where’s the humour in that_ a study of humour effects and sense of humour on test anxiety and...

7/31/2019 Wheres the Humour in that_ A Study of Humour Effects and Sense of Humour on Test Anxiety and Test Performa

1/11

Running head: Wheres the Humour in that? 1

Wheres the Humour in that? A Study of Humour Effects

and Sense of Humour on Test Anxiety and Test Performance.

Matthew Berry. 5986409, Krystal Skof. 5992562

University of Ottawa, PSY 2174 F


2/11

Wheres the Humour in that? 2

AbstractThe purpose of this study is to examine the effects of humorous tests and participant sense of

humour on lowering test anxiety and improving test performance. A 2X2 Independent groupsFactorial design with pre-test post-test measures based on the design employed by Berk & Nanda

(2006) will be used to determine differences between humorous and serious versions of the same

test content in addition to individual differences based on sense of humour. Two undergraduatesecond year biostatistics courses of 100 students (N = 200 total, 1:1 men to women, aged 18-25)taught by the same professor will participate. Participants will first take the Situational Humour

Response Questionnaire measuring their sense of humour (high or low) and will then berandomly assigned into humorous test or control test conditions. Anxiety will be assessed six

times over the course of the semester using the Symptoms of Test Anxiety Scale. Main effects ofhumour and sense of humour plus a significant interaction is expected as high sense of humour is

expected to react well with the humorous test, lowering test anxiety and increasing testperformance. The significance of these results may be reduced due to limitations such as the

inability to infer results onto a boarder public, mortality of participants, unmanipulaed/weakvariables and inconsistent operational definitions.


3/11


Wheres the Humour in that? A Study of Humour Effects

and Sense of Humour on Test Anxiety and Test Performance.

Introduction

Test taking is a major component of life, making countless evaluative decisions for

both individuals and groups that can have prolonged and significant life effects. This is

apparent in education and certainly true for students. Performance on tests plays a crucial

role in students' lives as their academic success determines their profession and future

quality of life. It is normal for many to feel pressured to perform well evoking anxiety that

may function to heighten one's selfawareness, a process that results in lowered attention

to taskrelevant information, lowering performance (Deffenbacher, 1978). This test anxiety

can be seen as transitory apprehensive, uneasy, or nervous feelings immediately before,

during and after taking a specific test. There are two dimensions of symptoms:

emotionality, which is manifested physiologically and worry, which manifests cognitively

(Berk & Nanda, 2006). These effects of anxiety pertain to conditions of testing in a

university classroom as students with high levels of test anxiety perform more poorly on all

exams than their lowanxiety counterparts. This accounts for almost eight percent of

student performance variation (Cassady & Johnson, 2002). Efforts need to be made to

create positive testing situations that reduce test anxiety to allowing students to regain this

percent variation and increase performance. This study proposes that humour be used to

minimize the impairing effects of test anxiety and, indirectly, increase test performance.

Humour was suggested by Freud in 1928 to have specific tensionrelieving effects

and since then there has been mounting evidence of the potential positive effects of

humour. Newton (1990) describes humour as an excellent ingredient for detachment from


4/11


neurotic condition, allowing a symptom to acquire different emotional meaning. Forms of

psychotherapy use humour as therapeutic intervention: patients detach themselves from

their symptoms and laugh at them. In the present study humour allows students to detach

ones self from an immediate threat or aversive stimulus the test (Berk & Nanda, 2006)

and reduce the negative affect of the situation. It is logical to assume that the tension

relieving effects of humour could reduce the symptoms and ill effects of test anxiety on

performance just prior too, during and after the test by removing negative affect.

Observational and experimental findings by Smith (1971) lend support to the hypothesis

that exposure to humour may reduce negative affect states, reducing anxiety and

increasing test performance. As humour reduces negative emotional consequences it

affects performance indirectly by serving as a moderator variable (Berk & Nanda, 2006).

Either through the temporary escape of the stressful situation (Berk & Nanda, 2006;

Newton, 1990) or the reorientation of cognitive resources toward the goal: remembered

material (Perlini, 1999), students would benefit from using humour as a coping strategy.

Humour increases, anxiety decreases and performance increases. This is the framework

that Berk & Nanda (2006) used to examine humour effects on tests and anxiety and this is

what we will examine as well.

The purpose of this study is to experimentally discern the effects of humorous tests

and student sense of humour in reducing the anxiety students feel as they enter a testing

environment and that occurs during the test itself through methods developed from the

study by Berk & Nanda (2006). We predict that by combining humorous tests directions

and items into complete humorous tests, reducing the rigorous design and experimental

complexities, many of the limitations conducted by Berk & Nanda (2006) will be eliminated


5/11


allowing for sufficient collection of data and significant findings. In testing students sense

of humour it can be noted whether individual differences in the use of humour, as a coping

strategy, exists between students. We predict that students taking the humorous test with a

high sense of humour will have the lowest anxiety and highest performance than all other

groups.

Methods

Participants

Students participating in this study will be volunteers from two sections of a mandatory

undergraduate second year biostatistics course. In recruiting a staff member who is willing to

have their class tested, participant classes will be chosen. Both sections will be taught by the

same instructor in order to lower confound variables. The sample will have a population of about

200 students. An age range of 18 to 25 is expected. A gender ratio of 1:1 female to male is

expected as well as an equal diversity of participant race and ethnicity. Once the students have

agreed to participate they will then sign a consent form stating their agreement. Those students

who do not wish to participate, but are still members of the bio stats course, will write the same

tests as the control group. Students who participate in the study will receive an extra 5% on their

final grade as compensation.

Materials

Ten different instruments are used in this study. Six of which are two different versions

of three bio stats tests. Three are used to measure anxiety pre and post the bio stats test. And one

is used to measure the participants sense of humour.

The first instrument used consists of the Situational Humour Response Questionnaire:

Quantitative Measure of Sense of Humour, (SHRQ) (Martin & Lefcourt, 1984). This is a


6/11


previously used test made to measure a participants sense of humour on a quantitative scale.

Based on three tests it has been deemed valid and reliable (with a test-retest reliability coefficient

of 0.70) (Newton, 1990). It consists of a 21-item scale to assess individuals' sense of humour.

The Symptoms of Test Anxiety Scale (STAS) developed by Berk and Nanda (2006) in

their study will be used in the present study. It was a new test for them, as no other measures

proved feasible because the test had to be given directly prior to and after the bio stats test. This

test measures emotionality, which is manifested physiologically and worry, which manifests

cognitively in regards to test anxiety. It is given one or two minutes prior to writing the bio stats

test and then a second is given one to two minutes after the bio stats test. It contains two 20-item

lists of signs and symptoms of test anxiety. Students are to check off how they are feeling at that

time on the list, a one or a check mark meaning anxious and a zero or a blank meaning not

anxious. The scores are then tallied up in each section the first 20 questions for psychological

symptoms and the second for physiological symptoms. The higher the final score, the higher the

anxiety level. (Berk & Nanda, 2006)

Three tests in bio stats achievement will be delivered to the students. These three tests

will consist of the content covered on the bio stats course syllabus. They will be weighted 25%,

30% and 45%, with two midterm examinations and one final examination. These tests will be in

the preferred teaching format of the instructor (i.e.: open book or closed book, multiple choice,

short/long answer etc.).(Berk & Nanda, 2006)

Test one would take place about a month into the semester and its content will consist of

all that was taught during the first month of classes. Two versions of this test will be

administered; test 1A will have only serious content and instruction. Test 1B will consist of

humorous content and humorous instructions. (Berk & Nanda, 2006)


7/11


Test two will take place about one month after the first test and its content will consist of

all that was covered in the course since the last test. Its format will be exactly the same as test 1.

Two versions of this test will be administered just as in the case of test 1. Test 2A, will have only

serious content and instruction. Test 2B will consist of humorous content and humorous

instructions.(Berk & Nanda, 2006)

Test three will take place during the exam slot selected for this particular course. Its

content will consist of everything taught in the course. The format will be similar to test one and

two but will be sufficiently longer. Two versions of this exam will be administered just as in the

case of test 1 and test 2. Exam 3A will have only serious content and instruction. Exam 3B will

consist of humorous content and humorous instructions.(Berk & Nanda, 2006)

Procedures

During the first week of classes all students who have chosen to participate will take the

SHRQ in order to determine if they have a high sense of humour or a low sense of humour

(Martin & Lefcourt, 1984). The class will then be randomly assigned to the humorous testing

group, which will receive humorous tests or the control test group, which will receive non-

humorous tests. Students with a high sense of humour should be divided equally into both

control and humour test group, just as students with a low sense of humour will be equally

distributed.

The TAs and the professor will administer all aspects of the tests on the day of the test.

The students will then be first handed the pre-STAS scale to fill out ranking their anxiety level.

When the student has completed their pre-STAS they will write their name on the pre-STAS and

raise their hand, the professor will then give them their bio stats test. When the student has

completed their tests they are then asked to fill out the post-STAS scale on the last page of their


8/11


test. They will turn this in with their tests. The bonus 5% awarded at the end of the course for

participating in the study will be given if the student completes each STAS scale. Each time they

fill out the STAS scale they receive a bonus 0.83%. These procedures will be repeated for tests

two and the final exam (Berk & Nanda, 2006).

Design

The proposed study will use a 2X2 Independent groups Factorial design with pre-test

post-test measures. This design is used due to the fact that there is more than one independent

variable. The Independent Variables are: one, the presence or non-presence of humour on the bio

stats tests and two, the participants sense of humour, measured by the SHRQ (Martin &

Lefcourt, 1984). The primary psychological function of humour is detachment, which can

preserve the sense of self and is a healthy way of feeling a distance between oneself and the

problem; which can be looked on with perspective. This allows detachment from the immediate

threat (Berk & Nanda, 2006). The dependent variable has two levels. One of which is test

anxiety: the transitory, apprehensive, uneasy, or nervous feelings (affect state) immediately

before, during, and after taking a specific test. With its two dimensions: emotionality manifested

in the form of physiological symptoms: rapid heart rate; nausea; dizziness; sweating; fatigue, and

worry: (refers to cognitive concerns about test taking and performance) negative expectations,

preoccupation with performance, and potential consequences, which include symptoms of self-

critical fear of failing, overwhelmed and going blank, (Berk & Nanda, 2006). The second level

is the test performance, measured by the course mark which is described as achievement in the

course as provided by the relative grading system set upon by the university, a standard among

universities (Berk & Nanda, 2006).

Results


9/11


In this study we predict that a significant (p< 0.05) interaction will be present between

sense of humour and humorous test. We would run a factorial ANOVA to test for this. We

predict that the participants with a higher sense of humour who are given the humorous test will

receive a higher grade then the participants with a high sense of humour writing the non-

humours test. This is because the humour, on the test, will activate the higher sense of humour,

reducing negative affect state, successfully lowering their test anxiety and improving

performance. Participants with a lower sense of humour should not be significantly affected by

the humorous test and therefore should not have their anxiety lowered, resulting in a lower grade.

The same effect will be seen in the participants with a low sense of humour writing the serious

test. This means that all participants who do not have their anxiety level lowered (i.e. the

participants with high sense of humour writing the serious test, the participants with the low

sense of humour writing the serious test and the participants with the low humour writing the

serious test) will perform at generally the same level which will be poorer then those with their

anxiety lowered: the participants with a high sense of humour writing the humorous test. This

will show a significant main effect for both sense of humour and for the style of test written.

Discussion

A 2X2 factorial design studying the effects of humorous tests and sense of humour on

test anxiety and test performance is not without fault and there are limitations inherent in the

proposed study. A significant limitation in this study relates to external validity in the ability to

infer the results onto a broader public. The treatment effect of humour on tests may not hold true

to all peoples in all situations though we can generalize to students because they take up the main

bulk of the population of test takers. Our study resembles real world testing situations and

experimental realism in the regard of education and the chosen age bracket as all tests and


10/11


situations used are real. We cannot infer that because there is a treatment effect in this age

bracket that there would be a definite treatment effect in higher age brackets and non-educational

situations. Further study would be needed considering these age brackets and situations.

A second limitation would be in regards to mortality of participants. Should a student

decide to participate only as far as the second test their data cannot be used for the study, as it is

incomplete. This lowers the number of overall participants, which can skew the data in showing

that the treatment may not have an impact in anxiety, offering another explanation for results,

ultimately lowering internal validity.

A third limitation is due to the study to which ours is based. Though we changed the

original design set by Berk & Nanda (2006) by adding in a second IV (sense of humour), taking

a factorial design and reducing their testing complexities, and changing the participant group, we

might not have altered the study design enough to reduce the unsuccessful manipulation of the

IV that lead to non-significant results in addition to having a non-sensitive DV which originally

lead to the floor and ceiling effect. We could inadvertently reproduce the same errors.

Finally, in regards to construct validity, our chosen operational definition of humour is

consistent with past studies and studies on which ours is based but may not be consistent with

what may be defined as laymans humour (the ability to perceive and express humour or take a

joke). Humour can be very subjective and employ many elements and though measures have

been taken to quantify it (SHRQ) it is not known whether all the elements of humour are present

within these measures. More measures than the ones to be employed by this study may need to

be taken to know for sure that humour is indeed being measured in a quantitative sense. The

development and employment of more humour based measures and questionnaires may need to

be used in future study.


11/11


References

Berk, R.A., & Nanda. J. (2006). A randomized trial of humour effects on test anxiety and test

performance. Humour, 19(4), 425454.

Cassady, Jerrell C., & R.E. Johnson (2002) Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance.

Contemporary Educational Psychology27, 270295

Deffenbacher, J. L. (1978). Worry, emotionality and taskgenerated interference in test

anxiety: An empirical test of attentional theory.Journal of Educational Psychology,

70, 248254.

Deffenbacher, J.L. (1981). Effects of humour and test anxiety on performance, worry, and

emotionality in naturally occurring exams. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5(2), 225.

Martin, & Lefcourt (1984). Situational humour response questionnaire: Quantitative

measure of sense of humour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 145

155.

Newton. (1990). Effect of client sense of humour and paradoxical interventions on test

anxiety. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68(6), 668.

Perlini. (1999). Effects of humour on test anxiety and performance. Psychological Reports,

84(3, Pt 2), 1203.

Smith. (1971). Humour, anxiety, and task performance. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 19(2), 243.

where’s the humour in that_ a study of humour effects and sense of humour on test anxiety and...

Documents