Humor Styles as Mediators Between Self-Evaluative Standards and Psychological Well-Being
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined how certain humor styles mediate the relations between self-evaluative standards (which form the primary evaluative component of the self-schema) and psychological well-being. As predicted, greater endorsement of positive self-evaluative standards led to the use of more affiliative humor, which, in turn, led to higher levels of social self-esteem and lower levels of depression. Also, as predicted, greater endorsement of negative self-evaluative standards led to the use of more self-defeating humor, which resulted in lower levels of social self-esteem and higher levels of depression. Further, affiliative humor also mediated the relation between negative self-evaluative standards and well-being. In this study, the greater endorsement of negative self-evaluative standards led to the use of less affiliative humor, which led to a decrease in social self-esteem. These results suggest that specific features associated with these 2 humor styles may contribute in a differential manner to an individual's level of well-being. In particular, the increased use of affiliative humor may facilitate the development and maintenance of social support networks that foster and enhance well-being. Alternatively, the greater use of self-defeating humor may result in the development of maladaptive social support networks that impede psychological well-being.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it