Do humour styles moderate the association between hopelessness and suicide ideation? A comparison of student and community samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has found that humour styles can moderate the relationship between various facets of mental health and well-being. Most of these studies have used college student samples, however, and the generalizability of these findings has not been firmly established. This study examined how humour styles moderate the relationship between hopelessness and suicide ideation in both student and community samples. Community participants from the U.S. and Canada (n = 554) and student participants from a Canadian university (n = 208) completed several self-report measures including the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Analyses revealed differences in humour styles between the samples, as well as differences in humour styles between men and women. Regression analyses showed that self-defeating humour moderated the relationship between hopelessness and suicide ideation for student participants but not for community participants. Conversely, self-enhancing humour moderated the relationship between hopelessness and suicide ideation for community participants but not for student participants. These results suggest that high levels of self-defeating humour and self-enhancing humour may be uniquely maladaptive for these respective samples. These and other findings point to the necessity of recruiting diverse samples to better understand the beneficial and detrimental associations between humour styles and mental health. The potential to use measures of humour style as a tool to help identify at-risk individuals and to inform the development of intervention programs is 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".