Cited by 25Humor Studies and ApplicationsAttachment and Relationship DynamicsDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Extending the Study of Gelotophobia, Gelotophilia, and Katagelasticism in Romantic Life Toward Romantic Attachment

Open access
Brauer, Kay, Proyer, René T., Ruch, Willibald·2020·Journal of Individual Differences

Abstract

Abstract. Gelotophobia (fear of being laughed at), gelotophilia (joy in being laughed at), and katagelasticism (joy in laughing at others) describe individual differences in how people deal with ridicule and being laughed at. We study their association with romantic attachment styles and romantic outcomes in adults. Study 1 ( N = 247) shows that gelotophobia goes along with higher expressions in attachment anxiety and avoidance. This study also provides support for the notion that gelotophobes demonstrate a lower likelihood of entering romantic relationships (odds ratio = 0.62/0.64 for past/current relationship status). Gelotophilia goes along with lower avoidance and katagelasticism exists independently from romantic attachment. Study 2 replicates the findings in 154 heterosexual romantic couples using Actor–Partner Interdependence Model analyses. However, katagelasticism was related to greater attachment anxiety in this sample of couples. A mini-meta analysis using data from both studies ( N = 555) clarified this association and showed that the joy in laughing at others yields a small positive association with attachment anxiety. Further, attachment styles mediate associations between the dispositions and relationship satisfaction in the couples. Overall, the dispositions are distinctively related with romantic attachment styles and our findings contribute to the understanding of the role of dealing with ridicule and laughter in romantic life.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/1614-0001/a000307

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brauer, K., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W.
Affiliations
  • Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Brauer, Kay
Venue
Journal of Individual Differences
Published
2020-04
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
86-100
ISSN
  • 1614-0001 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-2299
OpenAlex
W2979801488
Cited by
25
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4
FWCI
3.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Humor Studies and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
gelotophobia, gelotophilia, romantic attachment, attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, ridicule, humor, relationship satisfaction, romantic relationships, individual differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review