International Journal of Brief Therapy and Family ScienceVol. 7, No. 1, 2017

CONTENTS
Invited Paper
Solution-Focused Brief Therapy and Suicide Prevention
Heather Fiske ........................................................................................................................ 1-2

Original Paper: Research and Experiment
Effects of interpersonal relations on the cognition of self-deprecating humor
Naoto Nihonmatsu Masako Okuno Koubun Wakashima ....................................................... 3-12

Original Paper: Research and Experiment
A research for potential application of self-directed humor aimed at bullying prevention:
With focusing on Aikido-humor as response to aggressive utterance
Naoto Nihonmatsu Masako Okuno Koubun Wakashima ....................................................... 13-26

International Journal of Brief Therapy and Family Science2017 Vol. 7, No.1, 1-2< Invited Paper >SOLUTION-FOCUSED BRIEF THERAPY AND SUICIDE PREVENTION 1)

Heather Fiske, Ph.D.

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) is an

no-harm-contracting protocols.

efficient and effective approach to clinical workwith individuals who are at risk of suicide, andScaling and other solution-focused practices

their families (Fiske, 2008). One reason that

help clients to break both problems and change

SFBT is time-effective is that it utilizes

into

smaller,moremanageable

strengths and capacities already present in(“partializing”).

Thisprocessclients, their families and friends, and theirbeliefs that one’s problems are interminable,communities.

inescapable, and intolerable—beliefs that pushAlso,highlighting

thosestrengths and capacities is hope-inducing forsteps

undermines

clients toward suicide as a solution.

the people involved.
Individuals who are focused on suicide as a
There are other good reasons for using SFBT,

solution often have difficulty imagining any

among

which

personal future. A unique contribution of SFBT

solution-focused conversation helps to focus

is its emphasis on developing a detailed picture

both client and therapist on hope and reasonsof a preferred future, using tools such as thefor living. This focus reduces the amount of

miracle question. This is one way in whichtime spent going over clients’ thoughts andsolution-focused conversation is a “tap on theplans for suicide. According to Thomas Joiner’s

shoulder”,

psychological-interactional theory of suicide,possibilities they could not access on their own.

them

the

ways

in

drawingclients’attentiontopeople acquire the ability to kill themselves
partlyby“rehearsing”

andtherebyFor therapists, attending to clients’ strengths

desensitizing suicidal action (Joiner, 2005).

and focusing on hope and reasons for living can

SFBT selectively amplifies strengths, resources,

act as both prevention and antidote forand solutions, making such desensitization lesssecondary trauma.

likely.
Application: Solution-Focused Questions
Solution-focused practice is client-focused,(Note: All of the questions mentioned here arewhich mitigates the chance of clients feeling“second-rate”, because they are generic; thethat they are being subjected to a formula. Suchbest questions are based on what a particular

impressions are especially likely with the use ofclient says.)

standardized risk assessment and

1

2
What

Heather.
are

your

best

hopes

conversation?

For

desperate

for

this

picture create “future pull”, motivating clientsclients,

this

to move toward those futures.

opening question often strikes to the heart ofthe matter: the struggle for hope and reasons for

Stanceliving. It makes sense to them, and is a way ofMore

beginning to determine the destination oftechnique is the solution-focused stance:

treatment.

respectful, curious, mindful.

Suppose a miracle happened, and (those best

REFERENCES

hopes)…were realized, what is the first small

Fiske,

sign you would notice…? Again, this question

Solution-focused conversations about suicide.

often makes sense because it fits with theNewclients’ beliefs (that it would take a miracle to

Joiner, T. (2005). Why people die by suicide.

change things).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

What would your best friend (or other close

1) Presented at the Eighth Conference of theperson) say? Relationship questions provide

National Foundation of Brief Therapy,

alternative viewpoints and information on

Utsonomiya, Japan, November 2016

supportive connections.
When was the most recent exception to the
problem—or (better)
When was the most recent instance of asolution/part of the miracle picture?
Instances of solution challenge the hegemonyof problems.
On a scale from 1 to 10… Scaling questions
can yield quick information about client safety,
goals, and progress. Also, they “partialize”, andmay engage more cognitive resources inemotion-laden decision-making.
What else?

Details of strengths andresources, exceptions or instances, make themreal and live for clients. Details of a miracle2

important

H.

than

(2008).

any

Hopequestioninoraction:

York: Routledge.
Press.

International Journal of Brief Therapy and Family Science2017 Vol. 7, No.1, 3-12
< Original Paper: Research and Experiment >Effects of interpersonal relations on the cognition of self-deprecating humor
Naoto Nihonmatsu 1)

Masako Okuno 2)

Koubun Wakashima3)

1) Graduate School of Education, Tohoku University
2) Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, Iwate University
3) Faculty of Education, Tohoku University

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this study is to consider and clarify the affirmative side of self-deprecating humor in daily scenes,
focusing on interpersonal relations. We conducted inquiry survey whose subjects are 137 Japanese college students―67males and
70 females (M = 19.33, SD = 1.38). When we conducted covariance structures on effects of interpersonal relations on
self-deprecating humor, we found that it was perceived as socially desirable in addition to favorableness and warm feelings if they
have entertaining relation and feel happy to be with each other. However, it is showed that use of self-deprecating humor isperceived as lack of self-confidence if they have strong emotional ties. Accordingly, the survey shows that self-deprecating humor isperceived differently according relation between friends and it can be said that it is necessary to use it properly to each friend.
KEY WORDS: self-deprecating humor, interpersonal relations

Introduction

jokes, punning and so on, and “support-relief

We use different humor consciously or

humor” is humor that is used to encourage andunconsciously so as to make human relation

cherish oneself or other person. In thesmooth and soften the atmosphere at the time.

meantime, Tsukawaki, Higuchi and Fukuda

The definition of humor is vague and the means(2009) classified into three types of humor,

to classify is diverse. According to Martin“aggressive humor” “self-disparaging humor”(2007), humor is “an action that seems funny orand “playful humor” after improving andappears to invite others to laugh, mental

analyzing items of self-defeating humor ofprocess to imagine and interpret such a funny“Humorstimulus and emotional reaction to the stimulus.”

Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray & Weir,2003).

Also Ueno (1992) suggests three kinds of“Self-defeating humor, self-disparaging humor

humor in Japan, “aggressive humor” “playfulor self-deprecating humor” means laughing at

humor”

humor”.

one’s own failure and immaturity. Besides,“Aggressive humor” is humor that offends

humor is classified from two points of view,

oneself or others, “playful humor” means poor

negative and positive views (Martin, et al.

and“support-relief

Style

Questionnaire”(Martin,2003). “Affiliative humor” and “self-enhancing
CORRESPONDENCE TO: Nihonmatu Graduate School ofhumor” are regarded as positive style of humor.

Education, Tohoku University, 27-1, Kawauchi, Aoba-ku,

Affiliative humor means it is used to makeSendai-city, 980-8576, JAPAN.

human relation smooth and solve friction ofe-mail: naoto.nihonmatsu@gmail.com

human relation. Self-enhancing humor is humor

34

Nihonmatsu.

that is used to deal with stress and calamity. It

mentioned it has characteristic “to convey

is said that using such humor prevents a person

intelligence and calm”. It is also suggested,from becoming involved in negative situation

however, that self-deprecating humor cansuch as suffering and becoming depressed. On

convey “low intelligence when compared withthe other hand, it is said that there is negative

other humor” and “weakness of oneself”

humor that should be avoided because of its(Lundy,mentalincludesself-deprecating humor is thought to cause bothaggressive humor and self-defeating humor. It

the situation where positive cognition is given

is showed that using that humor has negative

to the receiver and the situation where negative

correlation with degrees of satisfaction incognition is given.

unhealthiness,

which

et

al.,

1998).

Accordingly,

human relation, self-confidence and wellbeing,

First, user’s characteristics are mentioned

and it is thought as lack of social skills (Martin,

regarding the situation where self-deprecating

2007).

humor is used. It is indicated that users of theStill, it was already reported that suchhumor have low self-respect and low wellbeing,

humor has positive side. In particular, it isand their uneasiness and depression are highsuggested that using self-deprecating humor(Martin, et al., 2003). But it is made clear that

relates to social skills and human resources of

the higher degree of self-acceptance they have,the user (Yashima, 2016; Tsukawaki, Hirakawa,the more often they tend to use self-deprecating2012). Yashima (2016) notes that the reason

humor (Tsukawaki and al., 2009). Also, it iswhybecauseregarded that users of self-deprecating humor

self-deprecating humor tends to be adapted toanalyze and understand themselves and their

Japanese culture since “modesty” is regarded ashigh introversion to use self-insight is theirvirtueupcharacteristic (Ziv, 1984). Second, it is reported

self-deprecating humor among humor andthat there are three motivations to use

consider further affirmative cognition.

self-deprecating humor; image manipulation,

positive

there.

sideisTherefore,

seen

we

is

take

According to Ziv (1984), self-deprecating

self-support

andsupporting

otherpersonhumor used among Jews was originally typical.

(Tsukawaki, 2011). According to Tsukawaki

He suggests that ability of laughing at oneself isand Hirakawa (2012), the expression ofa desirable characteristic and using that humor

self-deprecating humor contributes positively towins high praise from society. This does notinterpersonal relations and control user’s senseagree with the opinion of Marin et al (2003),

of isolation when they try to encourage others.

who classified self-deprecating humor into

Moreover, cognition of self-deprecating

negative style. Also Lundy et al. (1998)

humor

reportedhascharacteristics. In particular, it is reported thatcharacteristics such as “humble self-disclosure”

characteristics of being fond of humor are

and “to convey friendliness” and Dynel (2009)

different according gender and it is showed that

that

self-deprecating

humor

4

may

be

affectedbyreceiver’s

“SELF-DEPRECATING HUMOR IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS”

5

compared with women, men feel enjoyable

142 Japanese college students, 137 valid

more

responses (67males, 70 females, M = 19.33 SD

strongly

aggressiveness,

to

humor

while

women

including
feel

more

= 1.38).

pleasant with anecdotal humor such as funnystories they experienced (Crawford & Gressley.,2) Questionnaire1991).

Respondents are asked to suppose friend A that

From the above, factors of users andreceivers

regardingcognition

uses self-deprecating humor by using the Sceneof

Imagination

Methodandinquiredboth

self-deprecating humor have been considered.

cognition of self-deprecating humor used by

Yet, when humor is expressed interpersonal

friend A and the quality of the interpersonal

scene, since communication is established byrelations between them and friend A. Also,

relation with the aspects of expression contents

description and examples referred to the(Watzlawick, Beavelas, & Jackson, 1967), thedefinition

recognition of self-deprecating humor depends(Tsukawaki and al., 2009) are put on the backon the relationship between the user and theof the cover of the questionnaire.

receiver. According to Oshima (2006), how to(1) Face Sheetuse humor in Japan is different from that in

The followings were asked; sex, age, user’s

Europe and the United States, since it tends tofrequency of using self-deprecating humor,

use after being intimate to a certain extent

user’s sex, user’s age, the term of friendshiprather than being used for the first meeting,withhumor and friendship are greatly related it canself-deprecating humor. The examples werebe said. There are not many studies focusing on

asked in free description. Those free comments

the relation between users and receivers as well

were not used for analysis since they wereas self-deprecating humor among Japanese

aimed at confirming whether respondents could

studies on humor, and such studies can be only

suppose proper self-deprecating humor.

seen in the study on “jokes”(Hayama, Sakurai,(2) Cognition of self-deprecating humor2008), which is a similar concept to humor.

We used 21 items regarding cognition of

the

of

user,

self-deprecating

andexamples

humor

of

user’s

Accordingly, in this study, we aim to

self-deprecating humor by reference to earlier

consider the effects of the relation between

studies. Examples of the items were “I feel him

users

of

friendly” “I feel him outgoing” “I canself-deprecating humor, focusing on the relation

sympathy with him” “I can sympathy with thebetween self-deprecating humor and friendshipcontents” “I feel him intelligent” “I feel himof college students.

uneasy” and the like. Respondents answered

andreceivers

on

cognitionwith five-point scale, from “1. Not applied” toMethods“5. Applied”.

1) The survey targets

56

Nihonmatsu.

Table 1. Results of factor analysis on the items of cognition of self-deprecating humor
No.

F1

F2

F3

2
19

Friendship, affirmation(α＝.85)
I feel A friendly when he uses self-deprecating humor
I feel A favorable when he uses self-deprecating humor

description of items

0.79
0.71

-0.03
0.23

0.07
0.06

11
21
4

I feel A outgoing when he uses self-deprecating humor
I feel A funny when he uses self-deprecating humor
I feel A positive when he uses self-deprecating humor

0.70
0.61
0.60

-0.02
0.01
0.04

0.06
-0.17
-0.18

20

0.50

0.10

0.00

16

I feel it’s okay to take advantage of his humor when A uses self-deprecating humor
Nature of common sense (α=.74)
I feel A modest when he uses self-deprecating humor

-0.03

0.82

0.23

13
15
3

I want to use the humor when A uses self-deprecating humor
I can sympathize with the content when A uses self-deprecating humor
I feel A showing himself politely when he uses self-deprecating humor

0.13
-0.06
0.09

0.59
0.56
0.43

-0.04
-0.19
-0.06

5

0.09

0.43

-0.07

18

I feel A intelligent when he uses self-deprecating humor
Lowness of self-efficacy (α＝.72)
I feel A mentally unhealthy when he uses self-deprecating humor

0.08

-0.15

0.88

10
17

I feel uneasy when he uses self-deprecating humor
I feel A unsure of himself when he uses self-deprecating humor

0.08
-0.25

-0.09
0.29

0.73
0.47

―

0.54
―

-0.55
-0.14

Factor correlation

F1
F2
F3

―

(3) Friendship Function scale (Tanno, 2008)

Results

This is the scale to measure relation with

1. Results of description statistic and factor

friends and in this study the relation between

analysis in the items regarding cognition of

respondents and friend A was measured with

self-deprecating humor

the scale. 45 items in total were answered with

We conducted factor analysis on 17 out of 21

five-point scale and their subscales were theitems, to the exclusion of 4 items― “I feel him

followings; “Safety, Comfort” (ex. I feel easy

nervous”“I feel him unsociable”“I feel him

with A for some reason), “Entertainment” (ex.

hostile” and “I feel superiority to him” that

I’m not bored with A), “Relationship prospect”

caused floor effect― by using the maximum(ex. I think A will be a friend throughout mylikelihood method and Promax Rotation, andlife), “Emotional ties” (ex. I feel something likethree factors were abstracted. The abstracted

bonds with A), “Consult,self-disclosure”

factors such as “I feel him friendly” “I feel him(ex. A is a good adviser), “Supportability” (ex.

favorable” “I feel him outgoing” and the like,A is supportive when necessary), “Affirmation,

which include items that affect positively on

acceptance” (ex. I think A accepts my being),

interpersonal relations, were named “friendship,“Learning, self-improvement” (ex. I sometimes

affirmation”. Also, the factors that include

notice a new way of thinking in relation with

politeness such as “I feel him modest” andA), “Significant meaning of life” (ex. I think

sympathy linked “I also want to use suchthe time I spent with A will be important in myhumor” were named “Good sense” since items

future life).

that are socially desirable and respected, wereTable 2. The average of all variables and6

“SELF-DEPRECATING HUMOR IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS”

7

Table 2. The average of all variables and standard deviation value
M

D

Friendship, affirmation

3.24

0.93

Good sense
Lowness of self-efficacy

2.55
2.52

0.78
1.03

Safety, Comfort

3.91

0.84

Entertainment
Relationship prospect

3.76
3.46

0.85
0.93

Emotional ties

3.08

0.85

Consult, self-disclosure

3.34

0.92

Supportability

3.49

0.84

Affirmation, acceptance
Learning, self-improvement

3.70
3.35

0.69
0.79

Significant meaning of life

3.09

0.95

[Cognition of self-deprecating humor][Friendship Function]

standard deviation value collected in those

2. Effects of the quality of interpersonal

factors. In the meantime, the factors such as “Irelations on cognition of self-deprecating

feel him unhealthy mentally” “I feel him

humor

uneasy” that include items affecting negatively

Deleting paths that had no significant effecton interpersonal relations were named “lowness

with Wald test, we repeated to analyze Model A

of self-efficacy”.

in the condition where Friendship Function was

On Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, the results

regardedas

independent

were followings, “friendship, affirmation”; αcognitionofself-deprecating= .85, “nature of common sense”; α = .74,

regardedas“lowness of self-efficacy”; α = .72. Results ofconsequently, goodness of fit showed highfactor analysis (Table 1) and the average of all

indicators; GFI = .998, AGFI = .986, RMSE

variables and standard deviation value (Table 2)

A = .00.

are showed.

standard

variables

and

humor

was

variables,andWe would like to consider effects ofcognition on self-deprecating humor with the
Friendship,
affirmation.70***
Entertainmente1-.22**.55***.30***
Good sense.67***

e2-.71***-.46***

Emotional ties
Lowness of selfefficacy.50***

e3

Figure 1. Causal model on the quality of interpersonal relations and cognition of self-deprecating humor

78

Nihonmatsu.

Table 3. Standardized coefficients with Model A and Model B
Entertainment
friendship, affirmation
Good sense
lowness of self-efficacy

Emotional ties

M odel A

M odel B

M odel A

M odel B.70***.30***- .71***.48***.00- .08- .22**.36***.50 ***.25****p<.001 **p<.01※ Covariance was established between errors of cognition of self-deprecating humor on
Model A, and between errors of friendly relation factor on Model B.

Table 4. Goodness of fit index obtained by model A and model B
Model A
Model Blastmodel.

First,

AIC
26.61
29.89

CAIC
77.18
80.47

from

“Entertainment”,

CFI
1.000
.993

GFI
.998
.989

AGFI
.986
.914

RMSEA
.000
.085

positive effect was showed to “Friendship,

Discussion

affirmation” (β =.70, p ≺ .001), and also

1. Cognition of self-deprecating humor byshowed to “Good sense” (β = .30, p ≺ .001), but

receivers

negative effect was showed to “Lowness of

As a result of factor analysis, we found that

self-efficacy” (β = .50, p ≺ .001). In the

self-deprecating humor used in friendly relation

meantime, from “emotional ties”, negative

produces different cognition. Among threeeffect was showed to “Friendship, affirmation”

abstracted factors, “Friendship, affirmation”(β = .22, p ≺ .01), and positive effect was

factor shows cognition regarded as goodshowed to “Lowness of self-efficacy” (β = .50,

impression, and “Good sense” factor showsp ≺ .001) (Figure 1). Next, regarding the

cognition

relation between the quality of interpersonal

characteristic

relations and cognition of self-deprecating“Lowness of self-efficacy” factor can be said tohumor we constructed Model B with changed

have effect of conveying mental weakness.

direction of its path that self-deprecating humor

Yet,regardedandassociallydesirable

sympathy.

However,“Friendship,

affirmation”

factoraffects relations, and compared it with Model A

abstracted in this study includes the item, “I

so as to find which causal relationship was

feel it’s okay to take advantage of his humor

reasonable to examine the hypothesis. Table 3

when A uses self-deprecating humor.” Thatshows standardized coefficients between bothsuggests that effect which can cause aggression

model’s variables and Table 4 shows goodness

from receivers to users exits as a side ofof fit index. As a result of analysis, since“Friendship, affirmation” factor.

goodness of fit of Model A is higher, theAccording to Ziv (1984), self-deprecating

hypothesis that the quality of interpersonal

humor is regarded as laughing at their own

relations affects cognition of self-deprecating

before being laughed at someone. If you use

humor is supported.

self-deprecating

8

humor,

youwill

remove“SELF-DEPRECATING HUMOR IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS”

9hostility of others, and eventually prevent

even enhance similarity of values. Therefore,

others from laughing at you. At the same time,

we can guess receivers are awaked emotion that

however, there can be risk of failing to prevent

users of self-deprecating humor are friendly

other's aggression beforehand and risk of being

and favorable, and they receive positive

opportunistically laughed at. Also, results

impression such as intelligence or sympathy.

disagreed with the assertion

Also, self-deprecating humor expressed by“ usersofby Ziv (1984),

self-deprecating

humor

are

friends, who make receivers pleasant when they

introverted and have self-insight”. Taking it

are together, probabably does not convey theirinto consideration that self-deprecating humor

uneasiness or lack of confidence to receivers.

has a side of“self-disclosure”as characteristic,

However,itissuggested

that

using

we can guess that outgoing person will

self-deprecating humor leads to convey mental

probably use it.

weakness in the friendly relation which both ofFrom the above, similarities and differencesthem feel strong emotional ties and they arewith earlier studies are seen in effects ofwhat is called “kindred spirits.” It is said thatreceiver’s cognition by using self-deprecating

people who favorably use self-deprecating

humor, and it is thought that cognition can behumor undergo a conflict between their own

different according cultural context.

feelings and interpersonal relation (Yashima,2016). In other words, self-deprecating humor

2. Effects of the quality of interpersonalof users whose mental ties with receivers are

relations on cognition of self-deprecatingstrong may be received not so much positive as

humor

uneasy or anxious, since receivers think users

As a result of consideration of causal relation

hide their entanglements at the deep bottom ofmodel between the quality of interpersonal

their heart and try to behave merrily.

relations and cognition of self-deprecating
humor with covariance structural analysis, itwassuggestedthat

cognitionof

3. Suggestion for clinic

self

When results of this study are applied to-deprecating humor changes according thecommunication between friends in daily life, it

relation between users and receivers.

is

It is thought that using self-deprecating

requiredtodecidewhether

self-deprecating

humor

should

or

not

be

used

humor in friendly relation such as groups ofaccording the relation of friends. If you want tohobbiesmentalmake the mental distance from your friend

distance shorter and it is impressed as sociallycloser, self-deprecating humor can be effective

desirable and attached. Since “Entertainment”

communication. However, if you and youris relation which they share pleasure likefriend have already trusted each other and you“becoming enjoyable with each other” andhave known each other well, it is supposed thathobby, using self-deprecating humor seems to

you need to refrain using it since it has risk oforentertainment

makes

9

10

Nihonmatsu.

having negative effect. Yet, there is room forwith other person. Also, it is supposed thatconsideration regarding complexed relation that

positive cognition is strong if the quality of theis entertaining and also you know each otherinterpersonal relations is enjoyable when they

well.

are together. Moreover, it is necessary toMoreover, we’d like to consider use of

consider

that

the

state

of

interpersonal

self-deprecating humor, focusing on culturalcommunication, the way of receiving of humor

context. While self-deprecating humor was

and laugh are provided in the cultural context.

mentioned as “Humble self-disclosure” (Lundy,

While self-deprecating humor has high risk of

et al., 1998), the Japanese is noted to havebeing understood negatively in the West, it has

characteristic

possibility to agree with “modesty” that isofreferringtothemselves

negatively. Yoshida and Ura (2003) called it

regardedas socially“self-derogative presentation” and defined it asHenceforth, we are required to consider use offollows; to present one’s own negative side toself-deprecating humor at the global view withothers selectively and avoid presenting his own

a mind to effects by cultural difference.

positive side actively. Self-deprecating humor

In this study, we conducted survey withseems common to the way of self-presentationinquiries focusing on the friendly relation ofof the Japanese since his own negative side issubjects, youth college students, yet it ismentioned verbally or nonverbally and it can benecessary

said to be expression to avoid presenting his

self-deprecating

own positive side relatively. It has been

experimental situation. Also, it is hoped that wereported that self-deprecating expression isconsider how to use it effectively in the social

more often seen in mutually-conscious social

context and group scene including a balance ofgroups, but is relatively not in families withpower as well as friendly relation.

todesirableconsider
humor

the

in

way

Japan.

touse

effectivelyinstrong sense of mental unity (Muramoto,
Yamaguchi, 2003). That is to say; as mental
distance

becomes

expression

closer,decreases.

Additionself-deprecating

Thus,

use

This study is based on the paper (fiscal 2015)ofsubmitted as special examination survey inself-deprecating humor that is similar to

Humanitarianself-derogative presentation is liked culturally,

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences

but it seems necessary to use properly

Facultyaccording interpersonal relations.

additions and revisions. We would like toinBehavioral
Iwate

Scienceuniversity,withcourse,someexpress our deep appreciation to everyone thatConclusion

responded inquiry survey.

It is showed that self-deprecating humor has
positive cognition and negative cognition, andReference

it changes according interpersonal relations

Crawford,

10

M.,

&

Gressley,D.

(1991).

“SELF-DEPRECATING HUMOR IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS”

11

Creativity, caring, and context: Women’s

Tanno, H. (2008). The friendship function forand men’s accounts of humor preferencesinternal adaptation in undergraduates. The

andJapanese journal of adolescent psychology,

practices.

Psychology

of

Women

Quarterly, 15(2), 217-231.

20, 55-69. [ in Japanese ]Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a Joke: Types of

Tsukawaki, R. (2011). Motivational structure ofConversational Humour. Language andeach humor expression type. Hiroshima

Linguistics Compass, 3(5), 1284-1299.

psychological research, 11, 49-56. [ inHayama, D. & Sakurai, S. (2008). The effects

Japanese ]of cognitions of joking relationships to

Tsukawaki, R., Higuchi, M., & Hukada, H.

friends on joking behaviors. The Japanese(2009).

Relationships

betweenhumor

Journal of Psychology, 79(1), 18-26. [ inexpression and self-acceptance, aggression,

Japanese ]and altruism. The Japanese Journal of

Lundy, D.E., Tan, J., & Cunningham, M.R.

Psychology, 80(4), 339-344. [ in Japanese ](1998). Heterosexual romantic preference:

Tsukawaki, R., & Hirakawa, M. (2012).

The importance of humor and physical

Relationships

attractivenessofExpressions of Humor and Psychosocial

relationships. Personal relationships, 5(3),Health. The Japanese Journal of Personality,

311-325.

21(1), 53-62. [ in Japanese ]fordifferent

types

between

MotivesandMartin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G.,

Ueno, Y. (1992). Studies of Humorphenomenon

Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual

and Classification of Humor. Japanesedifferences in use of humor and their

Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 112-120.

relation[ in Japanese ]toDevelopment

psychologicalofthewell-being:humor

stylesquestionnaire. Journal of Research

Watzlawick, P., Beavelas, J., & Jackson, D. D.

in(1967).

Personality, 37, 48-75.

Pragmatics

of

human

communication: A study of interactional

Martin, R. A. (2007). The Psychology ofpatterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. NY:

Humor ; an Integrative Approach. MA:

W. W. Norton.
Yashima, R. (2016). 大学生におけるユーモ

Elsevier Inc.
Muramoto, Y. & Yamaguchi, S. (2003). When

アスタイルに関する検討―社会的スキ“self-effacement” disappears: Narratives

ル、友人関係満足感との関連から―

of personal and group successes depending

Bulletin of Clinical Psychology Center,on an in group relationship. The Japanese

Graduate School of Education, Tohoku

Journal of Psychology, 74(3), 253-262. [ inUniversity, 14, 153-167. [in Japanese]

Japanese ]Yoshida,A.,

Ooshima, K. (2006). 日本の笑いと世界の

Examination

ユーモア Sekaishisosha. [in Japanese]

Adaptation

11

&
of

Ura,

M.

DirectPromoting(2003).

An

andIndirect

Effects

Through12

Nihonmatsu.

Self-Derogative Presentation. The Japanese
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
42(2), 120-130. [ in Japanese ]Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and Sense of Humor.
NY: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.

12

International Journal of Brief Therapy and Family Science2017 Vol. 1, No.1, 13-26< Original Paper: Research and Experiment >A research for potential application of self-directed humor aimed at bullying prevention:
With focusing on Aikido-humor as response to aggressive utterance
Naoto Nihonmatsu 1)

Masako Okuno 2)

Koubun Wakashima3)

1) Graduate School of Education, Tohoku University
2) Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, Iwate University
3) Faculty of Education, Tohoku University

ABSTRACT. In this study, we viewed self-directed humor as “Aikido-humor” by using the analogy of martial art, Aikido. The
objective of this study is to evaluate its possible application to preventing bullying. A role-play experiment was conducted with 26
groups, each consists of three university students who had friendly relationship with each other, totally 78 subjects. We asked one of
the three members of each group to respond with self-directed humor to aggressive utterance made by another while two sets ofsix-minute conversation under two different conditions: without and with an observer. The result suggests that the aggressive
speaker feels like to reduce emotional distance with the respondent who responds to the aggressive utterance with self-directed
humor. On the other hand, it was observed that the aggressive speaker doesn’t feel affinity for the respondent when there is a third
party who doesn’t involved in the conversation even if the respondent responds with self-directed humor. Thus self-directed humor,
here considered as Aikido-humor, may function as a kind of management communication which tends to make the interpersonal
relationship of conversing parties negative while maintaining the mood of conversation when there is a third party. However, further
consideration would be needed to make it a practical method to prevent bullying because it is also associated with risks such asencouraging aggression and making detection of victims difficult.
KEY WORDS: self-directed humor, Aikido-humor, response to aggressive utterance, bullying prevention

Introduction

and feels disconsolate. We could often observe

We often see laughter and humor in our dailysuch cases where the person accept thelife and we even think them important.

unpleasant feeling without express it andH o w e v e r, t h e r e a r e s o m e k i n d s o fexperiences conflicted feeling by trying to givecommunication involving humor which areconsideration to the relationship with the friend

related to poor mental health. For example,

and surrounding mood. In such situation, howwhen someone make a mock of or play pranks

can we avoid unpleasant and conflicted feelings

on a person with the intention of humor, thewithout destroying surrounding mood? One of

person gets angry at the aggressive utterance

effective response options is to respond with

CORRESPONDENCE

Nihonmatsu Graduate

humor as described in humor coping with

School of Education, Tohoku University 27-1,

interpersonal stress (Kunugimoto & Yamasaki,

Kawauchi,2010). Humor is “a concept signifies stimulus

TO:

Aoba-ku,

Sendai-shi,

Miyagi,

980-8576, JAPANwith features that evokes funniness ande-mail: naoto.nihonmatsu@gmail.com

laughableness, such as joke and sarcasm”

13

14

Nihonmatsu.

(Tsukawaki, Fukada & Higuchi, 2011), and we

related to poor mental health.

could take particular note of self-directed

It is also reported that the effect ofhumor among all. Self-directed humor has aself-directed humor varies according to thefeatureweakness,features of the user. Self-directed humor used

immaturity or complexes to a funny topic ofby people with excellent physical attractivenessconversation (Tsukawaki, Higuchi & Fukada,is preferred (Lundy, Tan & Cunningham, 1998).

2011). Self-directed humor has a function that

When a person in an ideal social position uses

suppresses escalating aggressive behavior ofself-directed humor, it makes others feelothers by making them feel they have alreadyfriendliness and human touch, and gives

involved in the attack, according to Ziv (1984).

pleasantThus responding to aggressive utterance with

self-directed humor for long-term partners suchself-directed humor may enable maintaining

as marriage relationships may be accepted asinterpersonal relationships, coping with stressundesirable personality (Didonato, Bedminster

and suppressing aggressive speech.

& Machel, 2013). Thus it could be said that thethatconverts

one’s

There are two styles in humor, positive andimpression.

However,using

effectiveness of self-directed humor is affected

negative styles. Self-directed humor falls intoby the user’s social position and status.

the latter category (Martin, et al., 2003). It is

In addition, it is also reported that how

suggested that the use of self-directed humor isself-directed humor is used varies according torelated to hostility, anxiety and depression

the context in which it is used. Humor Coping(Martin, 2003), in addition, self-directed humor

with

has

poor

developed by Kunigimoto & Yamasaki (2010)self-affirmation and anxiety of the speaker toincludes items such as “when dispraised in

the receiver (Nihonmatsu & Okuno, 2016).

front of others, speak an episode related to the

However, knowledge about self-directed humor

dispraised features in an amusing way”

is not unambiguous. It is reported thatand ”when one’s mistake or fault was witnessed

application of self-directed humor promotes

by others, try to make them laugh by makingsocial support and reduces the speaker’s

the mistake or the fault a topic of conversation”.

anxiety (Tsukawaki, Fukada & Higuchi, 2011).

How humor is used varies in the situations

Another research found that positive feelings

where there are several numbers of people

toward one’s life is related to preference forengaged in the conversation. Lampert &using self-directed humor (Ichinoseki, 2015). It

Ervin-Tripp (2006) reported that in a group ofis also explained that self-directed humor is amixed genders compare to groups of the same

strategy for self-presentation with maintaining

gender, male speakers had less aggressive

one’s self-esteem despite it seems verballyteasing and more self-directed humor andharms oneself (Dynel, 2009). Therefore thefemale speakers had less conversation withusage of self-directed humor is not necessarily

self-disclosure and more aggressive teasing.

anaspectthatitconveys

14

InterpersonalStressScale(HCISS)“SELF-DIRECTED HUMOR FOR BULLYING PREVENTION”

The same research describes a conversation

15

laughed at) and Audience (who is made laugh),in which a male speaker responded withthere

self-directed humor to aggressive humor madecomparing the effectiveness of humor between

by female speakers. As such, there are some

two or more parties. The structure of bullying iscases where self-directed humor is used as asimilar to the triadic interactive system statedmeans

above as it consists of bullies, victims andofcopingwithstressandcommunication.

has

not

been

enoughdiscussion

bystanders.

In Brief Therapy, Watzlawick et al. (1974)

The objective of this study is to consider

and Saposnek (1980) compared the flow ofpossible application of self-directed humor forcommunication change to Judo and Aikido

the prevention of bullying in the situation

using the power of the client in the therapy.

where aggressive utterance such as teasing isAmong them, Saposnek (1980) points out

made, with focusing on self-directed humor

humor as the similarity of Aikido and Brief

viewed as Aikido-humor.

Therapy.

Additionally, Morihei Ueshiba, thefounder of Aikido said “When someone comes

Methods

to you with anger, you respond to them with a1) Subject

laugh. This is exactly Aikido.” (Ueshiba, 1957).

26 groups, each consists of three university

It explains that changing the communication by

students who had friendly relationship withmeans of turning disadvantageous situation to aeach other, totally 78 subjects (male 36, female

laugh, is highly compatible with Aikido. In this42; mean age±standard deviation 21.23±1.06).

study, the mode of communication involving
humor which makes use of the aggression and2) Time period

contents given in the context made by others

December 2016 – January 2017

such as one’s mistakes are pointed out orlaughedatbyothersisregardedas3) Experiment procedure“Aikido-humor”.

Each student was assigned to one of three

As explained above, it has been suggested

roles:

theaggressive

speaker(A),

thethat the effectiveness of self-directed humor

respondent to aggressive utterance (B) and thevariesandobserver who observes the conversation (C)relationship among parties. However, there isaccording to his or her adequacy based on the

no studies investigating the possibility ofquestionnaire response collected before theutilizing self-directed humor as a means ofexperiment. In the questionnaire, students were

responding to aggressive utterance. In addition,

asked how they usually use humor. Each rolethough Yoshida & Amemiya (2009) notedgroup consists of 12 male and 14 female

triadic interactive system consists of Joker

students. A and B were seated at the same side

(who makes others laugh), Target (who isof a table and C was seated across the table inaccordingtothesituation15

16

Nihonmatsu.

the laboratory. Then they were asked again

for the use of self-directed humor. A total of

about contents and frequency of humor theyfour items are excluded from the original scale

usually use. Regarding advanced instruction, A

by taking factor loading into consideration.

was informed of topics acceptable to B when

Evaluation is made by five point scale consists

others play pranks on B in advance, as theof ”1= disagree” - “5= agree”.
Humor Coping with Interpersonal Stressquestionnaire asked such topics. B was asked torespond to aggressive utterance made by A with
self-directed

humor

(e.g.

joining

Scale (Kunigimoto & Yamasaki, 2010)

theFive point scale questionnaire to evaluate

conversation by talking about episodes related

questionee’s response to stress and shame withto the dispraised features). A and B were asked

humor in interpersonal communication. It

to talk for six minutes under each of two

consists of a total of 12 items.
A questionnaire asking about aggressive

situations: with and without the observer (C).
The

order

of

two

situations

washumor and self-directed humor used incounterbalanced. Roles are described in Figure

conversations among three members,

1. Video cameras were set up in the experimentacceptable topics and frequency when otherssite to shoot the expressions of the three parties,

play pranks on the questionee (freein agreement with the subjects.

description).
B was asked about the extent of aggression4) The structure of questionnaire

in utterance made by A with seven point scale

were used to decide roles before theexperiment.

from “1= felt no aggression” to “7=strongly felt

were filled out after theaggression”. A was asked about the recognition

experiment.

of self-directed humor, i.e. whether he or she

The Japanese version of the Humor Styles

felt self-directed humor in B’s response with

Questionnaire (Yoshida, 2012)using seven point scale.
Scales on the effectiveness of self-directed

This is used as scales to evaluate howquestionees usually use humor. In this researchhumor (Nihonmatsu & Okuno, 2016)

we adopted a total of 12 items, six items asking

Totally 13 questions to evaluate thefor use of aggressive humor, six items asking

effectiveness of self-directed humor used in

Figure 1. Roles (the aggressive speaker, the respondent and the observer) and abbreviations (A, B,
C) in this study

16

“SELF-DIRECTED HUMOR FOR BULLYING PREVENTION”

17

interpersonal communication. A was also asked

group) and observer condition (without / with)

about subscales: “intentionality of interpersonal

as independent variables.

relations” such as familiarity and favorability(α=.84), “low self-efficacy” including anxiety6) Ethical considerationand lack of confidence (α=.72), “dignity” such

Based on the response of questionnaireas, we sought to reproduce usual relationshipssociallydesirablefeaturesincludingintellectuality (α=.56) with using five point

andscale.

Respondent

Property-based adjective measurement

communication.
(B)

For

were

this

asked

purposetoansweracceptable topics when others play pranks on B

questionnaire (Hayashi, 1978)

under a precondition “in conversations among

Totally 14 questions regarding “intimacy”

the three members”. Respondent (B) was firstly

and “social desirability” were used in this study.

instructed and after checking and considering

A and C were questioned with using sevenquestionnaire response made by B, otherpoint scale and the results were regarded as

participants were instructed. Debriefing session

their impressions of B.

was held to share advanced instructions andAffect scales (Ogawa, Monchi, Kikuya, &feedback among three members after the

Suzuki 2000; Mitani & Karasawa, 2005)

experiment, and the experiment was concluded

A, B and C were questioned about four items

after introducing the clinical psychotherapist.

of “positive affect” (fun, pleasantness, vitality
and vigorousness) and five items of “negative

Results

affect”

1.

(tension,fear,anger,

guilt

andamazement) with five point scale.

Effectivenessofself-directed

humor

recognized by aggressive speakers
There were 15 self-directed groups and 105) Analysis

non-self-directed groups. A pair was excluded

Whether A sensed self-directed humor in thefrom the scope of analysis as the conversationutterance made by B was determined as

was not an interaction involving aggressive

follows: cases with five or higher points wereutterance and its response. Scores of thecategorized into self-directed group and thoserecognition

with four or lower points into non-self-directedcompared with t-test. Self-directed group hasgroup. Two-way mixed-design analysis ofsignificantly

variance was performed with the effectivenessnon-self-directed group (t (13.22) = 5.27, pof self-directed humor, affect scales, and<.001). Thus it was confirmed that condition

impressions of B, as a dependent variable, andsetting on response mode was appropriate.

ofself-directed
higherhumor
scoreswere
thanthe mode of response (self-directed response

F i r s t l y, r e g a r d i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s o fgroup / non-self-directed response group:

self-directed humor, two-way mixed-design

hereafter self-directed group/ non-self-directed

analysis of variance was performed with each

17

18

Nihonmatsu.

Table 1. Difference of “intentionality of interpersonal relationships” felt by A under different
conditions of the mode of response made by B and observer condition

2 5 5 3 499
98 B

98

51
5

- 45
52

- 45
5 5

51

25 5
3 499

5 13 9**05 4953 54 7 B.

5 4953 54 7 B**p <.05

composite

score

of

As for “low self-efficacy”, neither main effectinterpersonal relations”, “low self-efficacy” andof “mode of response” nor “observer condition”“dignity” as a dependent variable, and the mode

showed significant difference (F (1,23)=1.96,

ofgroup/

n.s., F (1,23)=0.00, n.s.) and there was nonon-self-directed group) and observer conditioninteraction either (F (1,23)=0.19, n.s.). As for(without / with) as independent variables by“dignity”, “mode of response” and “observerreference to scale structure of Nihonmatsu &condition”

Okuno (2016). Regarding “intentionality of(1,23)=0.14, n.s., F (1,23)=1.20, n.s.) and thereinterpersonal relationships”, main effect ofwas no interaction (F (1,23)=0.05, n.s.).

response

“mode

of

of

“intentionality(self-directed

response”

main

effect(F

Secondly, as for interpersonal impressions,(1,23)=7.40, p <.05). However, main effect of

two-way mixed-design analysis of variance was“observer condition” was not significant (Fperformed with “intimacy” and “social(1,23)=1.93, n.s.) and no interaction was

desirability” as dependent variables, and theobserved

Abovemode of response (self-directed group/

explained result is shown in Table 1 and Figure

non-self-directed group) and observer condition

2.

(without / with) as independent variables.

(1,23)=0.94,

Figure. 2

significant

no

(F

(F

was

showedn.s.).

Mean scores of the intentionality of interpersonal relations

18

“SELF-DIRECTED HUMOR FOR BULLYING PREVENTION”

19

Table 2. Difference of “intimacy” of A toward B under different conditions of the mode of response
and observer condition

03 6 6 4 5B
B9 B
62
6

. 56 7
63

I

62

*

*

16 7 5 64B65 8
6 7 5 64B65 8. 56 76 6

B903 6 6
4 5B- B6 24B

I**p <.05

Regarding “intimacy”, interaction between

condition”. In the same way, neither significant

the mode of response and observer conditiondifference (F (1,23)=1.88, n.s., F (1,23)=0.63,

was significant (F (1,23)=5.92, p <.05) andn.s.) nor interaction (F (1,23)=0.16, n.s.) of thethen simple main effect test was performed.

“mode of response” and “observer condition”

Under the “observer condition” is “with”, thewassimple main effect of the “mode of response”

Likewise, neither significant difference (Fwas significant (F (1,23)=4.17, p <.05), and the(1,23)=0.47, n.s., F (1,23)=1.90, n.s.) nor

simple main effect of ”observer condition” wasinteraction (F (1,23)=0.85, n.s.) of the “mode ofsignificant among non-self-directed group (Fresponse”(1,23)=4.95, p <.05). These results are shown inobserved regarding negative affect.

observed

andregarding“observer

positive

condition”

affect.

wasTable 2 and Figure 3.
Asfor“socialdesirability”,

neither

2. Respondent’s Affect and observer

significant difference (F (1,23)=0.01, n.s., F

Two-way mixed-design analysis of variance(1,23)=0.00, n.s.) nor interaction (F (1,23)=0.55,

was performed with affect scale, with whichn.s.) was observed in each main effect of the

respondent (B) rated aggressive utterance, as a“modedependent variable, and the mode of responseofresponse”

and“observer

Figure. 3 Mean score of intimacy

19

20

Nihonmatsu.

Table 3. Difference of B’s positive affect under different conditions of the mode of response andobserver condition
03 6 6 4 5B
B9 B62
. 56 7
6
63

16 7 5 64B65 8*

6 7 5 64B65 8*. 56 7
6
6

B9
I

62

03 6 6
4 5B- B6 24B

*

I

*

*
*p <.05(self-directed group / non-self-directed group)

rated by the observer (intimacy of A andand observer status (without / with) as

B,social desirability of A and B) as dependent

independent variables. The main effect ofvariables and the mode of response as“observer condition” was significant regarding

independent“positive affect” (F (1, 23)=5.13, p <.05).

significance observed (t (23)=0.01, n.s., t

Neither main effect nor interaction of “mode of(23)=-0.33, n.s., t (23)=0.05, n.s., t (23)=-0.35,

response” was observed (F (1,23)=0.85, n.s. Fn.s.). In the same way, there was no(1,23)=0.08, n.s.). These results are shown insignificance observed with affect scale (positive

Table 3 and Figure 4. On the other hand, main

affect, negative affect) as a dependent variables

effect (F (1,23)=0.08, n.s., F (1,23)=2.36, n.s.)(t (23)=0.64, n.s., t (23)=-0.55, n.s.).

variable.

There

was

no

and interaction (F (1,23)=0.00, n.s.) were notobserved in the “mode of response” andDiscussion“observer

1. Self-directed humor viewed as Aikido-

condition”

regarding“negative

affect”.

humor

Regarding the observer (C), self-directed
group

and

non-self-directed

group

It was suggested that the aggressive speakerarefeels like reducing emotional distance with thecompared by performing t-test with impressionsu s e r o f s e lf - d ir e c te d h u m o r w h e n th e

Figure 4. Mean score of B’s positive affect20

“SELF-DIRECTED HUMOR FOR BULLYING PREVENTION”

21

respondent uses self-directed humor as adegrade himself. It may be useful as an

response to aggressive utterance, as the main

effective means to prevent bullying that applies

effect of “mode of response” on “intentionality

to the structure of “Accuser / Defender gameof interpersonal relationship” was significant in(Weakland et al., 1982)”.

the result of analysis of variance. An example
given by Lampert & Ervin-Tripp (2006),

2. How the observer and the mode of

responding to teasing about “small feet andresponseshoes” as “These shoes were made by a man

self-directed humor

with a green moustache”, has effect which

It is suggested that the aggressive speakermake the mood of conversation cheerful andfeels less “intimacy” with the respondent who

friendly, while making use of aggressive

answers with self-directed humor under theutterance. According to Watzlawick et al.

condition that the observer is present. In other(1974), instead of pushing back with the samewords, when there is a third party and teased

force against the pushing force by the opponent,

respondent responds with self-directed humor,

pulling, accepting, and amplifying it, bring ateasing speaker feels less familiarity with thechange and problem solving. However, we

respondent while he or she feels like reducing

cannotthatthe mental distance at the same time. If thereas

are subjects who are evaluated by observer in

Aikido-humor has short-term or long-term

interpersonal conflict situations, consider how

effect against mental damage.

they appear in the eyes of the third person, and

say

with

absolutecertainty

responding

withself-directedhumor

affecttheeffectivenessof

In this study, we set interpersonal conflict

try to give a good impression to everyone in thesituations, where one is played pranks with orplace (Fukushima, Oobuchi, & Kojima, 2006;

teased by an intimate partner. Wakashima, Ikuta,

Sasaki & Daibo, 2010). In brief, self-directed

&

that

humor as Aikido humor in the presence of an“disqualification reactions” occur frequently inobserver is likely to have reduced familiarity as

interpersonala result of being caught as a controlled, acting

Hasegawa

Disqualification(2000)

reported

conflictasand non-honest response. Regarding mode of“trans-contextual communication”, and is a

response, when considering conversation

communication deviates from the context of thesystem and interpersonal system suggested bytalk or deviates from the utterance of the

Wakashima (1999), self-directed humor can bepartner (Wakashima, Ikuta & Hasegawa, 1999).

regarded as a centripetal conversation system

Humor can be comprised of disqualification

which leads verbal and non-verbal laughter. In

from the structure such as paradox andthis study, it is used in an intimate interpersonal

ambiguity. However, in such paradoxicalsystem. Okuno (2008) says that if there are only

behavior,

thecentripetal reactions in conversation andaggression which the opponent was trying tointerpersonal systems, intimacy will be

Aikidoisalsosituations.

humor

referredistoutilizing21

22

Nihonmatsu.

increased or the either risk of disruption orof aggressive utterance such as teasing oftentransformation will be increased, and thenexperience negative emotions, especially inpositive feedback will be observed. This

females (Keltner et al., 1998). Therefore, it isseemingly paradoxical result (Figure. 2 &predicted that emotions such as grief and anger

Figure. 3) may show both possibilities ofwill arose in the receivers to the partner’s

increasing familiarity caused by humor, and theaggressive utterance. However, under thetransformation of relationship.

situation where there is an observer, positive

On the other hand, it was suggested that in

affect was promoted on receiving aggressive

the cases of non-self-directed response, whichutterance, regardless of the mode of response.

are not regarded as responses with self-directed

In Yamamoto (2013), it is said that the amounthumor, the aggressive speaker feels moreof utterance, smile, gaze of speakers when there“intimacy” with the respondent under theis a friend observer is not related to the positive

condition that the observer is present. The

emotionpresence of a friend observer has a function tomechanism of how the existence of a friend

maintain smiling of speakers and activate

observer affected the respondent’s positive

conversation (Yamamoto, 2012; Yamamoto,emotions should be examined in the future.

of

the

speaker.

Therefore,the2013). It is expected that smiling face may

Regarding the observer, there was no effectmake others deem the person familiar andof the mode of response observed. Because theactive conversation has simply influenced good

more two people’s conversation is active, theinterpersonal impression.

more observer’s cognition becomes positive

However, in non-self-directed group, there

according to Kimura, Yogo & Daibo (2005), thewere various responses including some cases

activeness of conversation may be morewhich respondents couldn’t make self-directed

important than the mode of response.

response though the respondents had beenasked to respond with self-directed humor.

4. Suggestion for clinic

Based on limit of this research, further
considerationisneededregarding

Regarding possible clinical application of thetheresultdistinction of responses.

of

this

study,

applicationasacommunicative intervention holds promise forpreventing bullying. For example, it may be

3. Respondents and observers

effective if you are teased excessively, and you

Regarding “positive affect” of the respondent,

want to stop. Yoshida & Amemiya (2009) states

main effect of the “observer” was significant inthat people use aggressive humor towards

the analysis of variance, which suggests funothers as relationships stabilize. This meansand pleasant feelings of the respondent tothat as you get closer, you get more aggressive

aggressive utterance is promoted when there isutterance

the observer. Originally, it is said that receivers

circumstances, self-directed humor as Aikido

22

and

teasing.

Under

such

“SELF-DIRECTED HUMOR FOR BULLYING PREVENTION”
humor

may

function

as

that

can

communication
atmosphere

while

a

management
maintainlowering

23

is also suggested that the presence of the third

theparty, who is not involved in the conversation

familiarity.

betweenthetwoparties,

affectsthe

However, it is true only when there is the third

effectiveness of self-directed humor. Thoughparty who is not verbally involved in the

Aikido-humor, a form of response to aggressive

communication.

utterance with self-directed humor, gives

On

one

hand,

risks

familiar and cheerful impressions to theaccompanied. According to Kimura (2015), theaggressive speaker, it is suggested that theobserver infers not only goodness but also

respondent can give unfamiliar impression

intimacy

under the condition with the third party.

of

there

are

communication

some

from

activecommunication of two people. Negative aspect

When considering to apply humor toof above stated feature is that the responding

communication

with humor, the behavior itself, can disguiseorganizations, further consideration about how

victims of bullying who suffer from unpleasant

to apply it in groups which consists of more

feelings, and make it difficult others discoverthan two people is required. However, as it isthem. There are also possibility that the

pointed out that the tripartite relationship in

observer comes to join the attack. In short,interpersonal conflict situations cannot be

when

as

understood only from member’s positions and

Aikido-humor, a prudent attitude is required to

intimacy (Yoshida and Nakatsugawa, 2013),

use it. The more you use it immoderately, theobserver’s presence and mode of response

more others will tease you with expects you

should be considered with braking them into

react comically.

smaller categories. Finally, it is important toapplying

self-directedhumor

Regarding the way to respond to other thanconsider

using

in

schools

self-directed

and

humor

other

as

self-directed humor, since a specific reaction

Aikido-humor to prevent escalation of bullying

wasn't identified in this study, we couldn’t

and teasing as a practical measure, and to gain

suggest unambiguously. However, as well as

more knowledge from the viewpoint ofself-directed humor, non-self-directed humor

difference in positions such as the aggressive

can be used properly depending on how you

speaker and the observer.

want to make the relationship with aggressive
speakers in the future.

Acknowledgement
This study is based on and a modification ofConclusion

the graduation thesis (fiscal 2016) submitted toBased on this study, it is suggested that theStudies in Behavioral Sciences course ofaggressive speaker’s interpersonal impressions

Human Sciences, Department of Humanitiesof the respondent changes according to theand Social Science, Iwate University. We aremode of response to the aggressive utterance. It

deeply grateful to those who cooperated with

23

24

Nihonmatsu.

the experiment in this study.

C., & Monarch, N.D. (1998). Teasing inhierarchical and intimate relations. Journal

Referenceof Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5),Didonato, T. E., Bedminster, M. C., & Machel,

1231-1247. [ in Japanese ]J. J. (2013). My funny valentine: How

Kimura, M. (2015). Inferential evaluation ofhumor styles affect romantic interest.

intimacy

Personal Relationships, 3(20), 374-390.

interpersonal communication. The Japanese

Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a Joke: Types of

Journal of Psychology, 86(2), 91-101. [ inConversational

Humour.

Language

and

based

on

observationofJapanese ]Linguistics Compass, 3(5), 1284-1299.

Kimura, M, Yogo, M, & Daibo, I. (2005).

Fish, R., Weakland, J. H., & Segal,L. (1982).

Expressivity halo effect in the conversation

The Tactics of Change: Doing Therapy

about emotional episodes. The Japanese

Briefly. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Journal of Research on Emotions, 12(1),Fukushima, O, Oobuchi, K, & Kojima, K.

12-23. [ in Japanese ](2006). Multiple goals in interpersonal

Kunugimoto, N, & Yamasaki, K. (2010).

conflict: Effects of concern for personal

Development of the “Humor Coping withresource, evaluative observer, and politenessInterpersonal Stress Scale” (HCISS). The

on verbal responses of resolution strategy.

Japanese Journal of Personality, 18(2),Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 22,

96-104. [ in Japanese ]103-115. [ in Japanese ]Hayashi,H.

(1978).

dimensionsofstructure.

Bulletin

Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (2006).
The

fundamental

interpersonaloftheRisky laughter: Teasing and self-directed

cognitive
Facultyjoking among male snd female friends.

of

Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 51-72.

Education (The Department of Educational
Psychology),

NagoyaUniversity,

Lundy, D.E., Tan, J., & Cunningham, M.R.

25,

(1998). Heterosexual romantic preference:

233-247. [ in Japanese ]The importance of humor and physicalIchinoseki, S. (2015).

attractiveness
The&

Compensatory

Daibou,I.

self-enhancement

types

of

311-325.

23( Supplement ), 36. [ in Japanese ]Y,different

relationships. Personal relationships, 5(3),Japanese Journal of Research on Emotions,
Kasagi,for

Martin, R. A.(2003). Sense of Humor. In S.J.
(2010).

Lopez & C. R. Snyder(Eds.), Positiveas

psychological assessment:A handbook ofastrategy for the multiple audience problem.

modelsThe Japanese Journal of Psychology, 81(1),Washington, DC: American Psychological26-34. [ in Japanese ]Association.

Keltner,D.,Youung, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig,

andmeasures,pp.313-326.

Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G.,24

“SELF-DIRECTED HUMOR FOR BULLYING PREVENTION”

25

Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual

humor on anxiety and depression. The

differences in use of humor and their relation

Japanese Journal of Experimental Social

to psychological well-being: Development of

Psychology, 51(1), 43-51. [ in Japanese ]the humor styles questionnaire. Journal of
Research in Personality, 37, 48-75.
Mitani, N, & Karasawa, K. (2005). Appraisal

Ueshiba, K, (1957).

. In

Ueshiba, M (Ed.),, pp. 23-27.

Kowado. [in Japanese]dimensions of emotions: An empirical

Wakashima, K. (1999). A study of mechanism

integration of the previous findings. The

that causes “evasive communication “inJapanese Journal of Psychology, 76(1),conflicted conversation scenes: The key to26-34. [ in Japanese ]solve the situation where disqualification

Nihonmatsu, N, & Okuno, M. (2016). A

occurs. Graduate School of education,

research for effective use of self-deprecating

Tohoku University, Doctoral thesis. [ inhumor: Focused on interpersonal relations

Japanese ]function. National Foundation of Brief

Wakashima, K, Ikuta, M, & Hasegawa, K.

Therapy the 8th Conference (Utsunomiya,(1999).

A

study

of

Japan), Supplement, pp.31. [ in Japanese ]Communication in the Scene of Conflicting

Ogawa, T, Monchi, R, Kikuya, M, & Suzuki, N.

Conversation:(2000). Development of the General Affectmodification of the problem-interaction

Scales. The Japanese Journal of Psychology,

model. Japanese Journal of Family Therapy,

71(3), 241-246. [ in Japanese ]16(3), 187-195. [ in Japanese ]Okuno, M. (2008).

The

Trans-contextualconfirmation

andWakashima, K, Ikuta, M, & Hasegawa, K.
(2000).

Incongruent

MessageandDisqualification in Conflict Situations: A
Bulletin of Clinical Psychology Center,

Clinical Psychological Research on Double

Graduate School of Education, Tohoku

Bind

University, 6, 39-56. [in Japanese]Counseling Science, 33, 148-155. [ inSaposnek, D. T. (1980). Aikido: A Model for

Journalof

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fish, R.

19(3), 227-238.

(1974). Change: Principles of problem

Tsukawaki, R, Higuchi, M, & Fukada, H.
Relationships

JapaneseJapanese ]Brief Strategic Therapy. Family Process,(2009).

Theory.

betweenformation and problem resolution. Newhumor

Y o r k :

W .

W .

N o r t o n .

Yamamoto, K. (2012).

expression and self-acceptance, aggression,and altruism. The Japanese Journal of
Psychology, 80(4), 339-344. [ in Japanese ]Japanese Journal of

Tsukawaki, R, Higuchi, M, & Fukada, H.

Research on Emotions Proceedings of the(2011). Process effects of expression of

20th Annual Meeting, 20 Supplement, 39.

25

26

Nihonmatsu.

[ in Japanese ]Yamamoto,K.

(2013).

Emotional

communication in the presence of anobserver:The

effectofpersonal

relationships between observer and dyad.
The Japanese Journal of Research on
Emotions, 21(1), 19-27. [ in Japanese ]Yoshida, K. (2012).
The Japanese Journalof Laughter and Humor Research, 19, 56-66.
[ in Japanese ]Yoshida, K, & Amemiya, T. (2009). Attempts tomeasure aggressive humor behaviors basedon triangle relations of Joker, Target, andAudience: A longitudinal study in university
freshman. The 73rd Annual Convention of
the Japanese Psychological Association
Proceedings, 55. [ in Japanese ]Yoshida, T, & Nakatsugawa, T. (2013). Effects
of relational goal on interpersonal conflict
management:Ananalysis.

JapaneseThe

approach-avoidance
Journalof

Experimental Social Psychology, 53(1),30-37. [ in Japanese ]Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and Sense of Humor.
New York: Springer Publishing Company,
Inc.

26