Interventions specifically designed to foster humility

A pioneering study

In 2025, O’Connor and associates designed and validated an intervention that fosters intellectual humility.  In their study, 445 adults were assigned to one of three conditions.  In the first condition, participants completed a task, adapted from a procedure that Lu and Sinha (2019) applied, that was designed to induce dichotomous thinking—a style of thinking in which individuals tend to classify objects or items into two categories, such as right or wrong, and disregard nuances.  Specifically

• participants received pairs of pictures, such as a black dog and white dog or a pizza or salad,
• these individuals were then prompted to assign a binary label to each picture, such as black versus white or unhealthy versus healthy,
• similarly, participants listened to six scenarios and were prompted to decide, as rapidly as possible, whether the choice or action of the protagonist was right or wrong.

In the second condition, participants completed a task that was designed to induce dialectical thinking—a style in which individuals do not classify objects or items into two categories but recognise nuances, graded variations, and contradictions.  To achieve this goal

• participants read about a dilemma that Kohlberg posed in 1963, about a man, Heinz, who steals medicine he cannot afford to save his ill wife,
• the participants were then prompted to contemplate the dilemma from multiple perspectives and to consider three advantages and three disadvantages of his behaviour,
• the participants also considered why people cannot determine with certainty, whether this behaviour is right or wrong.

In the final condition, a control condition, participants read a passage from Moby Dick and rated their level of enjoyment.  All participants then completed various scales, such as

• the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale to measure various facets of intellectual humility,
• the Dichotomous Thinking Inventory (Oshio, 2009) that included questions like “It feels good when boundaries are clear for all things” and “Information should be defined as either true or false”,
• a measure that assesses the five main personality traits, in which individuals specify the degree to which various adjectives describe their character, such as compassionate, focussed, talkative, moody, and imaginative to assess agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience, respectively.

As the findings revealed, relative to the other participants, the individuals who read about Heinz—a task that was designed to elicit dialectical thinking—were more likely to exhibit intellectual humility.  This finding persisted after controlling personality and level of education.  A decrease in dichotomous thinking mediated this effect of dialectical thinking on intellectual humility.

The rationale

Arguably, if individuals tend to think dichotomously, they assume that other people are either proponents or opponents of various positions. These individuals, thus, presume they are unlikely to shift from one position, such as anti-vaccination, to an opposing position, such as pro-vaccination.  Therefore, they feel their beliefs will persist rather than shift.  These individuals will not be likely to listen to alternative perspectives.

In contrast, if individuals think dialectically rather than dichotomously, they assume that other people can espouse a range of positions on each issue—including nuanced and conflicting perspectives.  These individuals thus recognise their position may shift marginally and subtly over time.  Consequently, they may be more inclined to respect perspectives that diverge from their own position, manifesting as intellectual humility. 

Experimental protocols

As these findings imply, experiences, activities, or programs that encourage dialectical thinking should foster intellectual thinking. The first question, then, is whether dialectical thinking is indeed modifiable.

Some research protocols or activities can at least prime dialectical thinking temporarily.  These studies imply that particular exercises or circumstances might promote this thinking style. For example, in a study conducted by Li et al. (2021), university students were exposed to one of two conditions.  In the control condition

• participants received paper in which two circles appeared,
• one circle represented a goal they wanted to achieve—to be employed at an established company,
• the other circle represented the main cause or causes that could fulfill this goal, such as high grades,
• participants were invited to draw a line from the circle that represents the causes to the circle that represents the goal,
• finally, participants explained how they could foster these causes to achieve the goal.

The other condition, designed to promote dialectical thinking, was similar except

• four circles appeared on the paper, three of which represent a different cause of this goal,
• participants were invited to draw lines between multiple circles—to represent how the causes are related to each other and to the goal,
• finally, participants explained how these causes are interconnected to each other.

Accordingly, to prime dialectical thinking, participants were encouraged to consider the multifaceted relationships between causes and some outcome.  In this study, dialectical thinking affected the expectations of individuals around climate change.  That is, participants who experienced dialectical thinking predicted that changes in the climate may be stable over time but include cycles rather than only a linear trend (Li et al., 2021).  This study, therefore, reveals that specific activities may prime dialectical thinking.

Strategies to encourage dialectical thinking: Debates

These experimental protocols, however, may not be useful in everyday settings.  Fortunately, research has shown that various interventions can foster dialectical thinking in practice.

For example, as Hu, Wang, et al. (2021) revealed, after individuals write about periods in which they studied abroad, they are more likely to think dialectically.  They are, for example, more likely to feel that two contradictory statements may both seem reasonable—such as the notion that excessive use of mobile phones can promote ADHD but also improve concentration (for a similar measure, see Peng & Nisbett, 1999).      

Other studies have also explored the conditions that promote dialectical thinking.  To illustrate, Li et al. (2021) examined whether debates at university foster dialectical thinking in students. In the first study, 48 undergraduate students, enrolled at Jiangxi Normal University, participated in debates about six topics, such as whether forgiveness is a panacea or whether cooperation facilitates learning more than competition.  Before and after this set of debates, these students answered questions that assess their position on each topic, ranging from a scale from 1 to 7.  After the debates,

• students were more inclined to choose a number that was closer to the midpoint of 4,
• hence, students tended to adopt a moderate position on these issues, emblematic of dialectical thinking.

The second study compared the level of dialectical thinking style of 124 students who attended one of two classes: a class in which debates were often organised and a class in which debates were not organised. Otherwise, the classes were identical. At the start and end of each semester, all students completed a measure of dialectical thinking (Wu & Lin, 2005; for evidence of validity, see Zhang et al., 2011). This scale assessed the degree to which the students consider matters from different perspectives, integrate their beliefs with the perspective of other people, and strive to maintain interpersonal harmony.  As the results demonstrated, at the end of this semester, students were more likely to think dialectically—such as consider multiple perspectives and integrate these perspectives with their own beliefs—if they had participated in debates than if they had not participated in debates.   Presumably, debates may foster dialectical thinking because

• during debates, participants need to consider opposing perspectives,
• debates might highlight that most issues are nuanced.

Strategies to encourage dialectical thinking: Insights from DBT

Finally, practitioners who apply dialectical behaviour therapy, or DBT, as first proposed by Linehan (1993), also utilise a range of strategies to encourage dialectical thinking. Bonavitacola et al. (2019) outlines many of the approaches that DBT practitioners can utilise to foster dialectical thinking in clients—approaches that could be adapted to other settings as well.  Here are some approaches that could be adopted in many settings, such as workplaces too (for other sources of these approaches, see Miller et al, 2006; Rathus & Miller, 2014).  Leaders and authorities—such as managers, teachers, mentors, and practitioners—could

• acknowledge that neither they nor anyone else is the font of truth,
• acknowledge that, although data and evidence are informative, intuitions and hunches are also useful,
• prioritise and encourage thoughts that are helpful or useful rather than necessarily true or accurate, acknowledging that objective truth is nuanced, multifaceted, and sometimes contradictory.
• encourage individuals to shun words that imply extremes, such as replace always with sometimes,
• inspire people to identify the kernel of truth in all perspectives, recognising that nobody is always correct,
• suggest that individuals substitute absolute statements, such as “you should…” or “you are…” with references to intuitions or feelings, such as “I sometimes feel that…”,
• encourage individuals to consider the similarities rather than differences between people who espouse conflicting beliefs or ideologies,
• suggest that people could relinquish blame and, instead, recognise that most behaviours or outcomes can be ascribed to multiple and interrelated events and interactions over time, and
• distribute worksheets in which individuals need to distinguish the dialectical statements, such as “I can understand why you feel this way, and I feel differently about this matter”, from the dichotomous statements, such as “I know I am right about this matter”.

Although these approaches may be helpful, managers, teachers, mentors, and practitioners should model dialectical thinking themselves when they encourage dialectical thinking.  These individuals should not, for example, imply that people must always think dialectically.  Instead, these individuals should convey these approaches as perspectives that may be helpful. 

Awareness of social complexity

Other studies imply that a range of other interventions could also foster dialectical thinking.  To illustrate, the behaviours of people, including the beliefs they espouse, often varies across settings and circumstances.  A person might seem compassionate in one setting, like a café, but hostile in another setting, such as a bar.  That is, people are sometimes unpredictable or even inconsistent over time.  Some individuals are more aware than other individuals of the degree to which people may shift their behaviour over time and across settings—called social complexity.  Interestingly, this awareness that people may shift their behaviour over time and across settings is positively associated with coping flexibility or the capacity of people to apply many coping strategies in challenging or stressful circumstances (e.g., Kurman, 2011).

As revealed by Ng and Chen (2023)—two academics from the Hong Kong Metropolitan University and Hong Kong Polytechnic University respectively—dialectical thinking mediates the association between this awareness of social complexity and coping flexibility.  This finding, therefore, implies that an awareness of social complexity may foster dialectical thinking. 

Specifically, in one of their studies, 171 adults, living in Hong Kong, completed an online survey. The survey comprised three measures:

• awareness of social complexity, derived from the Social Axioms Survey II (Leung et al., 2012), that included items such as “People may have opposite behaviours on different occasions”,
• the dialectical self scale (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2015), exemplified by items like “I sometimes believe two things that contradict each other”, and
• the coping flexibility scale (Kato, 2012) that included items like “When stressed, I use several ways to cope and make the situation better”.

As structural equation modelling revealed, dialectical thinking mediated the association between an awareness of social complexity and coping flexibility.  A longitudinal study, in which participants completed the survey one two occasions, separated by a year, replicated these findings.  Social complexity at one time predicted dialectical thinking at a later time, after controlling dialectical thinking at the previous time (Ng & Chen, 2023). These results confirm that awareness of social complexity may foster dialectical thinking rather than vice versa. 

Presumably, when individuals recognise that people may change their behaviour and attitude across settings, they gradually appreciate that specific events can generate a range of outcomes, depending on the circumstances. They realise that such events cannot be simply categorised as positive or negative—an awareness that epitomises and promotes dialectical thinking.  Because of this dialectical thinking, individuals realise that some coping strategies, such as meditation, may be effective in some circumstances but not in other circumstances.  Over time, individuals are more inclined to learn which strategies are effective in various settings, enhancing their coping flexibility (cf., Cheng, 2009).

Rather than merely foster the determinants of humility, researchers have also developed interventions that are purposefully designed to elicit humility—especially intellectual humility.  One of these interventions is predicated on the notion that people tend to feel less defensive if they can establish trusting relationships.  Thorson et al. (2025), for example, designed and validated an intervention that revolves around four guided conversations.  Each conversation was designed to enable pairs of individuals to practice specific norms and expectations they learned in a classroom to address a challenging situation.  Here is an outline of these four conversations:

• Expectation: Show we care about the feelings and perspectives of the other person even if we disagree.  In response to a series of prompts, participants shared their values with one another, paraphrased one another to demonstrate understanding, and discussed how their values were similar and different.
• Expectation: We acknowledge that our beliefs could be incorrect. Participants discussed two scenarios that are morally ambiguous.  They each shared how they would respond to the circumstance and paraphrased the responses of one another. They also considered how their background or values may have influenced their perspectives.
• Expectation: We welcome clumsy conversations and forgive errors: Participants discussed an issue about which they feel strongly.  They asked each other guided questions to explore these opinions.  Next, the participants discussed these opinions, exploring how they feel when other people misconstrue or disapprove these perspectives.
• Expectation: We manage our emotions during conversations. Participants identified an issue over which they disagree.  The individuals explained their position in turn, followed a guide to ask each other questions, and paraphrased one another.  Finally, the participants discussed the similarities and differences in their opinions.

After each conversation, the participants, who comprised over 9000 adults, individually answered some questions that were designed to assess their potential to become friends, their trust in this person, and the degree to which they felt accepted by this person.  They also completed a measure of intellectual humility both before the intervention as well as immediately after and a month after the intervention.  A sample item was “I accept that my beliefs may be wrong”.

Intellectual humility did significantly improve over time. If the potential to become friends, trust, and degree to which they felt accepted by the other person was elevated, this improvement was especially pronounced.  That is, a sense of affiliation during these conversations amplified the effect of this intervention on intellectual humility.  Arguably, this sense of affiliation diminishes the need in individuals to inflate themselves.  Individuals do not feel as defensive, fostering their willingness to acknowledge their limitations (for a similar theory, see Itzchakov & Reis 2021).  

Introduction

Instead of more confined interventions, some researchers have designed more comprehensive interventions, comprising multiple activities, to foster humility.  For example, Harmon-Jones et al. (2025) designed a program that comprises a blend of videos and writing tasks.  Specifically, across four separate days, participants watched four videos including

• a video that utilises expansive images to depict the universe, adapted from Stellar et al. (2018),
• a video that outlines the Dunning-Kruger, presented in TED-Ed,
• a speech in which Ash Barty, an Australian tennis player, exudes humility,
• a video in which swimwear designer, Cristel Carrisi, discusses how she recognises, understands, and owns her own mistakes.

In addition, also across four separate days, participants completed four writing tasks:

• on one day, they wrote for three minutes about a time they behaved altruistically and five minutes about their strengths and limitations (cf Lavelock et al., 2014),
• one the second day, they wrote for 10 minutes a letter of gratitude to someone and the impact of this person on their lives,
• on the third day, they wrote for 8 minutes about their day while refraining from the word “I” to focus on the inherent value of people, objects, and experiences,
• on the fourth day, they wrote about how other people, luck, and other forces contributed towards their accomplishments.
• finally, on the fifth day, they wrote about a time they experienced awe.

In the control condition, participants completed similar tasks, except the videos and writing were not designed to foster humility.  At various times, participants also completed measures that assess feelings of anger, fear, happiness, and relaxation. To measure humility, these individuals also indicated the degree to which they felt modest, open-minded, down-to-earth, respectful, and tolerant.  The intervention significantly increased levels of humility and diminished levels of anger.  

According to many scholars, the pressure on academics and researchers to publish and to attract research income compromises humility.  That is, to impress reviewers and judges, academics feel compelled to inflate the significance, novelty, and validity of their research rather than genuinely acknowledge the limitations of this work.  Indeed, many journals and funders explicitly welcome only research that is transformative and groundbreaking (Kail, 2012), perhaps overlooking the observation that research seldom fulfills these attributes.  Consequently, over recent decades, the proportion of positive words in scientific papers has soared (Vinkers et al., 2015).

Yet, despite this pressure to inflate the value of their research, most scientists and researchers cherish intellectual humility (Anderson et al., 2007).  These individuals believe that researchers must acknowledge the limitations, flaws, ambiguities, or uncertainty of their work.  If this intellectual humility wanes, the public will become increasingly dubious about research (e.g., Pashler & De Ruiter, 2017).  The impact and benefits of such research will thus plummet.

To address this concern, Hoekstra and Vazire (2021) suggested that reviewers should be encouraged to evaluate manuscripts partly on the degree to which the authors demonstrated intellectual humility. In contrast to journal editors and some other stakeholders, reviewers are uniquely positioned because they tend to value intellectual humility and experience no incentive to prefer research in which the claims may be exaggerated.  To enable reviewers to evaluate the intellectual humility of manuscripts, Hoekstra and Vazire (2021) suggest a series of 19 criteria these reviews should consider.  For example, the manuscript should

• specify the limitations and boundary conditions of the main conclusions in the abstract,
• acknowledge rather than overlook some of the contradictions in the literature—rather than attempt to propose a misleading sense of coherence,
• stipulate when the researchers or academics reached decisions about data collection, transformations of data, analyses, and so forth,
• when summarising the results, include the full range of findings—including the most damning patterns,
• present alternative explanations of results as convincingly as possible,
• acknowledge limitations of the research throughout the discussion rather than confine these limitations to a circumscribed section at the end,
• after publication, insist that press releases or public reports about the research acknowledge the limitations and correct exaggerations or misrepresentations of this research.