The Use of Humor in Therapy : Research-Based Training Recommendations

Despite its essential and universal nature, humor has historically received limited attention from the behavioral sciences, particularly as compared to other affective experiences like anger and sadness. Some authors (e.g., Bell & Malhi, 2009; Provine, 2000a; Roeckelein, 2002) suggest that this is because researchers have traditionally failed to "take humor seriously" and, according to O'Connell (cited in Roeckelein, 2002), have too often pursued its study in a piecemeal manner lacking scientific rigor, resulting in "no comprehensive network of facts about the development and purposes of humor in human existence" (p. 1). Roeckelein (2002) found not a single mention of humor, laughter, wit, comedy, or theories relating to these topics in introductory psychology textbooks published between 1930 and 1996.While research interest in the area has grown, especially over the last decade, it remains an elusive and nebulous topic, more likely to be examined in specialty psychology texts (e.g., social psychology and child development) than general ones (Martin, 2007; Roeckelein, 2002). Organizations (e.g., The International Society for Humor Studies; The Association for the Advancement of Therapeutic Humor), journals (e.g., Humor: International Journal of Humor Research) and internet phenomena such as "The Humor Project" (www.humorproiect.com) have made great strides in integrating information about humor from discreet fields such as the arts and humanities, biological and social sciences, education, and business management. Still, the therapeutic potential of humor remains a relatively young subject of serious scientific inquiry (Marci, Moran, & Orr, 2004; Sala, Krupat, & Roter, 2002). While humor does make appearances in self-help books and publications addressing clinical applications, these sources are much ...

A Physical and Social Study of Mountain Bike Use on Five Segments of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail in Colorado

This capstone reviews uses of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Policies governing use of the trail appear to be ambiguous, especially regarding mountain bicycles. Mountain biking has grown since the trail was created, but is not fully addressed in existing or proposed policy. 382 people on five segments of the trail in Colorado were interviewed for this capstone. Mountain bikes, hiking, and motorized recreation were observed uses. User conflict, overcrowding, degraded recreation experiences, or user displacement was not reported. User satisfaction was high and most would return. Interviewees requested increased public involvement and recognition of user needs in setting policy. Trail degradation occurs, but is unassociated with any particular use. Recommendations for trail improvement and maintenance are presented.