved by having groups work as one entity though the entire experience, to deal with immediate consequences of group actions due to the structure of the group initiatives, and to get along (McAvoy, Mitten, Stringer, Steckart, & Sproles, 1996). The intensity of the challenge courses is also achieved by having the group work in novel and unorthodox initiatives that are challenging, but enjoyable, experiences (Schoel et al., 1988; Sniith, Roland, Haven, & Hoyt, 1992). When individuals find an experience enjoyable, they are more likely to continue to put forth the necessary effort to maintain a higher level of intensity of involvement (Kuiper, McKenzie, & Belanger, 1995; Wankel, 1985). Thus, humor can be a valuable component of challenge course experiences because it may increase the likelihood that the experience is more enjoyable (Schoel et al., 1988). Successful group leaders are encouraged to find opportunities for positive humorous slants as they plan challenge initiatives (Schoel & Maizel, 2002), and they are reminded that learning should be fun and promote enjoyment of the experience (Rohnke, 1989). Even names of challenge initiatives (e.g., "Kitten Grawl," "Heebie Jeebie," "Hoopie," "Grab Your Toes," or "Inch Worm") can elicit humorous thoughts (Rohnke, 1989). The props associated with challenge courses (e.g., bouncy balls, rubber chickens, animal toys, float tubes, balloons) also have a jocular character to them (Rohnke & Butler, 1995). Despite the purpose for a group participating on a challenge course whether it is for improving communication, teamwork, or decision-making engaging the participants into the experience is necessary for achieving outcomes and for enabling participants to have some level of "fun" (Rohnke, 1989; Schoel et al., 1988). The Joking Culture of a Small Group Humor is part of every culture, group, and civilization (Murphy, 1986), and it is reflective of a group's interpretation of reality at that
2011, Volume 33, No. 4 341 moment (La Fave, 1972). Groups, as societies, form their own culture (Fine, 1979; Schein, 1985). The formation of a culture stems from group interactions, which are influenced by the environment. More specifically, humorous interactions help to form social meaning in small group cultures because they reflect values and interpretations of the group within a specific context (Blumer, 1969; Fine, 1979). Culture is context dependent, and it is a product of ongoing interactions from the shared experiences of the group (Emerson, 1969). Shared experiences create shared meanings, and the meanings derived from these experiences create a small group culture (Blumer, 1969). A joking culture stems from shared experiences and is a product of group learning as members adapt to their environment and perform the tasks at hand (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Thus, as groups interact on a challenge course, the small group culture is created from the immediate context of the group (Schein, 1985), and repeated humorous interactions create a joking culture (Fine & De Soucey, 2005). Fine (1979, 1984) was influential in the pioneering effort to identify the presence and influence of small group culture on group processes. Small group culture, or idioculture, refers to a system of knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, and customs shared by members of an interacting group to which members can refer that serve as the basis of further interaction. Members recognize that they share experiences and these experiences can be referred to with the expectation that they will be understood by other members. (Fine, 1979, p. 125) Culture formation has been equated as identical to the "process of group formation" because it involves developing shared patterns of thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and values as a result of shared experiences and common learning (Schein, 1985). Thus, as members of a group begin to interact, the process of culture formation begins. Group formation is a significant goal for designing challenge course experiences not only for newly formed groups but also for ones that have been together for awhile (Bisson, 1997; Schoel et al., 1988; Smith et al., 1992). In a review of the most common sequences for designing challenge course experiences, group formation was one of the main objectives (Bisson, 1999). This emphasis on creating new, shared experiences for all groups during challenge courses gives rise to opportunities of new shared meanings to be incorporated into an idioculture. Group leaders can use these new experiences to target areas of improvement for group functioning. The shared meaning from the humorous experiences of the group can produce a distinct joking culture for the group during and after their time on the challenge course.
342 Journal of Experiential Education The Development of a Joking Culture Five characteristics influence the development of a humorous interaction to become a part of a small group's joking culture. Cultural forms may be created and utilized for groups if they are (a) known, (b) usable in the context of group interaction, (c) functional in supporting group goals, (d) appropriate for supporting the hierarchy of the group, and (e) triggered by events within the group interactions (Fine, 1979). The influence of these characteristics varies for different groups, and thus, culture formation also varies for groups. Although jokes are formed from the interaction of the group, they are often influenced by prior experiences and knowledge from other "latent cultures" (Becker & Geer, 1960). Past experiences or background information are not separate from current group interaction because they influence how one behaves in new contexts. The production of the joke is thus influenced by other cultures and the current context, giving rise for shared experiences and meanings to be developed. But in order for a jocular incident to become part of an idioculture, the influence from other latent cultures and the current experiences must be known by more than one member in the group. Some jocular incidents or remarks, despite being known by several members of the group, may be too offensive or taboo to discuss within the current setting, preventing adoption within the idioculture. Jocular comments need to be situationally appropriate to be of use within a joking culture. The third criterion for a jocular comment to be incorporated into a joking culture is that it must support the group's goals. Fine (1979) has coined this characteristic as "functional culture." As mentioned previously, culture is developed from shared meanings, and shared meanings are developed from the purpose of the group. For most interacting groups, achieving group goals tends to involve group problem solving (Becker & Greer, 1960). In order for a joke to become a potential cultural element of the group, it must help the group to solve shared problems for reaching goal achievement. In addition to helping achieve group goals, humorous interactions must support the structure of the group in order to become part of an idioculture. Although humor is used for numerous social functions of groups (Goodchilds, 1959; Martineau, 1972; R. F. Priest & Swain, 2002; Vinton, 1989), it is also used within formal and informal groups to help establish social ranking (Holmes, 2000). Role differentiation is a natural process within groups, and joking that helps to construct/support these distinctions are more likely to be adopted as a cultural element. This is similar to the process of how nicknames link individuals to social positions (Fine, 1987).
2011, Volume 33, No. 4 343 The last characteristic that helps create a joking culture is a triggering event (Fine, 1979). Triggering events emerge from the immediate, ongoing interaction of the group. For this event to spark continued joking, it tends to stem from an unpredicted hut welcomed response from the group. Understanding a Joking Culture of a Small Group For a humorous remark or joking to be continually used by a small group, it must be embedded, interactive, and referential (Fine & De Soucey, 2005). First, joking does not typically happen between strangers, and for a joking culture to develop, it has to occur within an ongoing relationship (Fine & De Soucey, 2005). When joking is embedded within a relationship, it allows an individual to tease or make fun of another without taking offense and for the joke to mean more than what was said (Barron, 1950; Emerson, 1969; Fine, 1984; Martineau, 1972). Also, for joking to become a discourse, the joking must be interactive. Merely responding to a joke by smiling or laughing is not enough; a reciprocated participation from the other individual is required. The reciprocated interaction must build upon the joke in order for it to be more than a onetime experience. Lack of a response to a joke can inform the joker that those comments were not appropriate or not welcomed for this situation. Lastly, joking must refer to a shared experience that is understood only by the members of the group. As stated before, joking must be embedded in an ongoing relationship to allow the joker to "get away with the joke" and for the joke to mean more than what was said (Fine & De Soucey, 2005). The shared experiences of the group give rise to a shared identity that allows the joke to refer to the history of the group and to provide common understandings for future interactions. Joking has been studied in other contexts, such as a mechanism for relieving stress, managing power relations, building trust, and establishing social boundaries in work, organization, and social settings (Bonaiuto, Castellana, & Pierro, 2003; Holmes, 2000; Robinson & Smith-Lovin, 2001). This paper views humor in a different framework and builds upon the work by Fine and De Soucey (2005) of viewing humor as a discourse (not a onetime gesture) that regulates group life. Fine and De Soucey (2005) studied the joking culture and its impact on small group processes through an examination of a group of mushroom pickers. It was supported that a jocular remark, when part of the group's discourse (compared to a singular event), helps group regulation by (a) smoothing interactions, (b) sharing a collective identity, (c) separating the group from others, and (d) securing appropriate actions of the members. To demonstrate the role of a joking culture on small group processes during a challenge course experience, two detailed ethnographic examples of continued joking will be discussed.
344 Journal of Experiential Education Data Analysis The central concept that unifies the analyses of these results is small group culture (Spradley, 1979). Within this overlaying concept of the experience, emic and etic perspectives of a joking culture were examined. Six groups that ranged from 6 to 12 participants engaged in half-day to full-day challenge course experiences were audio recorded and observed between August 2005 and January 2007 [n = 30 hours). Audio recording allowed the researcher to re-listen to the groups for additional insight and clarification while reviewing field notes that included observations on experiences, ideas, mistakes, confusions, and impressions (Spradley, 1979). The recordings were transcribed and verified by members of the research team. Goding was used to document the quantity of humor and when it occurred in the group culture, as well as the agreement of humor from the reaction of the participants. Drawbacks to this approach are that only verbal behaviors were primarily analyzed, and nonverbal behaviors (smiles) and failed humorous attempts (no responses) tended to be neglected. Studying verbal behaviors (i.e., language) is the primary means for transmitting culture, and it allows inferences of meaning to be drawn from that culture (Spradley, 1979). Thus, studying the verbal behaviors of a group along with observations can provide insight into a small group culture. The next step of the analysis focused on only humor that was repeated and referred back to within the group experience. ATLAS.ti was used to help analyze the data. Two incidents on a challenge course will be used as examples of how continued jocular humor influences group processes. First is the "shark incident" and second is the "Jeremy, no Jeffrey incident." The Shark Incident The shark incident was initiated by the group during one of the first initiatives, called "Group Juggle." During this initiative, the group is required to toss a number of props (e.g., balls, toys, stuffed animals) simultaneously, and in the same order, to other members of the group. The goal is to not drop any of them. About halfway through the activity, the facilitator picked up a stuffed animal that looked like a shark and squeezed it. When she squeezed the shark, it made a high-pitched squeal, and she said that "the shark can pretty much go anywhere it wants." Tossing the shark into the group was meant to be an added challenge for the group to juggle because it did not have to follow the same order as the other props associated with this initiative. When the facilitator tossed the shark to a group member, he started squeezing it and then passed it to another group member who also started squeezing it. The group immediately became fixated on the shark. As they were laughing at each other and squeaking
2011, Volume 33, No. 4 345 the shark, the members of the group started to ignore the facilitator and the primary task of the initiative. Then the group noticed that this was bothering the facilitator, and one of the members who had the shark at that time was apologetic. The facilitator responded, "I know, it's alright, it's alright." Then the group hegan the final attempt where they successfully achieved the group initiative, but throughout this attempt the group members kept talking about and squeezing the shark (e.g.. There goes that shark). Even after the initiative was complete, the members were still squeezing the shark while the facilitator was trying to talk about why they were successful in solving the challenge initiative. The facilitator finally became irritated with the "squeaky shark" and said, "Enough of the squeaky shark!" All the participants laughed heartily at the facilitator's reaction, and as they went to their next initiative, they made sure to bring "Sharkie" with them. The shark was kept with the group during their entire time on the challenge course, and group members continually mentioned the shark. During the challenge course, members alternated taking responsibility for "Sharkie" and included him as a member of the group by making sure "he" made it to the next initiative. There were more than 40 humorous remarks made by the group in reference to the shark during the challenge course experience, and throughout the course, participants made random shark noises as they continued to interact (e.g., "Squeeeeakkk!"). The shark event allowed a joking culture to be created, and this, in effect, helped to regulate the social interactions of the group (Attardo, 1994). Several times during the experience the continued joking references toward the shark helped to smooth social interactions when there was a mistake or misunderstanding within the group (Fine & DeSoucey, 2005). For example, during one of the initiatives, a member had a difficult time keeping up with the pace of the initiative and kept dropping a ball. If anyone dropped something, the group had to start over. After several times of repeating the initiative, this particular member was getting embarrassed by the repeated mistake. Instead of not saying anything, several members of the group blamed Sharkie for the mistakes and coupled it with constructive feedback: "Sharks will do that [distract you], you know. Yah, just focus on the two people you interact with." This helped to take the attention off the group member making the mistakes and allowed feedback to be given in a nonthreatening manner. Another example was when another group member also blamed Sharkie for "getting in the way" during one of the last initiatives in which a member fell. Jokes were made that "[Sharkie's] okay" from the fall, thus taking the attention off of the member who fell. Blaming Sharkie and/or making sure Sharkie was okay served as a social lubrication that rescued the interactions among the group from uncomfortable silences, blunders, and errors (Fine & De Soucey, 2005).
346 Journal of Experiential Education Continued joking about Sharkie also helped to smooth group regulation by sharing a collective identity through cohesion (Fine & De Soucey, 2005). Sharkie helped to connect the members of the group by encouraging interaction and by supporting the cultural norm that participation is a valued contribution to the group. Jocular comments about Sharkie were made to group members who were performing well or giving forth substantial effort during initiatives: "The shark, the shark loves her," or "We should give it [Sharkie] to Eric [as a reward]." This helped to reinforce the value of participation within the group. There was also a mutual affinity and caring for Sharkie, and when he was neglected, members of the group included him in unorthodox methods, such as carrying him in their mouths or tying Sharkie onto their backs. Because these appeared as potentially dangerous situations for Sharkie, members voiced their concerns that extra caution should be taken (e.g.. Taking that shark in your teeth might harm him). In facilitating a collective identity, the group also separated themselves from other groups by stating that the other groups did not have a shark member, or as they walked near other groups, by making shark noises that only the members of the group understood. The group also used the shark to taunt other groups by making Sharkie wave at them and by calling themselves the "Shark-Umbria!" During the last initiative, the high climb, the shark was also visibly "harnessed" in for the high climb for other groups to see, and many group members included Sharkie as part of the goals of the high climb (e.g., / am going to take Sharkie with me that will be my goal). Interestingly, Sharkie was also used to secure appropriate behaviors within the group (Fine & De Soucey, 2005). As mentioned previously, participation was perceived as a valued contribution to the group. When group members became distracted and/or did not participate, other group members gave them the shark. Members would then recognize that they were not paying attention and would reengage with the initiative by using apologetic, but humorous, remarks that blamed the shark for not participating (e.g.. That shark... seriously). The Jeremy, No Jeffrey Incident Another incident that supported the presence of continued joking in a group during a challenge course experience was the Jeremy, no Jeffrey incident. During the beginning of the challenge course, a group engaged in an initiative to learn each other's names. For some reason, most of the group members could not remember a member's name (Jeremy) and kept calling him Jeffrey, despite numerous corrections by Jeremy. Jeremy became visibly irritated with this, and after the first five mistakes, he stopped smiling and saying it was "okay" and instead began curtly
2011, Volume 33, No. 4 347 correcting the other group members. The other group members appeared embarrassed and some began calling him both names in hopes of avoiding offending Jeremy. Finally, at the end of the initiative, Jeremy gave up correcting the other group members and made a joke out of it: "You can call me Jeffery. I've been called worse, trust me." The group responded with boisterous laughter and "Jeremy, no Jeffrey" helped to relieve some of the group's tension and friction by allowing them to call him Jeffrey. There were more than 30 comments made by the group during the challenge course in reference to this incident. Jeremy helped to smooth the social interactions of the group by making an embarrassing situation (calling him the wrong name despite numerous corrections) tolerable by allowing it to be jocular in nature (Billig, 2001; Fine & De Soucey, 2005). If Jeremy had instead become visibly upset, group regulation could have been hindered, which may have furthered faltering interactions and prevented commonalities among the group from forming (Fine & De Soucey, 2005). The Jeremy-Jeffrey incident in turn helped to build commonalities among the group by shielding the interaction fiom disruption (Fine & De Soucey, 2005). Framing this incident in a jocular character helped to give the right to get away with a socially inappropriate act within the limits of the group, and having acceptable social roles that only applied within this particular group setting helped to form a collective identity. The group agreed to this by stating, "We are going to start calling Jeremy, Jeffery here [and] now on a regular basis. Who made that hard?" This in turn also helped to separate the group from other groups by stating that only the members of this group will know Jeremy by the name Jeffrey. This was reemphasized during the last initiative when the group ended the challenge course with one of their last comments being, "You will now, forever, be known as Jeffrey." This group also had more incidents of using this humorous event for securing social behaviors of the group members in comparison to the other groups. It is unsure if this stemmed from the social exceptions made for this Jeremy-Jeffrey incident and, therefore, the group felt more control was needed over other social behaviors; or if this incident left more ambiguity about the social boundaries of the group; or if it was just a characteristic of this group during their time on the challenge course. Yet in almost every initiative, some humorous comments toward Jeffrey were made in regard to social control. If someone made an inappropriate comment or made a mistake during an initiative, it was blamed on Jeffrey; "It was Jeff, guys, it was Jeff. I promise. Just lay me down and walk on back [to make up for a mistake], can ya?" These humorous but social enforcements were not directed to the original individual but to anyone in the group who was not performing well. For example; "Jeffery, goll... who
348 Journal of Experiential Education let him in?" "Jeffery! Cive him a little," and "Jeffery! Keep the tension taut." It appears this jocular discourse allowed group members to more often correct other group members without breaking any social boundaries because the group did not formally recognize the comments, framed as jokes, as criticism. Discussion These two incidents within interacting group experiences appeared to contain the cultural characteristics needed for a humorous interaction to become part of an idioculture. They were known, usable, functional, appropriate, and triggered within the context of the interacting groups (Fine, 1979). They also contained the characteristics needed for joking to be used as a discourse within small group processes. The incidents were able to be used as part of the joking culture because they were embedded within established relationships, interactive, and able to be referenced only by members of this group (Fine & De Soucey, 2005). This study described two examples of how joking within group life can continually be referenced and used to build social relationships. It is interesting how these two examples stemmed from humorous interactions that may be viewed negatively in other settings. The first example, the shark incident, was triggered by a sudden, unexpected infatuation with a stuffed shark that made squeaking noises. The group squeezed the shark to the point where the group's tasks were ignored and disruptive behavior was displayed when the facilitator was trying to talk to the group. Facilitators on challenge courses are in a position of power and control in comparison to the participants (Brown, 2002). Due to this position of authority, the group is expected to listen when facilitators talk. The group was impolite by continuing to squeak the shark for the remainder of the experience, even if the facilitator was talking again. But framing this behavior in a humorous context allowed the group to get away with this behavior on the challenge course. An interesting finding was that the shark may have also been used in response to the facilitator. The humor from this incident climaxed when the facilitator, despite being the one who initiated the squeezing, verbalized annoyance of the squeaky shark. It also appears that the joking response could have been an attempt to regain some power and control back from the facilitator to the group. The facilitator called the shark "Sam the Shark," but the group never adopted this term and instead called him "Sharkie." By the end of the experience, the facilitator was also calling him Sharkie. The group may not have been challenging the facilitator but instead wanting their own experience; thus, the continual reference of Sharkie helped to give the group a collective identity by separating themselves from others and forming cohesive qualities among the group.
2011, Volume 33, No. 4 349 It is interesting to note that the uses of this humor appeared not only to influence group regulation but also to manage power relationships. Although humor has been supported as a tool for managing power relationships (Holmes, 2000), this study focused on the role of a joking discourse on group regulation. It appears, though, that more research is needed to further understand the role of a joking culture on groups with and without leaders. For example, the shark tended to be used in response to the facilitator. The facilitator was responsible for choosing the initiatives, explaining the rules, leading the discussion, and belaying the participants. This level of involvement may have influenced the facilitator to maintain more control over the experience, and the participants may have been trying to exercise more independence. Future researchers may want to explore further how humorous discourse may be utilized to manage the differentiation of power between groups with leaders and leaderless groups as well as the impact of humorous discourse on experiences during adventure education programs such as challenge courses. The other example, the Jeremy-Jeffrey incident, involved calling a participant the wrong name after numerous corrections. In most social situations, a group member being continuously called the wrong name by all members of an interacting group, including the facilitator, is impolite. The group had already worked together previously for a few days and was using this challenge course experience to help improve teamwork and communication. To help smooth over the awkwardness of the situation and relieve some of the stress, a humorous comment was made by the member who was being called the wrong name, indicating it was okay to call him Jeffrey instead of his real name, Jeremy. For the remainder of the experience the group called him Jeffrey and also stated they would continue to call him Jeffrey after the challenge course. The Jeremy-Jeffrey incident could also be viewed negatively because not remembering someone's name could be interpreted as disrespectful. Although it appeared humorous on the challenge course, it is unknown how Jeremy truly felt about being called Jeffrey. He may have felt less valued as a member of the group and was making humorous comments to help relieve his tension. Also, it is possible the group could not remember his name because he may have been perceived as a less valued member of the group. It is interesting that the facilitator also called this member by the wrong name. As mentioned before, the facilitator is in a position of power and control during the challenge course experience and could have intervened to stop the wrong name calling. From the observations, it appeared that the group got along well and enjoyed their time on the challenge course and that this incident helped to form cohesive qualities among the group. When joking is viewed as an interactive process that is developed from shared understandings, it allows one to attribute meaning to the
350 Journal of Experiential Education social system and add understanding to how groups function (Linstead, 1985; Roy, 1960; Spradley, 1979). The joking culture was seen to help regulate group life during the challenge course in this study. Not only did it provide laughter within the group, but also the continued references to these joking incidents allowed insight for facilitators into what these groups valued and how humor was used to regulate group processes. Humor serves various social functions of a group, but the repeated use of humorous interactions can give insight into a group's interpretations of reality (Fine & De Soucey, 2005; Schein, 1985). This can provide valuable tools for group leaders not only to better understand group processes but also to "trigger" constructive forms of humor for improved outcomes. Assessing the cultural elements of groups can increase understanding of the group processes for group leaders. Implications Experiential education uses the context of the experience as an important tool for reaching desired outcomes. Groups often serve as the milieu for experiential experiences, and much of the research on the impact of groups has focused on models or stages of group development (McAvoy et al., 1996). Yet studying the cultural elements of small groups and their influence on how one interacts within this context is another valuable approach for experiential education. Assessing unspoken cultural aspects of group experiences as well as more obvious ones (e.g., challenge by choice, full value contract) is just as influential in making a positive and safe learning environment. Group leaders can influence, create, or hinder specific aspects of the group experience, and repeated humorous references can provide another perspective and tool for influencing group context on outcomes. Facilitators who are leading group experiences may utilize humorous events to enhance enjoyment of the experience and/or influence group processes. It may also be possible to create a humorous event during the beginning of the experience to help form a commonality among the group. But if groups adopt a joking discourse and facilitators do not engage or recognize this group element, they are unconsciously endorsing it. Facilitators of groups cannot assume they are being neutral in creating an educational and safe environment for participants (Brown, 2004). They are influential in creating the small group culture by their involvement or lack of it. The facilitators in these studies could have addressed how the group used repeated humorous remarks to influence the behavior of others. For example, the facilitator could have pointed out how the group used the shark to encourage better participation by its members. Another implication from this study is the question of whether humor and a joking culture have a positive impact on group experiences.
2011, Volume 33, No. 4 351 Although these two incidents can be viewed positively, they can also be viewed negatively. Squeezing the shark when the facilitator or another participant is trying to talk, or calling a participant by the wrong name, may allow acceptance of future group behavior that may be less socially appropriate. It may also lessen the quality of the experience for one participant at the expense of enhancing the overall group experience. Most of the time humor may enhance enjoyment of the experience, but it may also negatively impact individual participants while simultaneously helping to reach group goals. Facilitators may want to address how a joking culture may negatively impact a participant or the group experience, and when trying to create or support a humorous event, the group may not want to choose one that singles out one participant. Viewing joking as a discourse as opposed to discrete, unrelated events has received little attention in adventure education literature. Less attention has been given to the impact of challenge courses on influencing the development of cultural elements within interacting groups. Understanding the impact of joking on group processes may provide another tool for facilitators on challenge courses to bring awareness to the social regulations within group life and to help build trust and cohesion among groups (Fine & Holyfield, 1996). It would be interesting to study the impact of a joking culture on other programs in adventure education that are longer in duration, such as outdoor leadership and camp settings, where enjoyment of the experience is also emphasized. In summary, studying joking as a discourse may improve understanding of the functions of humor on group processes and may provide another tool to improve outcomes by using humor to enhance group processes. Yet more research is needed to understand how humor is connected to small group culture and to understand the use of humor in relation to group leadership, such as what types of humorous interactions should be created and nurtured more constructively and how a joking culture differs among groups with and without leaders. References Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Barron, M. L. (1950). A content analysis of intergroup humor. American Sociological Review, 15(1), 88-94. Becker, H. S., & Geer, B. (1960). Latent culture: A note on the theory of latent social roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5, 304-313. Billig, M. (2001). Humor and embarrassment: Limits of'nice-guy' theories of social life. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(5), 23-43.
352 Journal of Experiential Education Bisson, G. (1997). The effects of varying the sequence of categories of adventure activities on the development of group cohesion (Unpublished dissertation). University of Northern Golorado, Greeley. Bisson, G. (1999). Sequencing the adventure experience. In J. G. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 205-214). State Gollege, PA: Venture. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Gliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bonaiuto, M., Gastellana, E., & Pierro, A. (2003). Arguing and laughing: The use of humor to negotiate in group discussions. Humor, 16(2], 183-223. Brown, M. (2002). The facilitator as the gatekeeper: A critical analysis of social order in facilitation session, journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 2(2], 101-112. Brown, M. (2004). "Let's go round the circle": How verbal facilitation can function as a means of direct instruction, journal of Experiential Education, 27(2], 161-175. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Gorporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Emerson, J. (1969). Negotiating the serious import of humor. Sociometry, 32(2], 169-181. Fine, G. A. (1979). Small groups and culture creation: The idioculture of little league baseball teams. American Sociological Beview, 44, 733-745. Fine, G. A. (1984). Humorous interaction and the social construction of meaning: Making sense in a jocular vein. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 4, 83-101. Fine, G. A. (1987). With the boys: Little league baseball and préadolescent culture. Ghicago: University of Ghicago Press. Fine, G. A., & De Soucey, M. (2005). Joking cultures: Humor themes as social regulation in group life. Humor, 18(1], 1-22. Fine, G. A., & Holyfield, L. (1996). Secrecy, trust, and dangerous leisure: Generating group cohesion in voluntary organizations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 22-38. Glass, J. S., & Benshoff, J. M. (2002). Facilitating group cohesion among adolescents through challenge course experiences, journal of Experiential Education, 25(2], 268-277. Goodchilds, J. D. (1959). Effects of being witty on position in the social structure of a small group. Sociometry, 22(3], 261-272. Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2,159-185. Johnson, J. A. (1992). Adventure therapy: The ropes-wilderness connection. Therapeutic Becreation journal, 3,17-26. Kuiper, N. A., McKenzie, S. D., & Belanger, K. A. (1995). Gognitive appraisals and individual difference in sense of humor: Motivational and affective implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(3], 359-372. La Fave, L. (1972). Humor judgments as a function of reference groups and identification classes. In J. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor (pp. 195-210). London: Academic Press. Linstead, S. (1985). Jokers wild: The importance of humour in the maintenance of organizational culture. Sociological Beview, 33(4], 741-767.
2011, Volume 33, No. 4 353 Martineau, W. H. (1972). A model of the social functions of humor. In J. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor [pp. 101-125). London: Academic Press. McAvoy, L. H., Mitten, D. S., Stringer, L. A., Steckart, J. P., & Sproles, K. (1996). Group development and group dynamics in outdoor education. Paper presented at the Coalition for Education in the Outdoors, Cortland, NY. Murphy, M. (1986). The functions of humor in the workplace (Ph.D. thesis). The Fielding Institute, Santa Barbara, GA. Poole, M. S., Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., Moreland, R. L., & Rohrbaugh, J. (2004). Interdisciplinary perspectives on small groups. Small Croup Research, 55(1), 3-16. Priest, R. F., & Swain, J. E. (2002). Humor and its implications for leadership effectiveness. Humor, 15{2), 169-189. Priest, S. (1998). Physical challenge and tbe development of trust through corporate adventure training. Journal of Experiential Education, 21(1], 31-34. Priest, S., & Gass, M. A. (1997). Effective leadership in adventure programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2001). Getting a laugh: Gender, status and humor in task discussions. Social Eorces, 80(1), 123-158. Rohnke, K. (1989). Cowstails and cobras II: A guide to games, initiatives, ropes courses and adventure curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Rohnke, K., & Butler, S. (1995). Quicksilver. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Roy, D. (1960). Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, iö(4), 158-168. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schoel, J., & Maizel, R. S. (2002). Exploring islands of healing: New perspectives on adventure based counseling. Hamilton, PA: Project Adventure. Schoel, J., Prouty, D., & Radcliff, P. (1988). Islands of healing: A guide to adventure based counseling. Hamilton, PA: Project Adventure. Smith, T. E., Roland, C. C, Haven, M. D., & Hoyt, J. A. (1992). The theory and practice of challenge education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The enthnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College. Vinton, K. L. (1989). Humor in the workplace: It is more than telling jokes. Small Croup Behavior, 20(2), 151-166. Wankel, L. M. (1985). Personal and situational factors affecting exercise involvement: The importance of enjoyment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56(3), 275-282. Wolfe, B. D., & Samdahl, D. M. (2005). Challenging assumptions: Examining fundamental beliefs that shape challenge course programming and research. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(1), 25-43.
Copyright of Journal of Experiential Education is the property of Association for Experiential Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.