Still Waters Run Deep: Humility as a Master Virtue.

Lavelock, Caroline R. ; Worthington, Everett L., Jr. ; Griffin, Brandon J. 等

We present two intervention studies designed to promote humility and other virtues. In Study 1, we compared the PROVE Humility workbook (Lavelock, Worthington, & Davis, 2012/2013) to alternative workbooks, each designed to promote a particular virtue (e.g., forgiveness, patience, self-control) or mood state (positivity). Participants who completed the PROVE Humility workbook reported greater increases in humility and other virtues when compared to participants in the other conditions. In Study 2, we revised the workbook and tested it against a test-retest control condition. Study 2 replicated the findings from Study 1, such that participants who completed the PROVE Humility workbook reported improvements in humility and other virtues (e.g., forgivingness and patience), as well as reductions in negative affect. These findings support the idea of humility being a master virtue, and we recommend future directions for the clinical application of humility.

**********

Positive psychology supports the promotion of flourishing grounded in virtues. This idea is defined by Thomas Aquinas as ultimum potentiae, the highest potential a person can achieve (Alvarez-Segura, Echavarria, & Vitz, 2015). Indeed, the functions of virtues are diverse (Baehr, 2011; Davis et al., 2013). For example, social emotion-based virtues (e.g., altruism and generosity) activate positive, other-oriented behaviors; self-regulation-based virtues (e.g., patience and self-control) inhibit harmful behaviors; relational virtues (e.g., compassion and empathy) nurture healthy attachment; and epistemic virtues (e.g., wisdom or creativity) illuminate knowledge.

To embody all of these virtues at any one time would indeed be ultimum potentiae. Yet we imperfect humans seldom achieve our greatest potential in even one virtue at a time. The purpose of the current paper is to explore how we might promote and develop virtue in our lives. Specifically, we investigate an idea that has garnered considerable attention in philosophy and theology for over a thousand years--that some virtues function as master virtues. In psychological terms, virtues are closely tied together (Baehr, 2011), and there may be higher-order virtues that, when practiced, foster the development of other virtues. In the present studies, we explore whether humility might be one such master virtue, sharing a foundational quality with other virtues and therefore fostering the development of other important virtues.

Humility as a Christian Virtue

In their review of philosophical literature, Roberts and Cleveland (2017) explore centuries of renderings of humility; these range from humility as low self-esteem (Hume, 1888), to humility as non-overestimation or inattention to the self (Flanagan, 1990; Bommarito, 2013), to humility as "a virtue that is meant to bring us to terms with our limits" (Grenberg, 2005, p. 7). Ultimately, Roberts and Cleveland define humility as "intelligent lack of concern for self-importance, where self-importance is construed as conferred by social status, glory, honor, superiority, special entitlements, prestige, or power" (2017, p. 33). Philosophy and psychology appear to agree that humility involves intrapersonal and interpersonal qualities. Intrapersonally (akin to epistemically; Samuelson et al., 2015), humility involves accurate self-appraisal and modest self-presentation. Interpersonally (akin to socially, Samuelson et al., 2015), humility orients and connects one to others and their needs, while "transcend[ing] egotistical concerns and the attendant urge for defensive, self-serving maneuvers" (Davis et al., 2011; Hook & Davis, 2014; Kesebir, 2014, p. 611). Humility and its specific applications (e.g., intellectual humility and cultural humility) have gained empirical attention in recent years (Worthington, Davis, and Hook, 2017).

The concept of humility originates from religious tradition (Bollinger & Hill, 2012). Numerous religious leaders appeared to embody humility, including Jesus, Paul, and Moses within the Christian framework and extending across religions to Muhammad, Gandhi, and Siddhartha (Porter et al., 2017; Worthington, 2007). Humility is cited in several religious texts, including the Torah, New Testament, Quran, Dhammapada, and Bhagavad Gita (Porter et al., 2017; Woodruff, Van Tongeren, McElroy, Davis, & Hook, 2014). Humility is also promoted as a virtue in non-religious spiritualities that encourage people to transcend themselves by understanding their place within humanity, the environment, and the universe (Porter et al., 2017). Thus, whether promoted within a religious or secular frame, humility facilitates transcendence of the self and fosters an orientation toward others, on which virtues like gratitude, forgiveness, and compassion depend. Still, Leach and Ajibade (2017) suggest that Christianity and humility might have a particularly strong connection due to the New Testament's explicit encouragement to develop a humble character.

Humility as a Master Virtue

Pardue (in Porter et al, 2017) lays out the case for Christian humility. He observes that individual Christian theologians, from Augustine to Benedict to Bernard of Clairvaux to Thomas Aquinas, formulated differently nuanced Christian rationales and understandings of humility. Much of the early writing emphasized that humility largely involved becoming victorious over pride, which was seen as the master vice. Pardue also shows how Jesus and the New Testament writers demonstrate to place humility as one of the central virtues of Christianity. For example, Paul writes in Philippians 2 that Jesus came in the form of a servant, and Paul then encourages Christians to have that same mind among ourselves. This example of Christ's humility is a divine model for people to develop a humble stance toward other humans.

Worthington and Allison (2017) have expanded upon Davis et al.'s (2011) definition of humility to include an orientation that lifts others up rather than putting them down. This characteristic--an other-orientation--is the essence of Paul's Philippians mandate. We might observe that this other-oriented humility (as a natural outgrowth of humility before God) is the root of a variety of Christian virtues. These include agape love (1 Cor. 13), altruism (Matt. 5: 42; 25: 35), generosity (2 Cor. 9: 7; Luke 6: 38), gratitude (Eph. 5: 20; Col. 3: 17), compassion (Col. 3: 12), and forgiveness (Matt. 6: 14-15; Mark 11: 25).

The Bible itself provides a tutorial for cultivating Christian virtues. One begins by glimpsing the goal of virtuosity (Phil. 3: 13-14), practicing until the virtue becomes a habit of the heart (Eph. 4: 22-24; Phil. 4: 8), sometimes through enduring suffering (Rom. 5: 3-5; Heb. 5: 8; James 1: 2-4), and finally experiencing the ultimate satisfaction of knowing that one might be pleasing God (Eph. 5: 8-10; Rom. 12: 1; 2 Cor. 5: 9). We believe that there is room, consistent with Christian theology, to work diligently toward building virtues, and humility seems a key one to work toward because its core of other-orientation is the core of many Christian virtues, indeed the Christian life itself.

Thus, as the oft-repeated quotation attributed to Augustine goes, "Humility is the foundation of all the other virtues hence, in the soul in which this virtue does not exist there cannot be any other virtue except in mere appearance" (quoted in Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, 2004). Similarly, psychologist Martin Seligman (2002), one of the founders of the positive psychology movement, considered humility to be the regulator of the ego. In other words, humility may be a central mechanism that frees people from the experience of self-justification and desire, enabling the other-oriented qualities common to all virtues. As such, it would appear that psychology and Christian theology agree that humility may be a strong candidate for a master virtue, a higher-order virtue that when practiced regularly, facilitates several other virtues. Furthermore, the most explicit opponent of humility in theology, pride, is considered in psychology to be the "first of all vices" for its role in intensifying other vices aimed at pleasing the self (Alvarez-Segura et al., 2015, p. 1794). Indeed, humility, a moderator of pride (Murphy, 2017) "is the precondition and basic presupposition for the genuineness of all virtue" (Von Hildebrand, as cited in Alvarez-Segura et al., 2015, p. 1797); thus, in the present studies, we focus on humility, its promotion, and its potential role in promoting other virtues.

Application of Humility

In its own right, humility offers an abundance of benefits for society and individuals. Such benefits include self-reported better health and a protection from negative emotions following traumatizing events, improved job performance, and greater relationship quality, perhaps as a result of empathy and patience embodied by humble individuals (Krause, 2010, 2012; Means, Wilson, Sturn, Biron, & Bach, 1990; Peters, Rowatt, & Johnson, 2011; Van Tongeren, Davis, & Hook, 2014). Adopting a humbler view of the self may also improve self-regulation (Weiss & Knight, 1980). Humility also attenuates defensiveness (Van Tongeren et al., 2016) and may serve to protect individuals against the psychological burden of being preoccupied with one's self-image, which could lead to destructive outcomes such as suicide, substance abuse, eating disorders, and masochism (Baumeister, 1991).

In light of these benefits, Lavelock et al. (2012) developed the PROVE Humility workbook intervention to promote humility. Research supported the efficacy of the PROVE Humility workbook in a sample of 59 undergraduate students randomly assigned to either the humility workbook condition or a test-retest control condition. Lavelock et al. (2014) compared several trait virtue outcome measures between humility workbook participants (n = 26) and test-retest control participants (n = 33). Between pre-test and a follow-up two weeks after workbook completion, those in the humility condition reported significantly greater increases in trait humility than did participants in the control condition, who did not change in trait humility over time. Participants in the humility condition also reported significant gains in trait forgivingness and trait patience along with decreases in trait negativity, whereas the control condition participants did not.

Neither religious commitment nor spiritual transcendence predicted improvements in humility as a result of the workbook, demonstrating the accessibility of humility for both religious and non-religious individuals, consistent with both a Christian perspective and a secular valuing of humility (Lavelock et al., 2014). Though not explicitly Christian or religious in nature, forgiveness researchers have found that Christians benefited from secular forgiveness interventions because they used their Christian beliefs and practices, even though not directed explicitly to do so (Rye & Pargament, 2002; Rye et al., 2005). This is consistent with a meta-analysis of Christian and secular religiously accommodated interventions that found no differences in the target behaviors and self-reported evaluations (Worthington, Hook, Davis, McDaniel, 2011). We believe the exercises in this workbook are consistent with the Christian understanding of humility, and preliminary support of the efficacy of this workbook makes it a viable tool for investigating humility as a potential master virtue.

The Present Studies

In this paper, we present a series of two intervention studies. In Study 1, we re-analyze the data from Lavelock et al. (2014) and compare the efficacy of the PROVE Humility workbook to several other workbook interventions designed to promote various virtues (e.g., forgiveness, patience, and self-control). We hypothesized that participants who completed the PROVE Humility workbook intervention would report increases in humility as well as other virtues relative to participants in the other workbook conditions, which would support the conceptualization of humility as a master virtue. We then conducted an independent replication of the PROVE Humility workbook intervention in Study 2.

Study 1

Method

The purpose of Study 1 was to re-analyze the PROVE Humility workbook data from Lavelock et al. (2014) and compare it to outcomes from other similarly structured virtue-promoting workbooks (for forgiveness, patience, and self-control). The purpose of including workbooks designed to promote a variety of virtues was to test the hypothesis that humility was a higher-order virtue and would facilitate the development of other virtues. Additionally, we tested the virtue-promoting workbooks as an active control against a similarly structured workbook, this one designed to promote positivity, to ensure that the virtue-promoting content of the workbooks was indeed driving changes in character, not just changes in mood.

Method

Participants. Participants were undergraduate students (N = 208) enrolled in psychology coursework at a large mid-Atlantic university during the Fall 2012 semester. Participants were recruited to complete a workbook designed to build virtue. They were randomly assigned to one of six conditions: forgiveness (n = 30), humility (n = 26), patience (n = 28), self-control (n = 24), positivity (n = 27), or a control condition (n = 33). Across the five intervention conditions, 40 participants (19%) chose to discontinue their participation in the study following their assessment at Time 1, leaving 168 participants for analysis (see the CONSORT Flow Chart, Figure 1). Participants ranged in age from 17 to 48 (M = 21.38, SD = 4.27), and were mostly female (76.79%, n = 129). Ethnicities included 49.4% (n = 83) Caucasian/White, 28% [n = 47) African American/Black, 6.5% (n = 11) Hispanic, 7.1% (n = 12) Asian-American, 1.2% (n = 2) Native American, and 7.7% (n = 13) Other.

Design. The current study employed an experimental, longitudinal, repeated-measures intervention design. It involved a six condition (between-subject) by two assessment occasion comparison (within-subject) of four virtue-workbook interventions against a positivity-workbook intervention and a test-retest control condition. Trait measures were administered on two occasions (pre-test and two-week post-workbook follow-up, which was four weeks after the initial assessment).

Measures

Trait measures. The overall goal of these workbooks was to cultivate the target (virtue or mood) on a lasting, trait level. For this reason, we administered trait measures to assess change in outcomes. Higher scores on these scales indicate higher levels of the trait.

Trait Forgivingness Scale (TFS; Berry, Worthington, O'Connor, Parrott, & Wade, 2005). To complete the TFS, participants rated ten items from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), relating to their likelihood to forgive. It included such items as "I have always forgiven those who have hurt me." Cronbach's alphas for this measure ranged from .74 - .80 (Berry et al., 2005). In the current study, alpha = .78.

Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VL4-IS) --Modesty/Humility Scale (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The Modesty/Humility Scale is a nine-item subtest within the VIA-IS, an inventory for assessing constructs of positive psychology. Items such as, "I don't brag about my accomplishments," were rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach's alpha for this scale was .70 (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In the current study, alpha = .79.

Patience Scale (PS-10; Schnitker & Emmons, 2007b). In order to assess trait patience, participants completed ten items of the PS-10. Items such as "In general, waiting in lines doesn't bother me" are rated from 1 (very much unlike me) to 5 (very much like me). The Cronbach's alpha for this measure was .78 (Schnitker & Emmons, 2007b). In the current study, alpha = .80.

Brief Self Control Scale (Brief SCS; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). The Brief SCS is a 13-item measure, reduced from its 36-item counterpart, the Self-Control Scale. The Brief SCS measured trait self-control from 1 (very much unlike me) to 5 (very much like me), for items such as "I am good at resisting temptation." In the current study, alpha = .86.

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Participants were asked to complete the 20 items of the PANAS according to emotions they generally feel on a regular basis. Each item listed an emotion, such as interested, distressed, or excited. Participants rated items from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely), on the extent to which they generally feel those emotions in their everyday lives. Cronbach's alphas for this measure range between .84 - .90 (Watson et al., 1988). In the current study, alpha for the positive and negative emotion subscales were .54 and .86, respectively. Due to the relatively low alpha for the positive emotion subscale, only the negative emotion subscale was analyzed.

Intervention workbooks. We created workbooks for the present study to promote humility, forgiveness, patience, self-control, and general positivity. We based the format of each roughly 80-page workbook on the format of the PROVE Humility workbook (Lavelock et al., 2012), which in turn was based on the format of Worthington's (2006) REACH Forgiveness intervention manual (see Lavelock et al., 2014 for workbook structure). We thus controlled all style variables within the workbooks so that all exercises were parallel in style, and only the content varied. This highly controlled format strengthened confidence that the content of the intervention was the source in outcome variable differences. Each workbook ended with an 8-item assessment of the workbook experience, including items such as "I learned the five steps and can tell you what each is." These were rated along 5 points from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely) and were used as a manipulation check Workbooks are available upon request.

As an additional method of supporting the workbooks as an appropriate manipulation, we sent each virtue-promoting workbook to experts in each respective topic area for revision and as a validity check. We also solicited feedback on the workbook experience by pilot-testing workbooks on 30 undergraduate students (six in each of the five intervention conditions). We examined the quality of workbook responses and requested feedback regarding degree of interest, time to completion, and suggestions for improvement. Minor modifications were made on the basis of this feedback, and the workbooks were finalized for use in the present study.

PROVE Humility workbook (Lavelock et al., 2012/2013). This workbook was intended to promote humility, and content was derived from empirical study of humility (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Tangney, 2005). Empirically derived, the roughly 80-page workbook guides participants through five steps to promote humility, forming the acronym PROVE: Pick a time when you were not humble, Remember your abilities within the big picture, Open yourself, Value all things, and Examine limitations (see Lavelock et al., 2014 for additional details about the workbook).

Forgiveness workbook (Worthington, Lavelock, & Scherer, 2012). The workbook intended to promote forgiveness is based on Worthington's (2006) REACH Forgiveness model. Participants were guided through a version of REACH that had been adapted for individual use in a workbook (Harper et al., 2014), and each section focused on one of the five steps (Recall, Empathize, Altruism, Commit, and Hold On). The method has strong empirical support for fostering sustained forgiveness (for a meta-analysis, see Wade, Hoyt, Kidwell, & Worthington, 2014).

Patience workbook (Lavelock, Worthington, & Schnitker, 2012). This workbook was intended to build patience. Content was derived from empirical research on patience (Schnitker, 2012; Schnitker & Emmons, 2007a, 2007b; Stokes, 2011). The patience acrostic is SPACE: Serenity, Patient listening and perspective, Allow Boredom, Comfort with delays, and Endure with perseverance.

Self-control workbook (Lavelock, Worthington, & Burnette, 2012). This was intended to increase self-control. Content was derived from empirical research on self-control (Baumeister & Exline, 1999; Friese, Hoffman, & Wiers, 2011; Quinn, Pascoe, Wood, & Neal, 2010). The acrostic for the self-control workbook is POWER: Pick a time when you were undisciplined, Own your goals, Work out a backup plan, Elevate awareness, Remember to control your environment.

Positivity workbook (Lavelock & Worthington, 2012). This workbook paralleled the others and was intended to promote general positivity (and reduce general negativity). Content was derived from empirical research on positivity (Fredrickson, 2009). The acrostic for positivity was HAPPY: Have a meaningful outlook, Apply your strengths, Put things in perspective, Paint a positive picture of your future, and Yes to others.

Procedure. The current study was conducted in compliance with the Institutional Review Board. Participants signed up for the individually administered study using a research participant recruitment website employed by the university. Participants were e-mailed information about the content and procedure of the study. They provided consent at that time, agreeing to random assignment to one of the virtue-promoting (or positivity) intervention workbooks or a test-retest control condition. Those randomized to control were allowed to receive any of the five workbooks following the final assessment. After consent and random assignment, participants were e-mailed a pre-test battery of the measures (e.g., Time 1) described above.

When they returned the completed battery via e-mail, participants were e-mailed the intervention workbook corresponding to the condition to which they had been randomly assigned (see CONSORT Flowchart in Figure 1). Those randomly assigned to the control condition participants did not receive a workbook but were told they would receive their posttest surveys in four weeks. Workbook condition participants had two weeks to complete and return the workbook, and workbooks were checked for completion upon receipt.

Two weeks after returning the workbook (i.e., four weeks post-Time 1) participants were e-mailed a follow-up battery (i.e., Time 2), including measures identical to the pre-test battery. Test-retest control condition participants were e-mailed this battery four weeks after they returned their pre-test measures. Participants returned the follow-up battery within one week; thus, each participant took roughly five weeks to complete the entire study, including test-retest control condition participants, who simply completed the two batteries.

Results

Preliminary analyses. In order to compare initial values of the five outcome variables at Time 1, we conducted a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), for those completing all measures versus participants who dropped out after Time 1. There was no multivariate effect, multivariate F(5, 202) = 1.25,p = .286; thus, participants who completed measures at Time 1 only (n = 40) were omitted from further analyses. For remaining participants, a one-way MANOVA for between-condition differences at Time 1 for the five outcome measures revealed no significant differences among conditions on any measure at Time 1, multivariate F(25, 810) = 1.04, p =.406. Thus, we concluded that all conditions were equivalent initially on the outcome measures. Means, standard deviations, alphas, and ranges for all variables are reported in Table 1 for the participants who completed the measures at both time points (n = 168).

Control for Type I error on correlations. We computed 15 correlations among the variables. Thus a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of .003 was used to determine statistical significance of correlations. Intercorrelations of all scale scores are reported in Table 2; it is noteworthy that the VIA measure of trait humility was correlated only with the SCS measure of trait self-control.

Manipulation checks on treatment fidelity. Because participants completed workbook interventions without direct researcher supervision, data were collected to examine treatment fidelity. After adjusting three outliers (two in the forgiveness workbook condition and one in the positivity workbook condition), a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine differences in self-reported completion time among conditions. The overall mean workbook completion time across conditions was M = 527.69 minutes (SD = 396.14), or 8.79 hours, and no workbook took any longer to complete than any other, F(4, 123) = .95, p = .437.

In order to examine whether the participants seemed equally engaged across conditions we examined the word count in the 132 available workbooks. After adjusting four outliers (one in the patience workbook condition, two in the self-control workbook condition, and one in the positivity condition), a one-way ANOVA was conducted to identify any differences in word count among conditions. The overall average word count of participant responses was 4,040.49 words (SD = 1569.31), and no workbook yielded greater word count than any other, F(4,123) = 2.27, p = .065. Total average words per response to a prompt was 22.32 (SD = 9.63).

We assessed learning using an eight-item measure (scoring range 8 to 40) at the end of each workbook. Across groups, the mean score for this informal assessment was 30.40 (SD = 7.12), indicating that participants felt that they learned a moderate to large amount from the workbooks. This amount of learning did not differ significantly among conditions, F(4, 126) = .73, p = .576. We conclude that participants, on average, devoted sufficient time and writing to the workbook and found it to be a helpful learning tool to promote the target virtue (or positivity). These data support the workbooks as an appropriate manipulation.

Manipulation check on initial efficacy. Before comparing the treatments to each other and to the test-retest control, we sought to determine whether the workbooks were achieving their desired purposes and were fit for further analysis. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted on each condition individually at Time 1 and Time 2 prior to further multivariate analysis. Humility condition participants (n = 26) demonstrated a significant increase in humility scores, t(25) = 4.51, p < .001 (also reported in Lavelock et al., 2014). Similarly, forgiveness condition participants (n = 30) demonstrated a significant increase in forgivingness scores, t(29) = 2.97, p = .006, and patience condition participants (n = 28) increased significantly in patience scores, t(27) = 2.37, p = .025. Self-control condition participants (n =24) did not improve significantly in self-control scores. Positivity condition participants (n = 27) significantly decreased in negativity, t(26) = -4.02, p < .001. Because Fredrickson (2009) acknowledges decreasing negativity as a part of the process of becoming more positive, the positivity workbook was deemed an adequate manipulation of mood and therefore worthy of inclusion in continued analysis. These preliminary analyses suggest that all conditions, except the self-control condition, should be considered in tests of multivariate effects, because all workbooks (except self-control) seemed to be affecting the relevant outcome. We therefore omitted the self-control condition from further analyses; because it could not adequately promote self-control, we would be unable to determine the impact of improving self-control on other virtues. Still, the self-control measure was retained as an outcome variable for comparison across workbook conditions.

Hypothesis testing. Multivariate and univariate effects of the workbook interventions against the control condition were analyzed using a 5 x 2 (condition X time) MANOVA on all five dependent measures. Planned contrasts were also performed in order to examine differences in slopes between the intervention conditions and the test-retest control condition. Overall, there was a significant multivariate interaction effect of condition and time on the outcome measures, multivariate .F(5, 138) = 3.55,p = .005. Given this significant interaction, univariate 5x2 (condition x time) ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent variable to determine the locus of effect. Significant univariate (condition x time) Fs were followed by simple main effects analyses comparing scores for each condition over time.

Trait humility. No significant condition x time interaction effect occurred on trait humility, F(4, 139) = 1.64, p =.167. In planned comparisons, trait humility values increased significantly over time within the humility-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 7.84, p = .006. No other workbook changed trait humility; nor did the control condition change in trait humility.

Trait forgivingness. A significant condition by time interaction effect occurred on forgivingness, F(4, 139) = 2.92, p = .023. Forgivingness values increased significantly over time within the forgiveness-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 14.37, p < .001, the humility-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 12.94, p < .001, the patience-workbook condition, .F(1, 139) = 15.25, p < .001, and the positivity-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 6.28, p = .013. No significant change in forgivingness occurred from Time 1 to Time 2 in the control condition.

Trait patience. No significant condition x time interaction effect occurred on trait patience, F (4, 139) = 2.08, p = .087. Trait patience values increased significantly over time within the forgiveness-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 10.14, p = .002, the humility-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 9.17, p = .003, and the patience-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 9.20, p = .003. No significant change in trait patience occurred in either the positivity-workbook condition or control condition.

Trait self-control. No significant time by condition interaction effect occurred on trait self-control, F(4, 139) = 1.47, p = .215. Trait self-control values changed significantly over time within the patience-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 5.96, p = .016, but not in any other condition.

Trait negativity. No significant time by condition interaction effect occurred on trait negativity, F(4, 139) = 1.96, p = .105. Trait negativity values decreased significantly over time within the forgiveness-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 4.77, p = .031, the humility-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 5.19, p = .017, and the positivity-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 8.90, p = .003. Marginally significant reductions in trait negativity occurred in the patience-workbook condition, F(1, 139) = 3.34, p = .070. No significant change in trait negativity occurred in the control condition.

Discussion

Results from Study 1 indicated that humility, forgiveness, patience, and positivity workbooks each resulted in significant improvement for their target virtue. Consistent with the proposition that many virtues are interrelated (Baehr, 2011), humility, forgiveness, and patience workbooks all showed significant improvement among at least one other trait virtue as well as the target virtue. Still, differentiation of outcomes was present, depending on which virtue was being specifically promoted. Although analytic strategy mandates reporting results by dependent variable, we discuss the effects of each workbook, which is of more interest.

The PROVE Humility workbook. Participants who completed the PROVE Humility workbook reported improvements in humility and forgivingness, a sensible connection due to mutual warmth-based virtue status (Worthington & Berry, 2005). Those completing the humility workbook also increased in patience, consistent with Means et al., (1990). Additionally, the PROVE Humility workbook decreased trait negativity. This finding is consistent with Mor and Winquist's (2002) meta-analysis examining self-focus and negative affect. This decrease in negative affect also supports humility's potentially healing role in clinical applications (Alvarez-Segura et al., 2015; Lavelock et al., 2016).

Other workbooks. The other virtue-promoting workbooks demonstrate relatedness among virtues. For example, in addition to producing changes in trait forgivingness (consistent with Greer et al., 2014 and Harper et al., 2014), the forgiveness workbook also produced increased trait patience and reduced trait negativity. Similarly, the patience workbook increased patience and also increased trait forgivingness and trait self-control and reduced trait negativity. These results also demonstrate the relatedness between patience and forgivingness, as well as between patience and self-control, consistent with the conceptualization of patience and self-control as conscientiousness-based virtues (see Worthington & Berry, 2005) that have shown close correlations in the past (see Berry, Worthington, Wade, Witvliet, & Kiefer, 2005). Finally, the positivity workbook contributed to a reduction in trait negativity. It also promoted forgivingness, but not other virtues, indicating that mood may have more influence on forgiveness than it does on other virtues.

Overall, consistent with our hypothesis of humility as a master virtue, the PROVE Humility workbook alone promoted humility and also promoted the most additional virtues relative to other virtue-promoting workbooks. Due to controlling for formatting variables and the inclusion of an active-control positivity workbook, these outcomes cannot be attributed solely to formatting or general decreases in trait negativity. Study 1 supports the idea that virtues may share an underlying theme of humility, and to promote humility may promote additional virtues.

Limitations. We were unable to examine positive affect in Study 1 due to our measure's exceptionally weak estimated reliability; as such, we cannot in good conscience rule out undetected increases in positive affect as confounding the outcomes of the PROVE Humility workbook. However, due to differential effects between the positivity and virtue-promoting workbooks, and because intercorrelations demonstrate that outcomes are likely unrelated to correlating virtue measures, Study 1 findings support that the virtue-promoting content of the workbooks, not decreases in negative affect, may have driven changes in trait virtues.

Study 2

In Lavelock et al. (2014), the initial version of the PROVE Humility workbook showed preliminary efficacy in improving humility across levels of religious commitment and spiritual transcendence. According to Study 1, this workbook also promoted trait forgivingness and trait patience in addition to trait humility and decreased trait negativity. Yet, much remains to be studied in relation to the PROVE Humility workbook. Importantly, we believed that revision of the workbook and replication and extension of the study would be prudent before conducting either further workbook investigation or studies with a wider spectrum of outcomes and community samples.

As a result, we incorporated revisions based on participant feedback related to the length of the workbook, as well as conceptual revisions including addition of recent research in humility, into an updated version of the workbook. This revision aimed to refine and clarify concepts, minimize redundancy, and expand upon the idiosyncrasies of promoting humility, rather than constraining to stylistic variables necessary for comparing efficacy across workbooks in the previous study. In Study 2, we tested the efficacy of a revised version of the PROVE Humility workbook against a test-retest control group. Based on results from initial testing of the PROVE Humility workbook (Lavelock et al., 2014) and on results from Study 1, we hypothesized that participants who completed the revised version would again improve in trait humility, trait forgivingness, trait patience, and trait negativity, over and above a test-retest control condition. Thus, Study 2 seeks to replicate initial efficacy found by Lavelock et al. (2014) in a revised form and to replicate the constellation of outcomes found in Study 1, which support humility as a master virtue.

Method

Participants. A convenience sample from the undergraduate research pool at a large mid-Atlantic university yielded 39 participants in the Fall 2013 semester. In the interest of maximizing the number of participants completing the intervention for this trial, all participants were assigned to complete the PROVE Humility workbook; 15 dropped out prior to completing the full study (see CONSORT Flowchart in Figure 2).

Once the final 24 participants completed the workbook, an equal number of participants (n = 24) were randomly drawn from the test-retest condition in Study 1 to serve as test-retest controls in Study 2. We elected to not divide the relatively small 24-person sample into conditions. The data from the 24 randomly selected control participants from Study 1 are not identical to the complete control dataset from previous trials, so those participants used in Study 2 differed from the participants in Study 1. However, the data were collected under such similar constraints as in Study 1, we considered it minimally adequate for comparative use in Study 2. It is far from ideal to use previously collected control data against a new intervention trial. However, using previously collected data did control for effects of completing measures of virtue multiple times. Thus we advise interpreting the findings with caution.

The 48 participants age ranged from 17-29 years of age (M = 18.56, SD = 2.00); 9 identified as male, and 39 identified as female. Participant ethnicities were 46.9% Caucasian, 26.5% African American, 12.2% Asian American, 4.1% Hispanic, 8.2% Other, and 2% preferred not to respond. Religious affiliation was not collected from the control-participants; participants who completed the PROVE Humility workbook were 54.2% Christian, 4.2% Muslim, 8.3% Atheist/Agnostic, 25% None, and 8.3% preferred not to respond.

Design. Study 2 compares a treatment condition to an external control condition. Such designs are often used in field studies and are similar to ways in which other outcome research uses benchmark comparisons (for example, see Shirk, Kaplinski, & Gudmundsen, 2009), but they do not meet the standard of a randomized controlled trial. As such, Study 2 is a quasiexperimental, longitudinal, repeated-measures intervention design. It involved a two condition (between-subject) by two assessment occasion (within-subject) comparison of the PROVE Humility workbook intervention against a test-retest control condition. Trait measures were taken on two occasions (pre-test and two-week follow-up, which was four weeks after the initial assessment).

Measures

Trait measures. We administered the same trait measures of humility, forgivingness, patience, self-control, and positive and negative affect as in Study 1. Higher scores on these scales indicated higher levels of the construct. Cronbach's alphas on these measures ranged from .75-.93 in the present study, including the positive affect measure.

Intervention workbook. For Study 2, we revised the PROVE Humility workbook (Lavelock et al., 2012/2013), such that it remained similar in structure but catered more specifically to the construct of humility. For example, in Study 1, we felt it was important for comparison's sake that the workbooks vary in content, but not structure, so that differences in efficacy could not be attributed to differing structure. In this revised version of the PROVE Humility workbook (Lavelock et al., 2013), the format is similar but relaxed, allowing the idiosyncrasies of promoting humility to result in more exercises in some areas and fewer in others. In particular, we sought additional feedback from an expert in humility research, who offered elaboration and feedback on the workbook. Additionally, per feedback from participants about the length of the workbooks, we reduced repetition among exercises for a more succinct workbook experience. Ultimately, the revised version of the workbook involved fewer and newer exercises, based in recent research, and more freely promotes humility without being bound by a set structure.

Procedure. Study 2 was conducted in compliance with the Institutional Review Board. Individuals signed up for the study using an online recruitment tool, and data were collected in two waves. First, test-retest control participants (from Study 1) were collected over the course of the Summer and Fall 2012 semesters; these participants were randomly assigned to the test-retest control condition in Study 2. See Study 1 for data collection procedure.

The second wave of data collection also occurred in the Fall of 2012. After confirming participation status (a consent waiver was allowed), individuals were e-mailed a personalized link to the Time 1 measures via the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) Consortium (Harris et al., 2009). Upon completion of the initial battery, the intervention workbook was sent to all participants via REDCap link and completed by the participant within two-weeks. When participants uploaded their finished PROVE Humility workbooks to REDCap, they were checked for completion. Two weeks after completing the workbook (i.e., about four weeks from completing the initial battery), participants received Time 2 measures. Participants were compensated with research credit upon completion of the study. Participants completed the study in approximately five weeks (see Figure 2).

Results

Means and standard deviations for trait measures are reported in Table 3. We conducted a MANOVA for those completing (n = 48) versus the omitted participants (n = 15) to compare the initial values of the trait variables at Time 1. The results revealed no significant differences between conditions on any measure at Time 1, multivariate F(6, 56) = 1.26,p = .289. Thus, those participants who completed measures at only Time 1 (n = 15) were omitted from further analyses.

Control for Type I error on correlations. As in Study 1, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of .003 was used to determine statistical significance of correlations. Intercorrelations of all scale scores are reported in Table 4; it is noteworthy that the VIA measure of trait humility was correlated only with the PANAS measure of trait negativity.

Manipulation checks on treatment fidelity. As in Study 1, data were collected to examine the fidelity with which the PROVE Humility workbooks (n = 24) were completed. Workbook completion times ranged from 300 minutes to 604 minutes, and the average time for completion time was M = 465.17 minutes (SD = 70.56), or 7.75 hours.

Next, we looked to word count in the 24 workbooks. Total word count ranged from 677-9,619 words, and the average word count was M = 4607.88 (SD = 1684.21). The average words per response in the humility workbook was M = 21.33 (SD = 7.80).

As aforementioned, we assessed learning using the eight-item measure at the end of the workbook. The highest possible score on this measure was 40, which reflects the most learning, and the lowest possible score was 8. Of the 22 participants who completed this assessment, M = 33.45 (SD = 4.34). We conclude that participants, on average, devoted sufficient time and writing to the workbook and found it to be a helpful learning tool to promote humility. These data support the engagement of participants and the workbook as an appropriate manipulation.

Hypothesis testing. We predicted that those in the PROVE Humility workbook condition would show an increase in trait humility and other virtues over time, and the control condition would not. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a two condition (humility workbook or test-retest condition) by time (pre-test and follow-up) MANOVA using the trait measures for humility, forgivingness, patience, self-control, positivity, and negativity as dependent variables.

For the MANOVA on trait measures, there was a significant condition by time interaction effect on the outcome measures, multivariate F(6, 41) = 3.69, p = .005. Due to the presence of the multivariate effect, univariate 2x2 (condition x time) ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent variable to determine the locus of effect. Significant univariate (condition x time) functions were followed by simple main effects analyses scores for each condition over time.

Trait humility. There was a significant condition x time interaction effect on trait humility, F(1, 46) = 4.35, p = .042. Trait humility values changed significantly over time within the humility condition, F(1, 46) = 5.42, p = .024. No significant change in trait humility occurred in the control condition, F(1,46) = .39,p = .536.

Trait forgivingness. There was a significant condition x time interaction effect on trait forgivingness, F(1, 46) = 8.59,p = .005. Trait forgivingness values changed significantly over time within the humility condition, 46) = 13.00, p = .001. No significant change in trait forgivingness occurred in the control condition, F(1,46) = .29, p = .593.

Trait patience. There was a significant condition x time interaction effect on trait patience, F(1, 46) = 5.52, p = .023. Trait patience values changed significantly over time within the humility condition, F(1, 46) = 7.54, p = .009. No significant change in trait patience occurred in the control condition, F(1, 46) = 33, p = .568

Trait self-control. There was no significant condition x time interaction effect on trait self-control, F(1, 46) = 1.83, p = .182.

Trait positivity. There was no significant condition x time interaction effect on trait positivity F(1, 46) = .06, p = .814.

Trait negativity. There was a significant condition x time interaction effect on trait negativity, F(1,46) = 13.20, p = .001. Trait negativity values changed significantly over time within the humility condition, F(1, 46) = 17.03, p < .001. No significant change in trait negativity occurred in the control condition, F(1, 46) = 1.02, p = .317.

Discussion

In this study examining a revised version of the PROVE Humility workbook, we found the replication of initial efficacy established by Lavelock et al. (2014) and additional virtue outcomes established by Study 1 to be successful when compared to a control condition that accounted for the effects of repeatedly completing measures that assess virtue. The field study design does not meet the stringent requirements of random assignment and does not control for events that might have occurred during the two periods of data collection. However, in effectiveness research this type of design is often used when benchmarking controls are used.

The revised version of the PROVE Humility workbook showed an improvement in trait humility over time for participants who completed the workbooks. Consistent with Lavelock et al. (2014), this finding supports the use of the workbook for promoting humility. We also found that the revised PROVE Humility workbook produced changes in trait forgivingness, patience, and negativity. This replication of the exact constellation of warmth and conscientiousness-based virtue outcomes (Worthington & Berry, 2005) from Study 1 provides continued support of the workbook as reliable and also of humility as a potential "master virtue."

Additionally, a comparison of effect sizes between the initial (Lavelock et al., 2014) and revised workbooks, respectively, shows an improvement over time in participants' levels of trait humility (d = .35, d = .86), forgivingness (d = .40, d = .91), and trait negativity (d = .05, d = .48). Only the effect size of trait patience was slightly greater in the initial version of the workbook compared to the revised version (d = .28, d = .19). Despite revisions to make the edited version of the PROVE Humility workbook shorter with fewer and more succinct exercises, the completion time was actually slightly longer (M = 7.75 hours, SD = 1.18 hours) than the initial testing (M =7.51, SD = 3.70 hours).

Overall, Study 2 suggests that the revised version of the PROVE Humility workbook is stronger than the initial version (Lavelock et al., 2014). This may be a result of the workbook's improved construct validity; by narrowing its scope to more humility-specific exercises and constructs and consulting with an expert on humility in the revision, effect sizes were improved relative to the more generic, preliminary humility workbook used in Study 1. However, given that the design of Study 2 was not a traditional randomized controlled trial, results should be interpreted tentatively.

General Discussion

The present studies explored and supported the idea that humility may be a higher-order virtue that helps facilitate the development of other virtues. Based in the tradition of Augustine, who claimed that humility was a foundational virtue, and in the theological realization that Christians are to work toward a humble character, we provided a do-it-yourself workbook-intervention with some empirical support to promote humility. Consistent with Christian theology and New Testament Scriptures supporting humility's underpinning of other Christian virtues, as well as with theorizing in psychology (e.g., Alvarez-Segura et al., 2015; Seligman, 2002), the PROVE Humility workbook's promotion of humility appeared to also produce improvement in other virtues, while no other virtue-promoting workbook produced improvement in humility. Additionally, consistent with previous research investigating forgiveness (Rye & Pargament, 2002; Rye et al., 2005), the secular PROVE Humility workbook appeared to promote a largely religious construct, humility, and those who completed the workbook showed consistent gains in trait humility, forgivingness, patience, and negativity across Studies 1 and 2. These studies support that focusing on the promotion of some virtues may provide more far-reaching positive effects, influencing a range of lower-order virtues associated with specific contexts. Thus, consistent with theological as well as psychological literature, practicing humility may have far reaching influence regarding virtuous behavior and other positive outcomes.

Limitations

First, the present studies utilized convenience samples from an undergraduate psychology pool, which is not ideal but is sufficient for the early study of these workbook interventions. This is particularly true given that non-clinical samples are the intended audience of such a workbook, and we believe we attained culturally and developmentally diverse samples within this pool. Second, we acknowledge that collecting a new control sample and using random assignment would have been ideal in Study 2. However, we concluded that because control data were collected under such similar conditions within a narrow period of time, that to utilize these control data in order to maximize participants in the intervention condition would contribute additional evidence aimed at establishing an evidence-based practice in psychology, even if interpreted cautiously. Finally, self-report measures would have been better used alongside other objective or other-report measures. Still, each measure included had strong psychometric support in previous studies and in the current studies.

Whereas Tangney (2005) had raised concerns about the valid interpretation of scores on self-report measures of humility, by 2017 those concerns had largely been put to rest. Hill, et al. (2017) reviewed self-report measures and concluded they allowed valid interpretation of scores to measure humility. Furthermore, in reviewing the evidence from 23 qualitative review chapters in an edited book on humility, Worthington et al. (2017) concluded that scores on self-report measures had strong evidence supporting their valid interpretation for assessing the construct of humility, as long as a situation did not present strong environmental cues to present humbly. Worthington and Allison (2017) concurred in an independent review. We do believe that though demand characteristics seemed attenuated, as evidenced by null results for the self-control workbook, we cannot deny the potential impact of demand characteristics in any study that recruits people to engage in an intervention to increase their humility, so we remain somewhat skeptical of overly positive interpretation of the findings in our studies.

Future Directions

Our results across two studies were generally consistent with what we might expect of a master virtue. As a general area of basic research, additional theory and empirical work is needed to explore how virtue hierarchies affect virtuous behavior. This should also provide implications for interventions. Interventions can be a strong way to examine basic research questions, such as the focus of the present studies. These results would be more definitive if demonstrated across a range of methodologies that would rule out alternative explanations, such as social desirability, expectancy, or mono-method bias. Furthermore, identifying key mechanisms or mediators would help rule out such threats to internal validity, and additional testing to support convergent and divergent validity is indicated. Likewise, it would be helpful to assess actual behavior rather than self-report. In addition, it would be important to explore possible personal or contextual factors that might influence the potency of humility on other virtuous behavior.

Now that the PROVE Humility workbook has shown efficacious results in two samples of healthy college students with only some, uncontrolled religious affiliation, more diverse sampling is indicated. We suggest that in the future, greater religious and spiritual diversity be sought among participants, as religious people often highly value humility (Porter et al., 2017) but may value them differently, depending on religious affiliation. Given Christianity's emphasis on the value of humility, we suggest that if the sample were predominantly Christians, then the results might be even stronger than in the present study. Similarly, Greer et al. (2014) adapted a secular forgiveness workbook intervention using REACH Forgiveness into a Christian intervention, the effect sizes were almost twice as high as non-religious samples (see the benchmarking analysis in Greer et al., 2014). It is reasonable to expect that adapting the humility workbook for a Christian sample could produce even higher levels of humility, and perhaps higher levels of forgivingness, self-control, and patience as well.

Conclusion

Humility is a construct valued across religious and secular domains, but particularly within the context of Christian theology. In the present studies, the self-directed PROVE Humility workbook demonstrated improved efficacy for promoting humility as it was modified. These studies also support this workbook as a way to capitalize on humility's other-oriented qualities, which appeared to promote additional virtues. Using this workbook, we garnered tentative initial support for humility as a potential "master virtue" that may allow for more complete and expeditious development of virtuous character and behaviors. We hope that the promotion of humility and other virtues will instigate positive changes in individuals and across communities so that they lead lives of health, happiness, and virtue.

Caroline R. Lavelock, Everett L. Worthington, Jr., Brandon J. Griffin, Rachel C. Garthe, & Aaliah Elnasseh

Virginia Commonwealth University

Don E. Davis

Georgia State University

Joshua N. Hook

University of North Texas

Author Note: Caroline R Lavelock, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University; Everett L. Worthington, Jr., Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University; Brandon J. Griffin, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University; Rachel C. Garthe, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University; Aaliah Elnasseh, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University; Don E. Davis, Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, Georgia State University; Joshua N. Hook, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas.

Since completing this research, Caroline R. Lavelock has completed her studies at Virginia Commonwealth University and is now an independent scholar; Brandon J. Griffin is now in the department of Research Service at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Hospital; Rachel C. Garthe is at the School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago; Aaliah Elnasseh is now an independent scholar.

We would like to acknowledge the generous financial support of a grant from Fuller Theological Seminary and the 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; Grant No. 48321, Behavioral Measures of Humility in Couples). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Fuller Thrive Center or the John Templeton Foundation. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Caroline Lavelock at carolinebratney@gmail.com

References

Alvarez-Segura, M., Echavarria, M. F., & Vitz, P. C. (2015). Reconceptualizing neurosis as a degree of egocentricity: Ethical issues in psychological theory. Journal of Religion and Health, 54, 1788-1799.

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

Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Escaping the self: Alcoholism, spirituality, masochism, and other flights from the burden of selfhood. New York: Basic Books.

Baumeister, R. F., & Exline, J.J. (1999). Virtue, personality and social relations: Self-control as the moral muscle. Journal of Personality, 67, 1165-1194.

Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., Jr., O'Connor, L. E., Parrott., L., III., & Wade, N. G. (2005). Forgivingness, vengeful rumination, and affective traits. Journal of Personality, 73,183-225.

Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Wade, N., Van Oyen Witvliet, C., & Kiefer, R (2005). Forgiveness, moral identity, and perceived justice in crime victims and their supporters. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 29(2), 136-162.

Bollinger, R. A., & Hill, P. C. (2012). Humility. In T. Plante (Ed.), Religion, Spirituality, and Positive Psychology (pp. 31-47). Santa Barbara: Praeger.

Bommarito, N. (2013). Modesty as avirtue of attention. Philosophical Review, 122, 93-117.

Davis, D. E., Hook, J. H., 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., 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.

Fitzgerald, M. O., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.) (2004). Christian spirit. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom.

Flanagan, O. (1990). Virtue and ignorance. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(8), 420-428.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2009).Positivity: Groundbreaking research reveals how to embrace the hidden strength of positive emotions, overcome negativity, and thrive. New York: Crown Publishers/Random House.

Friese, M., Hofmann, W., & Wiers, R. W. (2011). On taming horses and strengthening riders: Recent developments in research on interventions to improve self-control in health behaviors. Self and Identity, 70, 336-351.

Grenberg J. (2005). Kant and the ethics of humility. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Greer, C. L., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Van Tongeren, D. R., Gartner, A. L., Jennings, D.J. II, Lin, Y., ... Ho, M. Y. (2014). Forgiveness of in-group offenders in Christian congregations. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6, 150-161.

Harper, Q., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Griffin, B. J., Lavelock, C. R, Hook, J. N., Vrana, S. R, & Greer, C. L. (2014). Efficacy of a workbook to promote forgiveness: A randomized controlled trial with university students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70,1158-1169.

Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R, Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42, 377-381.

Hill, P. C., Laney, E. K., Edwards, K.J., Wang, D. C., Orme, W. H., Chan, A. C., & Wang, F. L. (2017). A few good measures: Colonel Jessup and humility. In Worthington, E. L., Jr., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (Eds.), Handbook of humility: Research, theory, and application (pp. 119-134). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hook, J. N., & Davis, D. E. (2014). Humility, religion, and spirituality: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42(1), 3-6.

Hume, D. (1888). A treatise of human nature. Selby-Bigge (Ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Kesebir, P. (2014). A quiet ego quiets death anxiety: Humility as an existential anxiety buffer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 610-623.

Krause, N. (2010). Religious involvement, humility, and self-rated health. Social Indicators Research, 98, 23-39.

Krause, N. (2012). Religious involvement, humility, and change in self-rated health over time. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 40, 199-210.

Lavelock, C. R, & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2012). The path to positivity: Six practical sections for becoming a more positive person. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Lavelock, C. R, Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Burnette, J. L. (2012). The path to self-control: Six practical sections for becoming a more disciplined person. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Lavelock, C. R, Worthington, E. L.,Jr., & Davis, D. E. (2012/2013). The path to humility: Six practical sections for becoming a more humble person. Retrieved from http://www.evworthington-forgiveness.com/diy-workbooks

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.

Lavelock, C. R, Worthington, E. L., Jr., Griffin, B. J., Garthe, R, Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2016). Humility intervention research: A qualitative review. In E.L. Worthington, Jr., D. Davis, & J. Hook (Eds.), Handbook of Humility: Theory, Research, and Applications (pp. 274-285). New York: Routledge.

Lavelock, C. R, Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Schnitker, S. A. (2012). The path to patience: Six practical sections for becoming a more patient person. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Leach, M. M., & Ajibade, A. (2017). Spiritual and religious predictors, correlates, and sequelae of humility. In E. L. Worthington, Jr., D. E. Davis, & J. N. Hook (Eds.), Handbook of humility: Research, theory, and application (pp. 192-204). New York, NY: Routledge.

Means, J. R, Wilson, G. L, Sturm, C., Biron, J. E., & Bach, P. J. (1990). Humility as a psychotherapeutic formulation. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 3, 211-215.

Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 638-662.

Murphy, J. G. (2017). Humility as a moral virtue. In E. L., Worthington, Jr., D. E. Davis, & J. N. Hook (Eds.), Handbook of humility: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 19-32). New York, NY: Routledge.

Peters, A., Rowatt, W. C., & Johnson, M. K. (2011). Associations between dispositional humility and social relationship quality. Scientific Research, 2, 155-161.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Humility and modesty. In C. Peterson & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (pp. 461-475). New York: Oxford University Press.

Porter, S. L., Rambachan, A., de Cea, A. V., Rabinowitz, D., Pardue, S., & Jackson, S. (2017). Religious perspectives on humility. In E. L., Worthington, Jr., D. E. Davis, & J. N. Hook (Eds.), Handbook of humility: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 47-61). New York, NY: Routledge.

Quinn, J. M., Pascoe, A., Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2010). Can't control yourself? Monitor those bad habits. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 499-511.

Roberts, R C., & Cleveland, W. S. (2017). Humility from a philosophical point of view. In E. L. Worthington, Jr., D. E. Davis, and J. N. Hook (Eds.), Handbook of humility: Research, theory, and application (pp. 33-46). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rye, M. S., & Pargament, K. I. (2002). Evaluation of a secular and religiously integrated forgiveness group therapy program for college students who have been wronged by a romantic partner. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 419-441.

Rye, M. S., Pargament, K. I., Pan, W., Yingling, D. W., Shogren, K. A., & Ito, M. (2005). Can group interventions facilitate forgiveness of an ex-spouse? A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 880-892.

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

Schnitker, S. A. (2012). An examination of patience and well-being. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 263-280.

Schnitker, S.A., & Emmons, R A. (2007a). Good things come to those who wait: Examining trait patience. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association National Convention. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database.

Schnitker, S. A., & Emmons, R. A. (2007b). Patience as a virtue: Religious and psychological perspectives. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 18, 177-207.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.

Shirk, S. R, Kaplinski, H., & Gudmundsen, G. (2009). School-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for adolescent depression: A benchmarking study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17(2), 106-117.

Stokes, P. K. (2011). Patience: Engaged acceptance of enduring unpleasant conditions. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association National Convention, Washington DC.

Tangney, J. P. (2005). Humility. In C. R Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 411-419). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271-324.

Van Tongeren, D. R, Davis, D. E., & HookJ. N. (2014). Social benefits of humility: Initiating and maintaining romantic relationships. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(4), 313-321.

Van Tongeren, D. R., Stafford, J., Hook J. N., Green, J. D., Davis, D. E., & Johnson, K. A. (2016). Humility attenuates negative attitudes and behaviors toward religious out-group members. Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(1), 199-208.

Wade, N. G., Hoyt, W. T., Kidwell, J. E. M., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2014). Meta-analysis of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 154-170.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Teilegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.

Weiss, H. M., & Knight, P. A. (1980). The utility of humility: Self-esteem, information search, and problem-solving efficiency. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25(2), 216-223.

Woodruff, E., Van Tongeren, D. R., McElroy, S., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Humility and religion: Benefits, difficulties, and a model of religious tolerance. In C. Kim-Prieto (Ed.), Positive psychology of religion and spirituality across cultures (pp. 271-285). New York: Springer.

Worthington, E. L, Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2007). Humility: The quiet virtue. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press.

Worthington, E. L-, Jr. & Allison, S. T. (in press). Heroic humility: What the science of humility can say to people raised on self focus. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Berry, J. W. (2005). Virtues, vices, and character education. In W. R Miller and H. D. Delaney (Eds.),Ju-deo-Christian perspectives on psychology: Human nature, motivation, and change (pp. 145-164). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of humility: Research, theory, and application. New York, NY: Routledge.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook J. N., Davis, D. E., & McDaniel, M. (2011). Religion and spirituality. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 67(2), 204-214.

Worthington, E. L, Jr., Lavelock, C. R, & Scherer, M. (2012). The path to forgiveness: Six practical sections for becoming a more forgiving person. Retrieved from http://www.evworthington-forgiveness. com/diy-workbooks

Author Information

LAVELOCK, CAROLINE R. Ph.D. Email: carolinebratney@gmail.com Title: Independent Scholar. Degrees: PhD, Virginia Commonwealth University.

WORTHINGTON JR. EVERETT L. Ph.D. Address: Box 842018, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284-2018. Email: eworth@vcu.edu Title: Commonwealth Professor. Degrees: PhD (Counseling), University of Missouri-Columbia. Specializations: Forgiveness, Humility, Positive psychology, Religion and spirituality, Hope-focused couple approach.

GRIFFIN, BRANDON J. Ph.D. Address: 4150 Clement Street (116H), San Francisco, CA 94121. Email: griffinb2@mymail.vcu. edu Title: Research Health Science Specialist. Degrees: PhD (Counseling Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: Military psychology, Positive health psychology, Quantitative methods.

GARTHE, RACHEL C. Ph.D. Address: University of Chicago, 969 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637. Email: gartherc@uchicago.edu Title: Research Scientist. Degrees: PhD (Developmental Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: Youth violence, Violence prevention, Positive psychology.

ELNASSEH, AALIAH. Ph.D. Address: 11625 Peavey Street, Glen Allen, VA 23059. Email: aaliah.elnasseh@gmail.com Title: Researcher. Degrees: BS (Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth University.

DAVIS, DON E. Ph.D. Address: 4810 Dixon Lake Drive, Smyrna, GA 30082. Email: ddavis88@gsu.edu Degrees: PhD (Counseling Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: Humility and its related virtues (forgiveness/gratitude), spirituality and its intersection with other identities.

HOOK, JOSHUA N. Ph.D. Address: 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203. Email: joshua.hook@unt.edu Title: Associate Professor. Degrees: PhD (Counseling Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: Humility, Religion and spirituality, Multicultural counseling.

Caption: FIGURE 1 CONSORT Flow Chart that depicting students' progression through Study 1.

Caption: FIGURE 2 CONSORT Flow Chart depicting students' progression through Study 2. TABLE 1 Study 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Outcome Measures, N = 168 Forgiveness Humility (n=30) (n=26) Condition T1 T2 T1 T2 VIA M 34.73 35.54 32.62 35.19 * (SD) (6.66) (5.40) (5.19) (5.88) TFS M 30.90 34.79 * 32.27 36.23 * (SD) (7.22) (6.72) (6.11) (7.82) PS M 34.57 37.43 * 35.35 38.27 * (SD) (6.58) (6.41) (6.57) (5.86) SCS M 42.93 42.71 39.27 40.38 (SD) (9.18) (9.41) (9.82) (10.12) Neg M 21.63 19.04 22.85 19.77 * (SD) (9.11) (7.17) (6.98) (6.35) Patience Self-Control (n=28) (n=24) Condition T1 T2 T1 T2 VIA M 35.29 35.14 34.63 35.92 (SD) (6.38) (6.73) (5.78) (5.63) TFS M 32.29 36.43 * 35.67 36.38 (SD) (7.18) (5.51) (6.50) (6.02) PS M 36.39 39.21 * 38.17 38.46 (SD) (6.28) (5.92) (6.94) (7.23) SCS M 41.68 44.36 * 40.63 41.75 (SD) (10.19) (10.64) (8.56) (7.99) Neg M 19.61 17.36 18.79 17.83 (SD) (5.70) (6.37) (5.99) (4.09) Positivity Control (n=27) (n=33) Condition T1 T2 T1 T2 VIA M 34.44 35.20 33.42 33.13 (SD) (6.94) (6.42) (4.87) (5.88) TFS M 35.33 38.04 *(^) 33.39 33.45 ([dagger]) (SD) (5.45) (5.56) (5.73) (6.11) PS M 35.96 37.56 36.48 36.47 (SD) (5.20) (5.44) (6.67) (6.97) SCS M 40.70 42.20 41.15 40.69 (SD) (4.98) (6.60) (8.95) (9.34) Neg M 20.93 17.19 * 19.61 20.13 (SD) (6.26) (3.99) (7.68) (7.99) Note. Possible values for the VIA (Values in Action) measure of humility range from 9-45. Possible values for the TFS (Trait Forgivingness Scale) measure of forgivingness range from 10-50. Possible values for the PS (Patience Scale) measure of patience range from 10-50. Possible values for the SCS (Self-Control Scale) measure of self-control range from 13-65. Possible values for the Neg (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) measure of negativity range from 10-50. * = significantly different from own condition's Time 1 score + = significantly different from positivity condition's score at the same time (^) = significantly different from control condition's score at the same time TABLE 2 Study 1 Intercorrelations for Outcome Variables at Time 1, N = 168 TFS VIA PS SCS Pos Neg TFS -- VIA .144 -- PS .414 * .213 -- SCS .191 .296 * .320 * -- TPos .181 .146 .252 * .388 * -- TNeg -.185 -.111 -.296 * -.346 * -.367 * -- Note. TFS = Trait Forgivingness Scale; VIA = Values in Action (humility); PS = Patience Scale; SCS = Self-Control Scale; TPos = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (positivity; caution, alpha for scale is .48); Neg = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (negativity). * p =.003 (Bonferroni-corrected). TABLE 3 Study 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Outcome Measures, N = 48 Humility (n=24) Control (n=24) Condition T1 T2 T1 T2 VIA M 35.08 37.71 33.75 36.10 (SD) (5.20) (5.31) (4.76) (7.04) TFS M 34.13 37.75 32.79 33.05 (SD) (5.98) (6.35) (6.29) (5.51) PS M 35.04 37.33 36.58 40.70 (SD) (4.71) (5.91) (7.22) (9.44) SCS M 40.75 41.67 42.50 32.78 (SD) (8.26) (9.82) (8.42) (5.30) Neg M 22.67 17.38 19.71 28.65 (SD) (6.67) (5.86) (8.41) (12.03) Note. VIA = Values in Action Scale; TFS = Trait Forgivingness Scale; PS = Patience Scale; SCS = Self-Control Scale; Neg = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. TABLE 4 Study 2 Intercorrelations for Outcome Variables at Time 1, N = 48 VIA TFS PS SCS Pos Neg VIA -- TFS -.02 -- PS .124 .123 -- SCS .186 .050 .304 -- TPos .356 .045 .318 .492 * -- TNeg -.420 * .047 -.268 -.277 -.307 -- Note. TFS = Trait Forgivingness Scale; VIA = Values in Action (humility); PS = Patience Scale; SCS = Self-Control Scale; TPos = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (positivity; caution, alpha for scale is .48); Neg = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (negativity). * p =.003 (Bonferroni-corrected).