Theories to explain the benefits of humility

Overview

Davis et al. (2010, 2013) proposed the model of relational humility partly to address some of the paradoxes and nuances that revolve around research into humility.  This model comprised five propositions and comprises some key insights into the nature and benefits of humility. 

First, according to one proposition, for several reasons, people can evaluate the humility of other individuals better than perhaps they can evaluate their own humility.  First, when people are humble, they question their beliefs, and thus cannot be sure of their own humility.  Second, even if people are aware they are not humble, they might not be willing to acknowledge this shortcoming. Therefore, people do not evaluate their own humility accurately.  When individuals appraise the humility of someone else, these problems do not transpire.

The degree to which this proposition is accurate partly depends on the definition of humility. Specifically, to define humility, Davis et al. (2010, 2013) introduced the notion of relational humility.  Relational humility is the degree to which one person deems someone else to be humble—and, more specifically, as someone who

• is concerned with the needs and perspectives of other people rather than merely themselves—manifested as emotions like empathy rather than pride about personal achievements,
• evaluates themselves accurately rather than overestimates or underestimates their capabilities and contributions.

This definition corresponds to a second proposition.  According to this proposition

• relational humility refers to the extent to which one person deems someone else as humble,
• trait humility represents the degree to which this person tends to be rated as humble by other individuals.

According to the third proposition, humility facilitates social relationships.  According to selective investment theory (Brown & Brown, 2006), people often invest effort and resources into relationships in which the other individual is unlikely to reciprocate considerably.  For example, older individuals often care for their elderly parents, sometimes to the sacrifice of assisting their younger children.  These costly actions, purportedly likely to harm the evolutionary fitness of individuals, are common.  To explain why these actions have survived, selective investment theory recognises that people have developed strong bonds with individuals in their life, such as their parents.  These bonds comprise memories and associations that elicit feelings, such as empathy or guilt, that compel people to support these individuals.  These social bonds improve evolutionary fitness because they facilitate reciprocation and support over the lifetime.

Yet, these social bonds are not invariably adaptive. For example, a young person may develop a social bond with an older person and receive assistance at the outset without ever reciprocating later.  To address this concern, individuals may have evolved to appraise the humility of other people.  That is, they recognise that humble people are not immersed in their own needs and thus are more likely to reciprocate over time.  Humility could thus foster the trust and commitment that is necessary to establish these social bonds.

According to the fourth proposition, to evaluate whether someone is humble, individuals monitor emotions.  Specifically, people are more willing to regard someone as humble and thus foster a social bond with this person if

• they experience pleasant, rather than unpleasant, emotions towards this person—emotions that imply this person is unlikely to be exploitative,
• this other person exhibits the emotions that epitomise respect towards the needs and perspectives of other individuals, such as empathy rather than contempt,
• other individuals indicate this person is humble—either verbally or nonverbally.

Finally, according to the fifth proposition, people can more readily evaluate whether someone is humble in circumstances or settings in which humility is hard to sustain, such as

• during conflicts or competitions,
• when receiving praise or appreciation,
• when interacting with someone who is junior or senior in a hierarchy,
• when interacting with people from other collectives who do not share the same norms, such as another ethnicity.

In these circumstances, humble people, in contrast to other individuals, are especially likely, for instance, to

• listen respectfully to someone who expresses a divergent perspective,
• express gratitude—often to prevent jealousy.

Evidence

To assess features of this model, especially the third and fourth proposition, Davis et al. (2013) conducted a series of studies.  To illustrate, if humility facilitates social bonds, individuals should be more inclined to forgive humble individuals.  To assess this possibility, the researchers administered a survey to 123 undergraduate students, enrolled at an American public university, who had been hurt by their romantic partner in the last two months.  Across six weeks, participants completed the survey weekly.  The survey included

• the Relational Humility Scale (Davis et al., 2011), such as “He/she thinks of him/herself too highly”, to measure the degree to which individuals perceive their romantic partner as humble,
• the Transgression Related Interpersonal Motivations Scale (McCollough et al., 1998), such as “I keep as much distance between us as possible” (reverse-scored) to gauge forgiveness after this transgression.

As hypothesised, humility at one time predicted forgiveness at subsequent times.  Because many other characteristics or conditions could have impinged on these findings, Davis et al. (2013) conducted another study, in which they observed 84 undergraduate students in response to contrived challenges or conflicts.  In teams of three to five individuals, participants completed various activities, purportedly about leadership.  They first described their strengths and limitations as a leader.  Next, they completed a task in which they imagined that, as members of a space crew, they experienced a problem and needed to rank the importance of various items to their survival (cf., Robins & Beer, 2001).  Because the study was touted as research on leadership, participants were likely to feel motivated to establish their status, evoking some competition or hierarchy—circumstances in which humility is more observable.  Finally, participants completed exam questions as a team.

After completing these tasks—tasks that enable members to observe humility in one another—they answered questions that assess

• the degree to which they perceive each member of the team as humble,
• the extent to which they would like to collaborate with each person in the future, such as “I would want to work with him or her again” (Anderson et al., 2006),
• the degree to which they felt each person attracted status, such as “Received respect from the group members” (Anderson et al., 2006),
• narcissism, personality traits, such as neuroticism, and adult attachment.

If participants were generally rated as high in humility, other people indicated they would like to collaborate with these individuals.  Similarly, humble individuals were also deemed as higher in status.  These findings are consistent with the proposition that people are more inclined to establish relationships with people who seem humble.   

Furthermore, people who were perceived as humble tended to be lower in neuroticism and anxious attachment.  This finding is consistent with the fourth proposition—the notion that people who exhibit or elicit negative emotions are not as likely to be deemed as humble. 

Many studies have uncovered the benefits of humility to individuals, organisations, and societies.  Furthermore, researchers have proposed theories to explain particular benefits—such as why the humility of leaders might enhance the humility of staff.  In contrast, fewer researchers have been able to integrate all these benefits of humility into a single framework. To address this shortfall, in 2025, Manix and Abston applied a renowned theory, called conservation of resources, to achieve this goal.  In essence, this theory shows how the various benefits of humility tend to amplify and sustain one another.

Introduction to conservation of resources theory

Hobfoll (1989) proposed conservation of resources theory to characterise the circumstances that promote or prevent stress.  According to this theory, individuals gradually, over time, accumulate resources they can apply to accommodate, withstand, or overcome challenges in their life and to achieve their goals.  Specifically, individuals may accumulate four clusters of resources

• object resources, or valuable physical items, such as cars or houses,
• personal resources, such as skills or traits, that enable people to withstand stress, achieve goals, or secure other resources
• condition resources, or social circumstances that expose individuals to other resources, such as employment or marriage,
• energy resources that can be utilised to obtain other resources, such as credibility.

Events that consume these resources—such as job retrenchments, divorce, illness, or failures—elicit stress.  As their resources dissipate, individuals become increasingly sensitive or vulnerable to other stressful events.  Thus, one stressful experience magnifies the impact of further stressful experiences (for evidence, see Ozer et al., 2003).

Introduction to conservation of resources theory: Key principles

The notion that people strive to accrue resources and that a decline in resources is stressful may not seem especially surprising.  The merits of this theory, however, derive more from some key principles that have been validated over time.  The first principle revolves around the upward spiral of resources.  Specifically, , as individuals accrue particular resources, such as capabilities, optimism, or respect, they become more likely to accrue additional resources.  To illustrate

• when individuals accrue resources, they become confident they can withstand challenges; they may, therefore, embrace challenging and unfamiliar experiences, expediting the development of skills, networks, and other resources,
• if people have developed a solid reputation, they might be granted more autonomy; because of this autonomy, these individuals can pursue the tasks they enjoy, enhancing performance, attracting promotions, and perhaps improving their reputation even further.

Second, the mood of individuals is more dependent on changes in resources and not absolute levels of these resources.  That is, a decline in resources, rather than a persistent concern about scarce resources, predicts depression (Ennis et al., 2000). 

Finally, a decline in resources is more likely to affect emotions that is an increase in resources.   That is, a loss of resources can increase depression appreciably.  In contrast, the same gain of resources might not alleviate depression noticeably (Wells et al., 1999; for evidence, see Boyce et al., 2013). 

In an innovative study, Pettit et al. (2010) also showed that losses feel more consequential than gains.   For example, in one study, participants reflected upon a time in which they felt they might lose or gain status.  Later, they were asked to indicate the amount of money they would pay either to prevent this loss or achieve this gain.  In general, participants paid more to prevent a loss in status than to achieve a gain.

Relevance to humility

Manix and Abston (2025) utilised this conservation of resources perspective to characterise the consequences of humility.  In essence, this paper integrated past research to clarify how humility may facilitate the accumulation of resources and enhance the capacity of individuals to withstand stress and to achieve their goals.  The researchers classified these benefits into three main themes:

• Humility boosts learning and thus resource acquisition.
• Humility boosts social bonding and thus resource acquisition.
• Humility boosts self-transcendence and thus resource acquisition

First, Manix and Abston (2025) proposed several reasons to explain how humility may boost learning.  For example

• humble people acknowledge their limitations and thus direct their efforts to activities that might overcome these shortfalls, promoting learning,
• humble people are not ashamed of their limitations and, therefore, may be more willing to embrace unfamiliar and challenging settings, expediting their learning and development (Porter et al., 2020).

As these individuals learn, they accumulate capabilities and thus achieve goals more productively.  Consistent with the   This productivity can attract an upward spiral of resources, such as enable individuals to complete more tasks, attract promotions, earn respect, and so forth.

Second, Manix and Abston (2025) also several reasons to explain how humility may boost social bonding. To illustrate

• humble individuals appreciate and accommodate the needs or perspectives of other people, facilitating trusting relationships (Peters et al., 2011),
• humble people express gratitude towards friends and family as well, also facilitating this trust (Kruse et al., 2014),
• humble people tend to forgive other individuals (Krause, 2018) and thus maintain relationships more effectively,
• humble people are not as likely be defensive and thus seem more stable and trustworthy.

Again, these condition resources can elicit an upward spiral of resources. That is, humble individuals gain resources from these social networks, such as knowledge, advice, support, and other benefits, curbing distress (Thoits, 2011).

Third, Manix and Abston (2025) also proposed several reasons to explain the benefits of self-transcendence.  That is, humble people exhibit self-transcendence, in which they can recognise the significance and qualities of other people and objects—rather than confine their attention to their own needs and activities.  Because of this self-transcendence

• humble individuals can appreciate how their choices and activities can shape their community and society—and thus perceive their life as meaningful,
• because of this sense of meaning, humble individuals can more readily confine their time, efforts, and qualities to meaningful, rather than unnecessary activities, improving efficiency,
• furthermore, because they are receptive to feedback about their capabilities and shortcomings, humble individuals are not as inclined to pursue goals they can never achieve.

Finally, because humble individuals respect other people and experiences, they orient their attention more to gains than losses. This tendency may offset the usual inclination of people to be more affected by losses than gains.  In short, humility seems to foster the acquisition of resources—a key source of resilience and achievement—generating an upward spiral.

Introduction

To explain how the humility of leaders might improve the wellbeing and performance of teams and individuals, Owens and Hekman (2016) proposed a theory or account that revolves around social contagion and regulatory focus theory.  In essence, according to this theory, when leaders demonstrate humility, staff tend to emulate these behaviours.  Indeed, as many studies have revealed, staff will often emulate the emotions and behaviours of leaders (Fast & Tiedens, 2010; Johnson, 2009; Visser et al., 2013), such as emotions or behaviours that exemplify humility, especially in circumstances in which the norms or expectations are ambiguous (Hardin & Higgins, 1996).

Accordingly, if leaders are humble, the team, as a collective, will exhibit many of the hallmarks of humility.  Team members will, for example, acknowledge mistakes constructively, listen to the feedback of one another, and recognise the strengths of each other.  When teams are humble, they are more inclined to pursue their aspirations and to seek improvements rather than merely fulfill their duties and minimise errors, called a collective promotion focus (Higgins, 1997; see also Beersma et al., 2013).  The reasons are that, when teams are humble

• they accept that errors are inevitable features of worthwhile attempts to pursue their aspirations—and so they are not as concerned about mistakes or shortfalls,
• they are more receptive to the insights of team members, enabling these individuals to pursue inspiring and novel possibilities,
• they understand the strengths and limitations of one another and can thus allocate tasks effectively to improve progress. 

Evidence

Owens and Hekman (2016) conducted three studies to assess and to clarify this theory.  In the first study, 89 undergraduate business students were divided into 31 work teams.  All teams undertook a specific task: to decide which HR program a fictitious company should choose.  Each team was assigned a leader.  Yet, unbeknownst to participants, these leaders were confederates who were instructed how to act.  Specifically, half the leaders received scripts that epitomised humility.  For example, during work tasks, these leaders acknowledged their own limitations and praised team members.  The other leaders received scripts that epitomised conceit instead.  After completing the task, participants answered questions that assess

• the degree to which the leaders exhibited humility
• the extent to which the team demonstrated humility, such as “Members of this team are willing to learn from one another”, and
• a collective promotion focus, such as the extent to which the team was motivated to ““achieve… hopes and aspirations” (for the items, see van Kleef et al., 2005).

As structural equation modelling revealed, leadership humility was positively associated with collective promotion focus.  Team humility mediated this association.  These results, therefore, are consistent with the proposal that leaders who show humility inspire teams to also exhibit this behaviour.  This humility in the team encourages individuals to pursue their aspirations rather than confine themselves to more immediate duties and obligations.  A subsequent study revealed that leadership humility, as well as team humility and collective promotion focus, also enhanced performance on a collective task.