![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
This study explores humorous communication within the lives of older adults by testing the relationships among humor, coping efficacy, age, and life satisfaction. Results overall indicate these four variables function in communicatively complex ways for older adults. As predicted, humor-oriented individuals were more likely to use humor as a coping mechanism and reported greater coping efficacy. In a comparison of individuals who varied in age (under 50, 50–74, and 75 + ), differences in humor orientation scores emerged among the 3 groups. As predicted by Folkman and Lazarus's transactional theory of coping and emotion, the relationship between self-reported humor orientation and life satisfaction was mediated by coping efficacy. In attempting to determine which variables best predicted life satisfaction, coping efficacy and health status explained unique variance in life satisfaction scores. Study implications and limitations are addressed.
Notes
1Using analysis of variance, participants did not differ by recruitment methods on humor coping, F(2, 202) = .59, p =.55; coping, F(2, 202) = 1.88, p = .15; HO, F(2, 202) = 2.95, p = .054; or life satisfaction, F(2, 202) = 2.85, p = .06. Age of participants did differ by recruitment method, as expected, F(2, 202) = 93.61, p < .001, with those participants recruited by students being significantly younger than the participants recruited at the wellness conference (p < .001) or the Council on Aging (p < .001). Because students were directed to recruit adults between 35 and 65, this difference was fully expected. Health of participants also differed by recruiting method, with individuals recruited by the Council on Aging employee (n = 40) reporting significantly lower scores on the health item than those recruited at the wellness conference (n = 130) or through college students (n = 35), F(2, 202) = 4.91, p = .008. An explanation for this finding is offered in the limitations section.