Climate change threatens mental health via increasing exposure to the social and economic disruptions created by extreme weather and large-scale climatic events, as well as through the anxiety associated with recognising the existential threat posed by the climate crisis. Considering the growing levels of climate change awareness across the world, negative emotions like anxiety and worry about climate-related risks are a potentially pervasive conduit for the adverse impacts of climate change on mental health. In this study, we examined how negative climate-related emotions relate to sleep and mental health among a diverse non-representative sample of individuals recruited from 25 countries, as well as a Norwegian nationally-representative sample. Overall, we found that negative climate-related emotions are positively associated with insomnia symptoms and negatively related to self-rated mental health in most countries. Our findings suggest that climate-related psychological stressors are significantly linked with mental health in many countries and draw attention to the need for cross-disciplinary research aimed at achieving rigorous empirical assessments of the unique challenge posed to mental health by negative emotional responses to climate change.

No abstract

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been a source of fear around the world. We asked whether the measurement of this fear is trustworthy and comparable across countries. In particular, we explored the measurement invariance and cross-cultural replicability of the widely used Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S), testing community samples from 48 countries (N = 14,558). The findings indicate that the FCV-19S has a somewhat problematic structure, yet the one-factor solution is replicable across cultural contexts and could be used in studies that compare people who vary on gender and educational level. The validity of the scale is supported by a consistent pattern of positive correlations with perceived stress and general anxiety. However, given the unclear structure of the FCV-19S, we recommend using latent factor scores, instead of raw scores, especially in cross-cultural comparisons.

All available peer-reviewed literature on humor and gender differences was screened and evaluated according to a priori defined QUALSYST criteria. The 77 papers surpassing a conservative quality criterion generated seven emergent themes around humor and gender differences. In short, men score higher in the aggressive humor style (M > F), while no other gender differences were consistently reported in humor-related traits (M = F). In the prediction of negative outcomes (stress, loneliness, depression), differential effects for humor in both genders are reported, but not consistently (M F). Gender differences exist for the appreciation of sexual humor (M > F), even in mixed target stimuli, and hostile humor (both genders appreciate opposite gender target stimuli more). Gender differences are absent in nonsense and neutral humor (M = F). For humor production, three samples showed no gender differences (M = F), while three samples suggested men are funnier (M > F) and one that women are funnier (M < F). No studies reporting differences in humor comprehension were identified (M = F). For humor use and communication, gender differences were found across methods (M F), yet, they depend on the context (e.g., workplace) and may thus resemble gender roles rather than "natural differences". Moreover, few studies provide hard data on actual humor use and communication in different domains. When exposed to humor stimuli, different neural responses of men and women in prefrontal cortex activations (or selected parts) were found (M F). Also, self-report data suggest that both genders value a sense of humor in their partner (M = F), yet women typically value the humor production abilities more than humor receptivity, while for men, the woman's receptivity of their own humor is more important than a woman's humor production abilities, in line with gender stereotypes (M F). To conclude, much progress has been achieved in the past 15 years to overcome methodological flaws in early works on humor and gender differences. Importantly, attention should be paid to disentangling actual gender differences from gender role expectations and gender stereotypes. Methodologically, designs need to be checked for potential bias (i.e. self-reports may accentuate roles and stereotypes) and more hard data is needed to substantiate claims from self-report studies.

No abstract

No abstract

Scand J Caring Sci; 2020; 34: 474-483 The effect of humour on nursing professionals' psychological well-being goes beyond the influence of empathy: a cross-sectional study Background: Prior research has underlined the meaningful function of humour in nursing settings. Nonetheless, most of the empirical evidence on humour and nursing derives from approaches that mainly considered the potential beneficial effects of humour, neglecting potential detrimental effects of the dark side of humour. Moreover, little is known about whether the specific repercussions of humour on healthcare professionals' well-being would go beyond empathy-a construct robustly related to psychological well-being. Aims: To examine whether distinctive humour styles (affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive and self-defeating) are differentially associated with the psychological well-being of nursing professionals. Importantly, we also analysed whether these potential humour effects go over and above the influence of empathy-related traits (perspective-taking and personal distress). Method: A cross-sectional, descriptive correlational design was used. A convenience sample of 104 nursing professionals with a minimum work experience of one year was recruited. Results: Our results revealed that a greater inclination to affiliative and self-enhancing humour styles was strongly related to higher scores on happiness, sociability, hope and life satisfaction among nursing professionals. Concerning maladaptive humour styles, aggressive humour was related to low life satisfaction and high nursing stress. By contrast, self-defeating humour-a theoretically detrimental humour style-was related to higher scores on health among these professionals. These effects emerged even after controlling for the influence of demographics (i.e., gender, age and years of experience), perspective-taking and personal distress. Conclusions: Our results suggest that adaptive humour styles may promote positive indicators of well-being, but they might not protect against negative indicators. Moreover, differential effects of maladaptive humour styles emerged. Whereas aggressive humoristic expressions can be interpreted as a sign of a poor psychological functioning, self-defeating humour may boost positive psychological outcomes among nursing professionals. These data can help to design more efficient humour-based intervention programmes aimed at minimising potential negative consequences of nursing activity.

Current approaches conceptualize gelotophobia as a personality trait characterized by a disproportionate fear of being laughed at by others. Consistently with this perspective, gelotophobes are also described as neurotic and introverted and as having a paranoid tendency to anticipate derision and mockery situations. Although research on gelotophobia has significantly progressed over the past two decades, no evidence exists concerning the potential effects of gelotophobia in reaction to eye contact. Previous research has pointed to difficulties in discriminating gaze direction as the basis of possible misinterpretations of others’ intentions or mental states. The aim of the present research was to examine whether gelotophobia predisposition modulates the effects of eye contact (i.e., gaze discrimination) when processing faces portraying several emotional expressions. In two different experiments, participants performed an experimental gaze discrimination task in which they responded, as quickly and accurately as possible, to the eyes’ directions on faces displaying either a happy, angry, fear, neutral, or sad emotional expression. In particular, we expected trait-gelotophobia to modulate the eye contact effect, showing specific group differences in the happiness condition. The results of Study 1 (N = 40) indicated that gelotophobes made more errors than non-gelotophobes did in the gaze discrimination task. In contrast to our initial hypothesis, the happiness expression did not have any special role in the observed differences between individuals with high vs. low trait-gelotophobia. In Study 2 (N = 40), we replicated the pattern of data concerning gaze discrimination ability, even after controlling for individuals’ scores on social anxiety. Furthermore, in our second experiment, we found that gelotophobes did not exhibit any problem with identifying others’ emotions, or a general incorrect attribution of affective features, such as valence, intensity, or arousal. Therefore, this bias in processing gaze might be related to the global processes of social cognition. Further research is needed to explore how eye contact relates to the fear of being laughed at.