Intellectual humility and forgiveness of religious conflict.

Zhang, Hansong ; Farrell, Jennifer E. ; Hook, Joshua N. 等

Intellectual humility (IH) involves an accurate view of one's intellectual strengths and weaknesses as well as the ability to negotiate different ideas in an interpersonally respectful manner. The current study examined how IH and perceptions of IH affect responses to a religious conflict. Participants (N = 200) were undergraduate students who filled out online questionnaires about their experience of a religious conflict. Participants rated (a) their own IH toward the offender's religious beliefs and values, (b) their perception of the offender's IH toward the participants' religious beliefs and values, and (c) their own general humility. Next, they reported their forgiveness of the offender following a religious conflict. Both victim IH and perceived IH of the offender were positively associated with forgiveness, even when controlling for general humility. We conclude by discussing limitations and areas for future research.

**********

The world population is religiously diverse (Diener, Tay, & Myers, 2011; Putnam & Campbell, 2012). Although religious diversity enriches our lives, such differences can also lead to division and conflict (Haidt, 2013). Religious conflict, for example, may cause hurt and relational pain between people and groups who hold different religious positions and, in its extreme form, can even lead to violence and war (Juergensmeyer, 2003). Even within the Christian tradition, disagreement over issues such as gay marriage and ordination, evolution, and the role of women in ministry can lead to division and conflict. Therefore, it is important to explore factors that may help people resolve religious conflict and ameliorate the negative effects of religious conflict. In the present study, we focus on the role of intellectual humility in helping individuals forgive in the context of religious disagreement or conflict.

Forgiveness has received increasing attention from the field of psychology in recent years, as the benefits of forgiveness for mental, physical, and relational health have been well documented (Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010). Forgiveness has been defined as a prosocial change in thoughts, emotions, and motivations toward an offender (McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000). Some research has explored the role of forgiveness in religious hurts and conflicts, particularly in situations where religious leaders have committed offenses (Choe et al., 2015; Greer, Worthington, Lin, Lavelock, & Griffin, 2014; Hook et al., 2015; McElroy et al., 2014; Thomas & Sutton, 2008; Thomas, White, & Sutton, 2008). Such religious hurts or conflicts are prevalent in our nation and world and may be especially difficult to resolve because of the way they impact cherished beliefs. Thus, it seems important to explore factors that may facilitate forgiveness in the context of religious conflict.

Humility involves both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors (Davis et al., 2011; Davis, Worthington & Hook, 2010). On the intrapersonal dimension, humility involves an accurate view of self and an awareness of one's limitations. On the interpersonal dimension, humility involves an interpersonal stance that is other-oriented rather than self-focused. McElroy et al. (2014) suggested that there may be subdomains of humility that reflect different types of humility. One subdomain of humility which has received increased theoretical and empirical attention in recent years is intellectual humility (IH; Davis & Hook, 2014; Roberts & Wood, 2003). IH refers to the way someone handles situations and ideas that most people find difficult to negotiate fairly. More specifically, IH involves an accurate view of one's intellectual strengths and weaknesses as well as the ability to negotiate different ideas in an interpersonally respectful manner (Hook et al., 2015). Thus, general humility (GH) deals with how a person behaves in general across situations and relationships, whereas IH refers to a subset of behaviors involving one's thinking and behavior while negotiating different ideas in intellectual discourse (Hook et al., 2015). Intellectually humble people are able to constrain their need for being 'right' and are open-minded towards new information, even when it differs from their original position.

Intellectual Humility and Forgiveness

Humility helps strengthen and repair relationships (Davis et al., 2013; Van Tongeren, Davis, & Hook, 2014). First, drawing on selective investment theory (Brown & Brown, 2006), Davis et al. (2013) suggested that humility may be important for regulating the strength of social bonds. People judge humility in others in order to help them predict the behavior of relationship partners. Thus, perceiving a person as humble (i.e., less selfish, other-oriented, etc.) may enhance trust in and commitment toward the target person. In contrast, when someone is viewed as selfish and arrogant (lacking humility), the perceiver may take steps to protect herself or himself from the target person (Davis et al., 2013). Supporting this theory, Van Tongeren et al. (2014) found that individuals were more attracted to humble (relative to arrogant) dating partners, and Farrell et al. (2015) found that perceptions of humility were linked with higher levels of commitment and relationship satisfaction in dating couples.

In addition to maintaining and enhancing social relationships, humility helps repair relationships that have been damaged or ruptured. For example, Davis and colleagues (2011, 2013) found that the more victims perceived an offender as humble, the more likely they were to forgive the offender. Similarly, both Van Tongeren et al. (2014) and Farrell et al. (2015) found that perceptions of humility were associated with higher levels of forgiveness in dating couples.

As a subdomain of general humilicy, IH also correlates with higher levels of forgiveness (Hook et al., 2015; McElroy et al., 2014). Indeed, IH may play a critical role in promoting forgiveness in the context of religious conflict. Although religion can be a source of coping (Pargament, 1997) and benevolence (Johnson, Li, Cohen, & Okun, 2013; Johnson, Memon, Alladin, Cohen, & Okun, 2015), people may also draw on religion when they engage in power struggles and arguments. People may battle for the moral high ground, seeking to be seen by others as more righteous and pure than their opponent. Some may use religious authority (e.g., scripture and spiritual favor from leaders) as a weapon of influence. In support of this theorizing, Hook et al. (2015) found that perceived IH was positively associated with forgiveness of a religious leader for a transgression, even when controlling for perceived GH. In other words, perceived IH accounted for a significant amount of variance in the forgiveness of a religious leader above and beyond perceived GH. Furthermore, when the offense involved a conflict that centered on religious beliefs or convictions, IH was an especially strong predictor of forgiveness.

Disagreements involving religious convictions may make humility very difficult to practice, especially for individuals who are highly religious (Hook et al., 2015). Namely, religious beliefs and convictions often answer important questions about one's purpose in life, morality, and the afterlife. Highly religious individuals are often greatly invested in their particular worldview, and they may be resistant to considering alternative viewpoints. A hurt or conflict that is associated with a cherished religious worldview may be especially difficult to resolve in a positive way. For example, criticism of one's cherished beliefs often results in retaliation, though such responses are attenuated for humble individuals (Van Tongeren et al., 2015). Because religious disagreements are so common in our nation and world, it is important to explore how IH might affect forgiveness in the context of religious conflict.

Present Study

The current study investigated the effects of IH on forgiveness in the context of religious conflict. Although past research has explored the effects of GH and IH on forgiveness in general, there is relatively little research on these relationships in the context of religious conflict. Thus, this study is unique in that it focuses on a more specific type of offense: a religious hurt or conflict. Also, past research has generally focused on either (a) the victim's IH toward the offender or (b) the victim's perspective of the offender's IH. In the present study, we examined how victims view their own IH and the offender's IH. We had two primary hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that the way victims viewed their own IH and the offender's IH would predict forgiveness (when statistically controlling for GH). Second, based on the hypothesis by Hook et al. (2015), we predicted that religious commitment would moderate the association between the IH of the victim and forgiveness, such that among participants with higher religious commitment, there would be a stronger relationship between IH and forgiveness than among participants with lower religious commitment.

Method

Participants

Participants were 200 undergraduate students (47 Male, 153 Female) from a large public university in the Southwestern United States. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 50 years (M = 20.29, SD = 3.81). Participants reported one of a variety of racial backgrounds (54.5% White, 10.0% Black, 18.0% Latino/a, 5.0% Asian, 1.5% Native American, 1.0% Middle Eastern, 0.5% Pacific Islander, 9.5% multiracial). Participants were mostly Christian (65.5%; Muslim 1.5%, Buddhist 1.0%, Jewish 0.5%, atheist 7.5%, agnostic 12.0%, none/other 12.0%) and heterosexual (91.5%; bisexual 4.5%, gay/lesbian 4.0%).

Measures

Religious commitment. Religious commitment was measured with the Religious Commitment Inventory (10) (RCI-10; Worthington et al., 2003). The RCI-10 consists of 10 items that assess one's commitment to one's religion (e.g., "My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life."). Participants rate their agreement with each item on a 5-point rating scale from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5 (totally true of me). For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a total religious commitment score. Higher scores indicate higher levels of religious commitment. Worthington et al. (2003) reported evidence for estimated internal consistency and validity of this scale. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .95.

General humility. The participant's general humility (GH) was measured with the self-report version of the Relational Humility Scale (RHS; Davis et al., 2011). The RHS consists of 16 items that assess perceptions of GH. It consists of three subscales: global humility (5 items; e.g., "I have a humble character."), superiority (7 items; e.g., "I think of myself too highly."), and accurate view of self (4 items; e.g., "I know myself well."). Participants rate each item on a 5-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores on this measure have shown evidence for internal consistency and construct validity (Davis et al., 2011, 2013). For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a total GH score. Higher scores indicate higher GH. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .84.

Intellectual humility of victim. Intellectual humility (IH) of the victim was measured with a self-report version of the Cultural Humility Scale (CHS; Hook, Davis, Owen, Worthington, & Utsey, 2013), which we adapted for the present study to measure the participant's IH toward the offender's religious perspective. The CHS consists of 12 items that assess the extent to which a target person is humble regarding an aspect of their cultural identity (e.g., gender, race/ ethnicity, religion/spirituality, sexual orientation). The original version of the CHS allowed people to choose a highly salient domain, whereas in this study the CHS was modified so that all participants rated their own level of IH toward the offender's religious perspective. Participants rate items on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). There are two subscales on the CHS: the positive subscale includes positive other-oriented characteristics (7 items; e.g., "Is open to explore"), and the negative subscale reflects negative characteristics involving superiority and making assumptions (5 items; e.g., "Makes assumptions"). Scores on this measure have shown evidence for internal consistency and construct validity (Hook et al., 2013). There is also evidence for the internal consistency and construct validity of the measure adapted to assess IH (Hook et al., 2015). For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a total IH score. Higher scores indicated higher self-reported IH. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .84.

Perceived intellectual humility of the offender. Perceived IH of the offender was measured with the Cultural Humility Scale (CHS; Hook et al., 2013), which we adapted for the present study. This version of the CHS was identical to the previously described measure, except it assessed the victim's perceptions of the offender's IH toward the victim's religious perspective. For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a total IH score. Higher scores indicated higher perceived IH. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .91.

Forgiveness. Forgiveness toward the offender was measured with the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002; McCullough et al., 1998). The TRIM consists of 18 items that assess interpersonal forgiveness toward an offender. The TRIM consists of three subscales: benevolence (6 items; e.g., "Despite what he/she did, I want us to have a positive relationship again."), avoidance (7 items; e.g., "I keep as much distance between us as possible."), and revenge (5 items; e.g., "I'll make him or her pay."). Participants rate each item on a 5-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 {strongly agree). Scores on this measure have shown evidence for internal consistency and construct validity (McCullough & Hoyt, 2002; McCullough et al., 1998). For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a total forgiveness score. Higher scores indicated higher levels of forgiveness. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .96.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from undergraduate courses and participated in exchange for a small amount of course credit. Participants first read a consent form and indicated consent to participate then completed the questionnaires online. Participants were asked to think of a time in which they felt hurt or offended in a relationship because of a disagreement around a religious or theological issue. Participants wrote a description of the event then completed the online questionnaires in relation to the specific offense and offender. After completing the questionnaires, participants were debriefed, and given the contact information of the investigator should they have questions.

Results

Participants reported a range of religious conflicts. Typical conflicts included (a) sexuality and LGBT issues, (b) the existence of God, (c) heaven/hell, (d) the Bible, and (d) differing religious beliefs among family members and romantic partners. We checked the data for outliers and normality. IH had one low outlier, which we recoded to three standard deviations below the mean. There were no problems with normality. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all variables are in Table 1. Religious commitment was positively related to GH, r = .20, p = .006; GH was positively related to victim IH, r = .25, p < .001; victim IH was positively related to perceived offender IH, r = .32, p < .001; and both victim IH and perceived offender IH were positively related to forgiveness, rs = .41 and .35, respectively, both ps < .001. Interestingly, participants reported that their IH toward the offender's religious perspective (M = 3.52, SD = .66) was higher than the offender's IH toward the participants' religious perspective (M = 2.44, SD = .86, t[199] = 16.94, p < .001).

Our first hypothesis was that both (a) victim IH toward the offender's religious perspective and (b) perceptions of offender IH toward the victim's religious perspective would be significant positive predictors of forgiveness of the offender, controlling for the victim's GH. We tested this hypothesis using a hierarchical regression analysis with forgiveness as the dependent variable. GH was entered in Step 1, and both victim IH perceptions of the offender's IH were entered in Step 2.

This hypothesis was supported. In Step 1, GH was not a significant predictor of forgiveness, [R.sup.2] = .01, [beta] = .11, p = .134. In Step 2, when statistically controlling for GH, victim IH and perceptions of offender IH predicted about 21% of the variance in forgiveness ([DELTA][R.sup.2] = .21, p < .001). In the final model, GH ([beta] = .04, p = .533) was not a significant predictor of forgiveness. However, both victim IH ([beta] = .31, p < .001) and perceptions of offender IH ([beta] = .26, p < .001) were significant positive predictors of forgiveness.

Our second hypothesis was that religious commitment would moderate the association between victim IH toward offender's religious perspective and forgiveness. Specifically, we expected that victim IH would have a stronger effect on forgiveness for participants with high levels of religious commitment than for participants with low levels of religious commitment. We tested this hypothesis using a hierarchical regression analysis as outlined by Aiken and West (1991). The predictor and moderator variables were standardized to reduce multicollinearity and to aid interpretation. We controlled for GH in this analysis.

This hypothesis was not supported. In Step 1, GH predicted about 1% of the variance in forgiveness ([R.sup.2] = .01, p = .134). In Step 2, religious commitment and victim IH predicted an additional 15% of the variance in forgiveness ([R.sup.2] = .15, p < .001). However, in Step 3, the addition of the interaction term did not predict a significant amount of variance in forgiveness ([DELTA][R.sup.2] = .00, p = .771). In the final model, victim IH was a significant predictor of forgiveness ([beta] = .40, p < .001), but GH ([beta] = .00, p = .993) and religious commitment ([beta] = .03, p = .627) were not significant predictors of forgiveness, nor was the interaction between victim IH and religious commitment significant ([beta] = -.02, p = .771). Thus, IH toward the offender's religious perspective was a significant predictor of forgiveness irrespective of one's level of religious commitment.

Discussion

Prior work has demonstrated that both GH and IH may be important for regulating the strength of social bonds (Davis et al., 2011, 2013; Farrell et al., 2015; Hook et al., 2015; Van Tongeren et al., 2014). The present study examined forgiveness in the context of a religious hurt or conflict. We chose this context because IH and forgiveness may be particularly difficult to extend to another amidst religious hurts and conflicts, especially for highly religious individuals who have a lot invested in their particular religious viewpoint (Hook et al., 2015). In addition, prior research has generally focused on either the victim's humility or the victim's perceptions of the offender's humility. The current study aimed to explore both aspects of humility simultaneously.

Our first hypothesis was that both victim IH and perceptions of offender IH would be positively related to forgiveness, controlling for one's GH. This hypothesis was supported. The more intellectually humble victims were toward the offender's religious perspective, the more they reported being able to forgive the offender. Similarly, the more victims perceived the offender as having IH toward their own religious perspectives, the more they reported being able to forgive the offender. IH was a positive predictor of forgiveness even when controlling for one's GH. These findings provide further evidence that domain-specific constructs such as IH may predict unique variance above and beyond the measures of GH, especially in contexts that deal with intellectual disagreement or conflict (Davis et al., 2015; Hooket al., 2015; McElroy et al., 2014). Moreover, the findings provide additional evidence for the effects of IH in promoting forgiveness and regulating victims' relationships with offenders in more specific contexts, such as religious conflicts.

Both the victim's IH toward the offender and the victim's perceptions of the offender's IH were positively related to forgiveness. Most of the research on the relationship between humility and forgiveness has examined the victim's perceptions of the offender's humility (e.g., Davis et al., 2011, 2013; Farrell et al., 2015; Hook et al., 2015; McElroy et al., 2014; Van Tongeren et al., 2014). The results from the present study indicate that it may be important to focus on the victim's own level of humility as well.

Our second hypothesis was that IH would be especially important for individuals who had high levels of religious commitment. This hypothesis was not supported. Instead, IH was a strong positive predictor of forgiveness irrespective of one's level of religious commitment. Static religious variables such as religious commitment have been shown to have small associations with forgiveness (Davis, Worthington, Hook, & Hill, 2013), and this finding is consistent with that body of research. One possible explanation for this finding is that even if individuals have low levels of religious commitment, they may still have strong feelings about religious disagreements and conflict (although their views may be opposite to those with high levels of religious commitment). Thus, IH may be an important factor in promoting forgiveness regardless of one's religious commitment. More research is needed to explore the experience of religious disagreement and conflict for people expressing various levels of religious commitment.

When comparing (a) the victim's self-reported levels of IH toward the offender's religious perspective and (b) the victim's perceptions of the offender's IH toward their own religious perspective, participants rated their own levels of IH much higher than the offender's IH. This may indicate an 'above-average effect' in regard to IH, in which we (perhaps ironically) think we are more intellectually humble than others, at least in our religious beliefs, values, and convictions. Another interpretation of this finding is that participants viewed an offender as less humble than themselves (as the victims) because the moral culpability of committing a transgression may be incompatible with certain aspects of humility, such as being other-oriented.

In sum, the present study provided further support for a growing body of literature that has shown IH to be important in promoting forgiveness of conflicts or hurts that arise from intellectual conflicts or disagreements (Choe et al., 2015; Hook et al., 2015; McElroy et al., 2014). The present study enriched the body of literature by specifically demonstrating how IH was positively related to forgiveness in the context of religious conflict, an area where being humble (e.g., open to and respectful of alternative viewpoints) may be especially challenging.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

There were several limitations to the present study. First, this study used a sample of undergraduate college students. The religious experience of undergraduate students may be unique, as some evidence suggests that religious participation declines and the nature of religious/spiritual beliefs may change during the college years (Mayrl & Oeur, 2009). It is likely that religious conflicts may take different forms or have more or less impact for individuals in various age groups. Thus, our findings may not generalize to adolescents or older adults. Future research should examine IH and forgiveness in these populations.

Second, the current study used a cross-sectional, correlational design. Thus, causal conclusions should not be made. Although the data were consistent with our theoretical model (i.e., IH and perceptions of IH leading to increased forgiveness), there may be other theoretical models that are consistent with the data as well. For example, individuals who have already forgiven their offender may in turn view the offender as more humble. Or there may be some third variable that affects both perceptions of IH and forgiveness. Longitudinal or experimental research is necessary to further explicate the nature of these relationships.

Third, with the exception of the other-report measure of IH, the present study used self-reported ratings. Self-report measures are prone to certain response biases such as socially desirable responding (John & Robins, 1993). Therefore, future studies could explore the possibility of adapting alternative measures, such as behavioral measures (Dorn, Hook, Davis, Van Tongeren, & Worthington, 2014) or implicit measures (Rowatt et al., 2006), to avoid such potential biases. Future research could also further explore possible explanations for the difference found between self-reported victim IH and perceptions of offender IH.

Practical Application

Our findings that both IH and perceptions of IH were associated with forgiveness in the context of religious conflicts have important implications for interfaith dialogue, pastoral ministry, and counseling. Pastors, for example, could advocate for IH more often in their sermons so their religious followers are informed of the benefits of assuming a more humble intellectual position regarding religious perspectives. When trying to resolve religious disputes, pastors might encourage humility, an awareness of the limitations of one's own religious perspective, and an openness to the religious perspective of the other. Additionally, pastors might choose to be more intellectually humble themselves as a way of decreasing the potential for religious conflict in their own lives.

Counselors could also benefit from integrating IH into work with their religious clients, especially those clients who are struggling with religious disagreement or conflict. In addition to supporting their client's perspective, counselors could encourage clients to consider the limitations of their own particular religious perspective. Counselors could also work with clients to consider the religious perspective of the individual or group they are in conflict with. These types of discussions--exploring the limitations of one's own view as well as the possible merits of another's view--could help a client to work toward forgiveness. The counseling setting may be an ideal place to have such discussions because it is ideally a safe, supportive environment for clients to explore different perspectives.

In addition to pastoral and counseling settings, the findings from the present study have important considerations for interfaith dialogue and conflict among religious individuals in everyday life. Religion is often a sensitive topic for many individuals, and people's religious perspectives are often strongly defended. When religious conflict or disagreement does occur, it may be difficult to resolve because each side becomes entrenched and committed to defending their particular perspective. If individuals can engage religious disagreement and conflict with humility--noting the limitations of their particular viewpoint and genuinely trying to understand the viewpoint of the religious 'other'--this may have notable benefits for ameliorating religious conflict in society among both religious and non-religious individuals.

Conclusion

We encourage researchers to continue to explore the role of IH in regard to different religious perspectives and religious conflicts. Religious dissension can estrange social relationships (e.g., setting up division) and even lead to tragic consequences (e.g., violence) which implies the necessity of practicing humility in these situations (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003). Therefore, IH in the context of religious disagreement might offer help in effectively and peacefully resolving such conflicts and warrants further attention in psychological research.

Hansong Zhang, Jennifer E. Farrell, and Joshua N. Hook

University of North Texas

Don E. Davis

Georgia State University

Daryl R. Van Tongeren

Hope College

Kathryn A. Johnson

Arizona State University

Author Note: We would like to acknowledge the generous financial support of the Fuller Theological Seminary / Thrive Center in concert with the John Templeton Foundation, Grant No. 108. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Fuller Thrive Center or the John Templeton Foundation.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hansong Zhang, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203. Email: hanson528@me.com

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brown, S. L., & Brown, R. M. (2006). Selective investment theory: Recasting the functional significance of close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 1-29. doi: 10.1207/s15327965plil701_01

Choe, E., Davis, D. E., McElroy, S., Westbrook, C., Van Neunen, M., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Hook, J. N. (2015). Relational spirituality and forgiveness of offenses committed by religious leaders. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. Advance online publication, doi: 10.1080/10508619.2014.992752

Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Humility, religion, and spirituality: An endpiece. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 111-117.

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

Davis, D. E., Rice, K. G., McElroy, S., DeBlaere, C., Choe, E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Hook, J. N. (2015). Distinguishing intellectual humility and general humility. Journal of Positive Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1048818

Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Hook, J. N. (2010). Humility: Review of measurement strategies and conceptualization as personality judgment. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 243-252.

Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., Emmons, R. A., Hill, P. C., Bollinger, R. A., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2013). Humility and the development and repair of social bonds: Two longitudinal studies. Self and Identity, 12, 58-77.

Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., & Hill, P. C. (2013). Research on religion/spirituality and forgiveness. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 233-241.

Diener, E., Tay, L., & Myers, D. G. (2011). The religious paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1278-1290.

Dorn, K., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2014). Behavioral measures of assessing forgiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 75-80.

Eidelson, R. J., & Eidelson, J. I. (2003). Dangerous ideas: Five beliefs that propel groups toward conflict. American Psychologist, 58, 182-192. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.3.182

Farrell, J. E., Hook, J. N., Ramos, M., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Ruiz, J. M. (2015). Humility and relationship outcomes in couples: The mediating role of commitment. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 4, 14-26.

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894-914. doi:

Greer, C. L., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Lin, Y., Lavelock, C. R., & Griffin, B. J. (2014). Efficacy of a self-directed forgiveness workbook for Christian victims of within-congregation offenders. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 1,218-230. doi:10.1037/scp0000012

Haidt, J. (2013). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Vintage.

Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Utsey, S. O. (2013). Cultural humility: Measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 353-366.

Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Hill, P. C., Worthington Jr, E. L., Farrell, J. E., & Dieke, P. (2015). Intellectual humility and forgiveness of religious leaders. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(6), 499-506. doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1004554

John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five 820 domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521-551.

Johnson, K. A., Li, Y. J., Cohen, A. B., & Okun, M. A. (2013). Friends in high places: The influence of authoritarian and benevolent God-concepts on social attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 15-22.

Johnson, K. A., Memon, R., Alladin, A., Cohen, A. B., & Okun, M. A. (2015). Who helps the Samaritan? The influence of religious and secular primes on spontaneous helping of members of the religious out-group s. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 15, 217-231.

Juergensmeyer, M. (2003). Terror in the mind of God: The global rise of religious violence. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Mayrl, D., & Oeur, F. (2009). Religion and higher education: Current knowledge and directions for future research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 260-275.

McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression-related motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1556-1573. doi: 10.1177/014616702237583

McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (Eds.). (2000). Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586-1603.

McElroy, S. E., Rice, K. G., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Hill, P. C., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & VanTongeren, D. R. (2014). Intellectual humility: Scale development and theoretical elaborations in the context of religious leadership. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 19-30.

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2012). American grace: Flow religion divides us and unites us. New York, NY: Simon Sc Schuster.

Roberts, R. C., & Wood, W. J. (2003). Humility and epistemic goods. In M. DePaul and L. Zagzebski (Eds.), Intellectual virtue: Perspectives from ethics and epistemology (pp. 203-226). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rowatt, W. C., Powers, C., Targhetta, V., Comer, J., Kennedy, S., & Labouff, J. (2006). Development and initial validation of an implicit measure of humility relative to arrogance. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 198-211.

Thomas, E. K., & Sutton, G. W. (2008). Religious leadership failure: Forgiveness, apology, and restitution. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 10, 308-327.

Thomas, E. K., White, K., & Sutton, G. W. (2008). Clergy apologies following abuse: What makes a difference? Exploring forgiveness, apology, responsibility-taking, gender, and restoration. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 16-29.

Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Social benefits of humility: Initiating and maintaining romantic relationships. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 313-321.

Van Tongeren, D. R., Stafford, J., Hook, J. N., Green, J. D., Davis, D. E., & Johnson, K. A. (2015). Humility attenuates negative attitudes and behaviors toward religious outgroup members. Journal of Positive Psychology. Advance online publication, doi: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1037861

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., ... O'Connor, L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory-10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 84-96.

Author Information

ZHANG, HANSONG. MA. Address: University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203. Title: Doctoral student. Degrees: MA (Psychology) Indiana University South Bend. Specializations: spirituality and its interaction with psychology.

FARRELL, JENNIFER E. MA. Address: University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203. Title: Research assistant and teaching assistant. Degrees: MA (Psychology). Specialization: Positive psychology.

HOOK, JOSHUA, N. Address: University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203. Title: Assistant Professor of Psychology. Degrees: BS (Psychology) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; MS (Counseling Psychology) Virginia Commonwealth University; PhD (Counseling Psychology) Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: Positive psychology, humility, forgiveness, religion/spirituality.

DAVIS, DON E. PhD. Address: College of Education Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3980, Atlanta, GA 30302-3980. Title: Assistant Professor of Counseling and Psychological Services Georgia State University. Degrees: PhD (Counseling Psychology) Virginia Commonwealth University; BA (Psychology) Yale University. Specializations: Humility, forgiveness, positive psychology, religion/ spirituality.

VAN TONGEREN, DARYL R. PhD. Address: Department of Psychology, Hope College, Schaap Science Center, 35 East 12th Street, Holland, MI 49423-3605. Title: Assistant Professor of Psychology. Degrees: BA (Psychology) Colorado Christian University; MA (Experimental Psychology) University of Colorado, Colorado Springs; PhD (Social Psychology) Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: social psychological approaches to meaning, religion, and virtues.

JOHNSON, KATHRYN A. PhD. Address: Department of Psychology (Social), Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister Ave, P.O. Box 871104, Tempe, AZ 85287. Title: Assistant Research Professor. Degrees: PhD (Psychology) Arizona State University.

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables

                  M      SD      1         2        3        4      5

1. RCI           2.43   1.09     --
2. RHS           3.95   0.47   0.20 *     --
3. Victim IH     3.52   0.66   0.02      0.25 *     --
4. Offender IH   2.44   0.86   0.12     -0.06     0.32 *     --
5. TRIM          3.94   0.91   0.04      0.11     0.41 *   0.35 *   --

Note. RCI = Religious Commitment, which reflects participants'
commitment to their religion; RHS = Relational Humility Scale,
which reflects participants' self-reported GH; Victim IH =
Victim's Intellectual Humility, which reflects participants'
self-reported intellectual humility toward the offender s
religious perspective; Offender IH = Offender Intellectual
Humility, which reflects the victims' perceptions of the
offender's IH toward their religious perspective; TRIM =
Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivation Inventory; All
scales range from 1 to 5.

* p < .01.