PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Van Tongeren, Daryl R.]On: 21 April 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 936747877]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality AssessmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653663

Relational Humility: Conceptualizing and Measuring Humility as aPersonality JudgmentDon E. Davisa; Joshua N. Hookb; Everett L. Worthington Jr.a; Daryl R. Van Tongerena; Aubrey L.Gartnera; David J. Jennings IIa; Robert A. Emmonsc

a Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, b Department of Psychology,University of North Texas, c Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis

Online publication date: 21 April 2011

To cite this Article Davis, Don E. , Hook, Joshua N. , Worthington Jr., Everett L. , Van Tongeren, Daryl R. , Gartner,Aubrey L. , Jennings II, David J. and Emmons, Robert A.(2011) 'Relational Humility: Conceptualizing and MeasuringHumility as a Personality Judgment', Journal of Personality Assessment, 93: 3, 225 — 234To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2011.558871URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.558871

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(3), 225–234, 2011Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00223891.2011.558871

Relational Humility: Conceptualizing and Measuring Humility asa Personality Judgment

DON E. DAVIS,1 JOSHUA N. HOOK,2 EVERETT L. WORTHINGTON JR.,1 DARYL R. VAN TONGEREN,1 AUBREY L. GARTNER,1

DAVID J. JENNINGS II,1 AND ROBERT A. EMMONS3

1Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University2Department of Psychology, University of North Texas

3Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis

The study of humility has progressed slowly due to measurement problems. We describe a model of relational humility that conceptualizeshumility as a personality judgment. In this set of 5 studies, we developed the 16-item Relational Humility Scale (RHS) and offered initial evidencefor the theoretical model. In Study 1 (N = 300), we developed the RHS and its subscales—Global Humility, Superiority, and Accurate View ofSelf. In Study 2, we confirmed the factor structure of the scale in an independent sample (N = 196). In Study 3, we provided initial evidencesupporting construct validity using an experimental design (N = 200). In Study 4 (N = 150), we provided additional evidence of construct validityby examining the relationships between humility and empathy, forgiveness, and other virtues. In Study 5 (N = 163), we adduced evidence ofdiscriminant and incremental validity of the RHS compared with the Honesty-Humility subscale of the HEXACO–PI (Lee & Ashton, 2004).

With the rise of positive psychology, the study of virtue isthriving (Lopez & Snyder, 2009). Literatures on virtues suchas forgiveness (Worthington, 2005), gratitude (Emmons & Mc-Cullough, 2004), hope (Snyder, Rand, & Sigmon, 2002), andoptimism (Carver & Scheier, 1994) have expanded rapidly. In-deed, even the study of modesty is flourishing (Sedikides, Gregg,& Hart, 2007). In stark contrast, the study of humility has beenstagnant, mainly due to measurement problems (Tangney, 2009).

One reason that modesty has been studied more rigorouslythan humility is that definitions of modesty have led to generallyaccepted measurement strategies. Namely, two types of mod-esty have been defined (Gregg, Hart, Sedikedes, & Kumashiro,2008). Intrapersonal modesty refers to having an accurate viewof self—not too high or low. This has been measured as self-enhancement, which is the degree to which a person has anoverly positive view of self. Interpersonal modesty refers to thetendency to moderate praise or recognition in socially acceptableways, particularly in public settings. This has been measured byobserving how participants act in experimental studies. For ex-ample, Tice, Butler, Muraven, and Stillwell (1995) found thatpeople tend to portray themselves more modestly with friendsthan strangers. These two modesty constructs might not neces-sarily overlap.

In contrast, humility has been more difficult to define. Def-initions of humility include, but are not limited to, both typesof modesty. Humility also includes other interpersonal qual-ities, such as respect and empathy during conflict, opennesstoward different cultures or worldviews, and acceptance of selfas subordinate to God or the transcendent (for a review of def-initions, see Davis, Worthington, & Hook, 2010). Furthermore,humility involves thinking and acting in these ways for the rightreasons (i.e., other-oriented motivations). It involves integrity

Received April 26, 2010; Revised September 8, 2010.Address correspondence to Don E. Davis, Department of Psychology, Vir-

ginia Commonwealth University, 806 West Franklin Street, Richmond, VA23284–2018; Email: don.davis@aya.yale.edu

of belief, behavior, and motivation (Davis, Worthington, et al.,2010; Tangney, 2009). Such multifaceted definitions have madehumility difficult to measure.

Given that humility has been defined in such aspirationalterms, humility researchers have doubted the validity of self-reports of humility. That is, people who claim to be very humblewould seem to be bragging about their humility, something trulyhumble people would not do. People tend to self-enhance on val-ued traits such as humility (John & Robins, 1993). Researchershave hypothesized that to the degree that people are truly hum-ble, they will more modestly report their own humility on self-report measures (Davis, Worthington, et al., 2010). Therefore,truly humble people might modestly underreport their humility,moderately humble people might overestimate their humilitysome, and people low in humility (e.g., narcissists) might over-estimate their humility a great deal. Although this modestyeffect for self-reports of humility has not been tested empiri-cally, humility researchers have assumed that it undermines thevalidity of self-reports. This problem led Tangney (2005) to con-clude that humility might be “one construct that is simply notamenable to self-reports” (p. 415). Given the problems with self-reports, researchers have sought other strategies of measuringhumility.

FOUR APPROACHES TO MEASURING HUMILITY

Davis, Worthington, et al. (2010) reviewed and critiqued fourapproaches to measuring humility: self-reports, social compar-isons, implicit measures, and informant ratings. We briefly de-scribe each approach and its limitations.

Self-Reports

Despite the strong warnings of humility researchers, self-report measures of humility have been created. Arguably,the strongest published measure of humility is the Honesty-Humility (HH) subscale of the HEXACO–PI (Lee & Ashton,2004). The HH was derived through factor analysis. Whereas

225

Downloaded By: [Van Tongeren, Daryl R.] At: 19:25 21 April 2011

226 DAVIS ET AL.

prior lexical studies of personality inventories have generallyfound five personality factors (Costa & McCrae, 1992), Lee andAshton extracted this sixth factor, which is most closely alignedwith Agreeableness from the traditional five-factor model. TheHH has four subscales: Fairness, Sincerity, Greed-Avoidance,and Modesty. With the addition of the HH, the HEXACO–PIhas demonstrated evidence of incremental predictive validity forconstructs related to low sociability, such as psychopathy, lackof sexual restraint, Machiavellianism, boredom proneness, andsocial adroitness (for a review, see Ashton & Lee, 2007). TheHH subscale has made a substantial contribution to the person-ality literature. However, a limitation of the scale is that it onlyaligns with one aspect of humility—namely, modesty as a lackof superiority (e.g., I am an ordinary person who is no betterthan others; I wouldn’t want people to treat me as though I weresuperior to them). The other subscales of the HH (Sincerity,Fairness, and Greed-Avoidance) do not align as well with howhumility has been defined.

Social Comparisons

Rowatt and his colleagues adapted a social-comparisonmethod from the self-enhancement literature to assess humil-ity. They defined humility as having an accurate view of self(Rowatt, Ottenbreit, Nesselroade, & Cunningham, 2002). Par-ticipants compared themselves to others (e.g., the average col-lege student) on how well they adhered to 12 biblical command-ments. One limitation of this method is that it cannot discernwhether scores reflect attitudes of superiority or accurate per-ceptions of true differences. For example, Rowatt et al. (2002)found that people with high intrinsic religiosity viewed them-selves as better at adhering to biblical commandments than oth-ers. Perhaps people who were intrinsically religious (i.e., reli-gious for its own sake rather than for extrinsic reasons, such associal contact or prestige) actually were more likely to adhereto religious teachings than those who were not as intrinsicallyreligious. Thus, an individual’s actual trait was not estimatedor accounted for, which is a confound that threatens the inter-nal validity of this approach (for a discussion, see Kwan, John,Kenny, Bond, & Robins, 2004; Kwan, John, Robins, & Kuang,2008).

Implicit Measures

Rowatt and other colleagues also developed the Implicit As-sociations Test of Humility versus Arrogance (IAT–HA; Powers,Nam, Rowatt, & Hill, 2007; Rowatt et al., 2006). Implicit mea-sures have been used to study other constructs that are prone toimpression management or socially desirable responding (e.g.,attitudes of racial prejudice or self-esteem; Greenwald & Ba-naji, 1995). For the IAT–HA, a computer program flashes wordswith either a humble or arrogant connotation on the monitor. Par-ticipants pair each word with self or other by pressing a corre-sponding key (e.g., S for self, O for other) as quickly as possible.Participants’ reaction times are used to infer their level of hu-mility. The logic behind the IAT is that people should performcognitively similar pairings more quickly than dissimilar pair-ings. For example, a humble person should pair humble wordswith self more quickly than arrogant words. The approach isa promising innovation in the measurement of humility. How-ever, the IAT–HA needs additional evidence of construct andcriterion-related validity. It was found to correlate with self-report measures of low humility (e.g., narcissism or an author-

created scale that contrasted humility and arrogance words), butnot with established self-report or other-report measures of hu-mility or modesty (Powers et al., 2007; Rowatt et al., 2006).Given that the IAT–HA was designed to address problems withself-reports, it is especially important to provide evidence ofcriterion validity, showing that the measure can predict humblebehaviors (e.g., doing charitable work without apparent recog-nition or other ulterior motives) or whether one is viewed ashumble by others.

Informant Ratings

Finally, researchers have used informant ratings to measurehumility. Namely, items from self-report measures of humilitywere adapted for use as other-reports. The approach has gen-erally been used as evidence of criterion-related validity foranother measurement strategy (e.g., self-report). Some studieshave failed to find a relationship between informant ratingsand the humility measure being studied (e.g., self-report, Park& Peterson, 2006; IAT–HA, Rowatt et al., 2006). Other stud-ies have found moderate agreement. For example, de Vries,Lee, and Ashton (2008) reported that self–other agreement onthe HEXACO–HH was as high as .60 by romantic partners,but ratings by casual acquaintances, coworkers, or friends weresubstantially lower (r = .22, .28, and .30, respectively).

One advantage of using other-reports to study humility is thatit avoids the paradox of having people self-report their ownhumility. Whereas claiming to be humble might be immodest,describing someone else as humble is not. Thus, a straightfor-ward measure of humility judgments, completed by informants,might be used to assess humility, at least within the context of aspecific relationship.

Still, the approach has several limitations. First, as we dis-cussed earlier, existing measures of humility do not align fullywith how humility has been defined. Second, using informantscan be a time-intensive and expensive method of research. TheInternet, however, has greatly increased the feasibility of suchresearch (Vazire, 2006). Third, until recently, researchers hadnot theoretically elaborated on what it might mean to use other-reports as a primary method of studying humility.

A MODEL OF RELATIONAL HUMILITY

To address the need for theoretical elaboration, Davis, Wor-thington, et al. (2010) proposed a model of relational humility.The model aligns the study of humility with a large literature onpersonality judgements (for reviews, see Funder, 1995; Kenny,2004; Kwan et al., 2004; McCrae & Weiss, 2007).

Relational humility was defined as an observer’s judgmentthat a target person (a) is interpersonally other-oriented ratherthan self-focused, marked by a lack of superiority; and (b) hasan accurate view of self—not too inflated or too low. Drawingon recent theorizing on moral emotions (Tangney, Stuewig, &Mashek, 2007), we suggested that people might judge humil-ity by focusing on the target person’s ability to cultivate pos-itive, other-oriented emotions, as well as regulate self-focusedemotions in modest and socially acceptable ways. Furthermore,an observer might infer someone’s view of self from his orher behavior, such as facial expressions, language, or abil-ity to learn from mistakes. For example, people who consis-tently overcommit and thus fail to meet their obligations mightbe viewed as having an inflated view of self. Accordingly,relational humility is measured by having an informant, who is

Downloaded By: [Van Tongeren, Daryl R.] At: 19:25 21 April 2011

RELATIONAL HUMILITY 227

in a relationship with a person, rate that person’s humility. Thissubjective judgment—including distortions caused by relation-ship factors, such as characteristics of the judge, the target, or theinformation available to the judge (Funder, 1995)—is the con-struct of interest.

Davis, Worthington, et al. (2010) also proposed that judg-ments of humility generally lead people to deepen their rela-tionship with a target person. According to a theory of emotionby Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, and Zhang (2007), consciousemotions do not cause behavior; rather, they cause a personto think about what just happened. Specifically, negative emo-tions cause people to examine details to prevent an undesiredevent, whereas positive emotions provide a global stamp of ap-proval, allowing a person to turn his or her attention toward thefuture (Fredrickson, 1998). When a judge perceives positive,other-oriented emotions (e.g., empathy, sympathy, or gratitude)being expressed, the judge might interpret this as a sign ofother-oriented respect and value. Accordingly, seeing the tar-get person as other-oriented should evoke positive emotionsthat cause the judge to view the target person as more humble.In contrast, when a judge perceives self-focused emotions (e.g.,shame, pride, or contempt) being expressed in socially offensiveways, this could signal selfishness and disrespect, which shouldevoke anxiety in the judge (Tangney et al., 2007), causing thejudge to view the target person as less humble.

To accurately judge humility, a person must actually ob-serve behaviors that are relevant to humility (Funder, 1995).We posit that humility is best observed in three situations thatmake being other-oriented difficult: (a) honor or recognition,(b) hierarchical roles, and (c) conflict. Each of these situationstends to threaten the hierarchy of relationships. For example,when a person receives an honor or recognition, other peoplemight feel jealous or question whether their relationship withthe person being honored will change. In hierarchical roles (e.g.,parent–child, manager–subordinate, or teacher–student), subor-dinates who want greater status or fear exploitation might rebelagainst the leader’s authority. During conflict, people might ex-perience negative emotions (e.g., disgust or contempt) that leadthem to feel morally superior to others, making empathy and re-spect difficult. Thus, in all three situations, humility counteractsthe naturally tendency of these situations to cause instability inrelationships.

PRESENT STUDIES

The purposes of this set of studies were to (a) provide initialevidence for the model of relational humility, (b) develop aface-valid measure of humility judgments that aligned with ourdefinition of relational humility, and (c) provide initial evidencethat both the HH and the Relational Humility Scale (RHS) canbe used to assess judgments of humility.

We created the 71-item RHS–71 by developing items to as-sess a range of qualities that have been theorized to be part ofhumility, including modesty, lack of superiority, accurate viewof self, respect and value for others, as well as a number of itemsthat directly assess humility (e.g., He or she is the most humbleperson I know).

In Study 1, we administered the RHS–71 to a sample of un-dergraduate students and used exploratory factor analysis (EFA)to examine the structure of the scale and evaluate items. The fi-nal version yielded a three-factor scale with 16 items, called theRHS. In Study 2, the factor structure of the RHS was replicatedon an independent sample using confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA). In Study 3, we conducted an experiment. Undergraduateparticipants nominated the most or least humble person theyhave known and then rated that person’s degree of humility. InStudy 4, we examined evidence for the construct- and criterion-related validity of the RHS. We also examined evidence for ourmodel of relational humility. Namely, we explored how judg-ments of humility affect relationships undergoing conflict (i.e.,one of three situations in which humility is most readily observ-able). In Study 5, we examined evidence of discriminant andincremental validity, comparing the RHS to the HH subscale ofthe HEXACO–PI (Lee & Ashton, 2004). As in Study 4, Study 5examined how humility judgments were related to forgivenessof an offense. We used both the RHS and the HH as measuresof relational humility.

STUDY 1The purposes of Study 1 were to (a) use EFA to determine

the factor structure of the RHS–71; (b) winnow items to create abrief, face-valid measure of humility judgments; and (c) provideinitial evidence of estimated internal consistency of the scale andsubscales.

Method

Participants. Participants were 300 undergraduate students(166 female) from a large urban university. Ages ranged from18 to 34 (M = 19.1, SD = 2.49). The sample was ethnicallydiverse (57.3% White/Caucasian, 15.3% Black/African Amer-ican, 18.0% Asian/Asian American, 4.0% Latino/Latina, and4.7% other or did not report).

Measure: Humility Judgments (RHS–71). We generateda list of 71 face-valid items—based on various definitions ofhumility—that corresponded with our theoretical conceptual-ization of relational humility. Participants rated the humility of aparent by indicating their agreement with items using a 5-pointrating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Example items include “He/she has a humble charac-ter,” “He/she has a big ego,” and “He/she knows him/herselfwell.”

Procedure. Participants were recruited from undergraduateclasses and participated in exchange for partial course credit. Af-ter giving consent, participants rated the humility of one of theirparents (75% chose to rate their mother) using the RHS–71through a secure online medium. After completing question-naires, participants were debriefed and given the contact infor-mation of the researcher should they have any questions.

Results and Discussion

The correlation matrix for all humility items was analyzed us-ing an EFA with maximum likelihood estimation (Fabrigar, We-gener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999) with an oblique (OBLIM)rotation. To determine the number of factors to extract, we con-ducted a Scree test (Cattell, 1966) as well as a parallel analysis(see Steger, 2006). The Scree test suggested a three-factor solu-tion, whereas parallel analysis suggested a six-factor solution.We decided to only retain the first three factors for several rea-sons: (a) only the three factors had enough items to constitute areliable subscale; (b) items on the fourth factor were related tomoral character (e.g., he or she is a moral person), but not neces-sarily humility; and (c) items on the fifth and sixth factor shared

Downloaded By: [Van Tongeren, Daryl R.] At: 19:25 21 April 2011

228 DAVIS ET AL.

TABLE 1.—Factor loadings for Relational Humility Scale (RHS) in Study 1.

M SD GH S AVS

Global HumilityHe/she has a humble character. 2.78 0.98 .90 −.04 .00He or she is truly a humble person. 2.98 0.99 .81 −.07 −.02Most people would consider

him/her a humble person.2.76 1.06 .70 .02 .01

His or her close friends wouldconsider him/her humble.

3.01 0.92 .63 −.03 −.05

Even strangers would considerhim/her humble.

2.68 0.99 .62 .04 −.03

SuperiorityHe/she thinks of him/herself too

highly.0.76 0.98 −.14 −.86 −.03

He/she has a big ego. 0.72 0.98 −.18 −.78 −.06He/she thinks of him/herself as

overly important.0.88 1.01 −.11 −.74 .00

Certain tasks are beneath him/her. 0.91 1.05 .06 −.67 .03I feel inferior when I am with

him/her.0.98 1.11 .10 −.60 −.02

He/she strikes me as self-righteous. 1.16 1.23 .06 −.57 .05He/she does not like doing menial

tasks for others.0.98 1.09 −.01 −.52 .03

Accurate View of SelfHe/she knows him/herself well. 2.85 0.94 .05 −.05 .87He/she knows his/her strengths. 2.83 0.98 .02 .09 .74He/she knows his/her weaknesses. 2.58 1.07 .02 −.07 .72He/she is self-aware. 2.33 1.12 −.02 .00 .57

Eigenvalue 6.31 2.50 1.79Variance accounted 36.99 12.88 9.11

Note. N = 300. Values shown in bold loaded on primary factor; GH = Global Humilitysubscale; S = Superiority subscale; AVS = Accurate View of Self subscale.

a common word (e.g., admire), but they did not align clearlywith a quality of humility, as defined in previous literature.

After examining the content of items, the factors were namedGlobal Humility (e.g., He/she has a humble character), Supe-riority (e.g., He/she has a big ego), and Accurate View of Self(e.g., He/she knows him/herself well). Items were dropped thatdid not load at least .50 on their primary factor, or that loadedover .25 on any secondary factor. In addition, two items weredropped from the Global Humility factor because they werehighly redundant with other items.

The final version of the RHS consisted of 16 items, with threefactors that are theoretically consistent with our definition ofrelational humility (Global Humility—5 items; Superiority—7items; Accurate View of Self—4 items). Descriptive statisticsand factor loadings for RHS are listed in Table 1. The threefactors accounted for 63.9% of the variance in items. The Cron-bach’s alphas for the full scale and subscales were .89 for thefull scale, .92 for Global Humility, .87 for Superiority, and .82for Accurate View of Self. The intercorrelations among the sub-scales were r = −.45 for Global Humility and Superiority; r =.40 for Global Humility and Accurate View of Self; and r =−.26 for Superiority and Accurate View of Self. These findingsprovide initial evidence that the RHS has a three-factor struc-ture. Because items were winnowed based on the characteristicsof one sample, we sought to confirm the factor structure in adifferent sample in Study 2.

STUDY 2Study 1 yielded a three-factor solution for a 16-item scale

of humility. The purposes of Study 2 were to (a) replicate the

three-factor structure of the RHS using a different sample and(b) provide additional evidence of the estimated internal consis-tency of the scale and subscales. Accordingly, we used CFA totest the structure of the RHS.

Method

Participants. Participants were 196 undergraduate students(122 female) from a large urban university. Ages ranged from18 to 42 (M = 19.2, SD = 2.95). The sample was ethnicallydiverse (55.1% White/Caucasian, 16.8% Black/African Amer-ican, 17.3% Asian/Asian American, 4.1% Latino/Latina, and6.7% other or did not report).

Measure: Humility judgments (RHS). Humility was as-sessed with the 16-item RHS, developed in Study 1. For thissample, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .90 for the FullScale, .92 for the Global Humility subscale, .82 for the Superi-ority subscale, and .79 for the Accurate View of Self subscale.The intercorrelations among the subscales were r = −.54 forGlobal Humility and Superiority, r = .40 for Global Humil-ity and Accurate View of Self, and −.34 for Superiority andAccurate View of Self.

Procedure. Participants were recruited from undergradu-ate classes and participated as part of a course requirement orin exchange for partial course credit. After giving consent, par-ticipants rated the humility of a parent (77% rated their mother)using the RHS through a secure online medium. After com-pleting questionnaires, participants were debriefed and giventhe contact information of the researcher should they have anyquestions.

Results and Discussion

The covariance matrix was analyzed with maximum likeli-hood estimation using Mplus 8.1 (Muthen & Muthen, 2010).Items of the RHS were used as indicators of the Global Hu-mility, Superiority, and Accurate View of Self factors, whichwere modeled as correlated factors. Several fit indexes were ex-amined to evaluate the overall fit of the model—the chi-squarevalue, the comparative fit index (CFI), the square root meanresidual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approxi-mation (RMSEA). As a rule of thumb, a CFI around .95, anSRMR equal to or less than .08, and an RMSEA equal to orless than .06 suggest good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We foundthat the three-factor model showed good fit, χ2(101, N = 196)= 168.21, p <.001, CFI = .96, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .06.We also compared the three-factor model to a one-factor modelusing a chi-square difference test. Fit worsened substantially forthe one-factor model, �χ2(3) = 574.59, p <.001. Therefore,the three-factor solution was retained. Thus, the results of Study2 provide additional evidence for the three-factor structure andinternal consistency of the RHS.

STUDY 3In Study 3, we manipulated humility experimentally. In a

between-subject design, we randomly assigned participants tonominate the most or least humble person they have known. Wehypothesized that the RHS subscales would detect differencesbetween the two groups, even after controlling for characteristicsof the relationship between the participant and the target person.

Downloaded By: [Van Tongeren, Daryl R.] At: 19:25 21 April 2011

RELATIONAL HUMILITY 229

Method

Participants. Participants were 200 undergraduate students(112 female) from a large urban university. Ages ranged from18 to 39 (M = 19.2, SD = 2.9). The sample was ethnicallydiverse (55.0% White/Caucasian, 17.0% Black/African Amer-ican, 17.5% Asian/Asian American, 4.0% Latino/Latina, and6.0% other or did not report).

Measures.

Humility Judgments: Humility was assessed using theRHS. Cronbach’s alphas for the Full Scale and for the GlobalHumility, Superiority, and Accurate View of Self subscales were.95, .97, .90, and .90, respectively.

Similarity and Closeness: Similarity and closeness to thetarget person were assessed using single-item measures (i.e.,“how similar are you to him or her”; “how close do you feelto him or her”). Items were completed on a 5-point rating scalefrom 1 (not at all similar [close]) to 5 (very similar [close]).

Positive and Negative Affect: Positive and negative affecttoward the target person were assessed using the 20-item Posi-tive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, &Tellegen, 1988). Items were completed using a 5-point ratingscale from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). Watsonet al. (1988) reported Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .84 to .90for the two subscales and temporal stability estimates rangingfrom .39 to .71. Watson et al. also reported evidence of con-struct validity. Scores on the scale were found to be related tomeasures of general distress and dysfunction, depression, andanxiety. For this sample, Cronbach’s alphas for the positive andnegative factors were .90 and .94, respectively.

State Empathy: Empathy toward the target person wasassessed using the 8-item Batson Empathy Adjectives (BEA;Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978). Participants rated each ad-jective (e.g., concerned) on a 6-point scale from 0 (not at all)to 5 (extremely). Coke et al. (1978) reported Cronbach’s alphasranging from .79 to .95. Scores on the scale show evidence ofconstruct validity and were found to be positively correlatedwith empathic concern, perspective taking, and helping behav-ior. The Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was .94.

Procedure. Participants were recruited from undergraduateclasses and participated in exchange for partial course credit.After giving consent, participants completed an online survey.Participants were alternately assigned to one of two conditions.In the most humble condition, participants described their re-lationship with a particular person they saw as most humble(40% rated a parent, 37.4% a friend, 16.2% a relative other thana parent, and 6% some other relationship). In the least hum-ble condition, participants described their relationship with theperson they saw as least humble (8.9% rated a parent, 54.5%a friend, 7.9% a relative other than a parent, and 28.7% someother relationship). Participants assessed their relationship withthe target person, including humility, similarity, closeness, andemotions toward the person (e.g., positive, negative, empathy).After completing questionnaires, participants were debriefedand given the contact information of the researcher should theyhave any questions.

Results and Discussion

To test whether conditions would differ on the RHS sub-scales, four univariate analyses of variance were conducted thatcompared RHS total scores and subscale scores between the twoexperimental conditions. To adjust for Type I error, a Bonferronicorrection was used. As predicted, Humility Judgments (RHSTotal) were higher in the most humble condition (M = 68.96,SD = 6.44) than in the least humble condition (M = 38.78,SD = 12.02), F(1, 194) = 470.87, p < .001, d = 3.13. For thesubscales, participants in the most humble condition (relativeto the least humble condition) reported higher scores on GlobalHumility (M = 22.17, SD = 2.59 relative to M = 9.26, SD =4.89, p < .001, d = 3.30); lower scores on Superiority (M =17.03, SD = 6.84 relative to M = 30.07, SD = 4.11, p < .001,d = –2.31); and higher scores on Accurate View of Self (M =16.65, SD = 2.87 relative to M = 12.48, SD = 4.31, p < .001,d = 1.14).

We also tested whether the RHS detected differences betweengroups, after controlling for other relational characteristics (i.e.,similarity, closeness, positive and negative emotion, and empa-thy). A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted,with humility judgments as the criterion variable, relationalcharacteristics entered in Step 1, and experimental conditionentered in Step 2. Relational characteristics accounted for 70%of the variance in RHS scores, F(5, 167) = 78.59, p < .001. Con-trolling for relational characteristics, condition still accountedfor an additional 10% of the variance in RHS scores, �R2 =.10, F(1, 166) = 90.54, p < .001.

The results of Study 3 provided initial evidence supportingthe construct validity of the RHS. The RHS was sensitive toparticipants’ nominations of people with high or low humility.Even after controlling for other relational differences, the RHSdetected differences between the two conditions.

STUDY 4The purpose of Study 4 was to provide evidence of the con-

struct validity for the RHS and to test one of the key propositionsof our model of relational humility. Namely, according to ourmodel of relational humility, conflict is one of the situationsin which humility is most observable. Conflict tends to causeanger, contempt, disgust, and other negative emotions that gen-erally evoke stubborn and arrogant behaviors. Thus, we wantedto show that humility judgments would predict positive rela-tionship characteristics in the context of conflict. We examinedhumility in the context of conflict in two relationships.

First, we examined the participants’ relationship with some-one who had hurt or offended them (i.e., called “the offender”).Our model of relational humility suggests that humility shouldbe associated with other-oriented emotions toward the target.Perceiving that a target person is humble involves seeing thatperson as interpersonally other-oriented, lacking superiority, andhaving an accurate view of self. Furthermore, we theorized thathumility is important in situations that challenge the hierarchyof a relationship such as conflict. Thus, we hypothesized thathumility would be positively correlated with forgiveness andempathy.

Second, we examined participants’ relationship with a par-ent with whom they tend to have the most conflict. Gener-ally, experiencing conflict in a relationship causes a judge todevelop increasingly negative views about the target person’s

Downloaded By: [Van Tongeren, Daryl R.] At: 19:25 21 April 2011

230 DAVIS ET AL.

character (Baumeister et al., 2007). Thus, we hypothesized thathumility judgments would be related to current emotions towardthe parent and to perceptions of other virtues. Specifically, wehypothesized that participants who perceived their parent to behigh in humility would report higher levels of positive emotionand lower levels of negative emotion toward that parent. Also,we hypothesized that participants who rated their parent higherin humility would also rate their parent higher on other virtues.

Method

Participants. Participants were 150 undergraduate students(95 female) from a large urban university. Ages ranged from18 to 28 (M = 18.9, SD = 1.5). The sample was ethnicallydiverse (53.9% White/Caucasian, 17.1% Black/African Amer-ican, 19.1% Asian/Asian American, 2.6% Latino/Latina, and7.2% other or did not report).

Measures Related to an Offender.

Humility Judgments: Participants completed the RHS forthe offender. Cronbach’s alphas for the full scale and for theGlobal Humility, Superiority, and Accurate View of Self sub-scales were .89, .94, .85, and .89, respectively.

Unforgiveness: Unforgiveness toward the offender was as-sessed with the 12-item Transgression Related InterpersonalMotivations (TRIM; McCullough et al., 1998). The TRIM hastwo subscales: Revenge (5 items; e.g., “I’ll make him/her pay”)and Avoidance (7 Items; e.g., “I keep as much distance betweenus as possible”). Items were completed on a 5-point rating scalefrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Lower scoresindicate higher forgiveness (i.e., lower unforgiveness). McCul-lough et al. (1998) reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients forscores on both subscales ranging from .85 to .93 and estimatesof 3-week temporal stability ranging from .44 to .65. Scores onthe scale showed evidence of construct validity and were foundto be negatively correlated with other measures of forgiveness,relationship satisfaction, and commitment. In this sample, Cron-bach’s alphas were .90 for Revenge and .94 for Avoidance.

State Empathy: Empathy toward the target offender wasassessed with the 8-item BEA (Coke et al., 1978; described inStudy 3). In the current sample, the Cronbach’s alpha was .94.

Measures Related to a Parent.

Humility Judgments: Participants completed the RHS forthe parent with whom they have had the most conflict. Cron-bach’s alphas for the full scale and for the Global Humility,Superiority, and Accurate View of Self subscales were .92, .97,.85, and .90, respectively.

Positive and Negative Affect in Relationship with Parent:Positive and negative affect toward the parent were assessed withthe 20-item PANAS (Watson et al., 1988; described in Study 3).In this sample, Cronbach’s alphas for Positive Emotions andNegative Emotions were .88 and .92, respectively.

Virtue Judgments: The degree to which parents wereviewed as possessing various virtues was assessed with the18-Item Virtue Orientation Scale (VOS; Berry, Worthington,O’Connor, Parrott, & Wade, 2004; Berry, Worthington, Wade,

Witvliet, & Kiefer, 2005). Items were rated with a 10-point rat-ing scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much). TheVOS has two subscales: warmth-based virtues (e.g., empathy orforgiveness) and conscientiousness-based virtues (e.g., justiceor self-control). The psychometric properties of this scale havebeen reported in previous research (Berry et al., 2004; Berry etal., 2005). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients have ranged from .71to .94. Furthermore, the items of each scale have demonstratedadequate fit to a Rasch model for rating scales, demonstratingthat the items are forming adequate unidimensional scales. Inthis sample, Cronbach’s alphas for Warmth-Based Virtues andConscientious-Based Virtues were .94 and .95, respectively.

Procedure. Participants were recruited from undergraduateclasses and participated for partial course credit. After givingconsent, participants first thought about a person who had hurtor offended them, wrote a summary of the transgression, andcompleted a set of questionnaires about their relationship withthe offender. Second, participants thought about the parent withwhom they experienced the highest level of conflict (62.6%chose their mother), wrote a description of this relationship,and completed a second set of questionnaires about their rela-tionship with the target parent. After completing questionnaires,participants were debriefed and given the contact informationof the researcher should they have any questions.

Results and Discussion

Means, standard deviations, alphas, and intercorrelations forall scales are reported in Table 2. To show evidence of constructvalidity, we examined the correlations of the RHS with otherrelationship characteristics.

First, we hypothesized that perceived humility of an offenderwould be negatively related to unforgiveness and positively re-lated to empathy toward that offender. This hypothesis was sup-ported. The total RHS, Global Humility, and Accurate View ofSelf subscale scores were related to less total unforgiveness,as well as avoidance and revenge, and were related to greaterempathy; likewise, the Superiority subscale was related to moretotal unforgiveness, as well as avoidance and revenge, and wasrelated to less empathy (see Tabl 2).

Second, we hypothesized that humility judgments of a par-ent would be positively related to perceptions of virtue andcurrent experiences of emotion toward that parent. This hy-pothesis was supported. Higher levels of perceived humilitywere related to higher perceptions of both warmth-based andconscientiousness-based virtues (see Table 2). Higher levels ofperceived humility were also related to higher positive emo-tion and lower negative emotion toward the target parent (seeTable 2).

In Study 4, we provided additional evidence supporting theconstruct validity of the RHS. Greater levels of perceived humil-ity were related to (a) greater forgiveness of and empathy towardan offender, and (b) greater perceptions of warmth-based andconscientious-based virtues, greater positive emotions, and lessnegative emotions toward a target parent.

STUDY 5The purposes of Study 5 were to (a) provide additional ev-

idence that humility judgments are related to the judge’s rela-tionship with an offender, and (b) to examine evidence of thediscriminant and incremental validity of the RHS compared with

Downloaded By: [Van Tongeren, Daryl R.] At: 19:25 21 April 2011

RELATIONAL HUMILITY 231

TABLE 2.——Intercorrelations of the Relational Humility Scale (RHS) with other constructs (Study 4).

Total Subscales

a M SD RHS GH S AVS

Relationship with offenderUnforgiveness .94 29.63 12.63 −.49

∗∗ −.45∗∗

.33∗∗ −.37

∗∗

Avoidance .90 19.77 9.01 −.50∗∗ −.43

∗∗.32

∗∗ −.40∗∗

Revenge .94 9.87 5.14 −.35∗∗ −.35

∗∗.25

∗∗ −.22∗∗

Empathy .94 19.60 8.16 .49∗∗

.48∗∗ −.30

∗∗.37

∗∗

Relationship with parentWarmth virtues .94 55.12 20.31 .63

∗∗.59

∗∗ −.48∗∗

.49∗∗

Conscientiousness virtues .95 49.09 18.48 .60∗∗

.56∗∗ −.46∗ .50

∗∗

Positive emotions .88 30.64 9.30 .57∗∗

.54∗∗ −.41

∗∗.54

∗∗

Negative emotions .92 22.07 7.80 −.41∗∗ −.25

∗∗.44

∗∗ −.20∗

Note. N = 142. GH = Global Humility subscale; S = Superiority subscale; AVS = Accurate View of Self.∗p < .05; ∗∗p < .01.

the HH subscale of the HEXACO–PI (Lee & Ashton, 2004). Inthis study, we recruited participants who had been hurt by afather’s dedication to his work. This offense aligns with two ofthe three situations in which humility should be observable (i.e.,conflict in a relationship with an authority figure). We predictedthat judgments of humility—measured with both the RHS andthe HH—would affect the extent to which participants had ex-perienced forgiveness toward their father.

Method

Participants. Participants were 163 undergraduate students(95 female) from a large urban university. Ages ranged from18 to 25 (M = 20.0, SD = 2.6). The sample was ethnicallydiverse (54.0% White/Caucasian, 20.2% Black/African Amer-ican, 9.2% Asian/Asian American, 3.1% Latino/Latina, and13.5% other or did not report).

Measures.

Humility Judgments: Participants completed the RHS todescribe the humility of the target person. Cronbach’s alphas forGlobal Humility, Superiority, and Accurate View of Self were.93, .89, and .89, respectively. They also completed the 16-itemHH subscale of the HEXACO–PI–100 (Lee & Ashton, 2004)for the target. Participants rated their father on each item (e.g.,“He/she is an ordinary person who is no better than others”) ona 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)as applied to the target. The HH has four facet scales: Sincerity,Fairness, Greed-Avoidance, and Modesty. The Cronbach’s alphafor the full scale was .81; the facet scales ranged from .47 to .74(see Table 3). Thus, the alpha was adequate for the full scalescore, but several of the facet scores had low reliability. The HHsubscale has considerable evidence of incremental validity, overand above the five-factor model (Ashton & Lee, 2007).

Unforgiveness: Unforgiveness was assessed using the 12-item TRIM (McCullough et al., 1998; see description in Study4). Cronbach’s alphas for the avoidance and revenge subscaleswere .95 and .87, respectively.

Procedure. Participants were recruited from undergraduateclasses and participated for partial course credit. After givingconsent, participants thought of a time when they had beenhurt by their father’s devotion to work. They then completedmeasures regarding the offense and their relationship with their

father. After completing questionnaires, participants were de-briefed and given the contact information of the researchershould they have any questions.

Results and Discussion

Means, standard deviations, alphas, and intercorrelations forall scales are reported in Table 3. First, we hypothesized thatthe RHS subscales would show evidence of discriminant valid-ity from the HH subscales. The Global Humility subscale wasmoderately correlated with HH; the Superiority subscale wasstrongly (and negatively) related; and the Accurate View of Selfwas weakly related (see Table 3).

Second, we hypothesized that the RHS would predict unfor-giving motivations above and beyond the HH subscales. To testthis hypothesis, we conducted two hierarchical regression anal-yses with avoidance or revenge motivations as the dependentvariables. For each analysis, the HH subscales were entered inthe first step and the RHS subscales were entered into the secondstep. The HH subscales predicted 32% of the variance in revengescores in the first step, and the RHS predicted an additional 8%of the variance in revenge scores in the second step, R2� = .08,F(3, 140) = 4.63, p = .004. The HH subscales predicted 43%of the variance in avoidance scores in the first step, and the RHSpredicted an additional 5% of the variance in avoidance scoresin the second step, R2� = .05, F(3, 138) = 3.29, p = .022.

We also analyzed the reverse models, examining whetherthe HH predicted unforgiving motivations after controlling forthe subscales of the RHS. The RHS subscales predicted 41% ofthe variance in revenge scores in the first step, and the HH did notpredict significant additional variance in revenge scores in thesecond step, R2� = .01, F(1, 143) = 2.05, p = .154. However,the RHS subscales predicted 38% of the variance in avoidancescores in the first step, and the HH predicted an additional 7%of the variance in avoidance scores in the second step, R2� =.07, F(1, 141) = 11.71, p = .001.

We conducted ancillary analyses to determine whether abrief version of the RHS—the Global Humility subscalealone—would also explain additional variance in revenge andavoidance motivations, above and beyond the HH subscales. Ifit did so, some researchers might wish to use this brief version ofthe scale. Thus, we conducted two hierarchical regression anal-yses with avoidance or revenge motivations as the dependentvariable, the HH entered in a first step, and the Global Humilitysubscale entered in a second step. The Global Humility subscale

Downloaded By: [Van Tongeren, Daryl R.] At: 19:25 21 April 2011

232 DAVIS ET AL.

TABLE 3.—Intercorrelations of the Relational Humility Scale (RHS) with the HH and forgiveness (Study 5).

M SD N α RHS GH S AVS 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. RHS Total 59.04 11.73 154 .91 —2. RHS Global Humility 17.48 5.78 160 .93 .83

∗∗

3. RHS Superiority 12.15 8.90 160 .89 −.83∗∗ −.49

∗∗

4. RHS Accurate View of Self 14.61 4.48 160 .89 .62∗∗

.43∗∗ −.21

∗∗

5. HH Sincerity 12.50 3.28 161 .47 .27∗∗

.16∗ −.27

∗∗.10

6. HH Fairness 15.23 3.43 163 .61 .41∗∗

.31∗∗ −.39

∗∗.21

∗∗.33

∗∗

7. HH Greed Avoidance 11.90 4.07 162 .74 .38∗∗

.27∗∗ −.37

∗∗.10 .42

∗∗.24

∗∗

8. HH Modesty 13.65 3.58 162 .66 .60∗∗

.47∗∗ −.53

∗∗.33

∗∗.39

∗∗.44

∗∗.58

∗∗

9. HH Full Scale Score 53.33 10.64 159 .81 .56∗∗

.42∗∗ −.53

∗∗.25

∗∗.71

∗∗.66

∗∗.78

∗∗.82

∗∗

10. TRIM Avoidance 12.67 6.98 159 .87 .37∗∗ −.31

∗∗.21

∗∗ −.25∗∗ −.36

∗∗ −.27∗∗ −.24

∗∗ −.29∗∗ −.40

∗∗

11. TRIM Revenge 6.49 2.87 161 .95 .40∗∗ −.29

∗∗.35

∗∗ −.22∗∗ −.21

∗∗ −.22∗∗ −.22

∗∗ −.27∗∗ −.32

∗∗.67

∗∗

Note. RHS = Relational Humility Scale; HH = Honesty-Humility; TRIM = Transgression-related interpersonal motivations; GH = Global Humility subscale; S = Superioritysubscale; AVS = Accurate View of Self.

∗p < .05; ∗∗p < .01.

predicted an additional 3% of the variance in revenge scores,R2� = .029, F(1, 148) = 4.97, p = .027, and an additional 3.7%of the variance in avoidance scores, R2� = .037, F(1, 146) =6.82, p = .01, over and above the HH.

Thus, in Study 5, we provided additional evidence for themodel of relational humility, finding that both measures of re-lational humility (i.e., the RHS and the HH) were related to thedegree to which participants had forgiven an offense related toa father’s devotion to work. We also showed evidence of dis-criminant validity for the RHS, showing that the RHS subscalesdiffered from the HH and its subscales. Furthermore, measur-ing humility judgments with the RHS incrementally predictedforgiveness, above and beyond the HH, and we also providedevidence that a briefer version of the RHS—administering onlythe Global Humility scale—explained unique variance in unfor-giving motivations.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The main purpose of this research was to describe a modelof relational humility and to provide evidence for that model.Second, we developed a face-valid measure of humility judg-ments, which allows continued progress in measuring humilitythrough other-reports. Thus, in a series of five studies, we de-veloped the 16-item RHS (Study 1). We replicated its factorstructure (Study 2), which provided construct and content valid-ity for the construct of relational humility. We demonstrated thesensitivity of the RHS to rating people nominated as high or lowin humility, even after controlling for relational characteristics(Study 3). We also provided evidence supporting the constructvalidity of the RHS scale (Study 4). Finally, we provided evi-dence that the RHS subscales account for unique variance, aboveand beyond the 16-item HH subscale of the HEXACO–PI–100(Lee & Ashton, 2004; Study 5). In psychological science, defi-nition, concept, and measurement are intertwined. In these fivestudies, we provided evidence for the way of defining, concep-tualizing, and measuring relational humility, as described by ourtheoretical model.

The RHS was found to have three subscales—Global Humil-ity, Superiority, and Accurate View of Self—that correspondwith our definition of relational humility. The factor structureof the RHS was replicated in an independent sample, and thesubscales showed acceptable estimates of internal consistency.Furthermore, the RHS and its subscales showed initial evidenceof construct validity. The subscales were found to be correlated

with other positive relationship characteristics and dynamics,such as forgiveness, empathy and other emotions, and percep-tion of virtues.

Studies 4 and 5 were the first to focus on humility of anoffender in the context of forgiveness. Previous theory and re-search has focused on humility of the victim, proposing thathumility can promote empathy and dissipate feelings of dis-gust and moral superiority toward the offender (e.g., Sandage,1999; Worthington, 1998). For example, self-reports of humilityhave been positively associated with trait forgivingness (Rowattet al., 2006; Shepherd & Belicki, 2008). Moreover, victims havebeen found to be more likely to forgive when they consideredthemselves capable of committing a similar offense (Exline,Baumeister, Zell, Kraft, & Witvliet, 2008; Exline, Zell, Mal-colm, DeCourville, & Belicki, 2008). Whereas these studiesfocused on humility in the victim, we focused on the degree towhich the victim judged the offender as possessing humility.In both Studies 4 and 5, perceiving an offender as humble waspositively related with greater forgiveness.

With the articulation of a model of relational humility, aswell as the development of the RHS, researchers have a choiceof measures to begin studying relational humility. An advantageof the RHS is that its items and subscales were evaluated and de-veloped using both theory and empirical methods. Its subscalesalign with how humility has been defined (Davis, Worthington,et al., 2010). In addition, the RHS is the only measure that hasbeen developed primarily to assess the degree an observer judgesa target person to possess humility. Furthermore, the measure isbrief. Indeed, the Global Humility subscale (5 items) provides abrief snapshot of relational humility (in Study 5, we found thatthe 5-item measure predicted unique variance in avoidance andrevenge motivations, above and beyond the HH—albeit only asmall amount of additional variance was accounted for). Theother two subscales (11 items) provide a more nuanced assess-ment of humility.

Limitations

This set of studies had several limitations. First, only onemethod of measurement was used (i.e., other-report). In the fu-ture, it will be important to examine consensus among raters andagreement with self-report. In addition, researchers should ex-amine how humility judgments are related to physiological (e.g.,are RHS ratings related to more emotional calmness during, forexample, discussions of relational trust?), behavioral (e.g., are

Downloaded By: [Van Tongeren, Daryl R.] At: 19:25 21 April 2011

RELATIONAL HUMILITY 233

RHS ratings related to fewer uses of personal pronouns, fewerdefensive verbalizations, and fewer nonverbal defensive behav-iors?), or cognitive (e.g., are RHS ratings related to scores onthe IAT–HA or some other test of cognition) measures. Second,this set of studies used cross-sectional rather than longitudinaldesigns, and thus we were unable to assess how humility judg-ments might change over time. For example, humility judgmentsmight be sensitive to conflict in a relationship. Similarly, highfluctuations in relational humility judgments might be associ-ated with negative relational qualities, such as low commitmentor satisfaction. Third, only college students were studied (seeHenrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010, who critique the sole useof undergraduates). Thus, it is important to evaluate the RHS,as well as the model of relational humility, in other samples, es-pecially community samples in which participants are involvedin hierarchical roles (e.g., mentorship, supervisor–subordinate,or teacher–student relationships).

Future Research

With the development of the RHS, researchers now have atleast two strong options for measuring relational humility, in-cluding the RHS and the HH. Given that humility research isin an early phase, we suspect that other researchers will putforth alternative definitions of humility and develop associatedmeasures. To provide assurance in measurement, it is neces-sary to continue to evaluate the construct and criterion-relatedvalidity of the RHS, as well as other measures. Researchersshould explore the unique correlates of the three subscales. Forexample, the Accurate View of Self subscale might uniquelypredict self-monitoring, whereas the Superiority subscale mightuniquely predict Machiavellianism. Furthermore, it is importantto explore some of the constructs, behaviors, and physiologicalmarkers that are associated with judgments of high humility. Wehave theorized that restraining expressions of low humility, asmeasured by the Superiority subscale, might have different cor-relates than expressing high humility, as measured by the GlobalHumility and Accurate View of Self subscales. However, it isalso possible that the factor structure of the RHS reflects whetheritems were positively or negatively keyed.

Now that initial measures of relational humility exist, re-searchers should turn to testing some of the many implicationsof our theoretical model. First, one might be able to derive anestimate of trait humility using consensus among several in-formants (e.g., Davis, Worthington, et al., 2010; Kenny, 2004).However, if consensus between raters is particularly low, sug-gesting that ratings of humility are relationship-dependent, itmight not make sense to derive a trait estimate.

Second, researchers might explore the self–other agreementof humility ratings. For instance, this method could be used toactually examine the degree to which humble people (as ratedby others) modestly report their own humility. Researchers haveyet to provide evidence for this hypothesis, which is assumed toundermine the validity of self-reports of humility.

Third, RHS scores could also be treated as a criterion variableto offer evidence of validity for other measures, such as theIAT–HA (Rowatt et al., 2006). Showing that the IAT–HA isstrongly related to the RHS subscales would provide importantevidence that the measure predicts whether people are actuallyseen as humble across their relationships.

Fourth, researchers should examine our claim that humilityis most readily observed in three situations: receiving praiseor recognition, hierarchical roles, or conflict. For example, re-searchers might experimentally manipulate these factors thatmake humility more difficult to practice and compare how self-reports and other-reports predict differences in behavior acrossconditions. Similarly, researchers should begin to study humil-ity in samples for which humility is potentially important, suchas business leaders, teachers, elected public officials, parents, orcouples.

Fifth, researchers should examine evidence for several nu-anced hypotheses implied by our theoretical model. For ex-ample, our model suggests that humility is subjectively eas-ier (and less ambiguous) to assess in others than in oneself.Modesty norms are likely more salient when describing one’sown humility than when judging someone else’s humility. Also,defensive processes of maintaining a particular conceptualiza-tion of oneself could be lessened. Moreover, researchers mightexamine whether relationship factors moderate how humilityis attributed within relationships (see Funder, 1995, for a re-view). For example, convergence between self- and observer-reports should be higher in relationships between people whoknow each other well than in relationships between strangers(Kenny, 2004). Also, people might consider different qualitieswhen judging the humility of close friends versus acquaintances(McAdams & Pals, 2006). Furthermore, cultural or spiritual fac-tors might affect how people judge humility (Davis, Hook, etal., 2010; Emmons & Kneezel, 2005; Sandage, 1999). Finally,we hypothesize that humility should be less stable over timethan other traits such as extraversion. For example, only a fewimmodest acts could squander a reputation of humility.

CONCLUSION

For some time, humility researchers have been unsatisfiedwith measures of humility (e.g., Tangney, 2009). Whereas mod-esty researchers have been satisfied with separately studyingdifferent aspects of modesty, such as accurate view of self ormodest self-presentation, humility researchers have insisted ondefining humility as integrity among thought, action, and mo-tivation. Such noble conceptualizations of humility have madehumility difficult to assess. Only a few measures of humilityhave been published in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Lee & Ash-ton, 2004; Rowatt et al., 2006). We have proposed a model ofrelational humility that contextualizes humility within actualrelationships and studies humility from the perspective of athird-party observer. The approach aligns the study of humilitywith an expansive body of research on personality judgmentsand circumvents the paradox of using self-reports of humility.Furthermore, we developed a scale of humility that aligns withour proposed definition and approach for studying humility. Wehope the introduction of this model and scale will be an impor-tant step in catalyzing research on humility.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Gratitude is expressed to the John Templeton Foundation forfunding the current project.

REFERENCES

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advan-tages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 11, 150–166.

Downloaded By: [Van Tongeren, Daryl R.] At: 19:25 21 April 2011

234 DAVIS ET AL.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). Howemotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather thandirect causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 167–203.

Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., Jr., O’Connor, L., Parrott, L., III, & Wade,N. G. (2004). Forgiveness, vengeful rumination, and affective traits. Journalof Personality, 73, 1–43.

Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Witvliet, C. v. O., & Kiefer,R. (2005). Forgiveness, moral identity, and perceived justice in crime victimsand their supporters. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 29, 136–162.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1994). Optimism and health-related cognition:What variables actually matter? Psychology and Health, 9, 191–195.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree test for the number of factors. MultivariateBehavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation ofhelping: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36, 752–766.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory(NEO–PI–R) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological AssessmentResources.

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 Psychologyand Theology, 38, 91–100.

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

de Vries, R. E., Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2008). The Dutch HEXACO Person-ality Inventory: Psychometric properties, self–other agreement, and relationswith psychopathy among low and high acquaintanceship dyads. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 90, 142–151.

Emmons, R. A., & Kneezel, T. T. (2005). Giving thanks: Spiritual and religiouscorrelates of gratitude. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 140–148.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (Eds.). (2004). The psychology of grati-tude. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., Kraft, A. J., & Witvliet, C. V. O.(2008). Not so innocent: Does seeing one’s own capability for wrongdo-ing predict forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,495–515.

Exline, J. J., Zell, A. L., Malcolm, W., DeCourville, N., & Belicki, K. (2008).Does a humble attitude promote forgiveness? Challenges, caveats, and sexdifferences. In Women’s reflections on the complexities of forgiveness (pp.235–251). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C. & Strahan, E. J. (1999).Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of GeneralPsychology, 2, 300–319.

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

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes,self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.

Gregg, A. P., Hart, C. M., Sedikides, C., & Kumashiro, M. (2008). Every-day conceptions of modesty: A prototype analysis. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 34, 978–992.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in theworld? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariancestructure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. StructuralEquation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

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

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

Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., Kenny, D. A., Bond, M. H., & Robins, R. W.(2004). Reconceptualizing individual differences in self-enhancement bias:An interpersonal approach. Psychological Review, 111, 94–110.

Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Kuang, L. L. (2008). Conceptu-alizing and assessing self-enhancement 835 bias: A componential approach.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1062–1077.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACOpersonality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.

Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (Eds.). (2009). Oxford handbook of positivepsychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principlesfor an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.

McCrae, R. R., & Weiss, A. (2007). Observer ratings of personality. In R. W.Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methodsin personality psychology (pp. 259–272). New York, NY: Guilford.

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

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). LosAngeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Moral competence and character strengthsamong adolescents: The development and validation of the Values in ActionInventory of Strengths for Youth. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 891–909.

Powers, C., Nam, R. K., Rowatt, W. C., & Hill, P. C. (2007). Associationsbetween humility, spiritual transcendence, and forgiveness. Research in theSocial Scientific Study of Religion, 18, 75–94.

Rowatt, W. C., Ottenbreit, A., Nesselroade, K. P., Jr., & Cunningham,P. A. (2002). On being holier-than-thou or humbler-than-thee: A social-psychological perspective on religiousness and humility. Journal for the Sci-entific Study of Religion, 41, 227–237.

Rowatt, W. C., Powers, C., Targhetta, V., Comer, J., Kennedy, S., & Labouff, J.(2006). Development and initial validation of an implicit measure of humilityrelative to arrogance. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 198–211.

Sandage, S. J. (1999). An ego-humility model of forgiveness: A theory-drivenempirical test of group interventions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vir-ginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

Sedikides, C., Gregg, A. P., & Hart, C. M. (2007). The importance of beingmodest. In C. Sedikides & S. J. Spencer (Eds.), The self (pp. 163–184). NewYork, NY: Psychology Press.

Shepherd, S., & Belicki, K. (2008). Trait forgiveness and traitedness within theHEXACO model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 45,389–394.

Snyder, C. R., Rand, K. L., & Sigmon, D. R. (2002). Hope theory: A memberof the positive psychology family. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 411–419). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Steger, M. F. (2006). An illustration of issues in factor extraction and identifica-tion of dimensionality in psychological assessment data. Journal of Person-ality Assessment, 86, 263–272.

Tangney, J. P. (2005). Humility. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbookof positive psychology (pp. 411–419). New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.

Tangney, J. P. (2009). Humility. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxfordhandbook of positive psychology (pp. 483–490). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moralbehavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.

Tice, D. M., Butler, J. L., Muraven, M. B., & Stillwell, A. M. (1995). Whenmodesty prevails: Differential favorability of self-presentation to friends andstrangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1120–1138.

Vazire, S. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method for person-ality assessment. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 472–481.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validationof brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Worthington, E. L. (1998). An empathy-humility-commitment model of for-giveness applied within family dyads. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 59–76.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York, NY:BrunnerRoutledge.

Downloaded By: [Van Tongeren, Daryl R.] At: 19:25 21 April 2011