Marrero2019 Article DoesHumorMediateTheRelationshi

Journal of Happiness Studies
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00121-x
RESEARCH PAPER
Does Humor Mediate the Relationship Between Positive

Personality and Well‑Being? The Moderating Role of Gender
and Health
Rosario J. Marrero1 · Mónica Carballeira1 · Juan A. Hernández‑Cabrera1
© Springer Nature B.V. 2019
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between humor styles, positive personality (optimism
and self-esteem), social support and both subjective and psychological well-being. Struc-
tural equation modelling was used with a sample of 468 adults; some had a good health
status while others suffered from different medical conditions. The best model is the one
that proposes that humor styles were associated with SWB and PWB through personality
characteristics and social support. This model indicated that humor styles had an indirect
effect on SWB through optimism and an indirect effect on PWB through self-esteem. The
component of self-oriented humor explained well-being to a greater extent than the com-
ponent oriented towards interpersonal relations. However, the relationships between the
variables included in the model depended on individual differences in gender and health
status. Results showed that self-enhancing humor and self-defeating humor predicted SWB
through optimism and predicted PWB through self-esteem and social support for women
and healthy individuals. Practical implications of the present findings are discussed.
Keywords Self-esteem · Optimism · Humor · Social support · Well-being
1 Introduction
In recent years, a large body of knowledge has developed around the relevance of well-
being to individuals’ personal adjustment and health. Research into this topic has already
addressed why some people are happy even in the face of adversity, whereas others are
not satisfied even at the best of times (Diener et al. 2017; Friedman and Kern 2014; Ryff
2014; Steel et al. 2018). Several studies have examined the associations between personal-
ity characteristics, social support, humor styles and particular aspects of well-being (Leist
and Müller 2013; Sirigatti et al. 2016; Steel et al. 2018; Zhao et al. 2014). Notwithstanding
the large amount of research available, the roles and interrelations of different psychologi-
cal characteristics in explaining well-being are still poorly understood. The current study
* Rosario J. Marrero
rmarrero@ull.edu.es
1
Department of Clinical Psychology, Psychobiology and Methodology, Universidad de La Laguna,
Campus de Guajara, s/n, 38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
R. J. Marrero et al.
aims to establish whether personality constructs, such as global self-esteem and optimism,
are associated with subjective and psychological well-being through humor styles and per-
ceived social support. We also examined an alternative model using humor styles as ante-
cedent variables and personality characteristics as mediator variables, and tested whether
the model with the best fit varied by gender and health status.
Subjective well-being—SWB—refers to people’s life evaluations, including cognitive
judgments such as life satisfaction, and affective evaluations, such as positive and nega-
tive affect (Diener et al. 2002), whereas psychological well-being—PWB—is based on
eudaimonic theories (Ryan and Deci 2001; Ryff 1989, 2014; Ryff and Singer 2008), which
stress meaningful life as an essential aspect of adaptive functioning. Previous research has
focused on identifying the psychological profile of individuals with greater well-being, but
most studies have been correlational and have included either one well-being indicator or
the other. This study analyzes the variables affecting SWB and PWB in the same theoreti-
cal model.
A frame of reference that can be useful to explain the relationship between positive per-
sonality characteristics—optimism and self-esteem—and well-being is the self-schema
model of emotion. This model suggests that positive self-evaluative standards could result
in a greater personal well-being (Kirsh and Kuiper 2002). A self-schema is an affective
and cognitive internal representation of the self that allows for the processing of informa-
tion, guiding and regulating behaviors (Markus 1977). Since personality characteristics
are based on a self-evaluation of the individual (Young and Lindemann 1992), they can
be interpreted from the self-schema model. Specifically, self-esteem and optimism can be
considered personal characteristics of positive functioning that result from a positive or
negative self-assessment being more or less consistent with previous information, depend-
ing on the cognitive appraisal. Self-consistency theory suggests that people behave in a
predictable manner, which could be reflecting cognitive responses, whereas self-enhance-
ment theory proposes that people seek to enhance the positive image of themselves, reflect-
ing affective responses (Swann et al. 1987). In this regard, optimism would refer to the
cognitive component, while self-esteem would have a more affective orientation.
Optimism involves a generalized expectation of good outcomes in one’s life, instead
of bad situations (Scheier and Carver 1985). Optimistic people interpret self-worth con-
tingencies positively, confirming their own self-views of the world. Thus, these individu-
als develop a self-concept that is consistent with their idea of the world (self-consistency
principle). These expectations about positive consequences allow them to continue striving
to achieve their goals, as well as to give up goals that are unattainable. In this sense, opti-
mistic people have greater flexibility in adjusting their goals and choose the most effective
coping strategies depending on the demands of the situation (Carver and Scheier 2017).
Optimism is associated with greater SWB and PWB (Carver et al. 2010; Kleiman et al.
2017) and lower levels of anxiety and depression (Giardini et al. 2017). Also, lower levels
of optimism are related to poorer general health (Smith et al. 2004) marked by conditions
such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, respiratory disease or infectious diseases
(Colby and Shifren 2013; Kim et al. 2017; Puig-Pérez et al. 2017; Wlodarczyk 2017) and
poor sleep quality (Uchino et al. 2017). Further, some studies have found that men exhibit
greater optimism and positive thoughts about themselves than women (Lin and Raghubir
2005; McKay-Nesbitt et al. 2013).
Self-esteem is defined as individuals’ appraisal of how they believe in themselves and in
their abilities, according to a social comparison process and based on observing the success
or failure of their behaviors (Rosenberg 1965, 1986). Self-esteem involves positive self-
evaluations of any and all aspects of the self (Orth and Robins 2019), so it is mainly based
13
Does Humor Mediate the Relationship Between Positive Personality…
on affective self-evaluating standards (self-enhancement principle). In line with the inter-

nalization of early social experiences model (Orth and Robins 2019) or sociometer theory
(Leary 1999), early experiences of love and care from close others might influence the
development of self-esteem, such that relational processes can contribute to enhance self-
esteem. However, self-esteem also depends on the person’s conception of their strengths
and weaknesses and how they frame these beliefs or views about themselves (Pelham and
Swann 1989), hence the influence of others on self-esteem may depend on the importance
of those others for the individual. Self-esteem is stable over time, like other personality
traits, so it is best conceptualized as a trait-like construct (Orth 2017; Trzesniewski et al.
2003). In addition, when self-esteem is analyzed across different cultures, most people
maintain positive self-evaluations as a personality characteristic (Schmitt and Allik 2005).
In individualistic cultures, self-competence is understood as the sense that one is confi-
dent, capable, and efficacious. In collectivistic cultures, self-competence is related to the
self-linking that refers to social relevance, the maintenance of harmony and consideration
for the needs of others (Tafarodi and Milne 2002). People with high self-esteem persevere
more after failure, show better interpersonal relationships, and report greater happiness
than people with low self-esteem (Baumeister et al. 2003). Further, self-esteem buffers the
effect of stress on health (Bluth and Blanton 2015; Edmondson et al. 2015), and this has
shown positive effects on well-being (Krieger et al. 2015; Ruvalcaba-Romero et al. 2017).
Self-esteem has been shown to be higher in males than in females across 48 nations (Blei-
dorn et al. 2016).
On the other hand, humor and social support are related to social interaction. Humor is
usually expressed in social interactions, and it facilitates satisfactory social relationships
and social support (Cann and Kuiper 2014; Martin 2015; Scheel 2017), while social sup-
port involves an interpersonal transaction (Thoits 2011). Therefore, both can be considered
supportive resources that have also been linked to SWB and PWB (Siedlecki et al. 2014;
Sirigatti et al. 2016).
Humor styles can be considered adaptive or maladaptive (Martin et al. 1993; Martin
2003). Affiliative humor refers to the benign use of this construct, for example to amuse
others by telling jokes and to facilitate relationships. Self-enhancing humor relates to feel-
ing control in challenging situations and presenting a humorous outlook on life. The use of
these two adaptive humor styles leads to more perceived support in personal interactions
(Dyck and Holtzman 2013), higher reports of self-esteem (Cakmak et al. 2015; Fiyaz et al.
2016; Stieger et al. 2011), greater optimism (Kazarian and Martin 2006; Martin et al. 2003)
and a subsequently greater well-being (Jovanovic 2011; Leist and Müller 2013; Sirigatti
et al. 2016). On the other hand, there are the maladaptive forms of humor: aggressive
humor, a kind of disparaging humor that uses sarcasm and hurting to enhance the self at the
expense of others; and self-defeating humor, which uses mainly self-disparaging statements
to enhance relationships at one’s own expense. Both aggressive and self-defeating humor
are linked to low interpersonal skills (Kuiper and McHale 2009), an increase in loneliness
across time (Fox et al. 2016), low well-being and enhanced depression (Martin et al. 2003;
Rnic et al. 2016). There is also considerable evidence of the relationship between the use
of adaptive humor and health, such as the reduced distress and fewer physical symptoms
found in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (Fritz et al. 2017), faster recovery from car-
diovascular diseases (Romundstad et al. 2016), and better overall physical health linked to
self-defeating humor in particular (Richards and Kruger 2017). Some research has reported
gender differences between the uses of the different humor styles: males are more likely
than females to use more maladaptive humor styles, particularly aggressive humor (Mar-
tin et al. 2003; Saraglou and Scariot 2002). The aggressive style is less normative among
13
women and is associated with perceived lower social support (Dyck and Holtzman 2013).
Other studies have not found any association between aggressive humor and well-being
(Dyck and Holtzman 2013; Mendiburo-Seguel et al. 2015). These emerging findings show
different, even opposite, effects of each humor style on well-being, so it remains unclear
what might account for the differential effects of humor styles on well-being.
Social support implies the establishment of ties with other people who may be avail-
able when the individual needs them and who offer support that is valued as satisfactory
(Sarason et al. 1983). Social support in childhood contributes to the development of per-
sonality but, at the same time, the personality traits that also have a genetic component
(McCrae and Costa 1991; Vukasović and Bratko 2015) may influence how individuals per-
ceive their relationships with others and the extent to which they consider them supportive.
Social support has shown negative relationships with distress and psychopathologic symp-
tomatology (Schwarzer and Knoll 2007; Thompson et al. 2006) and positive relationships
with both SWB and PWB (Li et al. 2014; McDonough et al. 2014). Specifically, social
support mediates the relationship between distress, personality characteristics, and qual-
ity of life or well-being (Burnette et al. 2017; Manning-Walsh 2005; Power et al. 2017;
Rey et al. 2017; Staniute et al. 2015; Uysal et al. 2017). Social support also has both direct
and indirect effects on health through different mechanisms related to regulating feelings,
thoughts, and behaviors; promoting adaptive coping strategies; endowing life with mean-
ing; and facilitating health-promoting behaviors (Callaghan and Morrissey 1993; Wang
et al. 2003). In general, individuals reporting social support recover more quickly from dis-
eases and show greater well-being (Chen and Feeley 2014; Leung et al. 2014; Rook 2015).
Although humor styles involve different ways of expressing a socially desirable charac-
teristic related to laughter (Martin et al. 2003) in social contexts (Zhao et al. 2014), the
connection between humor and social relationships has been the subject of less empirical
research (Dyck and Holtzman 2013). Gender differences have been found in social support,
as women engage more than men in social support as a coping strategy in the face of nega-
tive emotional situations (Day and Livingstone 2003). However, in older people, the role of
social support in health-related quality of life is more important for men than for women
(Hajek et al. 2016).
There is a considerable volume of research studying self-esteem, optimism or social
support as mediating variables between humor styles and well-being (Leist and Müller
2013; Zhao et al. 2014). In these studies, the humor styles have been considered as a stable
personality tendency (Ruch and Köhler 1998). In this regard, the manner in which humor
is delivered is accepted as a reflection of one’s disposition and therefore as one’s style of
humor (Leist and Müller 2013). In our view, humor styles are at an intermediate level of
generalization and could be considered more as coping strategies than as personality traits
(Kuiper 2014; Martin et al. 1993). Humor refers to an adaptive form of coping that allows
people to distance themselves from stressful events, enhancing feelings of control (Martin
et al. 2003; Vaillant 2000). Personality traits are relatively stable over time and show a
certain cross-situational consistency (McCrae and Costa 1991; Mischel 1968). Personality
is at the base of individuals’ interpretations of reality and most of their behaviors. Accord-
ing to personality theories and the self-schema model (Kirsh and Kuiper 2002; McCrae
and Costa 1991; Rosenberg 1965; Scheier and Carver 1985; Young and Lindemann 1992),
cognitive generalizations about the self could influence the processing of information about
oneself and others. In addition, individuals usually seek information about others which is
consistent with their own self-schemas (Fong and Markus 1982). For this reason, personal
resources, such as optimism and self-esteem, were initially proposed in the present study as
antecedent variables, humor styles and perceived social support as mediators, and different
13
types of well-being as outcome variables. However, we also tested an alternative model in

which humor styles were considered as antecedent variables and personal characteristics
and social support as mediators of well-being.
1.1 Present Study
Previous research has broadly demonstrated a strong link between personal resources (opti-
mism and self-esteem) and social resources (humor styles and social support) with both
well-being types and health, mainly in correlational studies (Baumeister et al. 2003; Carver
et al. 2010; Ford et al. 2016; Jovanovic 2011; McDonough et al. 2014; Sirigatti et al. 2016;
Yue et al. 2014). However, relatively little is known about how these constructs relate to
each other simultaneously and how they explain both types of well-being in a theoretical
model. For example, some studies have found that social support is associated with subjec-
tive well-being, but when personality characteristics are included, the influence of social
support decreases (Siedlecki et al. 2014). In this way, it is interesting to examine whether
humor styles and social support affect the relation between personality characteristics and
well-being.
The present study examined how self-schemas relative to personal resources, such as
optimism and self-esteem, can lead to greater well-being through humor styles, as well as
how adaptive humor styles may affect social support, contributing to greater well-being. An
additional aspect that requires special attention is whether this model is generalizable to all
individuals, regardless of their health status and gender. Previous studies have documented
gender differences in the uses of the different humor styles (Martin et al. 2003; Saraglou
and Scariot 2002; Stieger et al. 2011). There have been mixed findings on whether there are
gender differences in SWB (Batz and Tay 2017; Fujita et al. 1991; Nolen-Hoeksema and
Rusting 2003). For PWB, it has been found that women show more positive relations with
others and more personal growth than men (Keyes and Ryff 1999; Ryff and Singer 1998).
In our initial theoretical model, the predictions were: (1) that optimism and self-esteem
would have direct effects on both types of well-being and indirect effects through humor
styles and social support; (2) that this relationship would be affected by gender or health
status.
2 Methods
2.1 Participants
Respondents were a convenience sample of 468 adults, all resident in the Canary Islands.
More than half of the sample (59.19%) consisted of healthy individuals, whereas 40.81%
reported some physical health problem or medical condition. The healthy sample consisted
of 55.8% men and 44.2% women ranging in age from 17 to 77 (M = 38.51, SD = 12.71). Of
the total, 1.8% had no formal studies, 18.6% had a primary education, 49% had a secondary
education and 30.6% had a university education. About 78.1% had a partner. The sample
of people reporting medical conditions consisted of 51.3% men and 48.7% women rang-
ing in age from 18 to 73 (M = 43.85, SD = 14.41). Of these, 6.9% had no formal studies;
25.4% had a primary education, 45.6% had a secondary education and 22.1% had a uni-
versity education; 78.3% had a partner. The most frequently reported medical conditions
were respiratory problems (27.76%), hypertension (18.55%), diabetes (12.34%), bone and
13
joint problems and lower back pain (10.72%), anxiety and depression (7.62%), cardiovas-
cular problems (6.73%), gastric problems (4.31%), thyroid conditions (4.29%), migraines
(4.28%), kidney diseases (2.26%) and oncological diseases (1.14%).
2.2 Instruments
A checklist was used to record sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, gender,

educational level, relationship status (whether or not they had a partner) and health status
(whether or not they had a medical condition).
The Life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R; Scheier et al. 1994) measures dispositional
optimism through a 10-item list, of which six items assess expectations about positive and
negative outcomes and four are filler items. Participants rated their level of agreement with
the generalized outcome expectancies on a 5-point scale, from 0 = strongly disagree to
4 = strongly agree. Examples of the items are: In uncertain times, I usually expect the best,
or I´m always optimistic about the future. The LOT-R has demonstrated an internal consist-
ency of .78 and in the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .71.
The Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg 1965) assesses global positive and negative
attitudes towards the self through a 10-item list. Some of the items are: I feel that I have a
number of good qualities, or I take a positive attitude toward myself. This instrument uses a
4-point scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. The test–retest reliability of
the scale is .85. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .83.
Sarason’s Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ-6; Sarason et al. 1987) is a 6-item meas-
ure that assesses perceived social support on a 6-point scale, from 1 = very dissatisfied to
6 = very satisfied, in six different areas, such as: Who do you know whom you can trust with
information that could get you in trouble?; and the number of support sources for each
item. Internal consistency ranges from .90 to .93. In this study, only the perceived social
support scale was used. Cronbach’s alpha was .91.
The Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin et al. 2003) consists of 32 items which
assess four different styles of humor—self-enhancing, affiliative, aggressive and self-
defeating—with 8 items per style and using a 7-point scale (1 = totally disagree; 7 = totally
agree). Some examples of the items are: If I am feeling depressed, I can usually cheer
myself up with humor, or I laugh and joke a lot with my friends. Internal consistency ranges
from .77 to .81. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha measures were .82 for affiliative, .80 for
self-enhancing, .62 for aggressive and .77 for self-defeating humor.
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al. 1985) assesses individuals’ cog-
nitive judgement of their overall life satisfaction, comparing their life circumstances with a
particular private standard. A total of five items (for instance: In most ways, my life is close
to my ideal) were answered using a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 = not satisfied at all to
7 = very satisfied. The internal consistency of the original scale is .87 and test–retest reli-
ability is .82. In our study, the scale reached a Cronbach’s alpha of .85.
The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999) comprises four
items with a 7-point scale, from 1 = not at all, to 7 = a great deal. For example: Compared
to most of my peers, I consider myself…. This scale has shown high reliability coefficients
between .79 and .94. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .69.
The Psychological Well-being Scales (Ryff and Keyes 1995), in their original version,
consist of six dimensions, including 14 items per scale. In this study, the Spanish version of
39 items proposed by Díaz et al. (2006) was used. Six scales pertaining to positive psycho-
logical functioning or psychological well-being were evaluated: self-acceptance, positive
13
relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life and personal
growth. I feel confident and positive about myself or I have been able to create a lifestyle
for myself that is much to my liking, are two examples of the items. The questionnaire used
a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. The internal consistency of the
scales ranged from .86 to .93 and the test–retest reliability, following a period of six weeks,
was between .81 and .88. In this study, the internal consistency of the scales was .70 for
autonomy, .66 for environmental mastery, .62 for personal growth, .78 for relations with
others, .76 for purpose in life and .75 for the self-acceptance scale.
For each instrument used, the dimensions were constructed by adding the scores
obtained on the individual items proposed in the original versions.
2.3 Procedure
The sample was recruited through Psychology students from the University of La Laguna.
Participants were informed about the aim of the research and the anonymity and confiden-
tiality of the information gathered and decided to participate voluntarily. On the first page
of the evaluation protocol there was a statement indicating that, by filling out the form,
participants were giving informed consent to use their answers for research purposes. In
addition, the students were asked to find at least three people from their social environment
who would be willing to participate in the study as well. To increase the sample variability,
the potential participants recruited in this way could not be university students, had to be
over 25 years old and represent a range of professional occupations, and should be approxi-
mately half male and half female. Participants did not receive any remuneration for their
collaboration. Each participant took around half an hour to complete the battery of tests.
Each participant’s responses were recorded independently. Ethical approval for the conduct
of the research study was granted by the Animal Welfare and Research Ethics Commit-
tee of the University of La Laguna.
2.4 Statistical Analyses
First, Pearson correlational analyses were used to study the relationships between the per-
sonality, social and humor variables and both subjective and psychological well-being.
Then, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with latent variables was performed (Bollen
1989) to test the proposed models, using R library lavaan (R Core Team 2016; Rosseel
2012) with ULLRToolbox by Hernández and Betancort (2016). Latent variables were con-
structed through the inclusion of different measures associated with each factor of subjec-
tive well-being—life satisfaction and happiness—and psychological well-being—auton-
omy, environmental mastery, positive relations with others, personal growth, purpose in
life and self-acceptance. The remaining latent variables included in the models—optimism,
self-esteem, three humor styles and social support—were created from the three or four
most representative items for each. The measurement models with the most representative
items were first tested to assess the extent to which the latent variables were well repre-
sented by the observed indicators of each structural model. Then, four structural models
were tested. First, the Unmediated Personality Model (Model 1) and Unmediated Humor
Model (Model 2) were tested to analyze the direct effects of these variables on well-being
(SWB and PWB). Second, the Humor as Mediator Model (Model 3) was tested, where
optimism and self-esteem were included as antecedent variables, humor styles and social
support as mediator variables and subjective and psychological well-being as outcome
13
variables. A Humor as Antecedent Model (Model 4) was also tested, with humor styles
as antecedent variables, optimism, self-esteem and social support as mediator variables
and subjective and psychological well-being as outcome variables. Analyses of covari-
ance structure were performed for the entire sample (Base Line Model). In a next step,
we checked whether the model which best fit the data was the same for males and females
(Configural Model). Finally, we also checked whether the model was the same for healthy
and sick individuals (Configural Model). This multi-group estimation allowed us to reveal
whether the structural model was the same for the two groups (women vs men; healthy vs
sick) in each analysis, separately.
The statistics used for testing the acceptability of the model were: χ2, goodness-of-fit
index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), normative fit index
(NFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and
the root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). The expected values for an accept-
able fit were around .90 for the CFI, TLI, GFI, NFI and NNFI indexes (Kline 2011). The
well-fitting models obtained SRMR values under .05 and RMSEA values of .08 indicated
a reasonable fit of the model (Gierl and Rogers 1996; Hu and Bentler 1999). A confidence
interval of 90% was established.
3 Results
3.1 Descriptive and Correlational Analysis
Table 1 presents means and standard deviations of humor, social support and personal
characteristics measures, SWB and PWB indicators, and Cronbach’s alpha values for all
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for all study variables

Total Female par- Male par- Healthy Sick par- Alpha
sample ticipants ticipants participants ticipants
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Happiness 19.28 4.06 19.38 4.21 19.2 3.94 19.67 3.85 18.73 4.31 0.69
Life satisfaction 23.88 5.75 23.72 5.84 24.02 5.68 24.21 5.62 23.41 5.92 0.85
Autonomy 34.21 5.83 34.1 5.99 30.32 5.7 34.02 5.78 34.5 5.91 0.7
Environmental mastery 26.74 4.33 26.79 4.31 26.7 4.36 26.8 4.38 26.65 4.27 0.66
Personal growth 30.34 4.7 31.22 4.74 29.58 4.54 30.51 4.74 30.09 4.64 0.62
Positive relations with others 25.56 5.88 25.71 6.09 25.42 5.7 25.86 5.63 25.11 6.22 0.78
Purpose in life 26.63 4.75 26.78 4.42 26.5 5.02 26.38 4.95 26.99 4.42 0.76
Self-acceptance 25.5 5.12 25.5 4.72 25.51 5.44 25.76 4.96 25.12 5.33 0.75
Affiliative humor 39.38 8.55 39.44 7.72 39.32 9.22 39.69 8.39 38.92 8.78 0.82
Self-enhancing humor 34.9 8.01 34.82 8.38 34.96 7.68 35.27 8.05 34.36 7.93 0.8
Aggressive humor 25.87 6.77 24.84 6.81 26.76 6.63 26.39 6.8 25.13 6.68 0.62
Self-defeating humor 22.21 7.77 21.14 7.55 23.14 7.86 22.6 7.82 21.64 7.69 0.77
Optimism 14.83 3.81 14.57 4.02 15.06 3.61 14.95 3.73 14.66 3.94 0.71
Self-esteem 31.85 4.64 31.75 4.68 31.95 4.61 31.87 4.64 31.83 4.65 0.83
Social support 30.3 4.92 30.67 4.88 29.99 4.94 30.31 4.97 30.29 4.86 0.91
13
subscales. Pearson correlations were obtained between self-esteem, optimism, social sup-
port, humor styles and both types of well-being (Table 2). The personal resources—self-
esteem and optimism—were positively related to all the well-being indicators. Social
support had lower, yet still significant, positive relationships with well-being. The affilia-
tive and self-enhancing humor styles had significant positive associations with the well-
being indicators, whereas self-defeating humor was negatively related to PWB indicators.
Aggressive humor was not significantly related to any SWB indicators and was hardly
associated with PWB (the correlations that appeared significant could be due only to the
large sample size since they were also of low magnitude), so this measure was excluded
from further analysis.
3.2 Measurement Model
First, the measurement model was tested for eight latent constructs (SWB, PWB, affilia-
tive humor, self-enhancing humor, self-defeating humor, optimism, self-esteem and social
support). The indicators for the SWB latent construct were happiness and life satisfaction.
PWB was represented by six observed variables: autonomy, environmental mastery, per-
sonal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life and self-acceptance. Humor
styles—affiliative humor, self-enhancing humor, self-defeating humor—were represented
by four observed variables each. Optimism, self-esteem and social support latent constructs
were represented by three observed variables each. The factor loadings for the indicators
on the latent variables indicated that the latent constructs were well represented by their
indicators, so that the same measurement model with the most representative items in each
latent construct was tested in the subsequent structural models. In all cases, the measure-
ment models generated a good fit to the data.
3.3 Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
We tested four different models, since multiple theoretical models could be plausible
(Bentler and Bonett 1980). First, two unmediated models were tested in which no mediat-
ing effect appeared (Model 1 and Model 2). The Unmediated Personality Model (Model
1) tested the direct effects of the variables of personality (optimism and self-esteem) and
social support on SWB and PWB. This model showed a good fit to the data (χ2 (107,
N = 467) = 308.18, p < .001; CFI = .96; TLI = .95; NFI = .94; NNFI = .95; SRMR = .03;
RMSEA = .04). In Model 1, the path coefficients from self-esteem to SWB (β = .30, p < .05)
and from optimism to SWB (β = .63, p < .001) were significant. Also, the path coefficients
from self-esteem to PWB (β = .39, p < .01) and from optimism to PWB (β = .46, p < .001)
were significant. Social support did not show significant paths towards SWB or PWB (see
Fig. 1). These variables explained 80.7% of the variance of SWB and 70.5% of the vari-
ance of PWB.
On the other hand, a model of direct effects of humor styles on both types of well-being
was also tested. The Unmediated Humor Model (Model 2, Fig. 2) showed an adequate fit to
the data (χ2 (356, N = 467) = 945.31, p < .001; CFI = .92; TLI = .91; NFI = .89; NNFI = .91;
SRMR = .06; RMSEA = .05). In Model 2, the path coefficients from self-enhancing humor
to SWB (β = .49, p < .001) and from self-defeating humor to SWB (β = − .25, p < .001)
were significant. Also, the path coefficients from self-enhancing humor to PWB (β = .36,
p < .001), from affiliative humor to PWB (β = .16, p < .05) and from self-defeating humor to
13

13
Table 2 Bivariate correlations between subjective well-being, psychological well-being, humor styles, optimism, self-esteem and social support
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Subjective well-being
1. Happiness 1 .64*** .33*** .43*** .31*** .50*** .40*** .58*** .33*** .39*** .05 − .06 .53*** .50*** .32***
2. Life satisfaction 1 .32*** .47*** .28*** .39*** .53*** .64*** .26*** .34*** − .03 − .08 .54*** .51*** .33***
Psychological well-being
3. Autonomy 1 .53*** .43*** .41*** .51*** .52*** .27*** .28*** − .13** − .29*** .36*** .47*** .22***
4. Environmental mastery 1 .47*** .45*** .66*** .64*** .22*** .27*** − .15*** − .29*** .47*** .47*** .30***
5. Personal growth 1 .40*** .42*** .47*** .33*** .30*** − .07 − .16*** .36*** .34*** .22***
6. Positive relations 1 .41*** .54*** .42*** .30*** .00 − .11** .44*** .42*** .32***
7. Purpose in life 1 .71*** .21*** .24*** − .11* − .23*** .42*** .50*** .32***
8. Self-acceptance 1 .31*** .37*** − .03 − .18*** .52*** .61*** .34***
Humor styles
9. Affiliative humor 1 .52*** .27*** .12** .28*** .31*** .19***
10. Self-enhancing humor 1 .17*** .17*** .38*** .32*** .19***
11. Aggressive humor 1 .53*** − .07 − .10* − .03
12. Self-defeating humor 1 − .14** − .32*** − .12**
Personality variables
13. Optimism 1 .53*** .30***
14. Self-esteem 1 .30***
15. Social support 1
**p < .01; *** p < .001
.81 Life
.30 satisfaction
Self-esteem
Subjective
Well-being
.79 Happiness
.39
.63
Autonomy
Optimism
.46 .60
Environmental
.76
mastery
.55
Personal
Growth
Psychological .60
.04
Well-being Positive
relationships
.07 .80
Purpose in
Social Support life
.87
Self-
acceptance
Fig. 1 Unmediated personality model. The dotted lines show non-significant paths (Model 1)
PWB (β = − .44, p < .001) were significant (see Fig. 2). The humor styles alone explained
27.7% of the variance of SWB and 34.5% of the variance of PWB.
Next, two other models with humor styles as mediator variable (Model 3) or antecedent
variable (Model 4) were tested. Table 3 shows the effects of the humor styles and social
support as mediator between personality and well-being. The Humor as Mediator Model
(Model 3) had a restrained fit (χ2 (356, N = 467) = 945.31, p < .001; GFI = .90; CFI = .92;
TLI = .91; NFI = .89; NNFI = .91; SRMR = .06; RMSEA = .05). As shown in Fig. 3, the
paths of self-esteem and optimism on humor styles were not significant. Social support
alone acted as a mediator between self-defeating humor and both types of well-being
(SWB and PWB). The contribution of self-esteem and optimism to the variance of well-
being disappeared when humor styles and social support were included in the model as
mediators. The variables included in the model explained 78.5% of the variance of SWB
and 75.1% of the variance of PWB.
Taking into account that there were direct effects of all the variables analyzed (personal-
ity, social support and humor) on well-being when they were included in separate unmedi-
ated models (Model 1 and Model 2), Model 3 suggested that humor styles, as mediator
variables, had a suppressor effect on the direct relationship between personality character-
istics and well-being.
Another alternative model, the Humor as Antecedent Model (Model 4), was pro-
posed, where the relationship between humor and well-being was mediated by personality
13
.82 Life
.49 satisfaction
Self-enhancing
humor Subjective
Well-being
.78 Happiness
.36
.04
Affiliative Autonomy
humor .16 .61
Environmental
.77
mastery
.55 Personal
Growth
.-25 Psychological .60

Positive
Well-being relationships
.80
-.44
Purpose in
Self-defeating life
humor
.86
Self-
acceptance
Fig. 2 Unmediated humor model. The dotted lines show non-significant paths (Model 2)
characteristics and social support. Table 4 shows the effects of the humor styles on SWB
and PWB taking optimism, self-esteem and social support as mediator variables. Model
4 obtained a better fit to the data than Model 3 (χ2 (351, N = 467) = 831.04, p < .001;
GFI = .91; CFI = .94; TLI = .93; NFI = .90; NNFI = .93; SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .05).
As shown in Fig. 4, all the paths of the three humor styles on self-esteem, optimism and
social support were significant. However, only the path from optimism to SWB and the
path from self-esteem to PWB were significant. In this model, the path coefficients from
social support to SWB and PWB were not significant. The variables included in Model 4
explained 85.5% of the variance of SWB and 81.7% of the variance of PWB. The differ-
ence in the Chi square between Model 3 and Model 4 was significant (χ2 difference = 75.01,
df = 5, p < .001). The fit indexes were greater in Model 4 than in Model 3, so Model 4
was selected as the best model. Self-enhancing humor, affiliative humor and self-defeating
humor exerted significant indirect effects on SWB through optimism. The indirect effects
of the three humor styles on PWB through self-esteem were also significant.
Model 4 was used in the second step with multi-group estimation to check whether
this model was the same for males and females. A Configural Model (two groups without
any constraints) was estimated. Although the fit indexes were now smaller, they were still
adequate: χ2 (702, N = 468) = 1218.55, p < .001; GFI = .88; CFI = .93; TLI = .92; NFI = .86;
NNFI = .92; SRMR = .06; RMSEA = .05, 90% CI [.045, .054]. Results indicated differ-
ences between men and women in the structural model.
13
Table 3 Effects of self-esteem and optimism on subjective and psychological well-being through humor
styles and social support (Model 1)
Parameter estimate Unstandardized Standardized
β Z β
Measurement model
Subjective well-being → Happiness 1 0.79
Subjective well-being → Life satisfaction 1.42 19.11*** 0.8
Psychological well-being → Autonomy 1 0.6
Psychological well-being → Environmental mastery 0.95 14.06*** 0.75
Psychological well-being → Personal growth 0.76 10.88*** 0.55
Psychological well-being → Positive relations 0.99 11.08*** 0.59
Psychological well-being → Purpose in life 1.08 12.99*** 0.79
Psychological well-being → Self-acceptance 1.24 13.32*** 0.87
Affiliative humor → item 17 1 0.66
Affiliative humor → item 29 0.64 10.64*** 0.48
Self-enhancing humor → item 6 1 0.64
Self-enhancing humor → item 10 0.92 11.26*** 0.62
Self-defeating humor → item 8 1 0.65
Self-defeating humor → item 12 1.13 14.13*** 0.68
Optimism → item 4 1 0.61
Optimism → item 7 1.06 13.03*** 0.58
Optimism → item 9 1.05 11.97*** 0.59
Self-esteem → item 6 1 0.67
Self-esteem → item 7 0.98 19.35*** 0.68
Self-esteem → item 10 1.14 12.97*** 0.61
Social support → item 1 1 0.8
Social support → item 4 1.04 12.90*** 0.86
Social support → item 5 1.01 12.11*** 0.81
Structural model
Self-esteem → Affiliative humor − 22.44 − 1.11 n.s. − 8.56
Optimism → Affiliative humor 18.09 1.17 n.s. 8.93
Self-esteem → Self-enhancing humor − 21.7 − 1.11 n.s. − 9.97
Optimism → Self-enhancing humor 17.61 1.17 n.s. 10.47
Self-esteem → Self-defeating humor − 13.13 − 1.15 n.s. − 6.15
Optimism → Self-defeating humor 9.66 1.10 n.s. 5.85
Affiliative humor → Social support 0.06 1.42 n.s. 0.1
Self-enhancing humor → Social support 0.11 1.64 n.s. 0.13
Self-defeating humor → Social support − 0.19 − 3.88*** − 0.24
Self-esteem → Subjective well-being − 4.69 − .63 n.s. − 0.67
Optimism → Subjective well-being 8.23 1.43 n.s. 1.52
13
Table 3 (continued)
β Z β
Social support → Subjective well-being 0.54 3.24*** 0.13

Self-esteem → Psychological well-being 6.16 1.11 n.s. 0.81
Optimism → Psychological well-being 0.11 .03 n.s. 0.02
Social support → Psychological well-being 0.6 3.65*** 0.14
***p < .001, n.s. = non-significant; χ2 (356) = 945.31, p < .001; GFI = .90; CFI = .92; TLI = .91; NFI = .89;

NNFI = .91; SRMR = .06; RMSEA = .05, 90% CI [.048–.057]
1.51
.80 Life
-0.66 satisfaction
-9.95
Subjective
Self-enhancing Well-being
humor .13 .79 Happiness
Self-esteem -8.55
.14
-6.14
Affiliative -.10
Social Support
humor
Autonomy
10.45
.60
8.92
Environmental
Optimism -.24 .14 .75 mastery
5.84 .55 Personal

Self-defeating Growth
humor
Psychological .59
.02 Well-being Positive
relationships
.81
.79
Purpose in
life
.87
Self-
acceptance
Fig. 3 Humor as mediator model. The dotted lines show non-significant paths (Model 3)
In the women’s group (see Fig. 5), the path coefficients from self-enhancing humor
(β = 2.16, p < .001), affiliative humor (β = − 1.58, p < .001) and self-defeating humor
(β = − .46, p < .01) to self-esteem were significant. Also, the path coefficients from self-
enhancing humor (β = 2.54, p < .05) and affiliative humor (β = − 2.01, p < .001) to optimism
were significant. For social support, the paths from self-enhancing humor (β = .70, p < .05)
and self-defeating humor (β = − .19, p < .05) were significant. The humor styles had an
indirect effect on SWB through optimism (β = .68, p < .01) and an indirect effect on PWB
through self-esteem (β = .90, p < .01) and social support (β = .13, p < .01).These variables
explained 79.7% of the variance of SWB and 78.5% of the variance of PWB. In the men’s
group (see Fig. 6), the path coefficients from self-enhancing humor (β = 2.99, p < .01), affil-
iative humor (β = − 2.18, p < .01) and self-defeating humor (β = − 1.14, p < .001) to self-
esteem were significant. Also, the path coefficients from self-enhancing humor (β = 3.21,
p < .01), affiliative humor (β = − 2.40, p < .05) and self-defeating humor (β = − 1.10,
13
Table 4 Effects of humor styles on subjective and psychological well-being through self-esteem, optimism
and social support (Model 2)
β Z β
Measurement model
Subjective well-being → Happiness 1 .80
Subjective well-being → Life satisfaction 1.41 20.06*** .80
Psychological well-being → Autonomy 1 .62
Psychological well-being → Environmental mastery .90 14.49*** .73
Psychological well-being → Personal growth .76 11.23*** .57
Psychological well-being → Positive relations 1.02 11.48*** .63
Psychological well-being → Purpose in life .96 13.05*** .72
Psychological well-being → Self-acceptance 1.20 13.63*** .85
Affiliative humor → item 17 1 .65
Affiliative humor → item 29 .65 10.73*** .48
Affiliative humor → item 5 1.1 13.83*** .80
Affiliative humor → item 21 .89 11.85*** .69
Self-enhancing humor → item 6 1 .62
Self-enhancing humor → item 10 .68 9.47*** .44
Self-enhancing humor → item 14 1.01 14.41*** .64
Self-enhancing humor → item 18 .61 8.12*** .39
Self-defeating humor → item 8 1 .64
Self-defeating humor → item 12 1.15 14.01*** .68
Self-defeating humor → item 20 1.05 13.25*** .73
Self-defeating humor → item 32 .96 11.59*** .62
Optimism → item 4 1 .63
Optimism → item 7 1.03 13.06*** .58
Optimism → item 9 1.01 11.71*** .59
Self-esteem → item 6 1 .67
Self-esteem → item 7 .98 19.14*** .67
Self-esteem → item 10 1.14 12.89*** .60
Social support → item 1 1 .80
Social support → item 4 1.04 12.90*** .85
Social support → item 5 1.02 12.16*** .82
Structural model
Affiliative humor → Self-esteem − .77 − 3.60*** − 2.0
Self-enhancing humor → Self-esteem 1.26 4.92*** 2.67
Self-defeating humor → Self-esteem − .36 − 4.78*** − .77
Affiliative humor → Optimism − 1.18 − 3.66*** − 2.26
Self-enhancing humor → Optimism 1.86 4.83*** 2.91
Self-defeating humor → Optimism − .42 − 3.75*** − .66
Affiliative humor → Social support − .53 − 2.62** − .78
Self-enhancing humor → Social support .86 3.43*** 1.02
Self-defeating humor → Social support − .28 − 3.87*** − .33
Self-esteem → Subjective well-being − 2.32 − .76 n.s. − .32
Optimism → Subjective well-being 6.41 2.71** 1.21
13
Table 4 (continued)
β Z β
Social support → Subjective well-being .27 1.6 n.s. .07

Self-esteem → Psychological well-being 10.34 3.11** 1.32
Optimism → Psychological well-being − 2.72 − 1.11 n.s. − .47
Social support → Psychological well-being .33 1.80 n.s. .07
***p < .001, n.s. = non-significant; χ2 (351) = 831.04, p < .001; GFI = .91; CFI = .94; TLI = .93; NFI = .90;

NNFI = .93; SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .05, 90% CI [.044–.052]
.80 Life
-.32 satisfaction
2.67 Self-esteem
Subjective
Well-being
Self-enhancing Happiness
2.91 1.21
humor .80
1.02
-2.01
Autonomy
-2.26 Optimism
Affiliative -.47
.62
humor
.73 Environmental
-.78 mastery
1.32
-.77 .57 Personal

Growth
-.66
.07 Psychological .63
Self-defeating Well-being Positive

relationships
humor .72
-.33 .08
Purpose in
Social Support .85
life
Self-
acceptance
Fig. 4 Humor as antecedent model. The dotted lines show non-significant paths (Model 4)
p < .01) to optimism were significant. For social support, the paths from self-enhancing
humor (β = 1.44, p < .05) and self-defeating humor (β = − .52, p < .01) were significant.
However, the paths coefficients from self-esteem, optimism and social support to SWB and
PWB were not significant.
Model 4 was also tested for healthy and sick individuals. Here too, a Configural Model
(two groups without any constraints) was estimated, showing an acceptable model fit: χ2
(702, N = 468) = 1215.47, p < .001; GFI = .88; CFI = .93; TLI = .92; NFI = .86; NNFI = .92;
SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .057, 90% CI [.045, .054]. Results indicated differences between
healthy and sick individual in the structural model. For healthy individuals (see Fig. 7),
the path coefficients from self-enhancing humor (β = 2.12, p < .001), affiliative humor
(β = − 1.37, p < .01) and self-defeating humor (β = − .84, p < .001) to self-esteem were sig-
nificant. Also, the path coefficients from self-enhancing humor (β = 2.30, p < .001), affilia-
tive humor (β = − 1.57, p < .001) and self-defeating humor (β = − .75, p < .001) to optimism
were significant. For social support, the paths from self-enhancing humor (β = .63, p < .01)
and self-defeating humor (β = − .31, p < .001) were significant. The humor styles had an
indirect effect on SWB through optimism (β = 1.92, p < .05) and an indirect effect on PWB
13
.78 Life
.19
satisfaction
2.16 Self-esteem
Subjective
Well-being
Self-enhancing .80 Happiness
2.54 .68
humor
.70
-1.58
Autonomy
-2.01 Optimism
Affiliative -.07
.60
humor
.68 Environmental
-.52
.90 mastery
-.46 .52 Personal

Growth
-.28 Psychological .62
Self-defeating .07 Well-being Positive

relationships
humor .13 .70
-.19
Purpose in
Social Support .85
life
Self-
acceptance
Fig. 5 Humor as Antecedent Model for women. The dotted lines show non-significant paths (Model 4)
.82 Life
-1.45 satisfaction
2.99 Self-esteem
Subjective
Well-being .80
Self-enhancing Happiness
3.21
humor 1.41
1.44
2.35
-2.18
Autonomy
-2.40 Optimism
Affiliative -.50 .63
humor
.77 Environmental
-1.09 mastery
-1.14 .61 Personal

Growth
-1.10 .03
Psychological .64

relationships
humor .74
-.52 .01
Purpose in
Social Support life
.86
Self-
acceptance
Fig. 6 Humor as antecedent model for men. The dotted lines show non-significant paths (Model 4)
through self-esteem (β = 1.28, p < .05) and social support (β = .11, p < .05). These variables
explained 90.1% of the variance of SWB and 80.5% of the variance of PWB. For sick
individuals (see Fig. 8), the path coefficients from self-enhancing humor, affiliative humor
and self-defeating humor to self-esteem, optimism and social support were not significant.
Only the paths from self-esteem to SWB (β = .66, p < .001) and from self-esteem to PWB
(β = 1.10, p < .001) were significant. These variables explained 81.7% of the variance of
SWB and 86.1% of the variance of PWB.
The results indicated that there were slight differences in the variables that explained
well-being according to gender and health status.
13
.81 Life
-1.05 satisfaction
2.12 Self-esteem
Subjective
Well-being
2.30 1.92
humor
.63
-1.37
Autonomy
-1.57 Optimism
humor
.74 Environmental
-.39
1.28 mastery
-.84 .57 Personal

Growth
-.75 Psychological .65

.10
relationships
humor .11 .71
-.31
Purpose in
Social Support .86
life
Self-
acceptance
Fig. 7 Humor as antecedent model for healthy individuals. The dotted lines show non-significant paths
(Model 4)
.80 Life
.66 satisfaction
4.43
Self-esteem
Subjective
Well-being
humor 5.63 1.10
2.58
.24
-3.93
Autonomy
-5.18 Optimism
humor
.72 Environmental
-2.38 mastery
.56 Personal
Growth
-.51
-.34 .04 Psychological .60

relationships
humor .74
-.25 .07 Purpose in
Social Support .85
life
Self-
acceptance
Fig. 8 Humor as antecedent model for sick individuals. The dotted lines show non-significant paths (Model
4)
4 Discussion
Previous research has focused on the link between personality characteristics, humor styles
and social support and certain indicators of well-being, but there are hardly any studies that
analyze the joint effect of these variables on both subjective and psychological well-being.
The main goal of this study was to examine the mediation of humor styles and social
support in the relationship between positive personality characteristics and both SWB and
13
PWB. An alternative model was also proposed in which humor was considered as anteced-
ent variable and the personality variables as mediators in the relationship with well-being.
Preliminary correlational analyses indicated significant associations between all variables
included in the model. Specifically, it was found that positive personality characteristics
showed greater associations with well-being than social resources. In the same way, social
support was more associated with well-being than humor styles. The aggressive humor
style showed weak associations with both types of well-being, so it was not included in the
theoretical model.
The hypothesized model initially proposed to include optimism and self-esteem as ante-
cedent variables, humor styles and perceived social support as mediators and subjective and
psychological well-being as outcome variables. Although the model achieved an adequate
fit, positive personality characteristics did not appear to influence well-being as antecedent
variables, through humor styles. In this sense, the inclusion in the model of humor styles
and social support as mediator variables seems to nullify the effect of optimism and self-
esteem on well-being. The only significant paths found were between self-defeating humor
and social support, as well as between social support and both types of well-being. The low
use of self-defeating humor affected SWB and PWB by increasing perceived social sup-
port. These findings are contradictory to those of previous studies, in which the adaptive
humor styles mediated the relationship between self-esteem and optimism on subjective
well-being (Ford et al. 2016; Yue, Liu, Jiang and Hiranandani 2014). A possible interpreta-
tion of these results is that when the effect of humor styles was controlled, a spurious effect
was produced. Spurious effects assume both a causal relationship of mediator variables to
antecedent variables and a causal relationship of mediator variables to outcome variables.
In the literature, there have been contradictory results regarding the role of humor as an
antecedent (Cann and Collette 2014; Cann et al. 2010) or mediator (Ford et al. 2016; Wang
et al. 2018) in the relationship between personality characteristics and well-being. In our
study, both models were tested. The alternative model with humor styles as antecedent var-
iables and personality characteristics and social support as mediators obtained a better fit.
This model indicated that humor styles had an indirect effect on SWB through optimism
and an indirect effect on PWB through self-esteem. Previous research corroborates these
results about the relationship between optimism and indicators of SWB, such as happiness,
and the link between self-esteem and indicators of PWB, such as self-acceptance (Cheng
and Furnham 2003; Moreno and Marrero 2015). In our study, self-enhancing humor posi-
tively influenced optimism, self-esteem and social support, whereas affiliative humor and
self-defeating humor had a negative association with optimism, self-esteem and social sup-
port. Self-defeating humor is based on ridiculing oneself to seek the acceptance of others
and has been negatively associated with well-being (Martin et al. 2003). Therefore, the
best model is the one that proposes that humor styles are associated with SWB and PWB
through personality characteristics. In the same line, Zhao et al. (2014) found that self-
esteem and social support mediated the relationship between self-enhancing humor, affilia-
tive humor and life satisfaction. Other studies also support the mediating effect of personal-
ity characteristics and stable affective states in the relationship between humor styles and
well-being (Cann and Collette 2014; Cann et al. 2010). In a recent study, Fritz et al. (2017)
found that humor styles also had effects on psychological distress that were mediated by
social interaction and positive reappraisal.
Somewhat surprisingly, there was no evidence for an enhancing role for affiliative
humor in the positive personality characteristics. This result could be explained in three
ways. First, it is possible that a negative suppression occurs, given that both self-enhanc-
ing humor and affiliative humor showed a high correlation with each other and moderate
13
correlations with mediating and outcome variables. Second, it is consistent with other
findings that self-enhancing humor is more associated with well-being than affiliative
humor (Wang et al. 2018). Self-enhancing humor reflects a humoristic view of life based
on self-reflection, whereas affiliative humor is focused on telling jokes that make others
laugh and creates a positive interpersonal interaction (Martin et al. 2003). Self-enhancing
humor could be used more as a mechanism of emotional regulation (Rnic et al. 2016) and
thus appear more associated with well-being. Further, affiliative tendencies of personality
traits, such as gregariousness and friendliness, do not make a significant contribution to
SWB when other personality traits are controlled (Lauriola and Iani 2017); perhaps this is
what happened here with affiliative humor. Third, a moderating variable, such as gender or
health status, may alter the magnitude and direction of the relationship between antecedent
and outcome variables. The analyses carried out controlling gender and health status sup-
port this third explanation.
Thus, it appears there is a strong link between the humor styles that are considered to be
self-oriented, that is, self-enhancing humor and self-defeating humor (Martin et al. 2003),
and positive personality and well-being. Humor styles could be part of a personal, rela-
tively consistent, style of interpreting the world that allows for affirming oneself and others
(Campbell et al. 2008; Kuiper and McHale 2009). Our findings suggest that the component
of self-oriented humor explains well-being to a greater extent than the component oriented
towards interpersonal relations. Further, the greater use of self-enhancing humor and lower
use of self-defeating humor led to the endorsement of positive self-evaluative standards.
Interestingly, the assumed structural model varied according to gender. In women, the
humor styles were associated with high SWB scores through optimism, and the associ-
ations of humor with PWB were mediated by self-esteem and social support. However,
for men, the paths from personality characteristics and social support to SWB and PWB
were non-significant. Also, for men, affiliative humor had no effect on social support, nor
did self-defeating humor affect optimism. These findings indicate that humor styles do not
seem to affect men’s well-being through personality characteristics but do affect women’s
well-being. Recent studies have found gender differences in the neural mechanisms sup-
porting cognitive, affective and laughter processing for different types of verbal jokes
(Cann et al. 2016; Chan 2016). In these studies, women were found to be more sensitive to
the affective experiences that underlie humorous situations than men (Cann et al. 2016). In
addition, women show greater activation in brain areas linked to the anterior prefrontal cor-
tex involved in cognitive flexibility and activate more verbal functions, whereas men show
greater activation in prefrontal modulatory regions involved in cognitive reappraisal and
other cognitive control processes (Chan 2016). Also, in our study, social support mediated
the relationship between humor and PWB only in women. Women with high self-enhanc-
ing humor scores tended to report greater social support and greater PWB. Previous studies
have found that social support has a greater buffer effect on the associations between stress
and loneliness in women than in men (Lee and Goldstein 2016) and that social support has
a greater impact on life satisfaction in women than in men (Kong et al. 2015).
Of particular interest in this study was the finding that a different pattern of relation-
ships between the variables also emerged as a function of health status. The model where
humor styles predicted SWB via optimism and PWB via self-esteem and support was only
found for healthy individuals. For sick individuals, the paths from humor styles to person-
ality and well-being were not significant. The only significant path coefficients were from
self-esteem to SWB and PWB. These findings suggest that humor styles had no beneficial
or detrimental effects on the well-being of individuals suffering from a disease. Previous
literature has indicated contradictory results in the relationships between humor and health.
13
Some studies have found positive effects of humor on personality characteristics that in
turn affect stress and health (Cann et al. 2010) and indicate its relevance in recovery from
cardiovascular diseases or infection-related diseases (Romundstad et al. 2016). However,
other studies have not found any relationship between humor styles and health indicators
(Svebak et al. 2004) or have led to mixed findings, where only self-defeating humor is
involved in the relationship between stress and physical health, showing detrimental effects
for health in highly stressful situations (Richards and Kruger 2017).
In our study, self-esteem was the only variable that affected well-being in sick individu-
als. Previous research has demonstrated the role of self-esteem and social support in the
relationship between coping with stress and general health status (Yildirim et al. 2017).
Besides, it has been found that individuals with restrictions due to their health and low
control beliefs show lower self-esteem (Wagner et al. 2015).
However, the results obtained in this study can only be drawn cautiously, since alterna-
tive models would fit the data equally well, for example, those that include other personal-
ity characteristics or depend on different sources of social support. Our findings should be
interpreted in light of a number of study limitations. First, the generalization of the results
is limited due to the restricted characteristics of the participants. Specifically, the group of
sick participants suffered from different health problems. With a larger sample, the type
and chronicity of the medical conditions could have been controlled. Second, although the
structural equation model can be used to represent a certain causality between the var-
iables, it is still based on a linear equation system that does not allow for causal infer-
ences. Third, this study was based on self-report scales. Positive variables may have been
more affected by response biases than negative variables, that is, the items may have been
answered in the positive because they are widely desired behaviors and thoughts. Future
research might also use more observational and experimental studies in combination with
self-reporting to identify whether the relationships between personality and well-being are
not inflated by a common method factor. Furthermore, longitudinal studies would deter-
mine the extent to which individuals remain stable, across time and situations, in their use
of personal resources when they process information in relation to themselves and to oth-
ers, in addition to identifying the extent to which humor styles could be considered traits
rather than coping strategies. Future research should also include actual observations of
humor use in various social settings and circumstances, as well as its effects as a function
of individual differences according to gender and health status.
The present study adds new findings to a growing body of research about the relation-
ship between positive personality characteristics, humor styles and well-being, and has
practical therapeutic implications to bolster well-being. Intervention programs should
focus on improving adaptive humor styles, particularly self-enhancing humor, promoting
self-esteem and developing more positive thinking. These positive personality character-
istics are more malleable than other personality traits, such as neuroticism and extraver-
sion, which have a strong genetic component. Individuals should be able to change their
personality-linked behaviors according to motivational and self-regulation processes or be
influenced by certain life transitions that result in personality maturation (Bleidorn et al.
2013; Hennecke et al. 2014; Specht et al. 2014).
In sum, although our initial model did not receive enough empirical support, the alter-
native model, where humor styles acted as antecedent variables explaining well-being
through optimism, self-esteem and social support, showed significant fit indexes. The high
use of self-enhancing humor and low use of self-defeating humor seem to lead to a higher
positive self-evaluation which, in turn, has an impact on the greater SWB and PWB of
women and healthy people.
13
Our study provides evidence that perceived self-esteem and social support can partially
explain the individual differences in the relationship between humor styles and PWB for
women, whereas optimism can explain the differences in the relationship between humor
styles and SWB. Additionally, the effects of affiliative, self-enhancing and self-defeating
humor on SWB and PWB could be explained by their positive and negative associa-
tions with optimism (for SWB) and self-esteem and social support (for PWB) in healthy
individuals.
The findings of our study offer support for the relevance of humor, particularly high use
of self-enhancing humor and low use of self-defeating humor, in maintaining a positive
personality, which in turn affects well-being. Our results also partially support the view
that optimism and self-esteem reflect individual differences in the experiencing of well-
being, whereby optimism affects SWB and self-esteem affects PWB. Future interventions
should be aimed at promoting well-being through the development of enhanced positive
expectations and self-evaluation, as well as a greater sense of humor.
Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The authors and the affiliated organization declare that there is no conflict of interest
regarding the publication of this manuscript.
References
Batz, C., & Tay, L. (2017). Gender differences in subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay
(Eds.), Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better
performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.
Bleidorn, W., Arslan, R. C., Denissen, J. J., Rentfrow, P. J., Gebauer, J. E., Potter, J., et al. (2016). Age and
gender differences in self-esteem—A cross-cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 111(3), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000078.
Bleidorn, W., Klimstra, T. A., Denissen, J. J., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Personality
maturation around the world: A cross-cultural examination of social-investment theory. Psychological
Science, 24(12), 2530–2540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613498396.
Bluth, K., & Blanton, P. W. (2015). The influence of self-compassion on emotional well-being among early
and older adolescent males and females. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 219–230. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936967.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological
Methods & Research, 17(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124189017003004.
Burnette, D., Duci, V., & Dhembo, E. (2017). Psychological distress, social support, and quality of life
among cancer caregivers in Albania. Psycho-Oncology, 26(6), 779–786. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pon.4081.
Cakmak, S., Karakus, G., Tamam, L., Tasdemir, A., & Karaytug, M. O. (2015). The relationship of self-
esteem and humor styles in first class medical students: A cross-sectional study. Cukurova Medical
Journal, 40(4), 782–793.
Callaghan, P., & Morrissey, J. (1993). Social support and health: A review. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
18(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18020203.x.
Campbell, L., Martin, R. A., & Ward, J. R. (2008). An observational study of humor use while resolv-
ing conflict in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1475-6811.2007.00183.x.
13
Cann, A., Cann, A. T., & Jordan, J. A. (2016). Understanding the effects of exposure to humor express-
ing affiliative and aggressive motivations. Motivation and Emotion, 40(2), 258–267. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11031-015-9524-8.
Cann, A., & Collette, C. (2014). Sense of humor, stable affect, and psychological well-being. Europe’s Jour-
nal of Psychology, 10(3), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v10i3.746.
Cann, A., & Kuiper, N. A. (2014). Research on the role of humor in well-being and health. Europe’s Journal
of Psychology, 10(3), 412–428. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v10i3.818.
Cann, A., Stilwell, K., & Taku, K. (2010). Humor styles, positive personality and health. Europe’s Journal
of Psychology, 6(3), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v6i3.214.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2017). Optimism, coping, and well-being. In C. L. Cooper & J. C. Quick
(Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice (pp. 400–414). Chiches-
ter: Wiley.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 879–
889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006.
Chan, Y. C. (2016). Neural correlates of sex/gender differences in humor processing for different joke types.
Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 536. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00536.
Chen, Y., & Feeley, T. H. (2014). Social support, social strain, loneliness, and well-being among older
adults: An analysis of the Health and Retirement Study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
31(2), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513488728.
Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality, self-esteem, and demographic predictions of happiness
and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 921–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191
-8869(02)00078-8.
Colby, D. A., & Shifren, K. (2013). Optimism, mental health, and quality of life: A study among breast
cancer patients. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 18, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548
506.2012.686619.
Day, A. L., & Livingstone, H. A. (2003). Gender differences in perceptions of stressors and utilization of
social support among university students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 35(2), 73–83.
Díaz, D., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Blanco, A., Moreno-Jiménez, B., Gallardo, I., Valle, C., et al. (2006).
Validación española de las escalas de bienestar psicológico de Ryff. Psicothema, 18, 572–577.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life sat-
isfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 63–73). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Diener, E., Pressman, S. D., Hunter, J., & Delgadillo-Chase, D. (2017). If, why, and when subjective well-
being influences health, and future needed research. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being,
9(2), 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12090.
Dyck, K. T. H., & Holtzman, S. (2013). Understanding humor styles and well-being: The importance of
social relationships and gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 53–58. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.01.023.
Edmondson, D., Arndt, J., Alcántara, C., Chaplin, W., & Schwartz, J. E. (2015). Self-esteem and the acute
effect of anxiety on ambulatory blood pressure. Psychosomatic Medicine, 77(7), 833. https://doi.
org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000219.
Fiyaz, K., Majeed, S., & Khan, A. Q. (2016). Impact of styles of humor and self-esteem on psychological
well-being of mental health professionals. Journal of Pakistan Psychiatric Society, 13, 12–15.
Fong, G. T., & Markus, H. (1982). Self-schemas and judgments about others. Social Cognition, 1(3), 191–
204. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1982.1.3.191.
Ford, T. E., Lappi, S. K., & Holden, C. J. (2016). Personality, humor styles and happiness: Happy people
have positive humor styles. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.5964/
ejop.v12i3.1160.
Fox, C. L., Hunters, S. C., & Jones, S. E. (2016). Longitudinal associations between humor styles and
psychosocial adjustment in adolescence. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12, 377–389. https://doi.
org/10.5964/ejop.v12i3.1065.
Friedman, H. S., & Kern, M. L. (2014). Personality, well-being, and health. Annual Review of Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115123.
Fritz, H. L., Russek, L. N., & Dillon, M. M. (2017). Humor use moderates the relation of stressful life
events with psychological distress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 845–859. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167217699583.
13
Fujita, F., Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender differences in negative affect and well-being: The
case for emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 427–434. https
://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.427.
Giardini, A., Pierobon, A., Callegari, S., Caporotondi, A., Stabile, M., Avvenuti, G., et al. (2017).
Optimism may protect Chronic Heart Failure patients from depressive symptoms: Relationships
between depression, anxiety, optimism, pessimism and illness perception. Psicoterapia Cognitiva
e Comportamentale, 23(1), 27–39.
Gierl, M. J., & Rogers, W. T. (1996). A confirmatory factor analysis of the test anxeety inventory using
canadian high school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 315–324.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056002012.
Hajek, A., Brettschneider, C., Lange, C., Posselt, T., Wiese, B., Steinmann, S., et al. (2016). Gender
differences in the effect of social support on health-related quality of life: Results of a population-
based prospective cohort study in old age in Germany. Quality of Life Research, 25(5), 1159–
1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1166-5.
Hennecke, M., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J., & Wood, D. (2014). A three-part framework for self-reg-
ulated personality development across adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 28(3), 289–
299. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1945.
Hernández, J. A., & Betancort, M. (2016). ULLRToolbox. Retrieved from: https://sites.google.com/site/
ullrtoolbox/.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Jovanovic, V. (2011). Do humor styles matter in the relationship between personality and subjec-
tive wellbeing? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 502–507. https://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1467-9450.2011.00898.x.
Kazarian, S. S., & Martin, R. A. (2006). Humor styles, culture-related personality, wellbeing, and family
adjustment among Armenians in Lebanon. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19,
405–423. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor.2006.020.
Keyes, C. L. M., & Ryff, C. D. (1999). Psychological well-being in midlife. In S. L. Willis & J. D. Reid
(Eds.), Life in the middle (pp. 161–180). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Kim, E. S., Hagan, K. A., Grodstein, F., DeMeo, D. L., De Vivo, I., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2017). Opti-
mism and cause-specific mortality: A prospective cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiol-
ogy, 185(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kww182.
Kirsh, G. A., & Kuiper, N. A. (2002). Individualism and relatedness themes in the context of depression,
gender, and a self-schema model of emotion. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,
43(2), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086904.
Kleiman, E. M., Chiara, A. M., Liu, R. T., Jager-Hyman, S. G., Choi, J. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (2017). Opti-
mism and well-being: A prospective multi-method and multi-dimensional examination of opti-
mism as a resilience factor following the occurrence of stressful life events. Cognition and Emo-
tion, 31(2), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1108284.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Wil-
liams (Ed.), Handbook of methodological innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kong, F., Ding, K., & Zhao, J. (2015). The relationships among gratitude, self-esteem, social support
and life satisfaction among undergraduate students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(2), 477–489.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9519-2.
Krieger, T., Hermann, H., Zimmermann, J., & Grosse Holtforth, M. (2015). Associations of self-com-
passion and global self-esteem with positive and negative affect and stress reactivity in daily life:
Findings from a smart phone study. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 288–292. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.009.
Kuiper, N. A. (2014). Investigating the role of humor in psychological health and well-being. Europe’s
Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 408–411. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v10i3.809.
Kuiper, N. A., & McHale, N. (2009). Humor Styles as mediators between Self-Evaluative Standards
and Psychological Well-Being. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 359–376. https://doi.org/10.3200/
jrlp.143.4.359-376.
Lauriola, M., & Iani, L. (2017). Personality, positivity and happiness: A mediation analysis using a
bifactor model. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(6), 1659–1682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1090
2-016-9792-3.
Leary, M. R. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1),
32–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00008.
13
Lee, C. Y. S., & Goldstein, S. E. (2016). Loneliness, stress, and social support in young adulthood:
Does the source of support matter? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(3), 568–580. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10964-015-0395-9.
Leist, A. K., & Müller, D. (2013). Humor types show different patterns of self-regulation, self-esteem,
and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1090
2-012-9342-6.
Leung, J., Pachana, N. A., & McLaughlin, D. (2014). Social support and health-related quality of life in
women with breast cancer: A longitudinal study. Psycho-Oncology, 23(9), 1014–1020. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pon.3523.
Li, B., Ma, H., Guo, Y., Xu, F., Yu, F., & Zhou, Z. (2014). Positive psychological capital: A new
approach to social support and subjective well-being. Social Behavior and Personality: An Inter-
national Journal, 42(1), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.1.135.
Lin, Y. C., & Raghubir, P. (2005). Gender differences in unrealistic optimism about marriage and
divorce: Are men more optimistic and women more realistic? Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 31(2), 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271325.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and
construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.
Manning-Walsh, J. (2005). Social support as a mediator between symptom distress and quality of life
in women with breast cancer. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 34(4),
482–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0884217505278310.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 35, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63.
Martin, R. A. (2015). Humor and mental health. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health
(2nd edn, pp. 350–353). Oxford: Academic Press.
Martin, R. A., Kuiper, N. A., Olinger, L. J., & Dance, K. A. (1993). Humor, coping with stress, self-con-
cept, and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 6, 89–104.
https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1993.6.1.89.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses
of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles
Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092
-6566(02)00534-2.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-
being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461
6729101700217.
McDonough, M. H., Sabiston, C. M., & Wrosch, C. (2014). Predicting changes in posttraumatic growth
and subjective well-being among breast cancer survivors: The role of social support and stress.
Psycho-Oncology, 23(1), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3380.
McKay-Nesbitt, J., Bhatnagar, N., & Smith, M. C. (2013). Regulatory fit effects of gender and market-
ing message content. Journal of Business Research, 66(11), 2245–2251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2012.02.004.
Mendiburo-Seguel, A., Páez, D., & Martínez-Sánchez, F. (2015). Humor styles and personality: A meta-
analysis of the relation between humor styles and the Big Five personality traits. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12209.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Moreno, Y., & Marrero, R. J. (2015). Optimismo y autoestima como predictores de bienestar personal:
Diferencias de género. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 32(1), 27–36. Retrieved from: http://
www.redalyc.org/html/2430/243045363004/.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Rusting, C. L. (2003). Gender Differences in Well-Being. In D. Kahneman, E.
Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 330–352). New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Orth, U. (2017). The lifespan development of self-esteem. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development
across the lifespan (pp. 181–195). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2019). Development of self-esteem across the lifespan. In D. P. McAdams, R.
L. Shiner, & J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 328–344). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and struc-
ture of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672–680.
Power, J. M., Lawlor, B. A., & Kee, F. (2017). Social support mediates the relationships between extra-
version, neuroticism, and cognitive function in older adults. Public Health, 147, 144–152. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.02.015.
13
Puig-Pérez, S., Hackett, R. A., Salvador, A., & Steptoe, A. (2017). Optimism moderates psychophysi-
ological responses to stress in older people with Type 2 diabetes. Psychophysiology, 54(4), 536–
543. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12806.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R
Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rey, L., Extremera, N., & Sánchez-Álvarez, N. (2017). Clarifying the links between Perceived Emo-
tional Intelligence and Well-Being in Older People: Pathways through Perceived Social Support
from Family and Friends. Applied Research in Quality of Life. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1148
2-017-9588-6.
Richards, K., & Kruger, G. (2017). Humor styles as moderators in the relationship between perceived
stress and physical health. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017711485.
Rnic, K., Dozois, D. J., & Martin, R. A. (2016). Cognitive distortions, humor styles, and depression.
Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(3), 348. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v12i3.1118.
Romundstad, S., Svebak, S., Holen, A., & Holmen, J. (2016). A 15-year follow-up study of sense of
humor and causes of mortality: The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study. Psychosomatic Medicine,
78(3), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000275.
Rook, K. S. (2015). Social networks in later life: Weighing positive and negative effects on health
and well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 45–51. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0963721414551364.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self-esteem research: A phenomenological corrective. In J. Prager, M. Seeman,
& D. Longshore (Eds.), School desegregation research (pp. 175–203). Boston, MA: Springer.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Soft-
ware, 48, 1–36.
Ruch, W., & Köhler, G. (1998). A temperament approach to humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of
humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 203–230). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruvalcaba-Romero, N. A., Fernández-Berrocal, P., Salazar-Estrada, J. G., & Gallegos-Guajardo, J.
(2017). Positive emotions, self-esteem, interpersonal relationships and social support as mediators
between emotional intelligence and life satisfaction. Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues,
9(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbhsi.2017.08.001.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimo-
nia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353263.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). Middle age and well-being. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
mental health (pp. 707–719). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to
psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1090
2-006-9019-0.
Saraglou, V., & Scariot, C. (2002). Humor Styles Questionnaire: Personality and educational correlates
in Belgian high school and college students. European Journal of Personality, 16, 43–54. https://
doi.org/10.1002/per.430.
Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: The
social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 127–139. https
://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.12.
Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Shearin, E. N., & Pierce, G. R. (1987). A brief measure of social sup-
port: Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(4),
497–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407587044007.
Scheel, T. (2017). Humor in health: How to stay healthy and happy with humor. In Humor at work in
teams, leadership, negotiations, learning and health (pp. 95–120). Cham: Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-65691-5_7.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and impli-
cations of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and
trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063.
13
Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in
53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.623.
Schwarzer, R., & Knoll, N. (2007). Functional roles of social support within the stress and coping pro-
cess: A theoretical and empirical overview. International Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 243–252.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701396641.
Siedlecki, K. L., Salthouse, T. A., Oishi, S., & Jeswani, S. (2014). The relationship between social sup-
port and subjective well-being across age. Social Indicators Research, 117(2), 561–576. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0361-4.
Sirigatti, S., Penzo, I., Giannetti, E., Casale, S., & Stefanile, C. (2016). Relationships between humorism
profiles and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 219–224. https
://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.011.
Smith, N., Young, A., & Lee, C. (2004). Optimism, health-related hardiness and well-being among older
Australian women. Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591
05304045373.
Specht, J., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Hutteman, R., Kandler, C., et al. (2014). What
drives adult personality development? A comparison of theoretical perspectives and empirical evi-
dence. European Journal of Personality, 28(3), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1966.
Staniute, M., Brozaitiene, J., Burkauskas, J., Kazukauskiene, N., Mickuviene, N., & Bunevicius, R.
(2015). Type D personality, mental distress, social support and health-related quality of life in
coronary artery disease patients with heart failure: A longitudinal observational study. Health and
Quality of Life Outcomes, 13(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0204-2.
Steel, P., Taras, V., Uggerslev, K., & Bosco, F. (2018). The happy culture: A theoretical, meta-Analytic,
and empirical review of the relationship between culture and wealth and subjective well-being.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(2), 128–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317
721372.
Stieger, S., Formann, A. K., & Burger, C. (2011). Humor styles and their relationship to explicit
and implicit self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 747–750. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.025.
Svebak, S., Martin, R. A., & Holmen, J. (2004). The prevalence of sense of humor in a large, unse-
lected county population in Norway: Relations with age, sex, and some health indicators. Humor,
17(1/2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2004.001.
Swann, W. B., Griffin, J. J., Predmore, S. C., & Gaines, B. (1987). The cognitive–affective crossfire:
When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 881–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.881.
Tafarodi, R. W., & Milne, A. B. (2002). Decomposing global self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 70,
443–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05017.
Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510395592.
Thompson, R. A., Flood, M. F., & Goodvin, R. (2006). Social support and developmental psychopathol-
ogy. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. III. Risk, disor-
der, and adaptation (2nd ed., pp. 1–37). New York: Wiley.
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2003). Stability of self-esteem across
the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 205–220. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.205.
Uchino, B. N., Cribbet, M., de Grey, R. G. K., Cronan, S., Trettevik, R., & Smith, T. W. (2017). Disposi-
tional optimism and sleep quality: A test of mediating pathways. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
40(2), 360–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-016-9792-0.
Uysal, A., Ascigil, E., & Turunc, G. (2017). Spousal autonomy support, need satisfaction, and well-
being in individuals with chronic pain: A longitudinal study. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
40(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-016-9783-1.
Vaillant, G. E. (2000). Adaptive mental mechanisms: Their role in a positive psychology. American Psy-
chologist, 55(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X55.1.89.
Vukasović, T., & Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic
studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000017.
Wagner, J., Hoppmann, C., Ram, N., & Gerstorf, D. (2015). Self-esteem is relatively stable late in life:
The role of resources in the health, self-regulation, and social domains. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 51(1), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038338.
Wang, H. H., Wu, S. Z., & Liu, Y. Y. (2003). Association between social support and health outcomes:
A meta-analysis. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 19(7), 345–350.
13
Wang, M., Zou, H., Zhang, W., & Hou, K. (2018). Emotional Intelligence and Subjective Well-Being in
Chinese University Students: The Role of Humor Styles. Journal of Happiness Studies. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10902-018-9982-2.
Wlodarczyk, D. (2017). Optimism and hope as predictors of subjective health in post-myocardial infarc-
tion patients: A comparison of the role of coping strategies. Journal of Health Psychology, 22(3),
336–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105315603470.
Yıldırım, N., Karaca, A., Cangur, S., Acıkgoz, F., & Akkus, D. (2017). The relationship between educa-
tional stress, stress coping, self-esteem, social support, and health status among nursing students in
Turkey: A structural equation modeling approach. Nurse Education Today, 48, 33–39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.09.014.
Young, J. E., & Lindemann, M. D. (1992). An integrative schema-focused model for personality disorders.
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 6(1), 11.
Yue, X. D., Liu, K. W. Y., Jiang, F., & Hiranandani, N. A. (2014). Humor styles, self-esteem, and subjective
happiness. Psychological Reports, 115(2), 517–525. https://doi.org/10.2466/07.02.PR0.115c18z6.
Zhao, J., Wang, Y., & Kong, F. (2014). Exploring the mediation effect of social support and self-esteem on
the relationship between humor style and life satisfaction in Chinese college students. Personality and
Individual Differences, 64, 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.026.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13

Marrero2019 Article DoesHumorMediateTheRelationshi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Marrero2019 Article DoesHumorMediateTheRelationshi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marrero2019 Article DoesHumorMediateTheRelationshi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Happiness Studies

Does Humor Mediate the Relationship Between Positive

Rosario J. Marrero1 · Mónica Carballeira1 · Juan A. Hernández‑Cabrera1

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Keywords Self-esteem · Optimism · Humor · Social support · Well-being

on affective self-evaluating standards (self-enhancement principle). In line with the inter-

types of well-being as outcome variables. However, we also tested an alternative model in

A checklist was used to record sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, gender,

3.1 Descriptive and Correlational Analysis

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for all study variables

3.3 Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)

.-25 Psychological .60

Social support → Subjective well-being 0.54 3.24*** 0.13

***p < .001, n.s. = non-significant; χ2 (356) = 945.31, p < .001; GFI = .90; CFI = .92; TLI = .91; NFI = .89;

5.84 .55 Personal

Social support → Subjective well-being .27 1.6 n.s. .07

***p < .001, n.s. = non-significant; χ2 (351) = 831.04, p < .001; GFI = .91; CFI = .94; TLI = .93; NFI = .90;

-.77 .57 Personal

Self-defeating Well-being Positive

-.46 .52 Personal

Self-defeating .07 Well-being Positive

-1.14 .61 Personal

Self-defeating Well-being Positive

-.84 .57 Personal

-.75 Psychological .65

Self-defeating Well-being Positive

Compliance with Ethical Standards

You might also like

3.1 Descriptive and Correlational Analysis

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for all study variables

3.3 Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)