Mixed-methods analysis highlights humour comprehension's link to cognitive resources in students with varying academic success.
The objective of this research was to identify the specific characteristics of humour comprehension that differentiate academically successful students from their less successful counterparts, and to establish the relationship between humour comprehension and other variables within the structure of cognitive resources. A total of 325 students from various higher education institutions, representing a range of academic achievement levels, participated in the study. The research design employed a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methods for data processing and interpretation. The interrelationship between humour comprehension and cognitive variables was examined using factor analysis, whilst the statistical significance of group differences was assessed via the Kruskal-Wallis H test, Fisher’s φ* angular transformation, and Pearson’s chi-squared (χ²) test. The total variance explained in the factor models (79.64%, 81.02%, and 95%), alongside the significance levels observed (ranging from p ≤ 0.01 to p ≤ 0.05), reflects the reliability and significance of the findings. Factor analysis revealed strong, positive correlations between humour comprehension and cognitive characteristics across all groups; however, the structure of these relationships differed. In high-achieving students, rapid humour comprehension was associated with a reduced speed of idea generation, while a lower reliance on factual information contributed to higher-quality humour comprehension, reflecting a high level of comic recognition. In students with average academic achievement, the factor structure showed partial integration of metacognitive, creative, and intellectual characteristics, with signs of inconsistency; a compensatory mechanism was observed for deficits in humour comprehension. In low-achieving students a discrepancy was found between the potential for humour comprehension and its underutilisation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Кибальченко et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: