See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323012908

Development of the Experiences of Humility Scale

Article in Journal of Psychology and Theology · March 2017

DOI: 10.1177/009164711704500101

CITATIONS READS

24 1,756

9 authors, including:

Don Davis Stacey McElroy-Heltzel

Georgia State University University of Iowa
286 PUBLICATIONS 8,675 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 916 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Elise Choe Cirleen Deblaere

Boston University Georgia State University
28 PUBLICATIONS 844 CITATIONS 104 PUBLICATIONS 3,003 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Stacey McElroy-Heltzel on 13 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Copyright 2017 by Rosemead School of Psychology
JO URNAL OF PSYCHOLO GY & TH EOL OG Y
Biola University, 0091-6471/410-730
2 0 1 7 , V ol . 4 5 , N o . 1 , 3 – 1 6

Development of the Experiences of

Humility Scale
Don E. Davis, Stacey McElroy, Elise Choe, Charles J. Westbrook, Cirleen DeBlaere
Georgia State University

Daryl R. Van Tongeren

Hope College

Joshua Hook
University of North Texas

Steven J. Sandage
Boston University

Vanessa Placeres
Georgia State University

In three studies, we developed the Experiences of Humility Research on humility has increased in recent years,
Scale (EHS). In Study 1, we used exploratory factor analy- and this growing interest has led to a proliferation of
sis to determine the factor structure and to reduce items in various measures of humility (for reviews, see Davis &
a sample of undergraduates (N = 200). The EHS had four Hook, 2014; Davis, Worthington, & Hook, 2010), in-
subscales: Other-orientation, Transcendence, Awareness cluding self-report measures (e.g., HEXICO-PI; Lee &
of Selfishness, and Awareness of Egotism. Study 2 involved Ashton, 2004) as well as other alternatives such as infor-
an experiment with a second sample of college students (N mant reports and implicit measures (Davis et al., 2011;
= 106) that provided initial evidence of construct validity. LaBouff, Rowatt, Johnson, Tsang, & Willerton, 2012;
Participants assigned to a Meaning Condition (i.e., writ- Powers, Nam, Rowatt, & Hill, 2007; Rowatt et al.,
ing about a most meaningful event) reported lower levels 2006). Investigators have developed everything needed
of awareness of egotism and selfishness than did partici- for a rich, multi-method science of humility—with one
pants assigned to a Neutral Condition. In Study 3, with a notable exception. The present article addresses the
third sample of college students (N = 155), we replicated need to develop a measure of state humility. This omis-
the factor structure of the EHS using confirmatory factor sion is especially important for the study of humility
analysis and evaluated additional evidence of construct and religion/spirituality, because one way that people
validity. As predicted, the EHS subscales predicted con- may become more humble is through being embedded
structs associated with spiritual connection and meaning. within spiritual traditions that promote humble states
Likewise, providing evidence of discriminant validity, the through helping people feel like they are part of and de-
EHS subscales were only moderately related to traits of hu- voted to something (e.g., God, church, body of Christ)
mility, agreeableness, and neuroticism. larger than themselves. Thus, the current article seeks to
develop a measure of state humility and evaluate initial
evidence of its construct validity by having participants
Author Note: Don E. Davis, Georgia State University; Stacey focus on spiritual or highly meaningful experiences.
McElroy, Georgia State University; Elise Choe, Georgia State Uni-
versity; Charles J. Westbrook, Georgia State University; Cirleen Conceptualizing and Measuring Humility
DeBlaere, Georgia State University; Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Hope We define humility as having both intrapersonal
College; Joshua Hook, University of North Texas; Steven J. Sandage, and interpersonal elements (see Davis et al., 2011).
Boston University; Vanessa Placeres, Georgia State University. Intrapersonally, humility involves having an accurate
3
4 E x p e r i e n c e s o f H u mi l i t y

view of self—not too high or too low. Interpersonally, sources (e.g., self-other agreement) tend to be quite
humility involves regulation of egotism and cultivation low, as the number of indicators increases, reliability
of an other-orientation rather than a selfish preoccu- also increases (Kenny, 2004). Analogous to how multi-
pation with one’s own needs. Humility involves integ- item measures tend to have higher reliability than
rity across cognition, behavior, and motivation, with single-item measures, it is better to use multiple in-
each component being necessary, but not sufficient, formants to estimate a trait. Third, the gold-standard
to deem someone as humble. For example, one might (as with any area of psychological science) involves the
truly possess superior abilities and know it (i.e., accu- triangulation of self-report, other-report, and observa-
rate view of self), but it is antithetical to humility to tion of trait-relevant behavior (Vazire, 2010; Vazire &
treat others as inferior (i.e., portraying a sense of inter- Carlson, 2011). Within a personality judgment frame-
personal superiority). Likewise, one might manage to work, state humility is an additional source of infor-
respect relevant modesty norms, but have a concealed mation. For example, measuring state humility would
attitude of conceit. Character that truly reflects hu- allow investigators to explore the moment-to-moment
mility involves a confluence of thought (i.e., accurate experience of people at various levels of dispositional
view of self), behavior (i.e., respecting relevant social humility.
norms), and motivation (i.e., other-oriented rather
than exploitative). The Need for a State Measure of Humility
Many scholars have conceptualized humility Despite the value of conceptualizing humility as a
within the personality judgment tradition (e.g., Davis trait-level personality judgment, measuring state hu-
et al., 2011). Assessment of another’s personality is mility is important to advance the science of humility
needed to help anticipate her or his potential behavior for several reasons. First, studying state humility pro-
(Funder, 1995). For example, when a job candidate has vides a fertile ground for advancing and testing differ-
difficulty fielding certain questions without getting ent theories of how people develop humility over time.
upset and defensive, this could indicate that the per- Basic research is needed on the internal and contextual
son may struggle to deal with conflict constructively factors that contribute to humble behavior and how
(e.g., low agreeableness, high neuroticism). Humil- these factors operate over time. Some exemplars of
ity is a trait-level variable involving one’s tendency to humility (i.e., those exceptional in humility) may natu-
express humble behavior across a range of situations rally possess the trait; however, we suspect that at least
and relationships, and self-reports are a special (and some humility exemplars developed humility through
complex) case of personality judgment in which one is regularly seeking social feedback with regard to their
both target and judge. Having an accurate understand- degree of humility and adapting accordingly. Indeed,
ing of how one is viewed by others helps one regulate some religious communities exalt humility as one of
behavior in order to obtain a desired level of social ac- the highest virtues and may encourage individuals to
ceptance and interpersonal effectiveness. exert considerable energy monitoring and promoting
Conceptualizing humility within a personality humble attitudes and behaviors. Currently, research-
judgment framework has three key implications. First, ers know little about the moment-to-moment expe-
we can draw on research of other traits to make in- riences (e.g., proximal goals, experiencing a sense of
formed hypotheses about when some sources of repu- humility) that help people regulate humble behaviors
tational information (e.g., self, close others, strangers, and may contribute to the development of humility as
or work colleagues) might better predict criterion- a trait. Although there will be variability, as a rule of
related behaviors, such as bragging and generosity. For thumb, we suspect that humility exemplars are aware
example, self-reports tend to be more accurate predic- of their humility, tend to value humility, find pleasure
tors of relevant behavior than other-reports for intra- in hypoegoic states—psychological states that have
psychic qualities (e.g., neuroticism) because intrapsy- relatively little involvement of the self (Leary, Adams,
chic events are readily observable to the self, but easily & Tate, 2006)—and spend energy restraining selfish
concealed from others (Vazire, 2010). In contrast, states of entitlement and excessive self-gratification.
other-reports tend to be more accurate than self-re- Second, investigations of humility as a personal-
ports for evaluative traits (e.g., agreeableness) because ity trait have yielded relatively imprecise knowledge
people are motivated to view themselves as better than regarding promising mechanisms to promote humil-
they really are, which enhances self-esteem (Vazire, ity. The field needs studies on proximal psychological
2010). Second, though correlations between any two processes that promote humble behavior (i.e., internal
Dav i s , M c Elroy, Choe, W e st b r o o k, D e B l ae r e , V an T o n g e r e n , H o o k , S a n d a g e , and P l a c e r e s
5
habits of thought, emotion-regulation, goals, and mo- Conceptualizing Humility as a State-Level
tivation) in order to begin to develop and test theories Experience
with implications for applied work. Indeed, ample Given the importance of studying state humility to
research suggests that humility moderately predicts advance research, we build on definitions of trait hu-
a variety of beneficial aspects of relationships (for re- mility to define state humility. A common metaphor
views, see Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Davis used to describe humility is that of a quiet ego, which
et al., 2010), but this work has not progressed much harkens back to psychodynamic theories (e.g., Bosson
beyond demonstrating moderate correlations be- et al., 2008; Heppner & Kernis, 2007) and has been
tween humility and other positive constructs (see Van used in theorizing on narcissism and other personality
Tongeren, Davis, & Hook, 2014, for an experiment). disorders. In classic psychodynamic theory, the ego ne-
These findings may simply reflect mono-method bias gotiates a compromise between the id, which involves
or covariation associated with the fact that positively primal creative and destructive impulses, and the su-
valenced constructs tend to correlate with other posi- per ego, which involves internalization of conditional
tively valenced constructs. Thus, perhaps it comes as approval and acceptance of authority figures (Suchet,
no surprise that there is almost no intervention work Harris, & Aron, 2007). Contemporary psychody-
on humility (cf. Lavelock et al., 2014). namic theories typically posit more intersubjective, re-
Third, and related to the task of eventually develop- lational, and embodied (neurobiological) perspectives
ing humility interventions, there is a paradoxical issue on ego functioning than the classic focus on structures
of supply and demand with humility, relative to other of intrapsychic conflicts (Shill, 2011). Nevertheless,
virtues. For other positive psychology constructs, it has the metaphor of a quiet ego can reference aspects of
been easier to identify individuals who might benefit psychological maturity and equanimity involving a
from an intervention. For example, with forgiveness, secure and stable sense of self, including the ability to
the ideal recipient of an intervention is often in a great balance tensions over one’s own needs and desires with
deal of pain due to unforgiving emotions and conse- the interests and desire to please others. Thus, humil-
quently is ready to work on forgiving. In contrast, ity represents quiet ego functioning through the self-
with humility, those who need the intervention the regulation of emotions (particularly involving pride
most (i.e., individuals with personality disorders such and shame) in ways that can facilitate psychosocial
as narcissism) may want it the least, and those who adaptation.
want it the most may have the least room for improve- Integrating this concept with the definition of trait
ment because they already have achieved high levels of humility described above, we suggest that state humil-
humility. Indeed, antisocial traits such as narcissism ity involves a hypoegoic state in which one is relatively
are notoriously resistant to change (Cain, Pincus, & free of the need to rely on self-enhancement strategies
Ansell, 2008) and are even reinforced in individualis- to satisfy needs for approval or self-gratification (Leary
tic societies (Twenge, 2006). Thus, we suspect that if et al., 2006). Hypoegoic states involve a forgetting of
researchers are ever to translate the science of humil- the self, which is theorized to be associated with self-
ity into a thriving applied program, then studies may less experiences such as compassion and transcendence
need to target individuals with average levels of dispo- (Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Leary et al., 2006).
sitional humility who yet struggle to practice state hu- Along these lines, individuals in a hypoegoic state are
mility in specific contexts (e.g., employees interacting less sensitive to ego threats (Chancellor & Lyubomir-
with difficult customers or leaders about to navigate a sky, 2013). Indeed, shifting a focus from one’s self to
major transition). Also, we posit that individuals who one’s valued relationships results in attenuated de-
struggle with regulation of shame may also benefit fensiveness following a threat (Van Tongeren, Green,
from interventions that facilitate humility about per- et al., 2014), which is consistent with broader work
sonal limitations. A state measure of humility—along on the role of value affirmation in promoting other-
with measures of other proximal constructs—should oriented emotions (Crocker, Niiya, & Mischkowski,
help the science of humility explore factors that can 2008).
catalyze growth in one’s ability to regulate selfishness Although these theories on hypoegoic states have
and shame and promote the formation of stronger not yet been widely studied, there is ample support
social bonds among people who are already func- for similar effects in the opposite direction when
tioning well but desire to continue to sharpen these one is very focused on the self. Namely, sensitivity
abilities. to ego threats, reactivity, and instability are strongly
6 E x p e r i e n c e s o f H u mi l i t y

associated with narcissism (Chancellor & Lyubomir- connectedness in family systems and other close
sky, 2013; Heppner & Kernis, 2007). Individuals relationships (Jankowski, Sandage, & Hill, 2013;
with traits of narcissism are highly involved with their Jankowski & Sandage, 2014). In relationships with
ego and rely on self-enhancing strategies when they high commitment, sacrifice behavior predicts relation-
encounter threats (Heppner & Kernis, 2007). Alter- ship satisfaction (for a review, see Stanley, Rhoades, &
natively, individuals with a secure self-esteem are less Whitton, 2010). More specifically, people in commit-
involved with their ego and hence less likely to use self- ted relationships view investing in the relationship as
promotion when presented with a challenge (Heppner an investment in their own future well-being. In other
& Kernis, 2007). For example, individuals with secure words, a strong social bond transforms motivations so
self-esteem can non-defensively face criticism and tem- that people treat the needs of a relationship partner as
per a sense of superiority when one receives praise or tantamount to their own needs (see Van Tongeren,
affirmation from others. Davis, et al., 2014). Thus, one aspect of state humil-
Similarly, state humility involves a lack of preoccu- ity involves positively valenced states associated with a
pation with one’s own needs, which allows one to at- sense of a social bond. Individuals in a state of humil-
tend and respond to the needs of others within one’s ity may feel more focused on the needs of others and
social environment. There are a variety of hypoegoic experience a sense of psychological or even spiritual
states that might contribute to a sense of state humil- transcendence. In summary, state humility should be
ity. For example, mindfulness may involve a quieting associated with the regulation of behavior that would
of the ego because it is associated with less self-concern result in aversive self-preoccupation (via the BIS) and a
and reactivity to threats (Heppner & Kernis, 2007) as desire to approach others and strongly value their well-
well as fewer and less-intense self-thoughts (Leary et al., being as a personal goal (via the BAS).
2006). Another hypoegoic state involves flow states,
which tend to occur when people engage in optimally Overview and Hypotheses
challenging activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). Dur- The purpose of the present study was to develop a
ing flow states, people often describe a sense of time- measure of state humility. There are many situations
lessness and temporary loss of self-consciousness that is that might evoke a state of humility, such as reflecting
positively valenced. on one’s spiritual beliefs or particularly meaningful
In terms of self-regulation, we theorize that state events in life. In Studies 1 and 3, we asked people to
humility may involve aspects of both the behavioral focus on their most significant spiritual experiences.
activation system (BAS) and the behavioral inhibi- To provide some methodological variability, in Study
tion system (BIS; Carver & White, 1994). The BAS 2, we used a prompt that was not explicitly focused on
involves motivations and behaviors that compel an in- spiritual experiences. Namely, we randomly assigned
dividual to take action in pursuing an object, person, people to think either of their most meaningful experi-
or goal, whereas the BIS includes motivations and be- ence or of a self-focused control condition (i.e., think
haviors aimed at avoiding an object, person, or aversive about their “to do list” for the next day). The rationale
outcome. One aspect of humility involves awareness for having people focus on meaningful experiences is
and regulation of self-preoccupation as an aversive that one aspect of our definition of state humility in-
condition, and that regulation is motivated through volves a sense of transcendence or other-orientation.
the BIS. For those with very strong values around Thus, we reasoned that people might experience
selflessness, awareness of selfishness and difficulty pri- strong feelings of humility after significant spiritual ex-
oritizing valued others may even cause negative emo- periences (Studies 1 and 3) or other meaningful experi-
tional states. The other aspect of humility involves ences (Study 2).
cultivation of other-oriented approach motivations The purpose of Study 1 was to use exploratory
associated with goals and positive emotional states, factor analysis to determine the factor structure and
driven by the BAS. For example, Davis et al. (2013) refine the item pool of the Experiences of Humility
theorized that humility strengthens social bonds and Scale (EHS). We also evaluated the Cronbach’s alpha
the psychological experiences of relationship commit- coefficients. In Study 2, we conducted a simple experi-
ment. Two prior studies have found that dispositional ment to see if the EHS subscales were able to detect
humility is positively associated with differentiation differences between a Meaning Condition (i.e., writ-
of self, which is a relational selfhood construct involv- ing about a most meaningful experiences) and a Neu-
ing capacities for self-regulation and interpersonal tral Condition (i.e., writing about one’s activities and
Dav i s , M c Elroy, Choe, W e st b r o o k, D e B l ae r e , V an T o n g e r e n , H o o k , S a n d a g e , and P l a c e r e s
7
responsibilities for the next day). Finally, in Study 3, After indicating informed consent, participants were
we sought to replicate the factor structure of the EHS asked to think of the most significant spiritual experi-
using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and to ex- ences of their life. They then subsequently rated their
amine initial evidence of its construct validity. To eval- degree of humility during that experience using the
uate evidence of convergent validity, we hypothesized EHS items.
that the EHS would correlate positively with meaning Measures. To assess perceived state humility, we
in life. Consistent with our definition of humility, generated a list of face-valid items, drawn from various
meaning in life involves having an attachment to some- definitions of humility. We sent them to three experts
thing greater than oneself (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & who have regularly published on humility for feedback.
Kaler, 2006). Likewise, we also expected state humility The final pool included 33 items. Participants rated
would be associated with higher religious commitment their level of humility at the time of their most signifi-
and intrinsic religiosity. Namely, engaging in religious cant spiritual experience using a 5-point rating scale
activities and experiencing intrinsic religious motiva- ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
tions on a regular basis may trigger hypoegoic states.
Finally, to evaluate initial evidence of discriminant va- Results and Discussion
lidity, we hypothesized that the EHS subscales would Items for the EHS-33 were analyzed using princi-
correlate only moderately with trait humility, agree- pal axis factoring and a promax rotation. There were
ableness, and neuroticism. A strong correlation with seven factors with Eigenvalues above one, but parallel
these constructs would make us question the degree to analysis and examination of the Scree plot indicated
which the EHS subscales are detecting state humility. that a four-factor solution best fit the data. After ex-
amining the content of items, the four factors were
Study 1 named Other-orientation (e.g., more focused on oth-
The purpose of Study 1 was to use exploratory fac- ers), Transcendence (e.g., being part of something big-
tor analysis (EFA) to determine the factor structure ger than myself), Awareness of Selfishness (e.g., obsessed
and refine items of the EHS. We did not have prior with my needs), and Awareness of Egotism (e.g., my per-
predictions regarding the number of factors we would ceptions of myself are overblown). Items were dropped
observe. However, based on our definition, we did ex- that did not load at least .50 on their primary factor
pect to see a factor associated with inhibition of hyper- or that cross-loaded over .30 on any secondary factor.
egoic behavior and motivational states (e.g., regulating Partial correlations among items on each subscale were
self-preoccupation), as well as a factor associated with examined after controlling for the total score on that
activation of hypoegoic behavior and motivational subscale (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Moderate correla-
states (e.g., a sense of transcendence). We hypothesized tions suggest a potential method factor. This strategy
that the EHS subscales would have Cronbach’s alpha resulted in dropping one additional item that loaded
coefficients around .80 or higher. on the Awareness of Selfishness factor.
After these refinements, the final version of the
Method EHS consisted of 12 items (three items on each fac-
tor). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .82 for Other-
Participants and procedure. Participants were orientation, .79 for Transcendence, .82 for Awareness
200 undergraduates (127 women; 73 men) from an of Selfishness, and .85 for Awareness of Egotism. After
undergraduate university in the Southeastern United omitting the dropped items, we conducted a second
States. The mean age was 23.99 years (SD = 5.64). The EFA on the final set of items. Descriptive statistics and
sample was diverse in terms of race/ethnicity (42.5% factor loadings for the EHS based on the final EFA are
Black/African-American; 36.0% White; 10.0% Asian/ listed in Table 1, and factor correlations are listed in
Pacific Islander; 5.5% Latino/a; 5.5% Other; and .5% Table 2. The four factors accounted for 62.68% of the
Did Not Respond). Religious/spiritual affiliation was variance in items.
obtained while taking the survey by asking participants Thus, the EHS had four subscales with adequate
“How committed are you to your religion” (Not at all, estimates of internal consistency. We theorized that
very little, moderately, very much, totally). Results in- state humility would involve states associated with
dicated the sample was predominantly religious/spiri- behavioral activation; the Other-orientation and
tual (89.3%). Participants in undergraduate courses Transcendence subscales appear to align with this as-
registered for the study in exchange for course credit. pect of our definition. We also theorized that state
8 E x p e r i e n c e s o f H u mi l i t y

Table 1
Exploratory Factor Analysis of Items in Study 1
M SD O T S E
More focused on others 2.31 1.22 .98 –.01 .02 –.03
More attentive to the needs of others 2.25 1.19 .88 –.04 .04 –.04
Less focused on myself 2.24 1.21 .50 .12 –.10 .09
Part of something much bigger than myself 3.09 1.25 –.02 .90 .03 –.05
Deep reverence 3.06 1.27 –.05 .80 .04 .00
“Small” in a good way 3.19 1.24 .18 .53 –.08 .06
Preoccupied 1.91 1.04 .04 .02 .89 –.07
Obsessed with my needs 2.09 1.13 –.07 .05 .82 –.01
Needy 2.08 1.10 .02 –.06 .72 .13
Ashamed for being so self-focused 3.45 1.24 .01 .02 –.03 .87
Like I’ve been too concerned with myself 3.57 1.14 –.05 –.04 –.04 .75
Like my perceptions of myself are overblown 3.74 1.14 .04 .02 .11 .71
Eigenvalue 2.99 2.75 1.74 1.47
% Variance Accounted For 24.93 22.96 14.53 12.29
Note. O = Other-orientation, T = Transcendence, S = Awareness of Selfishness, E = Awareness of egotism.

Table 2
Correlations among EHS Subscales in Study 1
Construct M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Other-orientation 9.31 3.22 .82   .34 **
.08 –.05
2. Transcendence 10.78 2.95 .79 .00 –.11
3. Selfishness 6.09 2.82 .82 .23**
4. Egotism 6.78 3.18      .85
* = p < .05; ** = p < .01
Note. Alphas are on the diagonal (in bold)

humility would involve states associated with behav- humility includes a sense of transcendence or other-
ioral inhibition; the Awareness of Selfishness and orientation that is broader than spirituality. Previous
Awareness of Egotism subscales align with this aspect research has linked humility and meaning (Van Ton-
of our definition. geren, Green, et al., 2014), and meaning has been de-
fined in ways that include attachment to something
Study 2 greater than oneself (Steger et al., 2006), which aligns
The purpose of Study 2 was to provide a basic ex- with the other-orientation expression consistent with
perimental manipulation to examine whether the EHS definitions of humility (Davis et al., 2011). Thus, we
subscales were sufficiently sensitive to detect differ- expected participants for whom meaning was made
ences between conditions hypothesized to promote salient to report a greater degree of state humility,
state humility. One aspect of our definition of state similar to participants who had significant spiritual
Dav i s , M c Elroy, Choe, W e st b r o o k, D e B l ae r e , V an T o n g e r e n , H o o k , S a n d a g e , and P l a c e r e s
9
experiences. Participants were randomly assigned to Results and Discussion
write about the most meaningful event of their lives Our primary hypothesis in Study 2 was that the
(i.e., meaning condition) or a control condition, in EHS would detect differences by condition. To test
which they wrote about their “to-do” list for the next the hypothesis, we examined a series of independent
day (i.e., neutral condition). We hypothesized that the sample t-tests. There were no differences by condition
those in the meaning condition would report lower for the Other-orientation subscale and the Transcen-
scores on the behavioral inhibition subscales of the dence subscale. Participants in the meaning condition
EHS (i.e., Awareness of Selfishness and Awareness of (M = 2.38; SD = .86) reported lower scores than par-
Egotism), as these subscales represent personal assess- ticipants in the neutral condition (M = 2.82; SD =
ments of preoccupation with oneself, and higher scores .91) on the Awareness of Selfishness subscale, t(104)
on the behavioral activation subscales (i.e., Other- = –2.54, p = .012. Similarly, participants in the mean-
orientation and Transcendence), because these items ing condition (M = 1.86; SD = 2.23) reported lower
represent a focus beyond oneself, relative to the neutral scores than participants in the neutral condition (M =
condition. 2.23; SD = .89) on the Awareness of Egotism subscale,
t(104) = –2.24, p = .027.
Method These findings provided partial support for our
primary Study 2 hypotheses. The EHS detected differ-
Participants and procedure. Participants were 106 ences between conditions associated with behavioral
undergraduates (72 women; 34 men) from the same inhibition states of humility. That is, thinking of a
university as Study 1. The mean age was 24.87 years meaningful experience resulted in attenuated aware-
(SD = 7.07). The sample was diverse in terms of race/ ness of self-preoccupation relative to thinking about
ethnicity (43.40% Black/African-American; 26.40% one’s to-do list. Thus, these findings provided initial
White; 11.30% Latino/a; 8.50% Asian/Pacific Is- evidence of construct validity for the subscales, par-
lander; 8.50% Other; and 1.90% Did Not Respond). ticularly the two subscales associated with behavioral
After indicating informed consent online, participants inhibition. Although having participants reflect on a
were randomly assigned to two conditions. In the meaningful experience did not impel behavioral acti-
Meaning Condition, participants received the follow- vation motivations, it attenuated self-reflected atten-
ing prompt: tion toward selfishness and egotism. Researchers may
want to explore stronger prompts (as these were quite
For three minutes, write about the most meaningful mo- subtle) that may better discern differences in the be-
ment in your life. Tell the short story of what happened. havioral activation subscales of the EHS.
Try to put words to exactly how it made you feel.
Study 3
In the Neutral Condition (i.e., writing about one’s After establishing the factor structure of the EHS
to-do list), participants responded to the following in Study 1 and providing experimental evidence for the
prompt: sensitivity of the EHS to detect differences between
the cognitive saliency of a meaningful experience rela-
Many people feel very busy. For three minutes, write tive to a neutral experience in Study 2, the purpose
about the 3–5 things on your to do list that need to be of Study 3 was to (a) replicate the factor structure of
done soon. Try to describe how you are feeling as clearly the EHS found in Study 1 and (b) examine additional
as possible so that even a stranger would understand the evidence of construct validity for the EHS subscales to
degree of pressure you are feeling. build upon the results of Study 2. Given that Study 2
only detected differences on the behavioral inhibition
After completing this prompt, participants completed subscales of the EHS, we wanted to examine evidence
the EHS. of construct validity for the EHS subscales associated
with behavioral activation (i.e., Other-orientation and
Measures. Participants completed the final version Transcendence). We hypothesized that a confirma-
of the EHS, as described in Study 1. The Cronbach’s al- tory factor analysis model with four-correlated fac-
pha coefficients were .84 for Other-orientation, .82 for tors would show adequate fit. Given theorizing that
Transcendence, .81 for Awareness of Selfishness, and state humility involves connection with something or
.84 for Awareness of Egotism. someone outside of oneself, we hypothesized that the
10 E x p e r i e n c e s o f H u mi l i t y

behavioral activation subscales of the EHS (i.e., Other- Scales (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006).
orientation and Transcendence) would uniquely pre- The Mini-IPIP contains 20 items organized with four
dict constructs associated with transcendence and items for each of the five major personality dimensions
connection with the sacred (i.e., intrinsic religiosity, re- (i.e., Costa & McCrae, 1992). This relatively brief mea-
ligious commitment, and meaning in life). Finally, we sure appears to perform as well as longer instruments
hypothesized that the EHS subscales would correlate tapping the five-factor model of personality. In a series
moderately with trait humility, agreeableness, and neu- of studies, Donnellan et al. (2006) found that Mini-
roticism. Support for this hypothesis would provide IPIP scores were adequately reliable and possessed
evidence of construct (especially discriminant) validity good convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and pre-
for the EHS. dictive validity. For the present study, the Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients were .68 for Agreeableness and .62
Method for Neuroticism.

Participants and procedure. Participants were 155 Intrinsic religiosity. Intrinsic religiosity was mea-
undergraduates (103 women; 50 men; 2 did not re- sured using the New Indices of Religious Orientation
port) from the same university as Study 1 and Study 2. (NIRO; Francis, 2007). The NIRO includes three
The mean age was 24.89 years (SD = 6.50). The sample subscales that measure the constructs of intrinsic, ex-
was diverse in terms of race/ethnicity (42.6% Black/ trinsic, and quest religiosity. Items on the scale were
African-American; 27.7% White; 12.3% Asian/Pacific rated using a 5-point Likert-like scale ranging from 1
Islander; 9.0% Latino/a; 3.2% Other; and 5.2% Did = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Francis (2007)
Not Respond). The procedure of Study 3 was identical found the Cronbach’s alphas to range from .84 – .91
to Study 1, except participants completed the final set for the subscales. Also, there have been several stud-
of EHS items, as well as several other measures used to ies that have examined internal stability, temporal
evaluate evidence of construct validity. stability, and content validity and found the NIRO
to be satisfactory (e.g., Kamble, Lewis, & Cruise,
Measures. Participants completed the finalized, 2010). The Cronbach’s alpha was .92 for the present
12-item EHS as developed and described in Study 1. study.
The Cronbach’s alphas for the current study were .84
Other-orientation, .82 for Transcendence, .81 for Religious commitment. Religious commitment
Awareness of Egotism, .84 for Awareness of Selfish- was assessed with the 10-item Religious Commitment
ness. In addition, participants also completed the fol- Inventory (RCI-10; Worthington et al., 2003). The
lowing measures. items on the scale were rated on a 5-point Likert-like
scale ranging from 1 = not at all true to 5 = totally true
Trait humility. Trait humility was measured using of me. Worthington et al. (2003) found Cronbach’s al-
a self-report version of the 16-item Relational Humil- phas to range from .88 – .98 across multiple samples.
ity Scale (RHS; Davis et al., 2011). The items were Also, temporal stability was found, for three weeks and
rated using a 5-point Likert-like scale, which ranged five months, to be .84 and .87, respectively (Worthing-
from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree. ton et al., 2003). The Cronbach’s alpha for the present
There are three subscales in the scale: Global Humil- study was .96.
ity, Superiority, and Self-Awareness. For the full score,
the Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .90 to .95 with the Meaning. Meaning was measured using the 10-
scale development samples. Also, the RHS had positive item Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger
correlations with empathy, forgiveness of an offender, et al., 2006). This widely used scale includes two sub-
and positive relationship characteristics with a parent, scales: Presence of Meaning and Search for Meaning.
providing initial evidence of construct validity. For the The items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from
present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 1 = absolutely untrue to 7 = absolutely true. Reliability
.95 for Global, .91 for Superiority, and .93 for Self- has been reported to range from .81 – .92, and tem-
Awareness. poral stability to be between .70 – .73 (Steger et al.,
2006). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the pres-
Agreeableness and Neuroticism. Agreeableness and ent study were .91 for Presence of Meaning and .91 for
neuroticism were assessed with the 20-item Mini-IPIP Search for Meaning.
Dav i s , M c Elroy, Choe, W e st b r o o k, D e B l ae r e , V an T o n g e r e n , H o o k , S a n d a g e , and P l a c e r e s
11
Results and Discussion Correlations between subscales are reported in
We first examined whether the factor structure of Table 3. We hypothesized that the Other-orientation
the EHS from Study 1 would replicate in another sam- and Transcendence subscales would predict constructs
ple. The covariance matrix of EHS items was analyzed associated with transcendence and connection with
with Maximum Likelihood (MLR) estimation us- the sacred. To examine this hypothesis, we examined
ing MPLUS 8.11 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2012). a series of models in which we regressed the criterion
Items of the EHS were used as indicators of four corre- variables simultaneously on the EHS subscales. Results
lated factors. The four-factor model showed adequate are presented in Table 4. For intrinsic religiosity and
fit, χ2(84) = 124.12, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = religious commitment, the Transcendence subscale
.06 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = .03, .08), SRMR was a significant predictor, but none of the other EHS
= .07. We also examined a one-factor model, which subscales were significant. For Presence of Meaning,
showed very poor fit, χ2(90) =552.85, p <.001, CFI = all four EHS subscales were significant predictors in
.43, RMSEA = .19 (95% CI = .17, .20), SRMR = .17). the hypothesized direction. For Search for Meaning,

Table 3
Correlations among Constructs in Study 3
M SD N O T S E
Global Humility 3.71 .95 142 .18 *
.28 **
–.08 –.06
Superiority 3.63 .94 142 –.06 –.02 –.29 **
–.46**
Accurate View of Self 3.97 .77 141 .16 .26** –.26** .09
Agreeableness 15.30 2.97 142 .20 *
.17 *
–.19 *
–.22**
Neuroticism 11.36 3.19 140 –.18* .05 .01 .20*
Intrinsic Religiosity 2.97 1.04 141 0.16 .25** .04 –.03
Religious Commitment 2.74 1.18 142 .24 **
.30 **
–.06 .04
Presence of Meaning 4.84 1.27 145 .21 *
.25 **
–.17 *
.17*
Search for Meaning 4.34 1.42 145 0.12 .04 .28 **
.05
Note. O = Other-orientation, T = Transcendence, S = Awareness of Selfishness, E = Awareness of egotism. * = p < .05; ** = p < .01

Table 4
Series of Regression Analyses with EHS Subscales Predicting Criterion Variables
R2 O T S E
Global Humility .10 .10 .25** –.13 –.06
Superiority .26 .01 .05 –.24** –.43**
Accurate View of Self .16 .10 .24** –.31** .10
Agreeableness .14 .19* .13 –.22** –.22**
Neuroticism .09 –.26** .14 .02 .20*
Intrinsic Religiosity .06 .06 .22* .00 –.05
Religious Commitment .11 .14 .24** –.12 .03
Presence of Meaning .14 .16* .19* –.23** .17*
Search for Meaning .05 .08 –.03 .26** .01
Note. O = Other-orientation, T = Transcendence, S = Awareness of Selfishness, E = Awareness of egotism. * = p < .05; ** = p < .01
12 E x p e r i e n c e s o f H u mi l i t y

awareness of selfishness was a significant positive pre- Egotism) align with the behavioral inhibition aspect
dictor; none of the other EHS subscales were signifi- of our definition. This four-factor structure replicated
cant. Thus, these hypotheses were partially supported. well in an independent sample, and the EHS showed
As hypothesized, the EHS subscales correlated adequate estimates of internal consistency across three
moderately with trait humility, agreeableness, and neu- studies. Our definition of state humility and the sub-
roticism (see Table 3), although there were different scales of the EHS also align with the commonly ob-
patterns of correlations for the subscales of the EHS. served intrapersonal (i.e., accurate view of self) and
Specifically, global trait humility was positively corre- interpersonal domains (i.e., other-orientation and
lated with Other-orientation and Transcendence, su- regulation of egotism) in existing measures of humility
periority was positively correlated with Awareness of (Davis et al., 2011).
Selfishness and Egotism, and accurate view of self was In terms of initial evidence of construct validity for
positively correlated with Transcendence and nega- the EHS subscales, in Study 2, we conducted a basic
tively correlated with Awareness of Selfishness. Agree- experiment that contrasted a meaning prime condi-
ableness was significantly correlated in the expected tion with a neutral condition. Participants randomly
direction with all four EHS subscales, whereas neuroti- assigned to recall a meaningful episode in life reported
cism was negatively correlated with Other-orientation lower selfishness and egotism, suggesting that mean-
and positively correlated with Awareness of Egotism. ingful experiences are associated with a diminished
These findings supported our hypotheses regarding focus on the self, which is consistent with previous
the construct validity of the EHS subscales. theorizing on meaning as being attached to something
Taken together, the results of Study 3 suggest that larger than the self and a reduced self-focus (e.g., Steger
the factor structure and psychometric properties of et al., 2006). Put differently, the EHS subscales asso-
the EHS replicated well in an independent sample. ciated with behavioral inhibition detected differences
Whereas Study 2 provided evidence of construct valid- between these two conditions, providing initial evi-
ity for the EHS subscales associated with behavioral in- dence of discriminant validity for these two subscales.
hibition, the results of Study 3 provided some evidence In Study 3, we examined evidence of construct
of construct validity for the Transcendence subscale, validity for the Transcendence and Other-oriented
which is associated with behavioral activation. We subscales. As predicted, both Other-orientation and
found limited evidence for the discriminant validity Transcendence predicted a sense of meaning in life.
of the Other-orientation subscale in this study. While This was to be expected as one of the robust correlates
it did predict unique variance in Presence of Meaning of meaning involves being embedded within strong so-
scores, the subscales associated with behavioral inhi- cial bonds (see Baumeister, 1991; Baumeister & Vohs,
bition (i.e. Awareness of Selfishness and Awareness 2002; Van Tongeren et al., 2015). Likewise, the EHS
of Egotism) had significant coefficients of equal or subscales associated with behavioral activation (i.e.,
greater magnitude. Interestingly, the Other-orienta- Other-orientation and Transcendence) correlated
tion subscale did predict unique variance in agreeable- with religious commitment and intrinsic religiosity.
ness and neuroticism, and this could be because these Furthermore, the Transcendence subscale of the EHS
constructs are interpersonal in nature. Given that this uniquely predicted intrinsic religiosity, suggesting that
study only examined a limited number of constructs, self-reports of state humility may reflect something
future studies should examine other dependent vari- beyond impression management and social posturing.
ables that are interpersonal in nature and also related Whereas extrinsic religiosity involves engagement in
to the behavioral activation system (i.e. altruism). religion due to external benefits and has been linked
to negative outcomes such as prejudice (Hall, Matz,
General Discussion & Wood, 2010), intrinsic religiosity involves engage-
The purpose of these studies was to create a measure ment in religion due to internalized values and has
of state humility and evaluate its psychometric proper- been linked with a variety of positive physical health,
ties and initial evidence of construct validity. The EHS mental health, and relationship outcomes (Donahue,
has 12 items, including four subscales with three items 1985; Moradi, Ghalamkarian, & Heyrat, 2013; Zuck-
each. Two subscales (i.e., Other-orientation and Tran- erman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013). We also found that
scendence) align with the behavioral activation aspect the more people experience a sense of transcendence,
of our definition of state humility. The other two sub- the stronger their reported level of religious commit-
scales (i.e., Awareness of Selfishness and Awareness of ment. Although this relationship does not clarify the
Dav i s , M c Elroy, Choe, W e st b r o o k, D e B l ae r e , V an T o n g e r e n , H o o k , S a n d a g e , and P l a c e r e s
13
causal direction linking these two constructs, it is con- Fourth, we used three convenience samples of col-
sistent with theorizing that experiences of humility lege students, and two of the studies focused on signifi-
can strengthen one’s connection with the Sacred. cant spiritual experiences. It is important to explore the
Finally, findings from our studies add to the grow- EHS in a variety of samples and contexts. Prior con-
ing body of work linking religion/spirituality and ceptualizations of humility suggest that developmental
humility (e.g., Davis, Hook, Worthington, Van Ton- transitions are a promising time to explore how state
geren, et al., 2010; Schwartz et al., 2012). An impor- and trait humility are related and may interact with
tant next step is to move beyond correlational studies each other over time. For example, researchers might
to examine how behaviors (e.g., prayer, meditation, explore how daily experiences of humility predict long-
religious attendance, civic engagement) and processes term changes in trait humility or other outcomes in (a)
affect the experience and practice of humility. In ad- newly married couples, (b) individuals who recently
dition, limited work has examined how religion/spiri- lost a job, (c) new parents, (d) leaders initiating a tran-
tuality may promote humility in some domains (e.g., sition, (e) clients in therapy, or (f) individuals who
relationships with other members of one’s group) but recently converted to a new religion or joined a new
not others (e.g., ability to acknowledge limitations in congregation. In addition, although humility is most
one’s convictions) (see Van Tongeren et al., in press). often discussed as a virtue, it seems plausible that there
may be a “dark side” to this construct. For instance, the
Limitations and Areas for Future Research minority stress literature discusses the negative implica-
The present study had several limitations. First, we tions of internalized forms of stigma (i.e., self-directed
used a cross-sectional, correlational design in two of prejudice) for the mental health of marginalized indi-
our three samples. One of the primary advantages of viduals (e.g., sexual orientation minorities, Herek, Gil-
the EHS is the ability to explore moment-to-moment lis, & Cogan, 2009). As internalized stigma involves
changes in humility. Thus, an important next step is to an acceptance of negative societal beliefs about the
use the EHS in longitudinal and experimental designs. self, it could be the case that possessing greater humil-
Second, our first study had a small sample size of ity, which would involve an increased focus on others,
200. With 33 items, this is a relatively small sample to could serve to exacerbate the impact of internalized
utilize EFA analysis, though not an unreasonable one forms of stigma on health among marginalized groups.
(we had around six participants per item). Although Fifth, we offered initial theorizing that humility in-
the four-factor structure replicated well in Study 3, volves regulation of shame. This idea deserves explicit
researchers can have greater confidence in the scale testing. Likewise, researchers might explore other
as its factor structure replicates across samples (and it proximal constructs that might provide targets for
would be helpful to evaluate evidence of measurement humility intervention. For example, one potentially
invariance in various samples). Related to this, our sec- promising construct might be self-efficacy, particularly
ond study might have been a bit underpowered, which within their relationships. Individuals high in humility
led to finding significant differences on only two of might have greater confidence in their ability to take
the four scales. Future work should also employ larger risks involving vulnerability with close others.
sample sizes. Sixth, our results showed relatively low Cronbach’s
Third, in terms of construct validity, the current alphas for the measure of neuroticism and agreeable-
manuscript focused on linking the EHS with mean- ness in Study 3. Thus, although we found only a mod-
ing in life as well as religious constructs associated erate relationship between the EHS subscales and
with belonging to something larger than oneself. We these constructs, it is important to note that these rela-
also focused on evaluating evidence of discriminant tionships were attenuated by the low alphas.
validity, using several measures of personality traits. Seventh, each sample relied exclusively on self-
Future research should continue to evaluate evidence reports. There are limitations to self-report measures,
of construct validity for the EHS and its subscales. For including possible socially desirable responding and
example, we might expect the Transcendence subscale response biases (Dorn, Hook, Davis, Van Tongeren,
to show a moderate correlation with other measures & Worthington, 2014). This was appropriate for the
of spiritual transcendence (Piedmont, 1999). In ad- goals of the study, which involved finalizing the scale
dition, researchers might explore using other recall and establishing initial evidence of construct valid-
prompts, given that the current studies all focused on ity. With this accomplished, future work can now
meaningful spiritual experiences. explore how experiences of state humility are related
14 E x p e r i e n c e s o f H u mi l i t y

to a variety of other constructs. For example, future Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy?.
studies might examine thinking-aloud paradigms dur- American Psychologist, 54, 821.
ing tasks designed to strain humility, and researchers Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Humility, religion, and spiritual-
might compare individuals’ subjective experiences of ity: An endpiece. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 111–117.
state humility to observer ratings. Linking self-report Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Hook, J. N. (2010). Rela-
measures of humility to behavioral observations also tional humility: A review of definitions and measurement strategies,
may allow researchers to explore connections between Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 243–252.
self-reported humility and humility-related behaviors Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Van Tongeren,
(Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Davis & Hook, D. R., Gartner, A. L., Jennings, D. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2011). Re-
lational humility: Conceptualizing and measuring humility as a per-
2014; Davis et al., 2013).
sonality judgment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 225–234.
Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Van Tongeren,
Conclusion D. R., Gartner, A. L., & Jennings, D. J., II. (2010). Relational spiri-
Altogether, the science of humility has made ma- tuality and forgiveness: Development of the Spiritual Humility Scale
jor progress over the last decade. A variety of measures (SHS). Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38, 91–100.
now exist, and with the development of the EHS, Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., Emmons, R. A.,
scholars have at their disposal an assortment of multi- Hill, P. C., Bollinger, R. A., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2013). Humil-
method strategies for studying humility, as well as ity and the development and repair of social bonds: Two longitudi-
theorizing to inform specific contexts in which humil- nal studies. Self and Identity, 12, 58–77.
ity is particularly salient (i.e., when egotism is evoked). Donahue, M. J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review
As researchers begin to study more proximal processes and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
involved in the perception and experience of humility, 400–419.
we hope this will set the stage for applied work to help Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006).
people understand increasingly productive ways of be- The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five fac-
tors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192.
coming more humble.
Dorn, K., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., &
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2014). Behavioral methods of assessing for-
References giveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 75–80.
Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings in life. New York: Guilford Press.
Francis, L.J. (2007). Introducing the new indices of religious ori-
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaning-
entation (NIRO): Conceptualization and measurement. Mental
fulness in life. In., C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of
Health, Religion and Culture, 10, 582–602.
Positive Psychology (pp.608–618). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A
Bosson, J. K., Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan,
realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.
C. H., & Kernis, M. H. (2008). Untangling the Links between Nar-
cissism and Self-esteem: A Theoretical and Empirical Review. Social Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item re-
and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1415–1439. sponse theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship
satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family
Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the
Psychology, 21, 572–583.
crossroads: Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across
clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diag- Hall, D. L., Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2010). Why don’t we prac-
nosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638–656. tice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 126–139.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behav-
ioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and Heppner, W. L., & Kernis, M. H. (2007). “Quiet ego” functioning:
punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social The complementary roles of mindfulness, authenticity, and secure
Psychology, 67, 319–333. high self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 248–251.
Chancellor, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Humble beginnings: Cur- Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma
rent trends, state perspectives, and hallmarks of humility. Social and among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological
Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 819–833. perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 32–43.
Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Jankowski, P.J., & Sandage, S.J. (2014). Attachment to God and
Inventory (NEO-PI-R) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho- dispositional humility: Indirect effect and conditional effects model.
logical Assessment Resources. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 70–82.
Crocker, J., Niiya, Y., & Mischkowski, D. (2008). Why does writing Jankowski, P.J., Sandage, S.J., & Hill, P.C. (2013). Differentiation-
about important values reduce defensiveness? Self-affirmation and based models of forgivingness, mental health, and social justice com-
the role of positive other-directed feelings. Psychological Science, 19, mitment: Mediator effects of differentiation of self and humility.
740–747. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 412–424.
Dav i s , M c Elroy, Choe, W e st b r o o k, D e B l ae r e , V an T o n g e r e n , H o o k , S a n d a g e , and P l a c e r e s
15
Kamble, S. V., Lewis, C. A., & Cruise, S. M. (2010). Internal reli- Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other
ability and temporal stability of the New Indices of Religious Orien- knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and
tation among Indian undergraduates: test–retest data over 15 days. Social Psychology, 98, 281–300.
Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13, 833–839.
Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2011). Others sometimes know us bet-
Kenny, D.A. (2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal ter than we know ourselves. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 265–280. ence, 20, 104–108.
LaBouff, J. P., Rowatt, W. C., Johnson, M. K., Tsang, J.-A., & Wil- Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Social ben-
lerton, G. M. (2012). Humble persons are more helpful than less efits of humility: Initiating and maintaining romantic relationships.
humble persons: Evidence from three studies. The Journal of Positive Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 313–321.
Psychology, 7, 16–29.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Green, J. D., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Davis, J.
Leary, M. R., Adams, C. E., & Tate, E. B. (2006). Hypo-Egoic Self- L., & Ramos, M. (2015). Forgiveness increases meaning in life. Social
Regulation: Exercising Self-Control by Diminishing the Influence of Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 47–55.
the Self. Journal of Personality, 74, 1803–1832.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Green, J. D., Hulsey, T. L., Legare, C. H.,
Lavelock, C. R., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Davis, D. E., Griffin, B. J., Bromley, D. G., & Houtman, A. M. (2014). A meaning-based ap-
Reid, C. A., Hook, J. N., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2014). The quiet proach to humility: Relationship affirmation reduces cultural world-
virtue speaks: An intervention to promote humility. Journal of Psy- view defense. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 62–69.
chology and Theology, 42, 99–110.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Stafford, J., Hook, J. N., Green, J. D., Davis,
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the D. E., & Johnson, K. A. (in press). Humility attenuates negative at-
HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, titudes and behaviors toward religious outgroup members. Journal of
39, 329–358. Positive Psychology.
Moradi, A., Ghalamkarian, S. M., & Heyrat, A. (2013). A meta- Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S.,
analysis about research on relationships between religious orienta- McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., … O’Connor, L. (2003). The Re-
tion and mental health and depression in Iran. International Re- ligious Commitment Inventory-10: Development, refinement, and
search Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 5, 829–838. validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 50, 84–96.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide
(7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Zuckerman, M., Silberman, J., & Hall, J. A. (2013). The relation
between intelligence and religiosity: A meta-analysis and some pro-
Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor
posed explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17,
of personality? Spiritual transcendence and the five-factor model.
325–354.
Journal of Personality, 67(6), 985–1013.
Powers, C., Nam, R. K., Rowatt, W. C., & Hill, P. C. (2007). Asso-
Author Information
ciations between humility, spiritual transcendence, and forgiveness.
DAVIS, DON E. PhD. Address: Georgia State University, PO
Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 18, 75–94.
Box 3980 Atlanta, GA 30302. Degrees: BA (Psychology) Yale; MS
Rowatt, W. C., Powers, C., Targhetta, V., Comer, J., Kennedy, S., & (Counseling Psychology), MA (Counseling), Richmond Gradu-
Labouff, J. (2006). Development and initial validation of an implicit ate University; PhD (Counseling Psychology), Virginia Common-
measure of humility relative to arrogance. The Journal of Positive Psy- wealth University. Specializations: Positive Psychology, Integration
chology, 1, 198–211. of Spirituality into Counseling.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, McELROY, STACEY MS. Address: 117 Buttonwood Loop, Ath-
R., Beierlein, C., . . . Demirutku, K. (2012). Refining the theory of ens GA 30605. Title: Doctoral Candidate, Research Associate. De-
basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, grees: BS (Psychology) University of Georgia; MS (Clinical Mental
103, 663–668. Health Counseling), Georgia State University. Specialization: Hu-
mility.
Shill, M. (2011). Intersubjectivity and the ego. Psychoanalytic Social
Work, 18, 1–22. CHOE, ELISE MS. Address: Georgia State University, PO Box
3980 Atlanta, GA 30302. Title: Doctoral Student. Degrees: MS
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commit-
(Clinical Mental Health Counseling) Georgia State University.
ment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attach-
ment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 243–257. WESTBROOK, CHARLES J. MS Address: Georgia State Univer-
sity, PO Box 3980 Atlanta, GA 30302. Title: Doctoral Student.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning
Degrees: MS (Clinical Mental Health Counseling) Georgia State
in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence and search for meaning
University.
in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80–93.
DeBLAERE, CIRLEEN PhD. Address: Georgia State University,
Suchet, M., Harris, A., & Aron, L. (Eds.). (2007). Relational psychoa-
PO Box 3980 Atlanta, GA 30302. Degrees: BA (Psychology), Boston
nalysis, Vol. 3: New Voices. Mahwah, NJ: The Analytic Press.
University; MA (General Psychology), New York University; PhD
Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Me: Why today’s young Americans (Counseling Psychology), University of Florida. Specializations:
are more confident, assertive, entitled—And more miserable than ever Multiculturalism and Diversity, Intersectionality, Minority Stress
before. New York, NY: Free Press. and Resilience.
16 E x p e r i e n c e s o f H u mi l i t y

VAN TONGEREN, DARYL R. PhD. Address: Department of SANDAGE, STEVEN J. PhD. Address: 185 Bay State Rd, Boston,
Psychology, Hope College, 35 E. 12th Street Holland, MI 49423. MA 02215. Title: Albert and Jessie Danielsen Professor of Psychol-
Title: Assistant Professor of Psychology. Degrees: BA (Psychology), ogy of Religion and Theology, Boston University; Research Director
Colorado Christian University; MA (Experimental Psychology), and Staff Psychologist, Albert and Jessie Danielsen Institute; Visiting
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs; PhD (Social Psychol- Faculty in Psychology of Religion, MF Norwegian School of Theol-
ogy), Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: Social ogy. Degrees: BS (Psychology), Iowa State University; MDiv, Trinity
Psychological Approaches to Meaning in Life, Religion, Virtues Evangelical Divinity School; MA and PhD (Counseling Psychology),
(Including Forgiveness and Humility), Positive Psychology. Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: Spirituality and
Psychotherapy, Positive Psychology, Integration of Psychology and
HOOK, JOSHUA PhD. Address: University of North Texas, 1155
Theology, Couple and Family Therapy, Intercultural Competence.
Union Circle #311280 Denton, TX 76203. Title: Associate Profes-
sor of Psychology. Degrees: BS (Psychology), University of Illinois; PLACERES, VANESSA MS. Address: Georgia State University,
MS (Counseling Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth Univer- PO Box 3980 Atlanta, GA 30302. Title: Doctoral Student. Degrees:
sity; PhD (Counseling Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth Uni- BS (Criminology), California State University, Fresno; MS (Coun-
versity. Specializations: Humility, Religion/Spirituality, Multicul- seling, Marriage and Family Therapy) California State University,
tural Counseling. Fresno.

View publication stats