Humility, religion, and spirituality: an endpiece.

Davis, Don E. ; Hook, Joshua, N.

In this conclusion to the special issue, we reflect on the state of the field of humility, religion, and spirituality, and examine three important questions. First, we examine how researchers are defining humility, and look for areas of consensus. Second, we address measurement issues, and explore how researchers are measuring humility. Third, we set a research agenda and examine some high priority areas for future work on humility, religion, and spirituality.

Just a few years ago, we reviewed the literature on humility and the field was relatively stagnant compared to research on other virtues such as forgiveness and gratitude (Davis, Worthington, & Hook, 2010). Most studies focused on a story about seemingly intractable measurement issues. Three years later, something has shifted. A Psych Info search on December 4th, 2013 on humility in the last three years revealed almost 100 published articles. Furthermore, emerging theories and definitions of humility place it in close proximity to several thriving literatures in the psychology of religion and spirituality, such as how religion may promote better health, prosociality, or prejudice (Galen, 2012a, 2012b; Myers, 2012; Saro-glou, 2012). To conclude this special issue, we want to take stock by addressing three questions. First, we explore how researchers are defining forgiveness, and search for possible consensus. Second, we give an update on measurement issues in the field of humility. Third, we set a research agenda and describe some priorities for future research on humility, religion, and spirituality.

Defining Humility

Just a few years ago, we concluded that the study of humility was making slow progress due in part to problems defining humility (Davis et al., 2010). Three years later, we noted that there was considerable overlap in how humility is being operationalized. In this special issue, researchers generally agreed that humility involves both intrapersonal and interpersonal components. Researchers agreed that the intrapersonal component of humility involves an accurate view of self They also agreed that humility involves an interpersonal component, but there was less consensus on what that involved (e.g., other-orientedness, respect).

In fact, researchers raised the issue that various subdomains of humility--such as intellectual humility (Gregg & Mahadevan, 2014; Hopkin, Hoyle, & Toner, 2014; McElroy et al., 2014) and cultural humility (e.g., Hook, Davis, Owen, Worthington, & Utsey, 2013; Owen et al., 2014)--may not be strongly related to each other. The distinction between intellectual humility and general humility is particularly new to psychology. Philosophy has recently discussed a variety of epistemic virtues (Baehr, 2011), one of which is intellectual humility (Roberts & Wood, 2003). Articles in this special issue provided an initial sampling of how one might justify this distinction.

One strategy treated the construct of humility as a general characteristic with several subdomains such as intellectual humility (McElroy et al., 2014). Namely, if humility is related to self-regulation of egotism, then the subdomains of humility may involve various situations that may strain one's ability to express humility. Intellectual humility, in particular, involves the ability to regulate one's need to appear "right" or "correct" in regard to one's beliefs or ideas. From this framework, humility is not necessarily a trait but perhaps more a set of abilities related to self-regulation across a variety of contexts. For most people, high degrees of humility in one domain may apply to other domains, but some people may have major discrepancies in one particular area (e.g., a religious/spiritual leader may be humble in his or her relationship with a partner, but lack intellectual humility when discussing theological issues). Thus, it is an empirical question whether these different domains suggest the presence of a general humility or involve different constructs.

A second strategy not only distinguished intellectual humility from general humility, but it also divided intellectual humility into subdomains (e.g., religious, political) in which people sometimes hold strong convictions (Hopkin et al., 2014). Thus, intellectual humility may differ depending on the salient identity. This approach is certainly compatible with McElroy et al.'s (2014) theorizing that several conditions (e.g., negotiating convictions that are used to judge loyalty) may strain the practice of intellectual humility.

A third strategy involved aligning intellectual humility with prior theoretical work on self-enhancement and self-esteem (Gregg & Mahadevan, 2014). Namely, intellectual humility was defined as having an accurate view of self in reference to epistemic abilities. This approach seemed most conservative in terms of trying to focus intellectual humility on what happens inside a person (intrapsychic qualities). From this perspective, what happens inside a person is more essential to humility, and the interpersonal effects are considered more correlative. This position has several strengths. For example, it aligns humility with several fields (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy) that already have ample theory and empirical evidence for focusing on subdomains. In addition, it is a parsimonious way to distinguish humility from constructs such as narcissism or interpersonal modesty.

Toward Consolidating Definitions

The conceptual expansion of definitions is a natural part of growth in an emerging, interdisciplinary field. The danger is always that definitions may fail to converge, or worse, fail to clarify that a variety of measures purporting to measure humility are actually measuring different constructs (a common critique of work on religion/spirituality; e.g., Hill & Pargament, 2008). For example, the different subdomains of humility may not always be strongly related to each other (e.g., Jankowski & Sandage, 2014). To avoid this problem, scientists can draw on theory and empirical strategies to consolidate definitions.

We can consolidate definitions by conceptualizing humility within a broader theoretical framework. In the current issue, authors drew upon theories of evolution (Gregg & Mahadevan, 2014), attachment (Dwi-wardani et al., 2014; Jankowski & Sandage, 2014), and self-regulation, altruism, and commitment (McElroy et al., 2014). Their focus was not necessarily on advancing consensus, but these theories may help in that regard. For example, based on attachment theory, one might map the subdomains of humility within the 2 (positive, negative) x 2 (self, other) grid used to describe working models of self and other. From this perspective, humility involves the ability to balance the needs of self and other well, derived from having an accurate view of self and of others.

We can also examine empirical studies in order to consolidate definitions. One place to start is simply by seeing how researchers have actually operationalized humility. In Table 1, we examined the content overlap in 13 published (or widely used) measures of humility. We can address several points for future dialogue. First, in practice, humility researchers appear to be including intrapersonal modesty (i.e., accurate view of self) and interpersonal modesty (i.e., moderating and sharing positive attention) as subdomains of general humility. Thus, we may need to revisit the critique that early measures of humility (i.e., NEO-PI-3; McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005; HEXICO-PI; Lee & Ashton, 2004; VIA-SI; Peterson & Seligman, 2004) conflated humility and modesty. Modesty is likely an important subdomain of humility. Second, humility researchers have consistently included interpersonal behavior (i.e., other-orientedness, lack of superiority) in their operational definitions of humility. Thus, although some humility researchers may seek to focus their definitions on the intrapersonal aspects of humility, in practice most researchers are operationally defining humility using both intrapersonal and interpersonal components. Third, there are clearly some subdomains of humility that are less frequently addressed, such as spirituality, regulation of greed or status-seeking, or modesty of dress. Thus, we suspect that the introduction of distinctions such as intellectual and cultural humility will generate broader models to integrate the various subdomains of humility.

TABLE 1

Summary of Content Themes in Humility Measures

Humility Scale              OO  O/LS  IM  AYS  AM/T  RNS  SE

Cultural humility scale     X    X
(Hookct al., 2013)

Dispositional Humility      X          X   X    X     X
Scale (Landrum et al.,
2011)

Expressed Humility Scale    X              X    X
(Owens, Johnson, &
Mitchell, 2012)

Honesty humility scale                 X              X
(Ashton & Lee, 2004)

Humility Differentials           X     X   X
(Rowatt et al., 2006)

Humility Inventory (Brown   X    X     X   X    X
et al., 2013)

Humility subscale           X          X   X    X
(Dierendonck & Nuijten,
2013)

Implicit Associations Test  X    X     X   X
(Rowatt et al., 2006)

Intellectual humility       X    X     X   X    X
scale (McElroy et al.,
2014)

Modesty factor of the            X     X   X
NEO-PI-3 (Costa et al.,
2005)

Relational humility scale   X    X     X   X
(Davis et al.. 2011)

Rosemcad Humility Scale     X    X         X    X          X
(Bollinger et al., 2006)

Spiritual Humility Scale         X                         X
(Davis et al., 2008)

Values in Action Strengths       X     X
Inventory (Peterson &
Seligman, 2004)

Note. Grey box = content included on the scale; 00 = Other-oriented
/unselfish; OILS = Openness/lack of superiority; IM = interpersonal
modesty; AVS = accurate view of self AM/T = willing to admit mistakes
/teachable; RNS = regulation ofneed for status; SE = spiritual or
existential humility.

Progress Report on Measuring Humility

Several years ago the research on humility seemed to be stagnant, with most articles preoccupied with so called intractable measurement issues (Davis et al., 2010). Namely, many researchers questioned the validity of self-report measures of humility, because describing oneself as "very humble" seemed akin to bragging. Based on a potential response bias, called "the modesty effect," researchers hypothesized that the more humble someone really is, the less they would self-enhance (and perhaps even self-deprecate) when describing their own humility on self-report measures. We have argued that this assumption is empirically testable, and since then researchers have seemed more comfortable assuming that self-report measures of humility are at least somewhat valid until there is stronger evidence to the contrary.

In the articles of the special issue, researchers used a variety of strategies to assess humility: (a) two articles developed new measures of intellectual humility (Hopkin et al., 2014; McElroy et al., 2014); (b) two articles used the Rosemead Humility Scale (Bollinger, Kopp, Hill, & Williams, 2006); (c) two articles used the Values in Action Inventory (Peterson & Seligman, 2004); and (d) one article used humility-differential items (Rowatt et at, 2006). In terms of multi-method assessment of humility, most studies used self-report measures of humility. Three studies utilized other-report measures of humility (McElroy et at, 2014; Owen et at, 2014; Rowatt, Kang, Haggard, & LaBouff, 2014) and one study used a behavioral measure (Van Ton-geren et al., 2014). Only one study used multi-method assessment of humility within the same study (Rowatt et at, 2014, who used both self- and other-report measures of humility). Overall, we are encouraged by the advances in the measurement of humility, especially strategies using multiple methods of assessment.

The range of strategies used in this review is also reflective of the broader field. Several new self-report measures have been published (e.g., Brown, Chopra, & Schiraldi, 2013; Landrum, 2011; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). We are hopeful that self-report measures of humility and response bias are relatively circumscribed to people with highest or perhaps lowest levels of humility and can be sufficiently minimized using strategies to minimize response bias. We will soon have clearer answers to these questions, as researchers continue to use multi-method strategies. In addition to other-reports, we encourage researchers to employ behavioral strategies to measure humility, such as observational coding or experimental manipulations of humility-related behavior. Van Tongeren and colleagues took a step in this direction, operationalizing humility by examining people's ability to regulate defensive reactions to a provocative essay. We anticipate an important discussion within personality and social psychology regarding the experimental paradigms (e.g., self-enhancement, ego depletion) that can be applied to study humility.

Humility and Religion/Spirituality: Future Research Directions

The articles in the present special issue gave an overview of some very important topics in the study of the intersection of humility, religion, and spirituality. Based on these articles, as well as our own view of the state of the literature, we provide a research agenda for future study on the intersection of humility, religion, and spirituality. In particular, we urge researchers to consider how humility is related to several important debates within the psychology of religion and spirituality.

1. How is humility related to relationships with others, especially those who are religiously different? A major theme in the psychology has been work on the degree to which religion and spirituality are prosocial (Bloom, 2012; Galen, 2012a, 2012b; Myers, 2012; Saroglou, 2012). This dialogue has focused on altruism as well as prejudice. We suspect that a similar debate will resurface in the study of humility. On the one hand, most world religions promote humility as a virtue and have various rituals that call individuals to commit to something larger than the self, including worship of the Sacred, as well as belonging to a spiritual community. Religions teach adherents to forgo immediate self-interest for the benefits of belonging to a tight-knit religious community, which can have many advantages in terms of relationships, physical health, mental health, and self-regulation (Baumeister, Bauer, & Lloyd, 2010). But at the same time, religious convictions can escalate personal or political conflicts, and there is a robust literature on how certain kinds of religiosity--especially those related to respect for authority--may facilitate moral disengagement and prejudice (for a review, see Hall, Matz, & Wood, 2010).

2. How does humility affect religious/spiritual coping? Tragedies often shift people's perspective of the Sacred (Park, 2010). If humility is indeed linked to self-regulation, then low levels of humility may interfere with people's ability to admit limitations in their worldview and adaptively reconstruct other perspectives. Following a tragedy, individuals may get stuck trying to put the shattered pieces of their worldview (including the experience of anger towards the Sacred; Gruggs & Exline, 2014) back together instead of tolerating the anxiety of seeking a new sense of meaning--or in a spiritual context, new ways of understanding and relating to the sacred (Sandage, Hill, & Vaubel, 2011).

3. How robust are the benefits of humility? Our research programs are currently focused on three hypotheses (see Davis & Hook, 2013). In the social bonds hypothesis, we hypothesize that humility helps regulate social bonds, causing people to think of themselves as part of a "we" that allows them to enjoy sacrificing for a relationship. In the social oil hypothesis, we hypothesize that humility may help buffer competitive traits that would otherwise cause deterioration in a relationship. In the humility-health hypothesis, we predict that humility is associated with enhanced self-regulation, which leads to downstream benefits for coping and overall mental and physical health. The degree of evidence supporting these hypotheses is limited. Most studies have been limited by weak research designs using only one form of measurement (e.g., other-report). Future research must provide more rigorous and falsifiable tests of the benefits of humility.

4. How do contextual factors affect the perception of humility? Recent work has emphasized the contextual nature of many virtues. A virtue practiced at the wrong time can do harm. For example, forgiveness is generally a good thing, but to forgive well requires someone to also have the ability to set appropriate boundaries on reconciliation (see McNulty & Fincham, 2012). In this regard, a potential dark side of humility is that cultures may apply different norms for humility based on gender or other aspects of identity. Based our model of relational humility, social judgments of humility are based on normative and contextual standards. For example, if gender norms cause people to expect females, on average, to be more cooperative and less assertive than males, this may cause systematic bias in how people interpret behavior. Given than gender norms are often affected by religious involvement, this is a ripe area for future work in the psychology of religion and spirituality.

5. How do religious/spiritual beliefs or values affect the perception of humility in self and others? As noted in several studies in the special issue, the relationship between humility, religion, and spirituality is complex. For example, Rowatt et al. (2014) found positive correlations between humility and some religious constructs, but nonsignificant relationships for other religious constructs. Hopkin et al. (2014) found low levels of intellectual humility for both individuals who showed strong support for religious beliefs and individuals who showed strong opposition to religious beliefs. In what we call the humility-values hypothesis, we theorize that constructs such as moral foundations (Haidt, 2007) or values (Schwartz, 1992) may affect the kind of evidence people consider relevant to social judgments of humility. For example, someone who is more politically conservative may base social judgments of humility on values associated with respect for authority, loyalty, and purity, whereas someone who is more politically or theologically liberal may base social judgments of humility on values related to care, fairness, and universality.

6. What is the importance of humility for religious/spiritual leaders? The role of a religious/spiritual leader can strain humility at different levels. Based on theorizing on social capital, one role of religious leaders is to promote "bonding" social capital within their community (Hopkins, 2011). This task involves emphasizing certain belief, rituals, and traditions that promote cohesion and consolidate commitment among members. For example, leaders may promote costly behaviors that signal commitment. They may choose to emphasize particular beliefs (e.g., abortion, sexual ethics) as the basis for identity within the community. People in the community may view it as disloyal and arrogant when individuals question these beliefs. Convictions often become polarized and take on a life of their own when they represent not just ideas but also are used to diagnose loyalty to the group.

A second role of religious leaders is to promote "bridging" social capital (Hopkins, 2011). The costs and benefits of bridging and seeking alliances with other groups is complex and affected by a variety of factors, such as characteristics of the leader, location of the community, and competing groups in the area. Bridging involves a trade-off that requires regulation. If one overemphasizes bonding capital, then one's community may become increasingly insular and marginalized within a community. But bridging is a high-risk, high-reward strategy. One may invest and gain alliances within the broader-community, but this may decrease solidarity or cohesion within the group.

7. How might one work on developing humility in the domain of religion and spirituality? As counseling psychologists, we are interested in helping individuals develop humility in their lives, especially related to how one holds religious and spiritual beliefs, values, and convictions. As noted by several authors in this issue (e.g., Hopkin et al., 2014; Van Tongeren, 2014), humility regarding religious convictions or toward individuals who are religiously different may be especially difficult to develop or practice. Lavelock and colleagues (2014) provided an initial investigation on a workbook intervention to promote humility. Future research might evaluate the extent to which these types of activities are effective for promoting humility in the context of religious and spiritual beliefs, values, and convictions. Furthermore, there could be other types of interventions and activities that could be especially important to developing humility about one's religious convictions. For example, based on Allport's (1954) social contact hypothesis for reducing prejudice and discrimination between racial groups, we have theorized that, under certain conditions, positive interactions between individuals from different religious groups might help improve a person's span, which we define as one's capacity and motivation to explore and understand diverse perspectives in order to broaden one's ability to form strong social bonds with people who hold very different convictions (Woodruff, Van Tongeren, McElroy, Davis, & Hook, 2013). Ultimately, this exploration could help a person develop humility and religious tolerance toward religiously different individuals.

Conclusion

These are exciting times for humility researchers. Many areas of research in positive psychology have been saturated with empirical work and may be starting to plateau. In contrast, the study of humility is rapidly accelerating and is opportunities abound for researchers interested in humility. Furthermore, the intersection of humility with religion and spirituality is complex, with several exciting research questions that address problems germane to our communities, churches, nation, and world. The research programs that were sampled in this special issue will require decades of work to fully explore the questions presented. The field of humility truly represents the quote of the late John Templeton: "How little we know, how much to learn.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The HEX'ACO model of personality structure and the importance of the H factor. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1952-1962.

Baehr, J. (2011). The inquiring mind: On intellectual virtues and virtue epistemology. Oxford University Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Bauer, I. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (2010). Choice, free will, and religion. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2, 67-82.

Bollinger, R. A., Kopp, K. J., Hill, P. C., & Williams, J. (2006, August). Validation of a measurement of dispositional humility. Poster session presented at the American Psychological Association's Annual Convention, New Orleans, LA.

Bloom, P. (2012). Religion, morality, evolution. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 179-199.

Brown, S. L., Chopra, P. K., & Schiraldi, G. R. (2013). Validation of the Humility Inventory (HI), a five-factor, self-report measure of humility. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 12, 57-77.

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

Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Van Tongeren, D. R., Gartner, A. L., & Jennings, D. J., II. (2010). Relational spirituality and forgiveness: Development of the Spiritual Humility Scale (SHS). Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38, 91-100.

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

Dwiwardani, C., Hill, P. C., Bollinger, R. A., Marks, L. E., Steele, J. R., Doolin, H. N., & Wood, S. L. (2014). Virtues develop from a secure base: Attachment and resilience as predictors of humility, gratitude, and forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42,83-90.

Galen, L. W. (2012a). The complex and elusive nature of religious prosociality: Reply to Myers (2012) and Saroglou (2012). Psychological Bulletin, 138, 918-923.

Galen, L. W. (2012b). Does religious belief promote prosocialiry? A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 876-906.

Grey:, A. P., & Mahadevan, N. (2014). Intellectual arrogance and intellectual humility: An evolutionary-epistemological account. Journal ofPsychology and Theology, 42,7-18.

Gruggs, J. B., & Exline, J.J. (2014). Humbling yourself before God: Humility as a reliable predictor of lower divine stru:ne. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42,41-49.

Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316,998-1002.

Hall, D. L., Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2010). Why don't we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 126-139.

Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2008). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research.

Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Ovven, J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Utsey, S. 0. (2013). Cultural humility: Measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 353-366.

Hopkin, C. R., Hoyle, R. H., & Toner, K. (2014). Intellectual humility and reactions to opinions about religious beliefs. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 50-51.

Hopkins, N. (2011). Religion and social capital: Identity matters. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 21, 528-540.

Jankowski, P. J., & Sandage, S. J. (2014). Attachment to God and disposirional humility: Indirect and conditional effects models, Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42,70-82.

Landrum, R. E. (2011). Measuring dispositional humility: A first approximation. Psychological Reports, 108, 217-228.

Lavclock, C. R., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Davis, D. E., Griffin, B. J., Reid, C. A., Hook, J. N., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2014). The quiet virtue speaks: An intervention to promote humility. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42,99-110.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329-358.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, Jr, P. T., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261-270.

McElroy, S., Rice, K., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Hill, P. C., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2014). Intellectual Humility: Scale Development and Theoretical Elaborations in the Context of Religious Leadership. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 19-30.

McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextual view of psychological processes and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 67(2),101.

Myers, D. G. (2012). Reflections on religious belief and prosocialiry: Comment on Galen (2012). Psychological Bulletin, 138,913-917.

Owen, J., Jordan, T. A., Turner, D., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & Leach, M. (2014). Therapists' multicultural orientation: Client perceptions of cultural humility, spiritual/religious commitment, and therapy outcomes. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42,91-98.

Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: an integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; New York: Oxford University Press.

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).0xford: Clarendon Press.

Rowan, W. C., Kang, L. L., Haggard, M. C., & LaBouff, J. P. (2014). A social-personality perspective on humility, religiousness, and spirituality. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 31-40.

Rowart, 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. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1,198-211.

Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24, 1517-1538.

Sandage, S. J., Hill, P. C., & Vaubel, D. C. (2011). Gencrativity, relational spirituality, gratitude, and mental health: Relationships and pathways. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21, 1-16.

Saroglou, V. (2012). Is religion not prosocial at all? Comment on Galen (2012). Psychological Bulletin, 138, 907-912.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.

van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 249-267.

Van Tongeren, D. R., Green, J. D., Hulsey, T. L., Legare, C. H., Bromley, D. G., & Houtman, A. M. (2014). A meaning-based approach to humility: Meaning affirmation reduces worldview defense. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42,62-69.

Woodruff; E., Van Tongeren, D. R., McElroy, S., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2013). Humility and religion: Benefits, difficulties, and a model of religious tolerance. In C. Kim-Prieto (Ed.). Positive Psychology of Religion and Spirituality Across Cultures. New York: Springer Publishing Co.

Don E. Davis

Georgia State University

Joshua N. Hook

University of North Texas

Author Note: We would like to acknowledge the generous financial support of a grant from the Fuller Theological Seminary / Thrive Center in concert with the John Templeton Foundation (Grant No. 108. Intellectual Humility in Religious Leaders), as well as the John Templeton Foundation (Grant No. 29630, The Development, Validation, and Dissemination of Measures of Intellectual Humility and Humility; Grant No. 14979, Relational Humility: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Humility). 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.

Author Information

DAVIS, DON E. PhD. Address: Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, 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.

HOOK, JOSHUA N. Address: University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203. Email: joshua.hook@untedu. 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: humility, forgiveness, religion/spirituality.