The Influence of Humor on the Attitudes and Behavior of Interns

Peer Review Proof - Not Final Version

HE WHO LAUGHS BEST, LEAVES LAST: THE INFLUENCE OF

HUMOR ON THE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS OF INTERNS

Journal: Academy of Management Learning & Education

Manuscript ID: AMLE-2013-0368-RES.R3

Manuscript Type: Research & Reviews

Submission Keywords:

Humor (or fun) as a motivator – benefits; pitfalls; caveats, Internships

programs, Connecting Management Theory and Practice, Structural Equations Modeling

Academy of Management Learning & Education


1

HE WHO LAUGHS BEST, LEAVES LAST: THE INFLUENCE OF HUMOR ON THE

ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR OF INTERNS

Authors:

Filipe Sobral

Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration

Getulio Vargas Foundation - Brazil

Gazi Islam

Grenoble Ecole de Management, France

Insper Institute of Education and Research, Brazil

Acknowledgements:

This research was partially funded by grants from the Brazilian National Research Council

(CNPq) and the Rio de Janeiro Research Foundation (FAPERJ). We thank the editors, Dr.

Kenneth Brown and Dr. Holly Brower, and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful

comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve this article.

Brief professional note:

Filipe Sobral is an associate professor of organizational behavior at the Brazilian School of

Public and Business Administration at Getulio Vargas Foundation. His current research interests

are leadership processes, conflict dynamics and ethical decision-making. [email protected]

Gazi Islam is currently Associate Professor at Grenoble Ecole de Management, France. He has

served as faculty at Insper, Tulane University, and the University of New Orleans. His current

research interests include the organizational antecedents and consequences of identity, and the

relations between identity, group dynamics and the production of group and organizational

cultures. [email protected]

Page 1 of 50 Academy of Management Learning & Education

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


2

HE WHO LAUGHS BEST, LEAVES LAST: THE INFLUENCE OF HUMOR ON THE

ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS OF INTERNS

ABSTRACT

Internships have become both an important part of undergraduate education and a critical tool for

management education and organizational recruitment. To better understand the drivers of

interns’ work outcomes, we hypothesize that supervisor humor plays a signaling role related to

interns that sends implicit messages about organizational and supervisory relationships and

thereby affects interns’ attitudes and behaviors. Using a sample of 184 students enrolled in

internship programs, this study empirically examines, through structural equation modeling, the

relationship between supervisor humor use and intern satisfaction, intention to stay and negligent

behavior at work. Our findings suggest that the use of positive humor is associated with a higher

level of intern satisfaction, whereas the use of negative humor has the opposite effect. Intern

satisfaction, moreover, is found to mediate the relationship between humor and interns’ attitudes

at work, suggesting that a supervisor’s use of appropriate humor can, through satisfaction, reduce

negligent behavior and improve willingness to accept permanent employment at the organization.

Based on these findings, we discuss the importance of the dyadic intern-supervisor relationship as

a key determinant of internship effectiveness.

Keywords: Internship; Humor; Satisfaction, Intention to stay; Negligent behavior

Page 2 of 50Academy of Management Learning & Education

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


3

Internships form a crucial link between business schools and the market (Ehrensal, 2001;

Liu, Xu, & Weitz, 2011; Perlin, 2011; Zhao & Liden; 2011), not only affecting students’ personal

(Haugh & Talwar, 2010), educational (D’Abate, Youndt, & Wenzel 2009), and career outcomes

(Liu et al., 2011) but also playing an increasingly important role in businesses’ recruiting and

selection (Narayanan, Olk & Fukami, 2010; Zhao & Liden, 2011). By providing realistic job

previews for candidates, together with rich evaluation mechanisms for businesses, internships

allow for an increased fit between firms and potential full-time job candidates. In addition to

developing future professionals by offering them real-life work experiences (Clark, 2003;

Daugherty, 2000), internships are valuable to companies as a source of human resources (Gault,

Redington, & Schalger, 2000; Hurst, 2008), securing a talent pool already entrenched in the

organization’s cultural values (Tovey, 2001). Not surprisingly, then, many corporations have

begun to rely almost exclusively on internships as a recruitment mechanism (Gerdes, 2009).

Unexpectedly, despite the growing popularity of internships (Liu et al., 2011), little

research has investigated the antecedents of their effectiveness (Narayanan et al., 2010). A few

noteworthy studies have identified the importance of direct supervisors’ support during the

internship experience and the relationship between the characteristics of the work performed and

internship satisfaction (e.g., Anson & Forsberg, 1990; D’Abate et al., 2009). Although relatively

little research has appeared, the unique work-related experience of interns and how they use

supervisor and organizational cues to construct their initial workplace experiences have become

areas of increasing concern in the fields of management (Zhao & Liden, 2011) and management

education (D’Abate et al., 2009).

Because internships, as a rapidly emerging fusion of educational settings and the

workplace, inhabit a conceptual gray area (Perlin, 2011), much work remains to understand their

dynamics. Findings regarding internship experiences may help students before, during or after


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


4

internships by facilitating choices and promoting reflection both inside and outside the classroom.

Understanding intern outcomes is also important for educational institutions, which can use

internship research to better design internship partnerships and programs and to improve

students’ educational experiences through counseling.

Additionally, because interns tend to be embedded in mentoring relationships from which

they derive their expectations about their organizations (Liu et al., 2011), one would expect

mentors to perform an important signaling function in organizations (cf., Wrzesniewski, Dutton,

& Debebe, 2003). According to this perspective, relationships communicate important

information about both the task and interpersonal aspects of work life, and, thus, they are the

proximal vehicles of organizational culture and policies. Furthermore, supervisors’ signals related

to the types of relationships to expect at work should have a strong relationship to interns’

subsequent job-related attitudes. Indeed, Rothman (2003) confirms that interpersonal

relationships are key to interns’ subsequent attitudes, and D’Abate, Youndt, and Wenzel (2009)

identify that the relationship with the supervisor is an important determinant of intern

satisfaction.

If supervisor relationships act largely as signaling mechanisms through which individuals

learn about their organizations’ cultures, then the use of humor as a signaling device (cf.,

Adelsward & Oberg, 1998; Romero & Pescosolido, 2008) should play an important role in this

process. Studies of humor in the workplace (e.g., Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999; Duncan,

Smeltzer & Leap, 1990; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) have pointed to its role in defining, teaching

and clarifying aspects of the workplace, while making the boss-subordinate relationship more

positive and less tense (Decker, 1987; Decker & Rotondo, 2001; Malone, 1980). As a result, the

use of humor by the direct supervisor may be associated with intern satisfaction and is an


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


5

important variable in explaining negligent behavior during the internship and, ultimately, the

intention to continue in the organization after the internship concludes.

However, humor can be a double-edged sword. In addition to creating rapport and easing

tension, humor can create divisions, vent dissatisfaction, and constitute a form of workplace

cynicism or resistance (e.g., Fleming & Spicer, 2002; Rodrigues & Collinson, 1995). The

ambivalent nature of workplace humor makes it likely to have divergent effects in the workplace,

contributing to its richness as an area of study.

The goal of this paper is to understand how the direct supervisor’s use of humor as a

communication strategy relates to interns’ attitudes and behaviors. More specifically, this study

attempts to examine to what extent the use of positive and negative forms of humor in the

workplace determines satisfaction with an internship program, negligent behavior in the

workplace and interns’ intention to be permanently hired by the organization. A structural

equation model is tested to evaluate the dynamic relationship between these constructs.

Although the relationship between job attitudes and employee outcomes has been well

documented in the literature (e.g., Brief, 1998), this study differs from the existing literature in

several ways. First, this study focuses on the impact of humor on workplace relationships, which

is not well established in the literature (e.g., Mesmer-Magnus, Glew, & Viswesvaran, 2012).

Second, the effects of negative humor in particular have not been tested in this context. Third, the

research has not applied existing theory to internships, an emerging, yet understudied

organizational context. Finally, the mediation mechanism between humor and work outcomes via

attitudes remains unclear, with most humor research examining only direct effects.

The rest of this paper unfolds as follows. First, we review the extant literature on

organizational internships, arguing that the particular importance of relationships as

organizational information conduits makes signaling phenomena such as humor particularly


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


6

salient to these relationships and predictive of job-related attitudes and outcomes. Next, we

describe an empirical examination of the effects of supervisor humor on interns’ attitudes and

behaviors, demonstrating that these effects depend on the specific informational content of the

supervisor’s humor. Finally, we discuss these effects in terms of our understanding of intern

relationships and humor in organizations.

INTERNSHIPS AS EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THROUGH RELATIONSHIPS

Increasingly, traditional classroom models of business education are questioned (D’Abate

et al., 2009), with some claiming that business education has little or no relationship to

organizational reality (Ashkanasy, 2006). As a result, supervised internships are becoming more

important to provide a bridge between education and practical work experience (Navarro, 2008).

Although there are no official government statistics on internships, there are an estimated 1 to 2

million internships annually in the U.S. (Perlin, 2011), and research centers such as Vault

estimate that between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of undergraduate students participating in

internships increased from 3% to 77% (Vault, 2000).

Internships offer employers numerous benefits that range from facilitating knowledge

transfer from universities to organizations (Narayanan et al., 2010) to better screening of new

potential hires (Gabris & Mitchell, 1989; Gault et al., 2000; Hurst, 2008; Tovey, 2001).

Internships not only reduce costs but also increase flexibility in recruiting, selection and training

(Bailey, Hughes, & Barr 2000). Additionally, organizations are likely to achieve higher retention

rates when they hire their interns for full-time positions (D’Abate et al., 2009). The importance of

internships in recruiting and retention suggests that employers should not consider interns only as

temporary labor but that they should take seriously attempts to promote interns’ effective work

behaviors and intention to remain. From the student perspective, internships are a form of


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


7

experiential learning that assist in the development of relevant skills tied to job contexts (Garavan

& Murphy, 2001), ease the transition from student to professional (Herr & Cramer, 1988; Paulson

& Baker, 1999; Taylor, 1988), and increase employability and starting salary (Gault et al., 2000).

Thus, effective leadership should benefit interns, who may see their work as the first step in

developing a career rather than as a part-time experiment.

In addition to students and organizations, educational institutions benefit from internship

programs. Some studies have shown that an internship program can enhance an educational

institution’s reputation and visibility (Divine, Linrud, Miller, & Wilson, 2007) and help it to

assess student learning and curriculum development (Sapp & Zhang, 2009). Furthermore,

feedback from internship sponsors can be used as a real-world assessment of students’ skills and

as input for curricular changes. Finally, the contacts with professionals in the business

community provided by internships can improve faculty members’ personal and professional

growth because internships may lead to opportunities for faculty consulting or research project

development (Divine et al., 2007).

Given all the potential benefits of internships, it is surprising that few studies have

examined the factors that influence positive internship experiences (D’Abate et al., 2009). The

literature on internships is largely descriptive and anecdotal, and very few studies have provided

hypothesis testing (Narayanan et al., 2010). What is evident from the literature, however, is that

supervisor relationships are central to the internship experience (Liu et al., 2011). Although these

relationships are crucial in organizations more generally, interns may be particularly sensitive to

supervisors’ behavior for several reasons. First, interns may not have a great deal of prior

experience in the workplace. Thus, being eager to construct a broad view of the workplace more

generally, they may be hyper-vigilant to the cues and signals that they receive during their

internships. Second, because internships are framed as “educational experiences” and linked to


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


8

class credit, interns may be likely to use organizational experiences as forms of learning and to

see supervisors as mentors (cf., Liu et al., 2011). Third, because interns may inhabit low power

positions, and we know from the social psychology literature that low power stimulates vigilance

and attention to others (Keltner, Grunfeld, & Anderson, 2003), they should be highly sensitive to

supervisor messages. Finally, because interns often contemplate seeking a permanent job in the

organization (Zhao & Liden, 2011) but are not yet fully integrated, they may be searching for

cues to inform their future options and preferences.

Therefore, we argue that supervisor relationship quality may act as a vehicle for interns’

perception of organizational aspects. This implies that intern satisfaction, together with other job-

related attitudes and behavior, should be related to the impressions that interns gain through these

relationships. Conversely, interns’ satisfaction is a concern not only to students but also to

organizations because research has demonstrated links between intern satisfaction and important

behavioral variables that affect organizational outcomes, such as stress, commitment,

absenteeism and turnover (Hellman, 1997; Knoop, 1995; Sagie, 1998; Steinhardt et al., 2003;

Tett & Meyer, 1993).

In this study, we focus on two primary types of outcomes. The first, intent to remain with

the organization, is defined as the intern’s desire to continue within the organization and involves

the desire to develop a career within the organization in the capacity of formal employment.

Intention to remain is key to internships because of their centrality as potential recruitment

mechanisms, and intention to remain is central to interns’ career development. This variable is

particularly relevant to interns because of the inherent precariousness of such positions vis-à-vis

traditional employment, raising the important question of when interns will attempt to “solidify”

their employment status. The second outcome variable, negligent behavior, is defined as

remaining at work but putting forth less effort, attention, or engagement (e.g., Leck & Saunders,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


9

1992). Both negligent behavior and intent to remain are derived from Hirschman’s (1970) exit-

voice-loyalty-neglect model, in which exit and neglect intentions are low-power responses to

negative work experiences. Negligent behavior and intent to remain are thus particularly relevant

to intern situations because interns presumably are not usually powerful actors. Because loyalty

may be less critical in relationships that are often short term, and many internships may limit the

possibility for voice, exit and neglect-related behaviors may be a particularly salient response to

intern dissatisfaction and thus are an intuitive outcome measure.

As set forth below, humor allows for the establishment of positive supervisor

relationships that pass important organizational information through the interpersonal

relationship. These relationships tacitly teach interns about the workplace via the subtle signals

present in humor episodes. To see how this is the case, we turn to research on humor in

organizations.

HUMOR AS INFORMATION ABOUT WORK THROUGH RELATIONSHIPS

According to Duncan, Smeltzer and Leap (1990: 255), the study of humor in interpersonal

relationships in the workplace “has the potential to generate important ideas for the field of

business administration and organizational behavior”. Among the range of formal motivational

mechanisms from which managers can choose, humor is one of the most promising because it

establishes relationships through signals that go beyond the interpersonal relationship to represent

sensitive and elusive organizational aspects (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). A recent meta-

analysis by Mesmer-Magnus et al. (2012) supports the role of humor in work-related and leader

effectiveness.

However, as Crawford (1994: 54) notes, “Perhaps out of all communication strategies

used by leaders, the use of humor may be the most promising, but is also the least understood”.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


10

Some early reviews note the continuing, sporadic nature of such research (Duncan, Smeltzer, &

Leap, 1990), and, almost 20 years later, Mesmer-Magnus et al. (2012) acknowledge that

fundamental debates about the conceptualization of humor remain unresolved, particularly with

respect to forms of humor that deviate from “positive” humor (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen,

Gray, & Weir, 2003; Veselka, Schermer, Martin, & Vernon, 2010). Acknowledging the

multifaceted nature of humor, they both maintain the predictive importance of humor and lament

the fact that there is “little shared understanding” of its effects (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012, p.

155). However, in their meta-analysis of the area, they maintain that throughout these debates

there is the recognition that humor is fundamentally a communicative phenomenon between

individuals.

The interpersonal nature of humor explains the ease of socialization by bringing team

members closer together (Duncan, 1982) and improving interpersonal relationships (Romero &

Cruthirds, 2006). Studies have found that humor increases staff morale (Gruner, 1996), forming

the basis for a positive organizational culture (Clouse & Spurgeon, 1995); it also encourages

collective and individual creativity (Arendt, 2009; Lang & Lee, 2010; Murdock & Ganim, 1993),

improves motivation (Crawford, 1994), and increases both group productivity (Clouse &

Spurgeon, 1995) and overall organizational efficiency (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Moreover,

by promoting a more pleasant work environment and allowing people to better address

ambiguity, humor is an effective tool for dealing with stress (Arendt, 2009; Duncan, 1982;

Yovitch, Dale, & Hudak, 1990). Thus, not surprisingly, we conclude that humor not only

improves the atmosphere in the workplace (Decker & Rotondo, 2001) but also has an impact on

organizational performance (Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999). Additionally, because humor is

considered a communicational style or set of behaviors (e.g., Crawford, 1994) rather than a stable

personality trait, it may provide a malleable factor in management that can be learned, trained, or


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


11

otherwise leveraged for organizational advantage (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). Although one

might question the possibility of learning to use humor well or of training managers to be

humorous (although see Romero & Cruthirds, 2006), managers might at the very least be trained

to refrain from more ineffective forms of humor, thus providing some degree of organizational

control over deleterious humor outcomes.

With respect to the communication function of humor, Adelsward and Oberg (1998) find

that humor signals sensitive organizational information that might be difficult to explicitly

express, and it often contains important information. Furthermore, humor increases the

persuasiveness of supervisor communications (Greatbatch & Clark, 2002), having a positive

effect on organizational socialization by making interactions less tense (Morreall, 1991).

According to Meyer (2000), one way that humor works is through a principle of

incongruity, whereby surprising aspects of the environment, when resolved, give rise to

humorous reactions that clarify situations and create identifications. Thus, for example, a

manager can tacitly provide organizational information by making jokes, where “getting” the

joke implicitly requires accepting the underlying organizational premise. Thus, for example, if a

manager jokingly says, “Well, we might have to work all night tonight”, he may be passing both

information about the business’s work ethic and humorously exaggerating the amount of

required, creating both a socialization message and a reinforcing affirmation about respect for the

employee. Such a statement also shows that the manager not only understands the worker’s initial

hesitation at such a suggestion but also commiserates, thus creating a social bond. Such messages

are simultaneously engaging and informative and thus draw attention to and reduce the need for

prolonged explanations (Gruner, 1996). We refer to these socially reaffirming forms of humor as

positive humor.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


12

At the same time, humor can function to distance individuals and to enforce norms

(Meyer, 2000), effects that can create interpersonal tension and constitute an assertion of power

over others (Duncan, Leap, & Smeltzer, 1990). Thus, although the majority of the literature

discusses positive humor, some studies suggest that humor also has a “dark side” and may be

more complex than simply promoting social bonds. For example, Holmes and Marra (2006) find

that humor can be used either as a way to collaborate and create solidarity or as a way to generate

conflict. Duncan et al. (1990), at the same time, note the possibility for supervisory humor to spill

over into harassment, depending on its framing. Some authors discuss negative forms of humor

that can be used aggressively to criticize and provoke others, such as sarcasm, irony, ridicule and

mockery (Chen & Martin, 2007; Martin et al., 2003).

Indeed, humor can tacitly send negative messages about organizations under a veneer of

positivity, thus constituting a subtle “weapon” against the organization (Fleming & Spicer, 2002).

Similarly, Sturdy, and Fineman (2001) describe the “safety valve” function of workplace humor

as a way to safely send negative messages and thus to vent frustrations. This aspect of negative

humor makes sense given the “incongruity” principle described previously; humorous techniques

may be used precisely when managers wish to express contradictory organizational messages

(Hatch & Ehrlich, 1993), as suggested in the example above. In this context, some authors

describe negative workplace humor as a “significant form” of misbehavior (Ackroyd &

Thompson, 1999: 103). In cases in which employees use supervisor cues to interpret

organizational aspects, one would expect the use of negative humor to send a doubly negative

message, not only pointing out unsatisfactory organizational aspects but also highlighting the

difficulty in openly discussing those aspects. Thus, such humor should be negatively related to

job attitudes. We refer to such forms of abrasive humor as negative humor.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


13

We see from the above discussion that humor contains a multitude of functions and social

uses (e.g., Cooper, 2008; Duncan et al., 1990; Meyer, 2000). Although it is beyond the scope of

this paper to examine each function distinctly, we broadly distinguish between positive and

negative uses of humor in the workplace. The majority of the literature has shown the positive

effects of humor in organizations, in terms of both attitudes and outcomes (e.g., Mesmer-Magnus

et al., 2012), and suggests that individual and organizational outcomes at work are influenced by

the use of humor (Avolio et al., 1999; Decker, 1987; Vecchio et al., 2009). However, there is far

less research that has examined the potentially negative aspects of humor (for exceptions see

Fleming & Spicer, 2002; Martin et al., 2003; Veselka et al., 2010). Moreover, although past

research has examined the workforce generally, our interest is in the intern population. This

interest highlights the central aspects of supervisor-intern relationships and socialization and

learning. Additionally, it allows us to explore an organizational population that has not been

sufficiently studied (Narayanan et al., 2010) and that has key implications for management

learning and education (Zhao & Liden, 2011). In the next section, we apply the literature

outlined above to specific theoretical predictions involving interns and describe an empirical

study designed to test these predictions.

RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

Although the above studies have not specifically focused on interns, there is reason to

believe that the effects that those studies find are especially pertinent to this population. As noted

above, the supervisor relationship is likely to be especially salient to interns (Liu et al., 2011).

Because interns are both learning about organizational life and considering possible employment

at the organization and may be particularly driven by career development motives

(Wrzesniewski, Mccauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997), they are likely to interpret supervisor


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


14

messages with particular enthusiasm and take supervisor messages seriously (Wrzesniewski et

al., 2003). In this context, humor is likely to play an important role in forming intern job

attitudes and subsequent intention to remain in or to leave the organization.

Positive Humor. Because the use of positive humor by managers facilitates the

development of interpersonal relationships, reduces workplace stress, and aids in workplace

socialization (Duncan & Feisal, 1989; Morreall, 1991), it is likely to lead interns to feel as though

they are part of the group (Duncan, 1982) and to see the organization in light of its positive

aspects. Mesmer-Magnus et al. (2012), for instance, specify multiple ways in which leaders’

positive humor can improve workplace environments, such as reducing supervisor-subordinate

social distance, facilitating learning and change, and creating affective bonds. Thus, it stands to

reason that positive humor, as a communication strategy by the direct supervisor, creates a more

relaxed and informal work environment that increases interns’ overall feeling of happiness with

their internship program:

H1a: The supervisor’s use of positive humor is positively associated with interns’

satisfaction.

In addition to its effect on intern satisfaction, humor can be taken as a sign of an

organization’s open, welcoming attitude. Young workers, who prefer a “fun” workplace (Romero

& Pescosolido 2008), are likely to be drawn to a “fun” work situation, reducing their withdrawal

behaviors (although some have noted potential negative effects of fun, e.g., Meyer, 1999;

Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). Additionally, the increased persuasiveness of humorous messages

(Greatbatch & Clark, 2002) should augment supervisors’ influence and cement interns’ sense that

it is worth continuing at the organization. Thus, positive humor should exert a direct negative

effect on negligent behavior during the internship and a positive effect on increasing the intention

to be permanently hired by the host company after the end of the internship:


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


15

H1b: The supervisor’s use of positive humor is negatively associated with interns’

negligent behavior.

H1c: The supervisor’s use of positive humor is positively associated with interns’

intention to remain at the company after the end of the internship.

Negative Humor. Despite the largely positive effects hypothesized above, humor takes

multiple forms and is used to communicate diverse messages (Decker & Rotondo, 1999, 2001;

Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). Negative humor may result in poor conduct and cause political

and aggressive behavior, affecting the work climate and interpersonal relationships (Decker &

Rotondo, 2001). Negative humor is also associated with negative emotional reactions, such as

neuroticism, anger, and aggression (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). In fact, studies have shown

that undesirable and less healthy forms of humor may not only irritate and strain those involved

(Duncan & Feisal, 1989) but also hinder the development of interpersonal relationships (Kuiper

et al., 2004). Thus, when humor is used to attack or ridicule (e.g., Chen & Martin, 2007) or to

pass negative tacit messages about the organization (e.g., Fleming & Spicer, 2002), one can

predict both that the supervisor-intern relationship is compromised and that interns perceive the

organization in a negative light; thus, humor used to attack or ridicule leads to dissatisfaction

with the internship program:

H2a: The supervisor’s use of negative humor is negatively associated with interns’

satisfaction.

Beyond the evaluative content of negative humor as a driver of intern satisfaction, we can

also imagine a direct effect on withdrawal, negligent behavior and turnover intention. Some

authors describe the harsh conditions, including mockery, associated with apprenticeships and

internships (Perlin, 2011). Interns, seen as newcomers to the organization, usually are one of the


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


16

primary targets of negative humor (Duncan & Feisal, 1989) and are subject to various situations

in which they may encounter mockery, irony and sarcasm, often with sexual undertones (e.g.,

Alcadipani & Rosa, 2010). The negative psychological effects of this kind of humor (Frewen et

al., 2008) may result in interns wanting to leave an organization in which supervisors use

abrasive humor in their communication. Additionally, interns may be motivated to avoid work

situations in which they expect to encounter such humor, leading to increased negligent behavior:

H2b: The supervisor’s use of negative humor is positively associated with interns’

negligent behavior.

H2c: The supervisor’s use of negative humor is negatively associated with interns’

intention to remain in the company after the end of the internship.

Mediation effects of humor and intern satisfaction. Thus far, we have argued that positive

and negative humor relate to interns’ satisfaction with the internship program, negligence and

intention to obtain a full-time job at the host company after the end of the internship. These

effects complement past work on the diverse effects of humor while following the call of

Mesmer-Magnus et al. (2012) for more research on negative forms of humor. That literature,

however, stops short of examining moderation/mediation mechanisms that further explain the

effects of humor. We thus complete our theoretical model by positing that work evaluations

provide a mechanism by which humor relates to negligent behavior and turnover intention. In

other words, humor alone is not expected to relate to interns’ work outcomes, but, instead, the

satisfaction or dissatisfaction caused by the supervisor’s use of humor is expected to explain the

link. More specifically, we suggest that positive humor affects the latter through increasing

satisfaction, which in turn decreases negligent and withdrawal behaviors at work and increases

the intention to remain at the company, whereas negative humor has the opposite effect.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


17

As described above, humor both increases affective social bonds and transmits relevant

work-related information in organizations Adelsward & Oberg, 1998; Decker & Rotondo, 2001).

Intern satisfaction is likely to be closely related to both of these effects of humor because

satisfaction contains both cognitive and affective components (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). On

the cognitive level, humor can send positive (or negative) work-related information used to form

attitudes, whereas, on the affective level, humor can increase positive (or negative) affect,

influencing satisfaction through a separate channel. Furthermore, positive attitudes towards the

work environment reflect employees’ appreciation of organizational working conditions and

increase their propensity to stay with the organization (e.g., Hom, Mitchell, Lee & Griffeth,

2012). On the other hand, less satisfied employees are more likely to leave the organization (e.g.,

Judge et al., 2001). Similarly, among interns who stay, satisfaction should lead to reduced work

negligence, such as absenteeism and lateness (e.g., Elicker et al., 2008; Darr & Johns, 2008).

These negligent behaviors, as described by Farrell (1983), are responses to dissatisfaction that go

beyond simple turnover decisions. Because past research (e.g., Podsakoff, LePine & LePine,

2007) has established links between such attitudes and withdrawal and exit behavior, humor’s

effects on such behaviors may be largely due to its effects on attitudes.

Thus, positive humor may have an indirect effect on interns’ propensity to stay in an

organization, and among those who stay, to reduce their negligent behavior. Negative humor, on

the contrary, should exert a negative indirect effect on the intention to stay and conversely, a

positive indirect effect on negligent behavior, mediated by intern satisfaction. In conclusion, we

predict that interns’ satisfaction should mediate the relationship between the supervisor’s humor

and interns’ behaviors; nevertheless, we believe that it is possible that other mechanisms,

including relational effects such as identification, could also explain this relationship


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


18

independently of satisfaction. Thus, we posit intern satisfaction as one possible mediating

mechanism between humor and intern outcomes.

H3a: Intern satisfaction mediates the relationship between the supervisor’s use of humor

and intention to continue in the company.

H3b: Intern satisfaction mediates the relationship between the supervisor’s use of humor

and negligent behavior.

METHOD

Participants and Procedures

Participants were recruited from career centers and internship programs at three

universities in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Brazil has the advantage of an extensive history of using

internships in higher education. The Brazilian internship model typically involves undergraduate

students working on sponsored projects during the final years before graduation. In Brazil,

internships are required for most academic majors (including business, law, psychology and

engineering) and are federally regulated by the Internship Act (Law no. 11.788, September 25,

2008). The Internship Act defines internships as a supervised educational mechanism that aims to

prepare students to enter the labor market, specifying that interns must receive academic

oversight and that the work activities must be related to their academic majors. Thus, unlike in

other contexts, such as the U.S. (Perlin, 2011), in Brazil internships are legally formalized and

require significant academic involvement.

Survey invitations were administered directly by emails from business school career

centers and not in discrete collection sessions. Therefore, we do not know the precise number of

interns who were invited to participate and thus cannot provide an exact response rate. The

survey invitation included a cover letter explaining the research topic, instructions to participants


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


19

and the survey link. As an incentive, students were offered lottery tickets for a prize that was

subsequently distributed (although attrition from the study did not affect receipt of the tickets).

The voluntary and anonymous nature of the study was emphasized to encourage candid responses

and reduce social desirability bias (King & Bruner, 2000). Questionnaires were administered in

Portuguese, and items were translated using the standard method of back-translation (Brislin,

1980). First, the survey was translated into Portuguese by a bilingual speaker, and second,

another bilingual speaker was asked to back-translate the same items into English without having

access to the original survey. Both translators were asked to comment on any items that they saw

as ambiguous with respect to semantic equivalence. That process did not give rise to major

changes to any of the items.

A total of 184 interns completed the questionnaire. On average, the students were 22 years

old, 55% were female and 67% were in their final year before graduation. Most of the

participants were business majors (44%), while the remaining participants came from a variety of

academic backgrounds, including engineering (9%), law (9%), economics (4%) and psychology

(3%). Approximately 52% of the participants had male supervisors.

Measures

Use of humor

Eight items regarding the supervisor’s use of humor were measured in terms of frequency

of occurrence on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always). The

four items that measured positive humor were taken from Avolio et al. (1999) and included items

such as “My supervisor uses humor to take the edge off during stressful periods” and “My

supervisor uses amusing stories to defuse conflicts”. The other four items that measured negative

humor were developed from the literature on humor and leadership (e.g., Decker & Rotondo,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


20

1999; 2001) and included items such as “My supervisor mocks people at work, embarrassing

them” and “My supervisor tells dirty jokes that often make people uncomfortable”. The reliability

of the humor scales in the present study was 0.83 and 0.93 for positive and negative humor,

respectively.

Intern satisfaction

Intern satisfaction was measured with a 4-item scale derived from Brayfield and Rothe’s

(1951) Job Satisfaction Index, using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Some examples of the items included “I feel fairly satisfied with

my internship” and “I feel that I am happier with my internship than most people”. The reliability

of this scale in this study was 0.87.

Intention to stay and negligent behavior

Intention to stay and negligent behavior were each measured with 3-item scales adapted

from Leck and Saunders (1992). Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale, ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), how strongly they agreed with various behaviors

at work. Negligent behavior items included “I put in less effort in my work than I know I can”, “I

show up late for work even when I could make it in on time” and “I take more and longer breaks

than I should”. Intention to stay was measured by the following items: “I wish to continue

working at the company until I complete my bachelor degree”, “I wish to develop a career at this

organization”, and “I wish to be formally employed by this organization”. The reliability of these

two scales was 0.88 and 0.72 for intention to stay and negligent behavior, respectively.

Control Variables

As prior research has demonstrated, trait affect (positive/negative) can influence

individuals’ evaluations of attitude objects (such as their supervisors) and job satisfaction (cf., Ng

and Sorenson, 2009). Thus, to rule out the possibility that outcomes were influenced by the


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


21

intern’s trait affect and not the supervisor's humor, we controlled both intern affect using ten

items from the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,

1988). Gender (both intern and supervisor) and intern age were also included as controls because

they can influence the way that people interpret and react to humor (e.g., Thorsen & Powell,

1996). Moreover, because gender similarity can create an identification between subordinates and

supervisors (Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Holcombe-Ehrhart & Singh, 2010), it was also added

as a control. Supervisor position was also controlled, reasoning that supervisory hierarchical and

status differentials could relate to closeness of relationship (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002) and thus

potentially affect our results. Finally, we coded the industry type of the host organization

(traditional versus knowledge-based) and included it as a covariable in our analyses, with the idea

that the more dynamic organizational culture of knowledge-based industries might affect

interpersonal interactions (cf., Consoli & Rentocchini, 2013) and thus confound our expected

relationships.

Common Method Variance

Because data were collected using survey measures from a single source, several steps

were taken to address potential concerns about common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Procedural remedies to avoid these biases included protecting

respondent confidentiality, reducing item ambiguity and randomizing items. Moreover, we

performed statistical remedies. Specifically, we performed Harman’s 1-factor test and conducted

an exploratory factor analysis using principal component analysis and varimax rotation for all

independent and dependent variables. No single major factor emerged to account for a majority

of the variance explained by the model (the EFA yielded a 7-factor solution, with the first factor

accounting for only 22% of the variance explained), suggesting that the data contain no

substantial common method bias.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


22

Analytical Strategy

To test the hypotheses, we developed a structural equation model using AMOS v. 16 that

can assess the direct and indirect relationships within a model. The recommendations of

Anderson and Gerbing (1988) were followed for implementing the model. First, a confirmatory

factorial analysis was performed to test whether the variables used to measure each construct

presented convergent validity (i.e., whether the items of each construct were correlated, defining

an internally consistent construct) and discriminant validity (i.e., whether the variables of

different constructs clearly measured different constructs). Subsequently, the causal relations

proposed in the theoretical model were estimated in several structural path models, analyzing

which model best fit the data.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the key

constructs.

Insert Table 1

Measurement Model

To evaluate unidimensionality and the convergent validity of the model’s constructs (i.e.,

positive humor, negative humor, internship satisfaction, turnover intention and negligent

behavior), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. The factor structure of the

measurement model revealed a good fit (χ2 = 227.0; χ2/df (125) = 1.82; GFI = 0.89; CFI = 0.95;

RSMEA = 0.07), and no standardized residual for each pair of items within each construct was


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


23

higher than 2.58, thus suggesting unidimensionality (Garver and Mentzer, 1999). Furthermore, all

of the indicators in the model presented statistically significant (p < .01) loadings on their

intended constructs.

To further assess the discriminant validity of our measures, we followed the procedures

outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981), which require the average variance extracted for two

constructs to exceed the squared correlation between the constructs to demonstrate discriminant

validity. The results confirmed that all of our study constructs have sufficient discriminant

validity.

Hypothesized Models

Having confirmed that the adequate fit of the measurement model, we tested our study

hypotheses in two interlinked steps. First, we examined a non-mediated model to evaluate the

extent to which the interns’ attitudes and behaviors were influenced by their supervisors’ use of

humor (Hypotheses 1 and 2). Second, we empirically tested if satisfaction acted as a mediator of

the proposed relationships between humor and work outcomes (Hypothesis 3). Analyses were

conducted with all control variables on the model.

The results of the non-mediated model (χ2 = 769,2; χ

2/df (458) = 1.68; GFI = 0.82; CFI =

0.88; RSMEA = 0.06) supported Hypotheses 1a and 2a, showing that the use of positive humor

by the supervisor was positively and significantly related to interns’ satisfaction (b = 0.29, p<

.01), whereas negative humor exerted the opposite effect (b = -0.39, p< .01). Additionally, the

direct (non-mediated) effect of positive humor on either negligent behavior at work or intention

to stay was non-significant (b = -0.12, p > .10 and b = 0.01, p > .10, respectively), whereas

negative humor was found to be positively related to interns’ negligence (b = 0.30, p< 0.01) and


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


24

negatively related to intention to stay at the end of the internship (b = -0.21, p<0.01), thus

supporting Hypotheses 2b and 2c.

The non-significant direct relationship between positive humor and both work outcomes,

hypothesized by H1b and H1c, may be explained by the mediated nature of such relationships.

Despite Baron and Kenny’s (1986) suggestion that mediation requires the independent variable X

to exert a significant direct effect on the outcome Y (Step 1), methodologists have recently

identified potential shortcomings to this approach (MacKinnon et al., 2002). As the mediational

process becomes more distal or complex, the size of the X to Y association typically weakens and

may even lose statistical significance (as in the present instance) because it is more likely to be

“(a) transmitted through additional links in a causal chain, (b) affected by competing causes, and

(c) affected by random factors” (Shrout & Bolger, 2002: 429). Consequently, to test Hypotheses

1b and 1c, the significance of indirect effects of positive humor on work outcomes through the

proposed mediational paths was analyzed.

To test for mediation, we thus compared the non-mediated model with the partially

mediated model, in which both the direct and indirect effects of humor on outcomes (through

satisfaction) were estimated (χ2 = 718,2; χ

2/df (456) = 1.58; GFI = 0.83; CFI = 0.90; RSMEA =

0.06), and the fully mediated model, in which humor was hypothesized to only have an indirect

effect on interns’ behavioral outcomes through satisfaction (χ2 = 725.9; χ

2/df (460) = 1.58; GFI =

0.83; CFI = 0.90; RSMEA = 0.06). Both models provided an improvement in fit over the non-

mediated model, thus suggesting that the relationship between humor and interns’ work outcomes

is mediated by internship satisfaction.

The estimates of the standardized parameters of the partially mediated model are

presented in Table 2; Figure 1 highlights the significant model paths.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


25

Insert Table 2

Insert Figure 1

Our results indicated significant links between internship satisfaction and intention to stay

(b = 0.73, p < .01) and negligent behavior (b = -0.53, p < .01), thus supporting a direct effect of

the mediator on the outcome variables. Additionally, the direct effects of supervisor humor

(positive and negative) on behavioral outcomes were non-significant (with one exception),

suggesting the largely indirect influence of humor (via internship satisfaction) on negligent

behavior and intention to stay. However, we found a direct significant negative relationship

between positive humor and intention to stay (b = -0.22, p < .05), a finding not formally

hypothesized. In other words, positive humor exerted a positive indirect effect (through

satisfaction) and a negative direct effect on the intention to stay, a finding that we explore further

in the discussion section, thus explaining the non-significant total effect reported above.

Finally, we tested the statistical significance of the indirect effects of humor on the

outcome variables, with the standard errors estimated by bootstrapping. The results are presented

in Table 3. All indirect effects were significant for both the relationship between the use of

positive and negative humor and negligent behavior (b = -0.16, p < .05 and b = 0.20, p < .05) and

intention to stay (b = 0.22, p < .01 and b = -0.28, p < .01), thus supporting, in accordance with

Hypotheses 3a and 3b, the mediating role of internship satisfaction between humor use and intern

outcomes. Therefore, despite a non-significant direct effect of positive humor on both work

outcomes (when controlling for satisfaction in the non-mediated model), our findings suggested a


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


26

significant indirect effect of positive humor (through satisfaction) on negligence and intention to

stay, partially supporting Hypotheses 1b and 1c.

Insert Table 3

Robustness test

Despite the procedural and statistical remedies described before, common method bias

might still have influenced some of our model’s postulated relationships because our data were

from the same source. To rule out the existence of such a bias, we used the method recommended

by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003). Specifically, we used structural equation

modeling to estimate a variation of the model that included a latent common method variance

factor on which every item in the model was allowed to load (in addition to its loading on its

respective construct). We compared the significance of path coefficients between the models with

and without the additional factor and found no differences, which suggested that the results were

robust to common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Additional Analysis

Although not in our original hypotheses, to understand whether the proposed relationships

in our model were influenced by contextual variables, we conducted additional exploratory

analyses to test the interactions of gender similarity, supervisor hierarchical level and industry

type with supervisor humor to predict intern outcomes. These post hoc analyses investigated

these variables’ roles as boundary conditions, attenuating or enhancing the effects of

hypothesized relationships. The results indicated that, among same-gender supervisor-intern

pairs, the positive effect of positive humor on intern satisfaction was enhanced (b = 0.21, p <


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


27

0.01), whereas the negative impact of negative humor did not change it (b = -0.08, p > 0.10). In

other words, the relationship between the use of positive humor and satisfaction was stronger

when the supervisor and the intern were of the same gender. Furthermore, the results did not

show moderating effects of industry type and supervisor hierarchical level on the humor-intern

satisfaction relationship.

DISCUSSION

Today’s organizations increasingly rely on internship programs to recruit, train, and retain

human resources (Liu et al., 2011). Internship programs provide a unique learning experience

that bridges classroom learning and work life. As part of a small but growing body of

organizational research that directly studies interns’ work experiences (D’Abate et al., 2009; Liu

et al., 2011; Narayanan et al., 2010), the present study contributes to the theoretical and

evidentiary base of the emerging literature.

As hypothesized, we found an effect of positive supervisory humor on intern outcomes,

with this effect mediated through intern satisfaction, supporting the claim of D’Abate et al.

(2009) about the centrality of supervisor relationships to interns. Our results suggest that healthy

fun and jokes in the workplace improve interns’ work perceptions, reducing both proclivity to

leave and work negligence, consistent with Duncan and Feisal’s (1989) finding that humor

relieves workplace tensions.

Somewhat surprisingly, however, when controlling for the mediated effect of intern

satisfaction, positive humor had a significant negative direct effect on intention to stay. Testing

this mediational path exposed a negative effect that had been obscured by the total effect of

positive humor on intention to stay. Although unexpected, this result is consistent with the dual-

pathway theory of supervisory relationships described in the theoretical section. In this view,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


28

relationships send both cognitive signals regarding work aspects and affective messages

regarding the affirmation or disaffirmation of relational bonds. In the case of negative humor,

both informational and emotional signals should be negative, leading to lowered cognitive and

affective evaluations of the internship. In the case of positive humor, however, mixed signals

could result, with the positive affective signals leading to higher satisfaction but also, perhaps, to

doubts about the “seriousness” of the workplace as a place to begin a career. Because of the

precariousness of internships and early-stage career choices (e.g., Perlin, 2011), candidates may

evaluate humor as indicative of instability or levity, despite its positive affective signal and

subsequent satisfactory evaluations. Such an interpretation, furthermore, seems consistent with

past research noting the possibility for “fun” managerial approaches to backfire and produce

negative effects (Meyer, 1999; Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). Because interpretations for

turnover motives were not directly collected, however, this interpretation remains provisional.

Future research should more directly study the possible negative effects of humor independent of

intern satisfaction.

The negative relationship between negative humor perceptions and intern satisfaction was

corroborated as hypothesized. When supervisors use negative or abusive humor, they may send

negative messages about the workplace and undermine the vertical relationships that are key to

intern satisfaction (Liu et al., 2011). Additionally, because negative humor often targets

newcomers (Duncan & Feisal, 1989), interns may be particularly exposed to negative effects,

differentially affecting their satisfaction and outcomes. Although we did not compare interns to

more established workers, such comparisons are warranted.

Thus, our results suggested that humor may be an important tool for intern performance

and retention to the extent that it can affect satisfaction. We found strong evidence that humor

can either increase or decrease satisfaction, depending on its valence, which suggests that it is not


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


29

the use of humor per se but instead its relational implications that produce these effects. For

instance, some research suggests that younger employees (here, the average age of the

respondents was 22) may be driven by career-oriented goals (Wrzesniewski, et al, 1997),

implying that messages about an organization’s ability to enhance career development may be

particularly important. Notably, past humor studies have largely involved older, regularly

employed populations, whereas younger newcomer populations (i.e., interns) may be more in

need of reaffirming messages about belonging to an organizational community.

As expected, satisfaction significantly predicted both intention to stay and negligent

behavior during the internship. Because internship programs increase participants’ employability

(Gault et al., 2000) and serve as gateways to the job market, young interns may contemplate a

permanent position at their internship site. To the extent that humor, via satisfaction, can

encourage or discourage interns from seeking full-time employment and becoming personally

engaged in work processes (Rusbult et al., 1988), it is important for both interns and their host

organizations. Our results support this link between satisfaction, turnover intention, and negligent

behavior.

The present study thus contributes to an emerging but understudied interest in intern

behavior (Narayanan et al., 2010), building on the fact that interns offer great benefits to

organizations (Sapp & Zhang 2009). The (strong) positive relationship between intern

satisfaction and intention to stay suggests that organizations should be proactive in promoting

conditions under which internship programs, which offer a good source of new talent (Gabris &

Mitchell, 1989; Gault et al., 2000; Hurst, 2008), enable students’ successful transition into the

workplace.

Although not theorized a priori, our exploratory findings of a gender similarity also

corroborate some extant literature showing the differential effectiveness of humor strategies


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


30

across gender (Decker, Yao & Calo, 2011). Because our theoretical framework emphasizes

creating positive perceptions and messages via humor, it does not account for dyadic gender

differences, which we nevertheless observed. One possibility is that the perception of positive

relationships depends on prior expectations of supervisor behavior, which may differ by gender

(e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002). Future research should more explicitly explore this mechanism.

Contributions to Theory and Practice

Given the incipient nature of the empirical literature on interns’ work experiences, the

present study offers several important contributions to organizational theory and practice. First,

we follow calls to develop models of intern behavior that predict successful internships (Liu et

al., 2011), a new and pioneering stream of literature that is relevant for both management

education and organizational outcomes. Given the rapid rise of intern programs globally (Perlin,

2011), research is needed to keep abreast of developments in this area.

Second, this paper contributes to the understanding of the role of specific leadership

behaviors in sending organizational messages, ultimately affecting intern attitudes and behaviors.

Although past research has pointed to supervisors as key to intern success (Liu et al., 2011), the

particular ways in which leader humor can generate positive or negative messages about the work

setting, influencing interns’ proclivities to remain present and engaged in the organization, have

not been theorized or empirically demonstrated. By adding complexity to our knowledge about

supervisory practices, we are in a better position to assess the interpersonal determinants of intern

success.

Third, although prior research has explored the determinants of intern attitudes, the

present study contributes by linking intern attitudes to specific intentions regarding important

work behaviors. As a substantial amount of research has shown, the attitude-behavior link cannot


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


31

be taken for granted (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and must be demonstrated empirically. In

this case, we find that supervisory humor affects both attitudes and behaviors and that these

effects are opposite in the cases of positive versus negative humor.

Fourth, we develop a more nuanced view of supervisor humor with respect to past humor

studies, showing how different uses of humor can lead to virtually opposite effects in terms of

intern satisfaction and outcomes. Although most research has focused on the effects of positive

forms of humor (e.g., Avolio et al., 1999), some notable exceptions have noted that humor can be

used ironically or abusively (e.g., Martin et al., 2003; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Our

contribution, therefore, is not to show that negative humor exists but to empirically demonstrate

its differential effects on intern satisfaction and behavioral outcomes.

Furthermore, the relatively low negative correlation between positive and negative forms

of humor strengthens the argument that distinct forms of humor can be used by managers and that

positive and negative forms are not simply the inverse of one another. To our knowledge, this is

the first study to directly test the differential effects of both types of humor, a contribution that

also adds to construct development within the managerial humor literature.

Regarding implications for practice, this study demonstrates the importance for

organizations and university internship programs to consider dyadic relationships, to prepare

students for the world of work and to promote organizational talent retention. Although business

schools and organizations have devoted a great deal of attention to developing internship

programs, in terms of project selection, organizational partnerships, and other organization-level

actions, the success of these programs may depend on dyadic, interpersonal aspects of intern-

supervisor relationships. Thus, neglect of those relationships may be both costly to organizations

(in terms of lost talent) and detrimental to intern education (by promoting neglect of the learning-

related goals associated with internships). Therefore, both institutions of higher education and


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


32

organizations have reason to focus their attention on the micro-level predictors of intern success

and to sensitize organizational members to the importance of intern relationships.

Understanding supervisor influences in internship experiences, beyond providing insight

into an understudied component of management education, can be used in educational settings in

several ways. For example, such insights could help students to reflect upon important, career-

relevant experiences during or after their internship experiences or potentially to help them

choose internships in advance by considering potential supervisor relationships. Such reflections

are not only important in classroom experiences but also allow business schools to seek feedback

regarding internship sites. Such feedback can influence school counselors and student services in

preparing students for the internship experience and even potentially influence university-host

organization agreements based on evidence of supervisor-intern relationships.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite these contributions, some important limitations of this study should be

acknowledged. For instance, on a measurement level, this study measured supervisory humor

through intern, rather than supervisor, perceptions. Because we are interested in the intern

experience and posit it as the proximal cause of intern outcomes, we believe this choice to be

justified. However, future research should examine the relationship between supervisor and

subordinate assessments of humor, both to determine whether humor is always used

“intentionally” by supervisors and to account for the possibility that matching supervisor-

subordinate perceptions themselves might have a relationship with outcomes independent of the

primary effects of humor.

With respect to methodology, although we engaged in the steps above to address possible

common-method bias, our design and measures make it impossible to rule out this possibility


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


33

completely. The external measurement of the independent variables (for instance, using fellow

colleagues to measure supervisors’ humor) would be advisable in future studies to test for the

robustness of results across measurement methods.

Second, because our sample was drawn from a database linked to top-tier private business

schools, our sample involved interns of relatively high socio-economic status. Therefore, our

results might not generalize across socio-economic categories, in which the satisfaction-turnover

relationship might differ. For example, Perlin (2011) describes the increasing pressure to engage

in often-unsatisfying internships to secure a full-time position, a pressure that may be more acute

lower on the socio-economic ladder. Under difficult economic conditions, interns from lower

socio-economic backgrounds may select different options when addressing dissatisfaction than

students from higher socio-economic backgrounds. In general, because internships have been

linked with increasing workplace precariousness and managerial flexibility (Perlin, 2011), the

socio-economic context behind intern experiences is an important factor to take into account.

Future research should study how interns from diverse socio-economic backgrounds react to

intern experiences and how the use of supervisor humor might change depending on the socio-

economic group of the interns involved.

On a related note, our study took place within a Brazilian economic context marked by

relatively strong economic growth and low unemployment (cf., Islam, 2012). Thus, the interns

may have been in a relatively strong bargaining position and been more willing to consider

leaving the organization if unsatisfied. With the recent slowing of growth across emerging

economies, one might expect that interns would show higher average propensities to stay with the

organization independent of satisfaction, possibly opting for negligence behaviors rather than

exit. Additionally, because Brazilian internships are tightly regulated compared to the U.S., as

described above, and the percentage of college-educated recruits is lower, interns may be more


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


34

likely to be used as potential recruits rather than as a temporary source of cheap labor. In general,

more research across national and economic contexts is needed to understand intern outcomes

more broadly.

Third, although our interest was specifically in intern outcomes, we acknowledge that

literature exists that shows the positive benefits of humor in the workplace more generally. Thus,

it would be useful to compare intern samples with permanent employee samples to determine

whether relationships and mechanisms differ across sample groups. This would enable the

isolation of the unique effects of our dependent variables on interns. In particular, because we

find that, when controlling for satisfaction in an intern sample, positive humor may actually have

negative effects on outcomes, it is particularly important to determine whether other humor

studies should be re-analyzed in the light of possible negative effects. Although comparative

research would involve diverse methodological challenges (for example, similarity of work type,

matching for age and experience across samples), such research would provide a substantial

contribution to understanding interns’ work experience. This study takes one step, however, to

create a discussion around the intern experience.

Although, from a managerial perspective, intern behaviors leading to organizational

outcomes such as performance are paramount, we focused on variables relating to the intern

experience, such as career-related variables (intent to remain) and withdrawal (negligent

behavior). Our choice was consistent with an intern-centered approach, which is of interest to

both educators and managers. However, we recognize that examining other related variables,

such as motivation and proactive behaviors, could be of interest both for understanding interns

more generally and for improving organizational performance. Future research should examine

additional types of internship-related behaviors and experiences.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


35

Additionally, because of the inherently short-term nature of the intern relationship, myriad

factors beyond intention to stay are likely to affect whether interns remain at the organization in a

formal capacity. Retention ratios for interns are likely much lower than for formal employees but

much higher than for external recruits; studying interns may seem to take a type of “intermediary

position” between recruitment and management perspectives, the former more concerned with

intent to accept an offer, the latter more focused on intent to turn over. New models of

management that integrate recruitment issues into the work role itself, together with

understanding recruitment as an ongoing process within organizational relationships, are

necessary for a more complete understanding of internships.

Expanding our knowledge about intern experiences at work could draw on several areas

of current organizational scholarship, based around interns’ unique job situation vis-à-vis

permanent employees. In this study, we focused on the importance of supervisor communication

through humor because past research has established supervision as a key element of internship

success (Liu et al., 2011). However, other aspects of the intern experience, such as the cognitive

and emotional effects of low power (e.g., Keltner et al., 2003), together with the temporary and

precarious nature of intern employment (e.g., Ellingson, Gruys & Sackett, 1998), might also

affect interns’ educational and career outcomes. Such topics could provide for rich areas of

inquiry around this growing area of organizational relationships.

The differential effects of humor strategies across gender (Decker et al., 2011) should also

be explored in future research. Dyadic gender differences may impact the perception of positive

relationships depending on prior expectations of supervisor behavior, which may differ by gender

(e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002). Future research should explicitly explore this mechanism, which has

implications for cross-gender vertical relationships.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


36

Finally, although we expand the construct domain of humor by testing the differential

effects of positive and negative humor, it can be argued that further construct differentiation

could be fruitful. For example, negative humor may involve abusive or bullying jokes (Romero

& Cruthirds, 2006) but may also involve ironic, anti-organizational comments that both create

inter-employee solidarity and negatively impact the organization (e.g., Rodrigues & Collinson,

1995). Conversely, positive humor might build organizational identity, but forms of positive

humor might give the impression of a lack of importance of work, promoting shirking or

negligent behavior (Duncan et al., 1990). As we saw in the current sample, positive humor seems

to have multiple pathways to intern outcomes, both positive and negative, which may be sensitive

to variations in what types of humor are used in specific situations. More work on specific types

of humor would almost certainly move beyond the “positive-negative” taxonomy to build a more

nuanced view of humor strategies.

In sum, this research suggests that the use of humor is an important, although often

overlooked, aspect of managing and retaining interns. Accordingly, the supervisory use of humor

should be viewed seriously by researchers and practitioners. Although the current paper may not

cause supervisors to be more humorous, we hope to establish the importance of positive humor

and the detrimental effects of negative humor to interns’ experiences at work.

REFERENCES

Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. 1999. Organizational Misbehaviour. London: Sage.

Adelsward, V., & Oberg, B. M. 1998. The function of laughter and joking in negotiating

activities. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 11, 411–29.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


37

Alcadipani, R., & Rosa, A. R. 2010. O pesquisador como outro: Uma leitura pós-colonial do

“Borat” brasileiro. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 30(1), 371-382.

Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. 2002. Leader distance: A review and proposed theory. Leadership

Quarterly, 13, 673−704.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and

recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.

Anson, C. M., & Forsberg, L. L. 1990. Moving beyond the academic community: Transitional

stages in professional writing. Written Communication, 7, 200–231.

Arendt, L. A. 2009. Transformational leadership and follower creativity: the moderating effect of

leader humor. Review of Business Research, 9(4), 100-106.

Ashkanasy, N. M. 2006. Introduction: Arguments for a more grounded approach in management

education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(2), 207-208.

Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. 1999. A funny thing happened on the way to the

bottom line: humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management

Journal, 42(2), 219-227.

Bailey, T., Hughes, K. L., & Barr, T. 2000. Achieving scale and quality in school-to-work

internships: findings from two employer studies. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 22, 41-64.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. 1951. An index of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 35, 307-311.

Brief, A. P. 1998. Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


38

Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: H.C.

Triandis & J.W. Berry (eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, (vol. 2, pp. 389-

444). Boston: Ally n & Bacon.

Chen, G. H., & Martin, R. A. 2007. A comparison of humor styles, coping humor, and mental

health between Chinese and Canadian university students. Humor: International Journal

of Humor Research, 20(3), 215–234.

Clark, S. C. 2003. Enhancing the educational value of business internships. Journal of

Management Education, 27(4), 472-484.

Clouse, R. W., & Spurgeon, K. L. 1995. Corporate analysis of humor. Quarterly Journal of

Human Behavior, 32, 1-24.

Consoli, D., & Rentocchini, F. 2013. Multi-industry labour force skills: Structure and dynamics.

Paper presented at the 35th DRUID Celebration Conference, Barcelona, Spain, June, 17-

19.

Cooper, C. D. 2008. Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: a relational process model.

Human Relations, 61 (8), 1087-115.

Crawford, C. B. 1994. Theory and implications regarding the utilization of strategic humor by

leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1, 53-67.

D'Abate, C. P., Youndt, M. A., & Wenzel, K. E. 2009. Making the most of an internship: an

empirical study of internship satisfaction. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 8(4), 527-539.

Darr, W., & Johns, G. 2008. Work strain, health, and absenteeism: a meta-analysis. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 293-318.

Daugherty, S. N. 2000. Internships and co-ops: An excellent way to preview and plan your

future. The Black Collegian, 31, 52-56.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


39

Decker, W. H., Yao, H., & Calo, T. J. 2011. Humor, gender, and perceived leader effectiveness in

China. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 76(1), 43-54.

Decker, W. H. 1987. Managerial humor and subordinate satisfaction. Social Behavior and

Personality: An International Journal, 15 (2), 225-232.

Decker, W. H., & Rotondo, D. M. 1999. Use of humor at work: Predictors and implications.

Psychological Reports, 84 (3), 961-968.

Decker, W. H., & Rotondo, D. M. 2001. Relationships among gender, type of humor, and

perceived leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13 (4), 450-465.

Divine, R. L., Linrud, J. K., Miller, R. H., & Wilson, J. H. 2007. Required internship programs in

marketing: Benefits, challenges and determinants of fit. Marketing Education Review,

17(2), 45-52.

Duncan, W. J. 1982. Humor in Management: Prospects for administrative practice and research.

Academy of Management Review, 7, 136-142.

Duncan, W. J. & Feisal, J. P. 1989. No laughing matter: patterns of humor in the workplace.

Organizational Dynamics, 17(4), 18-30.

Duncan, W. J., Smeltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. 1990. Humor and work: application of joking

behavior to management. Journal of Management, 16, 255-278.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.

Ehrensal, K. N. 2001. Training capitalism's foot soldiers: The hidden curriculum of

undergraduate business education. In I. Margolis, Eric (Ed.), The hidden curriculum in

higher education (p. 97-113). New York: Routledge.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


40

Elicker, J. D., Foust, M. S., O'Malley, A. L., & Levy, P. E. 2008. Employee lateness behavior:

the role of lateness climate and individual lateness attitude. Human Performance, 21(4),

427-441.

Ellingson, J. E., Gruys, M. L & Sackett, P. R. 1998. Factors related to the satisfaction and

performance of temporary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 913-921.

Farrell, D. 1983. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A

multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 596-607.

Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. 2002. Workers playtime: cynicism, irony and humour in organization

studies. In S. R. Clegg (Ed.), Management and Organization Paradoxes (pp. 65-86).

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39 –50.

Frewen, P. A., Brinker, J., Martin, R. A., & Dozois, D. J. A. 2008. Humor styles and personality-

vulnerability to depression. Humor: An International Journal of Humor Research, 21(2),

179-195.

Gabris, G. T., & Mitchell, K. 1989. Exploring the relationships between intern job performance,

quality of education experience, and career placement. Public Administration Quarterly,

12(4), 484-504.

Garavan, T. N., & Murphy, C. 2001. The co-operative education process and organizational

socialization: A qualitative study of student perceptions of its effectiveness. Education

Training, 43, 281–302.

Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J. T. 1999. Logistics research methods: employing structural equation

modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 33-57.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


41

Gault, J., Redington, J., & Schlager, T. 2000. Undergraduate business internships and career

success: Are they related? Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 45–53.

Gerdes, L. 2009. The best places to launch a career. BusinessWeek, September 3, 32–41.

Greatbatch, D. & Clark, T. 2002. Laughing With The Gurus. Business Strategy Review, 13: 10–

18.

Gruner, C. R. 1996. The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New

Brunswick: Transaction.

Hatch, M. J., & Ehrlich, S. B. 1993. Spontaneous humor as an indicator of paradox and

ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(4), 505-526.

Haugh, H. M., & Talwar, A. 2010. How do corporations embed sustainability across the

organization? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 384 -396.

Hellman, C. M. 1997. Job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(6),

677-689.

Herr, E. L., & Cramer, S. H. 1988. Career guidance and counseling throughout the life span:

Systematic approaches (2nd ed.). Glenview: Scott-Foresman.

Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations,

and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Holmes, J. & Marra, M. 2006. Humor and leadership style. Humor: International Journal of

Humor Research, 19 (2), 119–138.

Hom, P. W., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Griffeth, R. W. 2012. Reviewing employee turnover:

Focusing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded criterion. Psychological Bulletin,

138(5), 831-858.

Hurst, J. L. 2008. Factors involved in increasing conversion rates of interns into full-time

employees. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(9-A), 3949


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


42

Islam, G. 2012. Between unity and diversity: Historical and cultural foundations of Brazilian

management. European Journal of International Management, 6(3), 265-282.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. 2001. The job satisfaction-job

performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,

127(3), 376-407.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition.

Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.

King, M. F. & Bruner, G. C. 2000. Social desirability bias: a neglected aspect of validity testing.

Psychology and Marketing, 17(2), 79–103.

Knoop, R. 1995. Relationships among job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment for nurses. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,

129(6), 643-649.

Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G. 2004. Humor is not always the best

medicine: specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor:

International Journal of Humor Research, 17, 135-168.

Lang, J. C., & Lee, C. H. 2010. Workplace humor and organizational creativity. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(1), 46-60.

Leck, J. D., & Saunders, D. M. 1992. Hirschman's loyalty: attitude or behavior? Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 219–229.

Liu, Y., Xu, J., & Weitz, B. A. 2011. The role of emotional expression and mentoring in

internship learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 94-110.

Malone, P. B. 1980. Humor: a double-edged tool for today's managers? Academy of

Management Review, 5, 357-360.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


43

Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. 2003. 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, 48-75.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A

comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variables effects.

Psychological Methods, 7: 83–104.

Meyer, J. C. 2000. Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication.

Communication Theory, 10, 310–31.

Meyer, H. 1999. Fun for everyone. Journal of Business Strategy, 20 (2), 13-17.

Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D. J., & Viswesvaran, C. 2012. A meta-analysis of positive humor in

the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 155–190.

Morreall, J. 1991. Humor and work. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(4),

359-73.

Murdock, M. C., & Ganim, R. M. 1993. Creativity and humor: integration and incongruity.

Journal of Creative Behavior, 27, 57-70.

Narayanan, V. K., Olk, P. M., & Fukami, C. 2010. Determinants of internship effectiveness: An

exploratory model. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 61–80.

Navarro, P. 2008. The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business schools: a study in

failure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7 (1), 108-123.

Ng, T. W. H. & Sorensen, K. L. 2009. Dispositional affectivity and work-related outcomes: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1255-1287.

Paulson, S. K., & Baker, H. E. 1999. An experiential approach to facilitate anticipatory

socialization. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7, 365–378.

Perlin, R. 2011. Intern Nation. London: Verso.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


44

Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. 2007, Differential challenge stressor-hindrance

stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal

behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (2). 438-54.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method

biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (3), 879–903.

Rodrigues, S. B., & Collinson, D. L. 1995. “Having fun?”: Humor as resistance in Brazil.

Organization Studies, 16 (5), 739-768.

Romero, E. J., & Pescosolido, A. 2008. Humor and group effectiveness. Human Relations, 61

(3), 395-418.

Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, W. 2006. The use of humor in the workplace. The Academy of

Management Perspectives, 20 (2), 58-69.

Rothman, M. 2003. Internships: most and least favored aspects among a business school sample.

Psychological Reports, 93, 921-924.

Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous III, A. G. 1988. Impact of exchange variables

on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: an integrative model of responses to declining job status

satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 599-627.

Sagie, A. 1998. Employee absenteeism, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: another

look. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 156-171.

Sapp, D. A., & Zhang, Q. 2009. Trends in industry supervisors’ feedback on business

communication internships. Business Communication Quarterly, 72(3), 274-288.

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe-Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G.

2010. Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research.

Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


45

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New

procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.

Steinhardt, M. A., Dolbier, C. L., Gottlieb, N. H., & McCalister, K. T. 2003. The relationship

between hardiness, supervisor support, group cohesion, and job stress as predictors of job

satisfaction. American Journal of Health Promotion, 17(6), 382-389.

Sturdy, A. & Fineman, S. 2001. Struggles for the control of affect: Resistance as politics and

emotion. In A. Sturdy, I. Grugulis & H. Willmott (Ed.). Customer Service: Empowerment

and Entrapment. London: Macmillan/Palgrave.

Taylor, S. M. 1988. Effects of college internships on individual participants. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 73, 393–401.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. 1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention,

and turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46,

259-293.

Thorson J. A., & Powell F. C. 1996. Women, aging, and sense of humor. Humor:

International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 169-186.

Tovey, J. 2001. Building connections between industry and university: implementing an

internship at a regional university. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10, 225-239.

Vault 2000. How common are internships these days? Available in:

http://www.vault.com/nr/main_article_detail.jsp?article_id=18612eht_type=5.

Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. 2009. The influence of leader humor on relationships

between leader behavior and follower outcomes. Journal of Managerial Issues, 21(2),

171-194.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


46

Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., Martin, R. A., & Vernon, P. A. 2010. Relations between humor

styles and the dark triad traits of personality. Personality and Individual Differences,

48(6), 772-774.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54: 1063–1070.

Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. 2003. Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning

of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 93-135.

Wrzesniewski, A., Mccauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. 1997. Jobs, careers, and callings:

People’s relations to their work . Journal of Research in Personality, 33 (31), 21–33.

Yovitch, N. A., Dale, J. A., & Hudak, M. A. 1990. Benefits of humor in reduction of threat-

induced anxiety. Psychological Reports, 66, 51-58.

Zhao, H., & Liden, R. C. 2011. Internship: A recruitment and selection perspective. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 96 (1). 221-229

Ziv, A., & Gadish, O. 1990. Humor and giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13,

332-345.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


47

FIGURE 1

Partially Mediated Structural Equation Modeling Results

Note: Standardized path coefficients provided; Nonsignificant lines are dashed; * p. < 05; ** p.

< 01; All control variables were included as controls of the model’s mediator and outcomes;

however, only the significant relationships were represented.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


48

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliabilities

Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Intern Gender a .45 .50 -

2. Intern Age 22 1.6 .04 -

3. Supervisor Gender a .52 .50 -.02 -.07 -

4. Gender Similarity b .49 .50 .04 .04 -.11 -

5. Supervisor Position c 2.0 .83 -.04 -.04 -.02 .05 -

6. Industry Type d .52 .50 .09 .19** .11 .02 .07 -

7. Positive Affect 4.28 .58 .07 -.01 .08 .02 -.01 .01 (0.82)

8. Negative Affect 1.84 .63 .01 .03 -.03 -.01 .03 .08 -.34** (0.68)

9. Positive Humor 3.62 .93 .09 .05 .11 -.01 .02 .10 .39** -.10 (0.83)

10. Negative Humor 1.53 .92 .10 .00 .05 .02 -.01 .04 -.11 .21** -.16* (0.93)

11. Intern Satisfaction 3.62 .93 .09 .05 .08 .05 .08 .04 .48** -.18* .46** -.37** (0.87)

12. Negligent Behavior 2.01 .95 .12 -.02 .02 .02 .10 .01 -.17* .10 -.18* .29** -.39** (0.72)

13. Intention to Stay 3.74 1.23 .14 .07 .06 .00 -.14 .04 .31** -.12 .18* -.18* .56** -.33** (0.88)

N = 184; * p. < 05; ** p. < 01; Alpha coefficients in the diagonals; a Women were coded as 0 and men as 1;

b Gender similarity was

coded as 1; c Supervisor position was coded from 1 (analyst or assistant) to 4 (director or general manager);

d Traditional industries

(e.g., banking, manufacturing, oil & gas) were coded as 0 and Knowledge-based industries were coded as 1 (e.g., telecommunications,

consulting, education).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


49

TABLE 2

Path Coefficients from SEM Analyses

Path from To Path Coefficient (t)

Positive Affect Intern Satisfaction 0.39** (4.30)

Negative Affect Intern Satisfaction 0.15 (1.85)

Positive Affect Negligent Behavior 0.05 (0.39)

Negative Affect Negligent Behavior 0.03 (0.25)

Positive Affect Intention to Stay 0.03 (0.24)

Negative Affect Intention to Stay -0.07 (-0.75)

Positive Humor Intern Satisfaction 0.30** (3.75)

Negative Humor Intern Satisfaction -0.38** (-5.61)

Intern Satisfaction Negligent Behavior -0.53** (-3.74)

Intern Satisfaction Intention to Stay 0.73** (5.80)

Positive Humor Negligent Behavior 0.05 (0.47)

Negative Humor Negligent Behavior 0.10 (0.97)

Positive Humor Intention to Stay -0.22* (-2.37)

Negative Humor Intention to Stay 0.08 (0.98)

R2 Intern Satisfaction .53

R2 Negligent Behavior .33

R2 Intention to Stay .43

N = 184; Standardized path coefficients provided; * p. < 05; ** p. < 01. All control variables

were included in the model as controls for intern satisfaction, negligent behaviors and intention to

stay. No significant relationships were found between controls variables and outcomes, except for

the effect of positive affectivity on intern satisfaction (b = .39, p < 0.01) and intern gender on

negligent behaviors (b = .18, p < 0.05).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


50

TABLE 3

Significance Tests of Direct and Indirect Effects of Humor on Outcome Variables

Independent variable Dependent variable Direct effect Indirect effect

Positive Humor Negligent Behavior 0.05 -0.16**

Negative Humor Negligent Behavior 0.10 0.20**

Positive Humor Intention to Stay -0.22* 0.22**

Negative Humor Intention to Stay 0.08 -0.28**

N = 184; Standardized effects provided; Standard errors estimated by bootstrapping; * p. < 05; **

p. < 01.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

The Influence of Humor on the Attitudes and Behavior of Interns

Documents

Transcript of The Influence of Humor on the Attitudes and Behavior of Interns