Radical Humility

Causes of individual humility: Social determinants

The impact of childhood experiences on humility

Introduction to attachment theory

As some research indicates, attachment style—that is, the degree to which individuals perceive other people in their life as consistently supportive rather than unpredictable or uncaring—may affect some facets of intellectual humility. This notion of attachment style emanated from the seminal work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. 

According to Bowlby (1969), when infants are exposed to stimuli or events that may be dangerous, such as unfamiliar sounds, they experience an innate compulsion to seek proximity to their caregivers, usually their mother or father, and to garner care and support from these figures.  This sequence of responses emanate from a suite of instincts called the attachment system. 

As they age, the responses of caregivers and other protective figures shape the expectations and responses of these individuals in the future (Bowlby, 1973).  For example, if caregivers are seldom responsive or available, children may be reluctant to seek proximity in response to threats.  In the future, they may not establish trusting relationships with friends or partners. 

To differentiate the various expectations that children may develop, Ainsworth and her colleagues conducted naturalistic, longitudinal research, as well as experimental studies, to examine these behaviours in infants and their mothers (Ainsworth et al., 1978). In this research, infants and mothers were observed in a room. Occasionally, the mother was asked to leave the room and then return. Initially, these studies uncovered three distinct patterns of behaviour in infants, called attachment styles: secure, insecure-ambivalent, and insecure-avoidant:

  • Secure infants showed moderate distress whenever their mother departed from the room, approached the mother when she returned, received comfort from the mother, and explored the room adventurously provided she was present.
  • Ambivalent infants showed elevated levels of distress when the mother departed and, although often seeking proximity to the mother upon her return, was not able to be comforted. The infant also showed anxiety when exploring the room, even when the mother was present.
  • Finally, the avoidant infants showed minimal distress when the mother departed and limited excitement when she returned.

In short, only infants who had formed a secure attachment style seemed to desire proximity and perceive the mother as a secure base from which to explore the world.  According to Ainsworth (1979, Ainsworth et al., 1978), the behaviour of caregivers, during the first three or so years, partly determines the attachment style of infants. When mothers were responsive to the needs of their children, the infants developed a secure attachment style. When the responses of mothers were inconsistent, in which she often interfered with the activities of their children, the infants developed an ambivalent style. Finally, when the mother rejected the attempts of their children to establish physical contact, the children showed an avoidant style.

From these childhood experiences with caregivers, individuals develop perceptions of themselves and expectations about the support they will receive, called schemas or internal working models. According to Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), these internal working model comprises two main facets: a model of the self and a model of others. The model of self refers to whether individuals perceive themselves as worthy of love or support from attachment figures.  If a caregiver often interrupt children, implying their behaviour was inappropriate, these children may develop the belief they are not worthy of approval.  The model of others refers to whether individuals perceive caregivers and other figures in their life as available and supportive or unreliable and rejecting.

Accordingly, individuals can adopt one of four, not three, attachment styles, depending on whether the self or other is regarded positively or negatively. Secure individuals—in both children and adults— perceive themselves as worthy of love and approval as well as regard other individuals as available and trustworthy.  Ambivalent individuals perceive themselves negatively but other figures positively and thus experience a low self-esteem but seek the support of other people, sometimes manifesting as a preoccupation with relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

This model also differentiates two avoidant styles.  Dismissing-avoidant individuals perceive themselves positively but other figures negatively. That is, because they regard other individuals as unavailable and unsupportive, they do not seek close relationships. Fearful-avoidant individuals, however, perceive both themselves and other figures negatively. They might feel an urge to seek proximity, but remain detached to protect their emotions.

Beside a model of the self and a model of others, these internal working models include scripts or schemas that help individuals navigate interactions and regulate their emotions (e.g., Mikulincer et al., 2009; Waters & Waters, 2006). According to Waters and Waters (2006), if individuals have developed a secure attachment, the script comprises three assumptions or features:

  • In response to problems or obstacles, the individual will approach an attachment figure or relationship partner to seek assistance.
  • This person or figure will be accessible and supportive in this context, curbing fears of rejection and enabling intimacy
  • While near this person or figure, the individual will experience positive mood states and the confidence to explore their environment.

In contrast, if individuals have developed an anxious attachment style, the script tends to comprise different assumptions or features (Ein-Dor et al., 2010):

  • First, in unfamiliar or ambiguous settings, these individuals will remain especially vigilant to threats and respond rapidly to signs of these threats.
  • In these circumstances, these individuals will alert other people to imminent danger.
  • If they do not receive the support they seek, they will intensify their efforts to attract this assistance. 
  • These individuals will strive to become as close to other people as possible in threatening situations.

Finally, if individuals have developed an avoidant attachment style, the script tends to comprise different assumptions or features (Ein-Dor et al., 2011):

  • First, because these individuals want to deny their vulnerability or reliance on other people, they will trivialise threats. 
  • Second, when dangers or threats are unambiguous, they will respond rapidly, attempting to protect themselves immediately, either by fleeing or conquering this hazard.
  • Third, they will not coordinate their efforts with anyone else. 

Association between attachment style and intellectual humility

If children have developed a secure attachment, they expect to receive support in response to unanticipated threats.  These children, therefore, are often willing to explore unfamiliar environments.  Similarly, if adults have developed a secure attachment, they are also willing to explore unfamiliar perspectives or settings.  Consequently, people who experience a secure attachment should be more inclined to embrace diverse ideas—that is, ideas that deviate from their existing assumptions or preferences.  A secure attachment should thus coincide with openness to diverse perspectives: a cardinal feature of intellectual humility.

Jarvinen and Paulus (2017) conducted some research that corroborates this possibility.  In one study, participants were instructed to reminisce about an episode, in the past, with their primary caregiver, that was similar to one of three scripts.  Each script epitomised either a secure attachment, ambivalent attachment, or avoidant attachment.  For example, the script for a secure attachment was

“Think of a time when you found it relatively easy to get close to your childhood caregiver and were comfortable depending on your caregiver and having her or him depend on you. You didn’t have to worry about being abandoned or about your caregiver getting closer than you wanted”.

The participants visualised these episodes for two minutes and wrote briefly about this event.  Next, they completed a survey in which they

  • first indicated, on a 7-point scale, the degree to which they espouse various opinions, such as the notion that abortion is permissible or God exists,
  • read arguments that counter their opinions,
  • indicated again the degree to which they espouse these opinions.

As hypothesised, if participants remembered a time in which they experienced a secure attachment—a procedure that primes this style—they were more inclined to shift their opinions in response to countervailing information.  That is, a secure attachment style promoted a receptivity to information that contradicts existing beliefs, suggestive of intellectual humility. 

As a second study revealed, when people experienced positive emotions while listening to this divergent information, they were especially inclined to shift their opinions.  This finding is consistent with the notion that excessive stress or arousal can impede concentration (Gottman, 1995) and inhibit prefrontal circuits—and thus impede the capacity of individuals to reframe their existing assumptions (e.g., Siegel, 2012). However, in this study, trait avoidant attachment was positively associated with this openness, potentially because individuals who adopt this attachment style often attempt to appease other individuals. 

Association between attachment style and humility: The possible role of resilience

Several accounts could explain the association between attachment style and humility.  Dwiwardani et al. (2014) proposed and investigated one possibility that revolved around resilience.  Specifically, when individuals experience a secure attachment, they may feel, often unconsciously, they will receive support or assistance from a significant figure in their life.  Thus, in response to hardship or challenging events, such as criticism, their initial distress swiftly translates into hope, optimism, and confidence, epitomising resilience.  Because of this resilience, these individuals are receptive to information or experiences that could challenge their preferences or preconceptions, confident they will regain their composure later.  This receptivity to diverse information manifests as humility. 

To assess whether resilience mediates the association between attachment style and humility, Dwiwardani et al. (2014) administered a survey to 245 adults that included

  • an unpublished measure of humility that comprises 36 items, such as “I can honestly assess my strengths and weaknesses”, and five facets: appreciation and recognition of limitations, accurate self-assessment, limited self-focus, a recognition the self is finite, and appreciation of the world (cf., Tangney, 2000),
  • the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire (Fraley et al., 2000), designed to measure anxious attachment, or sensitivity to rejection, and avoidant attachment, or discomfort with close relationships,
  • the Ego-Resiliency Scale (Block & Kremen, 1996), administered to measure resilience, comprising items like “I quickly get over and recover from being startled”,
  • other scales that assess religiosity, gratitude, and forgiveness.

As the findings revealed, avoidant attachment and anxious attachment were inversely related to humility, although only the association between avoidant attachment and humility was significant.  After controlling religiosity, resilience was positively associated with humility, although the p value was .051.  Resilience, however, was not significantly associated with avoidant attachment and, therefore, did not mediate the inverse association between attachment style and humility.  Several premises could explain these results:

  • people who experience avoidant attachment like to be independent rather than depend on anyone else—and, thus, are not as inclined to listen respectfully to other people, diminishing humility,
  • when people experience avoidant attachment, they cannot depend on the support of other individuals in their life, curbing resilience, but learn to become independent and resourceful, promoting resilience,
  • these two effects of avoidant attachment may offset one another, nullifying the association between avoidant attachment and resilience.

Childhood unpredictability

Some children experience an unpredictable life at home, at the school, and in their community. For example

  • tension and conflict may be common at their home,
  • their parents or caregivers may be erratic, moody, or unreliable,
  • who is living in their house may shift frequently,
  • their peers at school may be hostile or volatile,
  • their community may feel unsafe, and so forth.

According to life history theory and the adaptive calibration model of stress responsivity, when children are reared in these environments, their attention is directed towards potential threats or problems rather than acquiring knowledge or other resources that could benefit their future. Because they are not as motivated to extend their knowledge, they do not develop intellectual humility: a passion to learn from other people.  As these individuals age, this tendency generally persists.  Consequently, individuals reared in unpredictable environments tend to exhibit limited intellectual humility later in life. 

To substantiate this possibility, Dutta and Maner (2026) conducted a series of studies.  In each study, participants, who were often undergraduate students, completed a measure of childhood unpredictability (Maranges et al., 2022), comprising items like “My family life was generally inconsistent and unpredictable from day-to-day” or “I was never certain where it was safe to play”.  In addition, participants completed various tasks that gauge intellectual humility:

  • In one study, participants completed the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale,
  • In two other studies, participants completed a multiple-choice test in which they were granted an opportunity to learn about questions they answered incorrectly—a behavioural measure of intellectual humility.
  • In one study, participants were invited to read essays, written by someone whose opinions differ from their beliefs. The time they dedicated to reading these essays rather than works that are compatible with their beliefs was deemed as a measure of intellectual humility.

In these studies, childhood unpredictability was inversely associated with intellectual humility.  These associations were generally observed even after controlling neuroticism, need for cognition, age, gender, and the degree to which the childhood environment was harsh.

The impact of partners and friends on humility

Responsive and considerate partners

Individuals are more likely to experience a secure attachment when they perceive their partners as considerate and responsive to their needs.  Consequently, if their partners are indeed considerate and responsive, people should be more likely to exhibit the signs and hallmarks of intellectual humility.  Research has indeed confirmed this possibility.   

To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Reis et al. (2018), some psychology students were invited to describe a responsive partner in their life—a person who is respectful and supportive regardless of their shortcomings.  In the control conditions, other participants described either an acquaintance, an unresponsive or discouraging person in their life, or an object (for a similar procedure, see Caprariello & Reis, 2011).  Next, all participants completed a task that obliquely assesses intellectual humility. That is

  • if individuals exhibit intellectual humility, they are not as inclined to perceive their intellectual capabilities as superior
  • therefore, in this study, participants rated themselves, relative to the average student, on 23 adjectives—such as intelligent, truthful, attractive, and open-minded (for a similar protocol, see Guenther & Alicke, 2010),
  • individuals who, in general, perceived themselves as above average on these traits were assumed to be demonstrating limited intellectual humility.

As hypothesised, after people contemplated a responsive, considerate, and supportive partner, they were not as inclined to perceive themselves as better than average, indicative of intellectual humility.  In contrast, after people contemplated a friend who is unresponsive and disapproving, this inclination of students to perceive themselves as better than average was amplified.

Reis et al. (2018) replicated this pattern in four similar other studies, except the methods to prime memories of responsive partners and to measure intellectual humility were modified.  For example, in one study, some participants were invited to write about either

  • two considerate responses or behaviours from their romantic partner in the past week,
  • ten considerate responses or behaviours from their romantic partner in the past week,
  • five qualities of an acquaintance.

The rationale is that participants can easily recall two considerate responses or behaviours from their romantic partner in the past week.  Because these considerate responses or behaviours are so accessible, participants, on some level, assume their partner must be responsive (see Lemay Jr et al., 2007).  In contrast, participants cannot as easily recall ten considerate responses or behaviours from their romantic partner in the past week.  Consequently, these participants assume their partner may not be as responsive.  Interestingly, if participants attempted to recall ten, rather than two, considerate responses or behaviours from their romantic partner, they were more likely to assume they were responsible for most of the tasks in their household, such as pet care or paying bills. As this finding implies

  • when individuals perceive their partner as responsive and considerate, they may be more inclined to consider the perspective of this partner, epitomising intellectual humility,
  • hence, they recognise all the duties and responsibilities this person fulfills. 

Other responsive and considerate individuals

If people are single or their partners are not responsive, they might still experience intellectual humility after they contemplate other responsive and considerate individuals in their life.  For example, Itzchakov et al. (2024) conducted a study in which some participants were invited to identify someone in their life who is responsive and, for example

  • “knows the real you”,
  • “is what you are thinking and feeling”,
  • respects you, regardless of your shortcomings, and
  • “is non-judgmental toward you”.

Next, participants contemplated this relationship.  For example, they imagined conversing with this person and thinking about the meaning of this relationship in their life.  In the control condition, participants were instructed to identify a person who is not responsive.  Finally, all participants completed a series of measures, including the Specific Intellectual Humility Scale, adapted to gauge openness towards beliefs about their social group, such as “My current attitude regarding the social group I chose may turn out to be wrong in the future”.   

As the findings revealed, after participants contemplated a responsive person in their life, they exhibited greater intellectual humility.  Itzchakov et al. (2024) conducted four additional studies that corroborated this finding.  In one of these studies, participants indicated the role of this person in their life.  About 78% chose family, 20% chose friends, and 2% chose colleagues.  The researchers argued that, whenever people feel understood but still accepted and valued by other people,

  • they do not feel the need to conceal their shortcomings,
  • hence, they are not as ashamed of their limitations or misconceptions, enabling intellectual humility.

The impact of parents on humility

Humility of parents: Intergenerational transmission of humility

If parents demonstrate intellectual humility, such as acknowledge their beliefs may be misguided, their children may also be more likely to develop this humility over time.  That is, according to social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1963), children frequently emulate the behaviour or attitudes of other people—especially the behaviour or attitudes of role models who they admire.  Accordingly, if parents exhibit the hallmarks of humility, their children might also develop these tendencies. 

Mills et al. (2025) conducted a study to explore this possibility.  The researchers utilised two approaches to gauge the intellectual humility of 108 parents:

  • First, these parents completed an established measure of intellectual humility: the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale.  A sample item is “I respect that there are ways of making important decisions that are different from the way I make decisions”. 
  • In addition, these parents completed the prompted explanation task, adapted from Mills et al. (2022).  Specifically, parents answered scientific questions, such as how bees produce honey, as if speaking to their youngest child.  The researchers identified the number of times parents acknowledged uncertainty and referred to the need to seek more information.   

To assess the intellectual humility of their youngest child, the researchers completed an estimation task, adapted from the work of Mills and Keil (2004) as well as Danovitch et al. (2019).  Specifically, the children listened to brief tutorials that explained various features of six common animals and vehicles—such as how fish breathe underwater and how airplanes fly—as well as various features of uncommon animals and vehicles—such as how tarsiers jump long distances.  After each question, the children then utilised a scale, that ranges from one star to five stars, to indicate their level of knowledge about each topic. 

Some, but not all, the results confirmed the hypotheses.  Specifically

  • if parents did not acknowledge uncertainty, despite incorrect answers, their children tended to perceive themselves as knowledgeable even about uncommon animals or vehicles,
  • thus, when parents demonstrated limited intellectual humility, their children also seemed to overestimate their knowledge,
  • however, when parents rated themselves as high on intellectual humility, their children also tended to perceive themselves as knowledgeable even about uncommon animals or vehicles,
  • potentially, these high ratings of parents may be indicative of other characteristics, such as a tendency to perceive themselves favourably.

In short, when parents demonstrate intellectual humility, but do not necessarily believe they are intellectually humble, the children may be more likely to develop this humility as well.

The impact of helpful conversations on humility

Conversations with agreeable or moral people

When individuals perceive a setting as combative or disagreeable, they may feel the urge to prevail rather than learn, impeding humility.  In contrast, when individuals perceive a setting as supportive—and the person to whom they are conversing as moral—this urge to prevail or be defensive subsides, fostering humility.

Zachry et al. (2018) conducted a study that confirmed this premise.  In this study, 111 university students completed a survey twice a day over three weeks.  While completing this survey

  • participants were invited to recall a challenging interaction they experienced since the last survey and rated the degree to which this challenge was perceived as a disagreement as well as the extent to which this person seemed moral, reasonable, likeable, and knowledgeable,
  • participants completed a state measure of intellectual humility, comprising 20 items, such as “Even when I was certain about my opinion, I researched information supporting the opposing viewpoint”.

On the days in which participants felt they were embroiled in a disagreement, they were not as likely to exhibit intellectual humility. In contrast, on the days in which participants interacted with a person they perceived as moral, they were more likely to report intellectual humility.

Listening

When one person listens intently to another person, both individuals are more likely to develop humility—but especially the listener.  When people listen carefully, they immerse themselves in the life of someone else, diminishing the extent to which their personal needs or status dominate their awareness.  As this need to dominate subsides, these individuals are more inclined to accept, rather than challenge, the perspectives of this other person—including perspectives that might diverge from their own beliefs.  So, while listening, people may embrace conflicting perspectives and question their own beliefs.  Narcissism may evolve into humility. 

Lehmann et al. (2023) both proposed and validated this possibility.  In one study, 108 university students were prompted to remember a previous conversation.  Specifically, depending on the condition in which they had been assigned, participants remembered a time in which they

  • listened well to someone who was discussing an important matter,
  • did not listen well to someone who was discussing an important matter,
  • spoke to someone else, who was listening well, about an important matter
  • spoke to someone else, who was not listening well, about an important matter.

Participants then indicated the degree to which they felt kind and friendly—to represent humility—as well as unimportant and worthless—to represent servility or self-abasing humility.  Relative to the other participants, individuals who listened to another person well or spoke to someone who listened well felt more kind and friendly (Lehmann et al., 2023). 

In the second study, 121 students described their university experiences to a peer.  The listener was instructed either to listen intently and show curiosity or to seem distracted.  Next, all participants completed questions that assess

  • the degree to which they experienced humility, answering questions like “I am open to ideas and advice of others”,
  • the extent to which the other person seemed humble, answering questions like “I believe that this person admits it when they don’t know how to do something”.

As the findings reveal, the peers who were instructed to listen intently were more humble—as rated by themselves and the participants who they heard.  Speakers also reported more humility if the peer listened intently.  As subsequent studies revealed,

  • the benefits of listening on humility persist after controlling liking,
  • listeners were more likely to learn novel information, perceive the information as interesting, and experience moments of awe—experiences that, in turn, fostered humility (Lehmann et al., 2023).