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.
AltemeyerB. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-91). New York, NY: Academic Press.
2.
AltemeyerB. (2002). Dogmatic behavior among students: Testing a new measure of dogmatism. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 713-721.
3.
BaehrJ. (2011). The inquiring mind: On intellectual virtues and virtue epistemology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4.
BaehrJ. (2014). Sophia. In TimpeK.BoydC. (Eds.), Virtues and their vices (pp. 303-323). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5.
BardenJ.PettyR. E. (2008). The mere perception of elaboration creates attitude certainty: Exploring the thoughtfulness heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 489-509.
6.
BeardenW. O.NetemeyerR. G.TeelJ. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473-481.
7.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.KaoC. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
8.
CapraraG. V.ZimbardoP. G. (2004). Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist, 5, 9, 581-594.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
11.
CranoW.SchroderH. M. (1967). Complexity of attitude structure and processes of conflict reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 110-114.
12.
DefflerS.LearyM. R.HoyleR. H. (2016). Knowing what you know: Intellectual humility and judgments of recognition memory. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 255-259.
13.
DuckittJ. (2009). Authoritarianism and dogmatism. In LearyM. R.HoyleR. H. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 298-317). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14.
EaglyA. H. (1981). Recipient characteristics as determinants of responses to persuasion. In PettyR. E.BrockT. C.OstromT. M. (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 173-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
FalboT.BelkS. S. (1985). A short scale to measure self-righteousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 172-177.
16.
FleesonW. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The challenge and opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 83-87.
17.
Frenkel-BrunswickE. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18, 108-143.
18.
FunderD. C.OzerD. J. (1983). Behavior as a function of the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 107-112.
19.
FurnhamA.RibchesterT. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14, 179-199.
20.
GabrielM. T.CritelliJ. W.EeJ. S. (1994). Narcissistic illusions in self-evaluations of intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62, 143-155.
21.
GilovichT. D.GriffinD. W. (2010). Judgment and decision-making. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 542-588). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
22.
HilbertM. (2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 211-237.
23.
HillP. C.LaneyE. K. (2016). Beyond self-Interest: Humility and the quieted self. In BrownK. W.LearyM. R. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of hypo-egoic phenomena (pp. 243-256). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
HopkinC. R.HoyleR. H.TonerK. (2014). Intellectual humility and reactions to opinions about religious beliefs. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 50-61.
25.
HoyleR. H.DavissonE. K.DiebelsK. J.LearyM. R. (2016). Holding specific views with humility: Conceptualization and measurement of specific intellectual humility. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 165-172.
26.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
27.
JohnO. P.DonahueE. M.KentleR. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California.
28.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
29.
KoehlerD. J. (1991). Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 499-519.
30.
KoenigH. G.BüssingA. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemiological studies. Religions, 1, 78-85.
31.
KruglanskiA. W.WebsterD. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing” and “freezing.”Psychological Bulletin, 103, 263-283.
32.
Krumrei-MancusoE. J.RouseS. V. (2015). The development and validation of the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 209-221.
33.
LandrumE. (2011). Measuring dispositional humility: A first approximation. Psychological Reports, 108, 217-228.
34.
LitmanJ. A.SpielbergerC. D. (2003). The measurement of epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 75-86.
35.
MartinB.WentzelD.TomczakT. (2008). Effects of susceptibility to normative influence and type of testimonial on attitudes toward print advertising. Journal of Advertising, 37, 29-43.
36.
MartinC. L.ParkerS. (1995). Folk theories about sex and race differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 45-57.
37.
MartinJ. G.WestieF. R. (1959). The tolerant personality. American Sociological Review, 24, 521-528.
38.
MataA.FerreiraM. B.ShermanS. J. (2013). The metacognitive advantage of deliberative thinkers: A dual-process perspective on overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 353-373.
39.
McCraeR. R.SutinA. R. (2009). Openness to experience. In LearyM. R.HoyleR. H. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257-273). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
40.
McElroyS. E.RiceK. G.DavisD. E.HookJ. N.HillP. C.WorthingtonE. L.. . . Van TongerenD. R. (2014). Intellectual humility: Scale development and theoretical elaborations in the context of religious leadership. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 42, 19-30.
41.
McGuireW. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In BorgattaE. F.LambertW. W. (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 1130-1187). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
42.
MischelW. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley.
43.
MooreD. A.HealyP. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115, 502-517.
44.
MorganG.MullenE.SkitkaL. J. (2010). When values and attributions collide: Liberals’ and conservatives’ values motivate attributions for alleged misdeeds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1241-1254.
45.
NezlekJ. B.SmithC. (2016). Social influence and personality. In HarkinsS. G.WilliamsK. D.BurgerJ. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of social influence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199859870.013.15
PetrocelliJ. V.TormalaZ. L.RuckerD. D. (2007). Unpacking attitude certainty: Attitude clarity and attitude correctness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 30-41.
48.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
49.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
50.
RaskinR.TerryH. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902.
51.
ReynoldsW. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125.
52.
RhodesN. D.WoodW. (1992). Self-esteem and intelligence affect influenceability: The role of message reception. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 156-169.
53.
RobertsC. R.WoodW. J. (2003). Humility and epistemic goods. In DePaulM.ZagzebskiL. (Eds.), Intellectual virtue, Perspectives from ethics and epistemology (pp. 257-279). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54.
RoetsA.Van HielA. (2009). The ideal politician: Impact of voters’ ideology. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 6, 60-65.
55.
RoetsA.Van HielA. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the need for closure scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 90-94.
56.
RokeachM. (1954). The nature and meaning of dogmatism. Psychological Review, 61, 194-204.
57.
RokeachM. (1960). The open and closed mind. Oxford, UK: Basic Books.
58.
SaucierD. A.WebsterR. J. (2010). Social vigilantism: Measuring individual differences in belief superiority and resistance to persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 19-32.
SchmaderT.ForbesC. E.ZhangS.MendesW. B. (2009). A metacognitive perspective on the cognitive deficits experienced in intellectually threatening environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 584-596.
61.
TangneyJ. P. (2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings, and directions for future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 70-82.
62.
TiedensL. Z.LintonS. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 973-988.
TonerK.LearyM. R.AsherM. W.Jongman-SerenoK. P. (2013). Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority. Psychological Science, 24, 2454-2462.
65.
UpdegraffJ.ShermanD. K.LuysterF. S.MannT. (2007). The effects of message quality and congruency on perceptions of tailored health communications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 249-257.
66.
VerplankenB.FriborgO.WangC. E.TrafimowD.WoolfK. (2007). Mental habits: Metacognitive reflection on negative self-thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 526-541.
67.
WashburnD. A.SmithJ. D.TaglialatelaL. A. (2005). Individual differences in metacognitive responsiveness: Cognitive and personality correlates. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 446-461.
68.
WebsterD. M.KruglanskiA. W. (1994). Individual differences in the need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
