Causes of individual humility: An overview

Personality characteristics, mindsets, states, or practices that foster humility

Growth mindset

Many studies have substantiated the benefits of intellectual or epistemic humility—the tendency of individuals to recognise their assumptions may be incorrect, to question their beliefs, and to embrace alternative perspectives. Fewer studies, however, have uncovered the conditions, circumstances, or characteristics of individuals that foster this intellectual humility. Nevertheless, research has unearthed a few key determinants of intellectual humility.

To illustrate, in 2018, Porter and Schumann revealed that a growth mindset of intelligence tends to promote intellectual humility. That is, some people assume that cognitive ability is modifiable—that individuals who immerse themselves in intellectual activities may, for example, become more intelligent over time. This assumption is called a growth mindset of intelligence. In contrast, other people assume that intelligence will not change over time, regardless of the efforts and activities of these individuals. This assumption is called a fixed mindset of intelligence.

To explore whether a growth mindset of intelligence fosters intellectual humility, in one study, about 1000 students, enrolled in a community college, were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Half the participants read an article, ostensibly published in a respected outlet, that demonstrates how intelligence can be developed over time. The other participants read a different article that demonstrates how intelligence does not vary over time. After reading this article, participants completed a series of measures, one of which gauges intellectual humility. As hypothesised, if participants were prompted to believe that intelligence is modifiable rather than immutable, they were more likely to report an elevated level of intellectual humility. A growth mindset thus promoted humility.

Arguably, if people believe their intelligence can improve over time, they become motivated to extend their knowledge and skills. Consequently, they are more willing to recognise the limitations of their beliefs or capabilities and to embrace alternative perspectives—the hallmarks of humility.

For insights on how to foster a growth mindset, click here.

Awe

In addition to specific beliefs, specific emotions may also foster humility. One emotion in particular is likely to promote humility: awe. Stellar et al. (2018) proposed several reasons to explain why experiences of awe may foster humility in individuals. Specifically, individuals tend to feel awe in response to a remarkable event, object, or feel—such as the vast night sky—that transcend their existing understanding or appreciation of the world. So, feelings of awe remind people the world is more extensive or remarkable than expected, prompting the inclination to update their beliefs. Because of this inclination, individuals may become more receptive to alternative perspectives, a feature of humility.

Similarly, while immersed in a moment of awe and wonder at the size and scope of this world, individuals tend to feel small in comparison. Their concerns feel more trivial than usual. The feedback, criticisms, and challenges they receive do not feel as significant or weighty. While they experience awe, individuals may thus be more receptive to feedback or to information that underscores their limitations—another feature of humility.

Consistent with these premises, Stellar et al. (2018) did indeed reveal that awe promotes humility. In one study, half the participants watched a video that depicts the vast distance between the planets and stars, eliciting a sense of awe, wonder and interest. The other participants merely watched a video about how to build a fence, designed not to elicit strong emotions. After watching the video, all participants wrote about their strengths and weaknesses for two minutes. Participants who experienced awe were more inclined to write about more weaknesses than strengths, potentially emblematic of humility. Another study revealed that, after moments of awe, participants indicated they experienced greater humility as well.

Other self-transcendent emotions

Besides awe, other emotions and feelings can also foster humility. Specifically, according to Krumrei Mancuso et al. (2024), self-transcendent emotions in general may promote this humility in individuals. Self-transcendent emotions are feelings that direct the attention of individuals away from themselves—away from their personal needs or goals. Instead, these emotions underscore the magnificence, size, virtue, sanctity, or beauty of other people, objects, events, or experiences. For example, feelings of gratitude direct attention to the benevolence of other people or experiences. Feelings of admiration direct attention to the capabilities of other individuals, and so forth.

According to Krumrei Mancuso et al. (2024), these self-transcendent emotions should foster humility. Specifically, after people experience self-transcendent emotions, they should not be as preoccupied with their own capabilities, potentially fostering an openness to feedback about their limitations. These individuals may thus be more willing to acknowledge their limitations and question their beliefs. Similarly, after individuals experience these emotions they may be more inclined to respect and to embrace the perspectives of other people or settings.

To explore this possibility, Krumrei Mancuso et al. (2024) in one study, participants wrote about a time in which they experienced a specific emotion. Some of the participants wrote instructed to write about times in which they experienced a self-transcendent emotion, such as gratitude or awe. Other participants were instructed to write about times in which they experience another emotion, such as happiness or excitement. Next participants completed two measures of humility including

a measure of intellectual humility—or whether they recognise their knowledge may be flawed or their beliefs may be misguided,
a measure of general humility, such as “I feel that I do not deserve more respect than other people”.

After participant wrote about self-transcendent emotions, they were more likely to demonstrate humility. Specifically, gratitude was positively associated with intellectual humility; some of the other relationships were not as pronounced. As a subsequent study revealed, after participants wrote about a time in which they felt sacred, divine, spiritual, holy, blessed, they also experienced greater humility.

For insights on how to foster self-transcendence, click here.

Exposure to nature

Arguably, when people are exposed to nature, they may also experience greater humility. That is, nature often elicits feelings of self-transcendence or sanctity—and, therefore, may foster humility. To assess this possibility, in a third study, Krumrei Mancuso et al. (2024) introduced participants to walk in majestic state park, a mundane garden, or indoors. Within these environments, participants completed a battery of scales, designed to measure self-transcendent emotions, sanctity, general humility, and intellectual humility. As the study revealed, relative to people who walked indoors, people who walked in a majestic state park experienced more self-transcendent emotions, sanctity, and general humility.

Flow

Another self-transcendent emotion has also been shown to foster humility: flow. Flow is the state that people experience when they feel utterly absorbed in an interesting and challenging task. In a state of flow, people almost become entirely unaware of themselves, epitomising a self-transcendent emotion. Consequently, flow should also foster humility.

Kim et al. (2023) conducted a study to explore this premise. That is, participants wrote about a time in which they experienced flow, experienced awe, experienced amusement, or completed a household chore. Subsequently, they completed measures that assess

the degree to which individuals experienced flow, awe, and other emotions,
epistemic humility, such as “I am honest with myself when I assess my own faults and limitations”,
wise reasoning, such as “(During a conflict), I looked for different solutions as the situation evolved”.

As the findings revealed, the degree to which individuals experienced flow was positively associated with epistemic humility, whereas the degree to which individuals experienced awe was positively associated with awe. Epistemic humility and wise reasoning did not differ across the conditions, partly because the writing task did not always elicit the intended emotion.

In a subsequent study, rather than merely write about these emotions, participants were exposed to conditions that foster these feelings. To elicit flow, participants were granted an opportunity to use an app to compose a song. To elicit awe, participants watched a video that depicted sweeping landscapes. To elicit amusement, participants watched a funny clip. And, in the control condition, participants watched a dull video. The conditions that elicited flow and awe did indeed foster humility and elicit an openness to change.

For insights on how to foster flow, click here.

Perspective taking

When individuals adopt the perspective of other people, they may also experience a sense of self-transcendence. Consistent with this possibility, after people are prompted to adopt the perspective of someone else, they naturally exhibit greater intellectual humility. Kotsogiannis et al. (2024) corroborated this possibility in a sample of 174 college students.

In this study, participants read about a relatable scenario, in which a person feels betrayed by friends or family. The participants were then randomly assigned to one or two conditions:

Half the participants imagined this scenario from their own perspective. They were also instructed to use first-person pronouns to transcribe their thoughts about this scenario, such as “I would feel…”,
The other participants imagined this scenario from the perspective of another person. They were also instructed to use third -person pronouns to transcribe their thoughts about this scenario, such as “She would feel…”.

Before and after completing this exercise, the participants answered questions that were designed to assess intellectual humility. Specifically, they completed the Multi-Dimensional Intellectual Humility Scale, validated by Alfano et al. (2017). Sample items were “I appreciate being corrected when I make a mistake” and “When someone corrects a mistake I made, I do not feel embarrassed”. As hypothesised, after individuals considered an event from the perspective of someone else, and not from their own perspective, their intellectual humility improved.

Arguably, when people adopt the perspective of someone else, they tend to experience a sense of distance from the events they are contemplating. The emotions these events might otherwise elicit, such as anxiety or resentment, tend to diminish because of this sense of distance or detachment. They can, therefore, consider beliefs they do not like—such as their limitations or misconceptions—more objectively and accurately (cf., Kross & Grossman, 2012).

For insights on how to foster perspective-taking, click here.

Experiences overseas

Living in a foreign nation could, in principle, enable people to appreciate the perspective of other individuals and cultures better, potentially fostering intellectual humility. Because of this possibility, Li (2025), from Sichuan International Studies University in China, examined whether such foreign experiences do indeed foster intellectual humility. To illustrate, in the first study, 184 participants, all studying or working at a Chinese university, were asked to specify whether they have lived overseas, the number of countries they have visited, and the duration they have spent overseas. Next, these individuals completed the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale. Participants who had lived overseas did report greater intellectual humility on all subscales of this measure. The number of nations visited, but not the duration overseas, was also positively related to humility. Two additional studies, but with different measures, showed that people who had lived in many nations were more likely to report intellectual humility.

The fourth study, however, was designed to ascertain whether memories of these foreign experiences foster humility. In this study, about half the participants were invited to recall a day they spent in a foreign nation—describing their experiences and emotions. The other participants were invited to recall a day they spent in their home country. Memories of a day in a foreign nation promoted intellectual humility.

Arguably, when individuals visit and live in multiple nations, their experiences are more likely to challenge their pre-existing beliefs. They may, therefore, recognise their knowledge and beliefs may be limited or misguided, manifesting as intellectual humility. Even when they reminisce about these experiences, memories of these doubts about their beliefs may promote humility.

Maladaptive perfectionism

Some individuals exhibit traits or characteristics that symbolise undue concern about themselves rather than self-transcendence. These traits or characteristics should thus limit humility.

For example, maladaptive perfectionism, or the inclination of some people to be unduly concerned about mistakes or shortfalls, may impede humility. That is, some individuals experience strong aversive emotions, such as shame, whenever they recognise flaws in their personality, shortcomings in their capabilities, or mistakes in their performances. This tendency is called maladaptive perfectionism. To moderate these aversive emotions, these individuals may divert attention from their limitations or fallibilities. Because these individuals do not acknowledge or concede their shortfalls, they exhibit diminished levels of humility.

Nevertheless, mindfulness, in which individuals observe their thoughts, emotions, and surroundings without judgment, could mitigate this effect of maladaptive perfectionism on humility. That is, when people experience this state of mindfulness, they feel a sense of distance or detachment from unpleasant emotions. So, in this state, the potential shame of mistakes or flaws may not divert the attention of these individuals from their limitations. These individuals can thus acknowledge some of these shortcomings, fostering humility.

To assess this possibility, Thornburg-Suresh and McElroy-Heltzel (2025), at the University of Iowa, conducted two studies. In the first study, 250 adults completed a survey that included

the honest-humility subscale of the HEXACO personality inventory (Lee & Ashton, 2004) that includes items such as “a tendency to be modest and unassuming”,
a measure of maladaptive personality, such as “I should be upset if I make a mistake”, and
the five-facet mindfulness questionnaire (Baer et al., 2008).

As hypothesised, maladaptive perfectionism was inversely associated with scores on the honest-humility subscale. However, when mindfulness was elevated, this association between maladaptive perfectionism and humility was not as pronounced. The second study, however, did not replicate this interaction effect. Taken together, these studies do suggest that maladaptive perfectionism may limit humility, but whether mindfulness overrides this impact of maladaptive perfectionism warrants further research.

Other mindsets or states that foster humility

Many other mindsets or states may foster humility, such as self-affirmation, future self-continuity, meaning affirmation, and limited right-wing authoritarianism. Some other sections will substantiate these determinants of humility as well as explore how to cultivate these characteristics, practices, and circumstances.

Researchers have also suggested, but not verified, some other potential causes of humility. For example, Porter, Gardiner, et al. (2019) proposed that adversity may foster humility in specific circumstances. After people experience adverse events, such as failures, they may attempt to explain how these problems unfolded. To explain these events, they may recognise their assumptions were incorrect or their knowledge was limited (Whitcomb et al., 2017)—features of intellectual humility.

Yet, as Porter, Gardiner, et al. (2019) concede, adversity may not invariably translate to humility. Some beliefs, mindsets, skills, or traits, such as the assumption that competence is modifiable (Porter & Schumann, 2018), may facilitate this evolution of humility. To illustrate, if individuals believe that competence is modifiable, they may ascribe an unanticipated failure on an exam to the possibility they overestimated their knowledge—a bias they feel confident they can address in the future. In contrast, if individuals believe that competence is not modifiable, they may be reluctant to ascribe this unanticipated failure to the possibility they overestimated their knowledge, because they may feel doubtful of whether they can prevent this problem in subsequent exams. Instead, they may contend the exam was unfair or blame some other person or event, disrupting the development of humility.

Social determinants of 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.

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.

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.

Cognitive determinants of humility

Introduction

Many studies have explored how the motivations, emotions, and social interactions of individuals may shape their humility. Fewer studies, however, have examined how cognitive attributes, such as intelligence or creativity, may affect humility.

Nevertheless, as Zmigrod et al. (2019) both proposed and demonstrated, cognitive attributes are central to humility—especially intellectual humility. That is, to demonstrate intellectual humility, individuals need to

recognise which of their beliefs or judgments may be biased rather than substantiated,
withhold these beliefs or judgments until additional information is collected, and
integrate additional information with past experience to update beliefs or judgments.

Therefore, to exhibit intellectual humility, individuals must have developed the capacity to shift their beliefs or judgments in response to evidence. To achieve this goal effectively and frequently

some individuals may utilise the specific ability to shift the contents of their working memory effectively, called cognitive flexibility,
other individuals may utilise more generic, intellectual skills—skills that can be utilised for many other purposes as well.

Empirical illustration

Accordingly, either cognitive flexibility, general intelligence, or both may enable intellectual humility. Zmigrod et al. (2019) thus conducted a study to corroborate this possibility. In this study, about 100 participants completed a series of measures including

the comprehensive intellectual humility scale—to gauge four distinct facets of intellectual humility,
the alternative uses test, in which individuals need to identify as many uses of various common items, such as bricks, as possible (cf., Guilford, 1967); the number of distinct categories mentioned represents cognitive flexibility (Addis et al., 2016; Chermahini & Hommel, 2010)
the semantic verbal fluency test, in which individuals generate as many words as possible, within two minutes, that correspond to a category, such as “things on wheels” (Tombaugh et al., 1999; Troyer et al., 1997),
the Raven’s standard progressive matrices task to measure general intelligence.

The findings revealed that both cognitive flexibility and, to a lesser extent, general intelligence were positively associated with intellectual humility, consistent with the hypotheses. The association between cognitive flexibility and intellectual humility was more pronounced when general intelligence was low. Similarly, the association between general intelligence and intellectual humility was more pronounced when cognitive flexibility was low—even after the false positive rate across multiple comparisons was controlled (Esarey & Sumner, 2018). As this pattern implies, either cognitive flexibility or general intelligence is sufficient to enable intellectual humility.

Cognitive flexibility was associated with some, but not all, facets of intellectual humility. Specifically, cognitive flexibility was positively related to

respect for the viewpoints of other people, exemplified by items like “I can respect others, even if I disagree with them in important ways”).
openness to revising viewpoints, exemplified by items like “I am open to revising my important beliefs in the face of new information”).

Religious and spiritual beliefs

Rationale

Scholars have proposed that religious and spiritual beliefs may either hinder or foster intellectual humility. For example, several features of religious and spiritual beliefs may hinder intellectual humility. To illustrate

people may deem their religious and spiritual beliefs as too important or valuable to question, impeding their intellectual humility,
some religious and spiritual beliefs prioritise faith—or unconditional adherence—over doubt and, therefore, contradict the assumption that all beliefs are fallible (see also Fisch, 2003),
some of the needs that motivate religious and spiritual beliefs, such as the pursuit of clarity and certainty, may discourage the tendency to question assumptions (Brandt & Reyna, 2010).

Nevertheless, because of other reasons, religious and spiritual beliefs may foster intellectual humility. Specifically

many religious leaders and teachings attach significant value to tolerance and humility (Cornille, 2008; Woodruff et al., 2014)—although their definitions of humility may be confined to facets that are consistent with their religious orientation,
many religious organisations instil the notion that people are ignorant relative to an omniscient God (Pardue, 2011)—an ignorance that may foster intellectual humility,
some leaders maintain that spiritual maturity encourages an appreciation that life is replete with paradoxes, contradictions, and mystery (Fowler, 1981), diminishing certainty and thus encouraging intellectual humility.

Empirical findings

To explore whether religious and spiritual beliefs or behaviours are associated with intellectual humility, Krumrei-Mancuso (2018) administered a survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Of the 302 individuals who completed this survey, 100 of these participants also completed this survey three years later. Almost 45% of the sample identified as Christian and only about 5% of the sample identified as Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, or Muslim. The survey comprised a range of scales including

the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale—an instrument that measures four distinct facets of intellectual humility: the capacity to separate feedback on beliefs from personal attacks, a willingness to revise beliefs, respect for diverse perspectives, and limited overconfidence in beliefs,
the Religious Fundamentalism Scale to measure the degree to which individuals believe their religious teachings are infallible and must be followed unconditionally, epitomised by items like “God will punish most severely those who abandon his true religion” (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992),
the Religious Belief Salience Scale to measure the degree to which individuals perceive religion as important and integrated with their life, typified by items like “My religious beliefs are what lie behind my whole approach to life” (Blaine & Crocker, 1995),
the Spiritual Transcendence Scale or extent to which individuals derive fulfillment from meditation or prayer, feel connected to the universe, and perceive all life as interconnected (Piedmont, 1999),
questions that assess the frequency with which the individuals participated in religious or spiritual activities over the last month, such as attending religious services or meditating (Exline et al., 2000),
measures of right-wing authoritarianism and social desirability.

Krumrei-Mancuso (2018) subjected the data to a series of hierarchical regression analyses that were designed to examine both linear and curvilinear relationships between religious or spiritual beliefs and intellectual humility. These analyses uncovered a nuanced but telling set of observations. For example

religious fundamentalism, religious belief salience, the degree to which prayer and meditation are fulfilling, the perception that all life is interconnected, and religious participation diminished intellectual humility over time, as longitudinal analyses revealed,
nevertheless, these associations were small in magnitude—consistent with the notion that religious and spiritual beliefs may simultaneously inhibit and foster intellectual humility,
right-wing authoritarianism fully mediated the majority of these relationships, suggesting the belief in tradition and compliance may explain some of these relationships,
analyses of curvilinear relationships demonstrated that very low and, to a lesser extent, very high levels of religious fundamentalism, religious belief salience, and prayer fulfillment coincided with intellectual humility.

Conceivably, when people experience moderate levels of religious or spiritual beliefs, they experience uncertainty or contradictions. To suppress the sense of dissonance or unease these contradictions can elicit, these individuals may strive to mask this uncertainty and demonstrate confidence in their beliefs, impeding their intellectual humility (Krumrei-Mancuso, 2018).

Workplace characteristics that foster humility

A culture that values quality over capability

In some organisations, leaders, managers, or supervisors imply that intelligence is vital to career success. For example, a university leader might proclaim the university admits only students whose intellectual abilities are advanced. Interestingly, as Porter and Cimpian (2023) have revealed, these messages tend to dissuade individuals from expressing their doubts and humility. That is, in these work environments, intellectual humility may dissipate.

To illustrate, in one study, 329 students, enrolled at a large public university, completed an online study. Half the participants read about a hypothetical university that attached significant value to intelligence, epitomised by messages like “We would like to admit students whose intellectual abilities stand out from … their peers”. The other participants read about a hypothetical university that valued high standards but not necessarily intellectual ability, epitomised by messages like “We would like to admit students who are willing and able to meet the high standards we set for ourselves”. To immerse participants in the descriptions of each university, these individuals were asked to memorise, and then later transcribe, this information.

Next, participants indicated the degree to which they would be willing to express intellectual humility in classes at this university. For example, they indicated the degree to which they agree with statements like “If I realised I was incorrect or mistaken about something, I would openly tell other people in the class”. Furthermore, participants indicated the degree to which they feel the culture of this university may be masculine and competitive, exemplified by items such as “In this university, admitting you don’t know the answer looks weak” (Glick et al., 2018).

Participants exposed to the university that prioritises intellectual ability were less inclined to express intellectual humility. A sense the culture of this university is masculine and competitive mediated this relationship. Another study revealed these findings persist even after controlling the degree to which individuals embrace a fixed mindset, in which they assume that intelligence cannot be modified over time. Arguably, if workplaces attach importance to intellectual ability, rather than quality, staff assume that leaders value only the most capable individuals. Consequently, staff become competitive, striving to depict themselves as capable and undermining anyone who is deficient. These staff will thus feel that, if they acknowledge their doubts or limitations, they may be derided rather than supported and assisted. Accordingly, leaders should instead underscore the degree to which they value staff who recognise and address their limitations.

Experimental protocols that foster humility

Fallibility salience

Koetke et al. (2023) designed and validated an experimental protocol that promotes intellectual humility. In essence, this protocol was designed to expose individuals to information that underscores the fallibility of their beliefs and limitations of their knowledge.

First, the researchers invited participants to complete a task that, purportedly, revolves around a study about general knowledge. The participants received three questions about science in which the answers might seem obvious, originally collated by Cutolo (2021)

What weighs more, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?
What mountain peak is farthest from the centre of the Earth
How many senses do humans have?

Three to four options accompanied each question. Participants then received information about the surprising answer: a pound of feathers weighs more, Chimborazo, and over seven senses, respectively. Next, on a scale from 1 to 7, the participants indicated the degree to which their answers had been accurate and the degree to which they had trusted their knowledge. Finally, these individuals wrote a short essay on why recognising their knowledge and beliefs may be inaccurate could be beneficial. This task is designed to prime a principle under the guise of advising future individuals (cf Walton & Wilson, 2018).

Relative to a control condition in which participants completed questions and wrote a brief essay about office technology, participants who were exposed to this protocol were subsequently

more likely to report higher levels of intellectual humility,
more inclined to seek information to verify and question suspicious headlines.sess whether yoga or meditation tends to amplify self-enhancement biases over an extended duration.

Complications around which practices foster humility

The immediate effects of yoga and meditation

Many practices that researchers or practitioners have designed to foster humility may be ineffective; indeed, some of these practices might even diminish some features of humility. To illustrate, many individuals assume that yoga and meditation should quieten the ego and thus foster humility. However, as Gebauer et al. (2018) revealed, yoga and meditation may amplify the tendency of people to inflate some of their qualities, reminiscent of narcissism, called a self-enhancement bias.

To illustrate, in one study, 93 participants were members of hatha yoga schools in Germany. The yoga practices varied across schools but also included postures, breathing exercises, meditation, and relaxation. To assess the impact of yoga, participants completed a series of measures either before or after these yoga practices. These measures included

the degree to which individuals perceive themselves as better than average, compared to other members of their class, on the yoga exercises (see Alicke & Govorun, 2005)—a measure of self-enhancement,
the Communal Narcissism Inventory (Gebauer et al., 2012) to gauge the degree to which individuals perceive themselves as more helpful than a typical person, such as “I will be well known for the good deeds I will have done”,
four questions to gauge the degree to which yoga is central to the identity of participants.

The responses, when subjected to random-intercept models in the lme4 package of R (Bates et al., 2015), revealed that self-enhancement biases were elevated after, compared to before, yoga practice. Furthermore, yoga was perceived as more central to the identity of participants after yoga practice. The second study revealed that loving-kindness meditation in particular amplified these self-enhancement biases—and thus such biases also seemed to boost pleasant emotions. Accordingly, yoga seemed to increase the likelihood that individuals would inflate their qualities.

To explain these findings, Gebauer et al. (2018) invoked the principle of self-centrality (Gebauer et al., 2017). Specifically, after individuals practice a skill, this skill feels more central to their identity—more relevant to who they are. When skills feel central to identity, people tend to exhibit greater self-enhancement. For example, they tend to inflate their capability on this skill and perceive themselves as more worthy overall.

Admittedly, this study did not assess whether yoga or meditation tends to amplify self-enhancement biases over an extended duration. To illustrate, despite the findings, people may exhibit greater humility, and reduced self-enhancement biases, after 15 weeks of yoga compared to before they commenced this practice. The findings merely indicate that self-enhancement biases are more pronounced immediate after each session of yoga.