Advertisement

Assessing individual differences in the way people deal with ridicule and being laughed at: The Spanish form of the PhoPhiKat-45

  • Jorge Torres-MarínEmail author
  • René T. Proyer
  • Raúl López-Benítez
  • Hugo Carretero-Dios
Article

Abstract

The PhoPhiKat-45 assesses individual differences in the way people deal with ridicule and being laughed at. This instrument encompasses three intercorrelated—but independent—laughter-related traits: the fear of (gelotophobia) and the joy in (gelotophilia) being laughed at, and the joy in laughing at others (katagelasticism). This research tested the psychometric properties of the Spanish form of the PhoPhiKat-45. A total of 636 individuals whose ages ranged from 18 to 70 years participated in three different studies. Our data indicated good reliability coefficients and an adequate-to-good fit for the expected three-factor structure across all samples. As indicators of external validity, prior associations among these three laughter-related traits and diverse research variables were examined. Gelotophobia correlated with low self-enhancing humor; gelotophilia correlated with a high use of all humor styles, especially affiliative and self-defeating humor; and katagelasticism correlated with high aggressive and high self-defeating humor. Moreover, gelotophobia correlated with high subclinical autistic traits and high trait anxiety; gelotophilia correlated with low trait anxiety; and katagelasticism existed independently from both subclinical constructs. Finally, we replicated the location of the three dispositions in the Five-Factor Model (FFM) assessed by NEO-FFI. Additionally, curvilinear relationships among the traits of the FFM and gelotophobia, gelotophilia and katagelasticism were explored. Inverted U-shaped curvilinear relationships between agreeableness-gelotophobia and neuroticism-katagelasticism emerged. Our results suggest that the Spanish form of the PhoPhiKat-45 can be considered a promising instrument for the study of these dimensions in Spain.

Keywords

Gelotophobia Gelotophilia Katagelasticism PhoPhiKat-45 Validation Spain 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [Project PSI2016–79812-P]; and the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports [Ref. FPU14/05755].

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Akinwande, M. O., Dikko, H. G., & Samson, A. (2015). Variance inflation factor: As a condition for the inclusion of suppressor variable(s) in regression analysis. Open Journal of Statistics, 5, 754–767.  https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2015.57075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angleitner, A., John, O. P., & Löhr, F. J. (1986). It's what you ask and how you ask it: An itemmetric analysis of personality questionnaires. In A. Angleitner (Ed.), Personality assessment via questionnaires (pp. 61–107). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S. (2005). La gran diferencia: cómo son realmente los cerebros de hombres y mujeres [The Essential Difference: the male and female brain]. Barcelona: Editorial Amat.Google Scholar
  4. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The autism-Spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 5–17.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005653411471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billing, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd..Google Scholar
  6. Brauer, K., & Proyer, R. T. (2018). To love and laugh: Testing actor-, partner-, and similarity effects of dispositions towards ridicule and being laughed at on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 76, 165–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buela-Casal, G., Guillén-Riquelme, A., & Seisdedos, N. (2011). Cuestionarios de ansiedad estado-rasgo [State-Trait Anxiety Questionnaires]. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.Google Scholar
  8. Carretero-Dios, H., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Rubio, V. J. (2010a). The Spanish version of the GELOPH <15>: Properties of a questionnaire for the assessment of the fear of being laughed at. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 10, 345–357.  https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-32859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carretero-Dios, H., Ruch, W., Agudelo, D., Platt, T., & Proyer, R. T. (2010b). Fear of being laughed at and social anxiety: A preliminary psychometric study. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52, 108–124.  https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-33204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, H., Chan, Y., Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. (2011). Evaluating the reliability and validity of a traditional Chinese version of the PhoPhiKat-45. Psychological Testing in Taiwan, 58, 119–145.Google Scholar
  11. Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. S. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 127–137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Cordero, A., Pamos, A., & Seisdedos, N. (2008). NEO PI-R, Inventario de Personalidad NEO Revisado [NEO PI-R, NEO personality inventory-revised]. Madrid: TEA.Google Scholar
  14. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  15. Davies, C. (2009). Humor theory and the fear of being laughed at. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 49–62.  https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2009.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delgado-Rico, E., Carretero-Dios, H., & Ruch, W. (2012). Content validity evidences in test development: An applied perspective. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 12, 449–460.Google Scholar
  17. Ďurka, R., & Ruch, W. (2015). The location of three dispositions towards ridicule in the five-factor personality model in the population of Slovak adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 177–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dursun, P., Dalğar, İ., Brauer, K., Yerlikaya, E., & Proyer, R. T. (in press). Assessing dispositions towards ridicule and being laughed at: Development and initial validation of the Turkish PhoPhiKat-45. Current Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9725-2.
  19. Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  20. Führ, M., Platt, T., & Proyer, R. T. (2015). Testing the relations of gelotophobia with humour as a coping strategy, self-ascribed loneliness, reflectivity, attractiveness, self-acceptance, and life expectations. European Journal of Humour Research, 3, 84–97.  https://doi.org/10.7592/ejhr2015.3.1.fuhr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hambleton, R. K., & de Jong, J. H. A. L. (2003). Advances in translating and adapting educational and psychological tests. Language Testing, 20, 127–134.  https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt247xx.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hampes, W. (2010). The relation between humor styles and empathy. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 6, 34–45.  https://doi.org/10.1037/e676422011-003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hiranandani, N. A., & Yue, X. D. (2014). Humour styles, gelotophobia and self-esteem among Chinese and Indian university students. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 319–324.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hobbes, T. (1840). Human nature in English works. Molesworth London: Bohn.Google Scholar
  25. Hofmann, J., Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., Platt, T., & Gander, F. (2017). Assessing dispositions toward ridicule and laughter in the workplace: Adapting and validating the PhoPhiKat-9 questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 714.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00714.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ivanova, E. M., Makogon, I. K., Stefanenko, E. A., Enikolopov, S. N., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2016). Русскоязычная адаптация опросника гелотофобии, гелотофилии и катагеластицизма PhoPhiKat [the Russian-language adaptation of the questionnaire for gelotophobia, gelotophilia and katagelasticism PhoPhiKat]. Voprosy Psikhologii, 2, 162–171.Google Scholar
  28. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Kivity, Y., & Huppert, J. D. (2016). Does cognitive reappraisal reduce anxiety? A daily diary study of a micro-intervention with individuals with high social anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84, 269–283.  https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000075.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kreuz, R. J., & Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 374–386.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.4.374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186–207.  https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810032003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the humor styles questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moya-Garófano, A., Torres-Marín, J., & Carretero-Dios, H. (2019). Beyond the big five: The fear of being laughed at as a predictor of body shame and appearance control beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 219–224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus statistical modeling software: Release 7.0. Los Angeles: Muthén &Muthén.Google Scholar
  39. Ostendorf, F. (1990). Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur. Zur Validität des Fünf-Faktoren-Modells der Persönlichkeit [language and the structure of personality. About the validity of the five factor-model]. Regensburg: Roderer.Google Scholar
  40. Platt, T. (2008). Emotional responses to ridicule and teasing: Should gelotophobes react differently? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 21, 105–128.  https://doi.org/10.1515/humor.2008.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Platt, T., & Ruch, W. (2010). Gelotophobia and age: Do disposition towards ridicule and being laughed at predict coping with age-related vulnerabilities? Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52, 231–244.Google Scholar
  42. Proyer, R. T. (2017). A new structural model for the study of adult playfulness: Assessment and exploration of an understudied individual differences variable. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 113–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2010). Enjoying and fearing laughter: Personality characteristics of gelotophobes, gelotophiles and katagelasticists. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52, 148–160.Google Scholar
  44. Proyer, R. T., Platt, T., & Ruch, W. (2010). Self-conscious emotions and ridicule: Shameful gelotophobes and guilt free katagelasticists. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 54–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Proyer, R. T., Flisch, R., Tschupp, S., Platt, T., & Ruch, W. (2012). How does psychopathy relate to humor and laughter? Dispositions toward ridicule and being laughed at, the sense of humor, and psychopathic personality traits. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35, 263–268.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.04.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruch, W. (2009). Fearing humor? Gelotophobia: The fear of being laughed at. Introduction and overview. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2009.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ruch, W., & Köhler, G. (1999). The measurement of state and trait cheerfulness. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (pp. 67–83). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2008). Who is gelotophobic? Assessment criteria for the fear of being laughed at. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 67, 19–27.  https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.67.1.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). Extending the study of gelotophobia: On gelotophiles and katagelasticists. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 183–212.  https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2009.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ruch, W., Beermann, U., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). Investigating the humor of gelotophobes: Does feeling ridiculous equal being humorless? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 111–143.  https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2009.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ruch, W., Harzer, C., & Proyer, R. T. (2013). Beyond being timid, witty, and cynical: Big five personality characteristics of gelotophobes, gelotophiles, and katagelasticists. International Studies in Humour, 2, 24–42.Google Scholar
  52. Ruch, W., Hofmann, J., Platt, T., & Proyer, R. T. (2014). The state-of-the art in gelotophobia research: A review and some theoretical extensions. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27, 23–45.  https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2013-0046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ruch, W., Platt, T., Bruntsch, R., & Ďurka, R. (2017). Evaluation of a picture-based test for the assessment of Gelotophobia. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2043.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02043.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Ruch, W., Heintz, S., Platt, T., Wagner, L., & Proyer, R. T. (2018). Broadening humor: Comic styles differentially tap into temperament, character, and ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 6.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Samson, A. C., & Meyer, Y. (2010). Perception of aggressive humor in relation to gelotophobia, gelotophilia and katagelasticism. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52, 217–230.Google Scholar
  56. Samson, C. A., Huber, O., & Ruch, W. (2011). Teasing, ridiculing and the relation to the fear of being laughed at in individuals with Asperger’s syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41, 475–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  58. Szameitat, D. P., Alter, K., Szameitat, A. J., Darwin, C. J., Wildgruber, D., Dietrich, S., & Sterr, A. (2009). Differentiation of emotions in laughter at the behavioral level. Emotion, 9, 397–405.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015692.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Torres-Marín, J., Navarro-Carrillo, G., & Carretero-Dios, H. (2018). Is the use of humor associated with anger management? The assessment of individual differences in humor styles in Spain. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 193–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Torres-Marín, J., Proyer, R. T., López-Benítez, R., Brauer, K., & Carretero-Dios, H. (2019). Beyond the big five as predictors of dispositions toward ridicule and being laughed at: The HEXACO model and the dark triad. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weiss, E. M., Schulter, G., Freudenthaler, H. H., Hofer, E., Pichler, N., & Papousek, I. (2012). Potential markers of aggressive behavior: The fear of other persons’ laughter and its overlaps with mental disorders. PLoS One, 7, e38088.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038088.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. West, S., Finch, J., & Curran, P. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables. Problems and remedies. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56–75). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Wood, A., Martin, J., & Niedenthal, P. (2017). Towards a social functional account of laughter: Acoustic features convey reward, affiliation, and dominance. PLoS One, 12, e0183811.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183811.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Wu, C. L., An, C. P., Tseng, L. P., Chen, H. C., Chan, Y. C., Cho, S. L., & Tsai, M. L. (2015). Fear of being laughed at with relation to parent attachment in individuals with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 10, 116–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ziv, A., & Gadish, O. (1990). The disinhibiting effects of humor: Aggressive and affective responses. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 3, 247–257.  https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1990.3.3.247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Centro de Investigación Mente, Cerebro, y Comportamiento (CIMCYC)University of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyMartin-Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany
  3. 3.Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education and Social WorkUniversity of ValladolidValladolidSpain
  4. 4.Department of Methodology for Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Psychology, Centro de Investigación Mente, Cerebro, y Comportamiento (CIMCYC)University of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations