Comedy Bootcamp: stand-up comedy as humor training for military populations

HUMOR 2022; aop

Andrew R. Olah*, Janelle S. Junkin, Thomas E. Ford and
Sam Pressler
Comedy Bootcamp: stand-up comedy as
humor training for military populations
https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2022-0007
Received October 1, 2021; accepted March 2, 2022; published online April 26, 2022

Abstract: This paper details the results of an 18-month program impact evaluation
(n = 72) on Armed Services Arts Partnership’s “Comedy Bootcamp,” a popular
stand-up comedy course specifically tailored to military veterans. Based on liter-
ature around the benefits of sense of humor and humor training (e.g., 7 Humor
Habits), we anticipated that participants in Comedy Bootcamp would show greater
well-being relative to a control group, and that this effect would be mediated by an
increase in sense of humor (i.e., self-enhancing humor style). Results largely
supported the hypotheses, showing that Comedy Bootcamp participants experi-
enced an increased self-enhancing humor style, which in turn yielded improved
self-esteem, resilience, depression, and stress (though not anxiety). Further, lon-
gitudinal analyses demonstrated the benefits of the program persist at 3- and
6-month follow-ups. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Keywords: humor styles; humor training; military veterans; psychological well-
being; stand-up comedy

1 Introduction
There are currently over 19 million military veterans in the United States, with over
200,000 service members transitioning to veteran status every year (Schaeffer
2021; Vogt et al. 2020). Unfortunately, many veterans find the reintegration process
an uphill battle as they are confronted with clashing cultural norms and disrupted
relationships (for a full review of veterans’ reintegration challenges, see Elnitsky

*Corresponding author: Andrew R. Olah, The Junkin Group, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, USA; and
Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA, E-mail: andyrolah@yahoo.com
Janelle S. Junkin, The Junkin Group, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Thomas E. Ford, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA
Sam Pressler, Armed Services Arts Partnership, Alexandria, VA, USA

  Open Access. © 2022 Andrew R. Olah et al., published by De Gruyter.   This work is licensed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2        Olah et al.

et al. 2017), and their well-being may suffer as a result. For instance, Vogt et al.
(2020) found that one-third of U.S. veterans experience mental health problems
within the first year after formally ending their service: 22.5% of veterans experi-
ence anxiety, 19.8% experience depression, and 12.3% experience posttraumatic
stress disorder (PTSD). In comparison, the prevalence of these conditions in the
general U.S. population is 19.1% for anxiety, 8.4% for depression, and 3.6% for
PTSD (National Alliance on Mental Illness 2020). Additionally, many veterans
perceive stigma around seeking treatment for mental health (e.g., concerns about
appearing weak), which can dissuade them from getting the help they need
(Kulesza et al. 2015). This high prevalence of challenges to well-being mixed with
low desire to engage with traditional treatment leads many veterans to seek sup-
port outside of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense, the
primary government-sponsored health systems.
     The Armed Services Arts Partnership (ASAP) is one nonprofit organization that
has taken initiative to support veterans. Since 2015, ASAP has offered free com-
munity arts classes and workshops to all military veterans and their families/
caregivers, allowing them to reap the benefits of the arts without enduring the
perceived stigma veterans often experience in more public arenas. While ASAP’s
classes are intentionally designed to improve veterans’ arts-based skills and pro-
vide social support, they also positively impact veterans’ well-being. This paper
describes the results of a program impact evaluation of ASAP’s popular stand-up
comedy class (“Comedy Bootcamp”), as an implicit form of humor training to
promote well-being.

1.1 Humor and psychological well-being

Martin et al. (2003) proposed that people employ some combination of four humor
styles, or habitual ways of using humor. These styles can be differentiated by
whether the humor has positive or negative consequences for others or the self.
People with an affiliative humor style use humor in constructive ways to amuse or
affirm others; those with a self-enhancing humor style use humor to regulate
emotions and to cope with adversity by reframing difficult events in humorous
ways. People endorsing an aggressive humor style use humor against others
(such as teasing and ridicule) as a means of insult and criticism. Finally, those
with a self-defeating humor style excessively use self-disparaging humor to
entertain others or to avoid dealing with negative feelings and confronting prob-
lems (Stieger 2011).
     A considerable amount of research derived from Martin et al.’s model has
consistently shown that the positive humor styles relate to better well-being, and

Stand-up comedy as humor training       3

the two negative styles relate to poorer well-being (for reviews, see Cann and
Collette 2014; Martin et al. 2003; Schneider et al. 2018). For instance, self-
enhancing humor style has been associated with greater self-esteem (Martin et al.
2003), greater resilience (Boerner et al. 2017; Cann and Collette 2014), decreased
depression, anxiety, and stress (Cann and Collette 2014; Maiolino and Kuiper 2014;
Martin et al. 2003), fewer difficulties with emotion regulation (Boerner et al. 2017),
greater life satisfaction (Cann and Collette 2014; Maiolino and Kuiper 2014),
decreased suicidal ideation (Tucker et al. 2013), and more satisfaction with social
support (Martin et al. 2003). The same studies generally report that affiliative
humor style has similarly positive (but often weaker) relationships with well-
being.
     In contrast, the self-defeating humor style relates to lower self-esteem (Martin
et al. 2003) and life satisfaction (Maiolino and Kuiper 2014), greater depression,
anxiety and stress (Maiolino and Kuiper 2014), more emotion regulation difficulties
(Boerner et al. 2017), increased suicidal ideation (Tucker et al. 2013), and less
satisfaction with social support (Martin et al. 2003). Torres-Marín et al. (2018)
found that, whereas self-enhancing humor style was associated with reduced
feelings and expressions of anger, an aggressive humor style predicted more
feelings and expressions of anger, and a self-defeating humor style predicted
unhealthy anger suppression.
     While most work with this model has been conducted using college samples
and no prior research has explored humor styles in military populations, research
using samples from other high-stress careers identifies similar trends as those
discussed above. Navarro-Carrillo et al. (2019) found that among Spanish hospital
nurses, affiliative and self-enhancing humor styles predict greater happiness,
hopefulness, sociability, and life satisfaction. Hageman (2014) reports that self-
enhancing humor style predicts decreased stress in emergency service providers,
while aggressive humor was associated with greater stress. Among firefighters, a
self-enhancing humor style mitigates the effects of traumatic events on burnout
and post-traumatic stress (Sliter et al. 2014).
     To date, researchers have not examined the relationship between humor styles
and well-being among military personnel; however, there is research demon-
strating humor’s coping benefits in response to service-related trauma. Riolli and
Savicki (2013) found that active U.S. Army Soldiers experienced improved psy-
chological adjustment after recent combat operations to the extent they use humor
as a coping strategy; similarly, Ward et al. (2021) found active U.S. Army Soldiers
who use humor to handle stress in tense situations tend to experience fewer PTSD
symptoms. In art therapy sessions, Kopytin and Lebedev (2015) observed that
Russian war veterans frequently use humor for coping with traumatic memories
and fostering relations with their therapy group. Qualitative interviews with

4        Olah et al.

prisoners of war from the Vietnam era reveal they used humor to cope with their
daily struggles as well as to build social support (Henman 2001). Collectively, these
findings illustrate veterans’ and service members’ use of humor serves similar
functions as the self-enhancing and affiliative humor styles.

1.2 Comedy bootcamp and humor training

In 2015, ASAP launched the Comedy Bootcamp program, “the first-ever stand-up
comedy class for veterans, service members, and military family members” (Armed
Services Arts Partnership 2021). Throughout this 7-week course, participants learn
the fundamentals of stand-up comedy (e.g., joke writing, performing) in small
classes with other students from the military community (maximum 12 students
per class); the instructors are veterans and often Comedy Bootcamp alumni
themselves. After 7 weeks of class, students present a public graduation showcase,
during which they perform a 5-min set of their own original material. At the time of
evaluation, ASAP offered this class in two locations in the eastern United States
three times a year, thus graduating six distinct cohorts annually.
     To date, researchers have not explored the well-being benefits of taking
stand-up comedy classes like Comedy Bootcamp. However, given the estab-
lished benefits of a healthy sense of humor, researchers and practitioners have
developed a variety of “humor training” interventions (for a review, see Ruch
and McGhee 2014). Perhaps the most well-established is McGhee’s (1999, 2010) 7
Humor Habits (7HH) program. The 7HH is a structured, skills-based intervention
intended to improve participants’ sense of humor, and by doing so improve their
mood, emotional resilience, and coping ability. While created as an intervention
for either individuals or groups, research has focused only on group delivery.
Participants agree to meet as a group on a weekly basis, and a facilitator guides
the group through the program material. In addition to regular group sessions,
participants complete “home play” throughout the week, which consists of daily
skill consolidation exercises to build the behavioral habit, and maintain a
“humor log” in which they reflect on their sense of humor, the humor habits, and
their progress in the program. This structured approach sets 7HH apart from
many earlier humor interventions, which were less formalized by comparison
and thus yielded inconsistent results (Ruch and McGhee 2014).
     The 7HH framework provides a lens to understand the potential benefits of
ASAP’s Comedy Bootcamp. As the name suggests, the 7HH teaches seven habits
designed to improve the sense of humor, devoting one week to each habit: (1)
surround yourself with humor and reflect on your own sense of humor, (2) cultivate
a playful attitude, (3) laugh more often and more heartily, (4) create your own

Stand-up comedy as humor training        5

verbal humor, (5) look for humor in everyday life, (6) take yourself lightly and learn
to laugh at yourself, and (7) find humor in the midst of stress. In an eighth week,
participants work to simultaneously integrate all seven habits into their everyday
life, in an effort to strengthen the habits further and ensure they’re easily accessible
when needed (i.e. in times of stress). Collectively, these habits build participants’
receptivity to humor, generate their own humor to find levity in times of stress, and
reap the potential benefits of physically laughing for mental and physical health
(for a review of laughter-inducing therapies, see van der Wal and Kok 2019).
      Though not by design, Comedy Bootcamp conveys all 7HH skills. By definition
of stand-up comedy, the fourth 7HH habit (create your own verbal humor) is
central to ASAP’s program; participants learn how to write and perform their own
jokes, and Comedy Bootcamp’s strict “no plagiarism” rule ensures participants are
engaged in creating humor (rather than simply reciting the humor of others). The
first habit (surround yourself with humor) is encouraged in the participant
handbook’s introduction: “Beginning now, we expect you to live as a student of
comedy in your day-to-day life. Spend your downtime brainstorming funny ideas,
seek out any local comedy shows, or re-watch some of your favorite comedians on
YouTube” (Armed Services Arts Partnership 2018a). During the first group session
of Comedy Bootcamp, participants get to know each other by having “conversa-
tions about your favorite comics, sense of humor, and potential sources of comedic
material,” an activity that involves reflecting on one’s sense of humor (a standard
goal in the first week of 7HH programs).
      Further, by identifying potential sources of humor in this collaborative
manner, Comedy Bootcamp participants can open their eyes to find humor in
everyday life or in their stressors (reflecting the fifth and seventh habits, respec-
tively). Related to these habits, the handbook provides a collection of prompts to
help guide participants’ material (Armed Services Arts Partnership 2018a). Several
of these prompts directly facilitate finding humor in everyday life (e.g., “What was
your hometown or high school experience like?,” “What are some ridiculous things
civilians ask about your service?”) or in times of stress (e.g., “What is it about your
current job that you dislike?,” “What are some of the challenges of being a military
spouse?”). These prompts encourage ASAP’s participants to seek humor in their
everyday life as well in response to common stressors.
      Comedy Bootcamp also promotes the second habit (cultivate a playful atti-
tude). The handbook’s introduction includes the frame “Remember that this is a
comedy class. Try not to take yourself too seriously, and remember to have fun!”
(Armed Services Arts Partnership 2018a). Some of Comedy Bootcamp’s marketing
materials explain that instructors teach participants “to take the world and
themselves a bit less seriously” (Armed Services Arts Partnership 2019a). Com-
plementing this and serving the third habit, laughter is heavily encouraged in

6         Olah et al.

this program. Many marketing materials indicate the centrality of laughter: for
example, an instructor featured in one promotional video states “Comedy
Bootcamp’s primary purpose is to give people a space to really laugh. There’s a
great sense of freedom in being able to share what you think is funny and have
everybody else laugh with you” (Armed Services Arts Partnership 2019b). The
instructors’ training manual includes a number of class exercises for which
the expressed purposes include “spreading laughs” (Armed Services Arts Part-
nership 2018b).
     Lastly, the Comedy Bootcamp handbook and marketing materials stress the
sixth habit (take yourself lightly, learn to laugh at yourself).1 Many of the examples
used to demonstrate different writing techniques throughout the handbook (Armed
Service Arts Partnership 2018a) include self-deprecating humor in some form (e.g.,
“I started running this summer to get in shape and figured I would try interval
training. So I’ll do 8 min on, 2 months off. For some reason, I haven’t burned much
fat”); and like with the fifth and seventh habits, several of the prompts directly
encourage some light self-deprecation (e.g., “What is something you think you
should have figured out by now?,” “Did you ever say or do something embarrassing
in front of a subordinate?”). In teaching participants how to lay out their set, the
handbook advises that “if there is something about you as a performer that might
be distracting to the audience, it may help to address it, own it, and move on with
your set,” further adding that “a bit of self-deprecation and honesty can help you
connect with the audience” (Armed Services Arts Partnership 2018a).
     Structurally, Comedy Bootcamp is similar in length to 7HH, instructor-led, and
includes elements resembling 7HH’s home play and humor log exercises. The home
play of Comedy Bootcamp takes the form of weekly assignments, mostly revolving
around writing and practicing material to perform and workshop in the upcoming
class sessions. A formal humor log is absent from Comedy Bootcamp, but parts of the
program still serve this component’s purpose. For instance, early in the program
participants are asked to reflect on their sense of humor through a series of prompts,
such as “Where do you think you will draw material from?” and “When do funny
things pop in your head?” (Armed Services Arts Partnership 2018a). As participants
progress through (and beyond) Comedy Bootcamp, program instructors advise
participants to watch recordings of their sets to “identify what went well, and where
there is room for improvement” (Armed Services Arts Partnership 2018a).

1 Encouraging the use of self-deprecating humor should not be confused with encouraging a
maladaptive self-defeating humor style. In the initial conception of humor styles, Martin et al.
(2003) recognizes light self-deprecation as a facet of the affiliative humor style. Comedy Boot-
camp’s goal of self-deprecation, as a tool of stand-up comedy to “connect with the audience,” is
further in line with the affiliative humor style’s focus on building relationships.

Stand-up comedy as humor training       7

     Although all seven humor habits from McGhee’s 7HH are present in Comedy
Bootcamp, there are important differences. First, the goals of the programs are
different. The 7HH aims to directly train one’s sense of humor: to use humor to cope
with stressors and improve well-being. Comedy Bootcamp aims to train partici-
pants in the specific art of stand-up comedy: to use humor to generate laughs from
audiences (regardless of how personal their material may be). Related to this focus
on stand-up comedy, Comedy Bootcamp culminates with a live performance for a
public audience. The 7HH has no performance or public-facing component. Con-
cerning home play, the 7HH assigns home play for each of the seven habits.
Comedy Bootcamp home play only ever relates to the first and fourth habits due to
the nature of the artform. On a final note, Comedy Bootcamp is tailored to exclu-
sively serve military populations, to build stand-up comedy skills and foster social
support and belonging in that community. The 7HH is not tied to any particular
population (however, as Ruch et al. 2018 learned from one of their intervention
samples, 7HH can serve as a foundation for social support).
     Despite these differences, the overlap between programs suggests that existing
research on the 7HH may provide insight about the potential benefits of Comedy
Bootcamp. Crawford and Caltabiano (2011) compared the well-being of three
randomly assigned groups of healthy adult participants: (1) a group completing the
7HH program, (2) a social group that met weekly for tea and socializing, and (3) a
control group that received no intervention. Participants were assessed at the
beginning and end of their intervention, and three months after their intervention.
Results showed that the 7HH group experienced significant increases in self-
efficacy, positive affect, and optimism, and significant decreases in stress,
depression, and anxiety; all of these changes were sustained at the three-month
follow-up. The social and control groups showed no significant changes. The use of
a social comparison group is critical, in that it demonstrates the benefits of humor
training are not simply the result of the social interaction afforded by humor
interventions, but rather there is something about the nature of humor training
itself driving these results. Similar results of this humor training have also been
found in clinical populations (Falkenberg et al. 2011; Tagalidou et al. 2019). Criti-
cally, participants in these studies all reported enjoying the humor intervention.
     In perhaps the most deliberate assessment of the 7HH to date, Ruch et al.
(2018) measured the sense of humor and life satisfaction of participants in four
randomly assigned groups: (1) a group receiving the 7HH program in its entirety, (2)
a group receiving the 7HH program without the home play, (3) a “placebo humor”
group that exposed themselves to humor but did not receive any systematic
training like the 7HH groups, and (4) a control group that did not receive any
intervention. Participants were assessed before their intervention, at the end of
their intervention, and two months after their intervention. Results demonstrated

8        Olah et al.

that participation in the 7HH (with or without home play) showed significant
improvements in their sense of humor; not only were these increases sustained at
the two-month follow-up, but these improvements were noticeable to participants’
peers. The two 7HH groups also reported higher life satisfaction. Participants in the
placebo humor and waiting control groups did not experience improvements to
their sense of humor or life satisfaction. The inclusion of the placebo humor group
adds additional insight; the results of 7HH are not simply due to being exposed to
humor, but rather are due to the systematic, skills-based nature of the 7HH.
Interestingly, the 7HH group without home play improved more than the 7HH
group with home play; the researchers later learned that the group without
home play often met up voluntarily outside of the regular group sessions, and
Ruch et al. speculated that this level of enthusiasm and initiative spurred the
additional increases to their life satisfaction. Overall, these studies demonstrate
the effectiveness of the 7HH program in promoting participants’ sense of humor
and well-being.
     To date, no research has explored the 7HH program with military populations.
Brausa (1993) loosely describes a case study of veterans experiencing psychiatric
problems enrolled in a “comedy support group,” a humor training program
echoing some of the core 7HH skills. Participants seek out humor (mainly in joke
books), cultivate a playful attitude (establishing a norm accepting of silliness),
laugh more (as “joke etiquette,” members of the group laughed regardless of
whether they found each other’s jokes funny), and “create” verbal humor (by
reciting some jokes they’ve read/heard, not their own original humor). The
remaining habits are absent from their report. Brausa speculates this comedy
group improves participants’ moods and reduces stress, but focuses on humor’s
ability to distract from stressors, rather than humor’s ability to regulate emotions
(e.g., Martin et al. 2003), and does not assess the group’s impact on sense of humor.
Further, Brausa presents no formal description of their research methods or
measurements, only offering their perspective as a facilitator, ultimately leaving a
high risk of bias in reporting. More systematic evidence is needed to assess the
effects of humor training in military populations.

1.3 The present study

Using data from ASAP’s 2018 program impact evaluation, we compare the humor
styles and well-being of veterans enrolled in Comedy Bootcamp to a control
group comprised of veterans on a waiting list for ASAP’s classes. On the basis of
the literature reviewed, we hypothesized that participation in Comedy Bootcamp
promotes more positive humor styles (affiliative, self-enhancing). By improving

Stand-up comedy as humor training              9

Figure 1: Hypothesized mediation model.

these humor styles, we further hypothesized that participants experience greater
well-being, characterized by (1) increased resilience, (2) increased self-esteem,
(3) decreased depression, (4) decreased anxiety, and (5) decreased stress (see
Figure 1). This project was approved by the institutional review board at Western
Carolina University.

2 Method
2.1 Overview

We report on quantitative data collected as part of a program impact evaluation of
ASAP’s community arts classes that ran in Spring, Summer, and Fall 2018; classes
met at facilities in either Washington, D.C. or Hampton Roads, Virginia.2 We
assessed participants prior to starting the course (Pre), shortly upon completing
the course (Post), 3 months after completing the course, and 6 months after
completing the course. Additionally, we surveyed a control group established from
the organization’s waitlist in Fall 2018; this control group was also assessed in
same Pre and Post time periods but did not complete the 3- or 6-month follow-ups.

2.2 Participants

ASAP has an open application period during which veterans can apply to participate
in the organization’s programs. In this time period, ASAP promotes its programs
through a myriad of channels, including (a) flyers posted in local community venues

2 The results of separate one-way analysis of variance (ANOVAs) indicated there were no differ-
ences on any Pre-survey variables by location or season (all p-values > 0.10). Thus, all analyses are
collapsed across location and season.

10          Olah et al.

(e.g., coffee shops, libraries), (b) paid and organic social media posts, (c) referrals
from local Veteran Affairs medical centers, (d) referrals from local military bases,
(e) referrals from local veteran-serving organizations, (f) referrals from student
veteran coordinators at local colleges, and (g) word-of-mouth through their engaged
alumni community. Interested applicants apply via an online form, and selected by
the ASAP program team based on an established evaluation rubric. The rubric only
assesses prospective participants’ capacity to fully engage in the program, interests
in program participation, and personal goals. ASAP is a community-based arts
nonprofit open to all veterans, not a clinical organization dedicated to those with
diagnosed mental health issues. As such, applicants are not asked about their
mental health backgrounds in the application process. After being accepted to the
program or being placed on the waitlist, all participants were invited to opt-in to the
program evaluation.
     We analyzed data provided by participants who (1) personally served in the
military3 and (2) completed all four surveys (two in the case of the waiting control
group) from ASAP’s 2018 program impact evaluation that were either in the
Comedy Bootcamp class (n = 41) or the waiting list control group (n = 31).4 Both
groups were comparable in their demographics (each approximately 60% male,
63% White, 70% over 35 years old). The majority of participants served active duty
as either enlisted or officer capacities in the Army and/or Navy. For both groups of
participants, approximately 80% served at least 6 years, and approximately 65%
served at least part of their service after September 11, 2001 (i.e., “Post-9/11 Era”).
See Table 1 for the full demographics of each group.

2.3 Procedure

Prior to the first day of class, ASAP staff informed participants about the program
evaluation, inviting them to complete the Pre-survey after giving electronic con-
sent. After class ended, participants completed the Post-survey within two weeks
of their graduation performance. Comedy Bootcamp participants completed
follow-up surveys 3 and 6 months after graduation and were compensated with gift
cards for completing both surveys. All surveys were delivered via email and

3 ASAP broadly defines “veteran” to also include spouses, dependents, and caregivers to military
personnel. To better situate our study with the literature reviewed above, we excluded data from
these parties and focus only on outcomes for those who directly served in the military. It should be
noted that up to two family/caregivers were students in the Comedy Bootcamp classes each term.
4 Initially, 61 Comedy Bootcamp participants completed the Pre-survey; of these, 20 did not meet
the inclusion criteria outlined above. For the waiting list control group, 42 participants completed
the Pre-survey, of which 11 did not meet the inclusion criteria.

Stand-up comedy as humor training          11

Table : Demographics for Comedy Bootcamp (n = ) and waiting control group (n = ).

                                                         Comedy Bootcamp        Waiting list

Gender
Male                                                                                   
Female                                                                                 
Other                                                                                    
Age
–                                                                                    
–                                                                                   
–                                                                                   
–                                                                                   
–                                                                                    
+                                                                                      
Race
White, non-Hispanic                                                                    
Black or African-American                                                               
Latino/a                                                                                 
American Indian or Alaskan Native                                                        
Asian                                                                                    
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander                                                       
Other                                                                                    
Active duty
Yes                                                                                    
No                                                                                       
Service component
Enlisted                                                                               
Officer                                                                                 
Missing                                                                                  
Years of service
– years                                                                                
– years                                                                              
– years                                                                              
– years                                                                              
+ years                                                                                
Missing                                                                                  
Branch
Army                                                                                   
Navy                                                                                    
Air force                                                                                
Marines                                                                                  
Coast Guard                                                                              
National Guard                                                                           

12           Olah et al.

Table : (continued)

                                                                       Comedy Bootcamp             Waiting list

Service dates
September  or later                                                                                    
August  to August  (includes Persian Gulf War)                                                     
May  to July                                                                                         
Vietnam era (August  to April )                                                                      
The items for race, branch, and service dates allowed for multiple response. All other demographics in this table
allowed participants to select only one response.

completed on participants’ own time through Qualtrics. The control group par-
ticipants completed their Pre- and Post-surveys in the same time period as the Fall
2018 Comedy Bootcamp participants completed their surveys in exchange for
guaranteed enrollment in the Spring 2019 classes.

2.4 Measures

All participants completed the following measures5 in the order presented in both
the Pre- and Post-surveys. Additionally, the Post-survey collected demographic
information (all participants) and program feedback (Comedy Bootcamp partici-
pants). Comedy Bootcamp participants completed the same measures in the
3-month and 6-month follow-up surveys, along with two items thereafter assessing
whether or not they have (1) continued engaging in the arts upon graduation, and
(2) maintained contact with someone they met through ASAP (participants
responded to these items with either “Yes” or “No”).

2.4.1 Dispositional resilience scale (DRS-15)

We used the DRS-15 (Bartone 1999, 2007) to assess participants’ psychological
hardiness, a construct closely related to resilience and defined as a set of attitudes
that influence people’s perceptions of the world and their experiences, particularly
around disruption or stress. The DRS-15 is comprised of three 5-item subscales:
commitment (the tendency to see life as interesting and meaningful; e.g., “Most of
my life gets spent doing things that are meaningful”), control (the belief that one

5 The surveys initially included the 6-item Social Support Questionnaire (Sarason et al. 1987) after
the DASS-21. However, we observed that participants found this scale cumbersome (as imple-
mented in Qualtrics), with several dropping out rather than completing the remainder of the
survey. This combined with low internal reliabilities led us to remove this scale shortly into the
summer classes, and thus we do not include this scale in analysis.

Stand-up comedy as humor training             13

can control or influence events in their life; e.g., “By working hard you can nearly
always achieve your goals”), and challenge (the preference to explore and try new
things; e.g., “Changes in routine are interesting to me”). Participants indicate on a
4-point scale how true each statement is for them, ranging from 0 (Not at all true) to
3 (Completely true). Cronbach’s α (Pre/Post) was 0.75/0.85 for the overall measure
of hardiness; for each subscale, Cronbach’s α was 0.84/0.84, 0.75/0.83, and
0.53/0.69 for commitment, control, and challenge,6 respectively.

2.4.2 Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE)

We used Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item measure of self-esteem (e.g., “On the whole, I
am satisfied with myself”). Participants responded to each item on a scale ranging
from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Cronbach’s α (Pre/Post) was 0.93/0.92.

2.4.3 Humor styles questionnaire (HSQ)

Martin et al.’s (2003) HSQ consists of four 8-item subscales assessing the extent to
which one habitually practices affiliative humor (e.g., “I don’t have to work very
hard at making other people laugh- I seem to be a naturally humorous person”),
self-enhancing humor (“If I am feeling depressed, I can usually cheer myself up
with humor”), aggressive humor (“If someone makes a mistake, I will often tease
them about it”) and self-defeating humor (“I let people laugh at me or make fun at
my expense more than I should”). Participants indicated agreement with each item
on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (Totally Disagree) to 7 (Totally Agree). Cronbach’s α
(Pre/Post) was acceptable for affiliative humor (0.79/0.82), self-enhancing humor
(0.84/0.90), aggressive humor (0.81/0.74), and self-defeating humor (0.85/0.85).

2.4.4 Depression, anxiety, and stress scales (DASS-21)

We used the three eponymous 7-item subscales of Lovibond and Lovibond’s
(1995a, 1995b) DASS-21 measure to assess the degree participants experienced
depression (e.g., “I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling at all”),
anxiety (e.g., “I felt I was close to panic”), and stress (e.g., “I found it difficult to
relax”). This measure has shown excellent reliability and validity in both clinical
and nonclinical samples (Antony et al. 1998). Participants rated the extent to which

6 One item was removed from the challenge subscale (“I enjoy the challenge when I have to do
more than one thing at a time”) due to low internal reliability; prior to removing this item,
Cronbach’s α (Pre/Post) was 0.38/0.66 for the challenge subscale. Statistics reported for overall
resilience retain this item, and results are unchanged if the item is removed.

14        Olah et al.

each statement applied to them over the past week on a 4-point scale ranging from
1 (Did not apply to me at all) to 4 (Applied to me very much, or most of the time).
Cronbach’s α (Pre/Post) was 0.94/0.92 for the depression scale, 0.81/0.80 for the
anxiety scale, and 0.84/0.84 for the stress scale.

2.4.5 Program feedback

At the end of the Post-survey, Comedy Bootcamp participants rated the course on a
number of dimensions. Particularly relevant to this paper, participants reported (1)
whether they had interest in participating in future ASAP-sponsored classes,
workshops, and performances [Yes, No, Unsure], (2) whether they would recom-
mend Comedy Bootcamp to others [Yes, No], (3) their rating of the Comedy Boot-
camp curriculum, and (4) their rating of their overall experience with the course. To
rate the curriculum, participants responded to 3 items developed by the authors on
a scale ranging from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Outstanding); the items were “Helpfulness of the
class materials,” “Strength of in-class activities (icebreakers, lessons, discus-
sions),” and “Value of the workshopping sessions” (Cronbach’s α = 0.86). To rate
their overall experience with the course, participants responded to 6 items
developed by the authors on a scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree); the items read “I felt comfortable sharing/creating with others in the
classroom,” “The classroom environment was encouraging and safe,” “I found the
class to be an enjoyable experience,” “By the time the graduation performance
arrived, I felt prepared to perform on stage,” “I found the graduation show to be an
enjoyable experience,” and “I plan on using the tools I learned in the class to
continue pursuing the craft” (Cronbach’s α = 0.95). The survey concluded with an
optional open-ended question for additional feedback.

3 Results
3.1 Overview

We first provide descriptive statistics and confirm the HSQ is an appropriate in-
strument for military populations. We then present hierarchical regression models
testing the impact of Comedy Bootcamp on humor styles. Next, we describe a series
of mediation analyses, using Hayes’ (2017) PROCESS macro, to test whether
Comedy Bootcamp improves participants’ well-being as a result of improved hu-
mor styles. To examine the longevity of these impacts on humor styles and well-
being, we report repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Lastly, we
describe program feedback from participants to explore whether the program was

Stand-up comedy as humor training       15

well-received by veterans. Post-hoc power analysis through G*Power (Faul et al.
2007) indicated we achieved at least 76% power for each statistical test.

3.2 Descriptive statistics and HSQ validation

Table 2 displays the means and standard deviations for each variable as assessed
in the Pre- and Post-survey of each group. Additionally, Table 2 shows the cor-
relations between humor styles and each well-being variable as assessed in the
Pre-survey, collapsed across condition. The pattern of correlations mimics those
found in previous HSQ research. For instance, the self-enhancing and affiliative
humor styles are positively correlated, r = 0.63, p < 0.001, as are the aggressive and
self-defeating humor styles, r = 0.42, p < 0.001 (e.g., Boerner et al., 2017; Martin
et al. 2003). The self-enhancing humor style is positively correlated with self-
esteem, r = 0.45, p < 0.001, and negatively with depression, r = −0.39, p = 0.001;
consistent with previous research (e.g., Cann and Collette 2014; Martin et al. 2003),
self-defeating humor style shows the opposite relationship (self-esteem: r = −0.43,
p < 0.001; depression: r = 0.35, p = 0.003). Collectively, these results provide
preliminary evidence that the HSQ is a valid instrument for veteran populations.

3.3 Humor styles

We first predicted that participation in Comedy Bootcamp would increase self-
enhancing humor. To test this hypothesis, we regressed Post-survey self-enhancing
humor style onto participation in Comedy Bootcamp (dummy-coded: 0 = Waiting
List, 1 = Comedy Bootcamp) while controlling for Pre-self-enhancing humor style
(see Table 3). Pre-survey self-enhancing humor style was entered in the first step of
the model, and participation in Comedy Bootcamp was entered into the second step.
The first step of the model accounted for 66.7% of the variance, R2 = 0.667,
F(1, 70) = 140.47, p < 0.001. Adding Comedy Bootcamp participation to the second
step of the model accounted for an additional 2.2% of the variance, ΔR2 = 0.022,
F(2, 69) = 76.42, p < 0.001. In this second step, Comedy Bootcamp participation
predicted significantly higher Post-survey self-enhancing humor style, b = 0.32
(SE = 0.15), β = 0.15, t(69) = 2.19, p = 0.032, 95% CI [0.03, 0.61], r = 0.25.
     We conducted the same analysis for affiliative humor style. The first step of the
model accounted for 50.3% of the variance, R2 = 0.503, F(1, 70) = 70.79, p < 0.001.
However, adding Comedy Bootcamp participation to the second step of the model
failed to statistically improve the model, ΔR2 = 0.020, F(2, 69) = 37.80, p < 0.001.
Comedy Bootcamp participation failed to significantly predict Post-survey

Table : Correlations, means, and standard deviations (SD).
                                                                                                                                                                             16

                                                                                              Comedy Bootcamp                                  Waiting list

                                    .           .           .             .      Pre mean (SD)         Post mean (SD)         Pre mean (SD)         Post mean (SD)

. Self-enhancing HS                        .**         .           .          . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
                                                                                                                                                                             Olah et al.

. Affiliative HS              .**                      .*           .          . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
. Aggressive HS                .         .*                      .**          . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
. Self-defeating HS            .          .       .**                         . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
. Self-esteem                .**          .        −.       −.**           . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
. Overall resilience         .**          .        −.         −.           . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
. Commitment                   .         −.        −.         −.           . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
. Control                    .**         .*         .         −.           . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
. Challenge                    .          .         .          .           . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
. Depression               −.**         −.         .        .**           . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
. Anxiety                    −.          .         .          .           . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
. Stress                    −.*         −.         .          .           . (.)             . (.)           . (.)             . (.)
Correlations are based on the pre-survey data collapsed across conditions (n = ). *p < ., **p < .. Results of independent samples t-tests indicated no differences
between the Comedy Bootcamp and waiting list participants on any pre-survey variables (all p-values > .).

Stand-up comedy as humor training                   17

Table : Regression analysis predicting post-survey humor styles.

                                                                                   % CI for b              r

                              b       SE           β           t           p     Lower       Upper

Self-enhancing
Step  (R = .)
Humor style (pre)         .      .       .      .

18           Olah et al.

depression, anxiety, and stress. For the analyses on each of these well-being vari-
ables, we used Hayes’ (2017) bootstrapping macro for SPSS (PROCESS v3.1, Model 4),
computing bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (with 5,000 resamples). The
bootstrapping procedures determine if an effect is different from zero by providing a
95% confidence interval for the population value for that effect; if the confidence
interval does not include zero, the effect is significant at p < 0.05. We conducted
separate analyses for each well-being outcome, using a dummy-coded variable
representing participation in Comedy Bootcamp (0 = Waiting List, 1 = Comedy
Bootcamp) as the predictor variable, and post-survey self-enhancing humor style as
the mediator variable. For each analysis, we treated pre-survey self-enhancing hu-
mor style and pre-survey levels of the outcome variable as covariates. In each model,
the effect of Comedy Bootcamp on self-enhancing humor was significant, with b
coefficients ranging between 0.32 and 0.37. Results are summarized in Table 4.

Table : Direct and indirect effects of Comedy Bootcamp on well-being outcomes as mediated by
self-enhancing humor style.

Path                                                             b (SE)                              % CI

Direct: X → M
Class → SE humor                                           . (.)                          [., .]
Direct: M → Y
SE humor → self-esteem                                    . (.)                            [., .]
SE humor → resilience (overall)                           . (.)                            [., .]
SE humor → commitment                                     . (.)                            [., .]
SE humor → depression                                    −. (.)                        [−., −.]
SE humor → anxiety                                       −. (.)                          [−., .]
SE humor → stress                                        −. (.)                        [−., −.]
Direct: X → Y
Class → self-esteem                                      −. (.)                         [−., .]
Class → resilience (overall)                              . (.)                         [−., .]
Class → commitment                                        . (.)                         [−., .]
Class → depression                                        . (.)                         [−., .]
Class → anxiety                                          −. (.)                         [−., .]
Class → stress                                           −. (.)                         [−., .]
Indirect: X → M → Y
Self-esteem                                               . (.)                            [., .]
Resilience (overall)                                      . (.)                          [−., .]
Commitment                                                . (.)                            [., .]
Depression                                               −. (.)                        [−., −.]
Anxiety                                                  −. (.)                          [−., .]
Stress                                                   −. (.)                        [−., −.]
n = . Class is a dummy-coded variable,  = Waiting List,  = Comedy Bootcamp. The b(SE) column indicates
unstandardized beta coefficients and standard error for direct effects, and boot coefficients and standard error
for indirect effects. The % CI column indicates the confidence interval for the coefficient; an effect is
statistically significant at p < . if the confidence interval does not contain zero.

Stand-up comedy as humor training        19

3.4.1 Self-esteem

In line with our hypotheses, we found the indirect effect of Comedy Bootcamp on
self-esteem through self-enhancing humor style was significant, boot coefficient for
the indirect effect = 0.07, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.01, 0.16]. The direct effect of Comedy
Bootcamp on self-esteem after controlling for the increase in self-enhancing humor
style was not significant, b = −0.02, t(67) = −0.27, p = 0.785, 95% CI [−0.20, 0.15].
Collectively, these results support our hypothesis that participation in Comedy
Bootcamp improves self-esteem by promoting the self-enhancing humor style.

3.4.2 Resilience

Concerning overall resilience, we found the indirect effect was not significant, boot
coefficient for the indirect effect = 0.05, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.00, 0.12]. The direct
effect was also insignificant, b = 0.07, t(67) = 1.07, p = 0.289, 95% CI [−0.06, 0.21].
Contrary to our hypothesis, Comedy Bootcamp did not significantly improve par-
ticipants’ overall resilience.
     It is possible that the low Pre-survey internal reliability of the challenge
subscale hindered our measure of overall resilience, or that not all components of
resilience are affected by the intervention. Thus, exploratory paired samples
t-tests examined each of the three subscales of the DRS-15 for Comedy Bootcamp
participants. Results indicated that of the three subscales, only the commitment
factor significantly improved from the Pre-survey to the Post-survey, t (40) = 3.76,
p = 0.001. There was no significant change observed for control, t(40) = 1.35,
p = 0.185, or for challenge, t(40) = −1.30, p = 0.201.
     Based on these results, we replicated the mediation analysis above, replacing
the overall resilience scores with the commitment scores. The indirect effect on
commitment was significant, boot coefficient for the indirect effect = 0.08, SE = 0.05,
95% CI [0.00, 0.18]. The direct effect was not significant, b = 0.07, t(67) = 0.75,
p = 0.454, 95% CI [−0.11, 0.24]. Thus, our hypothesis was partially supported;
Comedy Bootcamp appears to improve only the commitment factor of resilience by
promoting the self-enhancing humor style.

3.4.3 Depression

Also in line with hypotheses, we found the indirect effect of Comedy Bootcamp on
depression through self-enhancing humor style was significant, boot coefficient for
the indirect effect = −0.09, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [−0.22, −0.00]. The direct effect of
Comedy Bootcamp on depression after controlling for the increase in self-
enhancing humor style was not significant, b = 0.06, t(67) = 0.52, p = 0.91, 95% CI

20        Olah et al.

[−0.18, 0.31]. Collectively, these results support our hypotheses that participation
in Comedy Bootcamp reduces depression in veterans by promoting the self-
enhancing humor style.

3.4.4 Anxiety

Looking at anxiety, the indirect effect was not significant, boot coefficient for the
indirect effect = −0.03, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.09, 0.02]. The direct effect was also
insignificant, b = −0.05, t(67) = −0.43, p = 0.668, 95% CI [−0.26, 0.17]. Contrary to
our hypothesis, Comedy Bootcamp did not significantly improve participants’
anxiety.
     Interestingly, however, exploratory paired samples t-tests revealed that
the waiting control group participants experienced an increase in anxiety from
the Pre-survey (M = 1.35, SD = 0.40) to the Post-survey (M = 1.55, SD = 0.53),
t(30) = 2.90, p = 0.007. Meanwhile, there was no significant change in anxiety for
Comedy Bootcamp participants, t(40) = 0.82, p = 0.420. While participation in
Comedy Bootcamp does not improve anxiety, it may help prevent the exacerbation
of anxiety.

3.4.5 Stress

Supporting our final mediation hypothesis, the indirect effect of Comedy Boot-
camp on stress through self-enhancing humor style was significant, boot coef-
ficient for the indirect effect = −0.10, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [−0.22, −0.01]. The direct
effect of Comedy Bootcamp on stress after controlling for the increase in self-
enhancing humor style was not significant, b = −0.05, t(67) = −0.40, p = 0.687,
95% CI [−0.28, 0.18]. Collectively, these results support our hypotheses that
participation in Comedy Bootcamp reduces veterans’ stress by promoting the
self-enhancing humor style.

3.5 Longitudinal analysis

We use the 3- and 6-month follow-up data to examine whether the observed effects
lasted beyond the class’s completion. We performed repeated measures ANOVA on
each variable that improved from the course (self-enhancing humor style, self-
esteem, depression, stress, and commitment), using the assessment period (Post,
3-, 6-month) as a within-subjects factor; this was followed up with pairwise
comparisons using the Bonferroni correction to test whether the 3- and 6-month
scores were significantly different from the Post-survey scores. In order to control

Stand-up comedy as humor training        21

for participants’ improvement in self-enhancing humor style, we included Pre-
survey and Post-survey self-enhancing humor style as covariates when analyzing
the well-being outcomes. One participant was missing 6-month HSQ and DASS-21
data, so analyses of those variables in this section are based on 40 Comedy
Bootcamp participants.

3.5.1 Self-enhancing humor style

The main effect of time was marginally significant, F(2, 78) = 3.10, p = 0.051,
ηp2 = 0.07, a medium effect. Pairwise comparisons show that there was no sig-
nificant change from the Post-survey (M = 5.88, SD = 0.88) to the 3-month survey
(M = 5.80, SD = 0.88), p = 1.00. The change from post-survey to the 6-month survey
(M = 5.65, SD = 0.97) was marginally significant, p = 0.056. Collectively, it is evident
that the benefit of Comedy Bootcamp to self-enhancing humor style remains at
least 3 months after course completion, but it is unclear whether it lasts through
6 months.

3.5.2 Self-esteem

The main effect of time was not significant, F(2, 76) = 1.33, p = 0.270, ηp2 = 0.03.
There was no significant change from the Post-survey (M = 3.32, SD = 0.54) to the
3-month survey (M = 3.22, SD = 0.54), p = 0.239; there was also no significant
change from the Post-survey to the 6-month survey (M = 3.29, SD = 0.52), p = 1.00.
The benefit of Comedy Bootcamp for self-esteem remained through the 6-month
follow-up.

3.5.3 Commitment

The main effect of time was not significant, F(2, 76) = 0.36, p = 0.697, ηp2 = 0.01.
Participants retain their Post-survey levels of commitment through at least
6 months.

3.5.4 Depression

The main effect of time was not significant, F(2, 74) = 0.13, p = 0.879, ηp2 = 0.00.
Participants retain their Post-survey levels of depression at 3 and 6 months after
course completion.

22        Olah et al.

3.5.5 Stress

The main effect of time was not significant, F(2, 74) = 1.71, p = 0.187, ηp2 = 0.04.
Pairwise comparisons show no significant change from the Post-survey (M = 1.93,
SD = 0.64) to the 3-month survey (M = 2.08, SD = 0.73), p = 0.238; nor was there
a significant change from the Post-survey to the 6-month survey (M = 2.10,
SD = 0.70), p = 0.092. Collectively, these results suggest the benefit of Comedy
Bootcamp to stress lasts at least 6 months.

3.6 Program feedback

Frequency analyses revealed that at the time of Post-survey, all Comedy Bootcamp
participants reported that they had interest in participating in future
ASAP-sponsored programs and performance opportunities, and that they would
recommend Comedy Bootcamp to other veterans. Furthermore, one-sample t-tests
(comparing to the scales’ midpoint) indicate that participants rated the curriculum
highly, M = 4.63, SD = 0.61, t(40) = 17.18, p < 0.001, as well as their overall
experience, M = 4.66, SD = 0.73, t(40) = 14.51, p < 0.001. Collectively, these analyses
indicate that the enrolled military veterans enjoyed the program.

4 Discussion
The results largely confirmed our hypotheses. Comedy Bootcamp participants
increased in their self-enhancing (but not affiliative) humor style. Participants
reported having greater self-esteem, less depression and stress (but not anxiety),
and greater resilience (specifically commitment) upon the completion of the pro-
gram. Further, participation in Comedy Bootcamp related to each of these im-
provements by promoting participants’ self-enhancing humor style. Lastly, all of
these improvements were sustained at least 3 months after course completion,
which is consistent with previous longitudinal 7HH research (Crawford and Cal-
tabiano 2011; Ruch et al. 2018).
     Contrary to hypotheses, participants did not report improved affiliative humor
styles. One likely explanation for this is our sample. This particular sample (both
the intervention and control groups) reported higher Pre-survey levels of affiliative
humor than of self-enhancing humor (see Table 2); it may be that we encountered
ceiling effects that limited statistical power to detect smaller improvements in this
style that these participants already highly endorse. Future research should gather
larger sample sizes to test this explanation prior to assuming such programs have

Stand-up comedy as humor training       23

no effect on affiliative humor style. However, given that stand-up comedy inher-
ently and explicitly involves using humor to amuse others (i.e. affiliative humor’s
main function), researchers may be hard-pressed to find aspiring comedians with a
low enough initial affiliative humor style to test for such ceiling effects.
     Also contrary to our hypotheses, there were no improvements in participants’
anxiety. However, it is worth noting that the waiting control group actually
experienced increased anxiety; this could be the result of random error, or it might
suggest that Comedy Bootcamp can mitigate anxiety among veterans that other-
wise worsens over time. Interestingly, Table 2 shows anxiety was unrelated to any
humor style, suggesting that such a mitigation effect is due to some non-humor
mechanism (e.g., social support). These results conflict with Maiolino and Kuiper’s
(2014) findings that college students’ self-enhancing humor styles predict reduced
anxiety scores on the DASS-21. This may imply that military populations employ
non-humor coping strategies in dealing with their anxiety, or that humor-based
coping is ineffective for their anxiety (though it seems it is effective for their
depression and stress). Future research should investigate the functions humor
serves in veterans’ well-being, particularly given that humor-based coping is not
uncommon among this population (Rice and Liu 2016).
     This evaluation contributes to humor studies in a number of ways. First, this is
the first formal investigation of a humor training intervention for military veterans.
Second, this study documents the impacts of a stand-up comedy class on well-
being. Previous studies have explored the humor styles (Greengross et al. 2012) and
well-being of working stand-up comedians (Butler and Russell 2018). However,
reports of how learning stand-up comedy impacts well-being are virtually
nonexistent. The only exception from our literature search was a feasibility study
of a 12-week long Skype-based stand-up comedy training (also culminating in a
public performance) administered by a professional comedian (who was also a
mental health counselor) for people with diagnosed mental illness, in adjunct with
their standard care (Rudnick et al. 2014). Qualitative interviews indicated their
participants perceived greater happiness and self-esteem from Rudnick et al.’s
intervention. While it is unclear from their description how much their intervention
overlaps with 7HH and other structured humor interventions, Rudnick et al.’s
(2014) report complements the findings of the present study and supports the
notion that stand-up comedy classes can promote well-being. Furthermore, the
present study’s descriptive statistics (see Table 2) indicate our participants fell
largely in the normal to moderate ranges of each of the DASS-21 subscales
(as indicated by guidelines from Lovibond and Lovibond 1995b), whereas Rudnick
et al.’s sample was comprised solely of those with mental health diagnoses.
Because ASAP is a community arts program, rather than a clinical organization, we
do not have data about our sample’s actual mental health diagnoses, as it is not

24        Olah et al.

considered in their application or evaluation processes. However, it seems likely
from the sample characteristics of both Rudnick et al. and the present study that
stand-up comedy training can be beneficial to the well-being of those with and
without mental health diagnoses.
     Although stand-up comedy’s benefits as a humor intervention are not
commonly investigated, it should be noted that researchers have explored the
well-being benefits of another humor-related arts intervention: improv. For
example, Schwenke et al. (2021) found that a 6-week group-based improv course
promoted participants’ creativity, self-esteem, and resilience. Morse et al. (2018)
document the Humor Doesn’t Retire improv course from The Second City, showing
improved mood, reduced stress and burden, and greater social support for elderly
populations. Krueger et al. (2019) found similar results when using improv as an
adjunct intervention for psychiatric patients. Future research might compare
different artforms (and the techniques unique to them) to determine what drives
these beneficial effects.

4.1 Limitations and future directions

One limitation to this study’s design is that the effects of humor and social support
cannot be distinguished. It is possible that some or all of these results are driven at
least in part by the social interactions threaded throughout the Comedy Bootcamp
experience (e.g., learning and performing together with other veterans), rather
than the actual humor training components. Indeed, 85% of participants reported
maintaining relationships with people they met through their involvement six
months after graduation. Previous research has shown that, like self-enhancing
humor style in this study, social support is associated with greater self-esteem and
resilience and decreased depression and stress (e.g., Bryan and Hernandez 2013;
Wall and Lowe 2020). Moreover, having friends who understand the military
experience is reported to benefit veterans’ well-being (Hinojosa and Hinojosa
2011). That said, Fritz (2020) reported that social support only partially mediated
self-enhancing humor’s relationship with stress in a college sample, and Ward
et al. (2021) found the use of coping humor predicted decreased PTSD symptoms in
active-duty military populations even after accounting for the effects of unit
cohesion (i.e. bonding and belonging with one’s unit); these findings suggest there
is something about humor beyond the role of social support that benefits well-
being. This is further supported in the present study, as Comedy Bootcamp failed to
produce significant improvement in participants’ affiliative humor, the style most
strongly associated with social support. If social support was the primary driver of