Development of the experiences of humility scale.

Davis, Don E. ; McElroy, Stacey ; Choe, Elise 等

In three studies, we developed the Experiences of Humility Scale (EHS). In Study 1, we used exploratory factor analysis to determine the factor structure and to reduce items in a sample of undergraduates (N = 200). The EHS had four subscales: Other-orientation, Transcendence, Awareness of Selfishness, and Awareness of Egotism. Study 2 involved an experiment with a second sample of college students (N = 106) that provided initial evidence of construct validity. Participants assigned to a Meaning Condition (i.e., writing about a most meaningful event) reported lower levels of awareness of egotism and selfishness than did participants assigned to a Neutral Condition. In Study 3, with a third sample of college students (N = 155), we replicated the factor structure of the EHS using confirmatory factor analysis and evaluated additional evidence of construct validity. As predicted, the EHS subscales predicted constructs associated with spiritual connection and meaning. Likewise, providing evidence of discriminant validity, the EHS subscales were only moderately related to traits of humility, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

**********

Research on humility has increased in recent years, and this growing interest has led to a proliferation of various measures of humility (for reviews, see Davis & Hook, 2014; Davis, Worthington, & Hook, 2010), including self-report measures (e.g., HEXICO-PI; Lee & Ashton, 2004) as well as other alternatives such as informant reports and implicit measures (Davis et al., 2011; LaBouff, Rowatt, Johnson, Tsang, & Willerton, 2012; Powers, Nam, Rowatt, & Hill, 2007; Rowatt et al., 2006). Investigators have developed everything needed for a rich, multi-method science of humility--with one notable exception. The present article addresses the need to develop a measure of state humility. This omission is especially important tor the study of humility and religion/spirituality, because one way that people may become more humble is through being embedded within spiritual traditions that promote humble states through helping people feel like they are part of and devoted to something (e.g., God, church, body of Christ) larger than themselves. Thus, the current article seeks to develop a measure of state humility and evaluate initial evidence of its construct validity by having participants focus on spiritual or highly meaningful experiences.

Conceptualizing and Measuring Humility

We define humility as having both intrapersonal and interpersonal elements (see Davis et al., 2011). Intrapersonally, humility involves having an accurate view of self--not too high or too low. Interpersonally, humility involves regulation of egotism and cultivation of an other-orientation rather than a selfish preoccupation with one's own needs. Humility involves integrity across cognition, behavior, and motivation, with each component being necessary, but not sufficient, to deem someone as humble. For example, one might truly possess superior abilities and know it (i.e., accurate view of self), but it is antithetical to humility to treat others as inferior (i.e., portraying a sense of interpersonal superiority). Likewise, one might manage to respect relevant modesty norms, but have a concealed attitude of conceit. Character that truly reflects humility involves a confluence of thought (i.e., accurate view of self), behavior (i.e., respecting relevant social norms), and motivation (i.e., other-oriented rather than exploitative).

Many scholars have conceptualized humility within the personality judgment tradition (e.g., Davis et al., 2011). Assessment of another's personality is needed to help anticipate her or his potential behavior (Funder, 1995). For example, when a job candidate has difficulty fielding certain questions without getting upset and defensive, this could indicate that the person may struggle to deal with conflict constructively (e.g., low agreeableness, high neuroticism). Humility is a trait-level variable involving one's tendency to express humble behavior across a range of situations and relationships, and self-reports are a special (and complex) case of personality judgment in which one is both target and judge. Having an accurate understanding of how one is viewed by others helps one regulate behavior in order to obtain a desired level of social acceptance and interpersonal effectiveness.

Conceptualizing humility within a personality judgment framework has three key implications. First, we can draw on research of other traits to make informed hypotheses about when some sources of reputational information (e.g., self, close others, strangers, or work colleagues) might better predict criterion-related behaviors, such as bragging and generosity. For example, self-reports tend to be more accurate predictors of relevant behavior than other-reports for intrapsychic qualities (e.g., neuroticism) because intrapsychic events are readily observable to the self, but easily concealed from others (Vazire, 2010). In contrast, other-reports tend to be more accurate than self-reports for evaluative traits (e.g., agreeableness) because people are motivated to view themselves as better than they really are, which enhances self-esteem (Vazire, 2010). Second, though correlations between any two sources (e.g., self-other agreement) tend to be quite low, as the number of indicators increases, reliability also increases (Kenny, 2004). Analogous to how multi-item measures tend to have higher reliability than single-item measures, it is better to use multiple informants to estimate a trait. Third, the gold-standard (as with any area of psychological science) involves the triangulation of self-report, other-report, and observation of trait-relevant behavior (Vazire, 2010; Vazire & Carlson, 2011). Within a personality judgment framework, state humility is an additional source of information. For example, measuring state humility would allow investigators to explore the moment-to-moment experience of people at various levels of dispositional humility.

The Need for a State Measure of Humility

Despite the value of conceptualizing humility as a trait-level personality judgment, measuring state humility is important to advance the science of humility for several reasons. First, studying state humility provides a fertile ground for advancing and testing different theories of how people develop humility over time. Basic research is needed on the internal and contextual factors that contribute to humble behavior and how these factors operate over time. Some exemplars of humility (i.e., those exceptional in humility) may naturally possess the trait; however, we suspect that at least some humility exemplars developed humility through regularly seeking social feedback with regard to their degree of humility and adapting accordingly. Indeed, some religious communities exalt humility as one of the highest virtues and may encourage individuals to exert considerable energy monitoring and promoting humble attitudes and behaviors. Currently, researchers know little about the moment-to-moment experiences (e.g., proximal goals, experiencing a sense of humility) that help people regulate humble behaviors and may contribute to the development of humility as a trait. Although there will be variability, as a rule of thumb, we suspect that humility exemplars are aware of their humility, tend to value humility, find pleasure in hypoegoic states--psychological states that have relatively little involvement of the self (Leary, Adams, & Tate, 2006)--and spend energy restraining selfish states of entitlement and excessive self-gratification.

Second, investigations of humility as a personality trait have yielded relatively imprecise knowledge regarding promising mechanisms to promote humility. The field needs studies on proximal psychological processes that promote humble behavior (i.e., internal habits of thought, emotion-regulation, goals, and motivation) in order to begin to develop and test theories with implications for applied work. Indeed, ample research suggests that humility moderately predicts a variety of beneficial aspects of relationships (for reviews, see Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Davis et al., 2010), but this work has not progressed much beyond demonstrating moderate correlations between humility and other positive constructs (see Van Tongeren, Davis, & Hook, 2014, for an experiment). These findings may simply reflect mono-method bias or covariation associated with the fact that positively valenced constructs tend to correlate with other positively valenced constructs. Thus, perhaps it comes as no surprise that there is almost no intervention work on humility (cf. Lavelock et al., 2014).

Third, and related to the task of eventually developing humility interventions, there is a paradoxical issue of supply and demand with humility, relative to other virtues. For other positive psychology constructs, it has been easier to identify individuals who might benefit from an intervention. For example, with forgiveness, the ideal recipient of an intervention is often in a great deal of pain due to unforgiving emotions and consequently is ready to work on forgiving. In contrast, with humility, those who need the intervention the most (i.e., individuals with personality disorders such as narcissism) may want it the least, and those who want it the most may have the least room for improvement because they already have achieved high levels of humility. Indeed, antisocial traits such as narcissism are notoriously resistant to change (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008) and are even reinforced in individualistic societies (Twenge, 2006). Thus, we suspect that if researchers are ever to translate the science of humility into a thriving applied program, then studies may need to target individuals with average levels of dispositional humility who yet struggle to practice state humility in specific contexts (e.g., employees interacting with difficult customers or leaders about to navigate a major transition). Also, we posit that individuals who struggle with regulation of shame may also benefit from interventions that facilitate humility about personal limitations. A state measure of humility--along with measures of other proximal constructs--should help the science of humility explore factors that can catalyze growth in one's ability to regulate selfishness and shame and promote the formation of stronger social bonds among people who are already functioning well but desire to continue to sharpen these abilities.

Conceptualizing Humility as a State-Level Experience

Given the importance of studying state humility to advance research, we build on definitions of trait humility to define state humility. A common metaphor used to describe humility is that of a quiet ego, which harkens back to psychodynamic theories (e.g., Bosson et al., 2008; Heppner & Kernis, 2007) and has been used in theorizing on narcissism and other personality disorders. In classic psychodynamic theory, the ego negotiates a compromise between the id, which involves primal creative and destructive impulses, and the super ego, which involves internalization of conditional approval and acceptance of authority figures (Suchet, Harris, & Aron, 2007). Contemporary psychodynamic theories typically posit more intersubjective, relational, and embodied (neurobiological) perspectives on ego functioning than the classic focus on structures of intrapsychic conflicts (Shill, 2011). Nevertheless, the metaphor of a quiet ego can reference aspects of psychological maturity and equanimity involving a secure and stable sense of self, including the ability to balance tensions over one's own needs and desires with the interests and desire to please others. Thus, humility represents quiet ego functioning through the self-regulation of emotions (particularly involving pride and shame) in ways that can facilitate psychosocial adaptation.

Integrating this concept with the definition of trait humility described above, we suggest that state humility involves a hypoegoic state in which one is relatively free of the need to rely on self-enhancement strategies to satisfy needs for approval or self-gratification (Leary et al., 2006). Hypoegoic states involve a forgetting of the self, which is theorized to be associated with selfless experiences such as compassion and transcendence (Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Leary et al., 2006). Along these lines, individuals in a hypoegoic state are less sensitive to ego threats (Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013). Indeed, shifting a focus from one's self to one's valued relationships results in attenuated defensiveness following a threat (Van Tongeren, Green, et al., 2014), which is consistent with broader work on the role of value affirmation in promoting other-oriented emotions (Crocker, Niiya, & Mischkowski, 2008).

Although these theories on hypoegoic states have not yet been widely studied, there is ample support for similar effects in the opposite direction when one is very focused on the self. Namely, sensitivity to ego threats, reactivity, and instability are strongly associated with narcissism (Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Heppner & Kernis, 2007). Individuals with traits of narcissism are highly involved with their ego and rely on self-enhancing strategies when they encounter threats (Heppner & Kernis, 2007). Alternatively, individuals with a secure self-esteem are less involved with their ego and hence less likely to use sell-promotion when presented with a challenge (Heppner & Kernis, 2007). For example, individuals with secure self-esteem can non-defensively face criticism and temper a sense of superiority when one receives praise or affirmation from others.

Similarly, state humility involves a lack of preoccupation with one's own needs, which allows one to attend and respond to the needs of others within one's social environment. There are a variety of hypoegoic states that might contribute to a sense of state humility. For example, mindfulness may involve a quieting of the ego because it is associated with less self-concern and reactivity to threats (Heppner & Kernis, 2007) as well as fewer and less-intense self-thoughts (Leary et al., 2006). Another hypoegoic state involves flow states, which tend to occur when people engage in optimally challenging activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). During flow states, people often describe a sense of timelessness and temporary loss of self-consciousness that is positively valenced.

In terms of self-regulation, we theorize that state humility may involve aspects of both the behavioral activation system (BAS) and the behavioral inhibition system (BIS; Carver & White, 1994). The BAS involves motivations and behaviors that compel an individual to take action in pursuing an object, person, or goal, whereas the BIS includes motivations and behaviors aimed at avoiding an object, person, or aversive outcome. One aspect of humility involves awareness and regulation of self-preoccupation as an aversive condition, and that regulation is motivated through the BIS. For those with very strong values around selflessness, awareness of selfishness and difficulty prioritizing valued others may even cause negative emotional states. The other aspect of humility involves cultivation of other-oriented approach motivations associated with goals and positive emotional states, driven by the BAS. For example, Davis et al. (2013) theorized that humility strengthens social bonds and the psychological experiences of relationship commitment. Two prior studies have found that dispositional humility is positively associated with differentiation of self, which is a relational selfhood construct involving capacities for self-regulation and interpersonal connectedness in family systems and other close relationships (Jankowski, Sandage, & Hill, 2013; Jankowski & Sandage, 2014). In relationships with high commitment, sacrifice behavior predicts relationship satisfaction (for a review, see Stanley, Rhoades, & Whitton, 2010). More specifically, people in committed relationships view investing in the relationship as an investment in their own future well-being. In other words, a strong social bond transforms motivations so that people treat the needs of a relationship partner as tantamount to their own needs (see Van Tongeren, Davis, et al., 2014). Thus, one aspect of state humility involves positively valenced states associated with a sense of a social bond. Individuals in a state of humility may feel more focused on the needs of others and experience a sense of psychological or even spiritual transcendence. In summary, state humility should be associated with the regulation of behavior that would result in aversive self-preoccupation (via the BIS) and a desire to approach others and strongly value their well-being as a personal goal (via the BAS).

Overview and Hypotheses

The purpose of the present study was to develop a measure of state humility. There are many situations that might evoke a state of humility, such as reflecting on one's spiritual beliefs or particularly meaningful events in life. In Studies 1 and 3, we asked people to focus on their most significant spiritual experiences. To provide some methodological variability, in Study 2, we used a prompt that was not explicitly focused on spiritual experiences. Namely, we randomly assigned people to think either of their most meaningful experience or of a self-focused control condition (i.e., think about their "to do list" for the next day). The rationale for having people focus on meaningful experiences is that one aspect of our definition of state humility involves a sense of transcendence or other-orientation. Thus, we reasoned that people might experience strong feelings of humility after significant spiritual experiences (Studies 1 and 3) or other meaningful experiences (Study 2).

The purpose of Study 1 was to use exploratory factor analysis to determine the factor structure and refine the item pool of the Experiences of Humility Scale (EHS). We also evaluated the Cronbach's alpha coefficients. In Study 2, we conducted a simple experiment to see if the EHS subscales were able to detect differences between a Meaning Condition (i.e., writing about a most meaningful experiences) and a Neutral Condition (i.e., writing about one's activities and responsibilities for the next day). Finally, in Study 3, we sought to replicate the factor structure of the EHS using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and to examine initial evidence of its construct validity. To evaluate evidence of convergent validity, we hypothesized that the EHS would correlate positively with meaning in life. Consistent with our definition of humility, meaning in life involves having an attachment to something greater than oneself (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006). Likewise, we also expected state humility would be associated with higher religious commitment and intrinsic religiosity. Namely, engaging in religious activities and experiencing intrinsic religious motivations on a regular basis may trigger hypoegoic states. Finally, to evaluate initial evidence of discriminant validity, we hypothesized that the EHS subscales would correlate only moderately with trait humility, agreeableness, and neuroticism. A strong correlation with these constructs would make us question the degree to which the EHS subscales are detecting state humility.

Study 1

The purpose of Study 1 was to use exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the factor structure and refine items of the EHS. We did not have prior predictions regarding the number of" factors we would observe. However, based on our definition, we did expect to see a factor associated with inhibition of hyperegoic behavior and motivational states (e.g., regulating self-preoccupation), as well as a factor associated with activation of hypoegoic behavior and motivational states (e.g., a sense of transcendence). We hypothesized that the EHS subscales would have Cronbach's alpha coefficients around .80 or higher.

Method

Participants and procedure. Participants were 200 undergraduates (127 women; 73 men) from an undergraduate university in the Southeastern United States. The mean age was 23.99 years (SD = 5.64). The sample was diverse in terms of race/ethnicity (42.5% Black/African-American; 36.0% White; 10.0% Asian/Pacific Islander; 5.5% Latino/a; 5.5% Other; and .5% Did Not Respond). Religious/spiritual affiliation was obtained while taking the survey by asking participants "How committed are you to your religion" (Not at all, very little, moderately, very much, totally). Results indicated the sample was predominantly religious/spiritual (89.3%). Participants in undergraduate courses registered for the study in exchange for course credit. Alter indicating informed consent, participants were asked to think of the most significant spiritual experiences of their life. They then subsequently rated their degree of humility during that experience using the EHS items.

Measures. To assess perceived state humility, we generated a list of face-valid items, drawn from various definitions of humility. We sent them to three experts who have regularly published on humility for feedback. The final pool included 33 items. Participants rated their level of humility at the time of their most significant spiritual experience using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Results and Discussion

Items for the EHS-33 were analyzed using principal axis factoring and a promax rotation. There were seven factors with Eigenvalues above one, but parallel analysis and examination of the Scree plot indicated that a four-factor solution best fit the data. After examining the content of items, the four factors were named Other-orientation (e.g., more focused on others), Transcendence (e.g., being part of something bigger than myself), Aivareness of Selfishness (e.g., obsessed with my needs), and Awareness of Egotism (e.g., my perceptions of myself are overblown). Items were dropped that did not load at least .50 on their primary factor or that cross-loaded over .30 on any secondary factor. Partial correlations among items on each subscale were examined after controlling for the total score on that subscale (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Moderate correlations suggest a potential method factor. This strategy resulted in dropping one additional item that loaded on the Awareness of Selfishness factor.

After these refinements, the final version of the EHS consisted of 12 items (three items on each factor). Cronbach's alpha coefficients were .82 for Other-orientation, .79 for Transcendence, .82 for Awareness of Selfishness, and .85 for Awareness of Egotism. After omitting the dropped items, we conducted a second EFA on the final set of items. Descriptive statistics and factor loadings for the EHS based on the final EFA are listed in Table 1, and factor correlations are listed in Table 2. The four factors accounted for 62.68% of the variance in items.

Thus, the EHS had four subscales with adequate estimates of internal consistency. We theorized that state humility would involve states associated with behavioral activation; the Other-orientation and Transcendence subscales appear to align with this aspect of our definition. We also theorized that state humility would involve states associated with behavioral inhibition; the Awareness of Selfishness and Awareness of Egotism subscales align with this aspect of our definition.

Study 2

The purpose of Study 2 was to provide a basic experimental manipulation to examine whether the EHS subscales were sufficiently sensitive to detect differences between conditions hypothesized to promote state humility. One aspect of our definition of state humility includes a sense of transcendence or other-orientation that is broader than spirituality. Previous research has linked humility and meaning (Van Tongeren, Green, et al., 2014), and meaning has been defined in ways that include attachment to something greater than oneself (Steger et al., 2006), which aligns with the other-orientation expression consistent with definitions of humility (Davis et al., 2011). Thus, we expected participants for whom meaning was made salient to report a greater degree of state humility, similar to participants who had significant spiritual experiences. Participants were randomly assigned to write about the most meaningful event of their lives (i.e., meaning condition) or a control condition, in which they wrote about their "to-do" list for the next day (i.e., neutral condition). We hypothesized that the those in the meaning condition would report lower scores on the behavioral inhibition subscales of the EHS (i.e., Awareness of Selfishness and Awareness of Egotism), as these subscales represent personal assessments of preoccupation with oneself, and higher scores on the behavioral activation subscales (i.e., Other-orientation and Transcendence), because these items represent a focus beyond oneself, relative to the neutral condition.

Method

Participants and procedure. Participants were 106 undergraduates (72 women; 34 men) from the same university as Study 1. The mean age was 24.87 years (SD = 7.07). The sample was diverse in terms of race/ethnicity (43.40% Black/African-American; 26.40% White; 11.30% Latino/a; 8.50% Asian/Pacific Islander; 8.50% Other; and 1.90% Did Not Respond). After indicating informed consent online, participants were randomly assigned to two conditions. In the Meaning Condition, participants received the following prompt: For three minutes, write about the most meaningful moment in your life. Tell the short story of what happened. Try to put words to exactly how it made you feel.

In the Neutral Condition (i.e., writing about one's to-do list), participants responded to the following prompt: Many people feel very busy. For three minutes, write about the 3-5 things on your to do list that need to be done soon. Try to describe how you are feeling as clearly as possible so that even a stranger would understand the degree of pressure you are feeling.

After completing this prompt, participants completed the EHS. Measures. Participants completed the final version of the EHS, as described in Study 1. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were .84 for Other-orientation, .82 for Transcendence, .81 for Awareness of Selfishness, and .84 for Awareness of Egotism.

Results and Discussion

Our primary hypothesis in Study 2 was that the EHS would detect differences by condition. To test the hypothesis, we examined a series of independent sample t-tests. There were no differences by condition for the Other-orientation subscale and the Transcendence subscale. Participants in the meaning condition (M = 2.38; SD = .86) reported lower scores than participants in the neutral condition (M = 2.82; SD = .91) on the Awareness of Selfishness subscale, t(104) = -2.54, p = .012. Similarly, participants in the meaning condition (M = 1.86; SD = 2.23) reported lower scores than participants in the neutral condition (M = 2.23; SD = .89) on the Awareness of Egotism subscale, t(104) = -2.24, p = .027.

These findings provided partial support for our primary Study 2 hypotheses. The EHS detected differences between conditions associated with behavioral inhibition states of humility. That is, thinking of a meaningful experience resulted in attenuated awareness of self-preoccupation relative to thinking about one's to-do list. Thus, these findings provided initial evidence of construct validity for the subscales, particularly the two subscales associated with behavioral inhibition. Although having participants reflect on a meaningful experience did not impel behavioral activation motivations, it attenuated self-reflected attention toward selfishness and egotism. Researchers may want to explore stronger prompts (as these were quite subtle) that may better discern differences in the behavioral activation subscales of the EHS.

Study 3

After establishing the factor structure of the EHS in Study 1 and providing experimental evidence for the sensitivity of the EHS to detect differences between the cognitive saliency of a meaningful experience relative to a neutral experience in Study 2, the purpose of Study 3 was to (a) replicate the factor structure of the EHS found in Study 1 and (b) examine additional evidence of construct validity for the EHS subscales to build upon the results of Study 2. Given that Study 2 only detected differences on the behavioral inhibition subscales of the EHS, we wanted to examine evidence of construct validity for the EHS subscales associated with behavioral activation (i.e., Other-orientation and Transcendence). We hypothesized that a confirmatory factor analysis model with four-correlated factors would show adequate fit. Given theorizing that state humility involves connection with something or someone outside of oneself, we hypothesized that the behavioral activation subscales of the EHS (i.e., Other-orientation and Transcendence) would uniquely predict constructs associated with transcendence and connection with the sacred (i.e., intrinsic religiosity, religious commitment, and meaning in life). Finally, we hypothesized that the EHS subscales would correlate moderately with trait humility, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Support for this hypothesis would provide evidence of construct (especially discriminant) validity for the EHS.

Method

Participants and procedure. Participants were 155 undergraduates (103 women; 50 men; 2 did not report) from the same university as Study 1 and Study 2. The mean age was 24.89 years (SD = 6.50). The sample was diverse in terms of race/ethnicity (42.6% Black/African-American; 27.7% White; 12.3% Asian/Pacific Islander; 9.0% Latino/a; 3.2% Other; and 5.2% Did Not Respond). The procedure of Study 3 was identical to Study 1, except participants completed the final set of EHS items, as well as several other measures used to evaluate evidence of construct validity.

Measures. Participants completed the finalized, 12-item EHS as developed and described in Study 1. The Cronbach's alphas for the current study were .84 Other-orientation, .82 for Transcendence, .81 lor Awareness of Egotism, .84 for Awareness of Selfishness. In addition, participants also completed the following measures.

Trait humility. Trait humility was measured using a self-report version of the 16-item Relational Humility Scale (RHS; Davis et al., 2011). The items were rated using a 5-point Likert-like scale, which ranged from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree. There are three subscales in the scale: Global Humility, Superiority, and Self-Awareness. For the full score, the Cronbach's alphas ranged from .90 to .95 with the scale development samples. Also, the RHS had positive correlations with empathy, forgiveness of an offender, and positive relationship characteristics with a parent, providing initial evidence of construct validity. For the present study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficients were .95 for Global, .91 for Superiority, and .93 for Self-Awareness.

Agreeableness and Neuroticism. Agreeableness and neuroticism were assessed with the 20-item Mini-IPIP Scales (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006). The Mini-IPIP contains 20 items organized with four items for each of the five major personality dimensions (i.e., Costa & McCrae, 1992). This relatively brief measure appears to perform as well as longer instruments tapping the five-factor model of personality. In a series of studies, Donnellan et al. (2006) found that Mini-IPIP scores were adequately reliable and possessed good convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and predictive validity. For the present study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficients were .68 for Agreeableness and .62 for Neuroticism.

Intrinsic religiosity. Intrinsic religiosity was measured using the New Indices of Religious Orientation (NIRO; Francis, 2007). The NIRO includes three subscales that measure the constructs of intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest religiosity. Items on the scale were rated using a 5-point Likert-like scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Francis (2007) found the Cronbach's alphas to range from .84 - .91 for the subscales. Also, there have been several studies that have examined internal stability, temporal stability, and content validity and found the NIRO to be satisfactory (e.g., Kamble, Lewis, & Cruise, 2010). The Cronbach's alpha was .92 for the present study.

Religious commitment. Religious commitment was assessed with the 10-item Religious Commitment Inventory (RCI-10; Worthington et al., 2003). The items on the scale were rated on a 5-point Likert-like scale ranging from 1 = not at all true to 5 = totally true of me. Worthington et al. (2003) found Cronbach's alphas to range from .88 - .98 across multiple samples. Also, temporal stability was found, for three weeks and five months, to be .84 and .87, respectively (Worthington et al., 2003). The Cronbach's alpha for the present study was .96.

Meaning. Meaning was measured using the 10-item Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al., 2006). This widely used scale includes two subscales: Presence of Meaning and Search for Meaning. The items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = absolutely untrue to 7 = absolutely true. Reliability has been reported to range from .81 - .92, and temporal stability to be between .70 - .73 (Steger et al., 2006). The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the present study were .91 for Presence of Meaning and .91 for Search for Meaning.

Results and Discussion

We first examined whether the factor structure of the EHS from Study 1 would replicate in another sample. The covariance matrix of EHS items was analyzed with Maximum Likelihood (MLR) estimation using MPLUS 8.11 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2012). Items of" the EHS were used as indicators of four correlated factors. The four-factor model showed adequate fit, [chi square] (84) = 124.12, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .06 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = .03, .08), SRMR = .07. We also examined a one-factor model, which showed very poor fit, [chi square] (90) = 552.85, p < .001, CFI = .43, RMSEA = .19 (95% CI = .17, .20), SRMR = .17).

Correlations between subscales are reported in Table 3. We hypothesized that the Other-orientation and Transcendence subscales would predict constructs associated with transcendence and connection with the sacred. To examine this hypothesis, we examined a series of models in which we regressed the criterion variables simultaneously on the EHS subscales. Results are presented in Table 4. For intrinsic religiosity and religious commitment, the Transcendence subscale was a significant predictor, but none of the other EHS subscales were significant. For Presence of Meaning, all four EHS subscales were significant predictors in the hypothesized direction. For Search for Meaning, awareness of selfishness was a significant positive predictor; none of the other EHS subscales were significant. Thus, these hypotheses were partially supported.

As hypothesized, the EHS subscales correlated moderately with trait humility, agreeableness, and neuroticism (see Table 3), although there were different patterns of correlations for the subscales of the EHS. Specifically, global trait humility was positively correlated with Other-orientation and Transcendence, superiority was positively correlated with Awareness of Selfishness and Egotism, and accurate view of self was positively correlated with Transcendence and negatively correlated with Awareness of Selfishness. Agreeableness was significantly correlated in the expected direction with all four EHS subscales, whereas neuroticism was negatively correlated with Other-orientation and positively correlated with Awareness of Egotism. These findings supported our hypotheses regarding the construct validity of the EHS subscales.

Taken together, the results of Study 3 suggest that the factor structure and psychometric properties of the EHS replicated well in an independent sample. Whereas Study 2 provided evidence of construct validity for the EHS subscales associated with behavioral inhibition, the results of Study 3 provided some evidence of construct validity for the Transcendence subscale, which is associated with behavioral activation. We found limited evidence for the discriminant validity of the Other-orientation subscale in this study. While it did predict unique variance in Presence of Meaning scores, the subscales associated with behavioral inhibition (i.e. Awareness of Selfishness and Awareness of Egotism) had significant coefficients of equal or greater magnitude. Interestingly, the Other-orientation subscale did predict unique variance in agreeableness and neuroticism, and this could be because these constructs are interpersonal in nature. Given that this study only examined a limited number of constructs, future studies should examine other dependent variables that are interpersonal in nature and also related to the behavioral activation system (i.e. altruism).

General Discussion

The purpose of these studies was to create a measure of state humility and evaluate its psychometric properties and initial evidence of construct validity. The EHS has 12 items, including four subscales with three items each. Two subscales (i.e., Other-orientation and Transcendence) align with the behavioral activation aspect of our definition of state humility. The other two subscales (i.e., Awareness of Selfishness and Awareness of Egotism) align with the behavioral inhibition aspect of our definition. This four-factor structure replicated well in an independent sample, and the EHS showed adequate estimates of internal consistency across three studies. Our definition of state humility and the subscales of the EHS also align with the commonly observed intrapersonal (i.e., accurate view of self) and interpersonal domains (i.e., other-orientation and regulation of egotism) in existing measures of humility (Davis et al., 2011).

In terms of initial evidence of construct validity for the EHS subscales, in Study 2, we conducted a basic experiment that contrasted a meaning prime condition with a neutral condition. Participants randomly assigned to recall a meaningful episode in life reported lower selfishness and egotism, suggesting that meaningful experiences are associated with a diminished focus on the self, which is consistent with previous theorizing on meaning as being attached to something larger than the self and a reduced self-focus (e.g., Steger et al., 2006). Put differently, the EHS subscales associated with behavioral inhibition detected differences between these two conditions, providing initial evidence of discriminant validity for these two subscales.

In Study 3, we examined evidence of construct validity for the Transcendence and Other-oriented subscales. As predicted, both Other-orientation and Transcendence predicted a sense of meaning in life. This was to be expected as one of the robust correlates of meaning involves being embedded within strong social bonds (see Baumeister, 1991; Baumeister & Vohs, 2002; Van Tongeren et al., 2015). Likewise, the EHS subscales associated with behavioral activation (i.e., Other-orientation and Transcendence) correlated with religious commitment and intrinsic religiosity. Furthermore, the Transcendence subscale of the EHS uniquely predicted intrinsic religiosity, suggesting that self-reports of state humility may reflect something beyond impression management and social posturing. Whereas extrinsic religiosity involves engagement in religion due to external benefits and has been linked to negative outcomes such as prejudice (Hall, Matz, & Wood, 2010), intrinsic religiosity involves engagement in religion due to internalized values and has been linked with a variety of positive physical health, mental health, and relationship outcomes (Donahue, 1985; Moradi, Ghalamkarian, & Heyrat, 2013; Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013). We also found that the more people experience a sense of transcendence, the stronger their reported level of religious commitment. Although this relationship does not clarify the causal direction linking these two constructs, it is consistent with theorizing that experiences of humility can strengthen one's connection with the Sacred.

Finally, findings from our studies add to the growing body of work linking religion/spirituality and humility (e.g., Davis, Hook, Worthington, Van Tongeren, et al., 2010; Schwartz et al., 2012). An important next step is to move beyond correlational studies to examine how behaviors (e.g., prayer, meditation, religious attendance, civic engagement) and processes affect the experience and practice of humility. In addition, limited work has examined how religion/spirituality may promote humility in some domains (e.g., relationships with other members of one's group) but not others (e.g., ability to acknowledge limitations in one's convictions) (see Van Tongeren et al., in press).

Limitations and Areas for Future Research

The present study had several limitations. First, we used a cross-sectional, correlational design in two of our three samples. One of the primary advantages of the EHS is the ability to explore moment-to-moment changes in humility. Thus, an important next step is to use the EHS in longitudinal and experimental designs.

Second, our first study had a small sample size of 200. With 33 items, this is a relatively small sample to utilize EFA analysis, though not an unreasonable one (we had around six participants per item). Although the four-factor structure replicated well in Study 3, researchers can have greater confidence in the scale as its factor structure replicates across samples (and it would be helpful to evaluate evidence of measurement invariance in various samples). Related to this, our second study might have been a bit underpowered, which led to finding significant differences on only two of the four scales. Future work should also employ larger sample sizes.

Third, in terms of construct validity, the current manuscript focused on linking the EHS with meaning in life as well as religious constructs associated with belonging to something larger than oneself. We also focused on evaluating evidence of discriminant validity, using several measures of personality traits. Future research should continue to evaluate evidence of construct validity for the EHS and its subscales. For example, we might expect the Transcendence subscale to show a moderate correlation with other measures of spiritual transcendence (Piedmont, 1999). In addition, researchers might explore using other recall prompts, given that the current studies all focused on meaningful spiritual experiences.

Fourth, we used three convenience samples of college students, and two of the studies focused on significant spiritual experiences. It is important to explore the EHS in a variety of samples and contexts. Prior conceptualizations of humility suggest that developmental transitions are a promising time to explore how state and trait humility are related and may interact with each other over time. For example, researchers might explore how daily experiences of humility predict long-term changes in trait humility or other outcomes in (a) newly married couples, (b) individuals who recently lost a job, (c) new parents, (d) leaders initiating a transition, (e) clients in therapy, or (f) individuals who recently converted to a new religion or joined a new congregation. In addition, although humility is most often discussed as a virtue, it seems plausible that there may be a "dark side" to this construct. For instance, the minority stress literature discusses the negative implications of internalized forms of stigma (i.e., self-directed prejudice) for the mental health of marginalized individuals (e.g., sexual orientation minorities, Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2009). As internalized stigma involves an acceptance of negative societal beliefs about the self, it could be the case that possessing greater humility, which would involve an increased focus on others, could serve to exacerbate the impact of internalized forms of stigma on health among marginalized groups.

Fifth, we offered initial theorizing that humility involves regulation of shame. This idea deserves explicit testing. Likewise, researchers might explore other proximal constructs that might provide targets for humility intervention. For example, one potentially promising construct might be self-efficacy, particularly within their relationships. Individuals high in humility might have greater confidence in their ability to take risks involving vulnerability with close others.

Sixth, our results showed relatively low Cronbach's alphas for the measure of neuroticism and agreeableness in Study 3. Thus, although we found only a moderate relationship between the EHS subscales and these constructs, it is important to note that these relationships were attenuated by the low alphas.

Seventh, each sample relied exclusively on self-reports. There are limitations to self-report measures, including possible socially desirable responding and response biases (Dorn, Hook, Davis, Van Tongeren, & Worthington, 2014). This was appropriate for the goals of the study, which involved finalizing the scale and establishing initial evidence of construct validity. With this accomplished, future work can now explore how experiences of state humility are related to a variety of other constructs. For example, future studies might examine thinking-aloud paradigms during tasks designed to strain humility, and researchers might compare individuals' subjective experiences of state humility to observer ratings. Linking sell-report measures of humility to behavioral observations also may allow researchers to explore connections between self-reported humility and humility-related behaviors (Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Davis & Hook, 2014; Davis et al., 2013).

Conclusion

Altogether, the science of humility has made major progress over the last decade. A variety of measures now exist, and with the development of the EHS, scholars have at their disposal an assortment of multi-method strategies for studying humility, as well as theorizing to inform specific contexts in which humility is particularly salient (i.e., when egotism is evoked). As researchers begin to study more proximal processes involved in the perception and experience of humility, we hope this will set the stage for applied work to help people understand increasingly productive ways of becoming more humble.

References

Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings in life. New York: Guilford Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In., C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp.608-618). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bosson J. K., Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan, C. H., & Kernis, M. H. (2008). Untangling the Links between Narcissism and Self-esteem: A Theoretical and Empirical Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1415-1439.

Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638-656.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.

Chancellor, J., &: Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Humble beginnings: Current trends, state perspectives, and hallmarks of humility. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 819-833.

Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crocker, J., Niiya, Y., & Mischkowski, D. (2008). Why does writing about important values reduce defensiveness? Self-affirmation and the role of positive other-directed feelings. Psychological Science, 19, 740-747.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren't we happy?. American Psychologist, 54, 821.

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

Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Hook, J. N. (2010). Relational humility: A review of definitions and measurement strategies, Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 243-252.

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, 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.

Donahue, M.J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419.

Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192.

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

Francis, L.J. (2007). Introducing the new indices of religious orientation (NIRO): Conceptualization and measurement. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 10, 582-602.

Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652-670.

Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583.

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.

Heppner, W. L., & Kernis, M. H. (2007). "Quiet ego" functioning: The complementary roles of mindfulness, authenticity, and secure high self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 248-251.

Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R, & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 32-43.

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

Jankowski, P.J., Sandage, S.J., & Hill, P.C. (2013). Differentiation-based models of forgivingness, mental health, and social justice commitment: Mediator effects of differentiation of self and humility. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 412-424.

Kamble, S. V., Lewis, C. A., & Cruise, S. M. (2010). Internal reliability and temporal stability of the New Indices of Religious Orientation among Indian undergraduates: test-retest data over 15 days. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13, 833-839.

Kenny, D.A. (2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 265-280.

LaBouff, J. P., Rowatt, W. C., Johnson, M. K., Tsang, J.-A., & Willerton, G. M. (2012). Humble persons are more helpful than less humble persons: Evidence from three studies. Vie Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 16-29.

Leary, M. R., Adams, C. E., & Tate, E. B. (2006). Hypo-Egoic Self-Regulation: Exercising Self-Control by Diminishing the Influence of the Self. Journal of Personality, 74, 1803-1832.

Lavelock, 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 Resetirch, 39, 329-358.

Moradi, A., Ghalamkarian, S. M., & Heyrat, A. (2013). A meta-analysis about research on relationships between religious orientation and mental health and depression in Iran. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 5, 829-838.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.

Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcendence and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67(6), 985-1013.

Powers, C., Nam, R. K., Rowatt, W. C., & Hill, P. C. (2007). Associations between humility, spiritual transcendence, and forgiveness. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 18, 75-94.

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

Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., ... Demirutku, K. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663-668.

Shill, M. (2011). Intersubjectivity and the ego. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 18, 1-22.

Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 243-257.

Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence and search for meaning in li fe. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80-93.

Suchet, M., Harris, A., & Aron, L. (Eds.). (2007). Relational-psychoanalysis, Vol. 3: New Voices. Mahwah, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Ale: Why today's young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled--And more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Free Press.

Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281-300.

Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 104-108.

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., Green, J. D., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Davis, J. L., & Ramos, M. (2015). Forgiveness increases meaning in life. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 47-55.

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: Relationship affirmation reduces cultural worldview detens e. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 62-69.

Van Tongeren, D. R., Stafford, J., Hook, J. N., Green, J. D., Davis, D. E., & Johnson, K. A. (in press). Humility attenuates negative attitudes and behaviors toward religious outgroup members .Journal of Positive Psychology.

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 tor research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 84-96.

Zuckerman, M., Silberman, J., & Hall, J. A. (2013). The relation between intelligence and religiosity: A meta-analysis and some proposed explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 325-354.

Author Note: Don E. Davis, Georgia State University; Stacey McElroy, Georgia State University; Elise Choe, Georgia State University; Charles J. Westbrook, Georgia State University; Cirleen DeBlaere, Georgia State University; Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Hope College; Joshua Hook, University of North Texas; Steven J. Sandage, Boston University; Vanessa Placeres, Georgia State University.

Author Information

DAVIS, DON E. PhD. Address: Georgia State University, PO Box 3980 Atlanta, GA 30302. Degrees: BA (Psychology) Yale; MS (Counseling Psychology), MA (Counseling), Richmond Graduate University; PhD (Counseling Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: Positive Psychology. Integration of Spirituality into Counseling.

MCELROY, STAGEY MS. Address: 117 Buttonwood Loop, Athens GA 30605. Title: Doctoral Candidate, Research Associate. Degrees: BS (Psychology) University of Georgia; MS (Clinical Mental Health Counseling), Georgia State University. Specialization: Humility.

CHOE, ELISE MS. Address: Georgia State University, PO Box 3980 Atlanta, GA 30302. Title: Doctoral Student. Degrees: MS (Clinical Mental Health Counseling) Georgia State University.

WESTBROOK, CHARLES J. MS Address: Georgia State University, PO Box 3980 Atlanta, GA 30302. Title: Doctoral Student. Degrees: MS (Clinical Mental Health Counseling) Georgia State University.

DeBLAERE, CIRLEEN PhD. Address: Georgia State University, PO Box 3980 Atlanta, GA 30302. Degrees: BA (Psychology), Boston University; MA (General Psychology), New York University; PhD (Counseling Psychology), University of Florida. Specializations: Multiculturalism and Diversity, Intersectionality, Minority Stress and Resilience.

VAN TONGEREN, DARYL R. PhD. Address: Department of Psychology, Hope College, 35 E. 12th Street Holland, MI 49423. 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 in Life, Religion, Virtues (Including Forgiveness and Humility), Positive Psychology.

HOOK, JOSHUA PhD. Address: University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280 Denton, TX 76203. Title: Associate Professor of Psychology. Degrees: BS (Psychology), University of Illinois; MS (Counseling Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth University; PhD (Counseling Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: Humility, Religion/Spirituality, Multicultural Counseling.

SANDAGE, STEVEN J. PhD. Address: 185 Bay State Rd, Boston, MA 02215. Title: Albert and Jessie Danielsen Professor of Psychology of Religion and Theology, Boston University; Research Director and Staff Psychologist, Albert and Jessie Danielsen Institute; Visiting Faculty in Psychology of Religion, MF Norwegian School of Theology. Degrees: BS (Psychology), Iowa State University; MDiv, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; MA and PhD (Counseling Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: Spirituality and Psychotherapy, Positive Psychology, Integration of Psychology and Theology, Couple and Family Therapy, Intercultural Competence.

PLACERES, VANESSA MS. Address: Georgia State University, PO Box 3980 Atlanta, GA 30302. Title: Doctoral Student. Degrees: BS (Criminology), California State University, Fresno; MS (Counseling, Marriage and Family Therapy) California State University, Fresno.

Don E. Davis, Stacey McElroy, Elise Choe, Charles J. Westbrook, Cirleen DeBlaere

Georgia State University

Daryl R. Van Tongeren

Hope College

Joshua Hook

University of North Texas

Steven J. Sandage

Boston University

Vanessa Placeres

Georgia State University TABLE 1 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Items in Study I M SD O More focused on others 2.31 1.22 .98 More attentive to the needs of others 2.25 1.19 .88 Less focused on myself 2.24 1.21 .50 Part of something much bigger than myself 3.09 1.25 -.02 Deep reverence 3.06 1.27 -.05 "Small" in a good way 3.19 1.24 .18 Preoccupied 1.91 1.04 .04 Obsessed with my needs 2.09 1.13 -.07 Needy 2.08 1.10 .02 Ashamed for being so self-focused 3.45 1.24 .01 Like I've been too concerned with myself 3.57 1.14 -.05 Like my perceptions of myself are overblown 3.74 1.14 .04 Eigenvalue 2.99 % Variance Accounted For 24.93 T S E More focused on others -.01 .02 -.03 More attentive to the needs of others -.04 .04 -.04 Less focused on myself .12 -.10 .09 Part of something much bigger than myself .90 .03 -.05 Deep reverence .80 .04 .00 "Small" in a good way .53 -.08 .06 Preoccupied .02 .89 -.07 Obsessed with my needs .05 .82 -.01 Needy -.06 .72 .13 Ashamed for being so self-focused .02 -.03 .87 Like I've been too concerned with myself -.04 -.04 .75 Like my perceptions of myself are overblown .02 .11 .71 Eigenvalue 2.75 1.74 1.47 % Variance Accounted For 22.96 14.53 12.29 Note. O = Other-orientation, T = Transcendence, S = Awareness of Selfishness, E = Awareness of egotism. TABLE 2 Correlations among EHS Subscales in Study 1 Construct M SD 1 2 3 4 1. Other-orientation 9.31 3.22 .82# .34 * .08 -.05 2. Transcendence 10.78 2.95 .79# .00 -.11 3. Selfishness 6.09 2.82 .82# .23 ** 4. Egotism 6.78 3.18 .85 * = p < .05; ** = < .01 Note. Alphas are on the diagonal (in bold) Note. Alphas are on the diagonal are indicated with #. TABLE 3 Correlations among Constructs in Study 3 M SD N O Religious Commitment 3.71 .95 142 .18 * Superiority 3.63 .94 142 -.06 Accurate View of Self 3.97 .77 141 .16 Agreeableness 15.30 2.97 142 .20 * Neuroticism 11.36 3.19 140 -.18 * Intrinsic Religiosity 2.97 1.04 141 0.16 Religious Commitment 2.74 1.18 142 .24 ** Presence of Meaning 4.84 1.27 145 .21 * Search for Meaning 4.34 1.42 145 0.12 T S E Religious Commitment .28 ** -.08 -.06 Superiority -.02 -.29 ** -.46 ** Accurate View of Self .26 ** -.26 ** .09 Agreeableness .17 * -.19 * -.22 ** Neuroticism .05 .01 .20 * Intrinsic Religiosity .25 ** .04 -.03 Religious Commitment .30 ** -.06 .04 Presence of Meaning .25 ** -.17 * .17 * Search for Meaning .04 .28 ** .05 Note. O = Other-orientation, T = Transcendence, S = Awareness of Selfishness, E = Awareness of egotism. * = p < .05; ** = p < .01 TABLE 4 Series of Regression Analyses with EHS Subscales Predicting Criterion Variables [R.sup.2] O T Global Humility .10 .10 .25 ** Superiority .26 .01 .05 Accurate View of Self .16 .10 .24 ** Agreeableness .14 .19 * .13 Neuroticism .09 -.26 ** .14 Intrinsic Religiosity .06 .06 .22 * Religious Commitment .11 .14 .24 ** Presence of Meaning .14 .16 * .19 * Search for Meaning .05 .08 -.03 S E Global Humility -.13 -.06 Superiority -.24 ** -.43 ** Accurate View of Self -.31 ** .10 Agreeableness -.22 ** -.22 ** Neuroticism .02 .20 * Intrinsic Religiosity .00 -.05 Religious Commitment -.12 .03 Presence of Meaning -.23 ** .17 * Search for Meaning .26 ** .01 Note. O = Other-orientation, T = Transcendence, S = Awareness of Selfishness, E = Awareness of egotism. * = p < .05; ** = p < .01