Humour and Personality Differences - Article Example

 Humour and Personality Differences Humour is stated as a unique human quality that has the capacity to affect one’s choice of mate. Various studies have been conducted to ascertain the correctness of this statement, with the majority of them leaning towards the correctness of the statement. These studies go further to provide support mechanisms for the notion that humour plays a significant role in the choice of mates as between the genders. The import of humour is seen in the nurturing and negating of social bonds (Yip, 2006) and as an avenue for the exertion of dominance over other people (Alexander, 1986). It can also be seen as an ingredient in the Interest Indicator Model as an indicator of genetic quality as it either enhances or diminishes the attractiveness of a mate as per the Mating Mind theory (Miller, 2000). (Li, 2009) posit that individuals only make an effort of producing humour after being attracted to a potential mate while (Dion, 1972) suggests that being physically attracted to an individual increases their perceived funniness. Studies have shown that the producers of humour are associated with intelligence as it requires abstract thinking, theory of mind and highly advanced language skills (Polemini, 2006). Further studies have shown that men prefer women to be recipients of humour as opposed to producers (Bressler, 2006) evidenced by lonely hearts advertisements where men are seen to offer a good sense of humour while women appear to be seeking it (De Backer, 2008). However, (Li, 2009) challenges the notion of women as receivers of humour by claiming that women tend to be the producers of humour when they intend to display interest in potential mates. This paper sought to examine humour vis a vis relationships using captured video clips, photographs and audio-only clips. They videotaped individuals acting naturally and had them rated for attractiveness in long-term and short-term relationships and hypothesized that humour would be of value in short-term relationships as opposed to long-term relationships. In relation to the Interest Indicator model, they posited that funniness would be equally related to attractiveness in both males and females while in the Mind Mating theory. It was posited that humour production would be more attractive in men as opposed to women. The study was conducted without the participants knowing that humour was the key factor that was being analyzed. During the analysis of the results, it was found that physical attractiveness increased ratings of funniness in the video clips as opposed to the audio only clips. On analysis of the photographs found that the more attractive the photograph, the funnier the person was thought to be. As relates to the importance of humour to long-term and short-term relationships, Pearson’s correlations established that funniness in males was positively and significantly associated with both short-term attractiveness and long-term attractiveness while in females, funniness was seen to be a factor in short term relationships but not a significant factor in long-term relationships. The research concluded that the nature of humour across gender is positively and significantly related to attractiveness more in males as opposed to females while not so significant to short term or long term relationships. It went further to state that funniness in males was attractive for short-term and long-term relationships but sought to establish how funniness brought about attractiveness. The research established a relative preference as a long-term partner versus short-term partner showing that males who were rated as funnier were also rated as being more attractive for short term relationships relative to attractiveness for long-term relationships. It also found that women seen to be more attractive for short-term relationships relative to attractiveness for long-term relationships. A follow up study was conducted based on the Interest Indicator theory looking at whether short-term attractiveness of humour is driven by a similarity between flirtatiousness and funniness. The researchers posited that short-term attractiveness of funniness relayed the perceived desire for short term relationships associated with a playful flirting style (Hall, 2010). The participants were asked to rate their impressions based on flirtatiousness. On analysis of the video clip results, Pearson’s correlation demonstrated that there was a significant positive relationship between the ratings of flirtatiousness and funniness for both males and females. It was found that flirtatiousness may be moderating the relationship between long-term versus short-term attractiveness and funniness. Conclusion The research conducted supported the hypothesis as per the Interest Indicator Model posited by (Li, 2009) which stated that that physical attractiveness of the producer influences the attractiveness of the humour as opposed to the Miller Mating Model posited by (Miller, 2000) which stated that humour generally enhances attractiveness. Further, on analysis of the video clips in the study, it was found that individuals are found to be funnier if they are more attractive as compared to the audio clips analysis which did not have the same effect. On analyzing the raters, they found that raters preferred an averted gaze in unattractive people in photographs because they did not want attention from unattractive people. This realization suggested that raters might subsequently be less likely to describe unattractive people as funny in the video analysis and more likely to describe attractive people as funny. This is described as a halo effect in attractiveness demonstrating that attractiveness is an aspirational and desirable quality in a mate. Bibliography The paper is an analysis of the import of humour in the determination of a mate of either gender. It looks at various studies that have been put forward to discuss the notion that humour is a factor that is normally considered by males and females in their choice of long-term and short-term partners. It analyses the male and female preferences as relates to this and seeks to provide answers on the same (Mary Louise Cowan, 2012). References Alexander, R. D. (1986). Ostracism and indirect reciprocity: The reproductive significance of humor. Ethology and Sociobiology , 7, 253–270. Bressler, E. R. (2006). Production and appreciation of humor as sexually selected traits. Evolution and Human Behaviour , 27, 121-130. De Backer, C. B. (2008). Mating intelligence in personal ads. Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system , 77–101. Dion, K. B. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 24(3), 285–290. Hall, J. A. (2010). Individual differences in the communication of romantic interest: Development of the Flirting Styles Inventory. Communication Quarterly , 58(4), 365–393. Li, N. P. (2009). An evolutionary perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest indicator? . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 35(7), 923–936. Mary Louise Cowan, A. C. (2012). The effects of relationship context and modality on ratings of funniness. Personality and Individual Differences , 496-500. Miller, G. (2000). The mating mind. London: Random House. Polemini, J. &. (2006). The first joke: Exploring the evolutionary origins of humour. Evolutionary Psychology , 4, 347–366. Yip, J. A. (2006). Sense of humor, emotional intelligence and social competence. Journal of Research in Personality , 40, 1202–1208. Read More