Laughing your way to Innovativeness:
Effects of Workplace Humour on Creativity and Innovativeness
Ivar Dechesne 2062976 University of Groningen
Contents Introduction ... 3 1 Literature Review ... 5 1.1 Defining humour ... 5 1.2 Humour theories ... 5 1.3 Workplace humour ... 6 1.4 Organisational creativity ... 7
1.5 The process of innovation ... 9
2 Hypotheses & Conceptual Models ... 11
2.1 Humour classifications ... 11 2.2 Conceptual models ... 14 3 Research Methods ... 15 3.1 Measures ... 15 3.2 Setup ... 16 3.3 Data collection ... 17 3.4 Data analysis ... 18 4 Results ... 22 4.1 Descriptive statistics ... 22 4.2 Bivariate correlations ... 24 4.3 Regression analysis... 26 4.4 Hypotheses ... 29 5 Conclusions ... 30 5.1 Discussion ... 30
5.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 31
References ... 32
Appendix A: Studies in which the HSQ and MSHS are used ... 40
Appendix B: Original scales ... 41
Appendix C: Final questionnaire ... 45
Appendix D: Summary of scales measuring creativity or innovativeness ... 50
Appendix E: Sentences altered using more colloquial terms ... 51
Appendix F: Factor analysis HSQ ... 52
Appendix G: Factor analysis MSHS ... 54
Appendix H: Cronbach’s alpha’s of all variables ... 55
Appendix I: Cronbach’s alpha’s if item deleted ... 56
Appendix J: QQ-plot, histograms and test of normality for age and tenure ... 57
Appendix K: Tolerance levels for models A and B ... 59
Appendix L: Histograms and P-P plots for all dependent Variables ... 60
Laughing your way to Innovativeness:
Effects of Humour on Creativity and Innovativeness
Ivar DechesneThe benefits of humour in the workplace is a topic of increasing interest. Literature shows that humour can have positive as well as negative effects in the workplace, influencing creativity and innovativeness. The interaction between the use of humour and creativity and innovativeness was tested among 91 employees from a multinational fast moving consumer goods company. By performing regression analysis this study empirically examines whether and how using humour in the workplace can influence the creative and innovative potential of employees. Results suggest that using humour in a positive manner is positively related to creativity and innovativeness, while the negative use of humour is not related to creativity and innovativeness. Implications for managers and the research field of organisational humour are discussed.
Introduction
What would your world look like without humour? It would probably be a very dull place filled with stale people. Imagining this scenario makes it hard to fathom that organisations in which humour and ludic activity is frowned upon still exist. Although too much frivolity can lead to unprofessionalism, humour can provide an organisation with many benefits (Ogunlana, Niwawate, Quang & Thang, 2006). The suggested positive effect of humour on creativity is one of these benefits (Brotherton, 1996). One of the first researchers to relate humour to creativity is Koestler (1964). Koestler argues that the cognitive process involved in humour identical to that of creativity; making connections between seemingly unrelated matrices of thought. In the study of Ziv (1976), the relation between humour and creativity is empirically tested by examining the influence that listening to humour has on creative performance. His experiment suggests that those who listen to a humorous record perform significantly better on creativity tests. Argyle (1997) argues that the sound of laughter can develop positive
emotions which offset the negative influences brought about by pressure, which in turn can free the mind for creative thoughts. The exact nature of humour is a complex subject that greatly puzzled early philosophers from Aristotle to Kant to Bergson (Lang & Lee, 2010), and still puzzles psychologist today.
In literature, humour is approached from many different angles; theories on why humour is produced (Morreal, 1983; Mindess, 1987; Martineau, 1972), different styles of humour (Rod, 2003; Avolio, Howell & Sosik, 1999) or what its effect is within organisations (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006; Mesmer-Magnus, Glew & Viswesvaran, 2012). An increasing number of organisations is picking up on the beneficial effects of humour. Recent surveys by human resource consulting firm Robert Half International state that 91 percent of executives consider a sense of humour important to career advancement and 84 percent feel that people with a good sense of humour do a better job (Mesmer-Magnus, Glew & Viswesvaran, 2012). Zappos, a company that hit a billion dollars in annual revenues in less than ten years, is well known for its humorous culture (Perschel, 2010). Creating fun and a little weirdness is
one of their core values to encourage people to think outside the box and increase innovativeness (“Zappos Family Core Values,” n.d.). Another example is Southwest Airlines, which successfully uses humour to solve problems creatively and make the mundane formalities associated with flying more fun (Quick, 1992).
Numerous studies relate humour to creativity (Wycoff & Pryor, 2003; Humke & Schafer, 1996; Murdock & Ganim, 1993). The majority of these articles are written from a psychological perspective, focussing on the cognitive relation between humour and creativity (Treadwell, 1970; Brodzinsky & Rubien, 1976; Smith & White, 1965). In managerial literature, the concept of creativity is often perceived as a means to innovation (McAdam & McClelland, 2002), instead of an end in itself. The innovation process is social by nature and involves interaction and exchanges between employees (Magadley, 2012; Jaskyte, Byerly, Bryant & Korsarova, 2010). As humour can make important contributions to social processes (Martineau, 1972), this study proposes that humour can also influence employee innovativeness.
This research contributes to theory in several ways. Firstly, by augmenting current knowledge on workplace humour and its
interrelations with creativity and innovativeness. Secondly, by using existing literature to develop scales that are fit for measuring humour within an organisational context. Thirdly, by developing a model that quantitatively identifies whether and how different forms of workplace humour relate to creativity and innovativeness. The final results are used to explore whether the use of humour in the workplace is related to individual creativity and innovativeness. These results can have implications for the way organisations manage the use of humour in the workplace.
This study starts with a literature review that describes and connects the three main topics of humour, creativity and innovativeness. The second section draws from the literature propose hypotheses and presents these visually in a conceptual model. The following methodology section explains how the empirical research is carried out and develops models for regression analysis. Next, the univariate, bivariate and regression results are presented. The regression results are used to accept or reject the hypotheses. The last section discusses implications for theory and practice, and comes to final conclusions. At last, the overall limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are provided.
1 Literature Review
Humour, creativity and innovativeness are commonly used notions in the workplace, yet they are concepts difficult to define precisely. In this section each topic is described and analysed to expose the elements that associate humour with creativity and innovativeness.
1.1 Defining humour
There is a common understanding that humour is related to pleasant emotions and laughter. Literature offers many different definitions that describe humour (Roeckelein, 2002). It is difficult to determine a single global definition, due to its complex and multifaceted nature (Chapman & Foot, 1976). The aspect of humour that is the object of interest in this study is the use of humour of an individual within an organisational setting. Humour in this study exists out of positive and negative humour. Positive humour consists of “amusing thoughts or communications that produce positive emotions and cognitions in the individual, group, or organization”. This definition is based on that of Romero and Cruthirds (2006), who define humour as “amusing communications that produce positive emotions and cognitions in the individual, group, or organization”. The definition was broadened by adding “thoughts”, as using positive humour does not necessarily mean communicating positive humour. Funny thoughts can, for instance, be used to make oneself feel better (Martin, 2001). Using positive humour has the potential to bring many benefits to the work floor (Ogunlana, Niwawate, Quang & Thang, 2006); it can reduce stress levels (Smith, Harrington and Neck, 2000), relieve pain (Dunbar et al., 2011), work as a social lubricant (Terrion & Ashforth, 2002) and have positive health effects (Miller, Mangano, Goel, Plotnick & Vogel, 2005). The use of humour is not all roses, though. Teasing or belittling on the work floor can occur to establish hierarchical
relationships, express conflict or disagreement (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). These are negative forms of humour that are aggressive or destructive. Negative humour is very underexposed in literature compared to regular, positive humour (Attardo, 2010). This could be because humour is a positive phenomenon by definition (“Humour,” n.d.). As literature does not provide a proper definition for negative humour, I have defined it as “any joke that passes for humour which is detrimental to others or oneself”. For one to understand why and how humour is expressed, it is helpful to discuss the basic theories that attempt to explain humour and go through the goals than can be achieved by the use of humour.
1.2 Humour theories
Anyone can think of various examples of jokes or situations that make them laugh, but what is the common denominator of these funny moments? Numerous theorists have tried to crack this nut, attempting to give shape to the core of humour. The three traditional theories on humour are the superiority-, incongruity- and relief theory. These theories are the major humour theories which appear repeatedly in academic literature (Perks, 2012). Although they lack comprehensiveness, they are important to gain understanding of the multifaceted nature of humour (Morreal, 1983). More information about the three humour theories is provided in the following section.
Superiority theory
The superiority theory perceives humour as a form of mockery. By laughing at other people’s inadequacies, a feeling of superiority is gained. Foundation for the superiority theory traces back to the ancient philosopher Thomas Hobbes who wrote about the offensive nature of jests (Perks, 2012). This type of humour can serve as a social corrective to get people who are not behaving according to social norms back in line (Morreal, 2009).
Incongruity theory
The incongruity theory is based on the cognitive elements of humour (Martin, 1998). Our brain is wired to detect patterns, therefore we expect situations to go a certain way (Lennick & Jordan, 2010). When someone walks by, one expects them to simply pass by, but then, when they slip over a banana peel this is an unexpected event which can cause laughter. Koestler (1964) argues that “bisociation” is the mental process involved in humorous incongruity. Bisociation represents the common pattern for any form of creativity and can be described as a connection between two habitually disconnected frames of reference. The term bisociation is still used in recent literature to describe this cognitive pattern (Bilton, 2010; Andrews, 2011; El Refaie, 2011).
Relief theory
In relief theory the main motivator is the physiological need to reduce tension (Meyer, 2000). Releasing this nervous energy can result in laughter and mirth (Kuiper, Martin & Olinger, 1993). People can burst into laughter when a heavy weight is suddenly lifted from their shoulders. Schaeffer (1981) argues that this is the reason why tickling causes laughter, as tension is built up while being tickled.
The superiority, incongruity and relief theory each approach humour from a different perspective and should be considered as complementary (Meyer, 2000). The three theories show different goals that can be achieved by using humour, such as establishing hierarchical positions or relieving stress. The following section looks at humour from an organisational point of view and describes how using humour in the workplace can affect employees. Exploring the effects of humour in the workplace will help expose interrelations between humour, creativity and innovativeness.
1.3 Workplace humour
Romero & Cruthirds (2006) describe several goals employees can achieve by using humour; reducing stress and enhancing leadership, group cohesiveness, communication and the organisational culture. Humour at work is also associated with good physical and mental health, and promotes effective functioning, according to the meta-analysis performed by Mesmer-Magnus, Glew and Viswesvaran (2012). Kahn (1989) looks at the different functions of humour in an organisation. He has identified five different categories which are the primary functions that humour can serve for individuals and groups in an organisation:
Coping
With coping, one detaches him or herself from a potential emotionally threatening situation by joking about it. However, one has to already be partially detached from the specific situation to be able to perceive it as humour. At that point, coping humour facilitates further detachment. Coping through humour can also be done collectively; for instance, by employees who cope with the difficulties of a new system they
have to use by joking about it. This type of humour can help employees reduce stress, or maintain a positive attitude (Martin, 2001).
Reframing
This is a cognitive function of humour, allowing an individual to look at something from a different viewpoint by questioning the normal and embracing the ridiculous. Humour can enable one to take distance from a certain issue and come back to look at it in another light. This corresponds with what in an organisational context is known as “thinking out of the box”.
Communicating
Humour can euphemise messages that would otherwise make the other feel hurt. Through humour one can indirectly assess an issue, giving the recipient the opportunity to receive a difficult message while appearing not to do so. This can work well if an employee wants to get his point across without harming the other. The receiver is not confronted directly with the issue, therefore he or she can respond to the joke immediately and deal with the serious aspect of the message later.
Expressing hostility
This is a form of negative humour where humour functions as a means to convey a hostile message which is meant to harm the other. Humour is used to disguise a message and secure the one who is sending the message. The ambiguity of the message allows the sender to say that it is just a joke if the receiver replies seriously to it. This example is similar to communication, but the main motivator here is protecting oneself instead of the other.
Construct identity
Humour can also be used to construct
identities of groups and individuals, granting separation. Inside jokes, for instance, separate the ones who know it from the ones that do not, which results in an informal group. Using jokes as a common good can bring disparate members of an organisation together and strengthen bonds.
The previous paragraph shows that humour can function to give several different benefits for the individual from a social, cognitive and emotional point of view. The following sections draws upon previously discussed humour theories and functions to identify how humour relates to creativity and innovativeness.
1.4 Organisational creativity
Creativity is vital for organisations as the success of new product development depends to a considerable degree on the creativeness of ideas (Scanlon and Jana 2007). While a variety of definitions of the term creativity exist, this paper uses the definition suggested by Amabile (2005) who takes an organisational approach to creativity. Amabile defines creativity as “coming up with fresh ideas for changing products, services, and processes so as to better achieve the organization's goals”. Humke & Schaeffer (1996) argue that being creative is significantly associated with having a sense of humour. Craick & Ware (1998) explain this by stating that creativity requires the same capacities as generating humour, namely, ideational fluency (easily produce ideas that fulfil certain requirements) and originality of thought. Ziv (1988), using a sample of students, found that the use of humour increases the likelihood of developing the creative thinking process involved in problem-solving. Being creative is said to depend on the level of expertise, creative thinking skills and motivation (Amabile, 1998). Each of these elements needs
to be present at some level for creative output to occur. To get a better understanding of how the use of humour can affect creativity, the following section will discuss the three elements of creativity and how humour may affect them.
Expertise
Expertise is described as the relevant knowledge that an individual possesses to bear on a problem (Amabile, 1998). Relevant expertise allows the brain to create more cognitive pathways that can lead to a possible solution to a given problem. Expertise encompasses memory for factual knowledge, technical proficiency, and knowledge in the target work domain (Amabile, 1997). However, besides knowledge related to the work domain, knowledge that is not related to the work domain is also important, as effectively combining elements that were previously seen as disparate is one of the core drivers of creativity. This understanding is confirmed by Johansson (2006, p. 104), who suggests that one must strike a balance between depth and breadth of knowledge to maximise creative potential. One way of achieving this is by composing a team of members with different backgrounds that can combine their knowledge (Mostert, 2007). Diverse knowledge stimulates the creative potential of individuals in groups by increasing the chance for unorthodox combinations to be made (Amabile et al., 2006; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Diversity within groups, however, can also lead to conflict and tension which are detrimental to the processes of knowledge combination (Cronin & Weingart, 2007). The presence of humour (e.g. inside jokes) can help overcome these social barriers by functioning as a social lubricant and stimulating group cohesiveness (Duncan, 1995).
Creative thinking skills
Creative thinking skills determine how flexibly and imaginatively employees approach problems (Ambile, 1998), which influences one’s ability to make cognitive connections between seemingly unconnected items. This cognitive process is similar to that of humour. A good joke has to be a clever combination of unusual ideas to awaken amusement. Indeed, the incongruity theory states that humour requires creativity; bringing together two normally disparate ideas (Martin, 1998). Numerous authors have made this link between humour and creative thinking skills (Koestler, 1964; Fry & Allen, 1975; Salameh, 1983). McGhee (1976) confirms this relationship by combining the results of different researches to conclude that creative individuals have more appreciation and initiation of humour and have a better understanding and quality output of humour.
Motivation
Intrinsic motivation is essential to creativity. An individual can have years of expertise and amazing creative thinking skills, but without the right motivation these skills will not be put to use. Employees need to be motivated and enthusiastic in order to put in the effort to look for new approaches and creative solutions. Motivation in this context generally means intrinsic motivation, as numerous studies show that intrinsic motivation is more conducive to creativity than extrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1997). Intrinsic motivation is primarily affected by the interest, satisfaction and challenge of the work itself (Amabile, 1998). As humorous individuals are associated with more positive challenge appraisal and higher levels of task motivation (Kuiper, McKenzie and Belanger, 1995), humour can have a positive influence on an employee’s intrinsic motivation. A factor
that kills motivation at work is boredom (Thomas, 2009). Being bored can cause employees to be emotionally upset, stressed and in the long term cause job dissatisfaction (Fisher, 1993). Fisher (1993) argues that when employees are faced with tasks that bore them, the environment may either intensify or help reduce the boredom. To make work more tolerable and to break up the day, Roy (1960) showed that workers at a garment factory in New York incorporated a ritualised playtime named “Banana time” which consisted of pranks and jokes to alleviate boredom and break out of monotonous thinking. Plester & Sayers (2007) confirm that banter between colleagues relieves boredom at work, positively influencing intrinsic motivation.
1.5 The process of innovation
In this study, it is proposed that using humour also influences employee innovativeness. Innovating is an essential element of thriving business to secure long-term survival, profitability and growth. In its most basic form innovation is split up in two phases; initiation and implementation (Glynn, 1996). Initiation is the phase that leads up to suggesting an innovation by proposing solutions to a given problem. Implementation revolves around developing one of these appropriate solutions and launching it to reap its benefits. Literature offers numerous models that describe the stages of innovation (Cooper, 1996; Benkenstein, 1998). Although each model claims its own right to existence, the majority roughly includes the same steps in more or less detail: idea generation, development and product launch, separated by screening and reflecting in-between. Innovation in this study is viewed at from a subject-based approach. A subject-based approach focusses on the subjects involved with the innovation, exploring how they can
innovate more effectively and efficiently (McAdam & McClelland, 2002). The following section describes what type of behaviour is required from individuals to successfully proceed through the stages of innovation.
Innovative work behaviour
Individual innovativeness can be considered as a set of behaviours, named Innovative Work Behaviour (from here on referred to as “IWB”). IWB is a measure that captures employee behaviour which is directed at the production and implementation of novel products, services or work processes. Janssen (2000) defines IWB as “the intentional creation, introduction and application of new ideas within a work role, group or organisation”. The behaviours that comprise IWB result in innovative output, this was tested and confirmed in Jong & Hartog (2010). These behavioural activities can be split up into three categories idea generation, idea promotion and idea realisation (Janssen, 2000). These stages match the earlier mentioned stages of the innovation process. Each stage is described in the following section.
Idea generation
Individual innovation starts with idea generation. An employee needs to produce a novel and useful idea to set off the innovation process. His or her ability to do so depends on the earlier mentioned elements of creativity (expertise, creative thinking skills and intrinsic motivations). Creativity can therefore be seen as a crucial component of IWB. The previous section discussed how the use of humour can help employees with idea generation.
Idea promotion
Promotion becomes relevant once an appropriate idea for the given problem is generated. Key players in the organisation need
to be convinced in order for the idea to get the necessary attention, support and funding (Jansen, 2000). Presenting an innovative idea often results in facing resistance. Humans are creatures of habit that adhere to what is known, this clashes with the unorthodox nature of innovations. The tendency to return to original behaviour is built in in our system, causing us to naturally resist change (Jones, 2004). Research from Stevens & Burley (1997) shows that only 10 out of 3000 raw ideas find the needed support to get developed. To establish this needed support, an employee needs to possess the right motivation and characteristics to build relations and form coalitions (Coakes & Smith, 2007). One of the characteristics that is related to employee innovativeness is self-efficacy (Kumar & Uzkurt, 2010). Self-efficacy is an individual’s perception of their ability to successfully implement change in a given situation (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is also associated with humour, as individuals with a positive style of humour score higher on self-efficacy (Galloway, 2010). This might be due to the more positive outlook humorous people tend to have (Argyle, 1997), giving them more confidence on their ability to reach goals.
Idea realisation
Finally, an idea needs to be implemented. This includes converting the idea into an actual product, services or process, before it is diffused. The implementation of ideas requires the cooperation of numerous members across hierarchical levels and departments (Anderson & King, 1993) and, similarly to idea promotion, is heavily reliant on the support of others (Van de Ven et al.,1989; Axtell et al., 2000). The use of humour can aid employees in initiating or improving these needed relationships (Yip & Martin, 2006), which can increase their network of work contacts. These work contacts can function as a source of ideas, help with opportunity exploration and aid in the implementation process (Jong & Hartog, 2008), influencing innovativeness throughout the three stages.
Although some of the connections between humour and creativity and humour and innovativeness overlap (using relationships as a source of ideas is also mentioned in in the section about humour and expertise p. 12), the previous section suggests that humour can be beneficial to the innovation process at more stages than just the creative process.
2 Hypotheses & Conceptual Models
The following section uses two different constructs of humour; one that categorises the style of humour, and one that dissects the elements of a sense of humour. These constructs are used to hypothesise relations between humour, creativity and innovativeness. These hypotheses are illustrated in two conceptual models, one for each humour construct.
2.1 Humour classifications
Literature provides different approaches for categorising the use of humour. Two constructs are frequently used (Appendix A) to measure the way people approach humour; the Humour Style Questionnaire (from here on referred to as HSQ) by Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray and Weir (2003) and the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale (from here on referred to as MSHS) by Thorson and Powell (1993). Both scales are included in Appendix B. The main difference between the scales is that the MSHS assesses the overall sense of humour where the HSQ measures in which style the individuals express humour. As no studies were found that compare the quality of the two constructs, both scales are included in this study. In the following paragraphs the HSQ and MSHS are described in further detail.
Humour style questionnaire
The HSQ by Martin et al. (2003) distinguishes four different humour styles; affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive and self-defeating humour. Affiliative and self-enhancing humour can be considered as positive humour styles while aggressive and self-defeating are negative. Each style is described in further detail in the following section.
Affiliative humour.
Affiliative humour is a positive non-hostile style of humour that is used to initiate or enhance relationships (Martin et al., 2003). Individuals that use this type of humour are usually perceived as non-threatening by others
(Vaillant, 1977). Affiliative humour can increase group cohesiveness, confidence and tends to be associated with individuals that
possess higher levels of
extraversion and openness to experience (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006; Martin et al., 2003). The social factor of this humour style is likely to improve the number and quality of work relationships, enhancing an employee’s chance to find the support needed to develop an idea. A larger network also increases knowledge sharing (Weiss, 1999), which stimulates creativity (Amabile et al., 2006). Confidence and extraversion cause individuals to speak up more (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003), increasing the likelihood that they express their ideas. The ability to produce and have the courage to express ideas is called “Creative Confidence” (Kelly & Kelly, 2012). Without the right amount of confidence, potentially innovative ideas could go to waste because they are never spoken out. Finally, openness to experience suggests that individuals with an affiliative humour style are less afraid of the unknown, which is an important characteristic seeing that innovating is associated with risk taking (Euchner, 2009). Therefore:
H1: Affiliative humour is positively related to creativity and innovativeness
Self-enhancing humour
Self-enhancing humour is used to cope with factors such as stress to maintain a positive perspective (Barsky, Thoreson, Warren &
Kaplan, 2004). This style corresponds to the relief theory, which states that humour serves to facilitate relief of tension (Meyer, 2000). Self-enhancing humour is used by people who have a humorous outlook on life, enabling them to laugh about themselves and the anomalies of life (Martin et al., 2003). It is positively related to favourable emotions and negatively related to neuroticism (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). In these positive states, employees are more committed to their work and feel more intrinsically motivated (Amabile & Kramer, 2011). As with affiliative humour, this style is also associated with higher levels of self-esteem and openness to experience (Martin et al., 2003). Thus:
H2: Self-enhancing humour is positively related to creativity and innovativeness
Aggressive humour
Aggressive humour is a negative style of humour that has the underlying intent to harm or belittle others (Martin et al., 2003). This type of humour can come in form of sarcasm, ridicule, criticism and other types of humour that are detrimental to others. Aggressive humour is related to the superiority theory, where an individual makes himself feel better through the expense of others. This style is positively related to neuroticism (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) which decreases intrinsic motivation (Amabile & Kramer, 2011). Also, the aggressive nature of this humour style can have detrimental effects on relationships (Dunbar & Bippus, 2012), reducing an employee’s chance of gathering the support needed during the innovation process. Hence: H3: Aggressive humour is negatively related to creativity and innovativeness
Self-defeating humour
Self-defeating humour is used to gain acceptance by others at the expense of oneself, pleasing others by being the butt of the joke (Martin et al., 2003). Individuals might choose this humour to make themselves more approachable (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) or to hide negative feelings about themselves (Martin et al., 2003). This style is associated with negative affect and lower levels of self-esteem (Saroglou & Scariot, 2002). Negative affect can result in lower intrinsic motivation (Amabile & Kramer, 2011). A low level of self-esteem increases an employee’s fear of being judged negatively, which can withhold employees from making creative suggestions ( Kelly & D. Kelly, 2012). Therefore:
H4: Self-defeating humour is negatively related to creativity and innovativeness
Multidimensional sense of humour scale
This is a construct that measures the sense of humour of an individual. Thomson and Powell (1993) criticise one-dimensional tools for measuring humour that is presented as comprehensive. They propose a multidimensional scale, which, in addition to revealing an overall sense of humour score, measures four principal factors: humour production, coping or adaptive humour, humour appreciation and attitudes towards humour. The study of Thomson and Powell (1993) does not distinguish between positive and negative humour, however, the items of this scale (Appendix B) suggest that it concerns positive humour.
Humour production
This subscale measures whether someone is a humorous person; this is someone who is considered funny by others and is able to make
people laugh. It also includes being skilled in the social uses of humour which enhance social interactions by facilitating interpersonal communications (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2010). The use of humour in general is suggested to stimulate creativity (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). By enhancing social interactions, the likelihood that sufficient support is gathered during the innovation process is increased. Therefore:
H5: Humour production is positively related to creativity and innovativeness
Coping or adaptive humour
Humour can be used to cope with or adapt to different situations. This type of humour can be effective to manage negative symptoms and put one at ease (Thomson and Powell, 1993). Similar to self-enhancing humour, employees can use humour to cope with a stressful event at work, reducing stress levels and increasing intrinsic motivation (Amabile & Kramer, 2011). Thus:
H6: Coping or adaptive humour is positively related to creativity and innovativeness
Humour appreciation
Humour appreciation can be described as how someone perceives the use of humour and the humour itself (Thomson and Powell, 1993). Although it is unlikely for anyone to dislike humour altogether, some employees might find humour in the workplace more inappropriate than others. Literature lacks evidence stating that the appreciation of humour is correlated to the use humour of an individual. As the associations made between humour, creativity and innovativeness in this study are based on using humour, I propose that:
H7: Humour appreciation is not related to
creativity and innovativeness
Attitudes towards humour
This subscale assesses the attitude towards humorous individuals (Thomson and Powell, 1993). Similar to humour appreciation, no literature is found showing that people who appreciate humorous people are more prone to use humour themselves. Therefore:
H8: Attitudes towards humour is not related to creativity and innovativeness
Overall sense of humour
The four subscales together give an overall score for a sense of humour. Two of the subscales are expected to be positively correlated, and two not to be related, I therefore expect the overall relationship of sense of humour to be positively related. This corresponds with literature suggesting a sense of humour is related to creativity (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Thus:
H9: Sense of humour is positively related to creativity and innovativeness
Control variables
The influence of other independent variables likely to drive the dependent variables are controlled for by including variables on several socio-demographic characteristics that are included as control variables in this research. These control variables are age, gender, tenure, department and creative personality. Age, gender and department are commonly used control variables in research on creativity (Amabile et al, 2005; Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). Tenure can influence creativy and innovativeness by its relation to an
individual’s expertise (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney & Farmer, 2004). Finally,
several studies have consequently shown that the creative individual is characterised by a number of specific attributes (Martinsen, 2011). Gough (1979) lists thirty personality characteristics that are correlates to creativity. These characteristics are used to control for a creative personality.
2.2 Conceptual models
The previous section proposes hypotheses that are based on two different constructs of humour (HSQ & MDSHS). A conceptual model is developed for each construct that illustrates the proposed relationships between the independent, control and dependent variables.
3 Research Methods
This study investigates whether and how humour in the workplace influences organisational creativity and innovativeness. Firstly, this section describes the steps that are taken to measure, collect and analyse the data. Secondly, the scales that are used in the questionnaire are tested through reliability and factor analysis, resulting in eight different models that are used for regression analysis.
3.1 Measures
Independent variables
Humour is measured in the form of humour style and a sense of humour, using the HSQ and MSHS. The HSQ consists of 32 items, divided into eight items for each subscale; affiliative, aggressive, enhancing and self-defeating humour. The MSHS has 24 items: 11 items for humour production, seven for coping or adaptive humour, two for humour appreciation and four for attitudes towards humour. The study of Thomson and Powell (1993) provides no reason or validation for the difference in the amount of items per dimension in the MSHS. Both scales were developed in a non-business environment using a sample of university students. To fit the organisational context items were slightly altered, primarily changing “friend” to “colleague”. The original items use different terms to indicate the strength of the relationship, such as “closest friend”, “friend” or “other people”. To reproduce these differences, similar terms are used such as “closest colleagues” and “colleagues”. As terms to distinguish between the strength of relationships within a business context are limited, each item was assessed individually to ensure that the essence of the item was not altered too much. The adjusted questionnaire is included in Appendix C.
Dependent variables
Appendix D lists the creativity and
innovativeness scales that were assessed for use in this study. The scales that are used in this study are creative performance, bisociative thinking, innovative work behaviour and innovative output. The former two scales measure creativity, the latter two scales measure innovativeness, each scale measuring the variable from its own approach. As no a priori preference could be determined, and the relatively small size of the scales allowed it, all four scales are included in this study. These scales are all used and tested in an organisational context. The scales were picked based on their fit, size and journal(s) they are used in. Fit was assessed by examining whether the scale measures the creative and innovative ability on an individual level. Size was taken into consideration as a very long questionnaire is likely to negatively impact the response rate (Burchell & Marsh, 1992). The journals in which the scales are used or developed were evaluated on impact factor. More information on these four scales is provided in the following section.
Creative performance
Creative performance measures the creativity, novelty and originality of the work that an individual employee produces. It is measured by a three item scale developed by Oldham & Cummings (1996).
Bisociative thinking
Bisociative thinking (earlier mentioned as “bisociation” p. 7) is the act of combining
separated matrices of thought resulting in non-habitual ideas (Jabri 1994). The reframing function of humour can encourage this type of thinking by highlighting discrepancies in logic and beliefs (Duncan 1982; Martin and Lefcourt 1983; Ziv & Gadish. 1990). The three strongest items correlated to the bisociative dimension derived from Jabri (1994) are included in the questionnaire to measure bisociative thinking. This method was copied from Blum Gilson & Shalley (2009), who used the three strongest items correlated to the associative dimension to measure associative thinking (bisociative and associative thinking are two subscales from the same scale). This method was preferred over including the whole subscale, because it limits the total amount of items included in the questionnaire.
Innovative work behaviour
Farr and Ford (1990) define IWB as “an individual’s behaviour that aims to achieve the initiation and intentional introduction (within a work role, group or organisation) of new and useful ideas, processes, products or procedures”. I measure IWB as a one-dimensional construct, as proposed in Jong and Hartog (2010). The scale which is derived from Jong and Hartog comprises ten items (Appendix B) that measures individual IWB. This scale is originally supervisor-rated (Jong & Hartog, 2010). The opening sentence of this scale was altered from “How often does this employee” to “How often do you”, to change it into a self-report scale.
Innovative output
The innovative output scale assesses how often employees offer suggestions, contribute to innovations or new product development, or acquire new customers or new knowledge. It is a six item scale (Appendix B) derived from Jong
and Hartog (2010), mostly used when relatively objective measures of innovative output are not available. Research shows that innovative output and innovative work behaviour are positively related (Jong & Hartog, 2010)
Control variables
Gender, managerial position and department are presented as nominal variables. Age and tenure are measured in years. The nominal variables are coded as dummy variables in SPSS; female is coded 1 and male 0; managerial is coded 1 and non-managerial 0; six dummy variables were entered for the departments (Sales, Finance, Marketing, R&D, HR and Other). Characteristics of creativity are measured using the Creative Personality Scale by Gough (1979), a checklist of thirty adjectives that are considered correlates of creativity. Respondents are asked to check the adjectives that best describe themselves.
3.2 Setup
The final questionnaire measures 18 variables using a total of 91 items (including control variables) and one checklist (Creative Personality Scale). Answers are given based on a 5-point Likert scale. This corresponds with Likert scales used in the original studies for the majority of the variables. Although a 7-point scale can improve reliability and validity (Dawes, 2008), using a larger Likert scale was not considered an option due to the time this would add to complete the questionnaire. All variables are measured using self-report ratings. Self-report ratings are chosen as the best available alternative since no objective data, such as ideas suggested per employee, is present. Supervisor-ratings are considered unfit for this research, because of strong differences in supervisor-employee relationships throughout the sample organisation.
Employees are likely to be in the best position to assess their own creative and innovative behaviour, as they are more aware of the subtleties of their suggestions and are better at judging to which extent their ideas are creative or innovative (Ng & Feldman, 2012). Colleagues and managers are also prone to miss creative contributions because employees are often reluctant to share their creative ideas with their direct supervisors or peers (Ng & Feldman, 2012). Although self-report measures are often assumed to cause bias, there is no empirical evidence demonstrating this. On the contrary, self-report measures on creativity are found to be significantly correlated with supervisor-ratings (.35) and with objective measures of creativity (.33) (Ng & Feldman, 2012). In order to control for order effect bias all items in this questionnaire are randomised and intermixed (Goodhue & Loiocono, 2000). The scales that are used include negatively keyed items, which control the effects of acquiescence (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2005).
3.3 Data collection
The questionnaire was carried out at the main office of a multinational fast-moving consumer goods company in the Netherlands. Around 300 employees work at this office of which the majority are knowledge workers.
Pilot questionnaire
Prior to the main study a pilot questionnaire was performed. The three primary goals of this pre-test are to evaluate the length, quality and adequacy of the questionnaire (Larossi, 2006). Five employees from this fast-moving consumer goods company were randomly selected to fill out the pilot questionnaire. The pilot questionnaires were handed out and retrieved personally, allowing the employees to ask questions and elaborate upon their comments.
The employees were asked beforehand to mark questions that were unclear and to record the time it took to fill out the questionnaire. At the end of questionnaire an extra list of items was added to review the questionnaire, consisting of the following questions:
How long did it take you to fill out this questionnaire?
Which questions are unclear to you? What do you not understand about
this/these question(s)?
Do you find the questionnaire interesting in a sense that it motivated you to respond? Any other comment that is not yet covered? The employees included in the pilot were excluded from the final study, to avoid possible bias. The results of the pilot questionnaire exposed several flaws and shortcomings. One item of the innovative output scale was changed from “acquire new groups of customers?” to “address new groups of customers”, as pilot respondents felt that the former would only apply to sales employees. There were issues with some of the used jargon, thus these words were changed into colloquial synonyms (Appendix E). Layout suggestions were implemented and mistakenly repeated items removed. Several respondents commented on the time it took to fill in the questionnaire; fill-in time varied between 7 and 20 minutes with an average time of 12 minutes. Reducing the amount of items per scale was not considered an option as this could compromise the quality of the scales. However, the alteration of jargon, removal of repeated items, improved design and the absence of the extra pilot questions should help reduce fill-in time. To prepare participants for this time investment the sentence “This questionnaire should take you around ten minutes”, was
added at the beginning of the questionnaire.
Procedure
A total of 150 questionnaires was randomly distributed among knowledge workers of several departments. Two days after distributing, 26 questionnaires were personally retrieved at the main office and employees that had not yet filled out their questionnaire were politely reminded to do so. Four days after distributing, another 31 questionnaires were retrieved. An employee of the company offered assistance by collecting and sending the rest of the questionnaires to my home address. The employee also sent a reminder via email throughout the organisation. A few days after, another 17 questionnaires were recieved. Because the response rate was not yet satisfactory, the main office was visited once again. Each person that had not completed the questionnaire was asked if he or she could make the time to do so and to hand it to the employee who offered to send them to me. For each employee that was away at the moment, a note was left on their desks as well as a general note at the coffee table with the same request. In the following two weeks another 20 questionnaires were received, granting a total response rate of 94. Four of the questionnaires were not filled in completely, during the visiting rounds the employees of these questionnaires were revisited and were asked to fill in the missing questions.
3.4 Data analysis
The data was analysed using IBM SPSS version 20. The results of the questionnaires were inserted manually, random checks were executed to ensure the correctness of the data. All results from the items based on a Likert scale were copied into Excel and the data was then searched for incorrect inputs by looking
for the numbers 0, 6, 7, 8 and 9 using the automatic search function. All scales, subscales and negatively phrased items were added as separate variable sets in SPSS, allowing to analyse each set separately. Negative items were reversely scored in SPSS using the SPSS function “Recode into Same Variables”. By using the variable set “Negative items” SPSS only showed the reverse coded items and this was used to ensure that all negative items were reverse-coded correctly. Finally, data entry input errors were checked by examining the mean and standard deviations of each variable.
Scale development
The sample data was used to conduct factor analysis with varimax rotation to develop and assess the scales used for measuring humour. In the original studies both scales were developed using factor analysis, concluding that they exist out of four dimensions each (Martin et al., 2003; Thorson and Powell, 1993). Therefore the fixed number of factors is set to four. Following Hair, Anderson, Tatham and black (1998) factor loadings should preferably be above .50, Cronbach’s alpha scores are acceptable above .70 (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004).
HSQ
All items of the HSQ exceed the threshold of .50 (Hair et al., 1998), except item 27, 37, 43, 54 and 55 (Appendix F). The relatively high number of items per subscale allowed me to exclude these items without comprising the ability to measure the underlying dimensions. After deleting the items all factor loadings exceeded 0.50 (Appendix F). The Cronbach’s alpha of the three altered scales improved after deleting the insufficient items (Self-enhancing humour .762 .774, Aggressive humour .716 .750, Self-defeating humour .741 .773).
MSHS
Appendix G shows the factor analysis of the MSHS. The subscales humour production and coping or adaptive humour show minor issues. Item 38 and 42 of the first subscale and item 36 of the second subscale score below .50. The size of these subscales allows the removal of the three items. Cronbach’s alpha’s of both scales are above .70 and altered slightly after removing the insufficient items (humour production .874 .867, coping or adaptive humour .781 .784). The subscales humour appreciation and attitudes towards humour have insufficient factor loadings above .50. Looking closer at these subscales reveals some problematic issues. Humour appreciation is measured by two items and one has a standard deviation of only .29. The item is phrased: “I like a good joke”. This item seems flawed due to the fact that this statement already directs the respondent by suggesting that he or she thinks the joke is good. This restricts the respondent’s options, as disagreeing with the statement implies disliking a good joke, which is a contradictio in terminis. The second encountered weak spot is the lack of distinctiveness between humour appreciation and attitudes towards humour. The factor analysis shows that the underlying items spread along different dimensions. The original study of Thomson and Powell (1993) lacks an elaborate explanation on what the four developed subscales of the MSHS exactly measure, making it unclear what distinguishes humour appreciation from attitudes towards humour. José, Parreira, Thorson and Allwardt (2007) describe the former as “liking humour” and the latter as “approval of humour”. Other studies that use the same set of items describe the fourth subscale as “attitudes towards humour and humorous persons” (Hampes, 1994; Ho, Chik & Thorson, 2008). However,
the third subscale also includes an item that can be considered as measuring attitudes towards humorous people; “I appreciate those who generate humour”. Combining items of the two scales to form a new scale was not an option based on the nature of the items and the results of the factor analysis. The encountered issues are reflected in the Cronbach’s alpha of the third and fourth subscale, which are .234 and .639, respectively. Although the original study of Thorson and Powell (1993) shows factor results and Cronbach’s alpha’s that validate the subscales, I find subscale three and four lacking in distinctiveness and therefore exclude them from further analysis. Hypothesis 7 and 8, that are based on these subscales are therefore disposed. Hypothesis 9 is based on the total score of all four sub-scales of the MSHS, and is therefore also disposed.
Dependent variables.
The internal consistency of the scales bisociative thinking and innovative work behaviour are above the acceptable level of .70 (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .77 and .81, respectively. Creative performance and innovative output score below .70 with a Cronbach’s alpha of .59 and .64, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha could not be sufficiently increased by deleting items (see Appendix E for score if item deleted). In the original studies creative performance and innovative output have a Cronbach’s alpha of .78 and .82, respectively (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Jong & Hartog, 2010). However, both Oldham & Cummings (1996) and Jong & Hartog (2010) used items that were not intermixed or randomised. This can artificially inflate Cronbach’s alpha but lower actual reliability (Goodhue & Loiacono, 2002). The artificial inflation, however, is not enough
to account for the large difference. As for creative performance, it is possible that some respondents did not perceive the terms original, creative and novel as synonyms, as the mother tongue of the sample is not English. Problems with understanding these terms, however, were not mentioned in the pilot questionnaire’s results. As for innovative output, some of the items might be too dependent on the type of function of the employee. This problem was exposed in the pilot questionnaire for one item, which was altered after getting critique in the pilot questionnaire as some of the respondents felt that the statement did not apply to them. Employee functions were not registered in this questionnaire. Data per department was examined, however, no significant differences between the items of innovative output and departments was found. As such, this possible explanation cannot be confirmed. However, the original studies in which the scales were developed give no reason to assume that these scales are unreliable, therefore all four scales for
the dependent variables are included for further analysis.
Model
The remaining scales can be illustrated into two different models shown in Figure 3, one with the HSQ and the other with the MSHS making up the main independent variables. The various scales measuring the dependent variables creativity and innovativeness create different sub-models as each regression analysis is run with one dependent variable. Model A and B use ten and eight variables for each sub-model, respectively. As our sample is 94, all models exceed the minimal sample to variable ratio of 5:1 that is required for multiple regression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983). The encountered issues with the Creative Performance scale and the Innovative Output scale should be kept in mind while interpreting the outcomes of the models in which they are used (A1, A3, B1, B4).
4 Results
The following sections present the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations. Additionally, it displays the results of the regression analysis and elaborates on the justification of this analysis. Finally, the regression results are used to reject or accept the hypotheses.
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of all variables. The standard deviation of several dependent variables is quite low. Innovative work behaviour, for instance, has a standard deviation of .53 with a mean of 3.39, this indicates that 95.4% of the respondents scores between 2.33 and 4.45 on innovative work behaviour. This in turn implies that the lower end of the scale is barely used. A possible explanation could be sample differences. The sample of this study consists of highly educated employees (all graduated at a university) of a leading multinational company, which could be the reason that the scores of creativity and innovativeness are more concentrated at the higher level of the scales.
The variables age and tenure show another anomaly, both show high standard deviations. The QQ-plot and histogram suggest that both variables are not normally distributed (Appendix J). This is confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk test, which exposes that they are both significant for a non-normal distribution (Appendix J). After log transforming both variables, the Shapiro-Wilk test shows that tenure is normally distributed and age remains significant for non-normal. However, transforming age is still preferred as LNage shows considerably less outliers. Transforming the two variables will make assumptions of our model work better as the impact of outliers on the regression is reduced.
4.2 Bivariate correlations
Table 2 shows the bivariate correlations between all variables. These correlations give understanding on how each variable on its own relates to every other variable. Creative performance and bisociative thinking that are used to measure the dependent variable creativity are significantly correlated (.48**). Innovative output and innovative work behaviour that measure innovativeness are also significantly correlated (.56**). This is what one would expect from scales measuring the same or similar underlying construct. Creative performance and bisociative thinking also show significant correlations with innovative output and innovative work behaviour (.36**, .57** & .38**, .59**). Between the humour constructs
most relationships do not deviate from what is expected. The positive humour styles affiliative and self-enhancing humour relate significantly to humour production (.68**, .34**). Self-enhancing humour is strongly and significantly correlated to coping or adaptive humour (.62**). This relation is expected as self-enhancing humour is used to cope with problems. A less obvious relation is between the positive style affiliative humour and the negative style aggressive humour (.35**). Since the four dimensions of the humour style questionnaire are not mutually exclusive, it could occur that employees with an affiliative style have trademarks of aggressive humour or vice versa.
4.3 Regression analysis
Models A and B from Figure 3 are run in a multiple linear regression analyses. Both models include four dependent variables which result in eight different sub-models for regression analysis. Each analysis gives insight on the impact each independent variable has on the dependent variable. To improve normality, both age and tenure are log transformed (see p. 23). Replacing age and tenure with LNage and LNtenure slightly reduced the R2 of our models, indicating that the outliers artificially inflated R2.
Each model is justified by looking at (1) the linearity of relationships, (2) multicollinearity, (3) normality of residuals and (4) homoscedasticity. (1) Linearity is examined by looking at the scatter plots derived from the bivariate correlations. The various scatter plots give no indication to suggest any non-linearity. (2) The tolerance of all the variables in the different models are higher than .20 (Appendix K), indicating that at least more than 20% of the variance of the independent variables is not collinear with the other independent variables. (3) The histogram and PP plot for each model (Appendix L) was examined and show no unusual distribution of residuals. (4)
Homoscedasticity was examined by viewing the scatterplot of standardised residuals and standardised predicted value. As it is hard to see whether the data shows a pattern (indicating heteroscedasticity), a Koenker test, appropriate for small sample sizes (Koenker, 1981), is performed to test this from a statistical significant perspective. Appendix M shows the scores of the Koenker test for model A and B, both P values are over .05, indicating that the assumption of homoscedasticity is satisfied.
Table 3 and 4 show the final results of the multiple linear regression analysis of models A and B. The difference in R2 between models A and B suggests that the HSQ outperforms the MSHS in predicting the dependent variables. The average R2 is .35, indicating that on average the independent variables accounted for 35% of the variance in the dependent variable. The F significance values indicate that all the models are statistically significant for p<.05, suggesting that for each model at least one of the independent variables explains a significant portion of the variation in the dependent variable
4.4 Hypotheses
Table 4 and 5 show the regression results for model A and B. Affiliative humour is positively correlated to creative performance and innovative work behaviour (β=.349** & β=.317*, respectively). The relation between affiliative humour and the dependent variables bisociative thinking and innovative output is not significant. Self-enhancing humour is positively correlated to creative performance, bisociative thinking and innovative output (β=.302*, β=.440** & β=.215*, respectively), while it failed to achieve significance with innovative work behaviour. The negative humour styles aggressive and self-defeating humour show only one significant relationship; between self-defeating humour and creative performance (β=.223*). This does not provide sufficient evidence to suggest that self-defeating humour is positively related to creativity. In model B humour production and coping or adaptive humour both show one significant relationship. Humour production is positively associated with innovative work behaviour
(β=.237*) and coping or adaptive humour is positively associated with bisociative thinking β=.317**). The control variable creative personality is significantly related to all dependent variables except for innovative output, it can therefore be considered as a useful indicator of creativity and innovativeness.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 postulated positive relationships between affiliative and self-enhancing humour, and creativity and innovativeness. The results show support for both hypotheses. Hypotheses 3 and 4 propose that aggressive and self-defeating humour are negatively related to creativity and innovativeness, both hypotheses are rejected as the majority of the results indicate that there is no significant relationship. Hypotheses 5 and 6 are also rejected as most of the relationships were non-significant. Hypotheses 7, 8 and 9 are not assessed as these are based on scales that were discarded. This concludes that only hypotheses 1 and 2 are accepted.
5 Conclusions
The findings that come forth out of the results section are translated into implications for theory and practice. Additionally, I will elaborate on the limitations of this study and propose suggestions for future research.
5.1 Discussion
This research contributes to current literature by augmenting theoretical development on humour and providing empirical research in an organisational context on the relation between humour, creativity and innovativeness.
Firstly, examining existing literature on how humour is measured presented two multidimensional scales that are frequently used throughout literature; the Humour Style Questionnaire and the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale. Both scales were altered to fit the organisational context. The scales were tested by conducting factor analyses. Serious issues were encountered with the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale. These problems encompass imbalanced scales, biased items and lack of distinctiveness between subscales. Future research should avoid using the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale in its current form.
Secondly, by performing empirical research in an organizational setting, this study suggests that the proposed positive relationship between humour and creativity also transpires within organisations. Furthermore, it is the first research to study the effects of humour on innovativeness. Results reveal that positive humour is positively correlated to innovativeness. Models A2 and A4, which are the best performing models (based on scale assessment and R2), reveal the positive relationship between positive humour, creativity and innovativeness. Affiliative humour is positively correlated with innovative work behaviour (innovativeness) and self-enhancing humour is positively correlated with
bisociative thinking (creativity). The results of models A1 and A3 support the relation between positive humour and creativity and innovativeness. Models A1 to A4 show no significant relationship between negative humour, creativity and innovativeness. It is possible that the use of negative humour has negative effects (less intrinsic motivation, less and lower quality relationships) as well as positive effects (cognitive effects by using humour) on creativity and innovativeness which cancel each other out. Avoiding and discouraging negative humour is nonetheless preferred, as it negatively affects the creativity of others that receive this type of humour (Lang & Lee, 2010).
The results of Model B show a positive correlation between humour production and innovative work behaviour, and between coping or adaptive humour and bisociative thinking. Similar to the results of model A, the humour that is characterised by social uses (affiliative humour & humour production) is related to innovativeness, while the humour type associated with coping (self-enhancing humour & coping or adaptive humour) is associated with creativity. A possible explanation for this occurrence is that social use of humour (i.e. initiating and enhancing relationships) primarily affects innovativeness, as innovating is a social process involving interaction and exchanges (Jaskyte, Byerly, Bryant & Korsarova, 2010), while the coping effects of humour (i.e. inducing positive emotions and reducing stress) primarily stimulate creativity (Argyle, 1997; Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005).
