This study examined the moderating impact of gender on the use of humor during employment interviews. Consistent with expectancy violation theory, I hypothesized that the use of humor by female candidates would cause more extreme evaluations than the use of humor by male candidates. In other words, when positive (affiliative) humor is used, females will be rated more positively than males, but when negative (aggressive) humor is used, females will be rated more negatively than males. I also hypothesized that the relationship between humor condition and evaluations would be partially mediated by state positive affect. I also posed a research question regarding how recall of what was said in the interview would relate to humor and evaluations. This experiment was a 2 (gender) x 3 (affiliative humor, aggressive humor, no humor) factorial design. Participants received brief interviewer training, interviewed a confederate playing another participant as the applicant, and then completed measures. Data from 221 undergraduate students were analyzed. Results demonstrate support of some hypotheses, including a main effect of humor condition on evaluations and partial mediation of state positive affect. Practical and theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.

No description available.