Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 132 references

The Role of Humour in Software Engineering -- A Literature Review and Preliminary Taxonomy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that software engineering lacks a unified taxonomy of humour, and proposes one that assembles theories, styles, models, and scales from psychology, management, and education.

desk verdict A useful, honest synthesis of humour research for SE, but the 'no unified taxonomy' claim is not supported by the paper's own search; treat it as a scaffold, not a gap-filling discovery. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03527 v1 pith:22I7WXUJ submitted 2025-07-04 cs.SE

Dulaji Hidellaarachchi , John Grundy , Rashina Hoda This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords humoursoftwareengineeringtaxonomyhumanaspectsliteraturereviewstylesteamdynamicswell-being
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Humour is widely studied in psychology, management, and education, but the paper finds it remains under-explored and fragmented in software engineering (SE) research. To fill that gap, it reviews 28 papers and proposes a preliminary taxonomy that organizes humour into four linked dimensions: theories, styles, models/frameworks, and scales, each mapped to SE team contexts such as code reviews, stand-ups, and retrospectives. The paper's central claim is that this unified framework gives SE researchers a structured foundation for designing studies and practitioners a guide for using humour responsibly. If correct, future work can test the taxonomy empirically; the paper itself stresses that its categories have not yet been validated in SE settings.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the taxonomy's four-part structure — humour theories, humour styles, humour models/frameworks, and humour scales — which serves as a classification and mapping device. It does the work of unifying cross-disciplinary humour constructs, linking each element to concrete SE examples (e.g., incongruity theory for code review surprises, affiliative humour in stand-ups, HSQ for measuring team dynamics) to make the framework usable by SE researchers and practitioners.

What would settle it

A field study that records humorous exchanges in software teams for several weeks and tries to code each episode with the taxonomy's humour styles; the taxonomy is falsified if a large share of episodes fit no style, or if the HSQ's scores do not predict team cohesion or productivity in a correlational study.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the taxonomy itself. It brings together humour theories (conventional, sociological, psychological, and other), humour styles (positive, negative, and contextual), humour models and frameworks (the Wheel Model, Group Humour Effectiveness Model, Pedagogical Humour Model, and Humour Styles Framework), and humour scales (self-report, multi-dimensional, and trained observer measures). The paper argues this is the first unified taxonomy for humour in SE teams, and shows that existing SE studies use humour styles or surface observations without theory-based framing or structured measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy assumes that humour concepts developed in psychology, management, and education transfer to software engineering teams without modification, even though none has been empirically validated in SE settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SE researchers can combine a theory, a style, and a scale from the taxonomy to design studies on humour's impact on team cohesion, creativity, or stress.
  • Practitioners can use the taxonomy to decide when to encourage affiliative and self-enhancing humour and when to avoid aggressive or self-defeating styles in ceremonies like stand-ups and retrospectives.
  • The taxonomy exposes which humour constructs have never been tested in SE, such as the Wheel Model or GHEM, pointing to concrete empirical gaps.
  • It motivates developing SE-specific humour scales, since existing ones like the HSQ and CHS were built for general organizational contexts.
  • If adopted, the taxonomy gives a shared vocabulary for reporting humour research in SE, making results more comparable across studies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the taxonomy is right, the most immediate testable consequence is that SE teams' humour will be classifiable into the four HSQ styles; a team observation study could check this directly.
  • The paper leaves implicit that the taxonomy could support a practical training intervention: measuring a team's humour styles before and after a workshop that promotes affiliative humour would both validate the framework and give a concrete use case.
  • A natural extension the authors do not develop is a specialised SE humour scale, e.g., adapting HSQ items to code review or bug-report contexts and validating it against team outcomes.
  • Because the taxonomy is literature-based, an implication is that SE-specific humour behaviours (like jokes in commit messages or memes in issue trackers) may not fit neatly into psychological categories; cataloguing those behaviours would refine the taxonomy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that humour is under-explored in software engineering (SE) and claims that no unified taxonomy of humour exists for SE teams. It presents a narrative literature review of 28 papers and proposes a preliminary taxonomy with four dimensions: humour theories (conventional, sociological, psychological, other), humour styles (positive, negative, contextual), humour models/frameworks, and humour scales. Each element is linked to SE contexts through illustrative examples such as stand-up meetings, code reviews, and retrospectives. The discussion outlines potential applications, acknowledges that the taxonomy has not been empirically validated, and calls for SE-specific empirical testing, including pilot studies, case studies, and controlled experiments.

Significance. If the gap claim holds, the taxonomy is a useful conceptual map: it brings psychology, management, and education humour constructs into SE discourse, identifies existing scales (HSQ, CHS, SHRQ, MSHS) that SE researchers could adopt, and makes the under-exploration of humour in SE concrete. The authors are honest about the preliminary nature of the work, and the explicit future-work agenda is a strength. However, the contribution is currently a synthesis rather than a validated framework; its value depends on future empirical work, and the negative novelty claim needs stronger support.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Table 1] The central novelty claim—'there is no clear taxonomy' (Section 3) and 'no unified framework' (Section 5)—is supported only by an exploratory Google Scholar search with three primary search terms and backward/forward snowballing, without inclusion/exclusion criteria, a date range, or a reproducible protocol. Moreover, the declared corpus of 28 papers does not include several sources on which the taxonomy directly draws: Minsky [100], McGraw and Warren [99], Suls [93], Huizinga [96], and Berk [109] are cited in Section 4 but are absent from Table 1. A narrative review can legitimately propose a synthesis, but it cannot establish the negative existential claim. I recommend either (a) adding a structured search with explicit criteria and a PRISMA-style flow to support the gap claim, or (b) reframing the contribution as 'a preliminary taxonomy synthesizing humour constructs from related disciplines, with no prior SE-specific taxonomy located in our exploratory review.'
  2. [§5 (Limitations), §4.5] The taxonomy's load-bearing assumption is that humour theories, styles, models, and scales developed in psychology, management, and education transfer to SE teams without modification. The paper acknowledges this ('its categories have not yet been empirically validated in the SE context'), but then uses the taxonomy to make concrete recommendations, e.g., 'The Wheel Model of Humour could be used to understand how recurring positive humour during stand-up meetings contributes to a humour-supportive team climate over time.' These applications are hypotheses, not findings; as written, the discussion blurs that distinction. The manuscript should consistently label SE applications as conjectures to test and, where possible, cite SE-specific evidence (e.g., [37], [74]) for each construct or explicitly mark those constructs as untested in SE.
  3. [§3] The construction of the taxonomy is not auditable: the authors state that they did not use formal thematic analysis or coding schemes and that the taxonomy was refined 'through multiple iterations,' but no details of the iteration process, disagreements, or inter-rater checks are reported. Because the four-way split into theories, styles, models/frameworks, and scales is the paper's main structural contribution, the reader cannot distinguish a robust synthesis from an idiosyncratic grouping. Please provide at least a coding table, a PRISMA-style flow, or an explicit statement that the categories are expert-proposed rather than data-derived.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1, §4.3] Figure 1 contains citation mismatches: Wheel Model of Humour is labelled [26] but the text (§4.3) attributes it to [27]; Group Humour Effectiveness Model is labelled [25] but the text attributes it to [26]; Humour Styles Framework is labelled [24] in Figure 1 but §4.2/4.3 tie it to [25]. Correct these cross-references.
  2. [Abstract, §5] The abstract and introduction use 'comprehensive' (e.g., 'a comprehensive, literature review-based taxonomy'), while Section 5 says the taxonomy 'has not yet been empirically validated'; consider replacing 'comprehensive' with 'preliminary' for consistency.
  3. [Throughout] Several stylistic and typographical errors remain: 'SE is traditionally perceived as a technical and discipline' (§1), 'Minsky’s theory is could be relevant' (§4.1.4), 'Despite of increasing interest' (§2.2), and a duplicated affiliation block on the title page.
  4. [§5] The SE-specific applications (e.g., 'testers often use subtle humour ... this aligns with self-enhancing humour') are presented as observations but have no citations; mark them as illustrative hypotheses so that readers do not mistake them for empirical findings.
  5. [Table 1, References] The relationship between the 28-paper corpus in Table 1 and the full reference list is unclear; the taxonomy cites many references outside Table 1 (e.g., [93], [96], [99], [100], [109]), so a reader cannot tell which sources were actually reviewed versus merely cited as background.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the taxonomy is a synthesis of external literature, explicitly preliminary, with no fitted predictions or self-citation chain doing the work.

full rationale

The paper's contribution is a narrative literature review and a preliminary taxonomy. Its four categories (theories, styles, models/frameworks, scales) are taken from independent external sources such as Martin et al.'s Humour Styles Questionnaire [25], Romero and Pescosolido's Group Humour Effectiveness Model [26], and Robert and Wilbanks' Wheel Model [27]. There is no equation, parameter, or empirical prediction that is fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a result; the paper explicitly states the taxonomy 'has not yet been empirically validated in the SE context' and calls for future validation. The central claim that no unified humour taxonomy exists for SE is a literature-coverage claim backed by a 28-paper exploratory search; a reader may question whether the search was comprehensive enough to support a negative existential, but that is a methodology and completeness limitation, not circular reasoning. The authors cite their own prior work (e.g., the empathy taxonomy [15] and personality papers [18]) as related human-aspects work, but the humour taxonomy does not depend on those citations for its content; every humour construct is attributed to external psychology, management, or education literature. Because the derivation chain is an explicit synthesis of external sources rather than a reduction to its own inputs, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its central claim rests on three explicit domain assumptions about transferability, literature coverage, and organizing structure.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Humour theories, styles, models, and scales from psychology, management, and education are applicable to software engineering teams.
    Section 3 and Section 4 map non-SE humour constructs onto SE scenarios without empirical evidence that the transfer holds.
  • domain assumption The 28 selected papers provide sufficient and representative coverage of humour literature relevant to SE.
    Section 3 describes a narrative review via Google Scholar and snowballing; no systematic protocol or completeness check is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Grouping humour research into theories, styles, models/frameworks, and scales is the right organizing structure for SE applications.
    Section 4 introduces these four buckets as the taxonomy's dimensions, but this grouping is a choice made by the authors rather than an outcome of the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Role of Humour in Software Engineering -- A Literature Review and Preliminary Taxonomy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/22I7WXUJ

@misc{pith2026250703527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Role of Humour in Software Engineering -- A Literature Review and Preliminary Taxonomy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/22I7WXUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03527}
}
read the original abstract

Humour has long been recognized as a key factor in enhancing creativity, group effectiveness, and employee well-being across various domains. However, its occurrence and impact within software engineering (SE) teams remains under-explored. This paper introduces a comprehensive, literature review-based taxonomy exploring the characterisation and use of humour in SE teams, with the goal of boosting productivity, improving communication, and fostering a positive work environment while emphasising the responsible use of humour to mitigate its potential negative impacts. Drawing from a wide array of studies in psychology, sociology, and organizational behaviour, our proposed framework categorizes humour into distinct theories, styles, models, and scales, offering SE professionals and researchers a structured approach to understanding humour in their work. This study also addresses the unique challenges of applying humour in SE, highlighting its potential benefits while acknowledging the need for further empirical validation in this context. Ultimately, our study aims to pave the way for more cohesive, creative, and psychologically supportive SE environments through the strategic use of humour.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03527 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A Preliminary Taxonomy of Humour of superiority theory lies on the idea of explaining that people find something humorous/funny when it makes them feel superior to others. As per this theory, laughter often comes from the sense of dominance over others’ mistakes or flaws. This has also been first originated by the philosophers and reformed which explains that every humorous situation has a winner or loser and humour… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [100]

    Minsky, Society of mind, Simon and Schuster, 1988

    M. Minsky, Society of mind, Simon and Schuster, 1988

    work page 1988

  2. [99]

    A. P. McGraw, C. Warren, Benign violations: Making immoral behavior funny, Psychological science 21 (8) (2010) 1141–1149

    work page 2010

  3. [93]

    J. M. Suls, A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis, The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues 1 (1972) 81–100

    work page 1972

  4. [96]

    Huizinga, H

    J. Huizinga, H. Iudens, A study of the play element in culture, Boston: Beacon (1955)

    work page 1955

  5. [109]

    R. A. Berk, Professors are from Mars®, Students are from Snickers®: How to write and deliver humor in the classroom and in professional presentations, Routledge, 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [37]

    D.Tiwari,T.Toady,M.Monperrus,B.Baudry,Withgreathumorcomesgreatdeveloperengagement,in:Proceedingsofthe46thInternational Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society, 2024, pp. 1–11

    2024

  7. [74]

    Kuutila, L

    M. Kuutila, L. Rantala, J. Li, S. Hosio, M. Mäntylä, What makes programmers laugh? exploring the submissions of the subreddit r/programmerhumor., in: Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measure- ment, 2024, pp. 371–381

    work page 2024

  8. [1]

    M.Knobelsdorf,R.Romeike,Creativityasapathwaytocomputerscience,in:Proceedingsofthe13thannualconferenceonInnovationand technology in computer science education, 2008, pp. 286–290

    2008

Show all 132 references
  1. [2]

    B. W. Boehm, P. N. Papaccio, Understanding and controlling software costs, IEEE transactions on software engineering 14 (10) (1988) 1462–1477

    1988

  2. [3]

    Sommerville, T

    I. Sommerville, T. Rodden, Human, social and organisational influences on the software process, Software Process 4 (1996) 89–100

    1996

  3. [4]

    Colomo-Palacios, A

    R. Colomo-Palacios, A. Hernández-López, Á. García-Crespo, P. Soto-Acosta, A study of emotions in requirements engineering, in: Organizational, Business, and Technological Aspects of the Knowledge Society: Third World Summit on the Knowledge Society, WSKS 2010, Corfu, Greece, S...

    2010

  4. [5]

    Rajeswari, R

    K. Rajeswari, R. Anantharaman, Development of an instrument to measure stress among software professionals: Factor analytic study, in: Proceedingsofthe2003SIGMISconferenceonComputerpersonnelresearch:FreedominPhiladelphia–leveragingdifferencesanddiversity in the IT workforce, 2...

    2003

  5. [6]

    Feldt, L

    R. Feldt, L. Angelis, R. Torkar, M. Samuelsson, Links between the personalities, views and attitudes of software engineers, Information and Software Technology 52 (6) (2010) 611–624

    2010

  6. [7]

    G. C. Murphy, Human-centric software engineering, in: Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop on Future of software engineering research, 2010, pp. 251–254. First Author et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 18 of 21 Role of Humour in SE

    2010

  7. [8]

    S.Cruz,F.Q.DaSilva,L.F.Capretz,Fortyyearsofresearchonpersonalityinsoftwareengineering:Amappingstudy,ComputersinHuman Behavior 46 (2015) 94–113

    2015

  8. [9]

    L.F.Capretz,F.Ahmed,Whydoweneedpersonalitydiversityinsoftwareengineering?,ACMSIGSOFTSoftwareEngineeringNotes35(2) (2010) 1–11

    2010

  9. [10]

    Sánchez-Gordón, R

    M. Sánchez-Gordón, R. Colomo-Palacios, Taking the emotional pulse of software engineering—a systematic literature review of empirical studies, Information and Software Technology 115 (2019) 23–43

    2019

  10. [11]

    Miller, S

    T. Miller, S. Pedell, A. A. Lopez-Lorca, A. Mendoza, L. Sterling, A. Keirnan, Emotion-led modelling for people-oriented requirements engineering: the case study of emergency systems, Journal of Systems and Software 105 (2015) 54–71

    2015

  11. [12]

    J. C. Carver, A. Serebrenik, Gender in software engineering, IEEE Software 36 (6) (2019) 76–78

    2019

  12. [13]

    M.Burnett,S.Stumpf,J.Macbeth,S.Makri,L.Beckwith,I.Kwan,A.Peters,W.Jernigan,Gendermag:Amethodforevaluatingsoftware’s gender inclusiveness, Interacting with Computers 28 (6) (2016) 760–787

    2016

  13. [14]

    A.E.Akgün,H.Keskin,A.Y.Cebecioglu,D.Dogan,Antecedentsandconsequencesofcollectiveempathyinsoftwaredevelopmentproject teams, Information & Management 52 (2) (2015) 247–259

    2015

  14. [15]

    H.Gunatilake,J.Grundy,I.Mueller,R.Hoda,Empathymodelsandsoftwareengineering—apreliminaryanalysisandtaxonomy,Journalof Systems and Software 203 (2023) 111747

    2023

  15. [16]

    Y. Wang, D. Redmiles, Implicit gender biases in professional software development: An empirical study, in: 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st international conference on software engineering: Software engineering in society (ICSE-SEIS), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–10

    2019

  16. [17]

    J.E.Hannay,E.Arisholm,H.Engvik,D.I.Sjoberg,Effectsofpersonalityonpairprogramming,IEEETransactionsonSoftwareEngineering 36 (1) (2009) 61–80

    2009

  17. [18]

    Hidellaarachchi, J

    D. Hidellaarachchi, J. Grundy, R. Hoda, I. Mueller, The impact of personality on requirements engineering activities: A mixed-methods study, Empirical Software Engineering 29 (1) (2024) 32

    2024

  18. [19]

    Kanij, R

    T. Kanij, R. Merkel, J. Grundy, An empirical study of the effects of personality on software testing, in: 2013 26th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T), IEEE, 2013, pp. 239–248

    2013

  19. [20]

    L. M. Restrepo-Tamayo, G. P. Gasca-Hurtado, J. Valencia-Calvo, Characterizing social and human factors in software development team productivity: A system dynamics approach, IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  20. [21]

    Hoffmann, D

    M. Hoffmann, D. Mendez, F. Fagerholm, A. Luckhardt, The human side of software engineering teams: an investigation of contemporary challenges, IEEE Transactions on software engineering 49 (1) (2022) 211–225

    2022

  21. [22]

    M. H. Abel, Interaction of humor and gender in moderating relationships between stress and outcomes, The Journal of psychology 132 (3) (1998) 267–276

    1998

  22. [23]

    A. Cann, C. L. Zapata, H. B. Davis, Positive and negative styles of humor in communication: Evidence for the importance of considering both styles, Communication Quarterly 57 (4) (2009) 452–468

    2009

  23. [24]

    Bitterly, A

    B. Bitterly, A. W. Brooks, Sarcasm, self-deprecation, and inside jokes: A user’s guide to humor at work, Harvard Business Review 98 (4) (2020) 96–103

    2020

  24. [25]

    R. A. Martin, P. Puhlik-Doris, G. Larsen, J. Gray, K. Weir, Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the humor styles questionnaire, Journal of research in personality 37 (1) (2003) 48–75

    2003

  25. [26]

    Romero, A

    E. Romero, A. Pescosolido, Humor and group effectiveness, Human relations 61 (3) (2008) 395–418

    2008

  26. [27]

    C.Robert,J.E.Wilbanks,Thewheelmodelofhumor:Humoreventsandaffectinorganizations,HumanRelations65(9)(2012)1071–1099

    2012

  27. [28]

    T.H.Pham,L.K.Bartels,Laughingwithyouorlaughingatyou:Theinfluenceofplayfulnessandhumoronemployees’meetingsatisfaction and effectiveness, Journal of Organizational Psychology 21 (5) (2021) 1–18

    2021

  28. [29]

    Watson, V

    C. Watson, V. Drew, Humour and laughter in meetings: Influence, decision-making and the emergence of leadership, Discourse & Communication 11 (3) (2017) 314–329

    2017

  29. [30]

    Plester, Healthy humour: Using humour to cope at work, K¯otuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 4 (1) (2009) 89–102

    B. Plester, Healthy humour: Using humour to cope at work, K¯otuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 4 (1) (2009) 89–102

    2009

  30. [31]

    H. S. Al Obthani, R. B. Omar, et al., A contextual model on the role of management in fostering humor at work, International Journal of Business and Social Science 3 (24) (2012)

    2012

  31. [32]

    D. M. R. Barros, L. R. Begosso, J. A. Fabri, A. L’Erario, The use of comic strips in the teaching of software engineering, in: 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–8

    2017

  32. [33]

    Christman, Instructor humor as a tool to increase student engagement (2018)

    C. Christman, Instructor humor as a tool to increase student engagement (2018)

    2018

  33. [34]

    Bergeron, M.-A

    J. Bergeron, M.-A. Vachon, The effects of humour usage by financial advisors in sales encounters, International Journal of Bank Marketing 26 (6) (2008) 376–398

    2008

  34. [35]

    W.G.Biemans,E.K.Huizingh,Whysoserious?theeffectsofhumouroncreativityandinnovation,CreativityandInnovationManagement 33 (2) (2024) 181–196

    2024

  35. [36]

    K.N.Khan,M.F.Jan,K.Wazir,Z.Khan,M.Z.Safdar,Leadingwithhappiness;analysingtheeffectofleaders’humourstylesonemployees’ creativity., Webology 19 (3) (2022)

    2022

  36. [38]

    Amjed, S

    A. Amjed, S. H. S. Tirmzi, Effect of humor on employee creativity with moderating role of transformational leadership behavior, Journal of Economics, Business and Management 4 (10) (2016) 594–598

    2016

  37. [39]

    S.Moussawi,R.Benbunan-Fich,Theeffectofvoiceandhumouronusers’perceptionsofpersonalintelligentagents,Behaviour&Information Technology 40 (15) (2021) 1603–1626

    2021

  38. [40]

    Krienke, G

    D. Krienke, G. Bansal, Information system requirement elicitation: The role of humor (2017)

    2017

  39. [41]

    P. B. Malone III, Humor: a double-edged tool for today’s managers?, Academy of Management Review 5 (3) (1980) 357–360

    1980

  40. [42]

    M.G.R.Pandin,C.S.Waloejo,M.Munir,H.K.Dewi,Theinfluenceofhumoronstudentsresilience,resmilitaris13(3)(2023)1683–1693

    2023

  41. [43]

    First Author et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 19 of 21 Role of Humour in SE

    F.A.Bakar,Theuseofhumourinteachingandlearninginhighereducation,Dunedin,NewZealand:UniversityofOtagoPhDthesis(2018). First Author et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 19 of 21 Role of Humour in SE

    2018

  42. [44]

    J. P. Powell, L. W. Andresen, Humour and teaching in higher education, Studies in higher education 10 (1) (1985) 79–90

    1985

  43. [45]

    M. S. Amran, A. Y. A. Bakar, The use of humour and its’ relation to motivation in teaching and learning mathematics, Creative Education 13 (8) (2022) 2577–2586

    2022

  44. [46]

    Menezes, P

    L. Menezes, P. Flores, F. Viseu, S. Amante, A. M. Costa, Humour in mathematics teaching: A study in portugal and spain, The Palgrave Handbook of Humour Research (2021) 419–437

    2021

  45. [47]

    Berge, The role of humor in learning physics: A study of undergraduate students, Research in science education 47 (2017) 427–450

    M. Berge, The role of humor in learning physics: A study of undergraduate students, Research in science education 47 (2017) 427–450

    2017

  46. [48]

    J. B. Ziegler, Use of humour in medical teaching, Medical teacher 20 (4) (1998) 341–348

    1998

  47. [49]

    B. Hogue, I’m not making this up: Taking humor seriously in the creative nonfiction classroom, Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 11 (1) (2011) 199–205

    2011

  48. [50]

    M. M. v. Wyk, The use of cartoons as a teaching tool to enhance student learning in economics education, Journal of Social Sciences 26 (2) (2011) 117–130

    2011

  49. [51]

    C. Hoad, C. Deed, A. Lugg, The potential of humor as a trigger for emotional engagement in outdoor education, Journal of Experiential Education 36 (1) (2013) 37–50

    2013

  50. [52]

    H.Sharp,H.Robinson,M.Petre,Theroleofphysicalartefactsinagilesoftwaredevelopment:Twocomplementaryperspectives,Interacting with computers 21 (1-2) (2009) 108–116

    2009

  51. [53]

    D.Graziotin,X.Wang,P.Abrahamsson,Theaffectofsoftwaredevelopers:commonmisconceptionsandmeasurements,in:2015IEEE/ACM 8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, IEEE, 2015, pp. 123–124

    2015

  52. [54]

    Robert, W

    C. Robert, W. Yan, The case for developing new research on humor and culture in organizations: Toward a higher grade of manure, in: Research in personnel and human resources management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2007, pp. 205–267

    2007

  53. [55]

    E. J. Romero, K. W. Cruthirds, The use of humor in the workplace, Academy of management perspectives 20 (2) (2006) 58–69

    2006

  54. [56]

    Plester, Crossing the line: Boundaries of workplace humour and fun, Employee Relations 31 (6) (2009) 584–599

    B. Plester, Crossing the line: Boundaries of workplace humour and fun, Employee Relations 31 (6) (2009) 584–599

    2009

  55. [57]

    Feingold, R

    A. Feingold, R. Mazzella, Preliminary validation of a multidimensional model of wittiness, Journal of Personality 61 (3) (1993) 439–456

    1993

  56. [58]

    W.Ruch,F.-J.Hehl,Atwo-modemodelofhumorapprecation:Itsrelationtoaestheticappreciationandsimplicity-complexityofpersonality, Humor Research [HR] (3) (1998) 109–142

    1998

  57. [59]

    K. H. Craik, M. D. Lampert, A. J. Nelson, Sense of humor and styles of everyday humorous conduct (1996)

    1996

  58. [60]

    W. Ruch, G. Köhler, A temperament approach to humor, Humor Research [HR] (3) (2007) 203–230

    2007

  59. [61]

    W. Ruch, G. Köhler, C. Van Thriel, Assessing the „humorous temperament “: Construction of the facet and standard trait forms of the state-trait-cheerfulness-inventory—stci (1996)

    1996

  60. [62]

    Svebak, The development of the sense of humor questionnaire: From shq to shq-6 (1996)

    S. Svebak, The development of the sense of humor questionnaire: From shq to shq-6 (1996)

    1996

  61. [63]

    M. P. Mulder, A. Nijholt, Humour research: State of art (2002)

    2002

  62. [64]

    Dynel, Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour, Language and linguistics compass 3 (5) (2009) 1284–1299

    M. Dynel, Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour, Language and linguistics compass 3 (5) (2009) 1284–1299

    2009

  63. [65]

    C.V.deAlmeida,etal.,Humorisimportantinhealthcarerelationship?—theperceptionsofdoctorsandnurses,OpenAccessLibraryJournal 7 (05) (2020) 1

    2020

  64. [66]

    Haydon, P

    G. Haydon, P. van der Reit, G. Browne, A narrative inquiry: Humour and gender differences in the therapeutic relationship between nurses and their patients, Contemporary nurse 50 (2-3) (2015) 214–226

    2015

  65. [67]

    McCreaddie, S

    M. McCreaddie, S. Payne, Humour in health-care interactions: a risk worth taking, Health Expectations 17 (3) (2014) 332–344

    2014

  66. [68]

    J. Goldstein, Cross-cultural researeh: Humour here and there, in: It’s a Funny Thing, Humour: Proceedings of The International Conference on Humour and Laughter 1976, Elsevier, 2013, p. 167

    1976

  67. [69]

    F.Y.Chan,Sellingthroughentertaining:Theeffectofhumourintelevisionadvertisinginhongkong,JournalofMarketingCommunications 17 (5) (2011) 319–336

    2011

  68. [70]

    De Ridder, A case study of humour interest: entertainment experiences of entertainment-education television programmes, Ph.D

    A. De Ridder, A case study of humour interest: entertainment experiences of entertainment-education television programmes, Ph.D. thesis, University of Antwerp (2022)

    2022

  69. [71]

    V.Borsotti,P.Bjørn,Humorandstereotypesincomputing:Anequity-focusedapproachtoinstitutionalaccountability,ComputerSupported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 31 (4) (2022) 771–803

    2022

  70. [72]

    L.W.Friedman,H.H.Friedman,Computer-orientedhumor(cohum):‘igetit.’,Tech.rep.,WorkingPaper#CIS-2002-10,CISWorkingPaper Series, Zicklin School of ... (2002)

    2002

  71. [73]

    L. W. Friedman, H. H. Friedman, A framework for the study of computer-oriented humor (cohum) (2003)

    2003

  72. [75]

    Aslam, S

    S. Aslam, S. Munawar, M. Sumal, Z. Khan, M. W. Akram, The effect of humor orientation on team performance with mediating role of workplace bullying, The journal of contemporary issues in business and government 27 (6) (2021) 159–170

    2021

  73. [76]

    D. L. Hu, L. Lefton, P. J. Ludovice, Humour applied to stem education, Systems Research and Behavioral Science 34 (3) (2017) 216–226

    2017

  74. [77]

    Ziv, Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication, The Journal of Experimental Education 57 (1) (1988) 4–15

    A. Ziv, Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication, The Journal of Experimental Education 57 (1) (1988) 4–15

    1988

  75. [78]

    M.B.Wanzer,A.B.Frymier,J.Irwin,Anexplanationoftherelationshipbetweeninstructorhumorandstudentlearning:Instructionalhumor processing theory, Communication education 59 (1) (2010) 1–18

    2010

  76. [79]

    J. A. Thorson, F. Powell, Multidimensional sense of humor scale, Journal of Clinical Psychology

  77. [80]

    R. A. Martin, The situational humor response questionnaire (shrq) and coping humor scale (chs): A decade of research findings (1996)

    1996

  78. [81]

    Kant, Critique of judgment, Vol

    I. Kant, Critique of judgment, Vol. 10, Minerva Heritage Press, 2024

    2024

  79. [82]

    Kant, Critique of judgment, Newcomb Livraria Press, 2008

    I. Kant, Critique of judgment, Newcomb Livraria Press, 2008

    2008

  80. [83]

    Arthur, The World as Will and Representation, Aegitas, 2016

    S. Arthur, The World as Will and Representation, Aegitas, 2016

    2016

  81. [84]

    C. R. Gruner, The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh, Routledge, 2017

    2017

  82. [85]

    Spencer, The physiology of laughter

    H. Spencer, The physiology of laughter. (1875). First Author et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 20 of 21 Role of Humour in SE

  83. [86]

    Freud, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, Routledge, & KaganPaul, 1960

    S. Freud, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, Routledge, & KaganPaul, 1960

    1960

  84. [87]

    Morreall, Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor, John Wiley & Sons, 2011

    J. Morreall, Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor, John Wiley & Sons, 2011

    2011

  85. [88]

    Davies, Ethnic humor around the world: A comparative analysis., Indiana University Press, 1990

    C. Davies, Ethnic humor around the world: A comparative analysis., Indiana University Press, 1990

    1990

  86. [89]

    Kuipers, et al., The sociology of humor, na, 2008

    G. Kuipers, et al., The sociology of humor, na, 2008

    2008

  87. [90]

    J. R. Gilbert, Performing marginality: Humor, gender, and cultural critique, Wayne State University Press, 2004

    2004

  88. [91]

    Persson, Framing social interaction: Continuities and cracks in Goffman’s Frame Analysis, Taylor & Francis, 2018

    A. Persson, Framing social interaction: Continuities and cracks in Goffman’s Frame Analysis, Taylor & Francis, 2018

    2018

  89. [92]

    R. A. Martin, T. Ford, The psychology of humor: An integrative approach, Academic press, 2018

    2018

  90. [94]

    Keltner, G

    D. Keltner, G. A. Bonanno, A study of laughter and dissociation: distinct correlates of laughter and smiling during bereavement., Journal of personality and social psychology 73 (4) (1997) 687

    1997

  91. [95]

    Ekman, An argument for basic emotions, Cognition & emotion 6 (3-4) (1992) 169–200

    P. Ekman, An argument for basic emotions, Cognition & emotion 6 (3-4) (1992) 169–200

    1992

  92. [97]

    Sutton-Smith, The ambiguity of play, Harvard University Press, 2001

    B. Sutton-Smith, The ambiguity of play, Harvard University Press, 2001

    2001

  93. [98]

    J. C. Meyer, Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication, Communication theory 10 (3) (2000) 310–331

    2000

  94. [101]

    K. T. Dyck, S. Holtzman, Understanding humor styles and well-being: The importance of social relationships and gender, Personality and individual differences 55 (1) (2013) 53–58

    2013

  95. [102]

    N. A. Kuiper, M. Grimshaw, C. Leite, G. Kirsh, Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being (2004)

    2004

  96. [103]

    P. A. Vernon, R. A. Martin, J. A. Schermer, A. Mackie, A behavioral genetic investigation of humor styles and their correlations with the big-5 personality dimensions, Personality and individual differences 44 (5) (2008) 1116–1125

    2008

  97. [104]

    Madampe, R

    K. Madampe, R. Hoda, J. Grundy, The emotional roller coaster of responding to requirements changes in software engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49 (3) (2022) 1171–1187

    2022

  98. [105]

    M. L. Apte, Humor and laughter: An anthropological approach, (No Title) (1985)

    1985

  99. [106]

    M. J. Mulkay, On humour: Its nature and its place in modern society, (No Title) (1988)

    1988

  100. [107]

    Lefcourt, Humor: The psychology of living buoyantly, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001

    H. Lefcourt, Humor: The psychology of living buoyantly, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001

    2001

  101. [108]

    Aaker, N

    J. Aaker, N. Bagdonas, Humor, Seriously: Why humor is a secret weapon in business and life (And how anyone can harness it. Even you.), Crown Currency, 2021

    2021

  102. [110]

    R.A.Martin,H.M.Lefcourt,Senseofhumorasamoderatoroftherelationbetweenstressorsandmoods.,Journalofpersonalityandsocial psychology 45 (6) (1983) 1313

    1983

  103. [111]

    N.Lehmann-Willenbrock,J.A.Allen,Howfunareyourmeetings?investigatingtherelationshipbetweenhumorpatternsinteaminteractions and team performance., Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (6) (2014) 1278

    2014

  104. [112]

    T. Liu, H. Yang, F.-J. Wang, A creative approach to humour degree calculation for utterances, in: 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C), IEEE, 2020, pp. 650–656. Appendix A: Papers List First Author et al.:Prepr...

    2020

  105. [113]

    Romero, A

    E. Romero, A. Pescosolido, Humor and group effectiveness, Human relations 61 (3) (2008) 395–418 ([26])

    2008

  106. [114]

    Robert, J

    C. Robert, J. E. Wilbanks, The wheel model of humor: Humor events and affect in organizations, Human Relations 65 (9) (2012) 1071–1099 ([27])

    2012

  107. [115]

    Plester, Crossing the line: Boundaries of workplace humour and fun, Employee Relations 31 (6) (2009) 584–599.([56])

    B. Plester, Crossing the line: Boundaries of workplace humour and fun, Employee Relations 31 (6) (2009) 584–599.([56])

    2009

  108. [116]

    Moussawi, R

    S. Moussawi, R. Benbunan-Fich, The effect of voice and humour on users’ perceptions of personal intelligent agents, Behaviour & Information Technology 40 (15) (2021) 1603–1626.([39])

    2021

  109. [117]

    Watson, V

    C. Watson, V. Drew, Humour and laughter in meetings: Influence, decision-making and the emergence of leadership, Discourse & Communication 11 (3) (2017) 314–329.([29])

    2017

  110. [118]

    Plester, Healthy humour: Using humour to cope at work, Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 4 (1) (2009) 89–102.([30])

    B. Plester, Healthy humour: Using humour to cope at work, Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 4 (1) (2009) 89–102.([30])

    2009

  111. [119]

    M. H. Abel, Interaction of humor and gender in moderating relationships between stress and outcomes, The Journal of psychology 132 (3) (1998) 267–276. ([22])

    1998

  112. [120]

    Robert, W

    C. Robert, W. Yan, The case for developing new research on humor and culture in organizations: Toward a higher grade of manure, in: Research in personnel and human resources management, 2007, pp. 205–267.([54])

    2007

  113. [121]

    A. Cann, C. L. Zapata, H. B. Davis, Positive and negative styles of humor in communication: Evidence for the importance of considering both styles, Communication Quarterly 57 (4) (2009) 452–468([23])

    2009

  114. [122]

    Bergeron, M.-A

    J. Bergeron, M.-A. Vachon, The effects of humour usage by financial advisors in sales encounters, International Journal of Bank Marketing 26 (6) (2008) 376–398.([34])

    2008

  115. [123]

    Bitterly, A

    B. Bitterly, A. W. Brooks, Sarcasm, self-deprecation, and inside jokes: A user’s guide to humor at work, Harvard Business Review 98 (4) (2020) 96–103.([24]) [12] R. A. Martin, P. Puhlik-Doris, G. Larsen, J. Gray, K. Weir, Individual differences in uses of humor and their relat...

    2020

  116. [124]

    M. P. Mulder, A. Nijholt, Humour research: State of art (2002)([63]) [14] N. Lehmann-Willenbrock, J. A. Allen, How fun are your meetings? investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance., Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (6) (201...

    2002

  117. [125]

    Borsotti, P

    V. Borsotti, P. Bjørn, Humor and stereotypes in computing: An equity-focused approach to institutional accountability, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 31 (4) (2022) 771–803([71])

    2022

  118. [126]

    Krienke, G

    D. Krienke, G. Bansal, Information system requirement elicitation: The role of humor (2017)([40])

    2017

  119. [127]

    Christman, Instructor humor as a tool to increase student engagement (2018)([33])

    C. Christman, Instructor humor as a tool to increase student engagement (2018)([33])

    2018

  120. [128]

    D. M. R. Barros, L. R. Begosso, J. A. Fabri, A. L’Erario, The use of comic strips in the teaching of software engineering, in: 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–8.([32]) [20] D. Tiwari, T. Toady, M. Monperrus, B. Baudry, With great humor come...

    2021

  121. [129]

    H. S. Al Obthani, R. B. Omar, et al., A contextual model on the role of management in fostering humor at work, International Journal of Business and Social Science 3 (24) (2012)([31])

    2012

  122. [130]

    K. N. Khan, M. F. Jan, K. Wazir, Z. Khan, M. Z. Safdar, Leading with happiness; analysing the effect of leaders’ humour styles on employees’ creativity., Webology 19 (3) (2022).([36])

    2022

  123. [131]

    W. G. Biemans, E. K. Huizingh, Why so serious? the effects of humour on creativity and innovation, Creativity and Innovation Management 33 (2) (2024) 181–196.([35]) [25] T. H. Pham, L. K. Bartels, Laughing with you or laughing at you: The influence of playfulness and humor on ...

    2024

  124. [132]

    M. G. R. Pandin, C. S. Waloejo, M. Munir, H. K. Dewi, The influence of humor on students resilience, resmilitaris 13 (3) (2023) 1683–1693([42]) [27] T. Liu, H. Yang, F.-J. Wang, A creative approach to humour degree calculation for utterances, in: 2020 IEEE 20th International C...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.