http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2023.11.3.

824

The European Journal of

Humour Research 11 (3) 145–165
www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

Humour types, assertiveness, self-efficacy,

personality, and perfectionism in pre-service teachers

Elena Mirela Samfira

University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timisoara, Romania
[email protected]

Ionel Samfira
University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timisoara, Romania
[email protected]

Abstract

Teachers’ humour has a special place in the educational context with multiple benefits for
themselves and their students. As a complex concept, humour is strongly related to individual
personality, which is also complex and diverse. The current research aimed to investigate the
correlations between four types of humour (affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-
defeating) and assertiveness, perfectionism, and Big Five personality traits (openness,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability) in pre-service
teachers. The obtained results show that the adaptive type of humour (affiliative and self-
enhancing) positively correlated with assertiveness, Big Five personality traits, and the adaptive
form of perfectionism, and negatively with the maladaptive form of perfectionism. Also, the
maladaptive type of humour (aggressive and self-defeating) negatively correlated with
assertiveness, Big Five personality traits, and positively with the maladaptive form of
perfectionism. An intriguing finding was the positive correlation between aggressive humour
and assertiveness.

Keywords: humour, assertive communication, self-efficacy, personality, pre-service teachers.

1. Introduction
The effects of humour have aroused the interest of specialists for over six decades (Wolff et al.
1934; Brumbaugh 1940). During the 20th century, psychologists show increased interest in
analysing and understanding individual differences in humour (Heintz & Ruch 2019) and in its
positive effects on health and well-being (Fritz 2020). Humour is defined by Ruch & Hehl
(1998: 110) as the ability to make other persons laugh (telling funny stories, jokes, etc.),
considering that some individuals have the predisposition to be funny (Zillmann & Cantor 2017:
95). Martin & Ford (2018) claim that the humour of an individual can be conceptualised in
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

multiple ways, that is, as a personality trait, an attitude, a coping mechanism, an emotion-based
temperament, an aesthetic preference, ability and competence, a virtue, and more recently, a
character strength that could be frequently found in communication between people (Ruch et al.
2018: 11). People who are considered to have a good sense of humour are perceived as friendly,
extrovert, kind, imaginative, and intelligent (Cann & Calhoun 2001).
In investigating humour, it is very important to consider it not in a single dimension (Ruch
& Hehl, 1998) but as a multidimensional phenomenon, as highlighted by numerous authors (e.g.,
Martin et al. 2003; Heintz & Ruch 2019). Martin et al. (2003) proposed a 2 X 2 model of humour,
according to which individuals may use both interpersonal and intrapersonal humour in more or
less healthy ways. This adaptive/maladaptive dimension was quite ignored by researchers, an
aspect that Martin et al. (2003) took into consideration when developing the Humour Styles
Questionnaire (HSQ). The HSQ survey assesses two adaptive/positive forms of humour
(affiliative and self-enhancing humour) and two maladaptive/negative (aggressive and self-
defeating humour).
Affiliative humour is described as the tendency of an individual to make jokes with other
people, in order to develop a positive relationship (Karahan et al. 2019: 2). Individuals with high
scores on this dimension have the tendency to tell jokes, to amuse others, to have positive
relationships without tensions (Martin et al. 2003: 53).
Aggressive humour is described as the tendency of an individual to be ironic, to use sarcasm,
to criticise others, to manipulate others in order to increase his/her superiority (Martin et al.
2003: 54; Karahan et al. 2019: 2).
Self-enhancing humour is described as the tendency to be amused by the discrepancy of
life, although the individual is confronted with stressful situations (Kuiper et al. 1993), to
organize emotion, in the sense of using humour as an emotion regulation or as a coping strategy,
and to “maintain a humorous outlook on life” (a way of warding off negative feeling, in order
to improve the individual’s health and well-being) (Martin et al. 2003: 53).
Self-defeating humour is described as a tendency to make some self-derogatory affirmations
and laugh along with other people when ridiculed, with the purpose of becoming accepted by
others and of developing positive relationships with them (Karahan et al. 2019: 2-3; Martin et
al. 2003: 54).
Other research on the relationship between humour and different personality traits has
found that humour is related to self-esteem (Schermer et al. 2021), optimism (e.g., Jiang et al.
2020) extraversion, assertiveness, and cheerfulness (Katz & Wing-Paul 2020), creativity (Ruch
& Heintz 2019), well-being (Fritz 2020), perfectionism (DiFabio et al. 2023), and openness to
change values (Rad et al. 2019). Despite the fact that a century has passed, one of the questions
that has remained unchanged among practitioners and researchers remains: What are the
personal characteristics of effective teachers and is humour one of them?

2. Literature review

2.1. Teacher humour

Almost every adult can remember at least one teacher with a good sense of humour who made
the courses enjoyable and anticipated by the students. While they are at school, students
experience different social situations and a multitude of emotions: they can be happy, bored,
interested, and curious (Bieg et al. 2019: 1). The emotions experienced by students in the
classroom are relevant for education because it is well known that they influence/affect students’
cognitive processes, self-regulation processes attention, and memory processes (Pekrun & Perry
2014: 125; Pekrun et al. 2018: vii-vii).

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

146
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

Humour was placed by old or recent researchers (Hart 1934; Murray 1983; Rianti et al.
2020) in the top five personality traits, since it influences teacher effectiveness which creates
and develops a non-threatening learning environment (Shahid & Ghazal 2019). A possible
explanation could be that a humorous teacher seems to be a more humanistic, less rigid/distant
person, making learners feel accepted (Chabeli 2008) and, because of this, students could be
more inclined to discuss their personal problems with him/her (Aylor & Oppliger 2003).
Humour is appreciated by students and teachers, being considered an essential trait for a
successful teacher (Jonas 2009). Gao & Liu (2013: 88) described a humorous teacher as an
interesting and funny person who jokingly makes the class enjoyable. Also, teachers who can
laugh with pupils and not at their pupils are considered very good at keeping classroom
discipline, because teachers who accept and encourage the laughter in their classes are viewed
by researchers to have fewer problems with classroom control, especially when teachers and
students have a very similar social background (Van Praag et al. 2017). In this vein, Chabeli’s
(2006: 55) affirmation “[i]f we can laugh together, we can learn together” is very appropriate.
Teachers’ humour plays an important role in the educational context, with a lot of positive
consequences, such as increasing students’ performance (e.g., Fabelico & Afalla 2020),
students’ engagement in online learning (Erdoğdu & Çakıroğlu 2021), reducing anxiety
(Kholmatov 2021), developing a classroom environment for an excellent student learning
(Pretorius et al. 2020), maintaining a teachers’ good reputation (Lee 2006), removing monotony
and boredom, gaining students’ attention, intrinsic motivation, staying tuned (Szentes 2020),
increasing students’ enjoyment and emotion (Bieg et al. 2022), helping students to remember
better the information, using a humorous image (Chabeli 2006).
Even though humour is considered a stable trait (Ruch & Hehl 1998), some recent authors
argue that teacher humour could be seen as a learnable trait (e.g., James 2007: 3), information
which brings a note of hope. Based on this, teacher-training departments play an important role
in developing the skills to teach students in a humorous manner, where they can learn to use
humour as a pedagogical tool (Szentes 2020: 88, 95). But, in order to become an instructional
tool, the humour used by teachers must be related to the learning content (Wanzer et al. 2010)
not to the personal aspects. Sometimes humour is not used properly by a teacher and this
situation can cause a loss of control (Han & Han 2019), or may be perceived as
offensive/humiliating (Frymier & Wanzer 2021).
Additionally, Chabeli (2008) claims that in some situations, inappropriate humour can
affect both parties involved in the educational activity, such as decreasing the teacher’s
credibility and affecting the students’ feelings, self-esteem, and attention in the classroom. We
can observe that humour could be used as an adaptive coping mechanism (e.g., coping humour;
Kfrerer et al. 2022), a defence mechanism (Steir-Livny 2021), or as a “social lubricant” (Neves
& Karagonlar 2020: 5).
Humour among teachers is appreciated regardless of the way the classes are held, whether
physically or online. Online humour represents a unique form of humour, which takes more of
a linguistic form, due to the specific type of interaction that online teaching entails (James 2007:
3). Although before the pandemic online courses were not frequent (Goldsmith 2001), recent
studies in this area have highlighted the benefits of humour in online classes (Rucynski & Neff
2022), as it is considered to be a supplementary factor to involve students in them.

2.2. Teacher assertiveness

Assertiveness represents a type of response that enables persons to behave in a specific manner:
respecting their own interests, expressing their feelings without fear and anxiety, and respecting
the rights of other individuals (Alberti & Emmons 2017). Infante (1987) sustains that assertive
communication is seen as a constructive form of aggressive communication and different

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

147
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

persons could see assertiveness as being very close to aggressiveness because things are told in
a very blunt manner. Alberti & Emmons (2017: 17) provided one of the most complete
definitions of assertiveness: “Assertiveness enables us to act in our own best interests, to stand
up for ourselves, without undue anxiety, to exercise personal rights without denying the rights
of others, and to express our feelings and needs … honestly and comfortably”. Generally,
assertive individuals are confident, honest, direct in their communication, extrovert, and friendly
(Sims 2017), develop better relationships, solve their problems in an active manner (Parmaksiz
& Kılıçarslan 2019), sustain their opinions, thoughts, and emotions more openly (Moon 2009).
The lack of assertiveness in individuals is related to low self-esteem, neglecting their rights, or
considering themselves not valuable persons (Rosales et al. 2021).
In educational settings, assertiveness represents a significant skill (Samfira 2020) because
“teaching requires assertiveness”, as Kim et al. (2019: 169) claim. Also, assertiveness is
imperiously necessary for classroom management but also in the relationships with
administrators and other decision-makers (Rajendran et al. 2020). Acting in an assertive manner
could represent a “guide” for students who may choose to behave in a similar way, too (Brown
2011). Although assertiveness is a characteristic of Western culture (Eskin 2003), very good
news for pre-service teachers is that assertiveness can be learned at every moment, at any age,
because it is not an innate trait (Galinha & São-João 2021). Teachers’ assertiveness is positively
correlated with teachers’ effectiveness, competence, well-being, and preventing stressful
experiences (Carstensen & Klusmann 2021), leadership style (Sucan et al. 2016), students’ trust
in their teachers and social competencies (Martínez et al. 2016), students’ acquiring more
communication options (Willis 2020), and negatively correlated with social anxiety
(Milovanovi et al. 2016) and emotional exhaustion (Carstensen & Klusmann 2021).
Teacher assertiveness is considered a part of the personal characteristics of a “good
teacher”, along with humour, empathy, humility, and patience, as concluded by different
researchers (Raufelder et al. 2016; Rianti et al. 2020). In their qualitative research, Raufelder et
al. (2016: 36-38) found that lack of assertiveness represented a repetitive sub-theme about “bad”
teachers. The relationship between teachers’ assertiveness and humour is supported by different
studies (e.g., Wanzer & Frymier 1999) which concluded that teachers’ high levels of humour
are positively correlated with high levels of assertiveness and also recommended that teacher
training should contain humorous components as pre-service and in-service teachers need to
learn about humour in order to be aware of its positive and negative consequences.

2.3. Teacher perfectionism

Perfectionism is defined as striving for flawlessness, establishing high standards for
performance, pressure to excel, and fears about own behaviours (Stoeber & Rennert 2008: 2).
Before 1990, researchers identified two types of perfectionism: adaptive (positive)
perfectionism and maladaptive (negative) perfectionism (Flett & Hewitt 2006). Adler (1956) is
one of the authors who emphasised the existence of positive perfectionism, suggesting that it is
an impulse of excellence that exists in all human beings.
After 1990, the concept evolved toward multidimensional and multifaceted personality
traits (Frost et al. 1990; Hewitt & Flett 1991). Recently, Hill et al. (2004, 2016) delineated
perfectionism as a construct with eight dimensions: high standards for others, striving for
excellence, planfulness, organisation, need for approval, parental pressure, concern over
mistakes, and rumination. Hill et al. (2004) described the two sub-scales, that is, conscientious
perfectionism and self-evaluative perfectionism, after their conceptual similarities with the traits
of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism from the Five-Factor Model (McCrae & John 1992).
In educational settings, perfectionism is considered an important issue, due to the
relationship it has with stress, challenges (Shirazizadeh & Karimpour 2019), achievements, and

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

148
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

goal accomplishment (Flett & Hewitt 2016). The educational environment represents a specific
context that encourages and sustains high standards (Rice et al. 2016) so that it constitutes a
framework conducive to developing and supporting perfectionism, both in teachers and in
students (Gilman & Ashby 2006). Teachers who are organised and carefully plan their work,
are considered by Allinder (1994: 91) to have more experience in teaching activity, to have
confidence in their instructional abilities, and to be more honest and just in dealing with their
students and with stressful situations.
Also, teachers’ striving for excellence, evaluated as a personal effort to be “the personal
best” (Brown 2011: 57), could be seen as a method to enhance their performance and not as a
competition (Brown 2011). Hill et al. (2004: 83) also found that pre-service teachers with a
“tendency to pursue perfect results and high standards” are more inclined to work hard and to
achieve excellence in their professional and personal work. All of these components mentioned
above (organisation, planfulness, striving for excellence, and high standards) represent the
components of the conscientious perfectionism sub-scale.
In some situations (e.g., singer-teachers), teachers feel extra pressure to be perfect from
their colleagues or students, to present their voice or instruments perfectly during
teaching/concerts, and to avoid mistakes in the classroom or concerts (Cupido 2018: 24-25).
Perfectionistic teachers seek approval from colleagues and students because external validation
gives them a sense of confidence (Cupido 2018: 30). As mentioned above, feeling the pressure,
concern over mistakes, and seeking approval are the components of the self-evaluative
perfectionism subscale.
Teachers’ perfectionistic strivings (or adaptive perfectionism) positively relate with
proactive coping strategies, such as self-efficacy (Samfira & Palos 2021), challenge appraisals,
and eustress (Stoeber & Rennert 2008), high job satisfaction and flow experience during
teaching (Shim et al., 2020), job engagement (Cao & Zhang 2022), student-dancers’ creativity
(Nordin-Bates 2020) and negatively correlated with loss appraisals, avoidant coping, burnout
(Stoeber & Rennert 2008), and anxiety (Mahmoodi-Shahrebabaki 2017). In her research,
Vlasova (2020) found that teachers’ striving for excellence is not associated with occupational
stress. Teachers’ perfectionistic concerns (or mal-adaptive perfectionism) positively correlate
with distress (Stoeber & Rennert 2008), anxiety (Mahmoodi-Shahrebabaki 2017), depression
(Gluschkoff et al. 2017), burnout (Commerchero 2008), maladaptive coping strategies (Stoeber
& Rennert 2008), custodial view (Samfira & Sava 2021), low job satisfaction and infrequent
flow experience during teaching (Shim et al. 2020).
The relationship between pre-service teacher perfectionism and humour as
multidimensional concepts was approached by different researchers (Çalışandemir & Tagay
2015) who sustain that both concepts have positive and negative characteristics, and their
positive components are strongly related to life satisfaction. Analysing the relationship between
perfectionism and humour, Nugent (2000) highlighted that negative consequences of
perfectionism could be explained by teachers to their students by using humour (e.g., the
Crocodile in the Bedroom fable). These results represent a starting point to analyse the humour
with other dimensions (e.g., conscientious perfectionism and self-evaluative perfectionism).

2.4. Teacher personality

Personality is defined as “those characteristics of the person that account for consistent patterns
of feelings, thinking, and behaving” (Pervin et al. 2005: 6). In time, researchers have proposed
and developed different personality frameworks to understand the complex construct of
personality. The main examples of personality frameworks are the HEXACO (Ashton & Lee
2007), Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers et al. 1998), 16 personality factors (Cattell et al.
1970), and the Big Five (McCrae & Costa 1987) which represents the most used frameworks.

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

149
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

The model developed by McCrae & Costa (1987) assesses Openness, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeability, and Neuroticism/emotional stability. All these Big Five dimensions
are independent and could coexist within every person.
In educational settings, teacher personality has aroused the interest of researchers since the
1920s (e.g., Brubacher 1921) to outline the characteristics of the more successful and the less
successful teachers, with over 1000 articles published in this field. Among the traits considered
essential were the following: Adaptability, Enthusiasm, Responsibleness, Cooperation, Poise,
and Independence, traits that we can recently evaluate using the Five-Factor Model of
Personality. Regarding personality traits, different researchers tried to identify how they affect
the educational environment.
Conscientious individuals are generally described as achievement-focused, organised, and
responsible, with high aspirations and leadership skills (McCrae & Costa 2008: 164). Research
found that teachers’ conscientiousness is positively correlated with students’ intrinsic
motivation and knowledge (Khalilzadeh & Khodi 2021), effectiveness measures (Kim &
MacCann 2018), life satisfaction, happiness, optimism (Vorkapić & Peloza 2017), reappraisal
and positive mood (Berkovich & Eyal 2021), and negatively correlated with burnout (Kim et al.
2019), suppression (Berkovich & Eyal 2021).
Emotionally stable individuals are seen as being calm, secure, and with a high tolerance for
stress (McCrae & Costa 2008: 164). Teachers’ emotional stability has a positive correlation with
creative teaching (Deng et al. 2020), life satisfaction, happiness, optimism (Vorkapić & Peloza
2017), reappraisal, and positive mood (Berkovich & Eyal 2021), and negative correlation with
burnout (Kim et al. 2019) and negative mood (Berkovich & Eyal 2021).
Extroverted individuals are described as being energetic and appreciating companionship
(McCrae & Costa 2008: 164). Teachers’ extraversion has a positive correlation with creative
teaching (Deng et al. 2020), happiness, optimism (Vorkapić & Peloza 2017), positive mood
(Berkovich & Eyal 2021), and a negative correlation with burnout (Kim et al. 2019), negative
mood and suppression (Berkovich & Eyal 2021).
Agreeable individuals are described as being kind, compassionate, cooperative, caring, and
helpful (McCrae & Costa 2008: 164). Teachers’ agreeableness has a positive correlation with
teacher evaluation, individual rapport, and enthusiasm (Kim & MacCann 2018), diversity beliefs
(Unruh & McCord 2010), life satisfaction, happiness, optimism (Vorkapić & Peloza 2017),
positive mood (Berkovich & Eyal 2021), and a negative correlation with teaching experience
(Vorkapić & Peloza 2017) and negative mood (Berkovich & Eyal 2021).
Opened individuals are described as being intellectually curious, and creative, with a need
for novelty and change (McCrae & Costa 2008: 164). Teachers’ openness is identified to
positively correlate with diversity beliefs (Unruh & McCord 2010), life satisfaction, happiness,
optimism (Vorkapić & Peloza 2017), and positive mood (Berkovich & Eyal 2021) and
negatively correlated with negative mood (Berkovich & Eyal 2021).
The importance of teacher humour has been emphasised since the first articles published
on teacher’s personality (Brubacher 1921). Likewise, humour has been considered a “window
to the mind, an objective indicator of personality” (Ruch & Hehl 1998 :142). Also, Allport
(1961) considered the sense of humour as a feature of a mature and healthy personality (e.g., a
positive sense of self, insight, and friendly relationship with other persons).
In the educational context, we do not identify any research on the relationship between
teachers’ personality and humour styles, only in the cases of college students (Saroglou &
Scariot 2002) or university students (Greengross et al. 2012; Tsukawaki & Imura 2023). In their
research, Saroglou & Scariot (2002) affirmed that self-enhancing humour has positive
correlation with Agreeableness and Openness, hostile humour has a negative correlation with
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, self‐defeating humour has a negative correlation with
Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness. Quite similar results were found by Greengross et

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

150
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

al. (2012) who showed that Openness has a positive correlation with Affiliative Self-enhancing
humour, Conscientiousness has a positive correlation with Self-enhancing humour and a
negative correlation with Aggressive and Self-defeating humour, Extraversion has a positive
correlation with Affiliative and Self-enhancing humour, Agreeableness has a positive
correlation with Self-enhancing humour and negative correlation with Aggressive humour, and
Neuroticism has a positive correlation with Aggressive and Self-defeating humour and negative
correlation with Affiliative and Self-enhancing humour.
To the best of our knowledge, no research has explicitly focused on the relationship between
teachers’ personality (Big Five Model) and humour styles, and this represented one of the
reasons that led to the present research.

2.5. Study rationale

Bearing in mind that resilience is important in managing stress and that the teaching profession
is a profession with a high level of stress, we set out to evaluate some of the components
proposed by Singh & Gujral (2018) that lead to the development of resilience: humour and
assertiveness.
Additionally, we also considered that resilient people are efficient, with high expectations,
self-disciplined, good problem–thinkers (Garmezy 1991), agreeable individuals, perseverant,
with pro-social attitudes (Dyer & McGuiness 1996), and wish to develop a healthy balance in
their perfectionistic beliefs (Holden 2020). Bearing all these aspects in mind, we proposed to
add the assessment of personality traits and perfectionistic tendencies in relation to humour.
Based on the above arguments, we formulated the following research questions:

RQ1: What is the profile of pre-service teachers with Affiliative humour style, regarding
assertiveness, Big Five, and perfectionism?
RQ2: What is the profile of pre-service teachers with Self-enhancing humour style,
regarding assertiveness, Big Five, and perfectionism?
RQ3: What is the profile of pre-service teachers with Aggressive humour style, regarding
assertiveness, Big Five, and perfectionism?
RQ4: What is the profile of pre-service teachers with Self-defeating humour style, regarding
assertiveness, Big Five, and perfectionism?

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants
The sample consisted of 284 pre-service teachers (189 females, 95 males, M age = 19.9, SD age
= 2.1) from the University of Life Science, in the Western part of Romania. Participation was
based on their voluntary consent, the sample being selected from all students enrolled in the first
year of the Teacher Training program, developed in the university.

3.2. Procedure
Data was collected, while ensuring anonymity. All the subjects who accepted to participate in
this study signed an Informed Consent Form, according to the ethical standards in research with
human subjects, and they were assured that could withdraw from the study whenever they
wanted, without any negative consequences.

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

151
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

3.3. Instruments
The first part of the survey contained demographic information: age and gender. To assess pre-
service students’ humour styles, assertiveness, perfectionistic tendencies, and personality traits,
the following questionnaires were applied:
Humour Styles Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin et al. 2003), a 32-item scale, assesses four
dimensions of humour, using a seven-point Likert scale, from 1 - totally disagree to 7 - totally
agree. Two dimensions were considered to be adaptive and conducive to psychosocial well-
being such as Affiliative humour and Self-enhancing humour, and other two dimensions were
considered to be mal-adaptive, supposed to be deleterious to well-being such as Aggressive
humour and Self-defeating humour. Some item examples are “I enjoy making people laugh”.
Rathus Assertiveness Scale (RAS; Rathus, 1973), a 30-item scale, assesses assertive
behaviour, using a 6-point Likert scale, from +3 (strongly characteristic of me) to -3 (strongly
uncharacteristic of me). Some item examples are “I strive to get ahead as well as most people in
my position”.
Perfectionism Inventory Scale (PI; Hill et al., 2004), a 59-item scale, assesses eight
dimensions of perfectionism, using a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 - strongly disagree to 5 -
strongly agree. The eight dimensions are compressed into two main sub-scale: Conscientious
perfectionism and Self-evaluative perfectionism. An indicative item example is “I compare my
work to others and often feel inadequate”. The questionnaire was validated for the Romanian
teachers’ population by Samfira & Maricuțoiu (2021).
International Personality Item Pool (IPIP-50; Goldberg 1992; Romanian version, IPIP-50,
by Rusu et al. 2012), a 50-item scale, assesses five domains of personality using a 5-point Likert
scale, from 1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree. The five domains of personality are
Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional
Stability. Some item examples are “I am the life of the party”.

3.4. Data analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
23. Correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between four types of
humour (affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-defeating) and five personality
dimensions (open to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional
stability), two dimensions of perfectionism (conscientious perfectionism and self-evaluative
perfectionism), and assertiveness.

4. Results
To answer the research questions, we performed all the required correlations, which are
presented in Table 1.

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

152
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

Table 1. Correlations matrix between all variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Affiliative Humour .30** .39** .09 .52** .28** .25** -.02 -.34**
Self-enhancing .22** .26** .18** .29** .25** .32** .17** -.20**
Humour
Aggressive Humour .21** .08 -.24** .21** -.18** .000 -.14* -.06
Self-defeating -.14* -.11 -.31** .05 -.01 -.13* -.21** .13*
Humour
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 (2-tailed); 1 = Assertiveness; 2 = Openness; 3 = Conscientiousness; 4 = Extraversion; 5 = Agreeableness;
6 = Emotional stability; 7 = Conscientious perfectionism; 8 = Self-evaluative perfectionism

First, we examined the correlations that addressed the first research question that investigated
the profile of pre-service teachers with affiliative humour style from assertive communication,
perfectionism, and Big Five personality traits’ perspectives. We found that pre-service teachers
with affiliative humour style are more likely to communicate in an assertive manner (r = .30, p
< .01), are less inclined to manifest self-evaluative perfectionistic tendencies (r = -.34, p < .01),
and are open-minded (r = .39, p < .01), extraverted (r = .52, p < .01), agreeable (r = .28, p < .01),
and emotionally stable individuals (r = .25, p < .01). Data analysis does not reveal any significant
connection between affiliative humour style and conscientiousness (r = .09, p >.05) or
conscientious perfectionistic tendencies (r = -.02, p >.05). Although the relationship with
conscientious perfectionistic tendencies is not a significant one, we can observe that there is a
negative one, which highlights that those pre-service teachers with affiliative humour style are
less inclined to manifest perfectionistic tendencies, although they are considered to be positive.
Correlations are presented in Table 1.
Second, we examined the correlations that addressed the second research question that
investigated the profile of pre-service teachers with self-enhancing humour from the
aforementioned perspectives. We found that pre-service teachers with self-enhancing humour
style are more likely to communicate in an assertive manner (r = .22, p < .01), are more inclined
to have conscientious perfectionistic tendencies (r = .17, p < .01), are less inclined to have self-
evaluative perfectionistic tendencies (r = -.20, p < .01), and are open-minded (r = .26, p < .01),
conscientious (r = .18, p < .01), extraverted (r = .29, p < .01), agreeable (r = .25, p < .01), and
emotionally stable (r = .32, p < .01).
Next, we examined the correlations that addressed the third research question that
investigated the profile of pre-service teachers with aggressive humour style from prior
mentioned perspectives. We found that pre-service teachers with an aggressive humour style are
more likely to communicate in an assertive manner (r = .21, p < .01), are less inclined to have
conscientious perfectionistic tendencies (r = -.14, p < .05), are extraverted (r = .21, p < .01), and
are not agreeable (r = -.18, p < .01) or conscientious individuals (r = -.24, p < .01). Data analysis
does not reveal any significant connection between aggressive humour style and openness (r =
.08, p >.05), emotional stability (r = .000), or self-evaluative perfectionism (r = -.06, p >.05).
Finally, we examined the correlations that addressed the fourth research question that
investigated the profile of pre-service teachers with self-defeating humour style from the above-
stated perspectives. We found that pre-service teachers with a self-defeating humour style are
less likely to communicate in an assertive manner (r = -.14, p < .05), are more inclined to have
self-evaluative perfectionism (r = .13, p < .05), are less inclined to have conscientious
perfectionistic tendencies (r = -.21, p < .01), are not conscientious individuals (r = -.31, p < .01),
and are not emotionally stable persons (r = -.13, p < .05). Data analysis does not reveal any
significant connection between self-defeating humour style and openness (r = -.11, p >.05),
extraversion (r = .05, p >.05), and agreeableness (r = -.01, p >.05).

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

153
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

5. Discussion
The main purpose of the present study was to examine the correlations that outline the profiles
of the four types of pre-service teachers’ humour: Affiliative Humour, Self-enhancing Humour,
Aggressive Humour, and Self-defeating Humour (RQ1 - RQ4) from the perspective of assertive
communication, perfectionism, and Big Five personality traits.
First, we examined the correlations that addressed the profile of pre-service teachers with
affiliative humour, to better understand if teachers who apply this type of humour adopt assertive
communication, have perfectionistic tendencies, and what kind of personality traits they
manifest. After the analysis, we claim that pre-service teachers who have the tendency to make
jokes with other individuals (e.g., their students or colleagues) to develop positive relationships
are more inclined to be assertive when they communicate with their educational partners
(students, colleagues, or parents), so they will respect their own rights, interests, and feelings
without fear of being judged but respecting at the same time others’ rights, interests, and
feelings, too. Our result is in line with other research conducted in this area (Wanzer & Frymier
1999; Salavera et al. 2020). Contrastingly, Campbell (2000) did not obtain any association
between humour orientation and assertiveness.
To the best of our knowledge, no research has explicitly focused on the relationship between
the in-service or pre-service teacher’s affiliative humour and assertive communication. While
studies before Martin et al. (2003) were focused only on teachers’ humour orientation and
assertive communication and not on some specific humorous behaviours, as the researchers
explicitly mentioned, the present research brings something new in this area, being more specific
and analysing separately the four types of humour.
Next, we calculated the correlation between affiliative humour and perfectionism and we
found that pre-service teachers who have the tendency to make jokes with other individuals
(e.g., their students or colleagues) to develop positive relationships are less likely to have self-
evaluative perfectionistic behaviours (e.g., the maladaptive form of perfectionism with concerns
over mistakes, need for approval, ruminations, and perceived parental pressure). These aspects
could reflect the protective role of affiliative humour which is focused on building relationships
not on identifying/ruminating on mistakes). Our result is consistent with previous findings (Di
Fabio et al. 2020) with a single mention that perfectionism was assessed from other perspectives,
but very close to the self-evaluative perfectionism view.
Afterward, we calculated the correlations between affiliative humour and Big Five
personality traits and we found that pre-service teachers who have the tendency to make jokes
with other individuals (e.g., their students or colleagues) to develop positive relationships are
open, agreeable, extraverted, and emotionally stable individuals. The above-mentioned
personality traits all describe an individual’s tendency to be kind, open-minded to know different
people and to develop positive relationships with others (McCrae and Costa 2008), which
constitute behaviours quite similar to those described for affiliative humour. These similarities
could represent a possible explanation for our findings. Our results are in line with previous
research (Plessen et al. 2020; Tsukawaki & Imura 2023) but at the same time opposite to other
results (Di Fabio et al. 2020).
Second, we examined the correlations that addressed the profile of pre-service teachers with
self-enhancing humour, to understand the characteristics of teachers who apply this type of
humour from the precedent variables (assertive communication, perfectionism, and Big Five
personality traits). After the analysis, we claim that pre-service teachers who have the tendency
to smile, although they are confronted with stressful situations, are more inclined to be assertive
when they communicate with their educational partners (students, colleagues, or parents), so
they will respect their own rights and interests but, respecting at the same time others’ rights

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

154
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

and interests, too. Our result is in line with other papers (Salavera et al. 2020). Contrastingly,
Campbell (2000) did not obtain any association between humour orientation and assertiveness.
Next, we calculated the correlation between self-enhancing humour and perfectionism and
we found that pre-service teachers who have the tendency to smile, although the individual is
confronted with stressful situations are more likely to have conscientious perfectionism (i.e. the
adaptive form of perfectionism with organization, planfulness, striving for excellence, and high
standards for others). Our finding could help future teachers to understand that having a positive
attitude when confronting classroom difficulties, does not mean abandoning the excellence in
their work, but, on the contrary, continuing to strive although the results are not up to their
expectations. Our result is consistent with previous findings that analysed the relationship
between positive humour and different components of conscientious perfectionism (e.g.,
striving for excellence or other-oriented perfectionism: Çalışandemir & Tagay 2015) but
contrastingly to other results (e.g., Stoeber, 2018). Our outcome follows the Çalışandemir &
Tagay (2015) recommendation to develop positive humour and positive perfectionism within
university teacher training.
To the best of our knowledge, no research has explicitly focused on the relationship between
the in-service or pre-service teacher’s self-enhancing humour and the eight sub-scales
perfectionism questionnaire developed by Hill et al. (2004). Regarding the negative correlation
between self-enhancing humour and self-evaluative perfectionism, our finding reflects that
teachers with self-enhancing humour are not preoccupied with mistakes or other maladaptive
perfectionistic behaviours. No research was found to sustain this relationship. Instead, in other
studies, the findings sustained no correlation between these variables (Di Fabio et al. 2020).
Then, we calculated the correlations between self-enhancing humour and Big Five
personality traits and we found positive relationships with all five personality traits. These
positive correlations reflect that teachers with self-enhancing humour are open, conscientious,
agreeable, extroverted, and emotionally stable individuals, very similar to teachers with
affiliative humour, both having a personal focus. The results are consistent with previous
research conducted in this area (Plessen et al. 2020; Tsukawaki & Imura 2023).
Third, we examined the correlations that addressed the profile of pre-service teachers with
aggressive humour type so as to better understand if teachers who apply this type of humour
adopt assertive communication, have perfectionistic tendencies, and what kind of personality
traits they manifest. After the analysis, we sustain, contrary to our expectation, that pre-service
teachers who have the tendency to be ironic and to criticise others, to increase their superiority,
are more inclined to be assertive when they communicate with their educational partners
(students, colleagues, or parents). This relationship was sustained by other authors, especially
by Freud (1960: 129) who described hostile humour as “disguised aggressiveness” or by
Glassner (2017), who claimed that in some situations an individual who tries to become
more assertive, may push himself to behave in a more aggressive manner than he/she intended
to behave. Our result is similar with the research conducted by Salavera et al. (2020) who found
the same positive correlation between assertiveness and affiliative, self-enhancing, and
aggressive humour types.
Then, we calculated the correlation between aggressive humour and perfectionism and we
found that pre-service teachers who have the tendency to be ironic and to criticise others to
increase their superiority, are less likely to have conscientious perfectionism (the adaptive form
of perfectionism). This result could be explained that using aggressive humour, teachers bear in
mind their superiority and maybe it is no longer necessary to strive for excellence or to help
others to perform very well. The present result is in line with the results found by Çalışandemir
& Tagay (2015) and in contradiction with the results found by Di Fabio et al. (2020).
Next, we calculated the correlations between aggressive humour and Big Five personality
traits and we found negative correlations only with conscientiousness and agreeableness. After

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

155
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

the analysis, we can affirm that pre-service teachers who have the tendency to be ironic and to
criticise others to increase their superiority, are less inclined to be conscientious, with a high
level of aspirations and achievements, or agreeable individuals, with a disposition to cooperate
with others and to be compassionated. Our result is in line with other findings (Mendiburo-
Seguel et al. 2015; Di Fabio et al. 2020) and partially in line (no significant correlation with
conscientiousness) with Tsukawaki & Imura’s (2023) results.
Fourth, we examined the correlations that addressed the profile of pre-service teachers with
self-defeating humour type, so as to better understand if teachers who apply this type of humour
adopt assertive communication, have perfectionistic tendencies, and what kind of personality
traits they manifest. After the analysis, we can affirm that pre-service teachers who have the
tendency to make some self-derogatory affirmations, with the purpose to be accepted by others
and developing relationships with them, are less inclined to be assertive when they communicate
with their educational partners (students, colleagues, or parents). Our finding is in line with the
research of Salavera et al. (2020).
Afterward, we calculated the correlation between self-defeating humour and perfectionism
and we found that pre-service teachers who have the tendency to make some self-derogatory
affirmations, with the purpose to be accepted by others and developing relationships with them
are less likely to have conscientious perfectionism (the adaptive form of perfectionism), being
instead more inclined to have self-evaluative perfectionism (the maladaptive form). Our finding
could be explained as follows: for individuals who use a type of humour which makes them look
foolish or have the tendency to make some self-derogatory affirmations, it seems quite difficult
to work in an organised manner and to achieve excellence in their work. Instead, they resonate
more with concerns over their mistakes and need for others’ approval, as part of the negative
perfectionism, highlighting their “dark” or foolish part as a way to be accepted. Our finding is
similar to other results (Di Fabio et al. 2020). A different result was found in research conducted
by Çalışandemir & Tagay (2015).
Our last analysis was to calculate the correlation between self-defeating humour and Big
Five personality traits and we found negative correlations only with conscientiousness and
emotional stability. We could sustain that pre-service teachers who have the tendency to make
some self-derogatory affirmations, with the purpose to be accepted by others and developing
relationships with them, are less inclined to be conscientious, with a high level of aspirations
and achievements, or emotionally stable in their relationships. In other papers (Di Fabio et al.
2020) the authors found no correlation between these variables.

5.1. Limits of the study and future directions

Limitations of our study include, first, the low survey responses. The sample was not a
representative one for the Romanian pre-service teachers and, for this reason, our results cannot
be extrapolated to the entire population of pre-service teachers. A larger sample including pre-
service teachers from other universities could help us to obtain more in-depth information about
the correlations with humour styles. Second, in the absence of a longitudinal design, we cannot
analyse these relationships in their dynamics. Third, in such a correlational study, the data
analysis does not allow for causal inferences concerning the relationships between the involved
variables. Further research is needed to understand how assertiveness, Big Five personality
traits, perfectionism, and other personal characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy, resilience) could
influence the pre-service types of humour. A longitudinal study with 3 waves (e.g., first year of
the teaching program, last year, and their first year as in-service teachers) could reveal some
possible changes.

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

156
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

5.2. Theoretical and practical implications

The results of the present study bring new insights into the pre-service teachers’ humour styles,
having both theoretical and practical implications. Our findings reveal new information about
new correlates (e.g., Big Five personality traits, assertiveness, and conscientious/self-evaluative
perfectionism) of humour’s types in pre-service teachers. The more we know about pre-service
humour correlates, the more we could help for positive consequences in the classroom (e.g.,
Bakar & Mallan 2022; Weisi & Mohammadi 2023). Practical implications are related to
applying intervention to help pre-service teachers to develop and use healthy types of humour
(affiliative and self-enhancing) quite similar to other interventions used with teenagers (e.g.,
Liao et al. 2023). Even though interventions for the development of humour in teachers could
be seen as funny, research in the field shows us that the effects are very valuable.

6. Conclusion
To have access to their students’ basic emotions, teachers must be trained to be able to mobilise
their adaptive resources (e.g., assertiveness, self-protection, humour, conscientiousness,
creativity), as Fosha et al. (2009) suggest. In the present paper, the authors borne in mind these
aspects and analysed the relationships between teachers’ humour and assertiveness,
perfectionism, and Big Five personality traits. The results highlighted that teachers with positive
forms of humour show a positive profile from assertiveness, perfectionism, and Big Five
personality traits, and teachers with negative forms of humour show a negative one, excepting
the positive correlation between aggressive humour and assertive communication. The general
view is that teacher humour represents a very important trait in educational settings which
should be supported and developed through psychological and educational training, especially
for affiliative and self-enhancing humour (Martin & Kuiper, 2016). Our findings have
theoretical and practical implications for teacher training programs’ heads and school principals,
in enhancing well-being in the classroom.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank the pre-service teachers who accepted to participate in the present
study.

References

Adler, A. (1956). The neurotic disposition. In H. L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher (Eds.), The
individual psychology of Alfred Adler (pp. 239 –262). Harper.
Alberti, R. & Emmons, M. (2017). Your perfect right: Assertiveness and equality in your life
and relationships (10th ed.). New Harbinger Publications.
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of
special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education,
17(2), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064940170
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the
HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
11(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683062949
Aylor, B., & Oppliger, P. (2003). Out-of-class communication and student perceptions of

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

157
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

instructor humor orientation and socio-communicative style. Communication Education,

52(2), 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520302469
Bakar, F., & Mallan, V. (2022). How students perceive the teacher’s use of humour and how it
enhances learning in the classroom. The European Journal of Humour Research, 10(4),
187-199.
Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2021). Teachers’ Big Five personality traits, emotion regulation
patterns, and moods: mediation and prototype analyses. Research Papers in
Education, 36(3), 332-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1677758
Bieg, S., Dresel, M., Goetz, T., & Nett, U. E. (2022). Teachers' enthusiasm and humor and its’
lagged relationships with students' enjoyment and boredom - A latent trait-state-
approach. Learning and Instruction, 81, 101579.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101579
Bieg, S., Grassinger, R. & Dresel, M. (2019). Teacher humor: Longitudinal effects on students’
emotions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34(3), 517-534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101579
Brown, M. E. (2011). Standing up for teaching: the 'crime' of striving for excellence. Journal of
Pedagogic Development, 1(2), 52–57.
Brubacher, A. R. (1921). The teaching personality quotient. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 5(1), 39-45.
Brumbaugh, F. (1940). We study wit and humor. Childhood Education, 16(9), 401-404.
Çalışandemir, F., & Tagay, Ö. (2015). Multidimensional perfectionism and humor styles the
predictors of life satisfaction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 939-945.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.715
Campbell, K. (2000). ‘Chuckle while you work’: Subordinates’ perceptions of superiors’
humour orientation, assertiveness, responsiveness, approach/avoidance strategies, and
satisfaction (Publication number 1402058) [MA Dissertation, West Virginia University,
USA]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Cann, A., & Calhoun, L. G. (2001). Perceived personality associations with differences in sense
of humor: Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low senses of humor. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 14(2), 117-130.
https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.14.2.117
Cao, C. & Zhang, J. (2022). Chinese university faculty’s occupational well-being: Applying and
extending the job demands–resources model. Journal of Career Development, 49(6), 1283-
1300. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211037
Carstensen, B., & Klusmann, U. (2021). Assertiveness and adaptation: Prospective teachers’
social competence development and its significance for occupational well‐being. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 500-526. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12377
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen personality
factor questionnaire (16 PF). Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Chabeli, M. (2008). Humor: A pedagogical tool to promote learning. Curationis, 31(3), 51-59.
Chabeli, M. (2006). Higher order thinking skills competencies required by outcomes-based
education from learners. Curationis, 29(3), 78-86.
Comerchero, V. (2008). Gender, tenure status, teacher efficacy, perfectionism and teacher
burnout [PhD Thesis, Fordham University]. Retrieved January 24, 2023 from
https://www.proquest.com/openview/5f36d030c9c3ba94943e290b9f70ea00/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750.
Cupido, C. (2018). Music performance anxiety, perfectionism and its manifestation in the
lived experiences of singer-teachers. Muziki, 15(1), 14-36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18125980.2018.1467367

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

158
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

Deng, Q., Zheng, B., & Chen, J. (2020). The relationship between personality traits, resilience,
school support, and creative teaching in higher school physical education
teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568906
Di Fabio, A., Gori, A., & Svicher, A. (2023). Relationships between humor styles and the Big
Five personality traits in workers: A network analysis. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2), 1008.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021008
Di Fabio, A., Smith, M. M., & Saklofske, D. H. (2020). Perfectionism and a healthy attitude
toward oneself: Could humor be a resource?. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 17(1), 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010201
Dyer, J., & McGuiness, T., 1996. Resilience: analysis of the concept. Archives of Psychiatric
Nursing, 10(5), 276-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9417(96)80036-7
Erdoğdu, F., & Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2021). The educational power of humor on student engagement
in online learning environments. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced
Learning, 16(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-021-00158-8
Eskin M. (2003). Self-reported assertiveness in Swedish and Turkish adolescents: a cross-
cultural comparison. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 7–12.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.t01-1-00315
Fabelico, F., & Afalla, B. (2020). Perseverance and passion in the teaching profession: Teachers'
grit, self-efficacy, burnout, and performance. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(11), 108-119.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2006). Positive vs. negative perfectionism in psychopathology: a
comment on Slade and Owens's dual process model. Behavior Modification, 30(4), 472–
495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445506288026
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2016). Still measuring perfectionism after all these years:
reflections and an introduction to the special issue on advances in the assessment of
perfectionism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(7), 615–619.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916651540
Fosha, D., Paivio, S. C., Gleiser, K., & Ford, J. D. (2009). Experiential and emotion-focused
therapy. In C. A. Courtois & J. D. Ford (Eds.), Treating complex traumatic stress disorders:
An evidence-based guide (pp. 286-311). The Guilford Press.
Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. Norton.
Fritz, H. L. (2020). Why are humor styles associated with well-being, and does social
competence matter? Examining relations to psychological and physical well-being,
reappraisal, and social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109641.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109641
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of
perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01172967
Frymier, A. B., & Wanzer, M. B. (2021). Humor competence in the classroom. In M. Strick &
T. E. Ford (Eds.). The Social Psychology of Humor (pp. 130-147). Routledge.
Frymier, A.B. & Wanzer, M.B. (1999). Make ‘em laugh and they will learn: A closer look at
the relationship between perceptions of instructor’s humor orientation. Communication
Education, 65(1), 83-104.
Galinha, S. A., & São-João, R. (2021). Covid-19 period and competences in higher education-
study on cooperation and assertivity: Periodo Covid-19 y competencias en la educación
superior-estudio sobre cooperación y asertividad. South Florida Journal of Development,
2(3), 4179-4187. https://doi.org/10.46932/sfjdv2n3-031
Gao, M., & Liu, Q. (2013). Personality traits of effective teachers represented in the narratives
of American and Chinese preservice teachers: A cross-cultural comparison. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(2), 84-95.

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

159
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes

associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(4), 416-430.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000276429103400400
Gilman, R., & Ashby, J. S. (2006). Perfectionism. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.),
Children’s Needs III: Development, Prevention, and Intervention (3rd Ed.) (pp. 303–312).
National Association of School Psychologists.
Gismero, E. (2000). EHS Escala de Habilidades Sociales. Manual. TEA Ediciones.
Glassner, A. (2017). Interactive storytelling: Techniques for 21st century fiction. CRC Press.
Gluschkoff, K., Elovainio, M., Hintsanen, M., Mullola, S., Pulkki-Råback, L., Keltikangas-
Järvinen, L., & Hintsa, T. (2017). Perfectionism and depressive symptoms: The effects of
psychological detachment from work. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 186-
190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.044
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-
3590.4.1.26
Greengross, G., Martin, R. A. ,& Miller, G. (2012). Personality traits, intelligence, humor styles,
and humor production ability of professional stand-up comedians compared to college
students. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 74-82.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025774
Han, J., & Han, Y. (2019). Cultural concepts as powerful theoretical tools: Chinese teachers'
perceptions of their relationship with students in a cross-cultural context. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 8.
Hart, F. W. (1934). Teachers and teaching. Macmillan.
Heintz, S., & Ruch, W. (2019). From four to nine styles: An update on individual differences in
humor. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 7-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.12.008
Hill, A. P., Appleton, P. R., & Mallinson, S. H. (2016). Development and initial validation of
the performance perfectionism scale for sport (PPS-S). Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 34(7), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916651354
Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., Furr, R. M., Kibler, J., Vicente, B. B., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A
new measure of perfectionism: The perfectionism inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 82(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8201_13
Holden, C. L. (2020). Characteristics of veterinary students: pPerfectionism, personality factors,
and resilience. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 47(4), 488-496.
https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0918-111r
Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality
and interpersonal communication (pp. 157-192). Sage.
Jach, H. K., DeYoung, C. G., & Smillie, L. D. (2022). Why do people seek information? The
role of personality traits and situation perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 151(4), 934. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001109
James, D. (2007). A need for humor in online courses. College Teaching, 52(3), 93-94.
https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.52.3.93-120
Jiang, F., Lu, S., Jiang, T., & Jia, H. (2020). Does the relation between humor styles and
subjective well-being vary across culture and age? A meta-analysis. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 2213. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02213
Jonas, P. M. (2009). Laughing and learning: An alternative to shut up and listen. Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Karahan, T. F., Yalcin, B. M., Erbas, M. M., & Ergun, S. (2019). The relationship between the
dominant humor style, emotional intelligence, and problem-solving skills in trainee

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

160
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

teachers in Turkey. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 32(1), 73-95.

https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2017-0083
Katz, J., & Wing-Paul, D. (2020). Taking a joke seriously: When does humor affect responses
to the slurring of people with intellectual disabilities?. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 33(4), 563-579. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2019-0110
Kfrerer, M. L., Rudman, D. L., Aitken Schermer, J., Wedlake, M., Murphy, M., & Marshall, C.
A. (2023). Humor in rehabilitation professions: a scoping review. Disability and
Rehabilitation, 45(5), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2048909
Khalilzadeh, S., & Khodi, A. (2021). Teachers’ personality traits and students’ motivation: A
structural equation modelling analysis. Current Psychology, 40(4), 1635-1650.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0064-8
Kholmatov, A. (2021). Exploring teacher-initiated humour in Academic English classes: an
Uzbek international university experience. The European Journal of Humour
Research, 9(4), 221-235.
Kim, L. E., & MacCann, C. (2018). Instructor personality matters for student evaluations:
Evidence from two subject areas at university. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
88(4), 584–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12205
Kim, L. E., Jörg, V., & Klassen, R. M. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of teacher
personality on teacher effectiveness and burnout. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 163-
195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9458-2
Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1993). Coping humour, stress, and cognitive
appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 25(1), 81–96.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078791
Lee, D. (2006). Humor in spoken academic discourse. NUCB Journal of Language, Culture and
Communication, 8(3), 49-68.
Liao, Y. H., Lee, M. F., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, H. C. (2023). The effects of humor intervention
on teenagers’ sense of humor, positive emotions, and learning ability: A positive
psychological perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies, 24, 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00654-2
Mahmoodi-Shahrebabaki, M. (2017). The effect of perfectionism on burnout among English
language teachers: The mediating role of anxiety. Teachers and Teaching, 23(1), 91-105.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1203776
Martin, R. A., & Ford, T. (2018). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Academic
Press.
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(1), 48–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2
Martínez, V., Justicia, F. J., & Fernández de Haro, E. (2016). Teacher assertiveness in the
development of students' social competence. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology, 14(2), 310-332. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.39.15078
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1992.tb00970.x
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John,
R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research, (pp.
159-181). The Guilford Press.

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

161
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

Mendiburo‐Seguel, A., Páez, D., & Martínez‐Sánchez, F. (2015). Humor styles and personality:
A meta‐analysis of the relation between humor styles and the Big Five personality
traits. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(3), 335-340.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12209
Milovanović, R., Miladinović, I., & Stojanović, B. (2016). Assertiveness of prospective teachers
and preschool teachers. Educatia Plus, 16(2), 289-303.
Moon, J. (2009). Academic assertiveness real life strategies for today’s higher education
students. Routledge Taylor & Francis.
Murray, H. G. (1983). Low-inference classroom teaching behaviors and student ratings of
college teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 138-149.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.1.138
Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., Quenk, N.L., & Hammer, A.L., (1998). MBTI manual: A guide
to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator, 3rd edition. Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Neves, P., & Karagonlar, G. (2020). Does leader humor style matter and to whom?. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 35(2), 115-129. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2018-0552
Nordin-Bates, S. M. (2020). Striving for perfection or for creativity? A dancer’s
dilemma. Journal of Dance Education, 20(1), 23-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15290824.2018.1546050
Nugent, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism: Its manifestations and classroom-based
interventions. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(4), 215-221.
https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2000-630
Parmaksız, İ., & Kılıçarslan, S. (2020). The relationship between assertiveness and separation-
individuation in adolescents. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 10(3), 869-888.
https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2020.027
Pekrun, R., & Perry, R. P. (2014). Control-value theory of achievement emotions. In R. Pekrun
& L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 120-
141). Taylor & Francis.
Pekrun, R., Muis, K. R., Frenzel, A. C., & Goetz, T. (2018). Emotions at school. Routledge.
Pervin, L. A., Cervone, D., & John, O. P. (2005). Personality: Theory and research (9th ed.).
John Wiley & Sons.
Plessen, C. Y., Franken, F. R., Ster, C., Schmid, R. R., Wolfmayr, C., Mayer, A. M., ... & Tran,
U. S. (2020). Humor styles and personality: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the
relations between humor styles and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and
Individual Differences, 154, 109676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109676
Pretorius, J., Koen, M., & Schall, R. (2015). Using intentional humour in a higher education
classroom: Connecting with, and building on Lovorn and Holaway, The European Journal
of Humour Research, 8(2), 146-165.
Rad, D., Dughi, T., Demeter, E., & Rad, G. (2019). The dynamics of the relationship between
humor and benevolence as values. Romanian Journal for Multidimensional
Education, 11(3), 201-212.
Rajendran, P., Athira, B. K., & Elavarasi, D. (2020). Teacher competencies for inclusive
education: Will emotional intelligence do justice?. Shanlax International Journal of
Education, 9(1), pp. 169-182.
Raufelder, D., Nitsche, L., Breitmeyer, S., Keßler, S., Herrmann, E., & Regner, N. (2016).
Students’ perception of “good” and “bad” teachers—Results of a qualitative thematic
analysis with German adolescents. International Journal of Educational Research, 75, 31-
44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.11.004
Rathus, S. A. (1973). 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 4(3),
398-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(73)80120-0

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

162
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

Rianti, A., Hidayati, A. N., Pertamana, D., Andriani, A., & Abdullah, F. (2020). Profiling an
ideal teacher. Koli Journal, 1(2), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.30598/koli.v1i2.3385
Rice, K., Richardson, C., & Ray, M. (2016). Perfectionism in academic settings. In F. Sirois &
D. Molnar (Eds.), Perfectionism, health, and well-being (pp. 245-264). Springer.
Rosales, J. J. P., Elías, A. O. R., & Martínez, N. G. (2021). Assertive communication in the
comprehensive training of the Physical Culture professional (Revisión). Revista Científica
Olimpia, 18(3), 115-127.
Ruch, W., & Hehl, F-J. (1998). A two-model of humor appreciation: Its relation to aesthetic
appreciation and simplicity-complexity of personality. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of
humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic, (pp. 203-230). Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruch, W., & Heintz, S. (2019). Humor production and creativity: Overview and
recommendations. In S. R. Luria, J. Baer, J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Explorations in Creativity
Research (pp. 1-42). Academic Press, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813802-1.00001-
6
Ruch, S. Heintz, T. Platt, L. Wagner, R.T., & Proyer, R. T. (2018). Broadening humor: Comic
styles differentially tap into temperament, character, and ability, Frontiers in Psychology, 9,
1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00006
Rucynski, J. & Neff, P. (2022). Is this thing on?teacher views of incorporating humor into
online language classes. Language Teacher, 46, 9-16.
https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT46.6-2
Rusu, S., Maricuțoiu, L. P., Macsinga, I., Vîrgă, D., & Sava, F. A. (2012). Evaluarea
personalității din perspectiva modelului Big Five. Date privind adaptarea chestionarului
IPIP-50 pe un eșantion de studenți români [Personality assessment in terms of the Big Five
model. Data concerning the adaptation of the IPIP-50 questionnaire on a sample of
Romanian students]. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 10(1), 39–56.
Salavera, C., Usán, P., & Jarie, L. (2020). Styles of humor and social skills in students. Gender
differences. Current Psychology, 39, 571-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9770-x
Samfira, E. M. (2020). Assertive communication skills in universities. Educația Plus, 26(1),
361-373.
Samfira, E. M., & Paloş, R. (2021). Teachers’ personality, perfectionism, and self-efficacy as
predictors for coping strategies based on personal resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 12,
751930. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.751930
Samfira, E. M., & Maricuţoiu, L. P. (2021). Not all perfectionists are as they are assessed: An
investigation of the psychometric properties of the perfectionism inventory in the teaching
profession. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 624938.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624938
Samfira, E. M., & Sava, F. A. (2021). Cognitive-behavioral correlates of pupil control
ideology. Plos one, 16(2), e0246787. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246787
Samfira, E. M., & Urlică, A. A. (2022). Differences in the assertiveness level of first year pre-
service teachers from a Romanian university of life sciences. Journal Plus
Education, 30(1), 221-242.
Samson, A. C., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Humour as emotion regulation: The differential
consequences of negative versus positive humour. Cognition & Emotion, 26(2), 375-384.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.585069
Saroglou, V., & Scariot, C. (2002). Humor styles questionnaire: Personality and educational
correlates in Belgian high school and college students. European Journal of Personality,
16(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.430
Schermer, J. A., Papazova, E. B., Kwiatkowska, M. M., Rogoza, R., Park, J., Kowalski, C. M.,
... Krammer, G. (2021). Predicting self-esteem using humor styles: A cross-cultural study.

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

163
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

In E. Vanderheiden & C-H. Mayer (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of humour research (pp.
15-39). Palgrave Macmillan.
Singh, G., & Gujral, H. K. (2018). Moderating effect of resilience on role stress: A critical
review’ ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 8(1), 114-122.
Shahid, I., & Ghazal, S. (2019). Humor as a tool to teaching effectiveness. Journal of
Behavioural Sciences, 29(1), 25-37.
Shim, S., Cho, Y., & Knapke, M. (2020). Perils of perfectionistic concerns among
teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 57(7), 1116-1131. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22384
Shirazizadeh, M., & Karimpour, M. (2019). An investigation of the relationships among EFL
teachers’ perfectionism, reflection and burnout. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1667708.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1667708
Sims, C. (2017). Do the big-five personality traits predict empathic listening and assertive
communication? International Journal of Listening, 31, 163e188.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2016.1202770
Steir-Livny, L. (2021). Humor as a defense mechanism: Dismantling holocaust symbols and
icons in Israeli culture. In E. Vanderheiden & C-H. Mayer (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook
of humour research (pp. 173-187). Palgrave Macmillan.
Stoeber, J. (2018). Comparing two short forms of the Hewitt–Flett multidimensional
perfectionism scale. Assessment, 25(5), 578-588.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116659740
Stoeber, J., & Rennert, D. (2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: Relations with stress
appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety Stress Coping, 21(1), 37–53.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800701742461
Sucan, S., Turan, M. B., Osman, P. E. P. E., Karaoğlu, B., & Doğan, D. (2016). The relationship
between leadership styles and assertiveness of physical education teachers. International
Journal of Sport Culture and Science, 4(1), 11-22.
Szentes, E., Horváth, Z. I., & Harangus, K. (2020). The role of humour in teaching: Teacher
training students’ image of teacher and views on teaching. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae,
Philologica, 12(2), 84-98. https://doi.org/10.2478/ausp-2020-0014
Tsukawaki, R., & Imura, T. (2023). Incremental validity of the dual self-directed humor scale
in predicting psychological well-being: Beyond the big five personality traits and four
humor styles. Current Psychology, 42, 1841–1850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-
01596-9
Unruh, L. E., & McCord, D. M. (2010). Personality traits and beliefs about diversity in pre-
service teachers. Individual Differences Research, 8(1), 1-7.
Van Praag, L., Stevens, P. A., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). How humor makes or breaks student-
teacher relationships: A classroom ethnography in Belgium. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 66, 393-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.008
Vlasova, A. A. (2020). Occupational stress and perfectionism among primary and secondary
school teachers in Russian schools. Евразийский Союз Ученыхm, 2(71), 27-31.
Vorkapić, S. T., & Peloza, I. (2017). Exploring personality traits and well-being among pre-
school and primary school teachers in Croatia. Current Issues in Personality
Psychology, 5(1), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.50114/cipp.2017.65830
Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions of
instructor humor and students’ reports of learning. Communication Education, 48, 48-62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529909379152
Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An explanation of the relationship between
instructor humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing
theory. Communication Education, 59(1), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903367238

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

164
 The European Journal of Humour Research 11 (3)

Weisi, H., & Mohammadi, V. (2023). Humour in the classroom: forms and functions among
Iranian EFL teachers. The European Journal of Humour Research, 11(1), 168-183.
Willis, J. (2020). Teaching Assertiveness in the Early Elementary Grades. Edutopia. Retrieved
January 24, 2023 from https://www.edutopia.org/article/teaching-assertiveness-early-
elementary-grades.
Wolff, H. A., Smith, C. E., & Murray, H. A. (1934). The psychology of humor. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28(4), 341-365. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074853
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (2017). A disposition theory of humour and mirth. In D. Zillmann
& J. R. Cantor (Eds.), Humor and laughter, 2nd edition (pp. 93-115). Routledge.

Open-access journal | www.europeanjournalofhumour.org

165