www.ijcrsee.com

455

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

Original scientific paper

Received: April 16, 2025.

Revised: June 14, 2025.

Accepted: June 29, 2025.

UDC:

159.922.072-057.874

37.013.77

10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-2-455-480

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Corresponding author:

kibalirina@sfedu.ru

Abstract: The objective of this research was to identify the specific characteristics of humour comprehension that dif-

ferentiate 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 process-

ing 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.

Keywords: academic success, cognitive resource, humour comprehension, emotional intelligence, creativity, metacognitive

characteristics.

Irina A. Kibalchenko

, Tatiana V. Eksakusto

Department of psychology and life safety, Federal State-Owned Educational Autonomy Establishment of Higher Education

“Southern Federal University”, Taganrog, Russian Federation, e-mail:

kibalirina@sfedu.ru, exakusto@sfedu.ru

Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of

Academically Successful Students

Introduction

The relevance of studying academic achievement in higher education stems from its pivotal role

in shaping competitive professionals. Approaches to enhancing achievement through the optimisation of

cognitive resources are in demand in the context of training personnel capable of addressing complex,

interdisciplinary challenges, as reflected in various studies (Goegan and Daniels, 2021). The dynamic

evolution of technology and the labour market requires graduates to possess not only subject-matter

expertise but also metacognitive skills, the ability to self-regulate learning, and critical thinking, ensur-

ing adaptation to changing circumstances. Consideration of students’ individual cognitive profiles (for in-

stance, through the lens of cognitive styles or abilities) enables the development of personalised learning

pathways, maximising their professional potential (Privado, Pérez-Eizaguirre, Martínez-Rodríguez and

Ponce-de-León, 2024). Thus, analysing academic achievement in higher education through the prism

of an individual’s cognitive resources not only facilitates the identification of factors determining learning

effectiveness, but also the development of evidence-based strategies for improving the quality of profes-

sional training and ensuring graduate competitiveness. The investigation of cognitive factors underpinning

academic achievement can be significantly enhanced and enriched by incorporating an aspect such as

humour comprehension into the analysis, demonstrating a potential link with cognitive development and

www.ijcrsee.com

468

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

intellectual flexibility. It should be noted that the use of humour in the educational process is of consider-

able importance (Nurcendani and Wijaya 2022; Neff and Rucynski, 2017; Bakar and Mallan, 2023), yet

its relationship with educational success is ambiguous (Cadorna, 2021). This observed ambiguity in the

connection between humour and academic achievement is likely mediated by students’ cognitive capabili-

ties, or more precisely, their ability to comprehend and perceive humorous expressions (Dvoynin and Trot-

skaya, 2022). This research problem currently remains under-explored. In other words, the question of

how a sense of humour (its comprehension and recognition) relates to cognitive resources, and whether

this relationship corresponds with academic achievement, remains open.

Theoretical analysis has revealed that academic achievement is a multifaceted concept, primarily

comprising objective outcomes of academic activities and a student’s subjective evaluation of their ac-

complishments, including the attainment of individual goals (Galatskova and Petrenko, 2020; Guterman,

2021). The multi-aspectual and multi-dimensional nature of academic achievement dictates a multiplicity

of evaluation criteria, which vary across a broad spectrum of indicators ranging from objective/quantita-

tive metrics (grade point average (GPA) (Anwar, Hanurawan, Chusniyah, Setiyowati and Rehman, 2024),

marks and overall grade, credit-rating systems, the correctness of test completion, and the accuracy

of problem-solving (Fréchette-Simard, Plante, Duchesne, and Chaffee, 2022), response accuracy rates

(Guterman, 2021) to subjective/qualitative measures: engagement in the learning process, effective time

management (Lewis and Yates, 2019); persistence and resilience in achieving learning objectives (Martin

et al., 2022), adaptability, and self-regulation (Anwar et al., 2024).

One of the most crucial aspects of studying academic achievement is identifying the factors and pre-

dictors that determine it. Analysis of various studies within this problem area has shown that, provisionally,

these factors influencing academic success can be categorised as: personal/non-cognitive (self-efficacy

(Willems, Daal, Petegem, Coertjens, and Donche, 2021), confidence, psychological capital, academic

coping (Kırıkkanat and Soyer, 2018), communication skills and student engagement (Anwar et al., 2024;

Chan, and Dai, 2023), motivation and self-esteem (Petukhova, 2019), anxiety (Bagandova, Ibragimova

and Shamkhalova, 2018), etc.); educational (related to the assignments themselves, their complexity,

strategy (Freiberg-Hoffmann, Romero-Medina, Ledesma and Fernández-Liporace, 2022). and learning

model (Aydin and Demirer, 2022), etc.); social (systems of rewards and incentives for students’ academic

achievements (Widiarini, Supriyanto and Sunandar, 2023; Swanson and Cole, 2022) and cognitive.

The primary focus of this study is on general and specific (Dvoynin and Trotskaya, 2022) cognitive

abilities. Examining research on general cognitive abilities as determinants of academic success and per-

formance yields a wealth of empirical data concerning: the influence of general/psychometric intelligence

(Bezerra, Alves, and Azoni, 2022), intellectual activity (Hülür, Gasimova, Robitzsch and Wilhelm, 2018).;

fluid intelligence (including non-verbal fluid intelligence), which influences the manifestation of creativity

under the mediating influence of field independence (Bouchefra et al., 2022; Giancola, Palmiero and

D’Amico, 2022); intellectual flexibility, determining the effectiveness of task completion across varying

levels of difficulty and future life goals Ratu, Rai, and Savitri, (2021). It has also been found that cognitive

style and epistemological stance (Kholodnaya, 2024), and critical thinking correlate directly with academic

self-assessment and learning outcomes (Mafarja and Zulnaidi, 2022). It is noted that a high level of devel-

opment of cognitive abilities and a strong need for cognition foster intrinsic motivation and engagement in

learning, as well as promoting academic achievement (Lavrijsen, Preckel, Verachtert, Vansteenkiste and

Verschueren, 2021).

The influence of specific cognitive abilities (such as working memory, information processing speed,

phonological awareness, the capacity to establish logical connections, and the ability to distinguish be-

tween essential and non-essential information) on academic achievement is also indisputable, finding em-

pirical support in contemporary research (

Dvoynin and Trotskaya, 2022; Postavnev, Postavneva, Dvoynin

and Romanova, 2020; Tikhomirova, Malykh and Malykh, 2020).

It can be asserted that academic achievement is underpinned by an integrated intellectual-personal

resource, wherein cognitive capabilities, the cognitive resource of the individual, become central. The

cognitive resource serves as an individual means of integrating diverse forms of subjective experience at

both the conceptual and reflective levels. It constitutes a multitude of cognitive elements that are synchro-

nously employed by an individual during the processing of complex information and which facilitate the

creation of multi-dimensional models of understanding, including the comprehension of humour at varying

levels of complexity. Within this context, the capacity for humour comprehension can be regarded as an

www.ijcrsee.com

469

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

integral component of the cognitive resource (Martin, 2007; Nomura and Maruno, 2011). It can be stated

that understanding humour requires an individual to actively utilise and integrate a variety of cognitive

functions: analysing information, creativity, identifying semantic relationships, formulating hypotheses,

evaluating situations, and much more. Therefore, we shall examine the connection between humour

comprehension and specific (most pertinent in this aspect) cognitive abilities.

It has been demonstrated that the level of cognitive development plays a crucial role in the evalua-

tion of humour: for instance, the capacity to identify and resolve incongruities within perceived information

is a key component in humour appreciation [39]. A linear relationship between humour and creativity has

been identified: the higher the indices of creative thinking and creativity, the more highly developed the

sense of humour in individuals (Perchtold-Stefan et al., 2020).

One of the leading predictors of humour comprehension is social intelligence in general, and emo-

tional intelligence in particular: a high level of these determines a well-developed sense of humour, the

ability to recognise it, and to react appropriately to jokes (Belesova and Nabi, 2020). It has been found that

emotional intelligence positively correlates with adaptive humour styles and is a predictor of both affiliative

and self-enhancing humour styles (Ogurlu, 2015). The highest significance is found in the interrelationship

between humour and such variables of emotional intelligence as the utilisation and regulation of emotions

(Sun, Chen and Jiang, 2017).

In certain studies, it is noted that cognitive styles (information processing styles) significantly influ-

ence preferences and the use of humour. Cognitive diversity and flexibility are associated with adaptive

humour styles (Yağan and Kaya, 2024), whereas cognitive biases are associated with maladaptive hu-

mour. Humour can serve as a defensive/coping strategy, helping people to manage stress and adapt to

complex, ambiguous situations (Kondrashikhina, 2021). Intuitive and reflective thinking (as defined by D.

Kahneman) serves as predictors of humour perception; however, reflective thinking is more closely linked

to humour-related cognition (Ventis, 2015).

Individuals with an open epistemological stance generally possess a greater capacity for humour. It

can be asserted that a higher level of openness to experience leads to a greater capacity to generate a hu-

morous perspective on a situation, with cognitive flexibility (to a greater extent) and tolerance for ambiguity

(to a lesser extent) playing a key role in this process (Sun, Shen, Lin, Zhang, and Li, 2024). Openness to

an epistemological stance encompasses curiosity and a desire for novel experiences, which may foster a

more tolerant and humorous outlook on life (Ng, Lin, Marsh, Chan and Ramsay, 2021). Openness to an

epistemological stance not only enhances cognitive flexibility and tolerance but also promotes the develop-

ment of wisdom, which in turn contributes to the development of humour (Leeman, Knight and Fein 2022).

Thus, it can be concluded that humour comprehension is a complex cognitive process that extends

beyond the mere recognition of the amusing. It encompasses information processing on multiple levels

(levels of cognitive and emotional understanding), demanding cognitive flexibility, the capacity for abstract

thought, and an understanding of social contexts, thereby providing a basis for asserting its unique role in

the structure of cognitive resources. This role lies in the fact that humour comprehension functions as an

integrative indicator of cognitive and emotional abilities.

It should be noted that the potential benefit of humour’s influence on learning and academic suc-

cess depends on a synergistic combination of the appropriate and methodologically sound use of humour

by the instructor, and the student’s cognitive readiness to perceive and interpret such influence. The stu-

dent’s ability to interpret and evaluate humour is of considerable importance and necessitates a certain

level of cognitive development and background knowledge. In such instances, the utilisation of humour

in education can improve the emotional state, motivation, and learning outcomes of students, while also

stimulating creative and logical thinking (

Gel’man, 2021). Humour related to the learning process can

enhance the efficiency of cognitive processing, assisting students in better memorising and understand-

ing learning material, and significantly improve students’ behavioural accuracy (Erdoğdu and Çakıroğlu,

2021). Humour can contribute to the development of mental agility and student motivation, which favour-

ably influences academic achievement (Oshima, 2018).

Despite a substantial body of research demonstrating the positive influence of humour on the ef-

fectiveness and success of learning, there exists data indicating the ambiguity of such influence, and

refuting the assertion that the capacity to comprehend humour can be a predictor of academic success.

In some instances, humour can negatively affect students and diminish their performance and cognitive

perception, particularly when the humour is unrelated to academic workloads (

Bolkan, Griffin and Good-

www.ijcrsee.com

470

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

boy, 2018). It is also noted that humorous elements in learning materials, discussions, and assignments

do not necessarily contribute to successful test performance (Erdoğdu and Çakıroğlu, 2021). It can be hy-

pothesised that in all these instances, an effect of dissonance was observed between the use of humour

in the educational process and the students’ abilities to comprehend/perceive it, leading to a negative

correlation between humour and academic achievement.

Thus, the theoretical analysis has highlighted the problematic areas of the research:

The identified problems have defined the research objective: to examine the understanding of hu-

mour as an element of the cognitive resources of students with varying degrees of academic success. It

becomes theoretically justified to study the interrelationships between conceptual, metacognitive, stylistic,

and creative characteristics, as well as the understanding of humour by students, as variables of cognitive

resources that determine academic success. We hypothesised that a well-developed cognitive resource,

incorporating the understanding and evaluation of humour, enables students not only to perceive humor-

ous elements of learning but also to utilise them as a catalyst for more effective and profound assimila-

tion of learning material, which ultimately contributes to academic success. Thus, the following research

hypotheses were formulated:

1. Students with high academic success are characterised by well-developed abilities to evaluate and

comprehend humour in various forms of witty expression, and an ease of restructuring verbal material.

2. The indicator of humour comprehension will be included in the crystallising factor of the cognitive

resource structure of students with high academic success.

3. Complex and multi-dimensional interrelationships exist between the conceptual, stylistic, creative,

and metacognitive characteristics of students with varying degrees of academic success, one char-

acteristic of which is their incomplete structure.

Materials and Methods

To investigate the role of humour comprehension within the cognitive resource structure of aca-

demically successful students, we conducted an empirical study. The study design can be characterised

as deductive-correlational, employing both quantitative and qualitative methods for data processing and

interpretation. Specifically, we used comparative analysis (a cross-sectional approach) and statistical tests

(Kruskal-Wallis H test, Fisher’s φ* transformation, and Pearson’s χ

test) to identify differences between

groups. Factor analysis was employed to determine the structural relationships between humour compre-

hension and elements of the cognitive resource in students from different groups. The processing of diag-

nostic results using factor analysis was conducted via principal component analysis to identify the character-

istics that significantly explain the nature of these interrelationships (IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription Trial).

The study involved students from Russian universities. The total sample size was N = 325, with

participants aged between 18 and 20 years. This comprised 135 male students (41.54%) and 190 female

students (58.46%). The mean age was M = 19.49, with a standard deviation of SD (σ) = 1.68, a variance

of D (σ

) = 2.83, and an effect size (Cohen’s d) of d

emp

= 0.01.

Data collection for the implementation of research methods and techniques was carried out through

direct interaction with students, using structured and printed stimulus materials. All students participated

in the study on a voluntary and non-compensated basis.

To determine academic success (defined as the grade point average (GPA) for the most recent

semester), we used official grade reports from the universities’ grading systems (serving as objective

measures of academic performance), along with a questionnaire (designed to collect biographical data

on the students) and students’ self-reports regarding their academic performance. The inclusion of both

objective indicators of academic performance and students’ subjective perceptions of their own achieve-

ments allowed for a more complete and accurate representation of academic success.

To examine and assess humour comprehension in various types of witty statements, semantic,

categorical, and conceptual abilities, we employed the “Humorous Phrases Test” (A.G. Shmelev and V.S.

Babina). The test’s stimulus material includes 100 humorous phrases, 40 of which are unambiguous and

relate to specific themes (there are 10), and 60 of which are ambiguous. The unambiguous phrases, cat-

egorised by theme, assess the degree of accurate understanding of each theme. Increased motivational

significance (dominance) of a theme leads respondents to more frequently associate both unambiguous

www.ijcrsee.com

471

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

and ambiguous phrases with that theme, thereby reducing the perceived significance of other themes.

Cronbach’s alpha for the scales of this test was 0.80, indicating acceptable reliability and internal consist-

ency.

Emotional intelligence was assessed using the N. Hall Test. This test comprises scales measuring

emotional awareness, understanding of one’s own emotions and the emotions of others, the ability to

manage emotions, empathy, self-motivation, and overall emotional intelligence. Cronbach’s alpha for the

scales of this test was 0.81, indicating acceptable reliability and internal consistency.

The “Ideal Computer” method (M.A. Kholodnaya) was used to examine the cognitive ability of

“cognitive stance.” The degree of openness of the cognitive stance is determined by the predominance of

objectified and categorical questions, while the degree of closedness is determined by subjectivised and

factual questions. Cronbach’s alpha for the scales of this method was 0.81.

To assess generalised representations of one’s own cognitive process organisation techniques and

cognitive strategies aimed at transforming the cognitive situation, the “Cognitive Styles of Human Individu-

ality” (CSHI) test (V.M. Rusalov and E.V. Volkova) was used. This test allows for the identification of six

pairs of cognitive style characteristics. Cronbach’s alpha for the scales of this test was 0.83.

To determine the level of divergent (creative) abilities within the structure of cognitive abilities, the

“Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking” (TTCT) (Subtest 2: Figure Completion) was used. This test includes

six scales: fluency, originality, elaboration, resistance to premature closure, abstractness of titles, and

overall creativity. Cronbach’s alpha for the scales of this test was 0.80.

Results

In the first phase of the study, 325 individuals participated and were divided into three groups

based on their objective academic performance (high, medium, and low). Subsequently, the students’

self-assessments of their academic performance were examined within each group. The majority of stu-

dents (92.30%) assessed their academic success relatively objectively, accurately reporting their average

grade for the most recent semester and the current academic year, as well as their engagement in the

learning process. Following the exclusion of incomplete or invalid protocols, the final sample comprised

300 individuals, and students were then differentiated based on academic success. This resulted in the

identification of three groups of respondents with homogeneous (consistent across objective and subjec-

tive assessments) indicators of academic success: Group 1, high academic achievers (HAA) (85–100

points) – 58 individuals (19.03%); Group 2, medium academic achievers (MAA) (71–84 points) – 152

individuals (51%); and Group 3, low academic achievers (LAA) (≤ 70 points) – 90 individuals (29.97%).

The degree of engagement, measured on a 10-point scale, was as follows for each group: high achievers

– 9.43 points, medium achievers – 7.84 points, and low achievers – 7.11 points.

The analysis of students’ humour comprehension regarding various types of witty statements was

conducted based on three indicators: “answer congruence” (emphasising the agreement of student re-

sponses with the standard thematic classification of humorous phrases); “incongruence”; and “partial

congruence” (Table 1).

Table 1. Humour Comprehension Scores of Students with Varying Levels of Academic Success

Groups

The proposed answers, in accordance with the standard themes of the Humorous Phrases

Test, were categorised into these three groups and are presented as percentages (%):

congruent incongruent

partially congruent

1. HAA 74,33 23,68 2,02

2. MAA 60,21 38,58 1,21

3. LAA 43,67 56,33 0,00

The table uses and continues to use abbreviations for groups with high, average and low academic success: respectively –

HAA, MAA, LAA

Students in Group 1 (HAA) demonstrated a significantly higher level of congruence (approximately

74.33%) with both unambiguous and ambiguous phrases when comprehending and interpreting humor-

ous phrases, with minimal partial congruence (2.02%). This indicates their highly developed abilities in

www.ijcrsee.com

472

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

humour comprehension and in activating semantic concepts (corresponding to specific words/phrases) as

ideas, propositions, and standard thematic labels through cognitive abilities. Students in Groups 2 (MAA)

– 38.58% – and 3 (LAA) – 56.33% – demonstrated a high degree of incongruence with the standard

themes, reflecting their greater difficulty in recognising jokes/humorous phrases and potentially indicating

an insufficient development of cognitive skills that facilitate humour interpretation. Comparative analysis

of the results indicated significant differences between the groups both in the number of congruences

emp

= 7.45, p ≤ 0.01) and incongruences in humour comprehension (H

emp

= 8.21, p ≤ 0.01), reflecting

the specific nature of the development of conceptual abilities in students with varying levels of academic

success. Significant differences were found between the results of Group 1 compared to Group 2 (φ*

emp

2.27, p ≤ 0.05) and Group 3 (φ*

emp

= 4.82, p ≤ 0.01). Accordingly, the highest level of humour comprehen-

sion and ease of restructuring verbal material are characteristic of students with high academic success,

supporting the first hypothesis of the study.

The observed differences in humour comprehension necessitated the identification of specific cog-

nitive profiles characterising students with different levels of academic success (Table 2).

Table 2. Statistical Differences in Cognitive Resource Indicators Among Students with Varying Levels of Aca-

demic Success

Variable Average values of indicators in groups

Hэмп.= р≤

1 (HAA) 2 (MAA) 3 (LAA)

Cognitive styles of human personality

Field dependence

12,47 12,36 12,44 6,01 0.05

Field independence 14,47 12,36 12,44 6,01 0.05

Narrow range of equivalence 15,47 16,24 19,56 10,42 0.01

Flexibility

16,54 16,39 18,89 6,49 0.03

Tolerance 18,76 18,27 21,33 7,45 0.02

Emotional intelligence indicators

Self-motivation

9,29 8,09 13,44 8,47 0.01

Empathy 7,58 6,82 12,22 8,88 0.01

Recognition of emotions in other people 6,88 5,06 11,22 8,22 0.02

General level of emotional intelligence 6,71 3,30 7,09 11,34 0.00

Development 6,88 5,06 11,22 8,22 0.01

Indicators of cognitive position

Objectivity 92,52 89,23 27.89 24,24 0.00

Subjectivity 7,48 10,77

72.11 17,82 0.00

Categoriality 88,85 33,56 19.53 59,81 0.00

Factuality 11,15 66,44 79.47 58,34 0.00

Cognitive position Open Undefined Closed

Analysis of the results revealed that students with HAA are distinguished by their ability to approach

analysed information in an original manner, objectively identifying its key elements. This likely enables

them to understand humorous situations even with some limitations in emotional intelligence (average

level of development). Furthermore, these students are characterised by openness to new experiences

and high (as in Groups 2 and 3) tolerance for ambiguity, providing a potential platform for cognitive devel-

opment. Notably, their individual intellectual outlook is characterised by an open cognitive stance (objecti-

fication of 92.52% and categorisation of 88.85% of information, with minimal factual orientation – 11.15%),

which is significantly higher in categorisation than in Group MAA (φ*

emp

= 8.743, p ≤ 0.01) and Group LAA

(φ*

emp

= 10.27, p ≤ 0.01), and also significantly higher in objectification (φ*

emp

= 8.74, p ≤ 0.01) compared to

Group LAA. This characteristic makes them flexible and receptive to new ideas and to humour. Compared

to Group MAA, students in Group HAA are distinguished by (χ

emp

= 825.13, χ

crit

129.97, p ≤ 0.01) the

development of symbolic, visual, and sensorimotor-emotional methods of encoding information. Students

in all groups exhibited average scores in creative thinking. More highly developed field independence (χ

emp

www.ijcrsee.com

473

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

= 121.34, χ

crit

= 118.75, p ≤ 0.05), abstract conceptualisation, and reflectivity in this group (HAA) enable

students to form independent yet connected interpretations, allowing them to recognise hidden aspects of

information, which is important for the adequate perception of humorous allusions.

In Group MAA, emotional intelligence is below average, and a less developed ability to manage

emotions was identified compared to Group HAA (χ

emp

= 82.13, χ

crit

= 12.97, p ≤ 0.01). They are character-

ised by an ambiguous cognitive stance, representing an intermediate position between the open cognitive

stance (in Group HAA, φ*

emp

= 8.74, p ≤ 0.01) and the closed cognitive stance (in Group LAA, φ*

emp

= 2.1, p

≤ 0.05). It can be hypothesised that this ambiguous cognitive stance may partially function as a metacogni-

tive factor, somewhat compensating for the less developed emotional intelligence and other cognitive char-

acteristics, which consequently allows for a degree of adequate recognition and comprehension of humour,

albeit not fully developed. Field independence, flexibility, and abstract thinking form a distinctive cognitive

framework in this group. This suggests that these students likely rely on cognitive strategies in the process

of processing and understanding humour. Thus, this group exhibits a degree of productive cognitive and

metacognitive compensation for emotional underpinnings in humour comprehension.

In Group LAA, an average integrated score for emotional intelligence was found (with some limi-

tations in its constituent elements) – significantly higher compared to the scores of Group MAA (φ*

emp

2.1, p ≤ 0.05), reflecting an orientation towards external social cues when solving problems. They are

characterised by a concrete conceptualisation style (intolerance of ambiguity, stereotyped solutions, situ-

ational behaviour, insufficient integration of concepts, limited differentiation) (χ

emp

= 49.80, χ

crit

= 31.62, p

≤ 0.05). In other words, despite an average level of emotional intelligence, unproductive stylistic abilities

are pronounced. Furthermore, a significant indicator for this group is a closed cognitive stance (φ*

emp

2.1, p ≤ 0.05), representing a type of cognitive attitude where students struggle to propose their own

ways of making sense of information and do not always adequately perceive unusual information, in-

cluding humour. However, cognitive flexibility (χ

emp

= 121.34, χ

crit

= 118.75, p ≤ 0.05) and tolerance of

ambiguity (χ

emp

= 123.37, χ

crit

= 118.75, p ≤ 0.05) represent a certain potential for these students. Thus,

the cognitive resource of this group reflects a contradictory pattern: the presence of productive potential

in understanding information (including humour), which nevertheless remains underutilised due to the

closed cognitive stance.

In summary, the obtained results (considering both significant differences and the absence thereof)

reflect the varying effects and specific characteristics of the interrelationships between cognitive resource

components and humour comprehension in students. Therefore, in the next phase of the study, a factor

analysis was conducted within each group, employing Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalisation. This

technique aims to produce a factor loading matrix in which the factors are maximally distinct from each

other, facilitating straightforward interpretation.

In Group 1 (HAA), the total variance explained by the factor structure was 79.64%. The factorisation

results were significant. The rotated component matrix of the factor structure consisted of 11 factors. The

structure was unstable. Three variables were excluded: field dependence, concrete conceptualisation,

and the “originality” scale (uniqueness/originality of ideas). In Group 2 (MAA), the total variance explained

by the factor structure was 81.02%. The rotated component matrix of the factor structure consisted of 10

factors, it was incomplete and unstable. Three variables were excluded: field dependence, narrow range

of equivalence, and intolerance of new experiences. In Group 3 (LAA), the total variance explained by the

factor structure was 95%. The rotated component matrix of the factor structure consisted of 8 factors; the

structure was complete but unstable.

We will now present a truncated version of the three most significant factors from each structure

(Table 3).

www.ijcrsee.com

474

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

Table 3. Summarised Results of the Three Leading Factors in Groups with Varying Levels of Academic Success

Leading factors (1, 2, 3) of rotated component matrices

№ Variable

1 (HAA) 2 (MAA) 3 (LAA)

1 2 3 1 2 3

1 2 3

1 Match with unambiguous phrases of standard

topics

0,85* -0,11 -0,04

-0,04 0,95* 0,06 -0,29 -0,08 -0,04

2 Mismatch with unambiguous phrases of standard

topics

0,03 0,87* -0,03

0,01 -0,95* -0,06 0,29 0,08 0,04

3 Partial match with unambiguous phrases of stan-

dard topics

0,84* 0,13 0,14 0,12 0,03 -0,01

0,34 0,25 0,01

4 Field dependence -0.17 0,23 -0,00 -0,08 -0,38 0,02 0,28 0,45 0,62*

5 Field independence 0,60* 0,07 -0,18

0,74* 0,14 0,20 0,48 0,19 -0,02

6 Narrow range of equivalence 0.43 0,25 -0,06 0,43 0,02 -0,03 0,75* 0,58 -0,03

7 Wide range of equivalence 0.34 -0,05 -0,17 0,25 0,19 -0,02 0,43 0,16 0,21

8 Flexibility 0,67* 0,32 0,02

0,73* -0,07 -0,05 0,70* -0,03 -0,07

9 Rigidity 0,04 0,07 0,25 -0,24 -0,25 -0,42 0,05 0,00 0,93*

10 Impulsivity 0,04 0,08 0,04 0,48 -0,21 -0,36 0,15 -0,03 -0,34

11 Reflexivity 0,63* 0,11 0,01 -0,01 0,08 0,11 0,17 0,92* 0,27

12 Concrete conceptualization 0,38 0,28 -0,10 0,03 -0,13 -0,21 0,21 0,87* -0,13

13 Abstract conceptualization 0,78* 0,09 -0,13 0,78* 0,17 0,23 0,13 0,85* 0,11

14 Tolerance 0,76* 0,22 -0,01 0,79* 0,06 -0,03 -0,06 0,63* -0,16

15 Intolerance -0,11 0,06 0,05 -0,09 0,25 -0,22 0,54* 0,26 0,42

16 Awareness of own emotions 0,18 0,69*

0,24 -0,28 0,12 -0,08 0,89* 0,16 -0,12

17 Management of own emotions 0,14 -0,05 -0,15 0,57* -0,27 0,51

0,90* -0,32 -0,01

18 Self-motivation 0,20 0,35 0,08 0,68* -0,15 0,43 0,87* 0,33 0,00

19 Empathy 0,04 0,90* -0,02 0,21 -0,10 0,26 -0,02 0,84* -0,20

20 Recognition of emotions of other people 0,29 0,78* 0,10

0,52* -0,12 0,26 0,22 0,61* -0,27

21 General level of emotional intelligence 0,82* 0,26 0,06

0,63* -0,20 0,50* 0,87* 0,33 -0,16

22 Objectivity -0,01 0,92* 0,02

0,02 -0,11 0,14 -0,26 -0,35 0,86*

23 Subjectivity 0,01 -0,02 -0,02 -0.02 0,11 -0,14

-0,05 0,47 0,00

24 Categoriality -0,09 0,93* 0,13 0,16 0,14 0,88* -0,31 0,04 0,63*

25 Facticity 0,09 -0,13 -0,93*

-0,16 -0,14 -0.87* -0,02 0,20 0,16

26 Fluency -0,23 -0,14 -0,50* -0,37 0,17 -0,13 0,21 -0,18 -0,28

27 Originality 0,21 0,19 -0,33

0,07 0,75* 0,01 0,09 -0,12 -0,12

28 Elaboration 0,02 -0,01 0,08

-0,13 0,70* 0,05 0,18 -0,00 -0,60

29 Resistance to closure 0,04 0,10 -0,13

0,13 0,50* -0,00 -0,56 0,06 -0,28

30 Abstractness of names

0,53* 0,10 -0,02 0,07 0,84* 0,08 -0,59 -0,03 0,05

31 General level of creativity 0,38 0,14 -0,14

0,07 0,92* 0,04 -0,36 -0,03 -0,28

Factor extraction method: principal component analysis.

Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.

Note: variables with the highest weight included in the crystallizing factor are highlighted in bold and an asterisk (*).

The obtained effects are clarified through an analysis of the content of the crystallising (first three,

most significant) factors.

In Group 1 (HAA), the first factor (Component 1) included nine variables. The analysis revealed that

humour comprehension variables have a direct interrelationship with a range of cognitive and creative

characteristics: field independence, flexibility, reflectivity, abstract conceptualisation, overall emotional

intelligence, tolerance for unrealistic experiences, and abstractness of titles. Accordingly, the develop-

www.ijcrsee.com

475

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

ment of one variable will promote the development of others, suggesting the possibility of improving inde-

pendent decision-making skills, cognitive flexibility, and the ability to reflect, which may influence creative

perception. This result supports the second hypothesis of the study. The second factor (Component 2)

includes six variables and reflects indicators of a sufficient level of awareness of one’s own emotions,

understanding, and managing the emotions of other people. The third factor (Component 3) included two

variables with inverse relationships: factual questions and fluency of idea generation. This interrelation-

ship indicates that the speed of humour comprehension in students may decrease due to a decrease in

the speed of idea generation. At the same time, a decreased emphasis on factual information contributes

to an increase in the quality of humour comprehension. Thus, indicators of humour comprehension, in

interrelationship with a range of cognitive characteristics, are included in the crystallising factor of the

cognitive resource structure of students with high academic success.

In Group 2 (MAA), Factor 1 (Component 1) included eight variables. Their content reflects indica-

tors of the integration of metacognitive and emotional resources of students in the information processing.

Indicators of humour comprehension (congruence with unambiguous phrases from standard themes and

the inverse of incongruence with unambiguous phrases from standard themes), in interrelationship with

originality, elaboration, abstractness of titles, and overall creativity, are included in the second (substan-

tial) factor of the cognitive resource structure of students with medium academic success. The content

of this factor represents a creative resource (differentiated and independent) as a potential for working

with information in situations of uncertainty. Factor 3 (Component 3) included two variables: categorical

and factual questions, which have an inverse relationship with each other. This inverse relationship is

theoretically driven and is a sign of an ambiguous cognitive stance. The factor structure in this group is

distinguished by partial integration of metacognitive, creative, and intellectual characteristics, as well as

signs of contradiction (on the one hand, the ability to resist stereotyped thinking in creativity, and on the

other hand – signs of an ambiguous cognitive stance).

In Group 3 (LAA), the first factor included seven variables that have a direct interrelationship. The

content of the factor reflects a constellation of characteristics of emotional intelligence in interrelationship

with indicators of a lack of metacognitive resource due to inversions found in the results. Factor 2 (Com-

ponent 2) comprised six variables, reflecting a direct relationship between metacognitive and intellectual

characteristics, even when employing information processing styles that may differ in their productiv-

ity. The third factor encompassed four variables: field dependence, rigidity, objectified and categorical

questions. The interrelation of these variables points to a pronounced internal contradiction within the

component structure concerning indicators of cognitive maturity. The measure of humour comprehension

(agreement with unambiguous phrases on standard themes), in conjunction with objectification, catego-

risation, and rigidity, was only incorporated into the third (less salient) factor of the cognitive resource

structure of students with low academic achievement.

Therefore, the results of the factor analysis support the third hypothesis, revealing diverse associa-

tions between cognitive, stylistic, and metacognitive characteristics within the factor structures of different

student groups.

Discussions

During the empirical study, three groups of students were identified, representing varying levels

(high, medium, and low) of academic achievement and corresponding self-assessments of their own

academic success. It was found that students in Group 1 (High Academic Achievement - HAA) demon-

strated the best performance in humour comprehension, while students in Group 2 (Medium Academic

Achievement - MAA) and especially Group 3 (Low Academic Achievement - LAA) exhibited a relatively

low level of humour comprehension. Substantive analysis of the cognitive resource of students with differ-

ent academic achievement indicated that students in all groups require the development of stylistic and

creative qualities, albeit with group-specific characteristics.

Students with high academic achievement and the highest scores in humour comprehension pos-

sess an ease in restructuring verbal gestalts and an ability to overcome existing conceptual structures

and form new semantic structures. However, they exhibit insufficiently developed abilities in managing

and recognising emotional states, which partially diminishes their cognitive capabilities. Provisionally,

these students can be described as intellectually flexible with productive humour comprehension, against

www.ijcrsee.com

476

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

a backdrop of reduced speed in idea generation. These results partially align with the findings of several

contemporary studies (Kholodnaya, 2024; Shcherbakova, 2009; Kocak, 2018). It can be concluded that

the cognitive profile identified in this group contributes to students’ academic achievements.

Students with medium academic achievement and humour comprehension are characterised by

the fact that the process of restructuring verbal gestalts and forming new semantic structures may present

them with some difficulties. Nevertheless, they are characterised by productive metacognitive compensa-

tion for emotional misunderstanding and indications of integration with characteristics of humour com-

prehension. They can be defined as strategists with productive compensation of comic comprehension.

This definition is supported by the research of Shcherbakova (2009), who notes that the understanding

of a comic text requires the presence of an individual integrated system of emotional resource, cognitive

resource of understanding, metacognitive control in the process of emotional attachment to the context

and cognitive restructuring (Shcherbakova, 2009).

Students with low academic achievement and the lowest scores in humour comprehension are

characterised by a pronounced inconsistency in their results. Despite possessing productive potential

(the highest level of emotional intelligence among the groups), they exhibit a marked inability to utilise

it (difficulties in restructuring verbal gestalts, a low capacity to overcome existing conceptual structures

and form new semantic structures). Provisionally, they can be designated as individuals with an inverted

resource effect in humour comprehension. These results point to an inversion of outcomes as a novel

scientific finding in the context of studying cognitive humour comprehension in students.

During the identification of interrelationships between students’ cognitive characteristics, factor struc-

tures were obtained that differed in content, reflecting the potential for integrating various resources (creative,

metacognitive, and stylistic) when interacting with humour. It was found that cognitive and creative variables

(flexibility, field independence, and abstract thinking) serve as key determinants of the ability to effectively

perceive and interpret humour. This profile (identified in students with high academic achievement) facili-

tates not only a creative and independent perception of complex humorous contexts but also high academic

achievements. These results correlate with studies emphasising the role of creativity (Perchtold-Stefan et al.,

2020) and cognitive styles in humour comprehension. In particular, the ability to think analytically, recognise

incongruity (corresponding to the cognitive styles of field independence and abstract thinking) allows for more

effective processing of complex information contained in humorous texts and its integration into the existing

knowledge system (Canestrari, Dionigi and Zuczkowski, 2014), thereby enhancing the learning process.

For students with medium academic achievement, a complex structure of cognitive variables is

characteristic within the crystallising factor (field independence, flexibility of cognitive control, abstract

conceptualisation, tolerance of uncertainty, emotional management, self-motivation, the ability to influ-

ence the emotional state of others, an integrative level of emotional intelligence). This suggests that a low

level of abilities in managing and recognising emotions can be compensated for by cognitive strategies

and self-motivation, allowing for analysis and interpretation of humour at a medium level of effectiveness.

This aligns with the compensatory effort model, in which individuals with limited resources can utilise other

cognitive strategies to achieve desired outcomes (Traut, Guild and Munakata, 2021).

The contradictory factor structure identified in students with low academic achievement (the pres-

ence of high potential in the realm of emotional intelligence and the capacity for cognitive adaptability,

against a backdrop of structural limitations and stereotypical patterns of thinking) hinders productive hu-

mour comprehension. The existing potential for understanding information remains untapped due to a

closed cognitive stance and a deficit in the skills of emotional management and adaptation to illogical

experiences, which also leads to a significant reduction in academic success. These data corroborate

research noting that potential cognitive resources remain unexploited due to the absence of conducive

conditions for their manifestation and development (

De Jonge and Huter, 2021; Tricot et al., 2020). Ac-

cordingly, the mediated development of cognitive humour comprehension within the learning process for

these students may create opportunities for them to more readily assimilate complex academic tasks.

Conclusions

The results of the empirical study demonstrate a complex and multifaceted relationship between

cognitive styles, emotional intelligence, and the capacity for humour comprehension in students with vary-

ing levels of academic achievement. Based on the specific results obtained across all groups, one can

www.ijcrsee.com

477

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

posit the existence of distinct cognitive and emotional ‘profiles’ that determine success in humour compre-

hension. An open cognitive stance, well-developed information encoding styles, and abstract thinking ap-

pear to be the most effective strategies, while a closed cognitive stance and a rigid thinking style impede

adequate perception of humorous stimuli. These data underscore the importance of considering individual

cognitive and emotional characteristics when developing educational strategies aimed at fostering critical

thinking, creativity, and the ability to understand complex social cues, including humour.

The interrelationships discovered within the factor structures reflect the potential for integrating

conceptual, stylistic, creative, and metacognitive characteristics of students in relation to humour compre-

hension, which acquires specificity in groups of students with different academic achievement. Humour

comprehension, as one of the variables of the crystallising factor of cognitive resource, contributes to the

academic success of students, which aligns with the limited research on this topic (Musiichuk, 2018).

At the same time, the identified crystallising factors demonstrate indications of integration not of all the

productive variables studied in this regard. Thus, it can be concluded that for successful humour compre-

hension and the achievement of academic goals, it is necessary not only to have cognitive and emotional

resources but also their productive integration, the study of which could become an important direction

for further research.

Therefore, a well-developed cognitive resource, including humour comprehension and apprecia-

tion, enables the effective use of humorous elements in learning. However, the observed effects manifest

with varying degrees of prominence in students with different levels of academic achievement. For stu-

dents with high scores, humour acts as a catalyst for deep learning, contributing to academic success.

Further research is needed to identify the specific mechanisms of humour’s influence on students with

medium and low scores. It is possible that these groups require methods of using humour in education

adapted to their cognitive characteristics, such as a more explicit and straightforward explanation of jokes

or the use of humour directly related to the material being studied. The development of such differentiated

techniques will maximise the positive impact of humour on students’ academic success.

The advantages of the conducted research lie in a more comprehensive and systematic approach,

providing a deep and multidimensional understanding of the complex nature of academic achievement

and the cognitive mechanisms that underpin it. Further research should be directed towards studying the

mechanisms of interaction between cognitive and emotional factors and their integration in the process

of humour comprehension, as well as developing tools for diagnosing and developing the corresponding

competencies. For example, the results obtained, especially in the MAA and LAA groups, could become a

basis for the development of a psycho-pedagogical training program for students. The main goal of such

training could be to develop cognitive strategies in students during the processing of humorous stimuli.

This could form the foundation for creating and optimising innovative approaches to the educational pro-

cess and developing the cognitive potential of students.

Acknowledgements

We greatly appreciate the International contribution of the Journal of Cognitive Research in Sci-

ence, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE) and contribution of the Psychology and Life Safety depart-

ment staff as well as our colleagues from the Institute of Computer Technologies and Information Safety

of the Southern Federal University in realizing the ideas pointed out in our article.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Kibalchenko Irina, Eksakusto Tatiana; formal analysis, Kibalchenko Irina, Ek-

sakusto Tatiana; Data curation, Kibalchenko Irina; methodology, Kibalchenko Irina; writing - original draft

preparation, Eksakusto Tatiana; writing - review and editing, Eksakusto Tatiana. All authors have read and

agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

www.ijcrsee.com

478

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

References

Anwar, Z., Hanurawan, F., Chusniyah, T., Setiyowati, N., & Rehman, S. (2024). Measurement Models and Predictors of Student

Academic Success: A Systematic Literature Review.

The 6th ASEAN Conference on Psychology, Counseling, and

Humanities (AC-PCH 2024). 3(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.51773/sssh.v3i1.252

Aydin, B., & Demirer, V. (2022). Are ipped classrooms less stressful and more successful? An experimental study on college

students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/

s41239-022-00360-8

Bagandova, G. Kh., Ibragimova, L. A., & Shamkhalova, A. E. (2018). Исследование влияния уровня тревожности

личности на успешность учебной деятельности школьников в отечественной психологии [A study of the in-

uence of personal anxiety levels on the academic success of schoolchildren in Russian psychology]. Известия

Дагестанского государственного педагогического университета. Психолого-педагогические науки [Dages-

tan State Pedagogical University. Journal. Psychological and Pedagogical Sciences], 12(4), 5-9. (In Russ.) https://doi.

org/10.31161/1995-0659-2018-12-4-5-9

Bakar, F., & Mallan, V. (2023). How students perceive the teacher’s use of humour and how it enhances learning in the class-

room. The European Journal of Humour Research, 10(4), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR.2022.10.4.656

Belesova, N. A., & Nabi, G. A. (2020). Социальный и эмоциональный интеллект: склонность студентов к чувству юмора

в чрезвычайных ситуациях [Social and emotional intelligence: Students’ propensity for humour in emergency situa-

tions]. Вестник КазНУ. Серия педагогическая. [Al-Farabi Kazakh National University Bulletin. Pedagogy Series],

65(4), 12-20. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26577/JES.2020.v65.i4.02

Bezerra, R. L. M., Alves, R. J. R., & Azoni, C. A. S. (2022). Creativity and its relationship with intelligence and reading skills in

children: an exploratory study. Psicologia: Reexao e Critica, 35(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-022-00221-3

Bolkan, S., Grifn, D., & Goodboy, A. (2018). Humor in the classroom: the effects of integrated humor on student learning.

Communication Education, 67, 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1413199

Bouchefra, S., Azeroual, A., Boudassamout, H., Ahaji, K., Ech-chaouy, A., & Bour, A. (2022). Association between Non-Verbal

Intelligence and Academic Performance of Schoolchildren from Taza, Eastern Morocco. Journal of Intelligence, 10(3),

1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030060

Cadorna, N. T. (2021). Teachers’ Humor Orientation and Style Utilization Vis-A-Vis Students’ Academic Performance. 2nd In-

ternational Conference on Multidisciplinary Industry and Academic Research (ICMIAR). https://media.neliti.com/media/

publications/358273-teachers-humor-orientation-and-style-uti-d77c5bd2.pdf

Canestrari, C., Dionigi, A., & Zuczkowski, A. (2014). Humor understanding and knowledge. Language and Dialogue, 4, 261–

283. https://doi.org/10.1075/LD.4.2.05CAN

Chan, T., & Dai, M. (2023). Factors Inuencing Academic Achievement of University Students. Journal of Communication,

Language and Culture, 3(2), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.33093/jclc.2023.3.2.2

De Jonge, J., & Huter, F. (2021). Does Match Really Matter? The Moderating Role of Resources in the Relation between

Demands, Vigor and Fatigue in Academic Life. The Journal of Psychology, 155, 548–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/002

23980.2021.1924603

Dvoynin, A. M., & Trotskaya, E. S. (2022). Когнитивные предикторы академической успешности: как общие закономерности

«работают» на ранних этапах образования? [Cognitive predictors of academic success: How do general patterns

‘work’ in the early stages of education?]. Психологическая наука и образование [Psychological Science and Educa-

tion], 27(2), 42-52. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2022270204

Erdoğdu, F., & Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2021). The educational power of humor on student engagement in online learning environments.

Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 16(9). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-021-00158-8

Fréchette-Simard, C., Plante, I., Duchesne, S., & Chaffee, K. E. (2022). The mediating role of test anxiety in the evolution

of motivation and achievement of students transitioning from elementary to high school. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102116

Freiberg-Hoffmann, A., Romero-Medina, A., Ledesma, R., & Fernández-Liporace, M. (2022). Psychoeducational Factors As-

sociated with University Students’ Success and Failure. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies,

3(3), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.52547/johepal.3.3.90

Galatskova, I. A., & Petrenko, E. L. (2020). Учебная и социальная успешность обучающихся в университетских классах:

изучение и условия достижения [Academic and social success of students in university-level classes: Investigation

and conditions for achievement]. Поволжский педагогический поиск [Volga Region Pedagogical Search], 2(32), 75-

80. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33065/2307-1052-2020-2-32-75-80

Gel’man, V. Ya. (2021). Использование юмора в процессе обучения [The use of humour in the learning process]. Современное

образование [Modern Education], 4, 38–46. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8736.2021.4.36803

Giancola, M., Palmiero, M., & D’Amico, S. (2022). Exploring the interplay between uid intelligence and creativity: the mediating

role of the eld-dependent-independent cognitive style. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 45(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

tsc.2022.101047

www.ijcrsee.com

479

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

Goegan, L. D., & Daniels, L. M. (2021). Academic success for students in postsecondary education: The role of student charac-

teristics and integration. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 23(3), 659–685. https://

doi.org/10.1177/1521025119866689

Guterman, O. (2021). Academic success from an individual perspective: A proposal for redenition. International Review of

Education, 67, 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09874-7

Hülür, G., Gasimova, F., Robitzsch, A., & Wilhelm, O. (2018). Change in Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence and Student Achieve-

ment: The Role of Intellectual Engagement. Child Development, 89(4), 1074–1087. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12791

Kholodnaya, M. A. (2024). Психология интеллекта. Парадоксы исследования: учебное пособие для вузов [The psychol-

ogy of intelligence. Paradoxes of research: A textbook for universities] (3rd ed., rev. and exp.). Образовательная

платформа Юрайт [Yurayt Publishing House]. (In Russ.) Retrieved from Urait Educational Platform website: https://

urait.ru/bcode/540733

Kırıkkanat, B., & Soyer, M. K. (2018). A Path Analysis Model Pertinent to Undergraduates’ Academic Success: Examining Aca-

demic Condence, Psychological Capital and Academic Coping Factors. European Journal of Educational Research,

7(1), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.1.133

Kocak, G. (2018). The relationship between humor styles and creativity: a research on academics. Eurasian Journal of Busi-

ness and Management, 6, 44–58. https://doi.org/10.15604/ejbm.2018.06.04.005

Kondrashikhina, O. A. (2021). Толерантность к неопределенности как предиктор стратегии адаптации в условиях

пандемии COVID-19 студентов-психологов [Tolerance for uncertainty as a predictor of adaptation strategies in psy-

chology students during the COVID-19 pandemic]. Психолого-педагогический журнал Гаудеамус [Psychological-

Pedagogical Journal Gaudeamus], 20(1(47)), 7-13. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-231X-2021-20-1(47)-7-13

Lavrijsen, J., Preckel, F., Verachtert, P., Vansteenkiste, M., & Verschueren, K. (2021). Are motivational benets of adequately

challenging schoolwork related to students’ need for cognition, cognitive ability, or both? Personality and Individual

Differences, 171, 110558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110558

Leeman, T., Knight, B., & Fein, E. (2022). The relationship among openness, wisdom, and humor: a preliminary mediation

model. International Psychogeriatrics, 34(7), 627–636. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610222000400

Lewis, N. A., & Yates, J. F. (2019). Preparing Disadvantaged Students for Success in College: Lessons Learned From the Prep-

aration Initiative. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14 (1), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618808515

Mafarja, N., & Zulnaidi, H. (2022). Relationship between Critical thinking and academic self- concept: An experimental study of

Reciprocal teaching strategy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 45(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101113

Martin, A. J., Burns, E. C., Collie, R. J. Cutmore, M., MacLeod, S., & Donlevy, V. (2022). The role of engagement in immigrant

students’ academic resilience. Learning and Instruction, 82, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101650

Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372564-6/50024-1

Musiichuk, M. (2018). Cognitive-Affective Aspect Of Humor Inuence On Development Of Students’ Innovative Abilities. In

I. B. Ardashkin, N. V. Martyushev, S. V. Klyagin, E. V. Barkova, A. R. Massalimova, & V. N. Syrov (Eds.), Research

Paradigms Transformation in Social Sciences, 35, (pp. 972–978). European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural

Sciences. Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.02.114

Neff, P., & Rucynski, J. (2017). Japanese perceptions of humor in the English language classroom. Humor, 30, 279–301.

https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2016-0066

Ng, D., Lin, P., Marsh, N., Chan, K., & Ramsay, J. (2021). Associations Between Openness Facets, Prejudice, and Tolerance:

A Scoping Review With Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.707652

Nomura, R., & Maruno, S. (2011). Constructing a Coactivation Model for Explaining Humor Elicitation. Psychology, 2(5), 477–

485. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2011.25074

Nurcendani, B., & Wijaya, E. (2022). The Effect of Teacher’s Humor Types on Student Achievement Emotions during Dis-

tance Learning. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 655. https://doi.org/10.2991/

assehr.k.220404.241

Ogurlu, Ü. (2015). Relationship between Cognitive Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence and Humor Styles. International Online

Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 16–25. https://iojes.net/?mod=makale_tr_ozet&makale_id=40954

Oshima, K. (2018). Functions of Humor in Intercultural Communication and Educational Environments. In Intercultural Communi-

cation in Asia: Education, Language and Values (pp. 205-222). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69995-0_10

Perchtold-Stefan, C., Papousek, I., Rominger, C., Schertler, M., Weiss, E., & Fink, A. (2020). Humor comprehension and cre-

ative cognition: Shared and distinct neurocognitive mechanisms as indicated by EEG alpha activity. NeuroImage, 213,

116695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116695

Petukhova, I. A. (2019). Мотивация и самооценка как факторы успешности профессионально-учебной деятельности

[Motivation and self-esteem as factors in the success of vocational training activities]. Педагогика сегодня: традиции

и инновации: сборник научных статей. [ In Pedagogy today: Traditions and innovations: A collection of scholarly

articles] (pp. 83-90). Scientic Publishing Centre “Absolut”. (In Russ.) Retrieved from

https://www.elibrary.ru/download/

elibrary_42308070_97983682.pdf

www.ijcrsee.com

480

Kibalchenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2025). Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful

Students, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education(IJCRSEE), 13(2),

455-480

Postavnev, V. M., Postavneva, I. V., Dvoynin, A. M., & Romanova, M. A. (2020). Общие и частные когнитивные способности

как предикторы академической успешности ребенка на ранних этапах образования [General and specic cognitive

abilities as predictors of a child’s academic success in the early stages of education]. Вестник Московского городского

педагогического университета. Серия: Педагогика и психология [Moscow City University Bulletin. Series: Peda-

gogy and Psychology], 4, 64-73. (In Russ.). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/obschie-i-chastnye-kognitivnye-sposobnosti-

kak-prediktory-akademicheskoy-uspeshnosti-rebenka-na-rannih-etapah-obrazovaniya

Privado, J., Pérez-Eizaguirre, M., Martínez-Rodríguez, M., & Ponce-de-León, L. (2024). Cognitive and non-cognitive factors as

predictors of academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102536

Ratu, A., Rai, N. G. M., & Savitri, E. D. (2021). Excellent academic achievement: Do intellectual humility and emotional intelligence

matter? Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 40(2), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v40i2.35588

Shcherbakova, O. V. (2009). Когнитивные механизмы понимания комического [Cognitive mechanisms of understanding

the comic] [abstract]. Saint Petersburg State University. (In Russ.) Retrieved from https://new-disser.ru/_avtorefer-

ats/01004565734.pdf?ysclid=m6nl8hqtzo594941138

Sun, C., Shen, J., Lin, J., Zhang, T., & Li, J. (2024). The relationship between openness to experience and humor production:

Exploring the mediating roles of cognitive exibility and ambiguity tolerance. PsyCh Journal 14(1), 28-36. https://doi.

org/10.1002/pchj.799

Sun, P., Chen, J., & Jiang, H. (2017). Coping Humor as a Mediator Between Emotional Intelligence and Job Satisfaction: A Study

on Chinese Primary School Teachers. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 16(3), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-

5888/a000185

Swanson, E., & Cole, D. (2022). The Role of Academic Validation in Developing Mattering and Academic Success. Research

in Higher Education, 63(8), 1368–1393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09686-8

Tikhomirova, T., Malykh, A., & Malykh, S. (2020). Predicting Academic Achievement with Cognitive Abilities: Cross-Sectional

Study across School Education. Behavioral Sciences, 10(10), 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10100158

Traut, H., Guild, R., & Munakata, Y. (2021). Why Does Cognitive Training Yield Inconsistent Benets? A Meta-Analysis of

Individual Differences in Baseline Cognitive Abilities and Training Outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.

org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662139

Tricot, A., et al. (2020). Working Memory Resource Depletion Effect in Academic Learning: Steps to an Integrated Approach. In

L. Longo & M.C. Leva (Eds.), Human Mental Workload: Models and Applications. H-WORKLOAD 2020. Communica-

tions in Computer and Information Science, 1318, 13-26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62302-9_2

Ventis, L. (2015). Thinking fast and slow in the experience of humor. Humor, 28(3), 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1515/hu-

mor-2015-0070

Widiarini, W., Supriyanto, A., & Sunandar, A. (2023). Inuential Factors Affecting Students’ Achievement in Higher Education

Institution System. Journal of Development Research, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.28926/jdr.v7i1.307

Willems, J., Daal, T., Petegem, P., Coertjens, L., & Donche, V. (2021). Predicting freshmen’s academic adjustment and sub-

sequent achievement: differences between academic and professional higher education contexts. Frontline Learning

Research, 9(2), 28-49. https://doi.org/10.14786/FLR.V9I2.647

Yağan, F., & Kaya, Z. (2024). Examination of Cognitive Flexibility and Positive Humor Styles in Teachers in Terms of Various

Variables. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 53(2), 786–814. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.1364005