Site icon But What Do We Know?

Intellectual Humility

intellectual humility

Intellectual Humility: Theoretical Construct and Function

What about it?

There is no single definition of intellectual humility, but researchers commonly think of this as a multidimensional construct that involves both dispositional (“fixed” personality) traits and cognitive (thinking) and affective (feeling) states. Some social scientists explain it as a way of being that is mediated by a combination of personality and state-based mental processes, and it manifests in the way that one engages with the pursuit of knowledge . When one thinks and acts with intellectual humility, the ability to evaluate the utility and validity of information is not compromised by personal assumptions or beliefs regarding one’s intellectual superiority/inferiority compared to others. Additionally, one practices a reflective awareness of the extent to which one’s personal theories, beliefs, or values, has an effect on their evaluation of epistemic material. It is associated with constructs such as openness, curiosity, cognitive flexibility, and loving non-attachment (to both people and ideas). An intellectually humble orientation isn’t tainted by self-serving or self-defeating beliefs. The commitment to producing inferences, deductions, and creative propositions in the service of “what could be”, with equal consideration for all intellectual inputs, independent of assumptions (good or bad) about the people who espouse said inputs, is a hallmark of intellectual humility .

As a person who conducts him/herself with intellectual humility, you generally think that socially implied epistemic value differentials — teacher-student, doctor-patient, expert-layperson knowledge dichotomies — are, at best, helpful for the facilitation of learning, but at worst, can be barriers to dialogical immersion and value co-creation . In general, as one who thinks and acts with intellectual humility, you are open to the possibility of any person, dyad, group, or community — any entity — making constructive contributions to the generation of knowledge .

Intellectual humility lends itself to a way of thinking and communicating — uncompromised by a desire to placate oneself or others  — where one is drawn to engaging with “that which is unknown” in order to figure out where to go next. An awareness of the concepts of “certainty” or “closure” as largely illusory, leads to a way of understanding, that does not attempt to define something for “what it is”, but rather recognizes it via that which it is not, or, via negativa.

In discourse, you do not justify your own epistemic “credibility” by virtue of your occupation. Let’s say you’re a philosophy of science researcher. You may acknowledge that you can analyze and integrate philosophical concepts with more agility in comparison to your vocationally non-academic counterpart. You acknowledge that your partner in conversation, let’s say your mechanic, has not been in the practice of thinking and speaking on the subject to the extent that you have. However, you don’t assume that this means that you have the capacity to create more value, absolutely, in this domain. What’s more, you are reflectively aware of the paradox of “expertise”,–how faulty heuristics, developed as a result of increasing specialization and self-importance, can lead to tunnel vision–and you think that all perspectives that differ from your own, are opportunities for growth. You are aware that being in the role of one who does theoretical work for pay, does not preclude you from falling prey to inaccurate assumptive beliefs. You are also aware that when you and your mechanic are brainstorming about the hard problem of consciousness, your stance (as the individual with implicitly more “credibility” based on your social vocational role) of curiosity, ‘unknowing’, and epistemic humility allows for you both to think and act in an integral system. In this space, you and your mechanic realize ideas that may not have been possible without mutually creating and entering such an open space wherein to explore “that which could be”. Maybe your mechanic never realized what she thought about the subject because she had always needed to focus on making ends meet. Maybe nobody had ever been curious enough to ask about her thoughts. Maybe she and you surprised one another and yourselves.

How Does it Work?

Whether we are situated in contexts where we implicitly have more, less, or equal social power, interacting with intellectual humility–especially when one is positioned in an explicit leadership role–means setting a constructive tone of epistemic fairness that invites everyone to participate. More dialogical depth and breadth may lend itself to the generation of more solutions to more problems–and over time, it lends itself to the co-creation of value and the emergence of knowledge.

When you facilitate this type of relational practice, you implicitly tell people that you do not use social power structures as proxies for value (specifically as a proxy for one’s potential to contribute intellectual value). “The proof is in the pudding” when it comes to ideas, and the possibilities seem infinite.

When you reinforce that you unconditionally accept our shared potential as human beings: the potential to deliver good ideas, bad ideas, and everything in between, you co-recover integral connections that make our ‘being’ relevant. And that is a type of sense making that is priceless.

Bibliography

 
{6447874:P2XI4RS5};{6447874:6CP9XPDG};{6447874:T4PHBUCT};{6447874:KPW2XQ6K};{6447874:Y6FK5D69} chicago-author-date default asc no 1403
Krumrei-Mancuso, Elizabeth J., Megan C. Haggard, Jordan P. LaBouff, and Wade C. Rowatt. 2020. “Links between Intellectual Humility and Acquiring Knowledge.” The Journal of Positive Psychology 15 (2): 155–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1579359.
Porter, Tenelle, and Karina Schumann. 2018. “Intellectual Humility and Openness to the Opposing View.” Self and Identity 17 (2): 139–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861.
Banker, Chloe C., and Mark R. Leary. 2019. “Hypo-Egoic Nonentitlement as a Feature of Humility.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, September, 0146167219875144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219875144.
Horien, Corey, and Tanner Bommersbach. 2020. “Complexity, Intellectual Humility, and the Psychiatric Trainee.” Academic Psychiatry, March, s40596-020-01217-w. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-020-01217-w.
Leary, Mark R., Kate J. Diebels, Erin K. Davisson, Katrina P. Jongman-Sereno, Jennifer C. Isherwood, Kaitlin T. Raimi, Samantha A. Deffler, and Rick H. Hoyle. 2017. “Cognitive and Interpersonal Features of Intellectual Humility.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43 (6): 793–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217697695.

See Also

The University of Edinburgh’s Free Online Course on Intellectual Humility: Theory, Science, and Practice

The OpenMind Platform

Research from the Danielson Institute at Boston University

‘The Humility and Conviction in Public Life’ Project at UConn

The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD)

Epistemic Thinking and Ethics

Other Relevant References

BibBase https://api.zotero.org/users/6447874/collections/CMNDL7JV/items?key=YvFDI7aVva0YJAkhHsJgGe1E&format=bibtex&limit=100
generated by
This is just a preview! If you would like to use this list on your web page or create a new webpage based on this, create a free account and upload the file there. Then you will be able to modify it going forward.

To the site owner:

Action required! Mendeley is changing its API. In order to keep using Mendeley with BibBase past April 14th, you need to:

  1. renew the authorization for BibBase on Mendeley, and
  2. update the BibBase URL in your page the same way you did when you initially set up this page.

Fix it now

  2020 (2)
Links between intellectual humility and acquiring knowledge. Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J.; Haggard, M. C.; LaBouff, J. P.; and Rowatt, W. C. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(2): 155–170. March 2020. ZSCC: NoCitationData[s0]
Paper   doi   link   bibtex   abstract  
@article{krumrei-mancuso_links_2020,
	title = {Links between intellectual humility and acquiring knowledge},
	volume = {15},
	issn = {1743-9760, 1743-9779},
	url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439760.2019.1579359},
	doi = {10.1080/17439760.2019.1579359},
	abstract = {Five studies (N = 1,189) examined how intellectual humility (IH) relates to acquiring knowledge (learning). IH was associated with more general knowledge, but was unrelated to cognitive ability, and associated with slightly lower GPA. Findings were also mixed for meta-cognition. IH was associated with less claiming of knowledge one doesn’t have, indicating a more accurate assessment of one’s knowledge. However, IH was also associated with underestimating one’s cognitive ability. The differences may have resulted from using multiple measures of IH, each tapping unique aspects of the construct. Finally, IH was associated with a variety of characteristics associated with knowledge acquisition, including reflective thinking, need for cognition, intellectual engagement, curiosity, intellectual openness, and open-minded thinking. IH was also associated with less social vigilantism, which may promote collaborative learning. Finally, IH was associated with an intrinsic motivation to learn. These links may help explain the observed relationship between IH and possessing more knowledge.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2020-04-05},
	journal = {The Journal of Positive Psychology},
	author = {Krumrei-Mancuso, Elizabeth J. and Haggard, Megan C. and LaBouff, Jordan P. and Rowatt, Wade C.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2020},
	note = {ZSCC: NoCitationData[s0]},
	pages = {155--170},
}

Five studies (N = 1,189) examined how intellectual humility (IH) relates to acquiring knowledge (learning). IH was associated with more general knowledge, but was unrelated to cognitive ability, and associated with slightly lower GPA. Findings were also mixed for meta-cognition. IH was associated with less claiming of knowledge one doesn’t have, indicating a more accurate assessment of one’s knowledge. However, IH was also associated with underestimating one’s cognitive ability. The differences may have resulted from using multiple measures of IH, each tapping unique aspects of the construct. Finally, IH was associated with a variety of characteristics associated with knowledge acquisition, including reflective thinking, need for cognition, intellectual engagement, curiosity, intellectual openness, and open-minded thinking. IH was also associated with less social vigilantism, which may promote collaborative learning. Finally, IH was associated with an intrinsic motivation to learn. These links may help explain the observed relationship between IH and possessing more knowledge.
Complexity, Intellectual Humility, and the Psychiatric Trainee. Horien, C.; and Bommersbach, T. Academic Psychiatry,s40596–020–01217–w. March 2020.
Paper   doi   link   bibtex  
@article{horien_complexity_2020,
	title = {Complexity, {Intellectual} {Humility}, and the {Psychiatric} {Trainee}},
	issn = {1042-9670, 1545-7230},
	url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40596-020-01217-w},
	doi = {10.1007/s40596-020-01217-w},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2020-03-20},
	journal = {Academic Psychiatry},
	author = {Horien, Corey and Bommersbach, Tanner},
	month = mar,
	year = {2020},
	pages = {s40596--020--01217--w},
}

  2019 (2)
Hypo-Egoic Nonentitlement as a Feature of Humility. Banker, C. C.; and Leary, M. R. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,0146167219875144. September 2019. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc
Paper   doi   link   bibtex   abstract  
@article{banker_hypo-egoic_2019,
	title = {Hypo-{Egoic} {Nonentitlement} as a {Feature} of {Humility}},
	issn = {0146-1672},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219875144},
	doi = {10.1177/0146167219875144},
	abstract = {Two studies tested the hypothesis that humility is characterized by the belief that, no matter how extraordinary one’s accomplishments or characteristics may be, one is not entitled to be treated special because of them (hypo-egoic nonentitlement). Participants identified either one (Study 1) or five (Study 2) positive accomplishments or characteristics, rated those accomplishments/characteristics, indicated how they believed they should be treated because of them, and completed measures of humility and related constructs. As predicted, humility was inversely associated with the belief that other people should treat one special because of one’s accomplishments and positive characteristics. However, humility was not related to participants’ ratings of the positivity of their accomplishments or characteristics or of themselves. Ancillary analyses examined the relationships between hypo-egoic nonentitlement, humility, and measures of self-esteem, narcissism, self- and other-interest, psychological entitlement, individualism-collectivism, and identification with humanity.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2020-03-20},
	journal = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
	author = {Banker, Chloe C. and Leary, Mark R.},
	month = sep,
	year = {2019},
	note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc},
	pages = {0146167219875144},
}

Two studies tested the hypothesis that humility is characterized by the belief that, no matter how extraordinary one’s accomplishments or characteristics may be, one is not entitled to be treated special because of them (hypo-egoic nonentitlement). Participants identified either one (Study 1) or five (Study 2) positive accomplishments or characteristics, rated those accomplishments/characteristics, indicated how they believed they should be treated because of them, and completed measures of humility and related constructs. As predicted, humility was inversely associated with the belief that other people should treat one special because of one’s accomplishments and positive characteristics. However, humility was not related to participants’ ratings of the positivity of their accomplishments or characteristics or of themselves. Ancillary analyses examined the relationships between hypo-egoic nonentitlement, humility, and measures of self-esteem, narcissism, self- and other-interest, psychological entitlement, individualism-collectivism, and identification with humanity.
Concurrent and Temporal Relationships Between Humility and Emotional and Psychological Well-Being. Tong, E. M. W.; Lum, D. J. K.; Sasaki, E.; and Yu, Z. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(5): 1343–1358. June 2019.
Paper   doi   link   bibtex   abstract  
@article{tong_concurrent_2019,
	title = {Concurrent and {Temporal} {Relationships} {Between} {Humility} and {Emotional} and {Psychological} {Well}-{Being}},
	volume = {20},
	issn = {1389-4978, 1573-7780},
	url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-018-0002-3},
	doi = {10.1007/s10902-018-0002-3},
	abstract = {The present research is a preliminary investigation of the concurrent and temporal relationships between humility and two forms of well-being: emotional and psychological wellbeing. Humility, emotional well-being and psychological well-being were measured twice 6 weeks apart. Humility correlated positively with psychological well-being at both timepoints, but was positively related to emotional well-being at only one time-point. In addition, we used structural equation modeling to perform cross-lagged panel analyses, and found that psychological well-being predicted an increase in humility over time, but humility did not predict changes in psychological well-being over time. In addition, there were no cross-lagged associations between emotional well-being and humility. The results suggest that humility does not necessarily lead to more pleasant or fulfilling experiences, but psychological well-being is conducive to cultivating humility.},
	language = {en},
	number = {5},
	urldate = {2020-03-13},
	journal = {Journal of Happiness Studies},
	author = {Tong, Eddie M. W. and Lum, Darren J. K. and Sasaki, Eri and Yu, Zhaoliang},
	month = jun,
	year = {2019},
	pages = {1343--1358},
}

The present research is a preliminary investigation of the concurrent and temporal relationships between humility and two forms of well-being: emotional and psychological wellbeing. Humility, emotional well-being and psychological well-being were measured twice 6 weeks apart. Humility correlated positively with psychological well-being at both timepoints, but was positively related to emotional well-being at only one time-point. In addition, we used structural equation modeling to perform cross-lagged panel analyses, and found that psychological well-being predicted an increase in humility over time, but humility did not predict changes in psychological well-being over time. In addition, there were no cross-lagged associations between emotional well-being and humility. The results suggest that humility does not necessarily lead to more pleasant or fulfilling experiences, but psychological well-being is conducive to cultivating humility.
  2018 (3)
Be it ever so humble: Proposing a dual-dimension account and measurement of humility. Wright, J. C.; Nadelhoffer, T.; Thomson Ross, L.; and Sinnott-Armstrong, W. Self and Identity, 17(1): 92–125. January 2018.
Paper   doi   link   bibtex   abstract  
@article{wright_be_2018,
	title = {Be it ever so humble: {Proposing} a dual-dimension account and measurement of humility},
	volume = {17},
	issn = {1529-8868, 1529-8876},
	shorttitle = {Be it ever so humble},
	url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15298868.2017.1327454},
	doi = {10.1080/15298868.2017.1327454},
	abstract = {What does it mean to be humble? We argue that humility is an epistemically and ethically aligned state of awareness – the experience of ourselves as a small part of a larger universe and as one among a host of other morally relevant beings. So conceived, humility can be operationalized and measured along the dual dimensions of low self-focus and high other-focus and is distinct from other related constructs (e.g., modesty and open-mindedness). We discuss our newly developed scale (Study 1 and 2), and provide preliminary validation using self-report (Study 3) and behavioral measures (Study 4), showing that humility is related to people’s general ethical orientation (e.g., empathy, universalism/benevolence, and civic responsibility), their well-being (e.g., sense of autonomy, lifepurpose, and secure attachment), mature religious beliefs/practices, and reactions to disagreement – specifically, people high in humility sat closer and less angled away from their conversation partner with whom they disagreed. Together, this provides support for our new Dual-Dimension Humility Scale.},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2020-04-02},
	journal = {Self and Identity},
	author = {Wright, Jennifer Cole and Nadelhoffer, Thomas and Thomson Ross, Lisa and Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter},
	month = jan,
	year = {2018},
	pages = {92--125},
}

What does it mean to be humble? We argue that humility is an epistemically and ethically aligned state of awareness – the experience of ourselves as a small part of a larger universe and as one among a host of other morally relevant beings. So conceived, humility can be operationalized and measured along the dual dimensions of low self-focus and high other-focus and is distinct from other related constructs (e.g., modesty and open-mindedness). We discuss our newly developed scale (Study 1 and 2), and provide preliminary validation using self-report (Study 3) and behavioral measures (Study 4), showing that humility is related to people’s general ethical orientation (e.g., empathy, universalism/benevolence, and civic responsibility), their well-being (e.g., sense of autonomy, lifepurpose, and secure attachment), mature religious beliefs/practices, and reactions to disagreement – specifically, people high in humility sat closer and less angled away from their conversation partner with whom they disagreed. Together, this provides support for our new Dual-Dimension Humility Scale.
Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Porter, T.; and Schumann, K. Self and Identity, 17(2): 139–162. March 2018. ZSCC: 0000026
Paper   doi   link   bibtex   abstract  
@article{porter_intellectual_2018,
	title = {Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view},
	volume = {17},
	issn = {1529-8868, 1529-8876},
	url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861},
	doi = {10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861},
	abstract = {Strong disagreements have stymied today’s political discourse. We investigate intellectual humility – recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge and appreciating others’ intellectual strengths – as one factor that can make disagreements more constructive. In Studies 1 and 2, participants with higher intellectual humility were more open to learning about the opposition’s views during imagined disagreements. In Study 3, those with higher intellectual humility exposed themselves to a greater proportion of opposing political perspectives. In Study 4, making salient a growth mindset of intelligence boosted intellectual humility, and, in turn, openness to opposing views. Results suggest that intellectual humility is associated with openness during disagreement, and that a growth mindset of intelligence may increase intellectual humility. Implications for current political polarization are discussed.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2020-04-02},
	journal = {Self and Identity},
	author = {Porter, Tenelle and Schumann, Karina},
	month = mar,
	year = {2018},
	note = {ZSCC: 0000026},
	pages = {139--162},
}

Strong disagreements have stymied today’s political discourse. We investigate intellectual humility – recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge and appreciating others’ intellectual strengths – as one factor that can make disagreements more constructive. In Studies 1 and 2, participants with higher intellectual humility were more open to learning about the opposition’s views during imagined disagreements. In Study 3, those with higher intellectual humility exposed themselves to a greater proportion of opposing political perspectives. In Study 4, making salient a growth mindset of intelligence boosted intellectual humility, and, in turn, openness to opposing views. Results suggest that intellectual humility is associated with openness during disagreement, and that a growth mindset of intelligence may increase intellectual humility. Implications for current political polarization are discussed.
Finding middle ground between intellectual arrogance and intellectual servility: Development and assessment of the limitations-owning intellectual humility scale. Haggard, M.; Rowatt, W. C.; Leman, J. C.; Meagher, B.; Moore, C.; Fergus, T.; Whitcomb, D.; Battaly, H.; Baehr, J.; and Howard-Snyder, D. Personality and Individual Differences, 124: 184–193. April 2018.
Paper   doi   link   bibtex   abstract  
@article{haggard_finding_2018,
	title = {Finding middle ground between intellectual arrogance and intellectual servility: {Development} and assessment of the limitations-owning intellectual humility scale},
	volume = {124},
	issn = {01918869},
	shorttitle = {Finding middle ground between intellectual arrogance and intellectual servility},
	url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191886917307286},
	doi = {10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.014},
	abstract = {Recent scholarship in intellectual humility (IH) has attempted to provide deeper understanding of the virtue as personality trait and its impact on an individual's thoughts, beliefs, and actions. A limitations-owning perspective of IH focuses on a proper recognition of the impact of intellectual limitations and a motivation to overcome them, placing it as the mean between intellectual arrogance and intellectual servility. We developed the Limitations-Owning Intellectual Humility Scale to assess this conception of IH with related personality constructs. In Studies 1 (n = 386) and 2 (n = 296), principal factor and confirmatory factor analyses revealed a three-factor model – owning one's intellectual limitations, appropriate discomfort with intellectual limitations, and love of learning. Study 3 (n = 322) demonstrated strong test-retest reliability of the measure over 5 months, while Study 4 (n = 612) revealed limitations-owning IH correlated negatively with dogmatism, closed-mindedness, and hubristic pride and positively with openness, assertiveness, authentic pride. It also predicted openness and closed-mindedness over and above education, social desirability, and other measures of IH. The limitations-owning understanding of IH and scale allow for a more nuanced, spectrum interpretation and measurement of the virtue, which directs future study inside and outside of psychology.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2020-03-13},
	journal = {Personality and Individual Differences},
	author = {Haggard, Megan and Rowatt, Wade C. and Leman, Joseph C. and Meagher, Benjamin and Moore, Courtney and Fergus, Thomas and Whitcomb, Dennis and Battaly, Heather and Baehr, Jason and Howard-Snyder, Dan},
	month = apr,
	year = {2018},
	pages = {184--193},
}

Recent scholarship in intellectual humility (IH) has attempted to provide deeper understanding of the virtue as personality trait and its impact on an individual's thoughts, beliefs, and actions. A limitations-owning perspective of IH focuses on a proper recognition of the impact of intellectual limitations and a motivation to overcome them, placing it as the mean between intellectual arrogance and intellectual servility. We developed the Limitations-Owning Intellectual Humility Scale to assess this conception of IH with related personality constructs. In Studies 1 (n = 386) and 2 (n = 296), principal factor and confirmatory factor analyses revealed a three-factor model – owning one's intellectual limitations, appropriate discomfort with intellectual limitations, and love of learning. Study 3 (n = 322) demonstrated strong test-retest reliability of the measure over 5 months, while Study 4 (n = 612) revealed limitations-owning IH correlated negatively with dogmatism, closed-mindedness, and hubristic pride and positively with openness, assertiveness, authentic pride. It also predicted openness and closed-mindedness over and above education, social desirability, and other measures of IH. The limitations-owning understanding of IH and scale allow for a more nuanced, spectrum interpretation and measurement of the virtue, which directs future study inside and outside of psychology.
  2017 (4)
Cultivating Humility and Diagnostic Openness in Clinical Judgment. Stone, J. R. AMA Journal of Ethics, 19(10): 970–977. October 2017. Publisher: American Medical Association
Paper   doi   link   bibtex   abstract  
@article{stone_cultivating_2017,
	title = {Cultivating {Humility} and {Diagnostic} {Openness} in {Clinical} {Judgment}},
	volume = {19},
	issn = {2376-6980},
	url = {https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/cultivating-humility-and-diagnostic-openness-clinical-judgment/2017-10},
	doi = {10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.10.ecas1-1710.},
	abstract = {In this case},
	number = {10},
	urldate = {2020-03-20},
	journal = {AMA Journal of Ethics},
	author = {Stone, John R.},
	month = oct,
	year = {2017},
	note = {Publisher: American Medical Association},
	pages = {970--977},
}

In this case
Development of the Experiences of Humility Scale. Davis, D. E.; McElroy, S.; Choe, E.; Westbrook, C. J.; DeBlaere, C.; Van Tongeren, D. R.; Hook, J.; Sandage, S. J.; and Placeres, V. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 45(1): 3–16. March 2017.
Paper   doi   link   bibtex  
@article{davis_development_2017,
	title = {Development of the {Experiences} of {Humility} {Scale}},
	volume = {45},
	issn = {0091-6471, 2328-1162},
	url = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/009164711704500101},
	doi = {10.1177/009164711704500101},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2020-03-13},
	journal = {Journal of Psychology and Theology},
	author = {Davis, Don E. and McElroy, Stacey and Choe, Elise and Westbrook, Charles J. and DeBlaere, Cirleen and Van Tongeren, Daryl R. and Hook, Joshua and Sandage, Steven J. and Placeres, Vanessa},
	month = mar,
	year = {2017},
	pages = {3--16},
}

Development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure of intellectual humility. Alfano, M.; Iurino, K.; Stey, P.; Robinson, B.; Christen, M.; Yu, F.; and Lapsley, D. PLOS ONE, 12(8): e0182950. August 2017.
Paper   doi   link   bibtex  
@article{alfano_development_2017,
	title = {Development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure of intellectual humility},
	volume = {12},
	issn = {1932-6203},
	url = {https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182950},
	doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0182950},
	language = {en},
	number = {8},
	urldate = {2020-03-13},
	journal = {PLOS ONE},
	author = {Alfano, Mark and Iurino, Kathryn and Stey, Paul and Robinson, Brian and Christen, Markus and Yu, Feng and Lapsley, Daniel},
	editor = {Tractenberg, Rochelle E.},
	month = aug,
	year = {2017},
	pages = {e0182950},
}

Cognitive and Interpersonal Features of Intellectual Humility. Leary, M. R.; Diebels, K. J.; Davisson, E. K.; Jongman-Sereno, K. P.; Isherwood, J. C.; Raimi, K. T.; Deffler, S. A.; and Hoyle, R. H. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6): 793–813. June 2017.
Paper   doi   link   bibtex   abstract  
@article{leary_cognitive_2017,
	title = {Cognitive and {Interpersonal} {Features} of {Intellectual} {Humility}},
	volume = {43},
	issn = {0146-1672, 1552-7433},
	url = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167217697695},
	doi = {10.1177/0146167217697695},
	abstract = {Four studies examined intellectual humility—the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs might be wrong. Using a new Intellectual Humility (IH) Scale, Study 1 showed that intellectual humility was associated with variables related to openness, curiosity, tolerance of ambiguity, and low dogmatism. Study 2 revealed that participants high in intellectual humility were less certain that their beliefs about religion were correct and judged people less on the basis of their religious opinions. In Study 3, participants high in intellectual humility were less inclined to think that politicians who changed their attitudes were “flip-flopping,” and Study 4 showed that people high in intellectual humility were more attuned to the strength of persuasive arguments than those who were low. In addition to extending our understanding of intellectual humility, this research demonstrates that the IH Scale is a valid measure of the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs are fallible.},
	language = {en},
	number = {6},
	urldate = {2020-03-13},
	journal = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
	author = {Leary, Mark R. and Diebels, Kate J. and Davisson, Erin K. and Jongman-Sereno, Katrina P. and Isherwood, Jennifer C. and Raimi, Kaitlin T. and Deffler, Samantha A. and Hoyle, Rick H.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2017},
	pages = {793--813},
}

Four studies examined intellectual humility—the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs might be wrong. Using a new Intellectual Humility (IH) Scale, Study 1 showed that intellectual humility was associated with variables related to openness, curiosity, tolerance of ambiguity, and low dogmatism. Study 2 revealed that participants high in intellectual humility were less certain that their beliefs about religion were correct and judged people less on the basis of their religious opinions. In Study 3, participants high in intellectual humility were less inclined to think that politicians who changed their attitudes were “flip-flopping,” and Study 4 showed that people high in intellectual humility were more attuned to the strength of persuasive arguments than those who were low. In addition to extending our understanding of intellectual humility, this research demonstrates that the IH Scale is a valid measure of the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs are fallible.
  2016 (2)
Humility, stressful life events, and psychological well-being: Findings from the landmark spirituality and health survey. Krause, N.; Pargament, K. I.; Hill, P. C.; and Ironson, G. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5): 499–510. September 2016.
Paper   doi   link   bibtex  
@article{krause_humility_2016,
	title = {Humility, stressful life events, and psychological well-being: {Findings} from the landmark spirituality and health survey},
	volume = {11},
	issn = {1743-9760, 1743-9779},
	shorttitle = {Humility, stressful life events, and psychological well-being},
	url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439760.2015.1127991},
	doi = {10.1080/17439760.2015.1127991},
	language = {en},
	number = {5},
	urldate = {2020-03-13},
	journal = {The Journal of Positive Psychology},
	author = {Krause, Neal and Pargament, Kenneth I. and Hill, Peter C. and Ironson, Gail},
	month = sep,
	year = {2016},
	pages = {499--510},
}

Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale. Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J.; and Rouse, S. V. Technical Report American Psychological Association, April 2016. type: dataset
Paper   doi   link   bibtex  
@techreport{krumrei-mancuso_comprehensive_2016,
	title = {Comprehensive {Intellectual} {Humility} {Scale}},
	url = {http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/t47726-000},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2020-03-13},
	institution = {American Psychological Association},
	author = {Krumrei-Mancuso, Elizabeth J. and Rouse, Steven V.},
	month = apr,
	year = {2016},
	doi = {10.1037/t47726-000},
	note = {type: dataset},
}
  2012 (1)
HIGHER-ORDER EPISTEMIC ATTITUDES AND INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY. Hazlett, A. Episteme, 9(3): 205–223. September 2012. ZSCC: 0000100 Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Paper   doi   link   bibtex   abstract  
@article{hazlett_higher-order_2012,
	title = {{HIGHER}-{ORDER} {EPISTEMIC} {ATTITUDES} {AND} {INTELLECTUAL} {HUMILITY}},
	volume = {9},
	issn = {1742-3600, 1750-0117},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/higherorder-epistemic-attitudes-and-intellectual-humility/02D68F90E182427F06E86190B365F9DA},
	doi = {10.1017/epi.2012.11},
	abstract = {This paper concerns would-be necessary connections between doxastic attitudes about the epistemic statuses of your doxastic attitudes, or ‘higher-order epistemic attitudes’, and the epistemic statuses of those doxastic attitudes. I will argue that, in some situations, it can be reasonable for a person to believe p and to suspend judgment about whether believing p is reasonable for her. This will set the stage for an account of the virtue of intellectual humility, on which humility is a matter of your higher-order epistemic attitudes. Recent discussions in the epistemology of disagreement have assumed that the question of the proper response to disagreement about p concerns whether you ought to change your doxastic attitude towards p. My conclusion here suggests an alternative approach, on which the question of the proper response to disagreement about p concerns the proper doxastic attitude to adopt concerning the epistemic status of your doxastic attitude towards p.},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2020-08-08},
	journal = {Episteme},
	author = {Hazlett, Allan},
	month = sep,
	year = {2012},
	note = {ZSCC: 0000100 
Publisher: Cambridge University Press},
	pages = {205--223},
}

This paper concerns would-be necessary connections between doxastic attitudes about the epistemic statuses of your doxastic attitudes, or ‘higher-order epistemic attitudes’, and the epistemic statuses of those doxastic attitudes. I will argue that, in some situations, it can be reasonable for a person to believe p and to suspend judgment about whether believing p is reasonable for her. This will set the stage for an account of the virtue of intellectual humility, on which humility is a matter of your higher-order epistemic attitudes. Recent discussions in the epistemology of disagreement have assumed that the question of the proper response to disagreement about p concerns whether you ought to change your doxastic attitude towards p. My conclusion here suggests an alternative approach, on which the question of the proper response to disagreement about p concerns the proper doxastic attitude to adopt concerning the epistemic status of your doxastic attitude towards p.
  undefined (4)
The psychological roots of intellectual humility_ The role of intelligence and cognitive flexibility \textbar Elsevier Enhanced Reader. Library Catalog: reader.elsevier.com
Paper   doi   link   bibtex  
@misc{noauthor_psychological_nodate,
	title = {The psychological roots of intellectual humility\_ {The} role of intelligence and cognitive flexibility {\textbar} {Elsevier} {Enhanced} {Reader}},
	url = {https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0191886919300285?token=1A32BD9F99C718F8213502E96744B01B30DEA61E716C8BD43E08B093D7BE74C03168500180353918CC1F2E748C287B42},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2020-04-05},
	doi = {10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.016},
	note = {Library Catalog: reader.elsevier.com},
}

The Quiet Virtue Speaks: An Intervention to Promote Humiiity. Lavelock, C. R; Worthington, E. L; Davis, D. E; Griffin, B. J; Reid, C. A; and Hook, J. N ,13. .
link   bibtex  
@article{lavelock_quiet_nodate,
	title = {The {Quiet} {Virtue} {Speaks}: {An} {Intervention} to {Promote} {Humiiity}},
	language = {en},
	author = {Lavelock, Caroline R and Worthington, Everett L and Davis, Don E and Griffin, Brandon J and Reid, Cheisea A and Hook, Joshua N},
	pages = {13},
}

Development of the Oldenburg Epistemic Beliefs Questionnaire (OLEQ), a German Questionnaire based on the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). Paechter, M.; Rebmann, K.; Schloemer, T.; Mokwinski, B.; Hanekamp, Y.; and Arendasy, M. , 16(1): 18. .
link   bibtex  
@article{paechter_development_nodate,
	title = {Development of the {Oldenburg} {Epistemic} {Beliefs} {Questionnaire} ({OLEQ}), a {German} {Questionnaire} based on the {Epistemic} {Belief} {Inventory} ({EBI})},
	volume = {16},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	author = {Paechter, Manuela and Rebmann, Karin and Schloemer, Tobias and Mokwinski, Bjoern and Hanekamp, Yvonne and Arendasy, Martin},
	pages = {18},
}

Intellectual Humility: A Brief Introduction. Ballantyne, N. ,9. .
link   bibtex  
@article{ballantyne_intellectual_nodate,
	title = {Intellectual {Humility}: {A} {Brief} {Introduction}},
	language = {en},
	author = {Ballantyne, Nathan},
	pages = {9},
}

[post_grid id=’2407′]

Exit mobile version