Conclusion

In this chapter we have explored the situational and dispositional determinants of intellectual humility. We began first by positioning the study of intellectual humility in the tradition of per­sonality psychology and examining those qualities of intellectual humility that appear relatively long-lasting and stable, therefore making intellectual humility look much like a personality trait.

It has become clear that intellectual humility is also influenced by situations.We have seen an interactionist approach to the study of intellectual humility, measuring its expression in general and in specific situations (Ottati et al. 2015; Price et al. 2015; Hoyle et al. 2015; Leary et al. 2015). Ideas like the “Joint Influence Hypothesis” (Ottati et al. 2015) and studies that show differences in the expression of intellectual humility depending on the subject matter (Hoyle et al. 2015; Leary et al. 2015), demonstrate that no simple trait measure will suffice in determining how intellectually humble a person might be in any given situation.

So what are we to conclude? Is intellectual humility a stable and long-lasting trait or blown about by the winds of the situation? The answer is it is both.

There is no longer any need for debate because large within-person variability and the sensitivity of behavior to situations are not a threat to the viability of traits, and the power of traits is not a threat to the need to explain the considerable amount of within-person behavioral variability. It is time for the study of personality to go for­ward with both approaches.

(p. 86)

We believe this holds true for intellectual humility as well. Measures that assess the relative disposition of intellectual humility in people are necessary to understanding this important intellectual virtue. Examining the situations that either promote or inhibit the expression of intellectual humility is also a critical line of investigation.Testing the trait of intellectual humil­ity in various situations will yield critical knowledge of how intellectual humility plays out.The later line of research — the trait ? situation interaction — may be most informative in promot­ing conditions for more civil discourse, especially in areas of disagreement. Learning how to exchange ideas in an intellectually humble way, and the situations which might promote such exchange, would make a positive impact on the field of philosophy in particular, and on our society in general.

Note

1 In addition, most of our work has been in the philosophy and science of intellectual humility, and we feel that we have the most to contribute to this volume with a focus on that topic. See, for example, Church 2016, 2017; Samuelson and Church 2014; Samuelson et al. 2015; Church and Samuelson 2017; Church and Barrett 2017.

References

Abele, A. E. and Wojciszke, B. (2007).Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), pp. 751—763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751

Abele,A. E. and Wojciszke, B. (2013).The big two in social judgment and behavior. Social Psychology, 44(2), pp.

Ashton, M. C. and Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-humility, the big five, and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 73(5), pp. 1321-1353. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00351.x

Ashton, M. C. and Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), pp. 150-166. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294907

Ashton, M. C. and Lee, K. (2008). The HEXACO model of personality structure and the impor­tance of the H factor. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), pp. 1952-1962. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x

Bakan, D. (1966). The Duality of Human Existence. An Essay on Psychology and Religion. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Bruckmuller, S. and Abele,A. E. (2013).The density of the Big Two: How are agency and communion structurally represented? Social Psychology, 44(2), pp. 63-74. doi: 10.1027∕1864-9335∕a000145

Cacioppo, J.T. and Petty R. E. (1982).The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), pp. 116-131. doi: 10.1037∕0022-3514.42.1.116

Cacioppo,J.T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J.A. and Jarvis,W B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation:The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), pp. 197-253. doi: 10.1037∕0033-2909.119.2.197

Church, I. M. (2017).The limitations of the limitations-owning account of intellectual humility. Philosophia, 45(3), pp. 1-8.

Church, I. M. (2016).The doxastic account of intellectual humility. Logos & Episteme, 7(4), pp. 413-433. doi: 10.5840∕logos-episteme20167441

Church, I. M. and Barrett, J. L. (2017). Intellectual humility. In E. L. Worthington Jr., D. E. Davis and J. N. Hook eds., The Routledge Handbook of Humility. New York: Routledge, pp. 62-75.

Church, I. M. and Samuelson, P. L. (2017). Intellectual HumilityiAn Introduction to the Philosophy and Science.

Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N.,Worthington, E. L.,Van Tongeren, D. R., Gartner,A. L., Jennings, D. J. and Emmons, R. A. (2011). Relational humility: Conceptualizing and measuring humility as a personality judgment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(3), pp. 225-234. doi: 10.1080∕00223891.2011.558871

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), pp. 1246-1256. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246

Evans, J. T. and Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), pp. 223-241.

Fleeson,W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate:The challenge and the oppor­tunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), pp. 83—87. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00280.x

Funder, D. C. (2010). The Personality Puzzle. 5th ed. New York:W.W. Norton and Co.

Gregg, A. P., Mahadevan, N. and Sedikides, C. (2017). Intellectual arrogance and intellectual humility: Correlational evidence for an evolutionary-embodied-epistemological account. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(1), pp. 59-73. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1167942

Haddock, G., Maio, G. R.,Arnold, K. and Huskinson,T. (2008). Should persuasion be affective or cogni­tive? The moderating effects of need for affect and need for cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), pp. 769-778. doi: 10.1177/0146167208314871

Harman, G. (1999). XIV-Moral philosophy meets social psychology:Virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 99(3), pp. 315-331. Retrieved online at www.filoso fia.unimi.it/~zucchi/NuoviFile/harman.pdf.

Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J.T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consume Psychology, 1(3), pp.

Hoyle, R. H., Davisson, E. K., Diebels, K. J. and Leary, M. L. (2016). Holding specific views with humil­ity: Conceptualization and measurement of specific intellectual humility. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, pp. 165-172.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, D. and Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin and D. Kahneman eds., Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-81.

Kruglanski, A.W. (1990). Lay epistemic theory in social-cognitive psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 1(3), pp. 181-197. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0103_1

Kruglanski,A.W., Dechesne, M., Orehek, E. and Pierro,A. (2009).Three decades of lay epistemics:The why, how, and who of knowledge formation. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), pp. 146-191. doi: 10.1080/10463280902860037

Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J. and Rouse, S. V. (2016). The development and validation of the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(2), pp. 209-221. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1068174

Landrum, R. E. (2011). Measuring dispositional humility: A first approximation. Psychological Reports, 108(1), pp. 217-228. doi: 10.2466/02.07.09.pr0.108.1.217-228

Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K., Isherwood, J. C., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Raimi, K.T., Deffler, S. A. and Hoyle, R.A. (2015). Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), pp. 793-813. doi: 10.1177/0146167217697695

Lee, K. and Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), pp. 329-358. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8

McCrae, R. R.and Costa,P.T. (1987).Validation of the five-factor model ofpersonality across instruments and observers.

McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. The American Psychologist, 52(5), pp. 509-516. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.52.5.509

Miller, C. B. (2014). Character and Moral Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ottati, V., Wilson, C. and Price, E. D. (2016). Open Minded Cognition in Social Context. Unpublished manuscript.

Ottati, V., Wilson, C., Price, E. D. and Sumaktoyo, N. (2015). When self-perceptions of expertise increase closed-minded cognition: The earned dogmatism effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, pp. 131-138.

Ozer, D. J. and Benet-Martιnez,V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, pp. 401-421. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127

Peters, A., Rowatt,W. C. and Johnson, M. K. (2011). Associations between dispositional humility and social relationship quality. Psychology, 2(3), pp. 155-161. doi: 10.4236/psych.2011.23025

Peterson, C. and Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, Oxford University Press.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. and Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argu­ment-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), pp. 847-855. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847

Porter, T. (2015). Intellectual Humility, Mindset, and Learning. Unpublished dissertation. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.

Price, E. D., Ottati, V, Wilson, C. and Kim, S. (2015). Open-minded cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(11), pp. 1488—1504.

Rowatt,W C., Powers, C.,Targhetta,V, Comer, J., Kennedy, S. and Labouff, J. (2006). Development and ini­tial validation of an implicit measure of humility relative to arrogance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(4), pp. 198-211. doi: 10.1080/17439760600885671

Samuelson, Peter L. and Church, Ian M. (2014).When cognition turns vicious: Heuristics and biases in light of virtue epistemology. Philosophical Psychology, 28(8), pp. 1095-1113. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2014.904197

Samuelson, P. L., Jarvinen, M., Paulus,T. B., Church, I. M., Hardy, S.A. and Barrett, J. (2015).“Implicit theo­ries of intellectual virtues and vices:A focus on intellectual humility.” The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(5), pp. 389-406. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2014.967802

Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who Is Rational?: Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Stanovich, K. E. and West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differ­ences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), pp. 342-357. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342

Stanovich, K. E., and West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(3), pp. 225-247. doi:10.1080/13546780600780796

Tangney, J. P. (2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), pp. 70-82. doi: 10.1521∕jscp.2000.19.1.70

Webster, D. M. and Kruglanski, A.W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), pp. 1049-1062. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049