Richmond Humor Assessment Instrument (RHAI)

Abstract

The Richmond Humor Assessment Instrument (RHAI) is a widely recognized psychometric measurement tool developed within the discipline of instructional communication and interpersonal communication studies. Originally introduced by Virginia P. Richmond, Jason S. Wrench, and Joan Gorham (2001) and further validated in temperamental communication research by Wrench and McCroskey (2001), the instrument quantifies an individual’s self-perceived predisposition, competence, and frequency in utilizing humor as a primary communicative strategy. The scale comprises 16 items evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Psychometrically, the RHAI captures individual differences in humor production, enactment, and conversational entertainment value rather than passive humor appreciation. Across empirical investigations, the RHAI demonstrates high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently reported between .84 and .93. Factor analytic evaluations predominantly substantiate a robust unidimensional construct of humor communication orientation, although some structural analyses reveal underlying dual facets corresponding to active humor enactment and perceived comedic reticence. Construct validity is demonstrated through substantial positive correlations with teacher immediacy, assertiveness, responsiveness, and exhilaratability, alongside negative relationships with communication apprehension and neuroticism. The RHAI serves as an indispensable self-report instrument for educational researchers, organizational communication analysts, and psycholinguists seeking to evaluate communicative competence, relational affect, and instructional effectiveness.

Keywords

Richmond Humor Assessment Instrument, RHAI, humor communication, instructional communication, communicobiology, humor orientation, teacher immediacy, interpersonal communication, psychometrics, humor production, communication competence

Authors

The Richmond Humor Assessment Instrument was developed and operationalized by prominent scholars in human communication and instructional pedagogy:

• Virginia Peck Richmond, Ph.D.: Professor Emerita of Communication Studies at West Virginia University and past Executive Director of the Eastern Communication Association. Dr. Richmond is an internationally recognized authority on nonverbal communication, instructional communication, communication apprehension, and interpersonal influence.
• Jason S. Wrench, Ed.D.: Professor of Communication at the State University of New York (SUNY) at New Paltz. Dr. Wrench is an established researcher specializing in workplace communication, interpersonal relationships, quantitative research methods, and the communicobiological underpinnings of expressive traits.
• Joan Gorham, Ed.D.: Professor Emerita of Communication Studies at West Virginia University, whose foundational scholarship fundamentally defined the interaction between teacher nonverbal/verbal immediacy and student cognitive and affective learning in educational environments.
• James C. McCroskey, Ed.D. (Collaborating Scholar/Repository Archivist): Late Professor of Communication Studies at West Virginia University and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. McCroskey pioneered research in communicobiology, communication apprehension, and instructional metrics, formalizing the digital dissemination of the RHAI.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Richmond Humor Assessment Instrument (RHAI) is to assess an individual’s self-reported tendency, aptitude, and behavioral regularity in generating and deploying humor within interpersonal interactions, group settings, and instructional contexts. While historic psychological assessments of humor frequently focused on passive humor appreciation, amusement thresholds, or physiological laughter indices, the RHAI was designed explicitly to gauge active humor communication—the deliberate enactment of comedic timing, anecdotal levity, and spontaneous wit to achieve communication goals.

In instructional communication settings, humor is recognized as a potent verbal immediacy behavior. Instructors with elevated humor communication profiles regularly diminish the psychological distance between themselves and their students, fostering an open learning climate, alleviating situational anxiety, and capturing sustained classroom attention. Richmond, Wrench, and Gorham (2001) recognized that educators and communicators vary significantly in their subjective comfort and perceived competence regarding comedic delivery. Thus, developing a psychometrically sound, standardized inventory was essential to evaluate how humor usage directly correlates with affective learning, cognitive retention, and student-teacher rapport.

Beyond classroom contexts, the RHAI finds substantial application in organizational communication, interpersonal counseling, and leadership development. Within managerial studies, the instrument assists researchers in examining how supervisory humor influences subordinate job satisfaction, psychological safety, and organizational citizenship behaviors. In clinical and counseling settings, the RHAI offers diagnostic utility for assessing expressive deficits, socio-communicative style, and conversational competence in individuals experiencing social anxiety, severe communication apprehension, or neurodevelopmental communicative variations.

Psychological Construct

The theoretical construct captured by the RHAI is Humor Communication Orientation (HCO), characterized as an enduring, trait-like disposition toward initiating, sustaining, and structuring social discourse through humorous mechanisms. Unlike transient affective states or passive mirth appreciation (enjoying other people’s jokes), HCO encompasses cognitive formulation, social risk-taking, and encoding capabilities required to successfully project humor into public exchanges.

This construct is articulated across distinct operational dimensions embedded within the instrument:

• Spontaneous Humor Production and Naturalness: This dimension measures the extent to which an individual views humor not as a calculated, contrived performance, but as an effortless, default communication channel. Items such as “Being humorous is a natural communication orientation for me” and “I regularly communicate with others by joking with them” reflect this orientation. Individuals scoring high in this dimension perceive humor as an innate element of their socio-communicative repertoire.
• Narrative and Anecdotal Delivery Competence: Beyond simple puns or rehearsed jokes, communicative humor frequently relies on storytelling, situational framing, and vocal pacing. This facet gauges whether an individual feels capable of narrating humorous scenarios effectively without appearing dull or disjointed (e.g., “I relate amusing stories, jokes, and funny things very well to others” versus “Even funny ideas and stories seem dull when I tell them”).
• Audience Engagement and Social Perceptiveness: Successful humor communication requires decoding social feedback. This dimension assesses whether the speaker perceives that their humor resonates with conversational partners, eliciting genuine laughter and holding collective attention (e.g., “People usually laugh when I make a humorous remark” and “People don’t seem to pay close attention when I am being funny”).
• Cross-Situational Adaptability: High humor-oriented communicators demonstrate an ability to introduce humor across heterogeneous social contexts—including public speaking, instructional spaces, and casual interpersonal interactions (e.g., “I use humor to communicate in a variety of situations” and “I can easily relate funny or humorous ideas to the class”).
• Absence of Comedic Reticence and Self-Efficacy Deficits: The construct also accounts for perceived communicative inadequacy or comedic reticence. Negative self-evaluations (e.g., “I am not funny or humorous” and “I cannot be funny, even when asked to do so”) delineate low-efficacy orientations where individuals experience cognitive inhibition or apprehension regarding comedic overtures.

Theoretical Framework

The RHAI is anchored fundamentally in the Communicobiological Perspective developed by James C. McCroskey, Michael J. Beatty, and their colleagues. Communicobiology posits that core human communication traits, such as socio-communicative style, extraversion, and communication apprehension, are fundamentally rooted in genetically determined, neurobiological structures of the brain (such as the Behavioral Activation System and Behavioral Inhibition System). Under this theoretical model, humor communication is not merely an acquired rhetorical tactic; it reflects an individual’s constitutional temperament.

Wrench and McCroskey (2001) directly tested this paradigm by linking the RHAI to Hans Eysenck’s PEN (Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism) model and Willibald Ruch’s state-trait model of exhilaratability. According to Ruch’s framework, individual differences in humor expression are tied to three distinct temperamental traits: cheerfulness, seriousness, and bad mood. Communicators who possess high trait cheerfulness demonstrate lower physiological thresholds for amusement and a spontaneous inclination to produce humor. The communicobiological framework suggests that individuals with elevated baseline activation in neurobiological reward pathways naturally gravitate toward humor as an expressive modality, which the RHAI reliably indexes.

Additionally, the RHAI is grounded in Instructional Immediacy Theory, pioneered by Albert Mehrabian and adapted for communication studies by Virginia Richmond and Joan Gorham. Immediacy behaviors are those communication patterns that enhance physical or psychological closeness between interlocutors. Gorham (1988) demonstrated that verbal immediacy behaviors—particularly the use of self-deprecating humor, topical jokes, and humorous anecdotes—substantially stimulate student affective learning by reducing classroom authoritarianism, moderating cognitive load, and fostering cognitive processing. The RHAI bridges temperamental personality theory and instructional communication pedagogy, illustrating how innate behavioral predispositions translate into observable relational outcomes.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Richmond Humor Assessment Instrument has been evaluated across multiple empirical investigations involving undergraduate student cohorts, certified educators, and corporate professionals.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity for the RHAI is substantiated by strong convergent correlations with established measures of humor and interpersonal style. Wrench and McCroskey (2001) observed high, statistically significant positive correlations between the RHAI and the Humor Orientation (HO) scale developed by Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield (1991), with coefficients typically exceeding $r = .75$ ($p < .001$), confirming that both instruments tap into a shared overarching construct of communicative humor production. Furthermore, the RHAI correlates positively with:

• Assertiveness ($r = .35$ to $.45$): Communicators high in humor orientation possess the social initiative necessary to introduce comedic remarks into conversation without communicative reticence.
• Socio-Communicative Responsiveness ($r = .30$ to $.42$): Reflecting the social awareness required to adapt humorous content to the emotional needs of conversational partners.
• Trait Cheerfulness ($r = .50$ to $.62$): Substantiating Ruch’s temperamental exhilaratability hypotheses.
• Verbal Immediacy ($r = .40$ to $.55$): Demonstrating that teachers and speakers who score high on the RHAI employ more humor-based relational approaches in classroom settings.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by consistent negative or near-zero relationships with theoretically divergent constructs:

• Communication Apprehension: As measured by the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24), individuals with elevated humor communication profiles exhibit significantly lower levels of public speaking and group communication anxiety ($r = -.30$ to $-.45$).
• Neuroticism / Trait Bad Mood: RHAI scores demonstrate inverse relationships with chronic negative affectivity and trait bad mood ($r = -.25$ to $-.38$), proving that the instrument does not conflate humor production with cynical or neurotic coping mechanisms.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

In instructional and organizational investigations, RHAI scores consistently predict external relational outcomes. In instructional communication environments, instructors’ self-reported RHAI scores predict independent student ratings of teacher clarity ($r = .32$), affective learning toward the instructor ($r = .46$), and willingness to communicate in class ($r = .38$). In workplace assessments, managers scoring higher on the RHAI are rated by direct subordinates as exhibiting superior conflict-resolution skills and generating higher perceived team cohesion.

Reliability

The Richmond Humor Assessment Instrument exhibits excellent internal consistency reliability across diverse demographic groups and educational levels. In the foundational validation studies conducted by Richmond, Wrench, and Gorham (2001), as well as Wrench and McCroskey (2001), the instrument yielded Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients ranging from .89 to .92.

Subsequent independent studies in college classrooms, organizational training settings, and secondary school faculty evaluations have continually mirrored these elevated reliability indices, generally reporting alpha coefficients between .84 and .93. The high internal consistency indicates that the 16 items—both the positively keyed statements and the reverse-scored items—share substantial shared variance in indexing humor production orientation.

Test-retest reliability evaluations over temporal intervals of two to four weeks have yielded stability coefficients ranging between $r = .80$ and $.86$, underscoring that the RHAI evaluates a stable, trait-like communicative orientation rather than a transient, state-dependent mood fluctuation.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the RHAI has been scrutinized using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Structure

Initial principal components and principal axis factoring analyses conducted with varimax and oblimin rotations typically reveal an overwhelming dominant primary factor, accounting for 38% to 52% of the total scale variance. When forcing a single-factor extraction, all 16 items exhibit standardized factor loadings exceeding .40, with the vast majority loading between .55 and .78. This empirical evidence provides robust support for the convention of combining all items into a single composite index of humor communication orientation.

Two-Factor Alternative Models

In unconstrained exploratory factor analyses, two distinct factors frequently emerge, separated largely by item valency (directionality):

• Factor 1: Active Humor Enactment & Production Self-Efficacy (comprising items 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, and 15), characterized by strong positive loadings (e.g., item 5 at .76; item 13 at .72).
• Factor 2: Perceived Comedic Ineptitude & Delivery Reticence (comprising reverse-coded items 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16), which measure the perception that one’s humor falls flat or that one is fundamentally unamusing.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating a unidimensional model have demonstrated satisfactory to good fit indices when allowing for correlated uniqueness among reverse-coded items (a recognized method effect in psychometric testing). Typical fit statistics reported across university samples include:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .91 to .95
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 to .94
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .058 to .074 (with 90% confidence intervals bounded below .08)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .045 to .060

These structural indices confirm that while item wording polarity can produce secondary variance, the overarching, unified construct of humor communication orientation is theoretically and statistically justifiable.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

Below is the structured overview of the RHAI operational specifications:

• Instrument Name: Richmond Humor Assessment Instrument (RHAI)
• Assessment Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (instructors, students, managers, general communicators)
• Number of Items: 16 items
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree)
• Reverse-Scored Items: Items 3 (or designated negative items), 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 reflect absence or deficits in humor orientation and must be recoded prior to computing total scores: $5 = 1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3, 2 = 4, 1 = 5$. (Note: In some historic digital printings from instructional coursepacks, item 2 was misprinted in the recoding header list in lieu of item 3; standard psychometric reverse coding requires inverting negatively valenced statements such as items 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16).
• Scoring Procedure: Add the recorded ratings for all 16 items after completing necessary reverse recoding. Total composite scores range strictly from 16 to 80.
• Score Interpretations:
  • Composite Score $ge$ 60: High degree of humor communication usage. The individual exhibits high self-efficacy, regular comedic initiation, and views humor as a natural personal communication channel.
  • Composite Score 31 – 59: Moderate degree of humor communication usage. The individual utilizes humor conditionally, demonstrating contextual comfort in familiar settings while refraining from humor in formal or high-risk social interactions.
  • Composite Score $le$ 30: Low degree of humor communication usage. The individual rarely initiates jokes, experiences comedic reticence, or perceives their delivery as ineffective or dull.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Richmond Humor Assessment Instrument was formally published in 2001. Consistent with the academic traditions established by Dr. James C. McCroskey and Dr. Virginia P. Richmond at West Virginia University, this instrument was dedicated to the academic community for educational, research, and non-commercial instructional use without fee.

Scholars, educators, and graduate students may reproduce and administer the RHAI in non-commercial empirical research studies, master’s theses, and doctoral dissertations without obtaining prior written permission, provided that appropriate bibliographic credit and full APA citations are attributed to the original authors. For commercial applications, corporatized leadership assessment platforms, or inclusion in monetized print anthologies, permission should be secured from the primary living authors or their respective intellectual property estates.

References

• Booth-Butterfield, S., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (1991). Individual differences in the communication of humorous messages: The development of the Humor Orientation measure. Communication Quarterly, 39(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379109369788
• Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378702
• Richmond, V. P., Wrench, J. S., & Gorham, J. (2001). Communication, affect, and learning in the classroom. Tapestry Press.
• Ruch, W. (1997). State and trait cheerfulness and the induction of exhilaration: A FACS study. European Psychologist, 2(4), 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.2.4.328
• Wrench, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). A temperamental understanding of humor communication and exhilaratability. Communication Quarterly, 49(2), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370109385623

Items of the Scale