Radical Humility

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, and meaning affirmation. Some other sections will substantiate these determinants of humility as well as explore how to cultivate these characteristics, practices, and circumstances.

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. 

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”).

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. 

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.