Theories to explain the causes of humility

Life history theory

According to Dutta and Maner (2026), when children are reared in an unpredictable home environment, they are not as likely to develop intellectual humility.  This possibility emanates from three overlapping theories: life history theory, differential K theory, and the adaptive calibration model of stress responsivity.   

Life history theory was partly developed to explain differences in the motivations of individuals, including humans and animals (Belsky et al., 1991; Belsky et al., 2007; Kaplan & Gangestad, 2005; Kaplan et al., 2000; Roff, 1992; Roff, 2002).  To illustrate

• some people feel a strong motivation to develop their skills, knowledge, and other capacities or resources
• other people, in contrast, feel a strong motivation to produce offspring while young or engage in many sexual encounters.

According to life history theory, individuals must divide their energy and resources across different activities.  That is, energy and resources devoted to one task cannot simultaneously be devoted to another task.  Individuals utilise diverse strategies to divide these resources, and these choices underpin many personality traits.

One of the most fundamental choices that individuals must reach is whether to direct these resources to somatic efforts or reproductive efforts.  Somatic efforts include activities that are intended to maintain and to extend their body and mind, such as the accrual of knowledge and skills.  Reproductive efforts, in contrast, entail courtship, gestation, birth, childcare, and competition to secure mates.  Life history strategy reflects which of these two strategies individuals tend to prioritise.  Both somatic efforts and reproductive efforts confer key benefits.  To demonstrate

• somatic efforts, such as learning, enable individuals to generate better offspring in the future,
• without these somatic efforts, reproductive efforts might not generate offspring that will thrive,
• without reproductive efforts, however, individuals might not generate any offspring.  

A bias towards somatic efforts is called a slow life history strategy, whereas a bias towards reproductive efforts is called a fast life history strategy: that is, when individuals demonstrate this bias, they often reproduce quickly, soon after the reach sexual maturity.  According to proponents of life history theory,

• when the environment is hazardous and unpredictable, individuals will tend to devote their resources to reproductive efforts
• in these instances, somatic efforts, intended to accrue resources, are futile if death might be imminent,
• thus, individuals often seem more irresponsible in these settings.

Some mammals adopt a fast life history strategy.  Tenrecs, for example, related to the hedgehog, reproduce only a few weeks after birth.  These animals, therefore, invest their resources and energy into reproductive efforts instead of somatic efforts.  In contrast, other mammals adopt a slow life history, such as elephants.  Relative to other species, such as chimpanzees, humans also adopt a slow life history, reproducing later in life (Kaplan, Hill, et al., 2000).  

Arguably, intellectual humility epitomises a slow life history.  That is, people who exhibit intellectual humility strive to consider diverse perspectives and thus gradually acquire knowledge—a resource that could benefit their children in the future.  is impressive because the regression analysis controlled narcissism—and hence the remaining variance in humility would have been limited. 

Differential K theory

Differential K theory (Rushton, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2004, 2008), a variant of life history theory, attempts to characterise all the traits that are associated with fast, rather than slow, reproductive strategies.   Specifically, according to this variant, a strategy called r represents individuals with faster life history strategies, who produce many offspring but cannot devote as many resources to their children.  In contrast, the strategy K represents individuals with slower life history strategies, who produce fewer offspring but devote more resources to their children. K is associated with delayed sexual reproduction but also larger brains, lower infant mortality, parental care, and altruism.  These traits enhance the willingness or capacity of individuals to devote resources to offspring. 

As studies in this field have indeed confirmed, diverse characteristics, but all related to a K inclination, are indeed correlated with each other.  Bogaert and Rushton (1989), for example, showed that measures of fast life history strategies, such as sexual permissiveness, are positively associated with family size but negatively associated with altruism. 

Similarly, to validate the concept of r and K reproductive strategies, Templer (2008) subjected a variety of characteristics, such as birth rate, AIDs infection, life expectancy, mean IQ, skin colour, and GDP across 129 nations to a factor analysis.  One factor explained 73% of the variance.   Specifically,

• K was associated with slow reproduction and thus a limited birth rate as well as a low incidence of AIDS,
• furthermore, K corresponded to investment in resources to enhance the success of offspring, such as high life expectancy and IQ.  

Figueredo et al. (2007) uncovered three related factors, all associated with life history theory: K, co-vitality, and personality.  Specifically, a series of scales, associated with life history theory were subjected to a factor analysis, including quality of relationships with parents, children, spouses, and friends, altruism, financial status, advice seeking, persistence, planning, wellbeing, general health, and the five main personality traits.  The factor analysis unearthed three factors: 

• The first factor included the traditional K variables, such as quality of relationships, altruism, financial status, advice seeking, persistence, and planning. 
• The second factor, called co-vitality, was associated with subjective wellbeing and general health.  
• The final factor, derived from the personality measures, entailed conscientiousness, agreeableness, low neuroticism, and high extraversion—traits that are often regarded as desirable.

These three factors were positively related to each other.  Conceivably, individuals who assume a K reproductive strategy strive to develop the traits that attract optimal mates, such as conscientiousness and agreeableness.  Arguably, intellectual humility facilitates the acquisition of knowledge as well as trust and, hence, should attract optimal mates as well.pectives and thus gradually acquire knowledge—a resource that could benefit their children in the future.  is impressive because the regression analysis controlled narcissism—and hence the remaining variance in humility would have been limited. 

The adaptive calibration model of stress responsivity

According to the adaptive calibration model (Boyce & Ellis, 2005; Ellis et al., 2006, 2011, 2017), when young, humans and indeed all animals develop strategies to withstand the threats and exploit the opportunities in their environment.  The strategies they adopt at this time tend to be applied and prioritised throughout their life. 

To illustrate the implications of this theory, children who are reared in unpredictable environments—in which they received limited or erratic support from caregivers or peers—develop strategies that are applicable to these circumstances.  In these environments, children become especially attuned to potential threats or dangers and learn to respond defensively, such as flee or fight, when necessary.  As they mature, they tend to maintain this sensitivity to threat and tendency to flee or fight swiftly.  For example, when they receive information that challenges their status, such as criticism, they are more inclined to perceive this information as a threat.  They will, therefore, tend to reject information they do not like, compromising intellectual humility.    

In short, as these theories indicate, when individuals are reared in unpredictable environments

• they are, according to life history theory, more inclined to prioritise reproductive efforts instead of somatic efforts and, therefore, are not as motivated to accrue knowledge that could be useful to the future, diminishing intellectual humility,
• similarly, according to Differential K theory, they are, likely to seek mates now rather than develop qualities that attract optimal mates in the future, such as intellectual humility,
• finally, according to the adaptive calibration model, they are more inclined to be defensive rather than receptive to adverse feedback, diminishing intellectual humility.

Consistent with these hypotheses, as Dutta and Maner (2026) revealed, when individuals were reared in unpredictable environments, they are not as likely to develop intellectual humility.  Stability during childhood thus fosters intellectual humility.

Incremental self-theory and relational identity

Wang et al. (2018) proposed and tested a model that delineates the antecedents to leadership humility.  Specifically, this model proposes that leadership humility emanates from two key characteristics of leaders.

First, as Owens (2009), a pioneer of the research on leadership humility, first proposed at the Academy of Management annual conference, leaders are likely to demonstrate the signs of humility if they believe that human capabilities and character, such as intelligence or empathy, can be modified and improved over time—called an incremental theory of malleability (Dweck, 1986) or growth mindset (Dweck, 2006).  Leaders who adopt this mindset strive to improve, rather than prove, themselves.  To achieve this goal, these leaders attempt to accurately uncover, and then to address, their limitations.  To address these limitations, these individuals also strive to learn from other people and experiences.  This tendency of these leaders to recognise their limitations and learn from other people epitomises humility. 

Nevertheless, even leaders who perceive human capabilities and character as modifiable may not necessarily demonstrate humility.  For example, to develop these qualities, leaders may instead read books rather than respect the knowledge and perspectives of other people—a cardinal feature of humility.  Therefore, according to Wang et al. (2018), leaders will be humble only if, besides a growth mindset, they adopt a perspective of themselves called a relational identity.

This notion of a relational identity emanated from comparisons between Western nations and Eastern nations (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Specifically, in 1991, Markus and Kitayama recognised that people who live in Westernised cultures often construe themselves as separate from their social environment. The primary motivations of these individuals are to seek autonomy and independence from this environment, called an independent self-construal. In contrast, people who live in Eastern cultures often construe themselves as one constituent of their social environment.  The primary motivations of these individuals are to maintain a sense of belonging and compatibility with this environment, called an interdependent self-construal.  Over time, researchers began to recognise that such differences vary across individuals and times rather than merely cultures (for measures, Singelis, 1994). 

Since this original proposal, researchers have differentiated two variants of this interdependent self.  The first variant is called a relational self-construal or relational identity. When individuals adopt this perspective, they primarily define themselves by their roles in interpersonal relationships (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Cross & Morris, 2003).  Their primary motivation is to establish meaningful relationships with other people, nurture these dyadic relationships, and fulfill their roles in these relationships. The second variant is called the collective self-construal or collective identity, in which individuals primarily define themselves as members of a broader, abstract collective (Brewer & Gardner, 1996)—such as their nation, religion, or sporting club.

When individuals adopt a relational identity, their perception of themselves—their self-concept—tends to entail both their own characteristics as well as the attributes, qualities, and inclinations of their close friends or relatives (Gabriel et al., 2007).  Furthermore, after they consider these friends or relatives, their confidence is augmented (Gabriel et al., 2007).

As Wang et al. (2018) proposed, when individuals adopt a relational identity and strive to nurture their relationships, they attempt to recognise, and then accommodate, the needs and perspectives of other people.  They are, therefore, more inclined to respect and listen to other individuals.  They do not perceive their own needs as supreme, epitomising a state called self-transcendence.  And this self-transcendence is a defining feature of humility.  

Wang et al. (2018) published some results that verify this account.  In one study, 85 supervisors answered questions about

• the degree to which they espouse a growth mindset, or incremental theory of malleability, such as “Everyone, no matter who they are, can significantly change their basic characteristics” (Levy et al., 1998),
• the extent to which they adopt a relational identity, such as “Caring deeply about another person such as a close friend or coworker is important to me”,
• their level of narcissism, as gauged by the Narcissism Personality Inventory (Ames et al., 2006), and their personality traits.

In addition, 210 subordinates of these supervisors also completed a questionnaire. This questionnaire assessed the degree to which these subordinates perceived these supervisors as humble, epitomised by questions like “My leader acknowledges when others have more knowledge and skills than him- or herself”.  As hypothesised, when leaders espoused a growth mindset and adopted a relational identity, they were more likely to be perceived as humble by their staff. After controlling the age, gender, education level, personality, and narcissism of these individuals, a growth mindset and relational identity explained 8% of the variance in humility.  This percentage is impressive because the regression analysis controlled narcissism—and hence the remaining variance in humility would have been limited.