Search

This article concludes the special issue on the interdisciplinary study of intellectual humility. We offer five suggestions for addressing some of the key challenges facing scholarship. These suggestions include (a) finding sources of common ground, (b) focusing on areas of conceptual tension, (c) applying new methods, (d) tackling big problems together, and (e) keep choppin' (i.e., return to the fundamentals of gradually advancing a research program). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This brief article sets up the special issue on the interdisciplinary study of intellectual humility. The issue includes a target article as well as commentary focused on three areas. First, several authors focused on conceptual or measurement. Second, several authors focus on how to move towards conceptual synthesis, especially given the many voices, methodologies, and values that pull research in different directions. Third, several authors considered the potential and challenges of a transition towards applied research on IH. The special issue also includes a content analysis as well as an empirical illustration of some of the key themes that arose within the discussants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this response to the target article, we anticipate some challenges that joy researchers will face in attempting to cultivate a research program on a revived and more robust understanding of joy. Every psychological literature has a measurement phase. We name three pitfalls to avoid during this phase, including becoming too preoccupied with concerns about self-reports, conceptual sprawl, and entering a crowded conceptual space. Gratitude and joy are not only close neighbors; we contend that joy researchers can learn from gratitude's much less tumultuous measurement phase compared to forgiveness and humility. We suggest two strategies that might help propel a 'robust joy' scholarship past the three pitfalls. These include mining theological theories for empirically testable predictions to big questions within psychological science and moving quickly to ground the study of robust joy with brief, applied methods of inducing joy that join basic research on mechanisms with application early on. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Less than ten years ago, humility science seemed stuck with intractable measurement problems. Due to theoretical innovations, measures have proliferated in recent years. Humility science now faces a critical task of reconciling definitions and measures. We reviewed 22 measures of humility, including (a) survey measures of general humility, (b) survey measures of humility subdomains, (c) indirect measures of humility, and (d) state measures of humility. We coded each item of each measure into a humility content domain and compared the various content areas covered by each measure. Then, we described the scale structure and evidence pertaining to reliability and validity. Finally, we identified the relatively stronger measures of humility and recommended a consolidated definition of humility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report two studies of romantic couples that examine the interactive effects of actor and partner humility on individual, relational, and physiological well-being. Using both longitudinal (Study 1) and physiological (Study 2) methods from two samples of romantic couples, we explored the interactive effects of actor and partner humility. Individuals in dyads with complementary high humility reported better mental health over time following a major life transition, the birth of their first child, in Study 1 and higher relationship satisfaction and lower physiological responses (i.e. blood pressure) following the discussion of a topic of disagreement in Study 2. These results suggest that being humble is beneficial when one has a humble partner, but being arrogant - especially within a disagreement with one's partner - could undermine the benefits of humility. That is, the benefits of humility are greatest in dyads in which both partners are humble. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humility predicts relationship satisfaction, partially mediated by commitment, in college students. The present study tested this mediation in a non-college sample of participants who have been in exclusive relationships for at least three months (N = 349). We supported a partial mediation model in predicting relationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 1). After controlling for commitment, accurate view of self was the most important factor in predicting relational satisfaction (Hypothesis 2). A simultaneous meditational analysis revealed that perceived humility predicted relationship satisfaction, mediated by gratitude in relationships (Hypothesis 3). A multiple regression analysis revealed that after controlling for personal virtues, perceiving humility in one’s partner predicted additional variance in relational satisfaction (Hypothesis 4). Our study provided support for a mediational model, but do not allow causal inferences because of cross-sectional design. Thus, we recommend that future studies include longitudinal studies to investigate the meditational models we observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The transition to parenthood is a challenging experience that often strains relationships, but perceiving one’s partner as humble (actor relational humility) and being perceived by one’s partner as humble (partner relational humility) were hypothesized to benefit couples during this transition. Married couples (N = 69) were tracked from the third trimester of pregnancy through 21 months postpartum. Husbands and wives provided ratings of relational humility and dyadic adjustment. Actor–partner interdependence models tested actor and partner effects of relational humility on dyadic adjustment across the transition. Although couples declined in dyadic adjustment over the transition at the same rate regardless of relational humility (counter to Hypothesis 2), those higher in relational humility reported greater dyadic adjustment at each time point during the transition (consistent with Hypothesis 1). These findings support the benefits of relational humility to relationship quality, and we call for further research into humility’s benefits during times of relationship transition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study explored the relationship between (a) intellectual humility toward religious beliefs and values and (b) religious tolerance. Pastors who identified as Christian (N = 196) completed measures of conservatism, religious commitment, intellectual humility toward religious beliefs and values, and religious tolerance. Intellectual humility was a positive predictor of religious tolerance, even when controlling for conservatism and religious commitment. An interaction was found between exposure to religious diversity and intellectual humility, such that exposure to religious diversity was positively related to religious tolerance only for participants who reported high levels of intellectual humility. We conclude by discussing limitations, areas for future research, and implications for interfaith dialog and engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although many scholars have sharply distinguished humility from modesty, several research teams recently conceptualized modesty as a subdomain of humility. In the present study, we compare these competing conceptualizations using confirmatory factor analyses. In Study 1, a model with general humility (i.e. second-order factor) predicting the subscales of the Relational Humility Scale (RHS) and the Modesty facet of the HEXACO-PI showed adequate fit; and modesty showed one of the stronger factor loadings on the higher order factor. In Study 2, we used a set of items designed to sharpen the potential distinction between modesty (i.e. interpersonal behavior involving moderating attention to self) and humility. Then, we tested a model with a general humility factor (i.e. second-order factor) predicting subscales of the RHS and modesty items. Once again, modesty items loaded strongly on the higher order factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two studies provide evidence for distinguishing intellectual humility (IH) from general humility (GH). Humility involves (a) an Accurate View of Self and (b) the ability to regulate egotism and cultivate an other-oriented stance; IH is a subdomain of humility that involves (a) having an accurate view of one’s intellectual strengths and limitations and (b) the ability to negotiate ideas in a fair and inoffensive manner. First, we present a theoretical framework for distinguishing these constructs. In Study 1, with a sample of undergraduate students (N = 1097), we used confirmatory factor analysis to provide empirical evidence for this distinction. We also found that IH predicted unique variance in openness to experience relative to GH. In Study 2, we examined additional evidence of discriminant validity with another sample of college students (N = 355). IH also predicted unique variance in need for cognition, objectivism, and religious ethnocentrism relative to GH. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Humility is marked by the regulation of selfish impulses for the sake of others, including holding a modest view of one’s beliefs (and their relative strengths and weaknesses). In three studies, we evaluated the extent to which humility attenuates negative attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behaviors toward religious out-group members. In Study 1 (N = 159), humility regarding religious beliefs was associated with positive attitudes toward religiously different individuals. In Study 2 (N = 149), relational and intellectual humility were associated with less aggressive behavioral intentions in a hypothetical situation in which their cherished beliefs were criticized. In Study 3 (N = 62), participants implicitly primed with humility administered significantly less hot sauce (a behavioral measure of aggression) to a religious out-group member who criticized their cherished views relative to participants in the neutral prime condition. We highlight the importance of humility in promoting positive attitudes and behaviors toward religious out-group members. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Previous research has highlighted the social nature of humility. In three studies, we provide evidence that humility facilitates the initiation and maintenance of romantic relationships. In Study 1, very humble potential dating partners, relative to less humble partners, were rated more favorably and were more likely to elicit intentions to initiate a romantic relationship. Study 2 was a conceptual replication of Study 1 that provided evidence that participants find humble potential dating partners more attractive than arrogant dating partners. In Study 3, we examined perceptions of humility in participants in proximal or long-distance relationships. We found that humility buffers against unforgiveness in long-distant relationships. Although long-distance relationships were associated with greater unforgiveness, this effect was only present when partners were viewed as having low humility. Together, these findings highlight the social benefits of humility in initiating and maintaining romantic relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humility is an understudied virtue in positive psychology. Both conceptual and methodological challenges have retarded its study. In this article, we discuss how humility has been defined. Specifically, researchers disagree whether humility refers to the accuracy of an individual's view of self, or whether humility primarily describes someone's interpersonal stance toward others. We critique four approaches that researchers have used to measure humility: self-reports, implicit measures, social comparisons of self to others, and informant ratings of humility. We then theoretically elaborate on the later method, which has been mostly overlooked. Accordingly, we present a model of relational humility. We define humility as a relationship-specific personality judgment, and we describe the relationship factors that affect how humility is perceived [Funder, D.C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652-670.]. Finally, we provide next steps for researchers using a relational approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]