{"paper_id":"35e629cc-deb4-4d5d-a620-e88698d336dc","body_text":"Value Orientation and Well-Being: Testing the Serial Mediation by Cognitive Flexibility and Humor Styles | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Value Orientation and Well-Being: Testing the Serial Mediation by Cognitive Flexibility and Humor Styles Kürşad Demirutku This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6734669/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Research on values–well-being link revealed inconsistent and small effect sizes. This led researchers to develop more complex formulations taking potential moderators and mediators into account. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationships between human values and well-being from a process perspective, which takes mediational mechanisms into account. Since previous research indicated cognitive flexibility and adaptive humor styles as correlates of well-being, and by arguing that they are value-expressive individual differences which might shape the way people perceive, evaluate, and act upon the environment, they were identified as potential mediators. Self-report measures were used to collect cross-sectional data from a Turkish university sample, and the analyses were conducted on 367 participants. Testing the hypotheses of the study indicated that all variables of the study were positively correlated. In addition, mediation analyses revealed that cognitive flexibility mediated the relationship between value orientation and well-being both alone and through an adaptive humor orientation. The results were interpreted as humor orientation being a specific manifestation of cognitive flexibility, and that the latter variable was demonstrated for the first time to mediate the values–well-being link. Findings of the study contributed to the literature by providing further support for specific individual differences as serial mediators along with emotions and traits. Limitations pertaining to design issues and cultural specifics were noted. human values value orientation cognitive flexibility humor styles well-being Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Human values have long been documented to predict well-being in a variety of ways [1]. Whereas a number of individual difference variables have been demonstrated to mediate this relationship, this line of research is relatively scarce [2]. The purpose of the present research is to examine the mediating role of two individual difference variables in this process. Specifically, I propose and present empirical support for a model in which the link between value orientations and well-being are serially mediated by cognitive flexibility and humor styles. Schwartz’s [3, 4] Value Theory (SVT), which has become an overarching framework for understanding human values in psychological research, is adapted for the present study. Accordingly, human values are cognitive representations of human needs which serve as guiding principles in life [5]. People usually emphasize certain values over others, and these value priorities predict outcomes such as attitudes and behaviors to the extent that these outcomes have the potential to express them [6, 7]. SVT postulates a circular alignment of motivationally distinct value types such that values representing compatible motivational goals are located as adjacent domains, whereas values with conflicting motivational underpinnings are located as polar opposites (see Figure 1). All compatibilities and conflicts are organized under two bipolar dimensions. Openness to Change (Self-Direction and Stimulation values) versus Conservation (Tradition, Conformity, and Security values) dimension represents the conflict between pursuit of independent thought and action as well as novelty and change as opposed to preservation of the personal safety and social fabric accompanied by resistance to change. Self-Enhancement (Achievement and Power values) versus Self-Transcendence (Universalism and Benevolence values) dimension characterizes the opposing motivations of concern for individual pursuits against social welfare in the immediate and wider social contexts. SVT also postulates Hedonism values which corresponds to pleasure sought to satisfy organismic needs and it is located where Self-Enhancement values meet Openness to Change values on the motivational continuum. An individual is said to possess a value orientation if one value is more important than its polar opposite in their value priority. Since value priorities are relatively stable over time [8, 9], it is possible to consider them as important antecedents of a variety of psychological outcomes including well-being. Well-being is widely defined as subjective evaluations of individuals concerning their extent of pleasant affective experience and satisfaction they derive from their lives in general and from specific domains [10, 11]. Basically, it is conceptualized to have hedonic and eudaimonic aspects [12]. The hedonic aspect comprises affective and cognitive evaluations about an individual’s experiences, specifically the presence of positive affect, absence of negative affect, and evaluation of life as satisfying. This is labelled as subjective well-being [13]. The eudaimonic aspect is also multidimensional. It becomes manifest in individuals to the extent that they hold positive attitudes towards themselves, establish and maintain warm and affectionate bonds with others, are able to independently choose and pursue goals, have the capacity to control their environment, create meaning through having important goals and a sense of integrity, and can develop their potential to actualize themselves. These qualities are formulated as the markers of psychological well-being [14, 15]. Hedonic and eudaimonic aspects are unified under the term mental well-being [16]. Finally, social well-being was offered as a construct that takes into account the extent of which an individual integrates with, have acceptance of, contributes to, feels actualized in, and has coherence with the community, society, and the world at large [17]. One perspective that governed the research on the values–well-being link is the so-called content perspective [1]. This perspective formulated which values and why they are positively or negatively associated with well-being. Accordingly, values are organized into healthy and unhealthy categories in two dimensions [2]. One dimension organizes values representing the individual’s concern for self- as opposed to other-relevant outcomes. Thus, the former pole is referred as personal-focus values whereas the latter is called social-focus values. The second dimension differentiates whether a set of values facilitates self-expansion when the individual is free of anxiety or it serves for avoiding anxiety-provoking threats [18]. Thus, poles of this dimension refer to growth versus self-protection . Following these theoretical distinctions, Sortheix and Schwartz [19] postulated and observed that Hedonism, Stimulation, and Self-Direction (i.e., personal-focus growth) values to be positively whereas Tradition, Conformity, and Security (i.e., social-focus self-protection) values to be negatively correlated with subjective well-being. Note that these values are polar opposites in the motivational continuum. Other research also revealed that values which represent the pursuit of personal growth and self-actualization are positively, whereas values which represent the needs for organismic survival and safety are negatively correlated with psychological well-being, yet an opposite pattern was observed for the social well-being [20, 21, 22]. Thus, it is possible to suggest that if an individual has a personal-focus growth value orientation, that is, if they place more importance on personal-focus growth values than social-focus self-protection values, they might be expected to experience higher well-being. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 1: Personal-focus growth value orientation will be positively associated with well-being. Nevertheless, direct associations of values with well-being typically revealed small effect sizes and inconsistencies [2, 23]. This led researchers to conceptualize more complex mechanisms from two other perspectives [1]. One is the context perspective which formulated that the more the individuals held value priorities that fit in the immediate social or cultural environment, the higher the well-being [22, 24, 25]. Thus, this perspective offers person-environment fit as an antecedent to well-being. The other one is the process perspective which postulated that whether individuals could have fulfilled the values they cherish rather than the content per se was predictive of well-being [26, 27, 28]. All in all, these two perspectives evolved from zero-order associations to more complex analyses of moderators and mediators involved in the relationships between values and the well-being. In this vein, potential mediators were proposed as mechanisms linking values to well-being [2]. To start with, emotions have been proposed as one such mediator given their associations with values [29]. Two consecutive studies by Tamir and colleagues [30, 31] seem to support this formulation synthetically. In the first study, people with certain value endorsements were found to evaluate certain emotions as more desirable, and in the second one, the more they experienced emotions desirable for them, the higher they reported happiness. Second, Sortheix and Lönnqvist [25] postulated that the congruence of an individual’s values with their immediate social context would predict their subjective well-being. Furthermore, they reasoned that if an individual shared the values of the people in the same context, this would facilitate positive social relationships. Thus, they proposed social relationship quality as a mediator, and their data supported these expectations. Another potential mediation is formulated through the association of values with personality. First of all, past research indicated that values and broad-band personality characteristics are consistently associated as two distinct constructs [32]. Three possible mechanisms were proposed for the directionality of value-personality relationships [33]. First mechanism suggests that temperamental characteristics at birth can bring about traits and values which parallel each other. The second mechanism, which treats values as standards for self-regulation, asserts that values might give rise to personality. Thus, values guide individuals to adjust their behaviors in accord with their values to reduce discrepancy [34]. Seeking such consistency between values and behaviors is a rewarding experience that yield behavioral patterns in time [35], which can turn into an individual’s traits. Finally, traits might affect values. As individuals consistently express a trait in their behaviors, they come to attribute positive value to the goals that are associated with these traits. Through the mechanism of self-perception they infer what is important for them [36], and then utilize their values to justify their attitudes and actions [37]. All in all, as demonstrated by meta-analytical results, value-personality associations are systematic yet moderated by the characteristics of the immediate culture [38]. However, longitudinal studies have yielded mixed results regarding the direction of causality. While one study identified personality as a potential cause of values [39], another suggested reciprocal causation, with stronger effects stemming from personality traits than from values [40]. Mixed results have also been reported on the mediation effects of personality and values in predicting well-being. In a cross-sectional study, Haslam et al. [41] found that traits had stronger associations with well-being than values, and thus mediate the relationship between values and well-being more consistently and strongly. Similarly, in a longitudinal design Fetvadjiev and He [40] observed that personality predicted well-being stronger than values did. Although values have also been reported to mediate personality–well-being associations cross-sectionally [42], there seems to be a higher potential for personality variables to mediate the association between values and well-being. Overall, studies that investigate values and personality together as predictors of well-being are scarce [2]. Additionally, although broad personality traits studied together with values, specific individual differences were relatively neglected. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to fill this gap and contribute to the process perspective in values–well-being associations by identifying and testing the mediation effects of two potential individual difference variables. It is possible to ground such mediation effects in two theoretical notions. Firstly, values can be associated with or causally linked to an outcome variable to the extent that this outcome variable has the potential to express the motivational underpinnings of specific values. This principle is referred as value expressiveness [35, 43]. Otherwise, if a given outcome hinders expressiveness, it might be labelled as value-blocking [44, 45]. Secondly, Sagiv and Schwartz [22] have argued that healthy values might direct the perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral processes in ways conducive to well-being. Accordingly, two potential mediators are identified for the purpose of the present study, which were cognitive flexibility and humor styles . These two variables were purposefully selected because (a) they can be regarded as outcome variables which might potentially be expressive of value orientations, (b) they reflect individual differences in perceiving, evaluating, and acting upon environment, and (c) past research indicated that both variables are associated with well-being. To start with, cognitive flexibility (CF) is conceptualized as a “property of the cognitive system” (Ionescu [46], p. 194) which emerges as the various components of the cognitive system such as attention and memory interact with each other as a response to the demands in the immediate context. An important characteristic of CF is switching tasks and knowledge structures in the memory [47]. Accordingly, the function of CF is that it renders adaptive responses to stressful situations possible [48]. Such adaptation is achieved through perceiving subjective control over difficult situations in which the person can think of alternative solutions to problems, coupled with an ability to explain social reality in alternative ways. As a consequence, CF was demonstrated to be a consistent correlate of various mental health problems [49]. Congruently, CF has also been demonstrated to be a correlate of well-being, having positive associations with positive affect and life satisfaction, and negative association with negative affect [50]. Specifically, CF was a mediator between Big Five personality traits [51], self-confidence [52], optimism [53] and various well-being indicators. Following from these findings, CF was postulated as a mediator in values–well-being relationship. Since CF is characterized by adaptive responses in demanding situations, it might be conceptualized as a disposition with a value-expressive potential for Hedonism, Stimulation, and Self-Direction (i.e., personal-focus growth) values, which represent motivational inclinations towards excitement, novelty, change, and independence of thought and action. On the contrary, CF might have the capacity to block, and thus be negatively associated with Tradition, Conformity, and Security (i.e., other-focus self-protection) values, which represent needs for conservation of personal, interpersonal, and societal patterns of adaptation. Thus, the following predictions are generated: Hypothesis 2: Personal-focus growth value orientation will be positively associated with cognitive flexibility. Hypothesis 3: Cognitive flexibility will be positively associated with well-being. Hypothesis 4: Cognitive flexibility will mediate the relationship between personal-focus growth value orientation and well-being. Second potential mediator of the present study is humor styles (HS). Along with other theoretical approaches, humor has been conceived as a habitual individual difference variable as well [54], and it is characterized by a “playful recognition, enjoyment, and/or creation of incongruity” as a means to experience good mood (Peterson & Seligman [55], p. 584). Accordingly, Martin et al. [56] conceived four theoretically-derived HS comprising tendencies which are both adaptive and maladaptive for well-being. Adaptive humor styles, namely the self-enhancing and affiliative styles, contain using humor as a means to experience positive mood in stressful situations and in social interactions, respectively. By contrast, self-defeating and aggressive styles as two maladaptive styles serve the opposite ends such that either the people themselves or the people they get into interaction, respectively, are hurt as a consequence. Previous research provided support for the associations between HS and well-being such that adaptive HS were positively, whereas maladaptive HS were negatively correlated with self-esteem and psychological well-being [56]. Similarly, Kuiper et al. [57] observed that adaptive HS were positively associated with self-esteem and positive affect, and negatively associated with depression, anxiety, and negative affect. The opposite pattern of relationships were observed for maladaptive HS. Thus, it is possible to assert that the more an individual is predisposed to adaptive as compared to maladaptive HS, the higher they could experience well-being. This comparative tendency is labelled as an adaptive humor orientation in the present study, and the following hypothesis was generated: Hypothesis 5: Adaptive humor orientation will be positively associated with well-being. Previous research also revealed that CF facilitates smooth social interaction. Specifically, the higher CF an individual possesses, the more they are skilled at adapting their communication according to the demands of the situation [58], the more they stand for their arguments in communication, the more tolerant they are in disagreements, and the less verbal aggression they display in interactions [59]. Theoretically, Lu et al. [60] have proposed that CF is a prerequisite to humor processing which requires perceptual-cognitive switching. Thus, CF equips an individual with cognitive resources which facilitates adaptation to changing demands in social interactions, thereby preserving the smoothness of interaction both for the self and the others. Consistent with these arguments, CF was found to be positively associated with adaptive whereas negatively with maladaptive HS, and higher affiliative and lower aggressive HS to compensate for the negative association of low CF on depression [61]. Similarly, having a general positive humor orientation mediated the relationship between CF and psychological hardiness [62], and interacted with CF to yield higher mental well-being [63]. Therefore, it is plausible to assert that cognitive flexibility will be positively associated with an adaptive humor orientation, and the latter would be a proximal correlate of well-being. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 6: Cognitive flexibility will be positively associated with adaptive humor orientation. As a final point, it is also possible that values might be associated with well-being through the mediation of HS. To the best of my knowledge, only one study by Soares [64] reported value-HS correlations, in which comic style markers [65] were measured. Results of this study revealed that personal-focus growth values were correlated positively with both the darker (sarcasm, cynicism, satire, and irony) and the lighter (fun, humor, nonsense, and wit) comic styles, which parallel maladaptive and adaptive HS, respectively [66]. As for the social-focus self-protection values, the correlations were mostly negative or virtually zero for both styles. Overall, the effect sizes were small. However, these findings suggest that adaptive humor orientation might have the capacity to express personal-focus growth value orientation. Accordingly, the following hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis 7: Personal-focus growth value orientation will be positively associated with adaptive humor orientation. Hypothesis 8: Adaptive humor orientation will mediate the relationship between personal-focus growth value orientation and well-being. Finally, CF can be conceived as a more general adaptive tendency in demanding situations, and HS can be a specific manifestation of this tendency. Consequently, it is plausible to argue that the process linking value orientation to well-being might involve CF and HS. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 9: Cognitive flexibility and adaptive humor orientation will serially mediate the relationship between personal-focus growth value orientation and well-being. Thus, the model proposed in the present research and presented in Figure 2 is built on the theoretical and empirical grounds that (a) values and well-being associations are weak, (b) dispositional variables might mediate this link to the extent that they are expressive of values, and (c) humor styles might be considered as specific manifestations of cognitive flexibility. Finally, when testing the model, as in recent research on values and well-being [23], both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being are assessed in measurement. Method Participants Prior to data collection, an estimate of optimal sample size was obtained. In doing so, the median effect size values reported in the literature for social psychology research was consulted, which provided median effect size values of .18 [67] and .24 [68]. Using the guidelines by Fritz and MacKinnon [69], the sample size was estimated to be 368 to 462 to detect significant indirect effects, assuming that (a) the direct effect of predictors on the mediators and direct effects of the mediators on the criterion variables might range between .14 to .26, (b) statistical power is .80, and (c) bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure is used. Accordingly, the actual sample of the present study consisted of 406 university students who were enrolled in different majors in different Turkish universities located in Ankara. Participants were selected through convenience sampling. The gender composition of the sample was 49.0% women ( n = 199) and 46.3% men ( n = 188), and 4.7% ( n = 19) of the participants did not report gender. Average age in the sample was 21.5 ( SD = 2.2). Materials Portrait Values Questionnaire. Value priorities were measured by using the Turkish version [70] of the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) [71] that consisted of 40 items mapping 10 value types. A two-sentence portrayal of a hypothetical person is presented in each PVQ item, and the participants were asked to assess the similarity of each portrait to themselves on a 6-point scale ranging from 6 (“ very much like me ”) to 1 (“ not like me at all ”) as originally ordered on the form. These similarity judgments were used to infer the importance of values, where higher scores indicated higher importance placed to values. A single value orientation score was computed to serve for the purpose of the present study. In order to do so, two scale scores were calculated first. One was the personal-focus growth values score that corresponded to the mean of Hedonism, Stimulation, and Self-Direction values (ten items, Cronbach’s α = .79, McDonald’s ω = .78). The other was the social-focus self-protection values score which was the average of Tradition, Conformity, and Security values (13 items, Cronbach’s α = .74, McDonald’s ω = .75). Individual scores for values were centered around the within-respondent mean rating (MRAT) to control for individual differences in scale use [72]. Finally, a personal-focus growth value orientation score was computed by subtracting the latter from the former score, where positive scores indicated an orientation towards personal-focus growth and negative scores indicated an orientation towards social-focus self-protection. Zero values indicated a mixed orientation. Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI). Individual differences in cognitive flexibility were measured by using the Turkish version [73] of the 20-item CFI [48]. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each item on 7-point Likert scales (“1 = Strongly disagree ” to “ 7 = Strongly agree ”). In the present study, Cronbach's α and McDonald’s ω coefficients for CFI were observed as .91 and .88, respectively. Average scores were calculated to represent cognitive flexibility level of the participants. Higher scores indicated higher cognitive flexibility. Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). Individual differences in humor styles were measured by using the Turkish version [74] of the HSQ [56]. It is composed of 32 items that measure four different humor styles, two of which are labelled as styles benign for ( self-enhancing and affiliative ), and the other two as detrimental to ( self-defeating and aggressive ) the self and the others. Benign styles are adaptive, whereas detrimental styles are maladaptive HS. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each item on 7-point Likert scales (“1 = Strongly disagree ” to “ 7 = Strongly agree ”). In the present study, a single index score of humor orientation was computed. To do so, first, two humor style scores were computed by averaging the responses to adaptive HS (16 items, Cronbach’s α = .85, McDonald’s ω = .84) and maladaptive HS (16 items, Cronbach’s α = .79, McDonald’s ω = .80) scales. Then, average maladaptive HS scores were subtracted from the average adaptive HS scores in order to obtain a single adaptive humor orientation score, where a positive score indicated an adaptive and a negative score indicated a maladaptive humor orientation. Zero values indicated a mixed orientation. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) . Level of well-being was measured by WEMWBS [16], which operationalized cognitive, affective, and psychological functioning aspects of well-being all. The measure was adapted to Turkish by Keldal [75] and contains 14 items. The participants were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement on 5-point Likert scales (“1 = Strongly disagree ” to “ 5 = Strongly agree ”), and a single mental well-being score was computed for each participant by averaging responses to items. Higher scores indicated higher mental well-being. In the present study, Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω coefficients for WEMWBS were .90 and .89, respectively. Procedure Ethical approval was obtained prior to data collection from the university that the author is affiliated with (Decision No. 2023-15/03). The data were collected in paper-and-pencil format. The respondents were recruited in places where university students habitually spent time (e.g., campus, cafeteria, cafe, dormitory, and the like). They first filled out an informed consent form, and upon their agreement, the scales were handed to them in printed form. When the survey was returned, the participants were thanked and dismissed. Results Prior to analyses, the data were screened for missing values, normality, and outliers. First, responses from 26 participants were removed from the data set as they left whole scales incomplete. Of the remaining 36,480 data points, 148 were missing (0.41%) and they were replaced with the variable means to save participants. Second, the scores on the variables of the study were computed. Skewness and kurtosis scores were below the cutoff values provided by Tabachnick and Fidell [76]. Therefore, the variables did not deviate from normality. Four univariate and four multivariate outliers were detected in the scores of four participants (1 woman, 3 men). By the deletion of these participants, the final sample size was 376 (51.3% women, 48.7% men), which was within the acceptable limits for the mediation analysis. This data file is available at https://osf.io/6d2bz/?view_only=e985a143129e456690421f8dd887de3f. First, descriptive statistics and one-sample t tests were computed, which revealed that all four variables deviated from their theoretical midpoints. On the average, the sample was composed of participants with orientations inclined towards personal-focus growth values, t (375) = 15.41, p < .001, two-tailed , d = .79, and adaptive humor styles, t (375) = 29.47, p < .001, two-tailed , d = 1.53. In addition, relatively high levels of cognitive flexibility, t (375) = 31.33, p < .001, two-tailed , d = 1.62, and mental well-being scores, t (375) = 23.84, p < .001, two-tailed , d = 1.24, were observed. Second, Pearson correlation coefficients were computed for the variables of the study. Inspection of Table 1 indicated that all correlations were positive and significant. Specifically, personal-focus growth (PFG) value orientation was correlated with cognitive flexibility ( r = .33), adaptive humor orientation ( r = .14), and mental well-being ( r = .16), thereby providing support for Hypotheses 2, 7, and 1, respectively. In addition, cognitive flexibility was correlated with adaptive humor orientation ( r = .34) and mental well-being ( r = .35), which verified Hypotheses 6 and 3, respectively. Finally, Hypothesis 5 was confirmed by the correlation between adaptive humor orientation and mental well-being ( r = .38). Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 1. PFG Value Orientation .73 .92 — 2. Cognitive Flexibility 5.36 .84 .33** — 3. Adaptive Humor Orientation 1.74 1.14 .14* .34** — 4. Mental Well-Being 3.88 .71 .16** .35** .38** — Note: N = 376. All correlation tests are one-tailed. * p < .01 ** p < .001 Third, a mediation analysis with two mediators (Model 6 in Hayes [77]) was run in PROCESS Macro version 3.0 to test whether cognitive flexibility and benign humor orientation serially mediated the relationship between PFG value orientation and mental well-being. The Bootstrap method with 5,000 samples was used to estimate the 95% confidence intervals ( CI.95 ) for the indirect effects. Confidence intervals which do not contain zero values indicated significance. Accordingly, overall model accounted for 20% of the variance. The total effect of PFG value orientation on mental well-being was significant, b = .12, SE = .04, t (371) = 3.05, p < .01, CI.95 = [.04,.20], whereas its direct effect was not, b = .03, SE = .04, t (371) = 0.75, ns , CI.95 = [-.05,.10]. PFG value orientation significantly predicted cognitive flexibility ( b = .30, SE = .05, t (373) = 6.75, p < .001, CI.95 = [.21,.39]), yet it was not associated with adaptive humor orientation ( b = .04, SE = .06, t (372) = 0.68, ns , CI.95 = [-.08,.17]). Cognitive flexibility was significantly associated with both adaptive humor orientation ( b = .44, SE = .07, t (372) = 6.28, p < .001, CI.95 = [.30,.58]) and mental well-being ( b = .20, SE = .04, t (371) = 6.05, p < .001, CI.95 = [.11,.29]). As for the final direct effect, adaptive humor orientation was significantly associated with mental well-being, b = .19, SE = .03, CI.95 = [.13,.25]. Mediation tests revealed all but one mediation effect to be significant. Firstly, as for PFG value orientation → cognitive flexibility → mental well-being, b = .06, SE = .02, BootCI.95 = [.03,.09], P M = 0.49. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported. Secondly, as for PFG value orientation → adaptive humor orientation → mental well-being, b = .01, SE = .01, BootCI.95 = [-.02,.04], P M = 0.07. Thus, Hypothesis 8 was not supported. Finally, as for PFG value orientation → cognitive flexibility → adaptive humor orientation → mental well-being, b = .03, SE = .01, BootCI.95 = [.01,.04], P M = 0.20. Thus, the serial mediation effect proposed in Hypothesis 9 was supported by the data. Pairwise comparisons between the mediation effects indicated that indirect effect of PFG value orientation on mental well-being through the mediation of cognitive flexibility was significantly greater than the mediation of adaptive humor orientation, b = .05, BootSE = .02, BootCI.95 = [.01,.10]. It was also significantly greater than the serial mediation effect, b = .04, BootSE = .02, BootCI.95 = [.01,.07]. However, the indirect effect of PFG value orientation on mental well-being through adaptive humor orientation was not significantly different than the serial mediation effect, b = -.02, BootSE = .02, BootCI.95 = [-.05,.02]. All in all, the analyses provided support for the simple mediation of cognitive flexibility as well as a serial mediation together with adaptive humor styles in the relationship between value orientation and well-being. Given the cross-sectional design and correlational nature of the present study, and since the originally proposed model revealed no mediation by adaptive humor orientation, this variable was treated as the moderator in alternative model tests. Eventually, none of these conditional process model tests (Models 5, 7, 14, and 59 in Hayes [77]) revealed significant interaction effects. Discussion The present research aimed at contributing to the literature on values–well-being link by adapting the process perspective, which aimed to explain how identified sets of healthy and unhealthy values might be associated with well-being. Healthy values guide the individual pursuit of anxiety-free growth, thus they are conceptualized as being conducive to well-being. Contrarily, unhealthy values guide the other-focused self-protective strategies, and thus they were hypothesized as being negatively associated with well-being [1]. Since research revealed weak zero-order associations between values and well-being, besides two other perspectives, it was argued that potential mediation mechanisms might exist [2]. The present research is designed as an attempt to examine two individual difference variables as potential mediators, which were cognitive flexibility and humor styles. The data provided support for the proposed model which asserted that cognitive flexibility and adaptive humor orientation would have serially mediated the relationship between personal-focus growth value orientation and well-being. In theorizing about the values–well-being link, Sagiv and Schwartz [22] have proposed three possibilities. Of specific concern for the present research, they argued that healthy values might be linked to well-being via leading the individual to perceive, evaluate, and act upon the environment in such ways to promote a sense of well-being. The present research is congruent with this formulation by proposing two serially associated individual difference variables as a mechanism for adapting the social-environmental demands. Through cognitive flexibility, the individual directs their cognitive resources to the perception of control in challenging situations, thereby rendering them capable of generating different solutions to problems and interpret social reality through various perspectives [46, 48]. A specific adaptation as part of such flexibility was suggested to be the manner that an individual displays humor, which requires a switching between schemas [47]. Consistent with the existing literature, higher levels of cognitive flexibility in the present study were associated with more adaptive uses of humor for both the self and the others [62]. Thus, the present research contributes to the existing literature on values–well-being link by providing evidence for the formulated mediation process. All but one hypothesis of the present study was supported by the data. Personal-focus growth value orientation was positively associated with cognitive flexibility, adaptive humor orientation, and well-being. The rationale for cognitive flexibility and adaptive humor orientation as correlates of value orientation was due to their value-expressiveness potential along with the possible influence of values on perceptual and behavioral processes [22]. The association between value orientation and cognitive flexibility was maintained after all the variables were entered in the model, attesting to the robustness of the relationship. This finding suggests that cognitive flexibility might be one perceptual and behavioral strategy which is guided by healthy and blocked by unhealthy values. By contrast, the association between value and adaptive humor orientations disappeared when all the variables were in the model. Furthermore, adaptive humor orientation alone did not mediate the values–well-being association; however, it was part of the serial mediation mechanism. This finding seems to support the theoretical argument of the present study that adaptive humor orientation is a means of displaying cognitive flexibility [60]. Finally, consistent with the relevant literature [2], the bivariate association of personal focus growth value orientation and well-being was relatively weak and its direct effect in the model was not significant after controlling for other variables. Taken together, these results suggest that the proposed serial mediation mechanism is plausible. Nevertheless, given the correlational nature of the cross-sectional design in the present study, the mechanism from the other way around is also possible. Actually, one of the theoretical possibilities suggested by Sagiv and Schwartz [22] was that higher well-being might result in the pursuit of healthy values because it would have equipped the individuals with necessary positive emotional resources. In this vein, recent longitudinal research revealed that well-being of the previous day predicted Achievement value fulfillment on the next day [27]. However, there is empirical support for the opposite direction effect, where Self-Transcendence values predicted mental well-being [23]. Thus, future research with a longitudinal design is needed to test the directionality of the model proposed in the present study via longitudinal mediation analysis with an autoregressive approach [78]. This might test the directionality of effects at the same time controlling for the stability of the constructs, and thereby circumvent the potential biases inherent to cross-sectional mediation analysis. Cognitive flexibility was particularly observed to be a stable correlate of all variables in the present study. It was positively correlated both with adaptive humor orientation and well-being, and these associations remained significant after all the variables were entered in the model. It mediated both alone and serially the values–well-being relationship. Considering the insignificant mediation and moderation effects by adaptive humor orientation together with these findings seems to corroborate the theoretical argument that humor-related processes require cognitive flexibility [60]. However, it is also possible that there might be strategies other than humor usage an individual with high cognitive flexibility might employ for adapting stressful situations. Future research might focus on identifying such variables and testing their potential mediation and moderation effects. Although mediation effects shared three fourths of the variance the total effect, the mechanism tested could explain only one-fifth of the total variance in the present study. The model tested in the present research focused solely on characteristics inherent in the individual, isolating them from contextual factors. However, the fit between value priorities of the individuals and the social-cultural context that surrounds them is associated with well-being as well [25]. This, in turn, might affect the mediation effects linking values and well-being [79]. Since the sample of the present study was composed of Turkish university students, the full mediation observed in the present study requires further elaboration with respect to cultural characteristics of the contemporary Turkish youth. In this vein, Sortheix and Schwartz [19] theorized the so-called complementary fit between the individuals and the cultural context, in which an individual’s values would compensate for the opportunities available by the cultural environment, or vice versa. Accordingly, in less egalitarian cultures wherein threats are high and supportive societal structures are scarce for their members, personal-focus growth values would compensate for what the culture cannot provide the individual, and thereby bring about higher well-being. On the contrary, social-focus self-protection values, as they would hinder an individual to struggle with the establishment, would be more negatively associated with well-being. The data supported these predictions such that in low egalitarianism cultures, healthy values had stronger positive, and unhealthy values had stronger negative, associations with well-being than they would have had in high egalitarian cultures. Türkiye has been found to be relatively high on egalitarianism as compared to other neighboring Middle-Eastern Muslim nations, yet somewhere in between egalitarianism and hierarchy across nations [80]. Moreover, a cultural transition in the Millennials was observed such that they placed less emphasis on Conservation values (i.e., unhealthy values with respect to well-being); however, they were no different than other generational cohorts in prioritizing Openness values (i.e., healthy values with respect to well-being) values, possibly because the national structure affords less opportunities for change [81]. Nevertheless, this transition would mean that healthy values would be emphasized over unhealthy values more, hence the finding that the present sample has such an orientation. Taken together, therefore, it is possible to assert that the lack of a direct association between PFG value orientation and well-being and the presence of full mediation effects in the present study seems partly due to a lack of complementary fit. Future cross-cultural research is required to settle the issue. There are some limitations of the present study. Firstly, as mentioned above, the correlational design employed limits causal inferences. Whether one-directional or reciprocal causation holds true requires future research. Secondly, self-report measurement of all individual differences variables might have certain disadvantages along with their advantages [82]. Of specific concern in this vein is CF measurement. In their meta-analytical study, Howlett et al. [47] pinpointed to a lack of definitional consensus for the construct, eventually concluding that self-report and neuropsychological assessment methods for CF are not associated. Yet, previous research with measurement tools used in the present study has already demonstrated their validity. Therefore, since the hypotheses in the present study grounded in theoretical reasoning and supported by prior empirical work, it is possible to argue for the accuracy of the findings. Nevertheless, future research using different CF protocols, especially incorporating experimental designs involving different operationalizations of all constructs, would provide more conservative tests of process models not only for the one tested in the present study but for different possible mechanisms involved in values–well-being link. Conclusion The present research provided converging evidence for the research on how values and well-being are associated. The findings of the present study underscored cognitive flexibility and humor styles as specific manifestations of it as constituting a serial pathway for an individual’s guiding principles to translate into how content one would be with their life. Thus, in addition to other constructs previously studied, specific individual differences variables have been demonstrated as plausible mediation mechanisms, thereby contributing to the process perspective in linking human values to well-being. Abbreviations CF Cognitive Flexibility CFI Cognitive Flexibility Inventory HS Humor Styles HSQ Humor Styles Questionnaire MRAT Mean Rating PFG Personal-Focus Growth (value orientation) PVQ Portrait Values Questionnaire SVT Schwartz’s Value Theory WEMWBS The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale Declarations Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Zeynep Büyükkara for her help in the data collection and entry process. Author Contributions The author has conceptualized and designed the study, planned the methodology, conducted the analyses, interpreted the results, and written the manuscript. Funding The author did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. Data availability The dataset is available from https://osf.io/6d2bz/?view_only=e985a143129e456690421f8dd887de3f. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Permission was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the university that the author is affiliated with (Decision No. 2023-15/03). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The author declares no competing interests. References Sagiv L, Roccas S, Oppenheim-Weller S. Values and well-being. In: Joseph S, editor. Positive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life . 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2015. p. 103–120. Schwartz SH, Sortheix F. Values and subjective well-being. In: Diener E, Oishi S, Tay L, editors. Handbook of well-being . DEF Publishers; 2018. p. 872–86. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna M, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology . Vol. 25. San Diego (CA): Academic Press; 1992. p. 1–65. Schwartz SH. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read Psychol Cult [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2025 May 23];2(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116 Sagiv L, Schwartz SH. Personal values across cultures. Annu Rev Psychol . 2022;73(1):517–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-125100 Boer D, Fischer R. How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude–value linkages. Psychol Bull . 2013;139(5):1113–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031347 Sagiv L, Roccas S. How do values affect behavior? Let me count the ways. Pers Soc Psychol Rev . 2021;25(4):295–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211015975 Milfont TL, Milojev P, Sibley CG. Values stability and change in adulthood: A 3-year longitudinal study of rank-order stability and mean-level differences. Pers Soc Psychol Bull . 2016;42(5):572–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216639245 Vecchione M, Schwartz S, Alessandri G, Döring AK, Castellani V, Caprara MG. Stability and change of basic personal values in early adulthood: An 8-year longitudinal study. J Res Pers . 2016;63:111–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.002 Diener E, Suh E, Lucas R, Smith H. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychol Bull . 1999;125(2):276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.125.2.276 Diener E, Heintzelman SJ, Kushlev K, Tay L, Wirtz D, Lutes LD, Oishi S. Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. Can Psychol . 2017;58(2):87–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000063 Ryan RM, Deci EL. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu Rev Psychol . 2001;52:141–66. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull . 1984;95(3):542–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol . 1989;57(6):1069–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 Ryff CD, Keyes CLM. The structure of psychological wellbeing revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol . 1995;69(4):719–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes . 2007;5(63):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63 Keyes CLM. Social well-being. Soc Psychol Q . 1998;61(2):121–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787065 Schwartz SH. Les valeurs de base de la personne: Théorie, mesures et applications [Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications]. Rev Fr Sociol . 2006;47:929–68. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.474.0929 Sortheix FM, Schwartz SH. Values that underlie and undermine well-being: Variability across countries. Eur J Pers . 2017;31(2):187–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2096 Bilsky W, Schwartz SH. Values and personality. Eur J Pers . 1994;8(3):163–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080303 Joshanloo M, Ghaedi G. Value priorities as predictors of hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being. Pers Individ Dif . 2009;47(4):294–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.016 Sagiv L, Schwartz SH. Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations and congruity effects. Eur J Soc Psychol . 2000;30(2):177–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2%3C177::AID-EJSP982%3E3.0.CO;2-Z Fischer R, Karl JA. Unraveling values and well-being: Disentangling within- and between-person dynamics via a psychometric network perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol . 2023;124(6):1338–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000449 Karabati S, Cemalcilar Z. Values, materialism, and well-being: A study with Turkish university students. J Econ Psychol . 2010;31(4):624–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.04.007 Sortheix FM, Lönnqvist JE. Person-group value congruence and subjective well-being in students from Argentina, Bulgaria and Finland: The role of interpersonal relationships. J Community Appl Soc Psychol . 2015;25(1):34–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2193 Oishi S, Diener E, Suh E, Lucas RE. Value as a moderator in subjective well‐being. J Pers . 1999;67(1):157–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00051 Hanel PH, Tunç H, Bhasin D, Litzellachner LF, Maio GR. Value fulfillment and well‐being: Clarifying directions over time. J Pers . 2024;92(4):1037–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12869 Ostermann M, Huffziger S, Kleindienst N, Mata J, Schmahl C, Beierlein C, et al. Realization of personal values predicts mental health and satisfaction with life in a German population. J Soc Clin Psychol . 2017;36(8):651–74. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2017.36.8.651 Nelissen RMA, Dijker AJM, De Vries NK. Emotions and goals: Assessing relations between values and emotions. Cogn Emot . 2007;21:902–11. http://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600861330 Tamir M, Schwartz SH, Cieciuch J, Riediger M, Torres C, Scollon C, et al. Desired emotions across cultures: A value-based account. J Pers Soc Psychol . 2016;111(1):67–82. http://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000072 Tamir M, Schwartz SH, Oishi S, Kim MY. The secret to happiness: Feeling good or feeling right? J Exp Psychol Gen . 2017;146(10):1448–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000303 Parks-Leduc L, Feldman G, Bardi A. Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Rev . 2015;19(1):3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538548 Roccas S, Sagiv L, Schwartz SH, Knafo A. The big five personality factors and personal values. Pers Soc Psychol Bull . 2002;28(6):789–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289008 Carver CS, Scheier MF. On the self-regulation of behavior . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. Bardi A, Schwartz SH. Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Pers Soc Psychol Bull . 2003;29(10):1207–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254602 Bem DJ. Self-perception theory. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology . Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press; 1972. p. 1–62. Kristiansen CM, Zanna MP. The rhetorical use of values to justify social and intergroup attitudes. J Soc Issues . 1994;50:47–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01197.x Fischer R, Boer D. Motivational basis of personality traits: A meta‐analysis of value‐personality correlations. J Pers . 2015;83(5):491–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12125 Vecchione M, Alessandri G, Roccas S, Caprara GV. A look into the relationship between personality traits and basic values: A longitudinal investigation. J Pers . 2019;87(2):413–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12399 Fetvadjiev VH, He J. The longitudinal links of personality traits, values, and well-being and self-esteem: A five-wave study of a nationally representative sample. J Pers Soc Psychol . 2019;117(2):448–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000212 Haslam N, Whelan J, Bastian B. Big Five traits mediate associations between values and subjective well-being. Pers Individ Dif . 2009;46(1):40–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.001 Zalewska AM, Zwierzchowska M. Personality traits, personal values, and life satisfaction among Polish nurses. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2022;19(20):13493. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013493 Pratkanis AR, Greenwald AG. A sociocognitive model of attitude structure and function. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology . Vol. 22. New York: Academic Press; 1989. p. 245–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60310-x Gold JA, Russ RC. A semantic memory approach to the conceptualization of attitudes and values. J Soc Psychol . 1977;102(2):233–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1977.9713269 Gold JA, Robbins MA. Attitudes and values: A further test of the semantic memory model. J Soc Psychol . 1979;108(1):75–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1979.9711963 Ionescu T. Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. New Ideas Psychol . 2012;30(2):190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.11.001 Howlett CA, Wewege MA, Berryman C, Oldach A, Jennings E, Moore E, et al. Same room - different windows? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility in healthy adults. Clin Psychol Rev . 2021;88:102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102061 Dennis JP, Vander Wal JS. The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cogn Ther Res . 2010;34(3):241–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4 Grant JE, Chamberlain SR. Impaired cognitive flexibility across psychiatric disorders. CNS Spectr . 2023;28(6):688–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852923002237 Muyan-Yılık M, Demir A. A pathway towards subjective well-being for Turkish university students: The roles of dispositional hope, cognitive flexibility, and coping strategies. J Happiness Stud . 2020;21(6):1945–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00162-2 Odacı H, Cikrikci Ö. Cognitive flexibility mediates the relationship between big five personality traits and life satisfaction. Appl Res Qual Life . 2019;14(5):1229–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9651-y Malkoç A, Mutlu A. Mediating the effect of cognitive flexibility in the relationship between psychological well-being and self-confidence: A study on Turkish university students. Int J High Educ . 2019;8(6):278–87. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n6p278 Demirtaş AS. Optimism and happiness in undergraduate students: Cognitive flexibility and adjustment to university life as mediators. Anales de Psicología . 2020;36(2):320–9. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.381181 Ruch W. The psychology of humor. In: Raskin V, editor. A primer of humor research . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2008. p. 17–100. Peterson C, Seligman MEP. Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification . Washington (DC): American Psychological Association / Oxford University Press; 2004. Martin RA, Puhlik-Doris P, Larsen G, Gray J, Weir K. Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the humor styles questionnaire. J Res Pers . 2003;37(1):48–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2 Kuiper NA, Grimshaw M, Leite C, Kirsh G. Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor . 2004;17(1–2):135–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2004.002 Martin MM, Rubin RB. A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychol Rep . 1995;76(2):623–6. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623 Martin MM, Anderson CM, Thweatt KS. Aggressive communication traits and their relationships with the cognitive flexibility scale and the communication flexibility scale. J Soc Behav Pers . 1998;13(3):531–40. Lu JG, Martin AE, Usova A, Galinsky AD. Creativity and humor across cultures: Where Aha meets Haha. In: Luria SR, Baer J, Kaufman JC, editors. Creativity and humor . San Diego: Academic Press; 2019. p. 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813802-1.00009-0 Altan-Atalay A, Fatih Boluvat M. Cognitive flexibility and depression: The moderator roles of humor styles. Curr Psychol . 2024;43(23):20814–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05931-8 Yağan F, Kaya Z. Cognitive flexibility and psychological hardiness: examining the mediating role of positive humor styles and happiness in teachers. Curr Psychol . 2023;42(34):29943–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04024-8 Curran T, Janovec A, Olsen K. Making others laugh is the best medicine: Humor orientation, health outcomes, and the moderating role of cognitive flexibility. Health Commun . 2019;36(4):468–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1700438 Soares AIA. Relação entre estilos de humor e valores em adultos [Master’s thesis]. Lusiada University (Portugal); 2019. Available from: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Publication No. 31021118. Ruch W, Heintz S, Platt T, Wagner L, Proyer RT. Broadening humor: Comic styles differentially tap into temperament, character, and ability. Front Psychol . 2018;9:6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00006 Heintz S, Ruch W. From four to nine styles: An update on individual differences in humor. Pers Individ Dif . 2019;141:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.12.008 Richard FD, Bond CF Jr, Stokes-Zoota JJ. One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Rev Gen Psychol . 2003;7(4):331–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 Lovakov A, Agadullina ER. Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. Eur J Soc Psychol . 2021;51(3):485–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2752 Fritz MS, MacKinnon DP. Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychol Sci . 2007;18(3):233–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x Demirutku K, Sümer N. Temel değerlerin ölçümü: Portre değerler anketi’nin Türkçe uyarlaması [The measurement of basic values: Turkish adaptation of portrait values questionnaire]. Türk Psikol Yazıl . 2010;13(25):17–25. http://doi.org/10.31828/tpy1301996120100000m000129 Schwartz SH. A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. In: ESS questionnaire development report (chapter 7) . 2003. p. 259–319. Available from: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/core_ess_questionnaire/ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf Schwartz SH. Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents, and consequences across nations. In: Jowell R, Roberts C, Fitzgerald R, Eva G, editors. Measuring attitudes cross-nationally: Lessons from the European social survey . London: Sage; 2006. p. 161–93. Sapmaz F, Doğan T. Bilişsel esnekliğin değerlendirilmesi: Bilişsel esneklik envanteri Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları [Assessment of cognitive flexibility: Reliability and validity studies of Turkish version of the cognitive flexibility inventory]. Ankara Univ Egit Bilim Fak Derg . 2013;46(1):143–61. Yerlikaya EE. Üniversite öğrencilerinin mizah tarzları ile algılanan stres, kaygı ve depresyon düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Doctoral dissertation]. Çukurova University (Türkiye); 2009. Publication No. 241451. YÖK Tez Merkezi. Keldal G. Warwick-Edinburg Mental İyi Oluş Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Turkish version of the Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-Being Scale: A validity and reliability study]. J Happiness Well-Being . 2015;3(1):103–15. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics . 7th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2019. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach . 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2018. Maxwell SE, Cole DA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychol Methods . 2007;12(1):23–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23 Galinha IC, Oishi S, Pereira C, Wirtz D. Personal values and life domain satisfaction predict global life satisfaction differently across cultures. J Soc Pers Relat . 2023;40(10):3319–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231173157 Schwartz SH. National culture as value orientations: Consequences of value differences and cultural distance. In: Ginsburgh VA, Throsby D, editors. Handbook of the economics of art and culture . Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2014. p. 547–86. Marcus J, Ceylan S, Ergin C. Not so “traditional” anymore? Generational shifts on Schwartz values in Turkey. J Cross Cult Psychol . 2016;48(1):58–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116673909 Paulhus DL, Vazire S. The self-report method. In: Robins RW, Fraley RC, Krueger RF, editors. Handbook of research methods in personality psychology . New York: Guilford Press; 2007. p. 224–39. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-6734669\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Research Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":466234767,\"identity\":\"60bdcefb-0248-435a-b652-5ca87e6365c4\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Kürşad Demirutku\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"TED University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Kürşad\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Demirutku\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-05-23 16:53:16\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6734669/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6734669/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":84219928,\"identity\":\"77fe3ea8-610b-43a3-ad7e-81398c4ad5e6\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-06-09 11:24:40\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":185049,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eCircular Structure of Basic Values\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eNote. \\u003c/em\\u003eFull value domain names and two examples for each value type in parantheses are as follows: PO = Power (\\u003cem\\u003eauthority\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003ewealth\\u003c/em\\u003e), AC = Achievement (\\u003cem\\u003eambition\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003esuccess\\u003c/em\\u003e), HE = Hedonism (\\u003cem\\u003eenjoyment\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003epleasure\\u003c/em\\u003e), ST = Stimulation (\\u003cem\\u003eexcitement\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003evariety\\u003c/em\\u003e), SD = Self-Direction (\\u003cem\\u003ecreativity\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003efreedom\\u003c/em\\u003e), UN = Universalism (\\u003cem\\u003ejustice\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003ewisdom\\u003c/em\\u003e), BE = Benevolence (\\u003cem\\u003ehelpfullness\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003ehonesty\\u003c/em\\u003e), TR = Tradition (\\u003cem\\u003erespect for tradition\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003emoderacy\\u003c/em\\u003e), CO = Conformity (\\u003cem\\u003ehonoring elders\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003eobedience\\u003c/em\\u003e), and SE = Security (\\u003cem\\u003ehealth\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003esocial order\\u003c/em\\u003e). The structure and examples are adapted from Schwartz [4] and Schwartz and Sortheix [2].\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6734669/v1/7e1e4bd2f6be0c3a46a4e1e5.png\"},{\"id\":84219929,\"identity\":\"1c6b7e36-75ae-49c2-aa73-39c93597a8f1\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-06-09 11:24:40\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"Figure 2\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":65120,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eProposed Serial Mediation Model\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"2.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6734669/v1/41c5cd6c508b26c68a51cee8.png\"},{\"id\":85990630,\"identity\":\"ac03d626-186c-45a6-9910-4a5404321d8c\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-07-04 05:01:46\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":878204,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6734669/v1/a91857d5-3cd2-4356-b201-b4eeec742a79.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"Value Orientation and Well-Being: Testing the Serial Mediation by Cognitive Flexibility and Humor Styles\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eHuman values have long been documented to predict well-being in a variety of ways [1]. Whereas a number of individual difference variables have been demonstrated to mediate this relationship, this line of research is relatively scarce [2]. The purpose of the present research is to examine the mediating role of two individual difference variables in this process. Specifically, I propose and present empirical support for a model in which the link between value orientations and well-being are serially mediated by cognitive flexibility and humor styles.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSchwartz\\u0026rsquo;s [3, 4] Value Theory (SVT), which has become an overarching framework for understanding human values in psychological research, is adapted for the present study. Accordingly, human values are cognitive representations of human needs which serve as guiding principles in life [5]. People usually emphasize certain values over others, and these value priorities predict outcomes such as attitudes and behaviors to the extent that these outcomes have the potential to express them [6, 7]. SVT postulates a circular alignment of motivationally distinct value types such that values representing compatible motivational goals are located as adjacent domains, whereas values with conflicting motivational underpinnings are located as polar opposites (see Figure 1). All compatibilities and conflicts are organized under two bipolar dimensions. Openness to Change (Self-Direction and Stimulation values) versus Conservation (Tradition, Conformity, and Security values) dimension represents the conflict between pursuit of independent thought and action as well as novelty and change as opposed to preservation of the personal safety and social fabric accompanied by resistance to change. Self-Enhancement (Achievement and Power values) versus Self-Transcendence (Universalism and Benevolence values) dimension characterizes the opposing motivations of concern for individual pursuits against social welfare in the immediate and wider social contexts. SVT also postulates Hedonism values which corresponds to pleasure sought to satisfy organismic needs and it is located where Self-Enhancement values meet Openness to Change values on the motivational continuum. An individual is said to possess a \\u003cem\\u003evalue orientation\\u003c/em\\u003e if one value is more important than its polar opposite in their value priority. Since value priorities are relatively stable over time [8, 9], it is possible to consider them as important antecedents of a variety of psychological outcomes including well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWell-being is widely defined as subjective evaluations of individuals concerning their extent of pleasant affective experience and satisfaction they derive from their lives in general and from specific domains [10, 11]. Basically, it is conceptualized to have hedonic and eudaimonic aspects [12]. The hedonic aspect comprises affective and cognitive evaluations about an individual\\u0026rsquo;s experiences, specifically the presence of positive affect, absence of negative affect, and evaluation of life as satisfying. This is labelled as \\u003cem\\u003esubjective well-being\\u003c/em\\u003e [13]. The eudaimonic aspect is also multidimensional. It becomes manifest in individuals to the extent that they hold positive attitudes towards themselves, establish and maintain warm and affectionate bonds with others, are able to independently choose and pursue goals, have the capacity to control their environment, create meaning through having important goals and a sense of integrity, and can develop their potential to actualize themselves. These qualities are formulated as the markers of \\u003cem\\u003epsychological well-being\\u003c/em\\u003e [14, 15]. Hedonic and eudaimonic aspects are unified under the term \\u003cem\\u003emental well-being\\u003c/em\\u003e [16]. Finally, \\u003cem\\u003esocial well-being\\u003c/em\\u003e was offered as a construct that takes into account the extent of which an individual integrates with, have acceptance of, contributes to, feels actualized in, and has coherence with the community, society, and the world at large [17]. \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eOne perspective that governed the research on the values\\u0026ndash;well-being link is the so-called \\u003cem\\u003econtent perspective\\u003c/em\\u003e [1]. This perspective formulated which values and why they are positively or negatively associated with well-being. Accordingly, values are organized into \\u003cem\\u003ehealthy\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003eunhealthy\\u003c/em\\u003e categories in two dimensions [2]. One dimension organizes values representing the individual\\u0026rsquo;s concern for self- as opposed to other-relevant outcomes. Thus, the former pole is referred as \\u003cem\\u003epersonal-focus\\u003c/em\\u003e values whereas the latter is called \\u003cem\\u003esocial-focus\\u003c/em\\u003e values. The second dimension differentiates whether a set of values facilitates self-expansion when the individual is free of anxiety or it serves for avoiding anxiety-provoking threats [18]. Thus, poles of this dimension refer to \\u003cem\\u003egrowth\\u003c/em\\u003e versus \\u003cem\\u003eself-protection\\u003c/em\\u003e. Following these theoretical distinctions, Sortheix and Schwartz [19] postulated and observed that Hedonism, Stimulation, and Self-Direction (i.e., personal-focus growth) values to be positively whereas Tradition, Conformity, and Security (i.e., social-focus self-protection) values to be negatively correlated with subjective well-being. Note that these values are polar opposites in the motivational continuum. Other research also revealed that values which represent the pursuit of personal growth and self-actualization are positively, whereas values which represent the needs for organismic survival and safety are negatively correlated with psychological well-being, yet an opposite pattern was observed for the social well-being [20, 21, 22]. Thus, it is possible to suggest that if an individual has a personal-focus growth value orientation, that is, if they place more importance on personal-focus growth values than social-focus self-protection values, they might be expected to experience higher well-being. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eHypothesis 1: Personal-focus growth value orientation will be positively associated with well-being.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNevertheless, direct associations of values with well-being typically revealed small effect sizes and inconsistencies [2, 23]. This led researchers to conceptualize more complex mechanisms from two other perspectives [1]. One is the \\u003cem\\u003econtext perspective\\u003c/em\\u003e which formulated that the more the individuals held value priorities that fit in the immediate social or cultural environment, the higher the well-being [22, 24, 25]. Thus, this perspective offers person-environment fit as an antecedent to well-being. The other one is the \\u003cem\\u003eprocess perspective\\u003c/em\\u003e which postulated that whether individuals could have fulfilled the values they cherish rather than the content per se was predictive of well-being [26, 27, 28]. All in all, these two perspectives evolved from zero-order associations to more complex analyses of moderators and mediators involved in the relationships between values and the well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn this vein, potential mediators were proposed as mechanisms linking values to well-being [2]. To start with, emotions have been proposed as one such mediator given their associations with values [29]. Two consecutive studies by Tamir and colleagues [30, 31] seem to support this formulation synthetically. In the first study, people with certain value endorsements were found to evaluate certain emotions as more desirable, and in the second one, the more they experienced emotions desirable for them, the higher they reported happiness. Second, Sortheix and L\\u0026ouml;nnqvist [25] postulated that the congruence of an individual\\u0026rsquo;s values with their immediate social context would predict their subjective well-being. Furthermore, they reasoned that if an individual shared the values of the people in the same context, this would facilitate positive social relationships. Thus, they proposed social relationship quality as a mediator, and their data supported these expectations. \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAnother potential mediation is formulated through the association of values with personality. First of all, past research indicated that values and broad-band personality characteristics are consistently associated as two distinct constructs [32]. Three possible mechanisms were proposed for the directionality of value-personality relationships [33]. First mechanism suggests that temperamental characteristics at birth can bring about traits and values which parallel each other. The second mechanism, which treats values as standards for self-regulation, asserts that values might give rise to personality. Thus, values guide individuals to adjust their behaviors in accord with their values to reduce discrepancy [34]. Seeking such consistency between values and behaviors is a rewarding experience that yield behavioral patterns in time [35], which can turn into an individual\\u0026rsquo;s traits. Finally, traits might affect values. As individuals consistently express a trait in their behaviors, they come to attribute positive value to the goals that are associated with these traits. Through the mechanism of self-perception they infer what is important for them [36], and then utilize their values to justify their attitudes and actions [37]. All in all, as demonstrated by meta-analytical results, value-personality associations are systematic yet moderated by the characteristics of the immediate culture [38]. However, longitudinal studies have yielded mixed results regarding the direction of causality. While one study identified personality as a potential cause of values [39], another suggested reciprocal causation, with stronger effects stemming from personality traits than from values [40].\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eMixed results have also been reported on the mediation effects of personality and values in predicting well-being. In a cross-sectional study, Haslam et al. [41] found that traits had stronger associations with well-being than values, and thus mediate the relationship between values and well-being more consistently and strongly. Similarly, in a longitudinal design Fetvadjiev and He [40] observed that personality predicted well-being stronger than values did. Although values have also been reported to mediate personality\\u0026ndash;well-being associations cross-sectionally [42], there seems to be a higher potential for personality variables to mediate the association between values and well-being. Overall, studies that investigate values and personality together as predictors of well-being are scarce [2]. Additionally, although broad personality traits studied together with values, specific individual differences were relatively neglected. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to fill this gap and contribute to the process perspective in values\\u0026ndash;well-being associations by identifying and testing the mediation effects of two potential individual difference variables. \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIt is possible to ground such mediation effects in two theoretical notions. Firstly, values can be associated with or causally linked to an outcome variable to the extent that this outcome variable has the potential to express the motivational underpinnings of specific values. This principle is referred as \\u003cem\\u003evalue expressiveness\\u003c/em\\u003e [35, 43].\\u003cem\\u003e \\u003c/em\\u003eOtherwise, if a given outcome hinders expressiveness, it might be labelled as \\u003cem\\u003evalue-blocking\\u003c/em\\u003e [44, 45]. Secondly, Sagiv and Schwartz [22] have argued that healthy values might direct the perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral processes in ways conducive to well-being. Accordingly, two potential mediators are identified for the purpose of the present study, which were \\u003cem\\u003ecognitive flexibility\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003ehumor styles\\u003c/em\\u003e. These two variables were purposefully selected because (a) they can be regarded as outcome variables which might potentially be expressive of value orientations, (b) they reflect individual differences in perceiving, evaluating, and acting upon environment, and (c) past research indicated that both variables are associated with well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTo start with, cognitive flexibility (CF) is conceptualized as a \\u0026ldquo;property of the cognitive system\\u0026rdquo; (Ionescu [46], p. 194) which emerges as the various components of the cognitive system such as attention and memory interact with each other as a response to the demands in the immediate context. An important characteristic of CF is switching tasks and knowledge structures in the memory [47]. Accordingly, the function of CF is that it renders adaptive responses to stressful situations possible [48]. Such adaptation is achieved through perceiving subjective control over difficult situations in which the person can think of alternative solutions to problems, coupled with an ability to explain social reality in alternative ways. As a consequence, CF was demonstrated to be a consistent correlate of various mental health problems [49]. Congruently, CF has also been demonstrated to be a correlate of well-being, having positive associations with positive affect and life satisfaction, and negative association with negative affect [50]. Specifically, CF was a mediator between Big Five personality traits [51], self-confidence [52], optimism [53] and various well-being indicators. \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFollowing from these findings, CF was postulated as a mediator in values\\u0026ndash;well-being relationship. Since CF is characterized by adaptive responses in demanding situations, it might be conceptualized as a disposition with a value-expressive potential for Hedonism, Stimulation, and Self-Direction (i.e., personal-focus growth) values, which represent motivational inclinations towards excitement, novelty, change, and independence of thought and action. On the contrary, CF might have the capacity to block, and thus be negatively associated with Tradition, Conformity, and Security (i.e., other-focus self-protection) values, which represent needs for conservation of personal, interpersonal, and societal patterns of adaptation. Thus, the following predictions are generated:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eHypothesis 2: Personal-focus growth value orientation will be positively associated with cognitive flexibility.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eHypothesis 3: Cognitive flexibility will be positively associated with well-being.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eHypothesis 4: Cognitive flexibility will mediate the relationship between personal-focus growth value orientation and well-being.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSecond potential mediator of the present study is humor styles (HS). Along with other theoretical approaches, humor has been conceived as a habitual individual difference variable as well [54], and it is characterized by a \\u0026ldquo;playful recognition, enjoyment, and/or creation of incongruity\\u0026rdquo; as a means to experience good mood (Peterson \\u0026amp; Seligman [55], p. 584). Accordingly, Martin et al. [56] conceived four theoretically-derived HS comprising tendencies which are both adaptive and maladaptive for well-being. Adaptive humor styles, namely the \\u003cem\\u003eself-enhancing\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003eaffiliative \\u003c/em\\u003estyles, contain using humor as a means to experience positive mood in stressful situations and in social interactions, respectively. By contrast, \\u003cem\\u003eself-defeating\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003eaggressive\\u003c/em\\u003e styles as two maladaptive styles serve the opposite ends such that either the people themselves or the people they get into interaction, respectively, are hurt as a consequence. \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ePrevious research provided support for the associations between HS and well-being such that adaptive HS were positively, whereas maladaptive HS were negatively correlated with self-esteem and psychological well-being [56]. Similarly, Kuiper et al. [57] observed that adaptive HS were positively associated with self-esteem and positive affect, and negatively associated with depression, anxiety, and negative affect. The opposite pattern of relationships were observed for maladaptive HS. Thus, it is possible to assert that the more an individual is predisposed to adaptive as compared to maladaptive HS, the higher they could experience well-being. This comparative tendency is labelled as an \\u003cem\\u003eadaptive humor orientation\\u003c/em\\u003e in the present study, and the following hypothesis was generated:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eHypothesis 5: Adaptive humor orientation will be positively associated with well-being.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ePrevious research also revealed that CF facilitates smooth social interaction. Specifically, the higher CF an individual possesses, the more they are skilled at adapting their communication according to the demands of the situation [58], the more they stand for their arguments in communication, the more tolerant they are in disagreements, and the less verbal aggression they display in interactions [59]. Theoretically, Lu et al. [60] have proposed that CF is a prerequisite to humor processing which requires perceptual-cognitive switching. Thus, CF equips an individual with cognitive resources which facilitates adaptation to changing demands in social interactions, thereby preserving the smoothness of interaction both for the self and the others. Consistent with these arguments, CF was found to be positively associated with adaptive whereas negatively with maladaptive HS, and higher affiliative and lower aggressive HS to compensate for the negative association of low CF on depression [61]. Similarly, having a general positive humor orientation mediated the relationship between CF and psychological hardiness [62], and interacted with CF to yield higher mental well-being [63]. Therefore, it is plausible to assert that cognitive flexibility will be positively associated with an adaptive humor orientation, and the latter would be a proximal correlate of well-being. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eHypothesis 6: Cognitive flexibility will be positively associated with adaptive humor orientation.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAs a final point, it is also possible that values might be associated with well-being through the mediation of HS. To the best of my knowledge, only one study by Soares [64] reported value-HS correlations, in which comic style markers [65] were measured. Results of this study revealed that personal-focus growth values were correlated positively with both the darker (sarcasm, cynicism, satire, and irony) and the lighter (fun, humor, nonsense, and wit) comic styles, which parallel maladaptive and adaptive HS, respectively [66]. As for the social-focus self-protection values, the correlations were mostly negative or virtually zero for both styles. Overall, the effect sizes were small. However, these findings suggest that adaptive humor orientation might have the capacity to express personal-focus growth value orientation. Accordingly, the following hypotheses were proposed:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eHypothesis 7: Personal-focus growth value orientation will be positively associated with adaptive humor orientation.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eHypothesis 8: Adaptive humor orientation will mediate the relationship between personal-focus growth value orientation and well-being.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFinally, CF can be conceived as a more general adaptive tendency in demanding situations, and HS can be a specific manifestation of this tendency. Consequently, it is plausible to argue that the process linking value orientation to well-being might involve CF and HS. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eHypothesis 9: Cognitive flexibility and adaptive humor orientation will serially mediate the relationship between personal-focus growth value orientation and well-being.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThus, the model proposed in the present research and presented in Figure 2 is built on the theoretical and empirical grounds that (a) values and well-being associations are weak, (b) dispositional variables might mediate this link to the extent that they are expressive of values, and (c) humor styles might be considered as specific manifestations of cognitive flexibility. Finally, when testing the model, as in recent research on values and well-being [23], both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being are assessed in measurement. \\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Method\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eParticipants\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ePrior to data collection, an estimate of optimal sample size was obtained. In doing so, the median effect size values reported in the literature for social psychology research was consulted, which provided median effect size values of .18 [67] and .24 [68]. Using the guidelines by Fritz and MacKinnon [69], the sample size was estimated to be 368 to 462 to detect significant indirect effects, assuming that (a) the direct effect of predictors on the mediators and direct effects of the mediators on the criterion variables might range between .14 to .26, (b) statistical power is .80, and (c) bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure is used. \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAccordingly, the actual sample of the present study consisted of 406 university students who were enrolled in different majors in different Turkish universities located in Ankara. Participants were selected through convenience sampling. The gender composition of the sample was 49.0% women (\\u003cem\\u003en \\u003c/em\\u003e= 199) and 46.3% men (\\u003cem\\u003en \\u003c/em\\u003e= 188), and 4.7% (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 19) of the participants did not report gender. Average age in the sample was 21.5 (\\u003cem\\u003eSD \\u003c/em\\u003e= 2.2). \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eMaterials\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003ePortrait Values Questionnaire.\\u003c/strong\\u003e Value priorities were measured by using the Turkish version [70] of the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) [71] that consisted of 40 items mapping 10 value types. A two-sentence portrayal of a hypothetical person is presented in each PVQ item, and the participants were asked to assess the similarity of each portrait to themselves on a 6-point scale ranging from 6 (\\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003every much like me\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rdquo;) to 1 (\\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003enot like me at all\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rdquo;) as originally ordered on the form. These similarity judgments were used to infer the importance of values, where higher scores indicated higher importance placed to values. \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eA single value orientation score was computed to serve for the purpose of the present study. In order to do so, two scale scores were calculated first. One was the personal-focus growth values score that corresponded to the mean of Hedonism, Stimulation, and Self-Direction values (ten items, Cronbach\\u0026rsquo;s \\u0026alpha; = .79, McDonald\\u0026rsquo;s \\u0026omega; = .78). The other was the social-focus self-protection values score which was the average of Tradition, Conformity, and Security values (13 items, Cronbach\\u0026rsquo;s \\u0026alpha; = .74, McDonald\\u0026rsquo;s \\u0026omega; = .75). Individual scores for values were centered around the within-respondent mean rating (MRAT) to control for individual differences in scale use [72]. Finally, a personal-focus growth value orientation score was computed by subtracting the latter from the former score, where positive scores indicated an orientation towards personal-focus growth and negative scores indicated an orientation towards social-focus self-protection. Zero values indicated a mixed orientation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI). \\u003c/strong\\u003eIndividual differences in cognitive flexibility were measured by using the Turkish version [73] of the 20-item CFI [48]. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each item on 7-point Likert scales (\\u0026ldquo;1 = \\u003cem\\u003eStrongly disagree\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rdquo; to \\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003e7 = Strongly agree\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rdquo;). In the present study, Cronbach\\u0026apos;s \\u0026alpha; and McDonald\\u0026rsquo;s \\u0026omega; coefficients for CFI were observed as .91 and .88, respectively. Average scores were calculated to represent cognitive flexibility level of the participants. Higher scores indicated higher cognitive flexibility.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eHumor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). \\u003c/strong\\u003eIndividual differences in humor styles were measured by using the Turkish version [74] of the HSQ [56]. It is composed of 32 items that measure four different humor styles, two of which are labelled as styles benign for (\\u003cem\\u003eself-enhancing \\u003c/em\\u003eand \\u003cem\\u003eaffiliative\\u003c/em\\u003e), and the other two as detrimental to (\\u003cem\\u003eself-defeating\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003eaggressive\\u003c/em\\u003e) the self and the others. Benign styles are adaptive, whereas detrimental styles are maladaptive HS. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each item on 7-point Likert scales (\\u0026ldquo;1 = \\u003cem\\u003eStrongly disagree\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rdquo; to \\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003e7 = Strongly agree\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rdquo;). \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn the present study, a single index score of humor orientation was computed. To do so, first, two humor style scores were computed by averaging the responses to adaptive HS (16 items, Cronbach\\u0026rsquo;s \\u0026alpha; = .85, McDonald\\u0026rsquo;s \\u0026omega; = .84) and maladaptive HS (16 items, Cronbach\\u0026rsquo;s \\u0026alpha; = .79, McDonald\\u0026rsquo;s \\u0026omega; = .80) scales. Then, average maladaptive HS scores were subtracted from the average adaptive HS scores in order to obtain a single adaptive humor orientation score, where a positive score indicated an adaptive and a negative score indicated a maladaptive humor orientation. Zero values indicated a mixed orientation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eThe Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS)\\u003c/strong\\u003e. Level of well-being was measured by WEMWBS [16], which operationalized cognitive, affective, and psychological functioning aspects of well-being all. The measure was adapted to Turkish by Keldal [75] and contains 14 items. The participants were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement on 5-point Likert scales (\\u0026ldquo;1 = \\u003cem\\u003eStrongly disagree\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rdquo; to \\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003e5 = Strongly agree\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rdquo;), and a single mental well-being score was computed for each participant by averaging responses to items. Higher scores indicated higher mental well-being. In the present study, Cronbach\\u0026rsquo;s \\u0026alpha; and McDonald\\u0026rsquo;s \\u0026omega; coefficients for WEMWBS were .90 and .89, respectively.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eProcedure\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eEthical approval was obtained prior to data collection from the university that the author is affiliated with (Decision No. 2023-15/03). The data were collected in paper-and-pencil format. The respondents were recruited in places where university students habitually spent time (e.g., campus, cafeteria, cafe, dormitory, and the like). They first filled out an informed consent form, and upon their agreement, the scales were handed to them in printed form. When the survey was returned, the participants were thanked and dismissed. \\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003ePrior to analyses, the data were screened for missing values, normality, and outliers. First, responses from 26 participants were removed from the data set as they left whole scales incomplete. Of the remaining 36,480 data points, 148 were missing (0.41%) and they were replaced with the variable means to save participants. Second, the scores on the variables of the study were computed. Skewness and kurtosis scores were below the cutoff values provided by Tabachnick and Fidell [76]. Therefore, the variables did not deviate from normality. Four univariate and four multivariate outliers were detected in the scores of four participants (1 woman, 3 men). By the deletion of these participants, the final sample size was 376 (51.3% women, 48.7% men), which was within the acceptable limits for the mediation analysis. This data file is available at https://osf.io/6d2bz/?view_only=e985a143129e456690421f8dd887de3f.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFirst, descriptive statistics and one-sample \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e tests were computed, which revealed that all four variables deviated from their theoretical midpoints. On the average, the sample was composed of participants with orientations inclined towards personal-focus growth values, \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e(375) = 15.41, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u0026lt; .001, \\u003cem\\u003etwo-tailed\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003ed\\u003c/em\\u003e = .79, and adaptive humor styles, \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e(375) = 29.47, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u0026lt; .001, \\u003cem\\u003etwo-tailed\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003ed\\u003c/em\\u003e = 1.53. In addition, relatively high levels of cognitive flexibility, \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e(375) = 31.33, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u0026lt; .001, \\u003cem\\u003etwo-tailed\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003ed\\u003c/em\\u003e = 1.62, and mental well-being scores,\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;t\\u003c/em\\u003e(375) = 23.84, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u0026lt; .001, \\u003cem\\u003etwo-tailed\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003ed\\u003c/em\\u003e = 1.24, were observed.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSecond, Pearson correlation coefficients were computed for the variables of the study. Inspection of Table 1 indicated that all correlations were positive and significant. Specifically, personal-focus growth (PFG) value orientation was correlated with cognitive flexibility (\\u003cem\\u003er\\u003c/em\\u003e = .33), adaptive humor orientation (\\u003cem\\u003er\\u003c/em\\u003e = .14), and mental well-being (\\u003cem\\u003er\\u003c/em\\u003e = .16), thereby providing support for Hypotheses 2, 7, and 1, respectively. In addition, cognitive flexibility was correlated with adaptive humor orientation (\\u003cem\\u003er\\u003c/em\\u003e = .34) and mental well-being (\\u003cem\\u003er\\u003c/em\\u003e = .35), which verified Hypotheses 6 and 3, respectively. Finally, Hypothesis 5 was confirmed by the correlation between adaptive humor orientation and mental well-being (\\u003cem\\u003er\\u003c/em\\u003e = .38).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTable 1\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ctable border=\\\"0\\\" cellspacing=\\\"0\\\" cellpadding=\\\"0\\\" width=\\\"626\\\" class=\\\"fr-table-selection-hover\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 223px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eVariable\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eSD\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 223px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1. PFG Value Orientation\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e.73\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e.92\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 223px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2. Cognitive Flexibility\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5.36\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e.84\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e.33**\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 223px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3. Adaptive Humor Orientation\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.74\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.14\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e.14*\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e.34**\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 223px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4. Mental Well-Being\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3.88\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e.71\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e.16**\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e.35**\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e.38**\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\" style=\\\"width: 67px;\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n\\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNote: \\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e = 376. All correlation tests are one-tailed.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e* \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u0026lt; .01\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e**\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;p\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u0026lt; .001\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThird, a mediation analysis with two mediators (Model 6 in Hayes [77]) was run in PROCESS Macro version 3.0 to test whether cognitive flexibility and benign humor orientation serially mediated the relationship between PFG value orientation and mental well-being. The Bootstrap method with 5,000 samples was used to estimate the 95% confidence intervals (\\u003cem\\u003eCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e) for the indirect effects. Confidence intervals which do not contain zero values indicated significance. Accordingly, overall model accounted for 20% of the variance. The total effect of PFG value orientation on mental well-being was significant, \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .12, \\u003cem\\u003eSE =\\u003c/em\\u003e .04, \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e(371) = 3.05, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u0026lt; .01, \\u003cem\\u003eCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [.04,.20], whereas its direct effect was not, \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .03, \\u003cem\\u003eSE =\\u003c/em\\u003e .04, \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e(371) = 0.75, \\u003cem\\u003ens\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003eCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [-.05,.10]. PFG value orientation significantly predicted cognitive flexibility (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .30, \\u003cem\\u003eSE =\\u003c/em\\u003e .05, \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e(373) = 6.75, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u0026lt; .001, \\u003cem\\u003eCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [.21,.39]), yet it was not associated with adaptive humor orientation (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .04, \\u003cem\\u003eSE =\\u003c/em\\u003e .06, \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e(372) = 0.68, \\u003cem\\u003ens\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003eCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [-.08,.17]). Cognitive flexibility was significantly associated with both adaptive humor orientation (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .44, \\u003cem\\u003eSE =\\u003c/em\\u003e .07, \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e(372) = 6.28, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u0026lt; .001, \\u003cem\\u003eCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [.30,.58]) and mental well-being (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .20, \\u003cem\\u003eSE =\\u003c/em\\u003e .04, \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e(371) = 6.05, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u0026lt; .001, \\u003cem\\u003eCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [.11,.29]). As for the final direct effect, adaptive humor orientation was significantly associated with mental well-being, \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .19, \\u003cem\\u003eSE =\\u003c/em\\u003e .03, \\u003cem\\u003eCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [.13,.25].\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eMediation tests revealed all but one mediation effect to be significant. Firstly, as for PFG value orientation \\u0026rarr; cognitive flexibility \\u0026rarr; mental well-being, \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .06, \\u003cem\\u003eSE\\u003c/em\\u003e = .02, \\u003cem\\u003eBootCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [.03,.09], \\u003cem\\u003eP\\u003csub\\u003eM\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e = 0.49. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported. Secondly, as for PFG value orientation \\u0026rarr; adaptive humor orientation \\u0026rarr; mental well-being, \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .01, \\u003cem\\u003eSE\\u003c/em\\u003e = .01, \\u003cem\\u003eBootCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [-.02,.04], \\u003cem\\u003eP\\u003csub\\u003eM\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e = 0.07. Thus, Hypothesis 8 was not supported. Finally, as for PFG value orientation \\u0026rarr; cognitive flexibility \\u0026rarr; adaptive humor orientation \\u0026rarr; mental well-being, \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .03, \\u003cem\\u003eSE\\u003c/em\\u003e = .01, \\u003cem\\u003eBootCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [.01,.04], \\u003cem\\u003eP\\u003csub\\u003eM\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e = 0.20. Thus, the serial mediation effect proposed in Hypothesis 9 was supported by the data. Pairwise comparisons between the mediation effects indicated that indirect effect of PFG value orientation on mental well-being through the mediation of cognitive flexibility was significantly greater than the mediation of adaptive humor orientation, \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .05, \\u003cem\\u003eBootSE\\u003c/em\\u003e = .02, \\u003cem\\u003eBootCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [.01,.10]. It was also significantly greater than the serial mediation effect, \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = .04, \\u003cem\\u003eBootSE\\u003c/em\\u003e = .02, \\u003cem\\u003eBootCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [.01,.07]. However, the indirect effect of PFG value orientation on mental well-being through adaptive humor orientation was not significantly different than the serial mediation effect, \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = -.02, \\u003cem\\u003eBootSE\\u003c/em\\u003e = .02, \\u003cem\\u003eBootCI.95\\u003c/em\\u003e = [-.05,.02]. All in all, the analyses provided support for the simple mediation of cognitive flexibility as well as a serial mediation together with adaptive humor styles in the relationship between value orientation and well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eGiven the cross-sectional design and correlational nature of the present study, and since the originally proposed model revealed no mediation by adaptive humor orientation, this variable was treated as the moderator in alternative model tests. Eventually, none of these conditional process model tests (Models 5, 7, 14, and 59 in Hayes [77]) revealed significant interaction effects.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe present research aimed at contributing to the literature on values\\u0026ndash;well-being link by adapting the process perspective, which aimed to explain how identified sets of healthy and unhealthy values might be associated with well-being. Healthy values guide the individual pursuit of anxiety-free growth, thus they are conceptualized as being conducive to well-being. Contrarily, unhealthy values guide the other-focused self-protective strategies, and thus they were hypothesized as being negatively associated with well-being [1]. Since research revealed weak zero-order associations between values and well-being, besides two other perspectives, it was argued that potential mediation mechanisms might exist [2]. The present research is designed as an attempt to examine two individual difference variables as potential mediators, which were cognitive flexibility and humor styles. The data provided support for the proposed model which asserted that cognitive flexibility and adaptive humor orientation would have serially mediated the relationship between personal-focus growth value orientation and well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn theorizing about the values\\u0026ndash;well-being link, Sagiv and Schwartz [22] have proposed three possibilities. Of specific concern for the present research, they argued that healthy values might be linked to well-being via leading the individual to perceive, evaluate, and act upon the environment in such ways to promote a sense of well-being. The present research is congruent with this formulation by proposing two serially associated individual difference variables as a mechanism for adapting the social-environmental demands. Through cognitive flexibility, the individual directs their cognitive resources to the perception of control in challenging situations, thereby rendering them capable of generating different solutions to problems and interpret social reality through various perspectives [46, 48]. A specific adaptation as part of such flexibility was suggested to be the manner that an individual displays humor, which requires a switching between schemas [47]. Consistent with the existing literature, higher levels of cognitive flexibility in the present study were associated with more adaptive uses of humor for both the self and the others [62]. Thus, the present research contributes to the existing literature on values\\u0026ndash;well-being link by providing evidence for the formulated mediation process.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAll but one hypothesis of the present study was supported by the data. Personal-focus growth value orientation was positively associated with cognitive flexibility, adaptive humor orientation, and well-being. The rationale for cognitive flexibility and adaptive humor orientation as correlates of value orientation was due to their value-expressiveness potential along with the possible influence of values on perceptual and behavioral processes [22]. The association between value orientation and cognitive flexibility was maintained after all the variables were entered in the model, attesting to the robustness of the relationship. This finding suggests that cognitive flexibility might be one perceptual and behavioral strategy which is guided by healthy and blocked by unhealthy values. By contrast, the association between value and adaptive humor orientations disappeared when all the variables were in the model. Furthermore, adaptive humor orientation alone did not mediate the values\\u0026ndash;well-being association; however, it was part of the serial mediation mechanism. This finding seems to support the theoretical argument of the present study that adaptive humor orientation is a means of displaying cognitive flexibility [60]. Finally, consistent with the relevant literature [2], the bivariate association of personal focus growth value orientation and well-being was relatively weak and its direct effect in the model was not significant after controlling for other variables.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTaken together, these results suggest that the proposed serial mediation mechanism is plausible. Nevertheless, given the correlational nature of the cross-sectional design in the present study, the mechanism from the other way around is also possible. Actually, one of the theoretical possibilities suggested by Sagiv and Schwartz [22] was that higher well-being might result in the pursuit of healthy values because it would have equipped the individuals with necessary positive emotional resources. In this vein, recent longitudinal research revealed that well-being of the previous day predicted Achievement value fulfillment on the next day [27]. However, there is empirical support for the opposite direction effect, where Self-Transcendence values predicted mental well-being [23]. Thus, future research with a longitudinal design is needed to test the directionality of the model proposed in the present study via longitudinal mediation analysis with an autoregressive approach [78]. This might test the directionality of effects at the same time controlling for the stability of the constructs, and thereby circumvent the potential biases inherent to cross-sectional mediation analysis.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eCognitive flexibility was particularly observed to be a stable correlate of all variables in the present study. It was positively correlated both with adaptive humor orientation and well-being, and these associations remained significant after all the variables were entered in the model. It mediated both alone and serially the values\\u0026ndash;well-being relationship. Considering the insignificant mediation and moderation effects by adaptive humor orientation together with these findings seems to corroborate the theoretical argument that humor-related processes require cognitive flexibility [60]. However, it is also possible that there might be strategies other than humor usage an individual with high cognitive flexibility might employ for adapting stressful situations. Future research might focus on identifying such variables and testing their potential mediation and moderation effects.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAlthough mediation effects shared three fourths of the variance the total effect, the mechanism tested could explain only one-fifth of the total variance in the present study. The model tested in the present research focused solely on characteristics inherent in the individual, isolating them from contextual factors. However, the fit between value priorities of the individuals and the social-cultural context that surrounds them is associated with well-being as well [25]. This, in turn, might affect the mediation effects linking values and well-being [79]. Since the sample of the present study was composed of Turkish university students, the full mediation observed in the present study requires further elaboration with respect to cultural characteristics of the contemporary Turkish youth. In this vein, Sortheix and Schwartz [19] theorized the so-called \\u003cem\\u003ecomplementary fit\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003ebetween the individuals and the cultural context, in which an individual\\u0026rsquo;s values would compensate for the opportunities available by the cultural environment, or vice versa. Accordingly, in less egalitarian cultures wherein threats are high and supportive societal structures are scarce for their members, personal-focus growth values would compensate for what the culture cannot provide the individual, and thereby bring about higher well-being. On the contrary, social-focus self-protection values, as they would hinder an individual to struggle with the establishment, would be more negatively associated with well-being. The data supported these predictions such that in low egalitarianism cultures, healthy values had stronger positive, and unhealthy values had stronger negative, associations with well-being than they would have had in high egalitarian cultures.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eT\\u0026uuml;rkiye has been found to be relatively high on egalitarianism as compared to other neighboring Middle-Eastern Muslim nations, yet somewhere in between egalitarianism and hierarchy across nations [80]. Moreover, a cultural transition in the Millennials was observed such that they placed less emphasis on Conservation values (i.e., unhealthy values with respect to well-being); however, they were no different than other generational cohorts in prioritizing Openness values (i.e., healthy values with respect to well-being) values, possibly because the national structure affords less opportunities for change [81]. Nevertheless, this transition would mean that healthy values would be emphasized over unhealthy values more, hence the finding that the present sample has such an orientation. Taken together, therefore, it is possible to assert that the lack of a direct association between PFG value orientation and well-being and the presence of full mediation effects in the present study seems partly due to a lack of complementary fit. Future cross-cultural research is required to settle the issue.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThere are some limitations of the present study. Firstly, as mentioned above, the correlational design employed limits causal inferences. Whether one-directional or reciprocal causation holds true requires future research. Secondly, self-report measurement of all individual differences variables might have certain disadvantages along with their advantages [82]. Of specific concern in this vein is CF measurement. In their meta-analytical study, Howlett et al. [47] pinpointed to a lack of definitional consensus for the construct, eventually concluding that self-report and neuropsychological assessment methods for CF are not associated. Yet, previous research with measurement tools used in the present study has already demonstrated their validity. Therefore, since the hypotheses in the present study grounded in theoretical reasoning and supported by prior empirical work, it is possible to argue for the accuracy of the findings. Nevertheless, future research using different CF protocols, especially incorporating experimental designs involving different operationalizations of all constructs, would provide more conservative tests of process models not only for the one tested in the present study but for different possible mechanisms involved in values\\u0026ndash;well-being link.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Conclusion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe present research provided converging evidence for the research on how values and well-being are associated. The findings of the present study underscored cognitive flexibility and humor styles as specific manifestations of it as constituting a serial pathway for an individual\\u0026rsquo;s guiding principles to translate into how content one would be with their life. Thus, in addition to other constructs previously studied, specific individual differences variables have been demonstrated as plausible mediation mechanisms, thereby contributing to the process perspective in linking human values to well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Abbreviations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eCF Cognitive Flexibility\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eCFI Cognitive Flexibility Inventory\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eHS Humor Styles\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eHSQ Humor Styles Questionnaire\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eMRAT Mean Rating\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ePFG Personal-Focus Growth (value orientation)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ePVQ Portrait Values Questionnaire\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSVT Schwartz\\u0026rsquo;s Value Theory\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWEMWBS The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAcknowledgements\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe author is grateful to Zeynep B\\u0026uuml;y\\u0026uuml;kkara for her help in the data collection and entry process.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAuthor Contributions\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe author has conceptualized and designed the study, planned the methodology, conducted the analyses, interpreted the results, and written the manuscript.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFunding\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe author did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eData availability\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe dataset is available from https://osf.io/6d2bz/?view_only=e985a143129e456690421f8dd887de3f.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Permission was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the university that the author is affiliated with (Decision No. 2023-15/03). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eConsent for publication\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNot applicable.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCompeting interests\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSagiv L, Roccas S, Oppenheim-Weller S. Values and well-being. In: Joseph S, editor. \\u003cem\\u003ePositive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley \\u0026amp; Sons; 2015. p. 103\\u0026ndash;120.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSchwartz SH, Sortheix F. Values and subjective well-being. In: Diener E, Oishi S, Tay L, editors. \\u003cem\\u003eHandbook of well-being\\u003c/em\\u003e. DEF Publishers; 2018. p. 872\\u0026ndash;86.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSchwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna M, editor. \\u003cem\\u003eAdvances in experimental social psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e. Vol. 25. San Diego (CA): Academic Press; 1992. p. 1\\u0026ndash;65.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSchwartz SH. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. \\u003cem\\u003eOnline Read Psychol Cult\\u003c/em\\u003e [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2025 May 23];2(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSagiv L, Schwartz SH. Personal values across cultures. \\u003cem\\u003eAnnu Rev Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2022;73(1):517\\u0026ndash;46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-125100 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBoer D, Fischer R. How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude\\u0026ndash;value linkages. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychol Bull\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2013;139(5):1113\\u0026ndash;47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031347\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSagiv L, Roccas S. How do values affect behavior? Let me count the ways. \\u003cem\\u003ePers Soc Psychol Rev\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2021;25(4):295\\u0026ndash;316. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211015975 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMilfont TL, Milojev P, Sibley CG. Values stability and change in adulthood: A 3-year longitudinal study of rank-order stability and mean-level differences. \\u003cem\\u003ePers Soc Psychol Bull\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2016;42(5):572\\u0026ndash;88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216639245 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eVecchione M, Schwartz S, Alessandri G, D\\u0026ouml;ring AK, Castellani V, Caprara MG. Stability and change of basic personal values in early adulthood: An 8-year longitudinal study. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Res Pers\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2016;63:111\\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.002 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDiener E, Suh E, Lucas R, Smith H. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychol Bull\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1999;125(2):276\\u0026ndash;302. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.125.2.276 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDiener E, Heintzelman SJ, Kushlev K, Tay L, Wirtz D, Lutes LD, Oishi S. Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. \\u003cem\\u003eCan Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2017;58(2):87\\u0026ndash;104. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000063\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRyan RM, Deci EL. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. \\u003cem\\u003eAnnu Rev Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2001;52:141\\u0026ndash;66. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDiener E. Subjective well-being. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychol Bull\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1984;95(3):542\\u0026ndash;75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRyff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Pers Soc Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1989;57(6):1069\\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRyff CD, Keyes CLM. The structure of psychological wellbeing revisited. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Pers Soc Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1995;69(4):719\\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. \\u003cem\\u003eHealth Qual Life Outcomes\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2007;5(63):1\\u0026ndash;13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKeyes CLM. Social well-being. \\u003cem\\u003eSoc Psychol Q\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1998;61(2):121\\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787065 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSchwartz SH. Les valeurs de base de la personne: Th\\u0026eacute;orie, mesures et applications [Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications]. \\u003cem\\u003eRev Fr Sociol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2006;47:929\\u0026ndash;68. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.474.0929\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSortheix FM, Schwartz SH. Values that underlie and undermine well-being: Variability across countries. \\u003cem\\u003eEur J Pers\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2017;31(2):187\\u0026ndash;201. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2096 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBilsky W, Schwartz SH. Values and personality. \\u003cem\\u003eEur J Pers\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1994;8(3):163\\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080303 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eJoshanloo M, Ghaedi G. Value priorities as predictors of hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being. \\u003cem\\u003ePers Individ Dif\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2009;47(4):294\\u0026ndash;8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.016 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSagiv L, Schwartz SH. Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations and congruity effects. \\u003cem\\u003eEur J Soc Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2000;30(2):177\\u0026ndash;98. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2%3C177::AID-EJSP982%3E3.0.CO;2-Z \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFischer R, Karl JA. Unraveling values and well-being: Disentangling within- and between-person dynamics via a psychometric network perspective. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Pers Soc Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2023;124(6):1338\\u0026ndash;55. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000449 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKarabati S, Cemalcilar Z. Values, materialism, and well-being: A study with Turkish university students. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Econ Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2010;31(4):624\\u0026ndash;33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.04.007 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSortheix FM, L\\u0026ouml;nnqvist JE. Person-group value congruence and subjective well-being in students from Argentina, Bulgaria and Finland: The role of interpersonal relationships. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Community Appl Soc Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2015;25(1):34\\u0026ndash;48. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2193 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eOishi S, Diener E, Suh E, Lucas RE. Value as a moderator in subjective well‐being. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Pers\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1999;67(1):157\\u0026ndash;84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00051 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHanel PH, Tun\\u0026ccedil; H, Bhasin D, Litzellachner LF, Maio GR. Value fulfillment and well‐being: Clarifying directions over time. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Pers\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2024;92(4):1037\\u0026ndash;49. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12869 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eOstermann M, Huffziger S, Kleindienst N, Mata J, Schmahl C, Beierlein C, et al. Realization of personal values predicts mental health and satisfaction with life in a German population. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Soc Clin Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2017;36(8):651\\u0026ndash;74. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2017.36.8.651 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNelissen RMA, Dijker AJM, De Vries NK. Emotions and goals: Assessing relations between values and emotions. \\u003cem\\u003eCogn Emot\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2007;21:902\\u0026ndash;11. http://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600861330 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTamir M, Schwartz SH, Cieciuch J, Riediger M, Torres C, Scollon C, et al. Desired emotions across cultures: A value-based account. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Pers Soc Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2016;111(1):67\\u0026ndash;82. http://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000072 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTamir M, Schwartz SH, Oishi S, Kim MY. The secret to happiness: Feeling good or feeling right? \\u003cem\\u003eJ Exp Psychol Gen\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2017;146(10):1448\\u0026ndash;59. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000303\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eParks-Leduc L, Feldman G, Bardi A. Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. \\u003cem\\u003ePers Soc Psychol Rev\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2015;19(1):3\\u0026ndash;29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538548 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRoccas S, Sagiv L, Schwartz SH, Knafo A. The big five personality factors and personal values. \\u003cem\\u003ePers Soc Psychol Bull\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2002;28(6):789\\u0026ndash;801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289008\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCarver CS, Scheier MF. \\u003cem\\u003eOn the self-regulation of behavior\\u003c/em\\u003e. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBardi A, Schwartz SH. Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. \\u003cem\\u003ePers Soc Psychol Bull\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2003;29(10):1207\\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254602\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBem DJ. Self-perception theory. In: Berkowitz L, editor. \\u003cem\\u003eAdvances in experimental social psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e. Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press; 1972. p. 1\\u0026ndash;62.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKristiansen CM, Zanna MP. The rhetorical use of values to justify social and intergroup attitudes. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Soc Issues\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1994;50:47\\u0026ndash;65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01197.x \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFischer R, Boer D. Motivational basis of personality traits: A meta‐analysis of value‐personality correlations. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Pers\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2015;83(5):491\\u0026ndash;510. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12125\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eVecchione M, Alessandri G, Roccas S, Caprara GV. A look into the relationship between personality traits and basic values: A longitudinal investigation. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Pers\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2019;87(2):413\\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12399\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFetvadjiev VH, He J. The longitudinal links of personality traits, values, and well-being and self-esteem: A five-wave study of a nationally representative sample. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Pers Soc Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2019;117(2):448\\u0026ndash;64. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000212\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHaslam N, Whelan J, Bastian B. Big Five traits mediate associations between values and subjective well-being. \\u003cem\\u003ePers Individ Dif\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2009;46(1):40\\u0026ndash;2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.001 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eZalewska AM, Zwierzchowska M. Personality traits, personal values, and life satisfaction among Polish nurses. \\u003cem\\u003eInt J Environ Res Public Health\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2022;19(20):13493. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013493\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePratkanis AR, Greenwald AG. A sociocognitive model of attitude structure and function. In: Berkowitz L, editor. \\u003cem\\u003eAdvances in experimental social psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e. Vol. 22. New York: Academic Press; 1989. p. 245\\u0026ndash;85. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60310-x \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGold JA, Russ RC. A semantic memory approach to the conceptualization of attitudes and values. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Soc Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1977;102(2):233\\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1977.9713269 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGold JA, Robbins MA. Attitudes and values: A further test of the semantic memory model. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Soc Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1979;108(1):75\\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1979.9711963\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eIonescu T. Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. \\u003cem\\u003eNew Ideas Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2012;30(2):190\\u0026ndash;200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.11.001 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHowlett CA, Wewege MA, Berryman C, Oldach A, Jennings E, Moore E, et al. Same room - different windows? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility in healthy adults. \\u003cem\\u003eClin Psychol Rev\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2021;88:102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102061 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDennis JP, Vander Wal JS. The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. \\u003cem\\u003eCogn Ther Res\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2010;34(3):241\\u0026ndash;53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGrant JE, Chamberlain SR. Impaired cognitive flexibility across psychiatric disorders. \\u003cem\\u003eCNS Spectr\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2023;28(6):688\\u0026ndash;92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852923002237\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMuyan-Yılık M, Demir A. A pathway towards subjective well-being for Turkish university students: The roles of dispositional hope, cognitive flexibility, and coping strategies. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Happiness Stud\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2020;21(6):1945\\u0026ndash;63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00162-2\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eOdacı H, Cikrikci \\u0026Ouml;. Cognitive flexibility mediates the relationship between big five personality traits and life satisfaction. \\u003cem\\u003eAppl Res Qual Life\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2019;14(5):1229\\u0026ndash;46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9651-y\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMalko\\u0026ccedil; A, Mutlu A. Mediating the effect of cognitive flexibility in the relationship between psychological well-being and self-confidence: A study on Turkish university students. \\u003cem\\u003eInt J High Educ\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2019;8(6):278\\u0026ndash;87. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n6p278\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDemirtaş AS. Optimism and happiness in undergraduate students: Cognitive flexibility and adjustment to university life as mediators. \\u003cem\\u003eAnales de Psicolog\\u0026iacute;a\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2020;36(2):320\\u0026ndash;9. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.381181\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRuch W. The psychology of humor. In: Raskin V, editor. \\u003cem\\u003eA primer of humor research\\u003c/em\\u003e. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2008. p. 17\\u0026ndash;100.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePeterson C, Seligman MEP. \\u003cem\\u003eCharacter strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification\\u003c/em\\u003e. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association / Oxford University Press; 2004.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMartin RA, Puhlik-Doris P, Larsen G, Gray J, Weir K. Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the humor styles questionnaire. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Res Pers\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2003;37(1):48\\u0026ndash;75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKuiper NA, Grimshaw M, Leite C, Kirsh G. Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. \\u003cem\\u003eHumor\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2004;17(1\\u0026ndash;2):135\\u0026ndash;68. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2004.002\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMartin MM, Rubin RB. A new measure of cognitive flexibility. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychol Rep\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1995;76(2):623\\u0026ndash;6. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMartin MM, Anderson CM, Thweatt KS. Aggressive communication traits and their relationships with the cognitive flexibility scale and the communication flexibility scale. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Soc Behav Pers\\u003c/em\\u003e. 1998;13(3):531\\u0026ndash;40.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLu JG, Martin AE, Usova A, Galinsky AD. Creativity and humor across cultures: Where Aha meets Haha. In: Luria SR, Baer J, Kaufman JC, editors. \\u003cem\\u003eCreativity and humor\\u003c/em\\u003e. San Diego: Academic Press; 2019. p. 183\\u0026ndash;203. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813802-1.00009-0\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAltan-Atalay A, Fatih Boluvat M. Cognitive flexibility and depression: The moderator roles of humor styles. \\u003cem\\u003eCurr Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2024;43(23):20814\\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05931-8 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eYağan F, Kaya Z. Cognitive flexibility and psychological hardiness: examining the mediating role of positive humor styles and happiness in teachers. \\u003cem\\u003eCurr Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2023;42(34):29943\\u0026ndash;54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04024-8 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCurran T, Janovec A, Olsen K. Making others laugh is the best medicine: Humor orientation, health outcomes, and the moderating role of cognitive flexibility. \\u003cem\\u003eHealth Commun\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2019;36(4):468\\u0026ndash;75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1700438 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSoares AIA. Rela\\u0026ccedil;\\u0026atilde;o entre estilos de humor e valores em adultos [Master\\u0026rsquo;s thesis]. Lusiada University (Portugal); 2019. Available from: ProQuest Dissertations \\u0026amp; Theses Global. Publication No. 31021118. \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRuch W, Heintz S, Platt T, Wagner L, Proyer RT. Broadening humor: Comic styles differentially tap into temperament, character, and ability. \\u003cem\\u003eFront Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2018;9:6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00006 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHeintz S, Ruch W. From four to nine styles: An update on individual differences in humor. \\u003cem\\u003ePers Individ Dif\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2019;141:7\\u0026ndash;12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.12.008\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRichard FD, Bond CF Jr, Stokes-Zoota JJ. One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. \\u003cem\\u003eRev Gen Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2003;7(4):331\\u0026ndash;63. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLovakov A, Agadullina ER. Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. \\u003cem\\u003eEur J Soc Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2021;51(3):485\\u0026ndash;504. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2752 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFritz MS, MacKinnon DP. Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychol Sci\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2007;18(3):233\\u0026ndash;9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDemirutku K, S\\u0026uuml;mer N. Temel değerlerin \\u0026ouml;l\\u0026ccedil;\\u0026uuml;m\\u0026uuml;: Portre değerler anketi\\u0026rsquo;nin T\\u0026uuml;rk\\u0026ccedil;e uyarlaması [The measurement of basic values: Turkish adaptation of portrait values questionnaire]. \\u003cem\\u003eT\\u0026uuml;rk Psikol Yazıl\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2010;13(25):17\\u0026ndash;25. http://doi.org/10.31828/tpy1301996120100000m000129\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSchwartz SH. A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. In: \\u003cem\\u003eESS questionnaire development report (chapter 7)\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2003. p. 259\\u0026ndash;319. Available from: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/core_ess_questionnaire/ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSchwartz SH. Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents, and consequences across nations. In: Jowell R, Roberts C, Fitzgerald R, Eva G, editors. \\u003cem\\u003eMeasuring attitudes cross-nationally: Lessons from the European social survey\\u003c/em\\u003e. London: Sage; 2006. p. 161\\u0026ndash;93.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSapmaz F, Doğan T. Bilişsel esnekliğin değerlendirilmesi: Bilişsel esneklik envanteri T\\u0026uuml;rk\\u0026ccedil;e versiyonunun ge\\u0026ccedil;erlik ve g\\u0026uuml;venirlik \\u0026ccedil;alışmaları [Assessment of cognitive flexibility: Reliability and validity studies of Turkish version of the cognitive flexibility inventory]. \\u003cem\\u003eAnkara Univ Egit Bilim Fak Derg\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2013;46(1):143\\u0026ndash;61.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eYerlikaya EE. \\u0026Uuml;niversite \\u0026ouml;ğrencilerinin mizah tarzları ile algılanan stres, kaygı ve depresyon d\\u0026uuml;zeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Doctoral dissertation]. \\u0026Ccedil;ukurova University (T\\u0026uuml;rkiye); 2009. Publication No. 241451. Y\\u0026Ouml;K Tez Merkezi.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKeldal G. Warwick-Edinburg Mental İyi Oluş \\u0026Ouml;l\\u0026ccedil;eği\\u0026rsquo;nin T\\u0026uuml;rk\\u0026ccedil;e formu: Ge\\u0026ccedil;erlik ve g\\u0026uuml;venirlik \\u0026ccedil;alışması [Turkish version of the Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-Being Scale: A validity and reliability study]. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Happiness Well-Being\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2015;3(1):103\\u0026ndash;15.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTabachnick BG, Fidell LS. \\u003cem\\u003eUsing multivariate statistics\\u003c/em\\u003e. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2019.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHayes AF. \\u003cem\\u003eIntroduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2018.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMaxwell SE, Cole DA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychol Methods\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2007;12(1):23\\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGalinha IC, Oishi S, Pereira C, Wirtz D. Personal values and life domain satisfaction predict global life satisfaction differently across cultures. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Soc Pers Relat\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2023;40(10):3319\\u0026ndash;43. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231173157\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSchwartz SH. National culture as value orientations: Consequences of value differences and cultural distance. In: Ginsburgh VA, Throsby D, editors. \\u003cem\\u003eHandbook of the economics of art and culture\\u003c/em\\u003e. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2014. p. 547\\u0026ndash;86.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMarcus J, Ceylan S, Ergin C. Not so \\u0026ldquo;traditional\\u0026rdquo; anymore? Generational shifts on Schwartz values in Turkey. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Cross Cult Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2016;48(1):58\\u0026ndash;74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116673909\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePaulhus DL, Vazire S. The self-report method. In: Robins RW, Fraley RC, Krueger RF, editors. \\u003cem\\u003eHandbook of research methods in personality psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e. New York: Guilford Press; 2007. p. 224\\u0026ndash;39. \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":true,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"human values, value orientation, cognitive flexibility, humor styles, well-being\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6734669/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6734669/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eResearch on values\\u0026ndash;well-being link revealed inconsistent and small effect sizes. This led researchers to develop more complex formulations taking potential moderators and mediators into account. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationships between human values and well-being from a process perspective, which takes mediational mechanisms into account. Since previous research indicated cognitive flexibility and adaptive humor styles as correlates of well-being, and by arguing that they are value-expressive individual differences which might shape the way people perceive, evaluate, and act upon the environment, they were identified as potential mediators. Self-report measures were used to collect cross-sectional data from a Turkish university sample, and the analyses were conducted on 367 participants. Testing the hypotheses of the study indicated that all variables of the study were positively correlated. In addition, mediation analyses revealed that cognitive flexibility mediated the relationship between value orientation and well-being both alone and through an adaptive humor orientation. The results were interpreted as humor orientation being a specific manifestation of cognitive flexibility, and that the latter variable was demonstrated for the first time to mediate the values\\u0026ndash;well-being link. Findings of the study contributed to the literature by providing further support for specific individual differences as serial mediators along with emotions and traits. Limitations pertaining to design issues and cultural specifics were noted.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Value Orientation and Well-Being: Testing the Serial Mediation by Cognitive Flexibility and Humor Styles\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2025-06-09 11:24:35\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6734669/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"eb3482de-0024-4104-92ed-3893126f15cb\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"June 9th, 2025\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"posted\",\"subjectAreas\":[],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2025-07-04T04:53:39+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2025-06-09 11:24:35\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-6734669\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-6734669\",\"identity\":\"rs-6734669\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}