Next Article in Journal
Multidisciplinary Education Pathways to Attract High School Students Toward Research and Science
Previous Article in Journal
Tridimensional Acculturation and Academic Self-Concept of Minoritized Primary Students in Swiss Multicultural Classrooms: A Latent Profile Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 16
Issue 3
10.3390/educsci16030388
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Critical Thinking Dispositions and Humour Styles in Portuguese University Students

by
Eva Morais
1,2,*,
José Lopes
3,4,
Felicidade Morais
5,6,
Helena Silva
3,4 and
Sandra Ricardo
1,4
1
Department of Mathematics, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
2
Research Centre on Didactics and Technology in the Education of Trainers (CIDTFF), University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
3
Department of Education and Psychology, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
4
Centre for Research and Intervention in Education (CIIE), Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
5
Department of Letters, Arts and Communication, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
6
Center for Studies in Letters (CEL), University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2026, 16(3), 388; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16030388
Submission received: 15 January 2026 / Revised: 8 February 2026 / Accepted: 28 February 2026 / Published: 4 March 2026
Versions Notes

Abstract

Critical thinking dispositions are essential motivational drivers for intellectual excellence; yet their relationship with socio-emotional traits, such as humour, remains under-researched. This study investigated associations between critical thinking dispositions and the four humour styles (Affiliative, Self-enhancing, Aggressive, Self-defeating) in higher education, controlling for gender, field of study, and academic year. A quantitative, correlational design was used with 382 Portuguese university students who completed the Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale and the Humour Styles Questionnaire. Our results showed that Open-mindedness predicted Affiliative humour, while CT Self-confidence and Cognitive maturity predicted Self-enhancing humour. Truth-seeking inversely predicted Aggressive humour, which was higher in males and students of Science and Technology. Self-defeating humour was uniquely predicted by lower Cognitive maturity. These findings underscore that adaptive humour aligns with reflective thinking, whereas maladaptive styles correlate with traits that may hinder epistemic engagement. These findings underscore that adaptive humour is associated with reflective thinking, whereas maladaptive humour styles correlate with dispositional traits that may impede epistemic engagement; taken together, the results highlight the importance of integrating educational strategies that foster critical thinking dispositions, as such strategies may facilitate the development of more adaptive humour styles.

1. Introduction

In the modern global society, characterized by an overwhelming volume of information, rapid technological advancement, and increasingly complex societal and professional challenges, critical thinking skills are essential. They are widely recognized as a meta-competence for effective decision-making, successful problem-solving, and the promotion of democratic citizenship. Within the educational sphere, fostering CT skills is a core objective, moving beyond rote memorization to equip students with the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information objectively (UNESCO, 2023; Vuorikari et al., 2022; World Economic Forum, 2025).
Critical Thinking (CT) is commonly conceptualized as a metacognitive process comprising two interrelated dimensions: skills and dispositions. CT skills refer to the cognitive processes involved in reasoning—such as interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation (Facione, 1990). However, possessing these skills alone is insufficient: individuals must also be willing to apply them. This willingness is captured by CT dispositions, which represent the affective and attitudinal components of CT (Dwyer, 2023; Facione, 1990, 2000; Li et al., 2024; Pu et al., 2019). CT dispositions act as motivational drivers for engaging in complex cognitive tasks.
Facione’s Delphi Report identified seven core dispositions: Truth-seeking (commitment to seeking the best-justified position), Open-mindedness (tolerance for divergent views and self-monitoring for bias), Analyticity (desire to understand complex problems), Systematicity (orderly and diligent inquiry), Inquisitiveness (eagerness to learn), CT Self-confidence (trust in one’s reasoning), and Cognitive maturity (prudence and recognition of uncertainty) (Facione, 1990).
Research consistently shows that these dispositions predict the effective use of CT skills, serving as a crucial motivational pathway to intellectual excellence. However, the comprehensive psychological profile of a critical thinker is not solely defined by these core dispositions. Other affective and interpersonal factors—such as humour styles—also significantly influence how individuals process information, regulate emotions, cope with stress, and interact with the social world, thereby indirectly or directly modulating cognitive engagement (Akben & Coskun, 2024; Cesur & Tozduman-Yaralı, 2019; Merma-Molina et al., 2022). Understanding these interactions is crucial for developing comprehensive educational strategies that promote both cognitive rigor and socio-emotional adaptability.
Humour is a complex phenomenon that encompasses affective, cognitive, and social functions. The concept of Humour Styles provides a structured, widely used framework for understanding the characteristic and consistent ways individuals employ humour in their daily lives (Čekrlija et al., 2025; Fernandes & Viseu, 2023; Nezlek et al., 2021; Torres-Marín et al., 2018). The most influential categorization, developed by Martin et al. (2003), defines four distinct humour styles based on two primary dimensions: the target of the humour (self vs. others) and its function (adaptive vs. maladaptive). These styles are functionally separated into two categories. The Adaptive Styles include Affiliative humour, which is the benign use of humour to facilitate relationships and reduce interpersonal tension, and Self-enhancing humour, which involves utilizing a humorous outlook on life to cope with stress and maintain perspective, effectively serving as a form of positive self-regulation and emotional buffering. Conversely, the Maladaptive Styles encompass Aggressive humour, characterized by sarcasm, teasing, or ridicule to criticize or manipulate others, and Self-defeating (Self-deprecating) humour, defined as excessive self-disparagement that often masks underlying emotional distress.
These characteristic ways of employing humour are robustly linked to psychological adjustment, well-being, health outcomes, and interpersonal competencies (Čekrlija et al., 2025; Dhensa-Kahlon & Woods, 2022; Gheorghe & Curșeu, 2024; Plessen et al., 2020). Specifically, the Adaptive Styles are consistently associated with higher self-esteem, social cohesion, resilience, and positive coping mechanisms (e.g., problem-focused coping), as well as traits such as extroversion and openness to experience (Altan-Atalay & Boluvat, 2024; Kyomugisha, 2025). Conversely, the Maladaptive Styles are often linked to lower well-being, negative outcomes (e.g., aggression, depression), less constructive interpersonal interactions, neuroticism, and defensive or evasive coping strategies (Veselka et al., 2010). This established literature highlights that the characteristic ways people employ humour reflect not only their fundamental approach to social interaction and self-regulation but also their underlying cognitive processing biases and mechanisms for managing psychological distress.
The intersection of affective traits and cognitive processes suggests a fertile ground for research. In particular, analysing the relationship between an individual’s attitudinal style (i.e., CT dispositions) and their interpersonal/affective style (i.e., humour styles) is crucial for a holistic understanding of intellectual engagement. Humour, as a complex psychological phenomenon involving cognitive, emotional, and social elements, can serve both adaptive functions—such as self-enhancing humour for emotional regulation—and maladaptive functions, such as aggressive humour associated with interpersonal hostility (Martin et al., 2003). From a mechanisms-based perspective, humour styles can be understood as epistemically and educationally relevant socio-communicative strategies through which individuals regulate threats to the self, shape the interpersonal climate, and negotiate norms of disagreement (Kucharski & Rutkowska, 2019; Samson & Gross, 2012). Given that CT dispositions reflect a commitment to rigorous thinking (e.g., objectivity, open-mindedness), investigating how these align with characteristic ways of using humour may reveal significant insights into the motivational and temperamental underpinnings of critical thought. Ultimately, such research can inform pedagogical strategies aimed at developing not only skills but also the desirable attitudes and affective balance necessary for genuine critical engagement in both academic and personal life.
Despite the interconnectedness between humour and psychological functioning, systematic and specific investigation into the direct association between various humour styles and multifaceted CT dispositions remains conspicuously underdeveloped. While Cesur and Tozduman-Yaralı (2019) provide an example of such inquiry, it remains an isolated contribution rather than a mainstream focus in current research. Although the existing literature includes studies linking sociodemographic variables to humour styles (e.g., Tümkaya, 2011) and studies associating sociodemographic variables with CT dispositions (e.g., Delgado-Vásquez et al., 2019; Karakuş, 2024), research that simultaneously integrates and examines the associations between these three distinct dimensions remains sporadic and significantly under-represented.
Specifically, fundamental research questions remain unanswered, constituting the central gap that this study aims to bridge: how do specific, constructive CT dispositions relate to adaptive humour styles (Affiliative and Self-enhancing)? Conversely, do maladaptive humour styles (Aggressive, Self-defeating) act as detractors or impediments to the development of crucial CT dispositions? Furthermore, are CT dispositions predictors of humour styles, or vice versa, when controlling for established demographic factors such as gender, field of study, and academic year?
This investigation seeks to go beyond general personality correlations by minutely examining the extent to which an individual’s propensity to think critically (CT dispositions) systematically associates with their characteristic use of humour. Although critical thinking and humour are distinct fields of study, their potential interconnection lies in how both influence information processing, cognitive flexibility, and social interaction. A disposition such as open-mindedness could, in theory, be facilitated by a self-enhancing humour style, which allows detachment from threats to the self, whereas an aggressive humour style may be incompatible with truth-seeking and cognitive maturity. From this perspective, humour is not merely an affective outcome but a possible interactional pathway through which epistemic orientations manifest in everyday academic dialogue—either by supporting the exchange of reasons and perspective-taking (via affiliative or self-enhancing humour) or by undermining epistemic exchange when humour is used to dominate, disqualify, or shut down disagreement (via aggressive humour). Understanding this relationship in higher education students is crucial, as this stage is characterised by high cognitive demands and the formation of professional and personal identity.
This study aims to investigate whether and how specific CT dispositions translate into humour styles that sustain or impair the socio-epistemic quality of academic dialogue, and whether these links vary by gender, field of study, and academic year.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a detailed description of the study design, including the characteristics of the participants, the instruments used for data collection, and the analytical procedure employed. Subsequently, Section 3 presents the findings derived from the statistical analyses. Finally, the discussion and conclusions (Section 4) interprets the major findings in light of existing literature, addresses the implications of the results for educational practice and psychological theory, acknowledges the limitations of the present study, and offers suggestions for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Method

This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional correlational design to examine the association between university students’ CT dispositions and their humour styles. Data were gathered at a single time point, enabling the exploration of relationships among the key variables under investigation.

2.2. Participants

The participants in this study were 382 university students from a Northern Portuguese institution, recruited through a convenience sampling strategy in which instructors permitted the administration of questionnaires during class time. The majority of participants were female (n = 250, 65.4%), with 130 identified as male (34.0%), and two participants (0.5%) who did not specify their gender. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 65 years (M = 20.6, SD = 4.71).
The students were enrolled in courses belonging to five scientific fields of study: Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Health Sciences, Human and Social Sciences, Life and Environmental Sciences, and Science and Technology. The distribution of students across the scientific fields of study and their corresponding academic year of enrollment is detailed in Table 1. The first three academic years correspond to the Bachelor’s degree program, while the fourth academic year refers to the first year of the Master’s degree program.

2.3. Instruments

The data for this study were collected using a self-developed demographic questionnaire and two primary validated scales. The first questionnaire was administered to gather essential socio-demographic and academic information from the participants, including age, gender, scientific field of study, and academic year of enrollment. This information was primarily used for descriptive purposes and to characterize the sample, as detailed in Section 2.2. Subsequently, the main constructs of interest were assessed using the Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (CTDS) and the Humour Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). The structure, psychometric properties, and scoring details of these two principal instruments are presented in the following subsections.

2.3.1. Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (CTDS)

The Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (CTDS) is a 35-item, self-report assessment designed to measure university students’ disposition toward critical thinking. The instrument is grounded in the Facione Delphi report, encompassing seven core factors: Truth-seeking, Open-mindedness, Analyticity, Systematicity, CT Self-confidence, Inquisitiveness, and Cognitive maturity (Facione, 1990). Items are scored on a Likert-type scale.
Lopes et al. (2021) validated the CTDS for the Portuguese population. The instrument demonstrated strong overall internal consistency (α = 0.94), with acceptable to good reliability for the seven subscales (α ranging from 0.62 to 0.75). The total score ranges from 70 to 350 points, with each disposition contributing 10 to 50 points.

2.3.2. Humour Styles Questionnaire (HSQ)

The Humour Styles Questionnaire (HSQ), developed by Martin et al. (2003), is a 17-item self-report measure that assesses individual differences in the habitual use of humour across four distinct dimensions. The Portuguese adaptation was conducted by Fernandes and Viseu (2023). The scale employs a seven-point Likert response format, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). The four subscales assessed are Affiliative humour (5 items), which measures the tendency to use humour to facilitate relationships; Self-enhancing humour (6 items), which assesses the tendency to maintain a humorous outlook in stressful situations; Aggressive humour (2 items), which reflects the tendency to use humour to criticize or manipulate others; and Self-defeating humour (4 items), which captures the tendency toward excessive self-disparagement or allowing others to mock oneself. The total score for each dimension ranges from 10 to 70 points. In the Portuguese validation, the dimensions demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s α ranging from 0.77 to 0.81 (α = 0.77 for Affiliative humour, α = 0.81 for Self-enhancing humour, α = 0.69 for Aggressive humour, and α = 0.72 for Self-defeating humour).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The level of statistical significance was set at 5%.
The data preparation included verifying the internal consistency of the CTDS and HSQ subscales within the current sample using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.
To characterize the variables and check for differences across categorical groups, descriptive statistics were computed. Independent-samples t-tests and a one-way ANOVA were used to assess whether there were significant group differences in the CTDS and HSQ dimensions. Finally, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the bivariate relationships between the seven CTDS dimensions and the four HSQ dimensions. This analysis also served as an initial assessment of potential multicollinearity among the CTD predictor variables.
To analyze the unique contribution of CT dispositions to humour styles while controlling for demographic and academic factors, a series of four separate General Linear Models (GLMs) was performed. Each of the four HSQ subscale scores was used as the dependent variable in a distinct model. The models were designed to test for main effects only, including the following predictor variables: Field of Study, Gender, and Academic Year (fixed factors); and the seven CTDS subscale scores (covariates). This approach operates as a Multiple Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) framework, allowing us to determine the independent influence of each CT disposition on a specific humour style, while accounting for the control variables.
The absence of multicollinearity was assessed using tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), with acceptable values of tolerance above 0.10 and VIF below 5 (Field, 2018; Hair et al., 2019).

3. Results

The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between university students’ CT dispositions and their humour styles. More specifically, the analysis examined the unique contribution of each of the seven CTDS dimensions to the four humour styles evaluated with the HSQ, while statistically controlling for key demographic variables (gender, field of study, and academic year). The results are presented in the sections that follow, beginning with descriptive statistics and preliminary analyses, and subsequently detailing the main findings from the General Linear Model (GLM) used to test these associations.

3.1. Sample Description and Group Differences

The participants in this study were 382 university students enrolled across five distinct fields of study: Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Health Sciences, Human and Social Sciences, Life and Environmental Sciences, and Science and Technology.
Table 2 presents the overall descriptive statistics for the Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (CTDS). This table also includes the results of the t-tests and one-way ANOVAs used to test for significant mean differences across the demographic and academic groups (gender, field of study, and academic year).
CT dispositions did not significantly differ across the students’ academic year, except for Inquisitiveness (F(3,378) = 4.88, p = 0.002), with post hoc analysis showing that the average scores of students in academic year 4 were significantly higher than the average scores of students in the first academic year (p = 0.002) or in the second academic year (p = 0.039). Gender was a significant factor across three CTDS dimensions: female students reported significantly higher scores than male students on both Truth-seeking and Inquisitiveness, and male students reported significantly higher scores than female students on CT Self-confidence. As for the Field of study, the results of post hoc comparisons revealed that students in Human and Social Sciences demonstrated significantly higher mean scores across four CT dispositions compared to at least other fields of study: Truth-seeking, Systematicity, Inquisitiveness, and Cognitive maturity.
As for the Humour Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) dimensions, Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics and group comparisons.
The results in Table 3 reveal significant heterogeneity in the use of humour styles across the demographic groups, particularly for gender and field of study. Gender emerged as a highly significant factor for three of the four humour styles, with male students reporting higher mean scores on Self-enhancing, Aggressive, and Self-defeating humour than female students. Only Affiliative humour showed no significant difference by gender. The academic year showed a significant main effect on Self-enhancing humour, although post hoc comparisons did not reveal significant differences among the students in the four groups. The field-of-study factor has also shown a significant influence on three of the HSQ dimensions. The post hoc analyses revealed that the field of study is associated with differential use of Aggressive or Self-defeating humour styles, with students in Science and Technology consistently reporting significantly higher mean scores on both Aggressive and Self-defeating humour compared to students in Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Health Sciences, and Human and Social Sciences.
These significant mean differences in both CTDS and HSQ across demographic groups influence the structure of the subsequent GLM. Table 2 and Table 3 show notable differences across the Field of Study for most CTDS and HSQ dimensions. Gender also emerged as a strong predictor, with significant differences in three of the four HSQ dimensions. Given this consistent variability, interaction terms involving the field of study, gender, and CTDS dimensions were included as moderators in the GLM to accurately test whether associations between CT dispositions and humour styles varied across groups.

3.2. Reliability

Internal consistency reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha for the two instruments used in this study. The Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS), comprising 35 items, demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.831), while the 17-item Humour Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) showed acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.691). Following Nunnally and Bernstein’s (1994) guidelines, alpha values of 0.70 or higher are considered adequate for research purposes, indicating that both instruments performed reliably in the present sample.

3.3. Correlations

To establish initial linear relationships between CT dispositions and humour styles, Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were calculated for all CTDS and HSQ dimensions. The results, displayed in Table 4, confirm several expected associations. Most CTDS dimensions were found to be significantly and positively correlated with Affiliative humour and Self-enhancing humour, except for the correlations between Truth-seeking and Systematicity with Affiliative humour, and between Truth-seeking and Self-enhancing humour. In contrast, all CTDS dimensions were negatively correlated to Aggressive humour and Self-defeating humour, with most of these correlations being statistically significant.
These results provide initial support for the hypothesized relationships between CTDS and HSQ dimensions, establishing the basis for the subsequent multivariate GLM analysis to assess the unique contributions of each CTDS dimension while controlling for demographic variables.

3.4. General Linear Model (GLM)

The primary analysis consisted of four GLMs designed to assess the unique contribution of CT dispositions to each humour style, while controlling for demographic and academic factors. Multicollinearity diagnostics indicated that all models were suitable for interpretation, with Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values remaining below the commonly accepted threshold of 5 (maximum VIF = 2.082), and tolerance values exceeding the threshold of 0.10 (minimum tolerance = 0.48) (Field, 2018; Hair et al., 2019). Each full model included the seven CTDS (dispositions) dimensions as covariates, gender, field of study, and academic year as fixed factors, and the interaction terms Gender × CTDS and Field of Study × CTDS as moderators.

3.4.1. Affiliative Humour

To predict Affiliative humour, the initial GLM was conducted, including all main effects for fixed factors and covariates, along with the interaction terms. Since none of the interaction terms, Gender × CTDS and Field of Study × CTDS, reached statistical significance, and to adhere to the principle of parsimony, a final, simplified GLM was run containing only the main effects of all predictors. The collinearity diagnostics for this final model confirmed its viability (VIF < 2.1 for all terms).
The final GLM predicting Affiliative humour was statistically significant (F(15,364) = 2.71, p = 0.001), accounting for 10.0% of the total variance. The results of the individual predictors in this model are presented in Table 5.
The analysis identified that the statistically significant predictors of Affiliative humour are Open-mindedness (p < 0.001) and Inquisitiveness (p = 0.040). This indicates that, after controlling for all other CT dispositions and demographic factors, higher levels of Open-mindedness or of Inquisitiveness are significantly associated with greater use of Affiliative humour. The effect sizes of these relationships were small (the maximum η2 was 0.039 for Open-mindedness). All other CTDS dimensions and demographic factors were found to be non-significant unique predictors of Affiliative humour, with effect sizes ranging from small to very small.

3.4.2. Self-Enhancing Humour

The initial GLM used to predict Self-enhancing humour included all main effects for fixed factors and covariates, as well as interaction terms. Once again, none of the interaction terms were significant; thus, we advanced to the most parsimonious model and excluded the interactions. The final GLM results are presented in Table 6. This is a significant model (F(15,364) = 6.39, p < 0.001) and accounts for 20.8% of the total variance.
The GLM revealed significant predictors of self-enhancing humour. CT Self-confidence emerged as the strongest contributor (F(1,364) = 19.8, p < 0.001), with a moderate effect size (partial η2 = 0.052). Additionally, Cognitive maturity (F(1,364) = 7.53, p = 0.006, partial η2 = 0.020) showed a small but significant association with Self-enhancing humour. The remaining CTDS dimensions, Truth-seeking, Open-mindedness, Systematicity, Analyticity, and Inquisitiveness, were not significant predictors of Self-enhancing humour.
About the fixed factors, Gender and Field of Study also showed no significant effects. The Academic Year had a statistically significant overall effect (F(3,364) = 3.13, p = 0.026, partial η2 = 0.025). Follow-up parameter estimates clarified that the significant effect of Academic Year is primarily driven by first-year students scoring higher in Self-enhancing humour than students in later years, whereas second and third-year students do not differ meaningfully from fourth-year peers.
Consistent with the Affiliative humour model, effect sizes were generally small, but the results indicate that CT Self-confidence and Cognitive maturity are the CT dimensions most uniquely associated with Self-enhancing humour when demographic and academic factors are controlled.

3.4.3. Aggressive Humour

Analogously to the previous styles of humour, we included all main effects for fixed factors and covariates, as well as interaction terms, in the initial GLM to predict Aggressive humour. As the interaction Field of Study × Truth-seeking was significant, the final GLM retained that term along with all of its component main effects. Table 7 presents the results of the GLM prediction of Aggressive humour. The model is significant (F(19,360) = 5.42, p < 0.001) and accounts for 22.3% of the total variance.
The GLM revealed that Gender was a significant predictor (F(1,360) = 16.3, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.043), indicating that male students reported significantly higher levels of Aggressive humour than female students. The field of study also showed a significant main effect (F(4,360) = 4.51, p = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.048), with students in the Science and Technology field showing higher Aggressive humour scores than students in Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences or Human and Social Sciences.
Among the CT dispositions, Truth-seeking was the only significant predictor (F(1,360) = 17.1, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.045), indicating that lower Truth-seeking is associated with a higher use of Aggressive humour. No significant effects were observed for the academic year or the remaining CTDS dimensions.
The significant Field of Study × Truth-seeking interaction (F(4,360) = 4.39, p = 0.002, partial η2 = 0.047) indicates that the relationship between Truth-seeking and Aggressive humour varies across academic fields. Pairwise comparisons showed that, in the fields of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences and Human and Social Sciences, lower Truth-seeking was more strongly associated with higher Aggressive humour than in the field of Science and Technology.

3.4.4. Self-Defeating Humour

Finally, the GLM used to predict Self-defeating humour included all main effects and the interaction terms Gender × CTDS and Field of Study × CTDS. None of the interaction terms were significant; thus, the final GLM included only the main effects of the fixed factors and the covariates. The results of this GLM are presented in Table 8. The model is significant (F(15,364) = 4.27, p < 0.001) and accounts for 15.0% of the total variance.
Once again, gender was a significant predictor (F(1,364) = 9.14, p = 0.003, partial η2 = 0.024), with male students exhibiting significantly higher levels of Self-defeating humour than female students. No significant effects were found for the fixed factors field of study or academic year. Cognitive maturity was the only significant predictor (F(1,364) = 6.53, p = 0.011, partial η2 = 0.018) of Self-defeating humour among the CTDS dimensions, suggesting that students with lower Cognitive maturity tend to report higher levels of Self-defeating humour.
Overall, the model indicates that Self-defeating humour is less strongly related to CT dispositions than the other humour styles, with only gender and Cognitive maturity emerging as meaningful predictors, both with small effect sizes.

4. Discussion

The present study analyzed the relationship between critical thinking (CT) dispositions and humour styles among higher education students. The findings of this study provide important insights into demographic differences, humour styles, and CT dispositions, and their interplay.
Overall, CT dispositions were relatively stable across academic years, except for Inquisitiveness, which was significantly higher among fourth-year students compared to first- and second-year peers. This pattern suggests that prolonged academic engagement may foster curiosity and intellectual openness, consistent with developmental perspectives on higher education (Facione, 2000; Mousazadeh et al., 2021). It should be noted, however, that the literature is not unanimous, with Boonsathirakul and Kerdsomboon (2021), Boso et al. (2021), and Karakuş (2024) finding no differences; Lopes et al. (2021) reported higher scores in undergraduate students; and Santos et al. (2025) observed an inverse pattern, with first-year nursing students obtaining higher averages.
Gender differences emerged as a salient factor. Female students scored higher on Truth-seeking and Inquisitiveness, suggesting a greater propensity for rigor in seeking information and a higher interest in inquiring about new knowledge, while male students reported greater CT Self-confidence, indicating that they perceive themselves as more confident in their own abilities for analysis and logical inference. These findings align with previous research indicating gender-related variability in CT dispositions (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001; Liu & Pásztor, 2023; Lopes et al., 2021; Morais et al., 2023; Ozcan & Elkoca, 2019; Zhao et al., 2024), despite some studies failing to identify significant differences (e.g., Dennett & DeDonno, 2021).
Field of study also played a significant role, with students in Human and Social Sciences demonstrating higher mean scores across several CT dispositions—namely Truth-seeking, Systematicity, Inquisitiveness, and Cognitive maturity—when compared to students from other fields of study. These findings are largely consistent with previous literature reporting differences across fields of study (King et al., 2017; Lampert, 2006; Lopes et al., 2021; Morais et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2019).
Regarding humour styles, substantial heterogeneity was observed across demographic variables. Male students reported higher levels of self-enhancing, aggressive, and Self-defeating humour, whereas Affiliative humour showed no gender differences. These results suggest that, although the tendency toward socially constructive and relational humour appears comparable across genders, males are more likely than females to engage in humour styles that emphasize self-enhancement and the assertion or defense of the self, as well as humour forms involving potentially maladaptive or risky strategies, such as Aggressive and Self-defeating humour. The higher scores observed among males for Aggressive humour are widely supported in the literature and are often interpreted as reflecting the use of humour to assert social status (Čekrlija et al., 2025; Evans, 2023; Hofmann et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2023). In contrast, the absence of gender differences in Affiliative humour is consistent with previous research, suggesting that this humour style, central to social bonding, constitutes a universal strategy employed similarly by both genders (Martin et al., 2003).
The analysis across academic years revealed no significant differences in Affiliative, Aggressive, or Self-defeating humour styles, indicating stability in these dimensions throughout the academic trajectory. Only marginally significant differences were observed for Self-enhancing humour. The absence of substantial differences is consistent with the literature, which establishes humour styles as relatively stable personality traits over time in early adulthood (Feather, 2005; Martin et al., 2003).
Field of study emerged as a relevant factor in the expression of humour styles, particularly Aggressive and Self-defeating humour, with students in Science and Technology reporting higher scores than their peers. In contrast, Affiliative humour did not vary across the fields of study, a finding that is strongly consistent with previous literature characterizing this style as a universal mechanism for social bonding, independent of disciplinary context (Martin et al., 2003; Tsai et al., 2021). This pattern may reflect the high academic pressure, competitiveness, and emphasis on critical evaluation typical of science- and technology-oriented programs, where Aggressive humour may express stress or intellectual dominance and Self-defeating humour may function as a strategy to manage social tension and anxiety (Samson & Gross, 2012; Tucker et al., 2013).
The findings of this research demonstrate a robust association between critical thinking dispositions and humour styles. Most CTDS dimensions were positively correlated with adaptive humour (Affiliative and Self-enhancing), indicating greater facility in using humour to support social relationships and well-being. Conversely, consistent negative correlations were observed between all CTDS dimensions and maladaptive humour styles (Aggressive and Self-defeating), suggesting that critical thinking dispositions may function as a protective factor against the use of depreciative or self-destructive humour. This is consistent with recent literature (Sanger, 2024), which highlights that the expression of positive emotions is significantly tied to Affiliative and Self-enhancing styles, further reinforcing the role of humour in emotional regulation. Ultimately, such dispositions may reflect a form of socioemotional maturity that favors humour expressions beneficial to both the individual and the community, while serving as a protective factor against the use of depreciative or self-destructive styles.
Predictive analyses revealed meaningful associations between CT dispositions and humour styles. Open-mindedness and Inquisitiveness emerged as the significant predictors of Affiliative humour, suggesting that both a receptivity to diverse perspectives and a proactive desire for knowledge facilitate the use of socially constructive humour. Self-enhancing humour was most strongly predicted by CT Self-confidence (the strongest contributor), with additional contributions from Cognitive maturity and Academic year. These results corroborate meta-analytic evidence indicating that Affiliative humour and self-enhancing humour promote self-esteem, well-being, positive affect, and social cohesion (Fritz, 2020; Jiang et al., 2020; Sanger, 2024; Schneider et al., 2018).
Conversely, Aggressive humour was linked to lower Truth-seeking (the only significant CT dimension predictor), suggesting a potential tension between epistemic rigour and depreciative social interactions. Beyond CT dimensions, demographic variables also emerged as significant predictors; a notable main effect for gender was observed, with male students reporting higher levels of Aggressive humour. Furthermore, the field of study exerted a significant influence, as students in Science and Technology showed a greater propensity for this humour style than their peers in other fields. A statistically significant interaction effect was identified between the field of study and Truth-seeking. Results indicated that, within the Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences and the Humanities and Social Sciences, lower levels of Truth-seeking were more robustly associated with Aggressive humour than in the Science and Technology domain.
In contrast to other styles, Self-defeating humour showed comparatively weaker associations with CT dispositions. Cognitive maturity was the unique predictor among CT dimensions, indicating that lower levels of maturity are associated with an increased reliance on this style. Gender also had a significant effect, with male students reporting higher levels than female students. Such findings corroborate the existing literature (Fritz, 2020) that characterizes this humour style as a maladaptive coping strategy associated with lower psychological well-being.

5. Conclusions

The results obtained in this study allow us to draw conclusions that highlight the complex interaction between CT dispositions and socio-emotional expression through humour. Adaptive humour styles appear to align with dispositions that support reflective and confident thinking, whereas maladaptive styles correlate with traits that may undermine epistemic engagement and interpersonal harmony. This study contributes to a relatively underexplored area of research. While Cesur and Tozduman-Yaralı (2019) examined similar relationships, such investigations remain rare, highlighting the originality and relevance of the present work.

6. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study is subject to several methodological limitations that warrant consideration. First, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference and the examination of temporal dynamics among variables. Second, reliance on a non-probabilistic convenience sample limits the data’s representativeness, thereby constraining the generalizability of the findings to the broader target population. Third, the use of self-report measures may have introduced inherent biases, such as social desirability effects, recall errors, and subjective interpretations of scales’ items.
To address these constraints, future research should adopt longitudinal frameworks—and, where feasible, experimental or quasi-experimental designs—to clarify temporal ordering and potential causal pathways. Furthermore, the robustness of the evidence would be significantly enhanced by employing probabilistic sampling across more diverse settings and by moving beyond self-report data to include objective measures or multi-informant assessments.
Beyond methodological refinements, future inquiry should explore the strategic integration of humor within educational contexts to optimize both cognitive and affective outcomes. While the current study focused on the nexus between humor styles and CT dispositions, further investigation is needed to determine whether fostering adaptive humor in classroom interactions catalyzes student engagement, motivation, and persistence. Extant evidence suggests that judiciously deployed instructional humor enhances attention, retention, and the overall classroom climate (Zhou & Lee, 2025). Moreover, humor serves as a catalyst for reducing anxiety and fostering psychologically safe learning environments. Such environments are conducive to curiosity and intellectual risk-taking (Iqbal, 2025)—both of which are fundamental pillars for the cultivation of CT.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L.; methodology, J.L., H.S., E.M., S.R., and F.M.; software, E.M.; validation, J.L., H.S., E.M., S.R., and F.M.; formal analysis, J.L., H.S., E.M., S.R., and F.M.; investigation, J.L., H.S., E.M., S.R., and F.M.; resources, J.L., H.S., E.M., S.R., and F.M.; data curation, E.M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L., H.S., E.M., S.R., and F.M.; writing—review and editing, J.L., H.S., E.M., S.R., and F.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD Ethics Committee Approval Code: Doc63-CE-UTAD-2024; Approval Date: 19 June 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CTCritical Thinking
CTDSCritical Thinking Dispositions Scale
HSQHumour Styles Questionnaire

References

  1. Akben, C., & Coskun, H. (2024). Humor supports creativity: Evidence that personality traits moderate the effects of humor styles on divergent thinking. Current Psychology, 43, 33089–33104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Altan-Atalay, A., & Boluvat, M. F. (2024). Cognitive flexibility and depression: The moderator roles of humor styles. Current Psychology, 43, 20814–20823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Boonsathirakul, J., & Kerdsomboon, C. (2021). The investigation of critical thinking disposition among Kasetsart University students. Higher Education Studies, 11(2), 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Boso, C. M., van der Merwe, A. S., & Gross, J. (2021). Critical thinking disposition of nursing students: A quantitative investigation. Nurse Education in Practice, 55, 103167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cesur, E., & Tozduman-Yaralı, K. (2019). Humour styles and critical thinking dispositions in adolescents. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 10(36), 551–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Čekrlija, Đ., Kulakow, S., Aluja, A., & Garca, L. F. (2025). The relationship between humor styles, optimism and quality of life, and the role of the gender, age and socio-economic status: A typological approach. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 10, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Delgado Vásquez, A. E., Escurra Mayaute, L. M., Atalaya Pisco, M. C., Pequeña Constantino, J., Solís Narro, R. S., Álvarez Flores, D. M., Torres Acuña, W. J., Cuzcano Zapata, A., Castro Celis, E. A., & Rodríguez Tarazona, R. E. (2019). Disposición hacia el pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de una universidad estatal de Lima Metropolitana. Persona, 22(2), 67–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dennett, S., & DeDonno, M. (2021). A comparison between Chinese and American male and female college students’ critical thinking dispositions. International Journal of Chinese Education, 10(3), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dhensa-Kahlon, R. K., & Woods, S. A. (2022). Humor styles as markers of personality facets: An examination of the personality structural foundation of humor. Personality and Individual Differences, 186, 111336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dwyer, C. P. (2023). An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking in educational and real-world settings. Journal of Intelligence, 11(6), 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Evans, J. B. (2023). Gender and humor. Current Opinion in Psychology, 54, 101719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. The California Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Feather, N. T. (2005). The temporal stability of humor styles and personality. Journal of Individual Differences, 26(3), 115–123. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fernandes, R. P. C., & Viseu, J. N. R. (2023). Evidência psicométrica do “Humor styles questionnaire” (HSQ) numa amostra de trabalhadores portugueses [Psychometric evidence of the humor styles questionnaire (HSQ) in a Portuguese working sample]. Psique, 19(1), 10–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fritz, H. L. (2020). Why are humor styles associated with well-being, and does social competence matter? Examining relations to psychological and physical well-being, reappraisal, and social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gheorghe, A., & Curșeu, P. L. (2024). From I to we in humor research: A systematic review of the antecedents and consequences of humor in groups. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 37(1), 47–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Giancarlo, C. A., & Facione, P. A. (2001). A look across four years at the disposition toward critical thinking among undergraduate students. The Journal of General Education, 50(1), 29–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hofmann, J., Platt, T., Lau, C., & Torres-Marín, J. (2020). Gender differences in humor-related traits, humor appreciation, production, comprehension, (neural) responses, use, and correlates: A systematic review. Current Psychology, 42, 16451–16464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Huang, S. Y., Tsai, M. H., Chen, H. C., & Shih, H. F. (2023). The relationship between university students’ humor styles and subjective well-being: Extracurricular engagement as a mediator. Universitas Psychologica, 22, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Iqbal, N. (2025). The power of laughter: Using humor as an effective teaching strategy. IntechOpen. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jiang, F., Lu, S., Jiang, T., & Jia, H. (2020). Does the relation between humor styles and subjective well-being vary across culture and age? A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Karakuş, İ. (2024). University students’ cognitive flexibility and critical thinking dispositions. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1420272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. King, P., Wood, P., & Mines, R. (2017). Critical thinking among college and graduate students. The Review of Higher Education, 13, 167–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kucharski, A., & Rutkowska, E. (2019). Humor styles and communication in relationships. Socialization & Human Development: International Scientific Journal, 1(1), 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  28. Kyomugisha, T. A. (2025). The role of humor in coping with adversity. Research Invention Journal of Current Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(1), 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lampert, N. (2006). Critical thinking dispositions as an outcome of art education. Studies in Art Education, 47(3), 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Li, S., Wang, Z., & Sun, Y. (2024). Relationship between thinking dispositions, working memory, and critical thinking ability in adolescents: A longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Intelligence, 12(6), 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, Y., & Pásztor, A. (2023). Moderated mediating effects of gender among the components of critical thinking disposition in undergraduate students. Heliyon, 9(4), e14664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lopes, J. P., Silva, H., & Morais, E. (2021). Construção e validação de uma escala de disposições de pensamento crítico para estudantes universitários (EDPC) [Construction and validation of a critical thinking disposition scale for university students (CTDS)]. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 53(53), 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Merma-Molina, G., Gavilán-Martín, D., Baena-Morales, S., & Urrea-Solano, M. (2022). Critical thinking and effective personality in the framework of education for sustainable development. Education Sciences, 12(1), 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Morais, E., Lopes, J., Silva, H., Dominguez, C., Payan-Carreira, R., Imaginário, C., Santos, M. J., & Santos, J. (2023). Dispositions toward critical thinking in Portuguese undergraduate students. Educational Process: International Journal, 12(1), 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mousazadeh, N., Momennasab, M., Sharif Nia, H., Nazari, R., & Hajihosseini, F. (2021). Effective factors in critical thinking disposition in nursing students. Education Research International, 2021(5580010), 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nezlek, J. B., Derks, P. L., & Simanski, J. (2021). Relationships between everyday use of humor and daily experience. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 34(1), 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ozcan, H., & Elkoca, A. (2019). Critical thinking skills of nursing candidates. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 12(3), 1600–1606. [Google Scholar]
  40. Plessen, C. Y., Franken, F. R., Ster, C., Schmid, R. R., Wolfmayr, C., Mayer, A. M., Sobisch, M., Kathofer, M., Rattner, K., Kotlyar, E., 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pu, D., Ni, J., Song, D., Zhang, W., Wang, Y., Wu, L., Wang, X., & Wang, Y. (2019). Influence of critical thinking disposition on the learning efficiency of problem-based learning in undergraduate medical students. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Samson, A. C., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Humour as emotion regulation: The differential consequences of negative versus positive humour. Cognition & Emotion, 26(2), 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sanger, S. (2024). Humor styles, cognitive styles and emotional expressions—A correlational study. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(11), 2043–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Santos, M. J., Lopes, J., Imaginário, C. I., Silva, H. S., & Morais, E. (2025). Influencia de las variables demográficas y académicas en el pensamiento crítico de los estudiantes portugueses de Grado en Enfermería. Enfermería Global, 24(75), e624341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schneider, M., Voracek, M., & Tran, U. S. (2018). “A joke a day keeps the doctor away?” Meta-analytical evidence of differential associations of habitual humor styles with mental health. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 59(3), 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Torres-Marín, J., Navarro-Carrillo, G., & Carretero-Dios, H. (2018). Is the use of humor associated with anger management? The assessment of individual differences in humor styles in Spain. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tsai, P., Chen, H., Hung, Y., Chang, J., & Huang, S. (2021). What type of humor style do older adults tend to prefer? A comparative study of humor style tendencies among individuals of different ages and genders. Current Psychology, 42(3), 2186–2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tucker, R. P., Judah, M. R., Keefe, V. M. O., Mills, A. C., Lechner, W. V., Davidson, C. L., Grant, D. M., & Wingate, L. R. (2013). Humor styles impact the relationship between symptoms of social anxiety and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 823–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tümkaya, S. (2011). Humor styles and socio-demographic variables as predictors of subjective well-being of Turkish university students. Education and Science, 36(160), 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. UNESCO. (2023). The futures we build: Abilities and competencies for the future of education and work. UNESCO. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000384321 (accessed on 2 January 2026).
  51. Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., Martin, R. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2010). Relations between humor styles and the Dark Triad traits of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(6), 772–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S., & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The digital competence framework for citizens—With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes (EUR 31006 EN). Publications Office of the European Union. [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, X., Sun, X., Huang, T., He, R., Hao, W., & Zhang, L. (2019). Development and validation of the critical thinking disposition inventory for Chinese medical college students (CTDI-M). BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. World Economic Forum. (2025, January 7). The future of jobs report 2025 (Report No. 978-2-940631-90-2). World Economic Forum. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025 (accessed on 2 January 2026).
  55. Zhao, Y., Liu, Y., & Wu, H. (2024). Relationships among critical thinking disposition components of Chinese undergraduates: A moderated mediating effect analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 124, 102306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhou, W., & Lee, J. C. (2025). Teaching and learning with instructional humor: A review of five-decades research and further direction. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1445362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Distribution of Participants by Scientific Field of Study and Academic Year (N = 382).
Table 1. Distribution of Participants by Scientific Field of Study and Academic Year (N = 382).
Academic Year
Field of Study1234Total
Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences17558080 (20.9%)
Health Sciences43511059 (15.4%)
Human and Social Sciences2773018127 (33.2%)
Life and Environmental Sciences35103048 (12.6%)
Science and Technology431113168 (17.8%)
Total140 (36.6%)158 (41.4%)65 (17.0%)19 (5.0%)382 (100%)
Table 2. Descriptive and tests for the CTDS dimensions.
Table 2. Descriptive and tests for the CTDS dimensions.
VariableMSDGender
t-Test (p)		Field of Study
F Test (p)		Academic Year
F Test (p)
Truth-seeking34.85.33t(378) = −4.42 ** (p < 0.001)F(4,377) = 5.40 ** (p ≤ 0.001)F(3,378) = 0.47 (p = 0.701)
Open-mindedness37.14.14t(378) = −1.16 (p = 0.247)F(4,377) = 2.19 (p = 0.070)F(3,378) = 2.04 (p = 0.107)
Analyticity37.44.75t(378) = −0.25 (p = 0.800)F(4,377) = 0.84 (p = 0.499)F(3,378) = 0.80 (p = 0.492)
Systematicity38.34.43t(378) = 0.25 (p = 0.804)F(4,377) = 3.70 ** (p = 0.006)F(3,378) = 2.30 (p = 0.077)
CT Self-confidence36.55.11t(378) = 2.63 ** (p = 0.009)F(4,377) = 0.91 (p = 0.457)F(3,378) = 0.01 (p = 0.999)
Inquisitiveness38.14.18t(378) = −3.63 ** (p < 0.001)F(4,377) = 6.28 ** (p < 0.001)F(3,378) = 4.88 ** (p = 0.002)
Cognitive maturity36.84.69t(378) = 0.11 (p = 0.914)F(4,377) = 6.38 ** (p < 0.001)F(3,378) = 1.77 (p = 0.152)
CTDS258.921.8t(378) = −1.33 (p = 0.185)F(4,377) = 5.24 ** (p < 0.001)F(3,378) = 2.02 (p = 0.110)
** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Descriptive and tests for the HSQ dimensions.
Table 3. Descriptive and tests for the HSQ dimensions.
VariableMSDGender
t-Test (p)		Field of Study
F Test (p)		Academic Year
F Test (p)
Affiliative humour28.864.96t(378) = 0.87 (p = 0.382)F(4,377) = 0.81 (p = 0.521)F(3,378) = 0.22 (p = 0.882)
Self-enhancing
humour		29.146.51t(378) = 3.59 ** (p < 0.001)F(4,377) = 2.58 * (p = 0.037)F(3,378) = 3.16 * (p = 0.025)
Aggressive humour6.642.96t(378) = 5.96 ** (p < 0.001)F(4,377) = 5.84 ** (p < 0.001)F(3,378) = 0.75 (p = 0.521)
Self-defeating
humour		10.494.82t(378) = 4.56 ** (p < 0.001)F(4,377) = 4.52 ** (p = 0.001)F(3,378) = 0.35 (p = 0.791)
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 4. Bivariate Pearson Correlations between CTDS and HSQ dimensions.
Table 4. Bivariate Pearson Correlations between CTDS and HSQ dimensions.
CTDS DimensionAffiliative HumourSelf-Enhancing HumourAggressive HumourSelf-Defeating Humour
Truth-seekingr = 0.007 (p = 0.886)r = −0.023 (p = 0.648)r = −0.307 ** (p < 0.001)r = −0.178 ** (p < 0.001)
Open-mindednessr = 0.251 ** (p < 0.001)r = 0.190 ** (p < 0.001)r = −0.087 (p = 0.091)r = −0.181 ** (p < 0.001)
Analyticityr = 0.114 * (p = 0.026)r = 0.214 ** (p < 0.001)r = −0.145 ** (p = 0.005)r = −0.126 * (p = 0.014)
Systematicityr = 0.056 (p = 0.273)r = 0.193 ** (p < 0.001)r = −0.152 ** (p = 0.003)r = −0.159 ** (p = 0.002)
CT Self-confidencer = 0.108 * (p = 0.034)r = 0.340 ** (p < 0.001)r = −0.060 (p = 0.239)r = −0.160 ** (p = 0.002)
Inquisitivenessr = 0.150 ** (p = 0.003)r = 0.136 ** (p = 0.008)r = −0.228 ** (p < 0.001)r = −0.232 ** (p < 0.001)
Cognitive maturityr = 0.132 * (p = 0.010)r = 0.231 ** (p < 0.001)r = −0.094 (p = 0.066)r = −0.230 ** (p < 0.001)
Total CTDSr = 0.168 ** (p = 0.001)r = 0.272 ** (p < 0.001)r = −0.232 ** (p < 0.001)r = −0.269 ** (p < 0.001)
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 5. General Linear Model Predicting Affiliative Humour.
Table 5. General Linear Model Predicting Affiliative Humour.
Predictor/FactordfFpPartial η2
Gender10.510.4740.001
Field of study41.520.1960.016
Academic year30.590.6210.005
Truth-seeking10.660.4180.002
Open-mindedness114.8 **<0.0010.039
Analyticity10.690.4060.002
Systematicity13.640.0570.010
CT Self-confidence10.250.6170.001
Inquisitiveness14.26 *0.0400.012
Cognitive maturity11.070.3020.003
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 6. General Linear Model Predicting Self-Enhancing Humour.
Table 6. General Linear Model Predicting Self-Enhancing Humour.
Predictor/FactordfFpPartial η2
Gender12.160.1430.006
Field of study41.590.1770.017
Academic year33.13 *0.0260.025
Truth-seeking12.780.0970.008
Open-mindedness12.320.1280.006
Analyticity10.200.6540.001
Systematicity10.950.3300.003
CT Self-confidence119.8 **<0.0010.052
Inquisitiveness11.440.2320.004
Cognitive maturity17.53 **0.0060.020
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 7. General Linear Model Predicting Aggressive Humour.
Table 7. General Linear Model Predicting Aggressive Humour.
Predictor/FactordfFpPartial η2
Gender116.3 **<0.0010.043
Field of study44.51 **0.0010.048
Academic year31.820.1440.015
Truth-seeking117.1 **<0.0010.045
Open-mindedness10.190.6630.001
Analyticity10.160.6870.000
Systematicity10.800.3710.002
CT Self-confidence10.220.6420.001
Inquisitiveness10.350.5540.001
Cognitive maturity10.150.7000.000
Field of study × Truth-seeking44.39 **0.0020.047
** p < 0.01.
Table 8. General Linear Model Predicting Self-Defeating Humour.
Table 8. General Linear Model Predicting Self-Defeating Humour.
Predictor/FactordfFpPartial η2
Gender19.14 **0.0030.024
Field of study40.750.5590.008
Academic year30.380.7670.003
Truth-seeking11.010.3170.003
Open-mindedness12.150.1440.006
Analyticity11.080.2980.003
Systematicity10.010.9890.000
CT Self-confidence13.810.0520.010
Inquisitiveness11.320.2510.004
Cognitive maturity16.53 *0.0110.018
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Morais, E.; Lopes, J.; Morais, F.; Silva, H.; Ricardo, S. Critical Thinking Dispositions and Humour Styles in Portuguese University Students. Educ. Sci. 2026, 16, 388. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16030388

AMA Style

Morais E, Lopes J, Morais F, Silva H, Ricardo S. Critical Thinking Dispositions and Humour Styles in Portuguese University Students. Education Sciences. 2026; 16(3):388. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16030388

Chicago/Turabian Style

Morais, Eva, José Lopes, Felicidade Morais, Helena Silva, and Sandra Ricardo. 2026. "Critical Thinking Dispositions and Humour Styles in Portuguese University Students" Education Sciences 16, no. 3: 388. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16030388

APA Style

Morais, E., Lopes, J., Morais, F., Silva, H., & Ricardo, S. (2026). Critical Thinking Dispositions and Humour Styles in Portuguese University Students. Education Sciences, 16(3), 388. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16030388

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop