A network analysis of relationships between the work as meaning inventory (WAMI-U) and the humor styles in university students: Enhancing prevention in decent education

Abstract

Rooted in the decent education as a precursor to decent work, this study investigated via network analysis the relationship between the work as meaning inventory for university students (WAMI-U) (positive meaning, meaning-making through study, greater good motivations) and the humor styles questionnaire (HSQ) (health-promoting styles: affiliative humor, self-enhancing humor; health-endangering styles: aggressive humor, self-defeating humor) in 371 Italian university students. Central nodes and bridge nodes between WAMI-U and HSQ were calculated. Positive meaning, meaning-making through study (WAMI-U), and self-enhancing humor (HSQ) had high centrality. Affiliative humor, self-enhancing humor (HSQ), and positive meaning (WAMI-U) had bridge function. The high centrality and bridge function of self-enhancing with all dimensions of WAMI-U, followed by the bridge function of affiliative humor in relation to meaning-making through study (WAMI-U) confirmed them as health-promoting styles. Negative associations between maladaptive humor styles and positive meaning (WAMI-U) confirmed their standard as health-endangering styles. Implications for research and prevention are discussed.

Keywords

Work as meaning inventory for university students WAMI-U humor styles questionnaire HSQ network analysis

Introduction

Psychology of working theory (PWT; Blustein, 2006; Duffy et al., 2016) researchers have recently expanded the study of educational environments, integrating decent education in the PWT model as a precursor to decent work (Duffy et al., 2022; Masdonati et al., 2022). According to the PWT, accessing work as a human right (i.e. decent work) enables individuals to attain working lives that contribute to their job satisfaction and work meaning (Allan et al., 2020; Duffy et al., 2016). According to Blustein et al. (2023), “decent work reflects basic workplace conditions to which all employees are entitled, whereas meaningful work is aspirational, reflecting significance at work” (p. 289). Therefore, for PWT scholars, decent work and meaningful work are linked via a step-by-step process in which decent work leads to need satisfaction, which, in turn, leads to greater sense of meaningfulness experienced in one's work (Blustein et al., 2023).

In this approach, PWT-infused research has advanced the new construct of decent education (Duffy et al., 2022), recognized as one of the critical predictors of decent and meaningful work. It comprises six components, namely (a) physical safety, (b) psychological safety, (c) quality instruction, (d) equitable learning environments, (e) opportunities to foster social connection, and (f) adequate educational/vocational programming. The current study seeks to increase understanding of how access to decent education facilitates access to decent work (Duffy et al., 2022). PWT scholars conceive of decent and meaningful work as the optimal outcomes of the school-to-work transition (STWT) process and identify factors that could influence, impede, or facilitate its achievement (Masdonati et al., 2022). In this regard, the STWT model incorporates factors that impact the transition from secondary school to the workplace (Masdonati et al., 2022). The university-to-work transition represents another critical juncture and a challenge for the higher education system that is expected to prepare students for future careers in a rapidly changing and stressful world of work (Izzo et al., 2022). In this context, research highlights meaningful work as a primary objective for university students and emphasizes the need for career counseling services to guide them in attaining meaningful future careers (Allan et al., 2017). Although psychologists are aware of the relevance of systemic change to address contemporary social and economic issues (Blustein et al., 2019) they are also interested in discovering individual strengths and resources that can help students to cope adaptively across the university-to-work transition (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016). This perspective appears to be extremely relevant in the current world of work, in which uncertainty and instability threaten the capacity of university students to access meaningful work (Allan et al., 2017; Goldman et al., 2017; Masdonati et al., 2022).

Meaningful work refers to work that individuals recognize as positive and personally significant (Rosso et al., 2010), which is conceptualized in contemporary approaches as a multidimensional construct (Lysova et al., 2019). Steger et al. (2012) identified three key facets of meaningful work: positive meaning (PM) in work (one's work has specific nuance and be meaningful), meaning-making (MM) through work (one's work enhances the comprehension of the self, the surrounding world, promoting personal growth), and greater good (GG) motivations (one's work has a beneficial effect on other people). Literature has reported that experiencing work as meaningful is associated with several positive outcomes, such as high satisfaction in life (Shockley et al., 2016), physical health (Arnold & Walsh, 2015), and well-being (Pollet & Schnell, 2017), as well as reduced levels of negative affect and psychological distress (Allan, Autin, et al., 2016; Allan, Douglass, et al., 2016; Allan et al., 2018). A seminal study of the adaptive value of humor in facilitating meaning at work (Tracy et al., 2006) underlined that employees could rely on humor to cope with problematic work situations, using humor to clarify incongruences or absurdities and convert it to be meaningful. Recently scholars have started to more fully explore the relationships between meaningful work and humor (Bakker et al. 2020; Bartzik et al., 2021; Turnalar-Çetinkaya et al., 2022). Researchers have advanced the idea that humor could positively affect employees’ activities and tasks, leading them to be more intrinsically motivated (Bakker et al., 2020). Empirical findings showed that among nurses who completed humor training, sense of humor mediates the relationship between humor intervention and perceived meaningfulness at work (Bartzik et al., 2021). Another employee study showed that the relationship between liberating humor (creating new perspectives and alternative social meanings that may convey new understandings) and meaningfulness at work was mediated by job crafting (increasing structural and social resources) (Turnalar-Çetinkaya et al., 2022). These results illustrate how humor has gained attention as a focus of research and intervention for its promise as a construct that can be taught to both enhance coping resources (Martin & Lefcourt, 1983; Martin et al., 2003) and promote well-being in the workplace (Guenter et al., 2013; Kim & Plester, 2019).

The literature reports a wide range of competing models of humor, from Craik and colleagues’ (1996) description of five bipolar humorous styles (socially warm versus cold; competent versus inept; reflective versus boorish; earthy versus repressed; benign versus mean-spirited) to Ruch et al.'s (2018) eight comic styles (fun, humor, nonsense, wit, irony, satire, sarcasm, and cynicism). Situated in personality research, another widely used model distinguishes between four main humor styles that may be adaptive or maladaptive for the individual's subjective well-being (Martin et al., 2003). In this view, humor can have a double function involving pleasant and prosocial purposes (i.e. health-promoting) or hostile and malevolent intents (i.e. health-endangering) (Martin et al., 2003). The four types of humor styles are the following: affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-defeating (Martin et al., 2003). Affiliative humor is the use of pleasant banter to stimulate bonds between individuals. Self-enhancing humor is the capacity to perceive amusement amid life's hardship. Aggressive humor involves the use of cynicism and humiliation to injure or manipulate others. Self-defeating humor refers to one's efforts to make other people laugh by derogatory and sarcastic remarks about oneself (Martin et al., 2003). Based on this conceptualization, Martin et al. developed the humor styles questionnaire (HSQ), which is the most widely used scale to assess humor styles (Plessen et al., 2020). The HSQ also considers the potential influence of humor on well-being (Martin et al., 2003). In the workplace, health-promoting humor styles seem to favor workers’ well-being and positive organizational outcomes; in contrast, health-endangering styles seems to be negatively associated with well-being of workers and desirable work outcomes (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012).

To expand the study of meaningful work Di Fabio and Kenny (2020) have adapted the Steger et al.'s (2012) multidimensional model for university students composed of positive meaning (PM) in study (one's study has specific nuance and be meaningful), meaning-making (MM) through study (one's study enhances the comprehension of themselves and the surrounding world, promoting personal growth), and greater good (GG) motivations (one's study has a beneficial effect on other people). Following primary prevention (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016; Hage et al., 2007) and strength-based prevention perspectives (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2021), psychological resources should be cultivated early on to enhance well-being and resilience. The development of meaning related to their university studies is a promising preventive opportunity for helping university students to build their career pathways toward meaningful work and well-being. Literature has shown that students who perceive their academic and career studies as personally meaningful experienced improved vocational clarity, career decisions, self-efficacy, career adaptability, and satisfaction through their coursework (Duffy & Dik, 2013; Praskova et al., 2014). These results are promising since career adaptability, self-efficacy, and vocational clarity are identified as psychological resources that can help students to achieve a successful STWT toward decent and meaningful work (Masdonati et al., 2022). Thus, perceiving one's career study as meaningful represents an additional psychological resource that might facilitate individuals’ current well-being and move them toward meaningful working lives and future well-being. Following this evidence and evidence concerning the benefits of adaptive humor, it could be promising to examine the relationship between humor and meaningful study in efforts to identify a set of positive psychological resources that would foster the development of meaning among university students prior to entry into the workforce (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2020). Moreover, humor styles could be adaptive or maladaptive to the individual's subjective well-being (Martin et al., 2003), reflecting the double function involving pleasant and prosocial purposes (health-promoting) or hostile and malevolent intents (health-endangering). Building awareness of this double function can be important for students’ well-being and the well-being of future workers. Previous study of university students (Chen & Martin, 2007; Kazarian & Martin, 2004) has confirmed Martin's model in which health-promoting styles encompassing affiliative and self-enhancing humor were associated with psychological well-being measures, whereas health-endangering styles, including aggressive and self-defeating humor, were associated with psychological distress.

During the last decade, as an alternative to the latent factor approach, researchers have started to apply a network approach to the study of psychological constructs (Borsboom & Cramer, 2013) and the relationships among them (Jones et al., 2021). Although well-being (Shukla et al., 2022), empathy (Briganti et al., 2018), resilience (Briganti & Linkowski, 2019), humor (Lau et al., 2022), decent work (Svicher, Gori, et al., 2022), meaningful work and meaningful study (Svicher, Di Fabio, et al., 2022), and the relationships between humor and personality traits (Di Fabio et al., 2023) and between perfectionism and personality traits (Di Fabio et al., 2022) have been investigated using network analysis, the relationship between meaningful study and the four humor styles has not yet to our knowledge been examined via the network approach.

Aim of the study

Thus, the present study sought to analyze through network analysis the relationships between meaningful study and humor styles in university students.

Accordingly, meaningful study dimensions and humor styles are represented by nodes, and the linkages between them by edges (Epskamp & Fried, 2018). The guidelines on network analysis (Burger et al., 2023) allow for identification of the most central nodes in a network via expected influence (Robinaugh et al., 2016). By identifying most central nodes, network analysis detects those nodes that have the largest capacity to influence the overall network of meaning at study and humour. Moreover, the network approach offers the possibility of detecting the bridge nodes that specifically connect the meaningful study and humor styles via bridge EI (Jones et al., 2021). By highlighting these bridges, network analysis may clarify the main relationships between meaning at study and humor. Network analysis may be particularly useful in the current study for revealing the main relationships between humor styles and meaningful study. Thus, the network approach was selected to identify the most central and bridge nodes in the abovementioned network to better understand the relationships between meaningful study and humor styles.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 371 university students at the University of Florence. They were 51.4% females and 48.6% males with a mean age of 23.8 (SD = 3.81) years. Confidentiality was guaranteed, and participation was voluntary. Each participant signed a privacy protection disclaimer in accordance with Italian law's standard criteria for ethics in research (Law Decree DL-196/2003) and European Union General Data Protection Regulation (EU 2016/679).

Measures

Work as meaning inventory for university students (WAMI-U) (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2020). The WAMI-U is a self-report scale measuring meaningful study composed of 10-item adapted from the work as meaning inventory (WAMI) (Steger et al., 2012) and rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). WAMI-U is composed of three dimensions that parallel those of the WAMI: positive meaning (example of item “I view my study as contributing to my personal growth”), meaning making through study (“I view my study as contributing to my personal growth”), and greater good motivation (“I know my study makes a positive difference in the world”) (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2020). In the current study, Cronbach's alphas were 0.81 for positive meaning, 0.78 for meaning making through study, and 0.79 for greater good motivation.

The HSQ (Martin et al., 2003); Italian version (Di Fabio, 2019) is a self-report scale encompassing 32 items rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree). The questionnaire rates four humor styles: affiliative humor (example of item “I enjoy making people laugh”), self-enhancing humor (example of item “It is my experience that thinking about some amusing aspect of a situation is often a very effective way of coping with problems”), aggressive humor (example of item “If I don’t like someone, I often use humor or teasing to put them down”), self-defeating humor (example of item “I let people laugh at me or make fun at my expense more than I should”). Internal consistency measured through Cronbach's alpha were 0.83 for HSQ affiliative, 0.75 for HSQ self-enhancing, 0.76 for HSQ aggressive, 0.78 for HSQ self-defeating.

Statistical analysis

We calculated a network structure, including the four WAMI-U dimensions and four HSQ humour styles, adhering to Burger et al.'s guidelines (2023). First, we examined zero-order correlations. Second, we estimated the network model (out of 100; lambda tuning = 0.01). The latter model comprehended seven nodes (three reflecting the dimension of the WAMI-U; four indicating the HSQ humor styles) and edges that represented the regularized partial correlation (i.e. controlled by all the other ones) among two nodes. Blue edges displayed positive associations whereas red edges indicated the negative ones. The thickness of edges depicted their magnitude (the thicker the node, the stronger the association) (Epskamp & Fried, 2018). The R packages bootnet 1.5, and qgraph 1.9 were used. Local network properties were assessed via the EI index (Robinaugh et al., 2016) and node predictability. The EI index estimates the sum of all edges extending from a given node toward all surrounding nodes and highlights the importance of nodes in a network (Robinaugh et al., 2016). Node predictability (ranging from 0 to 1) evaluated how a particular node is predicted by all surrounding nodes and represents the percentage of variance shared by a specific node with all neighboring nodes (Epskamp et al., 2018). Network stability was checked via the correlation stability (CS) coefficient (CS coefficient > 0.50) suggests a stable EI (Epskamp et al., 2018; Robinaugh et al., 2016). Network accuracy was examined calculating the bootstrap test of edge weight accuracy in which a plotted curve with smaller CIs indicate greater precision and larger confidence intervals (CIs) indicates poorer precision (Epskamp et al., 2018). The nonparametric bootstrapped difference test for EI was used to illustrate statistically significant differences among nodes. The nonparametric bootstrapped difference test for edge weight was applied to illustrate statistically significant differences between edges (Epskamp et al., 2018). We used the R packages bootnet 1.5 and igraph 1.2.9. Finally, bridge nodes were identified (Jones et al., 2021). Bridge nodes are nodes that are important in communication between two different communities of nodes (Jones et al., 2021). In our network model, one community of nodes pertained to WAMI-U dimensions and the other one was represented by HSQ humor styles. According to Jones et al. (2021) we implemented bridge EI to detect bridge nodes. Following Jones et al. (2021), we provided a graphical LASSO model based on choosing as bridge nodes those with bridge EI in the top 80^th percentile. The R packages networktools 1.2.3 and qgraph 1.9 were used. The following R packages were also used: dplyr 1.0.7, bnlearn 4.7, reshape2 1.4.4, ggplot2 3.3.5, and Hmisc 3.3.5. All the analyses were conducted using the R Studio Version 2022.12.0+353 for Macintosh.

Results

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of all study variables and Figure 1 shows zero-order Pearson correlations. Figure 2 presents the network model of WAMI-U dimensions and humor styles. Figure 3 shows the EI for each node in the network. Concerning the EI (i.e. centrality index) associated with each node, positive meaning (EI = 1.10) and meaning-making through study (EI = 0.80) of the WAMI-U and self-enhancing humor of HSQ (EI = 0.75) showed a significantly higher centrality than all other nodes (Figure 4). Differently, HSQ aggressive humor and HSQ self-defeating showed the lowest centrality (EI = 0.02 and EI = 0.33, respectively). Mean node predictability was 0.45; thus 45% of each node variance could potentially be accounted for by its surrounding nodes and ranged from 0.16 (HSQ aggressive humor) to 0.72 (WAMI-U positive meaning). Figure 5 shows the statistically significant higher edges. The WAMI-U dimensions were positively and strongly associated among them. A main path links positive meaning with meaning-making through study and meaning-making through study with greater good motivations. Regarding humor style questionnaire, self-enhancing humor was positively associated with all the dimensions of WAMI-U whereas self-enhancing humor was positively associated with WAMI-U positive meaning (Figure 2). Differently, HSQ aggressive humor and HSQ self-defeating humor are less connected to the main path of the network, sharing negative links with the WAMI-U dimensions. In particular, aggressive humor and self-defeating humor were negatively associated with WAMI-U positive meaning (Figure 2). Concerning the trustworthiness of the network, the CS stability coefficient was high (0.74). The bootstrap tests of the edge weight accuracy yielded a reasonable precision for the seven nodes of the network (Figure 6). Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the results of the bridge EI for the network of WAMI-U and HSQ. Analyses revealed that the network had three bridge nodes: Positive meaning of the WAMI-U, HSQ affiliative humor, and HSQ self-enhancing humor.

Figure 1.

Zero-order Pearson correlations (n = 371).

Figure 2.

Graphical representation of the network model for work as meaning inventory for university student and humor style questionnaire (n = 371).

Figure 3.

Expected influence centrality estimates (standardized z scores) for the network of work as meaning inventory for university student and humor style questionnaire (n = 371).

Figure 4.

Nonparametric bootstrapped difference test for expected influence of network work as meaning inventory for university student and humor style questionnaire (n = 371).

Figure 5.

Bootstrap tests of the edge weight accuracy (95% confidence intervals) for network of network work as meaning inventory for university student and humor style questionnaire (n = 371).

Figure 6.

Graphical representation of the network model for work as meaning inventory for university student and humor style questionnaire: bridge nodes (bridge expected influence; n = 371).

Figure 7.

Bridge expected influence for the network model of work as meaning inventory for university student and humor style questionnaire (n = 371).

Table 1.

Study variables: means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis (n = 371).

Study variables	M	SD	Min	Max	Sk.	Kr.
HSQ affiliative	38.54	9.51	17	56	−0.12	−0.85
HSQ self-enhancing	32.37	8.06	17	53	0.20	−0.60
HSQ aggressive	30.18	8.15	11	56	0.37	−0.28
HSQ self-defeating	27.97	7.12	8	49	0.35	0.96
WAMI-U positive meaning	22.42	5.56	4	42	−0.24	0.45
WAMI-U meaning-making through study	17.52	4.72	4	42	0.46	0.52
WAMI-U greater good motivations	19.03	8.95	6	56	0.84	0.91

WAMI-U: work as meaning inventory for university students; HSQ: humor style questionnaire.

Discussion

The current research is the first study that applies network analysis to deepen the understanding of the relationships between meaningful study and humor styles in university students. Three major findings warrant emphasis and discussion. The first finding relates to the degree of centrality observed in the network. The second finding concerns the bridge nodes that connect the two scales (WAMI-U and HSQ) and the third concerns the edges that link the WAMI-U bridge dimensions with HSQ humor styles.

The most central node was found to be WAMI-U positive meaning. This node deals with the understanding of how studying activities contribute to students’ life meaning and personal growth (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2020). Thus, this dimension is built around sources of meaning that are perceived as located at the individual level rather than at the collective group level. This seems in line with the global attitudinal processes observed in university students. Previous research, for example, revealed that when university students are involved in their academic tasks, they activate their intrinsic global orientation to achieve their goals (Fong et al., 2018). Thus, students from our study appear to be focused more on sources of meaning directed toward the self than toward other people (Allan et al., 2014). Our findings are also consistent with a previous network analysis conducted on the WAMI-U (Svicher, Di Fabio, et al., 2022; Svicher, Gori, et al., 2022), which reported that all of the most central items of the construct were on the positive meaning dimension.

The second node with high centrality was HSQ self-enhancing, dealing with the use of humor that improves the self in a manner that is not harmful to others. This humor style entails a typically lighthearted outlook on life, a propensity to find humor in life's contradictions, and the ability to keep a light mood in the face of adversities or difficulty. Overall, this humor style is focused more on the intrapsychic than the interpersonal domains. It underlines the use of humor as an emotion regulator or coping mechanism closely related to the concept of coping humor (reduce uncomfortable emotions while remaining realistic about unfavorable circumstances) (Martin, 2003). The high centrality of HSQ self-enhancing for our participants could be hypothesized as their higher propensity to use humor as a strategy to sustain their involvement in achieving their academic tasks.

Regarding bridge nodes and edges, three nodes emerged as having a bridge function: WAMI-U positive meaning, HSQ affiliative humor, and HSQ self-enhancing humor. The positive meaning dimension of the WAMI-U was positively associated with HSQ affiliative humor and HSQ self-enhancing humor and negatively associated with HSQ aggressive humor and HSQ self-defeating humor. This confirms previous results of the existence and role of health-promoting and health-endangering humor styles among university students and extends this understanding of humor to meaningful study as a relevant factor that may contribute to student well-being, especially the eudemonic components of well-being (Ryff, 2014). HSQ affiliative humor was found to have a bridge function being positively associated with WAMI-U positive meaning and WAMI-U meaning-making through study, whereas HSQ self-enhancing humor was found to have a bridge function with a positive connection in relation to all the three dimensions of WAMI-U. These findings are also consistent with previous results obtained in university students that revealed that both affiliative and self-enhancing humor to be strong (Chen & Martin, 2007; Kazarian & Martin, 2004). Our findings also suggest that affiliative humor, which is related to the use of humor to facilitate relationships and reduce interpersonal tensions, is connected to meaningful study. In particular, affiliative humor shares a connection with WAMI-U meaning making through study, which deals with perceiving prosocial functions of study activities as a source of meaning. This could indicate that, for participants from our study, humor styles that enhance interpersonal cohesiveness and attraction could facilitate cooperative studying activities, activating the perceived relational contribution of sharing knowledge with studying activities.

The main strength of this study is that links between WAMI-U and HSQ were examined for the first time by implementing a network approach analysis. Our results expand previous findings, highlighting main paths across dimensions, considering the centrality of nodes, and identifying bridge nodes. In this view, bridge nodes can represent specific dimensions to be analyzed and assessed but can also identify specific foci that could be addressed during interventions to foster humor and meaningful study (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016).

Concerning limitations, our study employed a cross-sectional design, so edges did not indicate whether a particular node causes or is caused by its neighboring node. To better understand causal relationships, longitudinal methods are needed to study the network of WAMI-U and HSQ. Additionally, our study participants were Italian university students, so future research should be broadened to include other countries.

In conclusion, the current study offers promising results to expand the framework of meaningful study considering its relationship with humor styles. A network structure with two nodes with high centrality, one of the WAMI-U and the other from HSQ health-promoting humor style (self-enhancing humor), could suggest a reciprocal reinforcement process among health-promoting humor style and meaningful study. Furthermore, the results concerning bridge nodes confirmed the positive association of WAMI-U with health-promoting humor styles and negative associations with health-endangering humor styles. Thus, health-promoting humor styles could be a promising target to reinforce strength-based preventive perspective actions (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016; Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2021) aimed to foster meaningful study among university students. Moreover, reinforcing competencies in humor styles and strengthening meaningful study in university students could enhance the conceptualization of decent education in higher education and support university students in gaining meaning from their studies and achieving meaningful careers rooted toward decent work and well-being.

In summary, the network analysis appears to be a promising approach to identifying the core aspects involved in the relationship between meaningful study and humor styles. These core elements could be the focal points of tailored programs and actions for fostering humor awareness and meaningful study in a higher educational system that aims to orient their student toward decent work and meaningful life (Duffy et al., 2022).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Annamaria Di Fabio

Andrea Svicher

Maureen Kenny

References

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

Duffy

R. D.

(2014). Examining social class and work meaning within the psychology of working framework. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(4), 543–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713514811

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

Duffy

R. D.

(2016). Self-determination and meaningful work: Exploring socio-economic constraints. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 669, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00071

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

Duffy

R. D.

Sterling

H. M.

(2020). Decent and meaningful work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 67(6), 669–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000432

Allan

B. A.

Dexter

Kinsey

Parker

(2018). Meaningful work and mental health: Job satisfaction as a moderator. Journal of Mental Health, 27(1), 38–44. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/09638237.2016.1244718

Allan

B. A.

Douglass

R. P.

Duffy

R. D.

McCarty

R. J.

(2016). Meaningful work as a moderator of the relation between work stress and meaning in life. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(3), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715599357

Allan

B. A.

Owens

R. L.

Duffy

R. D.

(2017). Generation me or meaning? Exploring meaningful work in college students and career counselors. Journal of Career Development, 44(6), 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316667599

Arnold

K. A.

Walsh

M. M.

(2015). Customer incivility and employee well-being: Testing the moderating effects of meaning, perspective taking and transformational leadership. Work & Stress, 29(4), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1075234

Bakker

Scharp

Breevaart

De Vries

(2020). Playful work design: Introduction of a new concept. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 23, E19. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.20

Bartzik

Bentrup

Hill

Bley

von Hirschhausen

Krause

Ahaus

Dahl-Dichmann

Peifer

(2021). Care for joy: Evaluation of a humor intervention and its effects on stress, flow experience, work enjoyment, and meaningfulness of work. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.667821

10.

Blustein

D. L.

(2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development, counseling, and public policy. Routledge.

11.

Blustein

D. L.

Kenny

M. E.

Autin

Duffy

(2019). The psychology of working in practice: A theory of change for a new era. The Career Development Quarterly, 67(3), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12193

12.

Blustein

D. L.

Lysova

E. I.

Duffy

R. D.

(2023). Understanding decent work and meaningful work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031921-024847

13.

Borsboom

Cramer

A. O.

(2013). Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review Of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185608

14.

Briganti

Kempenaers

Braun

Fried

E. I.

Linkowski

(2018). Network analysis of empathy items from the interpersonal reactivity index in 1973 young adults. Psychiatry Research, 265, 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.03.082

15.

Briganti

Linkowski

(2019). Item and domain network structures of the resilience scale for adults in 675 university students. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 29, e33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796019000222

16.

Burger

Isvoranu

A.-M.

Lunansky

Haslbeck

J. M. B.

Epskamp

Hoekstra

R. H. A.

Fried

E. I.

Borsboom

Blanken

T. F.

(2023). Reporting standards for psychological network analyses in cross-sectional data. Psychological Methods, 28(4), 806–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000471

17.

Chen

G.-H.

Martin

R. A.

(2007). A comparison of humor styles, coping humor, and mental health between Chinese and Canadian university students. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 20(3), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2007.011

18.

Craik

K. H.

Lampert

M. D.

Nelson

A. J.

(1996). Sense of humor and styles of everyday humorous conduct. HUMOR, 9(3-4), 273–302. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-4.273

19.

Di Fabio

. (2019). Humor styles questionnaire: Looking for new resources in a positive prevention perspective. Psychometric properties of the Italian version. Counseling. International Journal of Research and Intervention, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1211902

20.

Di Fabio

Gori

Svicher

(2023). Relationships between humor styles and the big five personality traits in workers: A network analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2), 1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021008

21.

Di Fabio

Kenny

M. E.

(2016). Promoting well-being: The contribution of emotional intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(AUG), Article 01182. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01182

22.

Di Fabio

Kenny

M. E.

(2020). The work and meaning inventory (WAMI) at university: Psychometric properties of the Italian version for university students. Counseling. International Journal of Research and Intervention, 13(3), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1332001

23.

Di Fabio

Saklofske

D. H.

(2021). The relationship of compassion and self-compassion with personality and emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 110109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110109

24.

Di Fabio

Saklofske

D. H.

Gori

Svicher

(2022). Perfectionism: A network analysis of relationships between the big three perfectionism dimensions and the big five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 199, 111839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111839

25.

Duffy

R. D.

Blustein

D. L.

Diemer

M. A.

Autin

K. L.

(2016). The psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000140

26.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

(2013). Research on calling: What have we learned and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.006

27.

Duffy

R. D.

Kim

H. J.

Perez

Prieto

C. G.

Torgal

Kenny

M. E.

(2022). Decent education as a precursor to decent work: An overview and construct conceptualization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 138, 103771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103771

28.

Epskamp

Borsboom

Fried

E. I.

(2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 195–212. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1

29.

Epskamp

Fried

E. I.

(2018). A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks. Psychological Methods, 23(4), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000167

30.

Fong

C. J.

Acee

T. W.

Weinstein

C. E.

(2018). A person-centered investigation of achievement motivation goals and correlates of community college student achievement and persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 20(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116673374

31.

Goldman

Z. W.

Goodboy

A. K.

Weber

(2017). College Students’ psychological needs and intrinsic motivation to learn: An examination of self-determination theory. Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2016.1215338

32.

Guenter

Schreurs

Van Emmerik

Gijsbers

Van Iterson

(2013). How adaptive and maladaptive humor influence well-being at work: A diary study. Humor, 26(4), 573–594. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2013-0032

33.

Hage

S. M.

Romano

J. L.

Conyne

R. K.

Kenny

Matthews

Schwartz

J. P.

Waldo

(2007). Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training, and social advocacy for psychologists. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(4), 493–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006291411

34.

Izzo

Mele

Mustilli

(2022). University to work transition: A literature review. International Journal of Manpower, 43(7), 1502–1515. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2021-0398

35.

Jones

P. J.

McNally

R. J.

(2021). Bridge centrality: A network approach to understanding comorbidity. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 56(2), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1614898

36.

Kazarian

S. S.

Martin

R. A.

(2004). Humour styles, personality, and well-being among Lebanese university students. European Journal of Personality, 18(3), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.505

37.

Kim

H. S.

Plester

B. A.

(2019). Harmony and distress: Humor, culture, and psychological well-being in South Korean organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02643

38.

Lau

Chiesi

Saklofske

D. H.

(2022). The heart of humor: A network analysis of the temperamental basis of humor and humor personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 185, 111253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111253

39.

Lysova

E. I.

Allan

B. A.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

Steger

M. F.

(2019). Fostering meaningful work in organizations: A multi-level review and integration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 374–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.07.004

40.

Martin

(2003). Sense of humor. In Lopez

S. J.

Snyder

C. R.

(Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 313–326). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10612-020

41.

Martin

R. A.

Lefcourt

H. M.

(1983). Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation between stressors and moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(6), 1313–1324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.6.1313

42.

Martin

R. A.

Puhlik-Doris

Larsen

Gray

Weir

(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(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2

43.

Masdonati

Massoudi

Blustein

D. L.

Duffy

R. D.

(2022). Moving toward decent work: Application of the psychology of working theory to the school-to-work transition. Journal of Career Development, 49(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845321991681

44.

Mesmer‐Magnus

Glew

D. J.

Viswesvaran

(2012). A meta‐analysis of positive humor in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 155–190. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/02683941211199554

45.

Plessen

C. Y.

Franken

F. R.

Ster

Rebecca R

., Wolfmayr

Mayer

Sobisch

Kathofer

Rattner

Kotlyar

Maierwieser

R. J.

Tran

U. S.

(2020). Humor styles and personality: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the relations between humor styles and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109676. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109676

46.

Pollet

Schnell

(2017). Brilliant: But what for? Meaning and subjective well-being in the lives of intellectually gifted and academically high-achieving adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(5), 1459–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9783-4

47.

Praskova

Hood

Creed

P. A.

(2014). Testing a calling model of psychological career success in Australian young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.04.004

48.

Robinaugh

D. J.

Millner

A. J.

McNally

R. J.

(2016). Identifying highly influential nodes in the complicated grief network. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(6), 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000181

49.

Rosso

B. D.

Dekas

K. H.

Wrzesniewski

(2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

50.

Ruch

Heintz

Platt

Wagner

Proyer

R. T.

(2018). Broadening humor: Comic styles differentially tap into temperament, character, and ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00006

51.

Ryff

C. D.

(2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353263

52.

Shockley

K. M.

Ureksoy

Rodopman

O. B.

Poteat

L. F.

Dullaghan

T. R.

(2016). Development of a new scale to measure subjective career success: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 128–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2046

53.

Shukla

A. F. W.

Lavi

Riddleston

Hutchinson

Lau

J. Y. F.

(2022). A network analysis of adolescent mental well-being during the coronavirus pandemic: Evidence for cross-cultural differences in central features. Personality and Individual Differences, 186, 111316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111316

54.

Steger

M. F.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Measuring meaningful work. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/1069072711436160

55.

Svicher

Di Fabio

Gori

(2022). Decent work in Italy: A network analysis. Australian Journal of Career Development, 31(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162221089462

56.

Svicher

Gori

Di Fabio

(2022). Work as meaning inventory: A network analysis in Italian workers and students. Australian Journal of Career Development, 31(2), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162221110361

57.

Tracy

S. J.

Myers

K. K.

Scott

C. W.

(2006). Cracking jokes and crafting selves: Sensemaking and identity management among human service workers. Communication Monographs, 73(3), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750600889500

58.

Turnalar-Çetinkaya

Keskin

Bora

İkan

Gümrükçü

(2022). Organizational humor as making our work more meaningful: Mediation by crafting job resources. HUMOR, 35(4), 643–664. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2022-0033