The traditional sexual script and humor in courtship
-
Elaina M. Ross
Elaina M. Ross (PhD University of Kansas) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication and Media Studies at Northeastern State University. Her research examines the intersection of interpersonal and organizational communication and focuses specifically on personal/professional role balance. Email: rossem@nsuok.edu
und
Jeffrey A. Hall
Jeffrey A. Hall (PhD University of Southern California) is a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at The University of Kansas. His research focuses on online dating, attraction, flirting, and humor in romantic relationships. He also studies the intersection between the adoption and use of mobile and social media and everyday life and relationship maintenance.
Abstract
To account for sex differences in the production, receptivity, and preference for humor in potential mates during courtship, past research has often adopted an evolutionary approach. The present manuscript will attempt to integrate evolutionary explanations with proximal social and cultural influences using the traditional sexual script and ambivalent sexism theory. The results of both Study 1 (N=227) and Study 2 (N=424) suggest that trait masculinity is positively associated with humor production in courtship, while trait femininity is associated with humor receptivity. Study 1 indicated that the traditional flirting style was associated with less humor production by women, and Study 2 indicated that hostile sexism was related to a lower preference for a humor-producing potential partner by men. A sex difference in humor production in potential partners in Study 2 was no longer detectable once trait gender and hostile sexism was accounted for. Taken together, gender roles, over and above biological sex, influence one’s own humor use in courtship and preference for humor in potential partners.
About the authors
Elaina M. Ross (PhD University of Kansas) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication and Media Studies at Northeastern State University. Her research examines the intersection of interpersonal and organizational communication and focuses specifically on personal/professional role balance. Email: rossem@nsuok.edu
Jeffrey A. Hall (PhD University of Southern California) is a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at The University of Kansas. His research focuses on online dating, attraction, flirting, and humor in romantic relationships. He also studies the intersection between the adoption and use of mobile and social media and everyday life and relationship maintenance.
References
Bem, S. L. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42(2). 155–162. doi:10/1037/h0036215.Suche in Google Scholar
Birdwhistell, R. L. 1970. Kinesics and context: Essays on body motion communication. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.10.9783/9780812201284Suche in Google Scholar
Bressler, E. R., R. A. Martin & S. Balshine. 2006. Production and appreciation of humor as sexually selected trait. Evolution and Human Behavior 27. 121–130. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.09.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Craik, K. H., M. D. Lampert & A. J. Nelson. 1996. Sense of humor and everyday styles of humorous conduct. Humor 9. 273–302. doi:10/1515/humr.1996.9.3-4.273.Suche in Google Scholar
de Weerth, C. & A. Kalma. 1995. Gender differences in awareness of courtship initiation tactics. Sex Roles 32. 717–734. doi:10.1007/BF01560186.Suche in Google Scholar
Didonato, T. E., M. C. Bedminster & J. J. Machel. 2012. My funny valentine: How humor styles affect romantic interest. Personal Relationships 20(2). 374–390. doi:10.1111/j1475-6811.2012.01210.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Eaton, A. A. & S. Rose. 2011. Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using Sex Roles. Sex Roles 64. 843–862. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9.Suche in Google Scholar
Fisher, M. & A. Cox. 2011. Four strategies used during intrasexual competition for mates. Personal Relationships 18. 20–38. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01307.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. J. O., J. A. Simpson, G. Thomas & L. Giles. 1999. Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76. 72–89. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72.Suche in Google Scholar
Gagnon, J. H. 1990. The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research 1. 1–43. doi:10.1080/10532528.1990.10559854.Suche in Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. 1998. Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.10.1037/10370-000Suche in Google Scholar
Glick, P. & S. T. Fiske. 1996. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70. 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.Suche in Google Scholar
Hall, J. A., S. Carter, M. J. Cody & J. M. Albright. 2010. Individual differences in the communication of romantic interest: Development of the flirting styles inventory. Communication Quarterly 58. 365–393. doi:10.1080/01463373.2010.524874.Suche in Google Scholar
Hall, J. A. 2013. The five flirting styles: Use the science of flirting to attract the love you really want. Don Mills, Ontario, CA: Harlequin Nonfiction.Suche in Google Scholar
Hall, J. A. 2015. Sexual selection and humor in courtship: A case for warmth and extraversion. Evolutionary Psychology 13. 1–10. doi:10.1177/1474704915598918.Suche in Google Scholar
Hall, J. A. & M. Canterberry. 2011. Sexism and assertive courtship strategies. Sex Roles 65. 840–854. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0045-y.Suche in Google Scholar
Hess, J. A., A. D. Fannin & L. H. Pollom. 2007. Creating closeness: Discerning and measuring strategies for fostering closer relationships. Personal Relationships 14. 25–44. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00140.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Hone, L. S. E., W. Hurwitz & D. Lieberman. 2015. Sex differences in preferences for humor: A replication, modification, and extension. Evolutionary Psychology 13(1). 167–181. doi:10.1177/147470491501300110.Suche in Google Scholar
Honeycutt, J. M. & R. Brown. 1998. Did you hear the one about? Typological and spousal differences in the planning of jokes and sense of humor in marriage. Communication Quarterly 46. 432–352. doi:10.1080/01463379809370106.Suche in Google Scholar
Impett, E. A. & L. A. Peplau. 2003. Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research 40(1). 87–100. doi:10.1080/00224490309552169.Suche in Google Scholar
La France, B. H. 2010. What verbal and nonverbal communication cues lead to sex? An analysis of the traditional sexual script. Communication Quarterly 58. 297–318. doi:10.1080/01463373.2010.503161.Suche in Google Scholar
Lamontagne, R. 2015. Sex differences in preferences for humor: A replication, modification, and extension. Evolutionary Psychology 13(1). 168–181. doi:10.1177/147470491501300110.Suche in Google Scholar
Laner, M. R. & N. A. Ventrone. 1998. Egalitarian daters/traditionalist daters. Journal of Family Issues 19(4). 468–−477. doi:10.1177/019251398019004005.Suche in Google Scholar
Li, N. P., V. Griskevicius, K. M. Durante, P. K. Jonason, D. J. Pasisz & K. Aumer. 2009. An evolutionary perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest indication? PSPB 35. 923–936. doi:10.1177/0146167209334786.Suche in Google Scholar
Lundy, D. E., J. Tan & M. R. Cunningham. 1998. Heterosexual romantic preferences: The importance of humor and physical attractiveness. Personal Relationships 5. 311–325. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00174.Suche in Google Scholar
Mehu, M. & R. I. M. Dunbar. 2008. Naturalistic observations of smiling and laughter in human group interactions. Behavior 145. 1747–1780. doi:10/1163/156853908786279619.Suche in Google Scholar
Metts, S. & B. H. Spitzberg. 1996. Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-based approach. Communication Yearbook 19. 49–91. doi:10.1080/23808985.1996.11678928.Suche in Google Scholar
Montoya, R. M., C. Kershaw & J. L. Prosser. 2018. A meta-analytic investigation of the relation between interpersonal attraction and enacted behavior. Psychological Bulletin 144(7). 673–709. doi:10.1037/bul0000148.Suche in Google Scholar
Owren, M. J. & J-A. Bachorowski. 2003. Reconsidering the evolution of nonlinguistic communication: The case of laughter. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 27. 183–200. doi:10.1023/A:1025394015198.Suche in Google Scholar
Paul, E. L. & K. A. Hayes. 2002. The casualties of ‘casual’ sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 19. 639–661. doi:10.1177/0265407502195006.Suche in Google Scholar
Provine, R. R. 1993. Laughter punctuates speech: Linguistic, social and gender contexts of laughter. Ethology 95. 291–298. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1993.tb00478.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Rose, S. & I. H. Frieze. 1993. Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles 28(9/10). 499–509. doi:10.1007/BF00289677.Suche in Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A. & P. Glick. 2008. The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Simon, W. & J. H. Gagnon. 1986. Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior 15. 97–120. doi:10.1007/BF01542219.Suche in Google Scholar
Thorson, J. & F. Powell. 1993. Development and validation of a multidimensional sense of humor scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology 49. 13–23. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199301)49:1.Suche in Google Scholar
Tornquist, M. & D. Chiappe. 2015. Effects of humor production, humor receptivity, and physical attractiveness on partner desirability. Evolutionary Psychology 13(4). 1–13. doi:10.1177/1474704915608744.Suche in Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 136–179. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.10.4324/9781315129266-7Suche in Google Scholar
Wilbur, C. J. & L. Campbell. 2011. Humor in romantic contexts: Do men participate and women evaluate? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37. 918–929. doi:10.1177/0146167211405343.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Sex and gender differences in humor: Introduction and overview
- The development of sex differences in humor initiation and appreciation
- The traditional sexual script and humor in courtship
- Gender differences in using humor to respond to sexist jokes
- Don’t laugh it off: Gender differences in perceptions of women’s responses to men’s use of sexist humor
- What’s in a Tweet? Gender and sexism moderate reactions to antifat sexist humor on Twitter
- Is it really just a joke? Gender differences in perceptions of sexist humor
- Gender differences in the associations of reappraisal and humor styles
- Sex differences in humor experiences in relationship to compassion for oneself and for others
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Sex and gender differences in humor: Introduction and overview
- The development of sex differences in humor initiation and appreciation
- The traditional sexual script and humor in courtship
- Gender differences in using humor to respond to sexist jokes
- Don’t laugh it off: Gender differences in perceptions of women’s responses to men’s use of sexist humor
- What’s in a Tweet? Gender and sexism moderate reactions to antifat sexist humor on Twitter
- Is it really just a joke? Gender differences in perceptions of sexist humor
- Gender differences in the associations of reappraisal and humor styles
- Sex differences in humor experiences in relationship to compassion for oneself and for others
