Runninghead:WherestheHumourinthat?

WherestheHumourinthat?AStudyofHumourEffects andSenseofHumouronTestAnxietyandTestPerformance. MatthewBerry.5986409,KrystalSkof.5992562 UniversityofOttawa,PSY2174F

WherestheHumourinthat?

Abstract The 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 groups Factorial 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 undergraduate second 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 be randomly 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 of humour 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 test performance. 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/weak variables and inconsistent operational definitions.

WherestheHumourinthat?

WherestheHumourinthat?AStudyofHumourEffects andSenseofHumouronTestAnxietyandTestPerformance. Introduction Testtakingisamajorcomponentoflife,makingcountlessevaluativedecisionsfor bothindividualsandgroupsthatcanhaveprolongedandsignificantlifeeffects.Thisis apparentineducationandcertainlytrueforstudents.Performanceontestsplaysacrucial roleinstudents'livesastheiracademicsuccessdeterminestheirprofessionandfuture qualityoflife.Itisnormalformanytofeelpressuredtoperformwellevokinganxietythat mayfunctiontoheightenone'sselfawareness,aprocessthatresultsinloweredattention totaskrelevantinformation,loweringperformance(Deffenbacher,1978).Thistestanxiety canbeseenastransitoryapprehensive,uneasy,ornervousfeelingsimmediatelybefore, duringandaftertakingaspecifictest.Therearetwodimensionsofsymptoms: emotionality,whichismanifestedphysiologicallyandworry,whichmanifestscognitively (Berk&Nanda,2006).Theseeffectsofanxietypertaintoconditionsoftestingina universityclassroomasstudentswithhighlevelsoftestanxietyperformmorepoorlyonall examsthantheirlowanxietycounterparts.Thisaccountsforalmosteightpercentof studentperformancevariation(Cassady&Johnson,2002).Effortsneedtobemadeto createpositivetestingsituationsthatreducetestanxietytoallowingstudentstoregainthis percentvariationandincreaseperformance.Thisstudyproposesthathumourbeusedto minimizetheimpairingeffectsoftestanxietyand,indirectly,increasetestperformance. HumourwassuggestedbyFreudin1928tohavespecifictensionrelievingeffects

andsincethentherehasbeenmountingevidenceofthepotentialpositiveeffectsof humour.Newton(1990)describeshumourasanexcellentingredientfordetachmentfrom

WherestheHumourinthat?

neuroticcondition,allowingasymptomtoacquiredifferentemotionalmeaning.Formsof psychotherapyusehumourastherapeuticintervention:patientsdetachthemselvesfrom theirsymptomsandlaughatthem.Inthepresentstudyhumourallowsstudentstodetach onesselffromanimmediatethreatoraversivestimulusthetest(Berk&Nanda,2006) andreducethenegativeaffectofthesituation.Itislogicaltoassumethatthetension relievingeffectsofhumourcouldreducethesymptomsandilleffectsoftestanxietyon performancejustpriortoo,duringandafterthetestbyremovingnegativeaffect. ObservationalandexperimentalfindingsbySmith(1971)lendsupporttothehypothesis thatexposuretohumourmayreducenegativeaffectstates,reducinganxietyand increasingtestperformance.Ashumourreducesnegativeemotionalconsequencesit affectsperformanceindirectlybyservingasamoderatorvariable(Berk&Nanda,2006). Eitherthroughthetemporaryescapeofthestressfulsituation(Berk&Nanda,2006; Newton,1990)orthereorientationofcognitiveresourcestowardthegoal:remembered material(Perlini,1999),studentswouldbenefitfromusinghumourasacopingstrategy. Humourincreases,anxietydecreasesandperformanceincreases.Thisistheframework thatBerk&Nanda(2006)usedtoexaminehumoureffectsontestsandanxietyandthisis whatwewillexamineaswell. Thepurposeofthisstudyistoexperimentallydiscerntheeffectsofhumoroustests

andstudentsenseofhumourinreducingtheanxietystudentsfeelastheyenteratesting environmentandthatoccursduringthetestitselfthroughmethodsdevelopedfromthe studybyBerk&Nanda(2006).Wepredictthatbycombininghumoroustestsdirections anditemsintocompletehumoroustests,reducingtherigorousdesignandexperimental complexities,manyofthelimitationsconductedbyBerk&Nanda(2006)willbeeliminated

WherestheHumourinthat?

allowingforsufficientcollectionofdataandsignificantfindings.Intestingstudentssense ofhumouritcanbenotedwhetherindividualdifferencesintheuseofhumour,asacoping strategy,existsbetweenstudents.Wepredictthatstudentstakingthehumoroustestwitha highsenseofhumourwillhavethelowestanxietyandhighestperformancethanallother 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

WherestheHumourinthat?

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,whichismanifestedphysiologicallyandworry,whichmanifests 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)

WherestheHumourinthat?

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 nonhumorous 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

WherestheHumourinthat?

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 selfcritical 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

WherestheHumourinthat?

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 nonhumours 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

WherestheHumourinthat?

10

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.

WherestheHumourinthat?

11

References Berk,R.A.,&Nanda.J.(2006).Arandomizedtrialofhumoureffectsontestanxietyandtest performance.Humour,19(4),425454. Cassady,JerrellC.,&R.E.Johnson(2002)Cognitivetestanxietyandacademicperformance. ContemporaryEducationalPsychology27,270295 Deffenbacher,J.L.(1978).Worry,emotionalityandtaskgeneratedinterferenceintest anxiety:Anempiricaltestofattentionaltheory.JournalofEducationalPsychology, 70,248254.

Deffenbacher,J.L.(1981).Effectsofhumourandtestanxietyonperformance,worry,and emotionalityinnaturallyoccurringexams.CognitiveTherapyandResearch,5(2),225. Martin,&Lefcourt(1984).Situationalhumourresponsequestionnaire:Quantitative measureofsenseofhumour.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,47(1),145 155. Newton.(1990).Effectofclientsenseofhumourandparadoxicalinterventionsontest anxiety.JournalofCounselingandDevelopment,68(6),668. Perlini.(1999).Effectsofhumourontestanxietyandperformance.PsychologicalReports, 84(3,Pt2),1203. Smith.(1971).Humour,anxiety,andtaskperformance.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,19(2),243.