Humour and marital quality: Is humour style associated with marital success?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humour has been postulated to be an important variable contributing to success in romantic relationships. Most past research has tended to view humour as a unitary construct with invariably beneficial relationship effects (e.g., Hampes, 1992). However, if used maladaptively, humour may be a detriment to relationship success (Cohan and Bradbury, 1997). The purpose of the current study was to determine the relationship between adaptive/positive and maladaptive/negative styles of humour and quality of marriage. It was expected that positive humour is associated with higher marital quality, while negative humour is associated with lower marital quality. A secondary goal was to examine possible variations in the relation between humour and marital quality according to demographic differences. Over 450 participants from around the world completed the study over the internet, completing two humour scales and a measure of marital quality. Results came out as expected, although the correlation was much stronger with the humour scale that is more pertinent to marriage than the humour scale that assesses individual humour in a general manner. In addition, various interactions were explored using demographic (moderator) variables, and results are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".