Consequences of general or relational humility

Capacity to attract romantic partners

People tend to perceive humility as attractive.  That is, as studies have revealed, people are more inclined to initiate romances with humble individuals than conceited individuals.  In one informative study, conducted by Van Tongeren, Davis, et al. (2014), 41 undergraduate male students or female students, enrolled at an American university, were granted opportunities to choose partners to date.  First, to create an online profile, these participants answered common questions like “What are your best qualities?” and then completed a personality inventory. Next, these individuals reviewed another dating profile, ostensibly written by another participant, but actually designed by the researchers.  This profile displayed scores that represent the personality of this participant, including levels of extraversion, neuroticism, openness, and humility. This level of humility was designated as either very high or very low.  Finally, participants answered questions that gauge their attitudes to this person, such as

• the degree to which they feel attracted to this person,
• the extent to which they feel interested in dating this person,
• the degree to which this person seemed likeable, friendly, and fun,
• the likelihood they would date this person and enjoy this date.

As hypothesised, if the profile indicated the person was humble, rather than not humble, participants indicated they would be more inclined to date and like this person and to perceive this individual favourably. A second study was similar except humility was manipulated subtly.  Specifically, some participants read a profile that included some hints the potential date was humble.  Other participants read a profile that included some hints the potential date was not humble.  Again, participants were more inclined to date and like the person who seemed humble in their profile.

Arguably, when individuals are seeking an ongoing romance, they become especially motivated to seek a partner who can fulfill their relationship needs—such as a person who is helpful, generous, forgiving, and likeable in social settings.  And, as research suggests, humble people tend to more helpful (LaBouff et al., 2012), generous (Exline & Hill, 2012), forgiving, and likeable in social settings (Davis et al., 2013).

Satisfaction in relationships

As Van Tongeren, Hook, et al. (2019) revealed, people are more likely to be satisfied in their relationships, especially during challenging times, when both they and their partners are humble. In their first study, the participants were 69 married couples who were not yet parents.  During the last trimester of pregnancy, both individuals completed one survey that measured

• the humility of their partner, such as “He or she has a humble character” (Davis et al., 2011),
• the degree to which they are experiencing stress, anxiety, and depression.

Three months after the child was born, during a challenging period, the couples then completed another survey that was identical, except the measure of humility was excluded. As the findings revealed, three months after the birth of their first child

• individuals tended to experience less anxiety if their partner was humble,
• individuals tended to experience more stress and depression if their partner was conceited—especially if they were humble,
• individuals tended to experience less stress and depression if their partner was humble, especially if they too were humble.

In the second study, 93 married couples, when seated in separate rooms, identified three ongoing disagreements with their spouse.  Later, the couples were encouraged to discuss one of these matters, in which each individual presented his or her perspective for 3 minutes and then discussed the matter together for 3 minutes. During this discussion, their blood pressure was measured at several times.  Finally, participants also

• completed the measure that assesses the degree to which they perceive their partner as humble and
• answered some questions about the extent to which they are satisfied in their relationship. 

When both partners were humble, the individuals were more satisfied with their relationship, and blood pressure decreased during the discussion—suggesting these individuals recovered swiftly after the disagreement.  Accordingly, if both partners are humble, the relationship is more likely to be satisfying and stressful moments, such as disagreements, are like to be resolved effectively. 

In contrast, if only one partner is humble, neither individual will tend to be satisfied. Arguably, in these circumstances, the humble partner may experience anxiety and tension because they need to monitor and accommodate the other person, continually, sensitively, and vigilantly. Furthermore, the conceited partner may experience anxiety and tension because they often feel defensive or fragile.

Tendency to be forgiven or to repair relationships

When people are humble, they are more likely to be forgiven if they ever offend their partner.  To illustrate, in one of the studies that Van Tongeren, Davis, et al. (2014) published in the Journal of Positive Psychology, the participants, all undergraduate students, either lived close to their romantic partners or lived in a separate region.  All 416 participants completed a survey in which they

• recalled a recent occasion in which their partner had acted inappropriately and they felt offended—before answering questions that assess the degree to which they have forgiven this partner (McCullough et al., 1998), such as “I’ll make him or her pay” (revere-scored),
• answered questions that assess the degree to which they perceived their partner as humble, such as “He or she is truly a humble person” and the extent to which they usually forgive people, such as “I can forgive a friend for almost anything” (Berry et al., 2005).

Participants were more inclined to forgive partners who they perceived as humble.  This finding that humility can promote forgiveness was especially pronounced when the partners lived in separate regions—circumstances that are often stressful and otherwise may hinder forgiveness.   

Presumably, when individuals are humble, they are more willing to acknowledge their errors, recognise the perspective of their partner, and thus entertain conversations about how to repair these relationships.  Consequently, problems in the relationship tend to be repaired rather than entrenched.

Commitment in relationships

Some research has explored why humble people tend to feel more satisfied in relationships.  One possibility, proposed and validated by Farrell et al. (2015), is that people are more willing to commit to a partner who seems humble. Specifically, when individuals perceive their partner as conceited or arrogant, they recognise the relationship may be fragile.  For example, they may be concerned their partner might become defensive or volatile if criticised.  Or they may be concerned their partner will not accept responsibility for problems in the relationship.  In these circumstances, individuals are unwilling to commit to these relationships—and are, therefore, not as inclined to devote the effort and resources that are needed to resolve challenges that transpire.  In contrast, when individuals perceive their partner as humble instead, they do not experience these concerns and, thus, are not as inclined to withhold commitment. 

To verify this possibility, Farrell et al. (2015) invited 459 undergraduate students, enrolled at an American university, all of whom were involved in a romantic relationship, to complete a questionnaire.  The questions measured

• the degree to which these individuals perceive their partner is humble, such as “He or she has a humble character”,
• the extent to which these participants were committed to the relationship, such as “How dedicated are you to your relationship” on a 7-point scale (Fletcher et al., 2000),
• the degree to which they felt satisfied in the relationship, such as “How much do you love your significant other” (Hendrick, 1988), and
• their willingness to forgive recent times in which they felt offended by their partner.  

As hypothesised, when individuals perceived their partner as humble, they were more satisfied with the relationship—and their commitment to this relationship partly mediated this association.  Similarly, when individuals perceived their partner as humble, they were more inclined to forgive their partner in response to incidents they did not like—and, again, commitment to this relationship partly mediated this association.  Thus, people were more committed to a partner who seemed humble, and this commitment improved the dynamics of this relationship. 

Emotional intelligence and humility

Introduction

In the last couple of decades, the notion of emotional intelligence has burgeoned in both the workplace and in academia.  The notion of emotional intelligence can be traced to the work of Thorndike (1920), who referred to the capacity of some people to understand other individuals and to act appropriately during social interactions, called social intelligence.  Then, Gardner (1993) extended the notion of social intelligence to entail both

• intrapersonal facets—the capacity of some individuals to regulate their emotions and behaviour appropriately and to differentiate their feelings effectively—and
• interpersonal facets—the capacity of some individuals to interact with other individuals appropriately, accommodating subtle variations in the mood, intentions, and motivations of another person.

Salovey and Mayer (1990) popularised the term emotional intelligence to represent the capacity of individuals to appraise, monitor, discriminate, identity, utilise, and regulate emotions proficiently. They conceptualised emotional intelligence as a subset of social intelligence and distinguished four facets:

• accurate perception, appraisal, and expression of emotions, such as the ability of individuals to label the feelings they were experiencing or to decipher the feelings of someone else,
• the capacity of people to generate suitable feelings to improve cognition, such as evoking a positive mood to boost creativity,
• an understanding of emotions, such as recognising the sources of anxiety or dejection,
• the capacity of individuals to regulate emotions, such as the ability of people to boost their mood or to help friends or relatives feel better. 

Since this time, researchers have proposed many overlapping taxonomies of emotional intelligence and social intelligence (e.g., Bar-On, 1997; Gignac, 2010; Palmer & Stough, 2002; Petrides, 2009a). A few studies indicate that humility might promote emotional intelligence, social intelligence, or both, but only to a modest extent.  However, the quality of these studies is limited and thus further research is warranted.

Illustration

To illustrate, Veselka et al. (2010) conducted a study to examine whether the HEXACO dimensions of personality—an inventory that measures honesty and humility—is associated with emotional intelligence.   In this study, over a thousand pairs of twins completed, two instruments:

• the HEXACO (Ashton & Lee, 2009), comprising items like “I want people to know that I am an important person of high status” [reverse-scored], to measure honesty and humility, as well as other items that gauge extraversion, emotionality, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness,
• the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (Petrides, 2009b), comprising 30 items.

The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form measures four main facets of emotional intelligence:

• wellbeing, comprising items like “On the whole, I’m pleased with my life”,
• self-control, comprising items like “I normally find it difficult to keep myself motivated” [reverse-scored],
• emotionality, comprising items like “I often pause and think about my feelings”, and
• sociability, comprising items like “I can deal effectively with people”.

As the results showed, the dimension of honesty and humility was positively associated with three of the four facets of emotional intelligence: wellbeing, self-control, and emotionality.  Nevertheless,

• these relationships were modest, with r values lower than .15,
• these relationships—especially the association between humility and emotionality—was more similar in identical twins than fraternal twins and thus primarily explained by genes,
• relationships between the other traits and emotional intelligence were generally more pronounced.

Other studies

Some other studies have revealed limited associations between the honesty and humility traits and emotional intelligence. To illustrate, Balakrishnan and Saklofske (2015) conducted a study that was designed to further validate a brief measure of emotional intelligence, called the Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale (Davies et al., 2010).  The Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale is divided into five subscales, each comprising two items.  The five subscales are

• appraisal of own emotions, such as “I know why my emotions change”,
• appraisal of others’ emotions, such as “I can tell how people are feeling by listening to the tone of their voice”,
• regulation of own emotions, such as “I have control over my emotions”,
• regulation of other’s emotions, such as “I help people feel better when they are down”, and
• utilisation of emotions, such as “I use good moods to help myself keep trying in the face of obstacles”.

In the study that Balakrishnan and Saklofske (2015) conducted, 269 undergraduate students completed this measure of emotional intelligence as well as

• the Honesty-Humility dimension of the HEXACO (Ashton & Lee, 2009), comprising items like “I want people to know that I am an important person of high status” [reverse-scored],
• the Mini-International Personality Item Pool (Donnellan et al.. 2006), designed to measure the other main personality traits: extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

In this study, only one facet of honesty and humility was significantly associated with emotional intelligence: modesty.  And modesty was positively related to only one facet of emotional intelligence, the capacity of people to recognise and appraise the emotions of other people.  Because test-retest reliability of the emotional intelligence scale was low, with correlations less than .40, the authors suggested the scale may not have been reliable enough to uncover associations with humility and honesty.

In contrast, some other studies have uncovered more pronounced associations between humility and both emotional and social competencies (e.g., Hendijani & Sohrabi, 2019).  However, to substantiate this relationship, future researchers should

• conduct longitudinal studies to explore whether humility at one time predicts improvements in emotional intelligence over time,
• utilise more diverse measures of humility and emotional intelligence,
• examine whether interventions that foster humility improve emotional intelligence. 

Psychological safety

In some workgroups, people feel safe to express their private concerns, values, and perspectives honesty and candidly, called psychological safety.  That is, when people experience psychological safety, they feel that team members will listen respectfully to their perspectives or problems.  They assume they will not be evaluated harshly or unfairly by these colleagues.  When individuals experience psychological safety, they perceive their teams as supportive (May et al., 2004), inclusive (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014), and trustworthy (Madjar & Ortiz-Walters, 2009), improving collaboration and even performance (Lehmann et al., 2023).

Arguably, humility should foster psychological safety.  That is, when individuals exhibit humility, their colleagues should experience greater psychological safety in their presence.  Presumably, if an individual demonstrates humility and, for example, acknowledge personal limitations and flaws, the other members of this team should feel they will be welcomed, rather than derided, if they too concede their problems—a hallmark of psychological safety. 

Lehmann et al. (2023) confirmed this hypothesis.  In one study, 32 teams of 133 individuals, each comprising at least 4 members who had worked with each other for a year or longer, participated in this study.  The participants completed a series of tasks:

• First, they answered a series of questions that assess the degree to which they perceive each of their team members as humble, such as “This person is open to the advice of others”.
• Second, they answered other questions that assess the degree to they experience a sense of psychological safety around each team member, such as “In [this person’s] presence, I feel free to express my opinions” (Edmondson, 1999).
• Finally, they completed a measure that assesses the creativity and contribution of each team member, such as “[This person] suggests new ways to achieve goals or objectives” (Zhou & George, 2001).

The researchers subjected the data to an actor–partner interdependence model or APIM (see Kenny, 2018; Kluger et al., 2021).  As the findings revealed, if individuals perceive a colleague as humble, they experience greater psychological safety in the presence of this colleague.  This individual also performs more effectively a work, as these colleagues verified. 

Illustration

Many organisations attempt to foster an inclusive environment or supportive culture in which staff embrace diverse perspectives, peoples, and practices.  For many reasons, leaders often want their staff to respect a variety of disciplines, ethnicities, genders, ideologies, and customs.  As research has revealed, humility can foster this openness to diversity.  Arguably, when people are humble, they recognise the limitations of their knowledge and, therefore, may be more receptive and respectful towards diverse perspectives or peoples. 

Studies have indeed explored whether humility fosters respect and openness towards diverse perspectives and people.  In 2016, for example, Van Tongeren et al. (2016) published an exemplary set of studies on this topic.  In the first study, 154 American undergraduate students, who identified as Christian, completed a survey.  Specifically,

• the participants were asked to consider their religious beliefs and values before answering a series of questions derived from the Cultural Humility Scale (Hook et al., 2013), such as “I am open to seeing things from other perspectives”,
• in addition, these individuals answered questions that assess religious tolerance, such as “To what extent do you believe that individuals from the following religious groups can be a good American”—and then received a list of several religions (cf., Putnam & Campbell, 2010),
• finally, these participants answered some questions that ascertain whether they interpreted religious beliefs metaphorically, literally, or anti-literally—in which they question literal interpretations, such as the notion that Jesus was resurrected (Hunt, 1972).

After controlling these interpretations of religious beliefs, the humility of these participants was positively associated with tolerance towards diverse religions.  This study is consistent with the notion that humility may foster an openness towards diverse communities or ideologies.  The second study extended this finding, exploring whether humility precludes the aggression that people sometimes demonstrate when someone challenges their cherished beliefs.  In this study, 149 participants, recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk, completed a survey:

• participants completed two measures of humility: the relational humility scale (Davis et al., 2011), such as “people would consider me a humble person”, and the Intellectual Humility Scale (McElroy et al., 2014), such as “You are good at considering the limitations of your perspective”,
• these individuals were invited to imagine that someone had criticised one of their cherished beliefs about an important social or cultural topic, before answering questions about the degree to which they may experience anger, seek revenge, and show other signs of aggression.

All facets of humility were inversely associated with the tendency of individuals to respond aggressively when their cherished beliefs are challenged.  When all facets of humility were entered into the same regression equation, intellectual humility, but not relational humility, was negatively related to this aggression.

The final study was similar, except the level of humility was manipulated rather than measured.  Furthermore, the researchers concocted a scenario in which they can observe aggressive behaviour.  In this study, 62 undergraduate students, all of whom identified as religious, completed a series of tasks:

• First, these individuals wrote about a social or cultural issue they cherish and were informed, albeit falsely, that another participant would evaluate this essay.
• Second, a series of items appeared on the screen, and participants needed to decide whether each item represented a word or number; however, to prime humility, synonyms of humility also appeared subliminally (for details, see Van Tongeren & Green, 2010).
• Third, participants received unfavourable feedback from the other person about their essay—feedback the researchers concocted.
• Finally, to assess their level of aggression, participants were told to prepare foods for this other participant to taste; the degree to which they choose hot, spicy foods represented level of aggression—a procedure that has been validated previously (McGregor et al., 1998).

As hypothesised, if participants had been subliminally exposed to synonyms of humility, they did not respond as aggressively in response to adverse feedback from the other participant. 

Systematic reviews

AlSheddi (2020), an academic at King Saud University, conducted a systematic literature review, in compliance with PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2015), to explore whether humility tends to diminish prejudices towards diverse collectives, such as refugees, other religions, and minorities.  AlSheddi extracted publications that combined synonyms of humility with diversity, discrimination, racism, prejudice, conflicts, discrimination, racism, outgroup, religion, and similar keywords.  Research that applied the HEXACO personality model to gauge humility and research that was conducted in a health or education setting were excluded.  This procedure uncovered 12 relevant studies that fulfilled the selection criteria.  In general, the various facets or variants of humility–including general humility, intellectual humility, and cultural humility–coincided with an openness of individuals towards diverse cultures and diminished prejudice. Here are some examples of these studies:

• When individuals debated their divergent opinions about religion, they were more likely to trust the other person, and even shift their attitudes on this topic to some extent, if they reported intellectual humility—or the tendency to acknowledge limitations in their knowledge or beliefs (Rodriguez et al., 2019).
• If people exhibited high levels of intellectual humility, they were more inclined to consider political opinions that diverged from their existing attitudes (Porter & Schumann, 2018).
• Pastors who had been exposed to many religions tended to be more tolerant to diverse religious perspectives—but only if they also demonstrated intellectual humility (Hook et al., 2017).  That is, humility enhanced the degree to which these individuals seemed to develop tolerance in response to diverse experiences. 
• If people experienced cultural humility—and thus felt motivated to learn about other cultures and recognised their assumptions about cultures may be misguided—they tended to express mores positive attitudes towards refugees (Captari et al., 2019).
• When people experienced cultural humility, they were not as likely to express unfavourable attitudes towards lesbians and gay men or to exhibit discrimination (Choe et al., 2019).

Arguably, humility coincides with a motivation in individuals to learn from other people or experiences (Porter et al., 2020).  Therefore, when individuals experience humility, they perceive interactions with diverse cultures, ethnicities, or perspectives as opportunities to learn and not as threats to their status or circumstances. 

Impediments to the sustainability of diversity, equity, and inclusion

This discovery that humility fosters the openness of people to diversity could, if translated into practice, address many challenges that organisations experience while they attempt to support diversity, equity, and inclusion.  That is, as many studies reveal, diversity in gender, race, and other demographics tends to be positively associated with revenue, profit, and market share (for evidence, see Herring, 2009).  Yet, because of various impediments, interventions that are designed to enhance the receptivity of staff to inclusion are often not as effective or as sustainable as anticipated (e.g., Allison, 1999; Bezrukova et al., 2012).  These impediments can be divided into at least six main themes (for a similar taxonomy, see Stephens, 2022). 

First, in some instances, senior executives, and sometimes other managers, do not dedicate enough time, effort, and expertise to utilise the benefits, and to manage the challenges, of diversity and inclusion (e.g., Martins, 2020; Stephens, 2022).  That is,

• leaders may devolve these matters to another staff member rather than demonstrate their genuine commitment to these initiatives (Hayes et al., 2020),
• indeed, leaders who assume positions of status and power often perceive even references to diversity as threatening (Dover et al., 2014), manifesting as an elevated heart rate and other physiological indices of stress (Dover et al., 2016),
• devoid of genuine commitment, staff are not as inclined to embrace diversity and inclusion and the organisation is not as likely to sustain the financial and human resources that are necessary to implement these change successfully over time (Gilbert et al., 1999).

Second, sometimes because executives are not adequately committed to diversity and inclusion, the organisation has not communicated this priority sufficiently to staff, customers, or other stakeholders (Stevens et al., 2008).  For example

• the organisation does not utilise the website of this organisation, the regular newsletters, the board meetings, or other opportunities to underscore this commitment to diversity and inclusion (Stephens, 2022),
• similarly, the organisation does not initiate activities that demonstrate this commitment, such as philanthropic donations to relevant causes (Stephens, 2022),
• consequently, the organisation can more readily withdraw from their pledge to respect diversity and inclusion, compromising the sustainability of these initiatives.

Third, partly because communication is inadequate, the relevant managers and staff are not as motivated to embed activities that foster an openness to diversity and inclusion within the policies, procedures, and practices of the organisation (Shore et al., 2018; Stephens, 2022).  Accordingly, practices that revolve around diversity and inclusion are perceived as temporary concerns, isolated from the ongoing activities of the organisation (for a discussion, see Bell, 2020).   

Fourth, bereft of these policies and procedures, neither managers nor staff feel obliged to embrace practices around diversity and inclusion, comprising their sense of accountability (Stephens, 2022).  As this accountability wanes,

• the organisation is not as likely to identify metrics that gauges progress on this endeavour, measure these metrics, or assess these measures during performance appraisals (Offermann & Basford, 2014),
• consequently, practices that foster inclusion are not embedded in the work goals of individuals, teams, or departments.

Fifth, rather than encourage all managers and staff to assume some responsibility to foster inclusion, the agenda around diversity, equity, and inclusion is devolved to merely a few, and sometimes only one, staff member (Stephens, 2022).  Without adequate human resources, the relevant staff cannot sustain the changes that enable the organisation to utilise diversity effectively, to embrace inclusion, and to manage the relevant challenges (Vela et al., 2021).   

Finally, these limited resources do not enable the organisation to implement a comprehensive, ongoing program around diversity, equity, and inclusion.  Instead, the program is often reduced to several, if not only one, workshop (Bell, 2020; Stephens, 2022).  In contrast, to sustain the receptivity of staff to inclusion, researchers recommend ongoing learning that is coupled with all occasions in which staff and managers need to reach important decisions that affect the organisation (e.g., Fujimoto & Hartel, 2017).

Arguably, initiatives that promote humility, at all levels of the organisation, may circumvent these challenges.  These initiatives increase the likelihood that executives, managers, and indeed all staff value diverse perspectives.

Illustration

Humble people are not only more likely to learn from diverse people and experiences but also more inclined to learn from mistakes.  To illustrate, in two illuminating studies, conducted by Seckler et al. (2021), 198 participants, all auditors, completed a series of instruments that measure

• how individuals manage errors (Rybowiak et al., 1999)—a scale that comprises four facets including error anticipation (e.g., “I anticipate mistakes happening in my work”), error communication (e.g., “When I make a mistake at work, I tell others about it so that they do not make the same mistake”), error learning (e.g., “My mistakes have helped me to improve my work”), and error risk-taking (e.g., “If one wants to achieve at work, one has to risk making mistakes”),
• the degree to which individuals experience stress or strain when they commit errors, comprising items like “I find it stressful when I err”,
• general humility, comprising items like “I admit when I don’t know how to do something” or “I acknowledge when others have more knowledge and skills than me” (Ou, 2011),
• self-efficacy, comprising items like “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough” (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995).

As hypothesised, when participants reported elevated levels of humility, they tended to manage errors more effectively.  That is, they acknowledged the errors they committed, they learned from their errors, and they recognised that errors are inherent to learning (Seckler et al., 2021).  Some other relationships between humility, self-efficacy, and management of errors differed between the two studies and, therefore, warrant further research.   

Implications

Presumably, humble individuals strive to learn from other people and experiences.  Consequently, they conceptualise errors as opportunities to learn and not as threats to their status or reputation.  Because they manage these errors and mistakes effectively, humble individual will tend to improve their practices over time and thus perform effectively.  Indeed, many studies have uncovered the benefits of this effective management of errors.  That is, when staff manage errors and mistakes effectively,

• the likelihood of safety incidents diminishes (e.g., Casey & Krauss, 2013),
• the creativity and innovation of individuals and organisations improves (e.g., Fischer et al., 2018; Guchait et al., 2020),
• the performance of individuals (Arenas et al., 2006) and firms (Van Dyck et al., 2005) also improves—partly because staff learn more effectively and respond to challenges more creatively (Javed et al., 2020).

This capacity to manage errors and mistakes effectively may also improve the wellbeing and relationships of individuals. To illustrate, if individuals are humble and thus acknowledge the mistakes they commit, they are not as likely to conceal these errors.  Accordingly, they are not as inclined to maintain secrets.  As Bedrov and Gable (2025) showed, if people acknowledge their problems rather than maintain secrets, their wellbeing and relationships improves.  Specifically, during social interactions, they feel more authentic, perceive these interactions as meaningful, and experience less stress or burden. In contrast, when individuals maintain secrets,

• they may feel they must have behaved inappropriately, eliciting shame (e.g., Slepian & Koch, 2021),
• they may attempt to suppress thoughts about these secrets—a practice that may only magnify these thoughts and elicit rumination or excessive worry.

People often need to reach moral decisions—decisions in which they need to decide which of two or more alternatives are regarded as right or appropriate in their community. To illustrate,

• suppose you were a doctor, treating six patients, all of whom were likely to die within two months,
• however, if you kill one patient now, you could harvest the organs of this person to save the other five patients,
• to what extent would you prefer to kill one patient to save five patients?

Some people would consider only the consequence or outcome of this decision. These individuals would choose to kill one patient to save five other patients; after all, one is less than five.  This approach, in which individuals confine their attention to the consequences of some decision, is called consequentialist, or sometimes utilitarian, ethics.  Often, people who tend to depend on rational arguments, rather than personal intuitions and emotions, to guide their decisions, adopt this approach (Bartels, 2008). 

Other people, in contrast, evaluate the actions instead of the consequences. Specifically, these individuals decide whether the actions comply with the rules and principles of their community. To illustrate, these individuals might apply the rule that doctors should never initiate an action that harms another person—and, thus, may decide they would not kill one patient to save five other patients. This reliance on rules and principles to guide actions is called deontological or duty ethics. 

Determinants of moral decisions: Power

Many traits and circumstances affect whether individuals tend to adopt a consequentialist or deontological approach. To illustrate, according to Lammers and Stapel (2009), when people experience a sense of power or influence, they are more likely to invoke rules or principles, rather than consider outcomes, and thus espouse deontological ethics.  Arguably, whenever individuals experience a sense of power, they feel motivated to sustain, and not to disrupt, the existing hierarchy.  Therefore, they feel compelled to maintain and to respect the existing rules and principles of their society—rules and principles that often sustain the hierarchy and prevent anarchy. To assess this assumption, in one study,

• participants first read about a moral dilemma—in which a girl needed to decide whether to assist a friend who was experiencing a personal problem or to socialise with a new person in the class,
• next, participants completed a task in which they needed to uncover words that were embedded within a matrix of letters,
• while completing this task, half the participants were exposed to words like control, influence, power, and authority—words that evoke a sense of power; the other participants were exposed to words like powerless, dependent, and submissive—words that inhibit a sense of power,
• finally, participants were instructed to evaluate various justifications of the possible responses to this personal dilemma.

If power had been evoked, participants endorsed justifications that alluded to rules, such as the rule that people should assist new students. If power had been inhibited, participants endorsed justifications that alluded to the outcomes or benefits to each person, such as the notion that individuals should choose the action that diminishes loneliness (Lammers & Stapel, 2009).

Determinants of moral decisions: Humility

Nevertheless, people may embrace rules and principles, and thus adopt a deontological perspective, even if they do not necessarily want to maintain the existing hierarchy.  Instead, people who respect members of their community, as well as society in general, may be more inclined to apply rules and principles to reach moral decisions. Individuals who are humble, for example, recognise their limitations, realise they are not special, and thus respect the principles and perspectives of other people. Humility, therefore, should coincide with a deontological approach to ethics—such as a reluctance to kill one person to save five other individuals. 

Djeriouat and Trémolière (2014), while employed at the University of Toulouse in France, verified the premise that humility is associated with a deontological perspective.  In this study, 180 participants completed several measures including

• the HEXACO personality inventory (Ashton & Lee, 2009): an inventory that includes a measure of humility and honesty,
• an instrument that assesses moral dilemmas—such as the extent to which participants are willing to kill one person to save five other individuals (for similar questions, see Bartels, 2008; Bartels and Pizarro, 2011),
• the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (Graham et al., 2009), designed to assess the values that guide the moral decisions of individuals, such as care rather than harm, fairness, reciprocity, loyalty, authority, respect, purity, and sanctity.

Even after controlling moral foundations, people who reported elevated levels of humility and honesty were more likely to espouse deontological ethics rather than consequentialist ethics.  That is, humble individuals were especially disinclined to kill one person to save five other individuals. 

Determinants of moral decisions: The dark triad

As the research that Djeriouat and Trémolière (2014) conducted implies, people who respect social rules and conventions may adopt a deontological approach to ethics. Conversely, people who do not respect social rules and conventions may apply a consequentialist approach. This reasoning implies that people who demonstrate the dark triad—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—might be willing to kill one person to save five other individuals.

Indeed, the study that Djeriouat and Trémolière (2014) conducted did explore this possibility.  That is, besides completing the HEXACO personality inventory and answering questions about moral dilemmas and moral frameworks, participants also completed the SD3, designed to assess narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.  As this findings showed

• narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy were all positively related to a consequentialist perspective, in which individuals preferred to kill one person to save five other individuals,
• in general, limited levels of humility and honesty as well as limited value of care rather than harm mediated these associations.

Accordingly, individuals who exemplify the dark triad are not as likely to respect other people, manifesting as limited humility.  Furthermore, these individuals are not as inclined to care about other people and, therefore, should not experience strong emotions while contemplating these dilemmas. So, these individuals may depend on rational arguments to guide their decisions and, therefore, should be inclined to adopt consequentialist, rather than deontological, ethics.   

Possible complications: Mental exhaustion

Evidence

In general, humility improves the lives of individuals significantly, enhancing their relationships, learning, and decision making, for example.  Yet, when people initially strive to demonstrate humility, they may be more susceptible to at least one adverse consequence: mental exhaustion.  That is, humility can demand effort and concentration, depleting mental energy from a limited supply.

Zhong, Wen, et al. (2024) conducted a study that explored and verified this possibility.  In this study, 287 employees first completed an online survey in which the questions assessed

• the degree to which individuals feel mentally exhausted, sometimes called ego depletion, such as “I feel drained right now” or “My mind feels unfocused right now” (Twenge et al., 2004),
• self-efficacy, such as “I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself” (Chen et al., 2001),
• the degree to which staff feel their supervisor underestimated the difficulty of their job.

During the same day, the supervisor of these employees rated the extent to which these participants exhibit or express humility, answering question like “(This person) acknowledges when others have more knowledge and skills than himself or herself” (Owens et al., 2013). Finally, two weeks later, the employees answered other questions, designed to assess wellbeing and specifically

• sleep deprivation, such as “I have trouble falling asleep” (Jenkins et al., 1988),
• job satisfaction, such as “In general, I like working here” (Cammann et al., 1979),
• a sense of personal growth, such as “I have a feeling of continued development” (Ryff & Keyes 1995).

Employees who were perceived to be humble enjoyed several benefits.  For example, these individuals reported elevated levels of self-efficacy and thus were more confident they could thrive at work.  This self-efficacy tends to enhance wellbeing, diminishing sleep deprivation and promoting job satisfaction as well as a sense of personal growth.  However,

• when staff were perceived as humble, they were more inclined to feel mentally depleted—and this sense of depletion impaired these indices of wellbeing (Zhong, Wen, et al., 2024),
• in addition, if their supervisor tended to underestimate the difficulty of their job, humble employees were not as likely to experience self-efficacy—perhaps because these individuals were concerned the leader may overlook their achievements and potentially intervene unfairly.  

Explanation

Presumably, to exhibit humility, some individuals may have to override their natural inclinations.  For example, they may need to

• suppress their urge to publicise or even inflate their achievements,
• ameliorate the unpleasant feelings they experience after they acknowledge or realise their faults,
• override their entrenched habits once they recognise the limitations of their past behaviours. 

To address these adverse effects of humility, individuals may adopt two approaches.  First, individuals could initiate practices that have been shown to restore this limited supply of mental energy, such as uplifting experiences during the day (Tice, Baumeister, et al., 2007) or creative pursuits during the evening (Winwood Bakker et al., 2007). Second, individuals could initiate practices that entrench their motivation to learn from other people, increasing the likelihood that humility is effortless rather than contrived.

Caveat

Admittedly, this study assessed humility from the perspective of supervisors.  Arguably, a proportion of staff who display the hallmarks of humility do not actually experience humility.  For example, these staff may display respect, but feel contempt, towards divergent opinions.  Therefore, demonstrations of humility may deplete mental energy only in a subset of staff: the staff who feign rather than experience humility.   

Impact of this depletion on humility

Attempts to demonstrate humility may not only deplete mental energy but may, in turn, also impede some hallmarks of humility.  That is, when people feel mentally exhausted, they are not as receptive to dissenting or diverging beliefs.  These individuals, therefore, are not as humble.  So, paradoxically, attempts to exhibit humility may actually decrease humility.

Tsai and Li (2020) published a set of studies in the British Journal of Psychology, demonstrating convincingly that mental exhaustion diminishes openness to dissent or diverging beliefs.  In the first study, 142 undergraduate students completed a series of tasks on a computer.  First, participants received a list of four suggestions on how to improve the food court at the university, before selecting the solution they preferred and justifying their choice.  Next, all participants were instructed to type a series of words but to skip vowels that follow two consonants: a challenging task.  In particular

• to deplete their mental energy, the number of words they needed to type was 55,
• in the control condition, the number of words they needed to type was only 2.

After this task, the individuals answered questions that assessed the degree to which they were feeling angry or fatigued.  Finally, participants received the solution another university student had selected to improve the food court—a solution that diverged from the option they chose.  To assess openness to dissent, participants indicated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with three sentences, such as “I am seriously considering (this person’s) idea” (adapted from Tröster & Van Knippenberg, 2012).  As hypothesised

• when their mental energy was depleted, individuals were not as receptive to dissenting or divergent opinions (Tsai & Li, 2020),
• increased levels of anger, rather than fatigue, mediated this association (Tsai & Li, 2020),
• four additional studies, in which the researchers utilised diverse methods to deplete mental energy and to assess openness to dissenting opinions, replicated these results (Tsai & Li, 2020).   

Presumably, tasks that deplete mental energy tend to diverge from the entrenched goals or desires of individuals, evoking frustration, irritation, hostility, and anger.  According to threat-rigidity theory (Staw et al., 1981), anger compels individuals to maintain their goals, diminishing their openness to alternative perspectives.  Therefore, depleting tasks elicit anger, diminishing openness to dissent.

COVID Vaccines

In addition to the raft of studies that have demonstrated the benefits of humility, some fascinating anecdotes and stories, although not as rigorous, offer some compelling insights into the benefits of this quality.  For example, in the first year of COVID, many African Americans could not readily access vaccines and were dubious about these shots.  Perhaps as a consequence, the death rate was about twice as high in African Americans relative to European Americans and Asian Americans.  

However, a year later, the vaccination rate in African Americans soared. The previous disparity in the death rate of African Americans, when compared with European Americans and Asian Americans, dissipated and sometimes even reversed, as reported in the New York Times (Leonhardt, 2022).  

According to this article, one of the key sources of this change was a campaign, in which medical workers, community organisers, and other people adopted an approach that revolved around listening with humility.  Doctors, nurses, and other health practitioners listened respectfully and genuinely to the concerns and scepticism of the public.  This approach fostered understanding, trust, as well as potential solutions to the concerns that were raised.