Data analysis strategy

A mixture of linear regression analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and investigations into

the moderating effects on factor relationships by specified influences will be pursued as

Table 4.2 The analyses methods for testing hypotheses Hypothesis

number

Analysis method or methods.

H1.1: Linear regression having first performed a confirmatory

factor analysis to establish the latent variables Positive Humour and Work Performance.

H1.2: Linear regression having first performed a confirmatory

factor analysis to establish the latent variables Positive Humour and Work Attitude.

H1.3: Linear regression with the moderator variable Fun Climate having first performed a confirmatory factor analysis to establish Fun Climate as a latent variable. H1.4: Linear regression with the moderator variable Fun

Climate having first performed a confirmatory factor analysis to establish Fun Climate as a latent variable. H1.5: Linear regression with the moderator variable

Supervisors’ Sense of Humour.

H1.6: Linear regression with the moderator variable Supervisors’ Sense of Humour.

H1.7: Linear regression having first performed a confirmatory

factor analysis to establish the latent variable Positive Humour.

H1.8: Linear regression having first performed a confirmatory

factor analysis to establish the latent variable Positive Humour.

H1.9: Linear regression having first performed a confirmatory

factor analysis to establish the latent variable Positive Humour.

H1.10: Linear regression having first performed a confirmatory

factor analysis to establish the latent variable Positive Humour.

H1.11: Linear regression having first performed a confirmatory

factor analysis to establish the latent variable Positive Humour.

H1.12: Linear regression having first performed a confirmatory

factor analysis to establish the latent variable Work Performance.

H1.13: Linear regression having first performed a confirmatory

factor analysis to establish the latent variable Work Attitude.

H1.14: Linear regression having first performed a confirmatory

factor analysis to establish the latent variable Positive Humour and Work Performance.

H1.15 Linear regression having first performed a confirmatory

factor analysis to establish the latent variable Positive Humour and Work Attitude.

The existing constructs of PsyCap and Humour Style are to be tested to confirm whether or

not the collected data loads onto these variables as predicted by the respective instrument

developers, Luthans et al., (2007) for PsyCap and Martin et al., (2003) for Humour Styles.

This Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) will be performed using the collected data for both

the PsyCap and Humour Style constructs. A new latent variable called ‘Positive Humour’, an aggregate of Martin et al.’s (2003) humour styles termed affiliative and self-enhancing

humour, will be tested also using the same CFA methodology. Having established that the

affiliative and self-enhancing humour items load successfully onto the new latent variable

Positive Humour, it in turn will be tested to ensure it loads onto the construct PsyCap. This is

a three-level CFA. Brown (2006, p. 40) reports that a CFA requires ‘a strong empirical or conceptual foundation to guide the specification and evaluation of the factor model.’ As

evidenced from discussions in Chapter 3, especially around the criteria for considering

potential PsyCap indicators, this conceptual foundation does exist.

The initial suggestion that humour may be regarded as a potential PsyCap contender comes from Luthans et al., (2007: 165) in which they observe that humour, generally, has a ‘positive

social impact, both on the deliverer and the recipient.’ However they also warn of the

potential downside in which use of inappropriate humour (negative humour) has been found to ‘repel others, causing social isolation for the deliverer, fear in observers, and reduced

group cohesion.’

Further, as PsyCap draws from positive psychology literature, and positive psychology in turn is described by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) as a ‘science of positive

subjective experience, positive individual traits, and positive institutions promises to improve

quality of life and prevent the pathologies that arise when life is barren and meaningless’ it

was decided that only positive humour should be pursued in relation to PsyCap through this

current study. Given these observations, the differentiation between positive humour and

negative humour is paramount to this study, again suggesting that the conceptual foundation

stipulated by Brown (2006) as being a requirement for a CFA, is solid.

Additional latent variables of Work Performance, Work Attitude and Fun Climate were

identified as being necessary to complete this research as these are workplace measures that

may be influenced (and ideally strengthened) by the constructs PsyCap and Positive Humour.

Once again these variables are based on a strong ‘conceptual foundation’ with Work Performance relying on each individual’s supervisor assessing that worker’s teamwork,

reflection of an individual’s job satisfaction, turnover intention (that is, their intention to

remain with, or leave, the organisation) and their attachment to that organisation. Similarly the Fun Climate variable relied on both the individual’s and the supervisor’s assessment of

the workplace culture in regards to how welcome humour was within that workplace. Items rated included ‘At my workplace we try and have fun whenever we can’, ‘Managers

encourage employees to have fun’ and ‘We laugh a lot at my workplace.’ All of these

variables are higher-order constructs, and thus the commonly accepted procedures

recommended by Hinken (1995) were used to conduct the confirmatory factor analyses.

A set of regression analyses will then test the relationship, if any, involving the newly created

constructs Work Performance (WorkPerf), Work Attitude (WorkAtt) with PsyCap, Positive

Humour (PosHum) and a combination of these two, and will also test if the existence of a

workplace Fun Climate has a moderating effect on these relationships.

Finally, the potential effect that a supervisor’s sense of humour may have on the climate experienced by his / her team (i.e. does the workplace enjoy a ‘fun climate’ or not), and also

the moderating effect that the supervisor’s sense of humour may have on the relationship

between the workplace climate (a fun climate) and work performance (WorkPerf) and work