Personality impressions associated with four distinct humor styles
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
This study examined how personality impressions about another person are influenced by the style of humor that person displays. Four distinct styles were examined, with two of these being adaptive (affiliative and self-enhancing humor), and two being maladaptive (aggressive and self-defeating humor). Participants read descriptions of an individual displaying each humor style, and then rated that individual on several other personality attributes (e.g., friendly, complaining). The adaptive humor styles enhanced personality impressions of another individual, whereas the maladaptive styles had strong detrimental effects. Furthermore, participants provided clearly differentiated personality impressions within both the adaptive and maladaptive humor categories. Affiliative humor led to more positive impressions of another than self-enhancing humor; whereas aggressive humor resulted in more negative personality impressions than self-defeating humor. These findings were discussed in terms of approaches to humor that acknowledge the multifaceted nature of this construct and the resulting impact on social relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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