Intellectual humility and forgiveness of religious conflict.
Zhang, Hansong ; Farrell, Jennifer E. ; Hook, Joshua N. 等
Intellectual humility (IH) involves an accurate view of one's
intellectual strengths and weaknesses as well as the ability to
negotiate different ideas in an interpersonally respectful manner. The
current study examined how IH and perceptions of IH affect responses to
a religious conflict. Participants (N = 200) were undergraduate students
who filled out online questionnaires about their experience of a
religious conflict. Participants rated (a) their own IH toward the
offender's religious beliefs and values, (b) their perception of
the offender's IH toward the participants' religious beliefs
and values, and (c) their own general humility. Next, they reported
their forgiveness of the offender following a religious conflict. Both
victim IH and perceived IH of the offender were positively associated
with forgiveness, even when controlling for general humility. We
conclude by discussing limitations and areas for future research.
**********
The world population is religiously diverse (Diener, Tay, &
Myers, 2011; Putnam & Campbell, 2012). Although religious diversity
enriches our lives, such differences can also lead to division and
conflict (Haidt, 2013). Religious conflict, for example, may cause hurt
and relational pain between people and groups who hold different
religious positions and, in its extreme form, can even lead to violence
and war (Juergensmeyer, 2003). Even within the Christian tradition,
disagreement over issues such as gay marriage and ordination, evolution,
and the role of women in ministry can lead to division and conflict.
Therefore, it is important to explore factors that may help people
resolve religious conflict and ameliorate the negative effects of
religious conflict. In the present study, we focus on the role of
intellectual humility in helping individuals forgive in the context of
religious disagreement or conflict.
Forgiveness has received increasing attention from the field of
psychology in recent years, as the benefits of forgiveness for mental,
physical, and relational health have been well documented (Fehr,
Gelfand, & Nag, 2010). Forgiveness has been defined as a prosocial
change in thoughts, emotions, and motivations toward an offender
(McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000). Some research has
explored the role of forgiveness in religious hurts and conflicts,
particularly in situations where religious leaders have committed
offenses (Choe et al., 2015; Greer, Worthington, Lin, Lavelock, &
Griffin, 2014; Hook et al., 2015; McElroy et al., 2014; Thomas &
Sutton, 2008; Thomas, White, & Sutton, 2008). Such religious hurts
or conflicts are prevalent in our nation and world and may be especially
difficult to resolve because of the way they impact cherished beliefs.
Thus, it seems important to explore factors that may facilitate
forgiveness in the context of religious conflict.
Humility involves both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors
(Davis et al., 2011; Davis, Worthington & Hook, 2010). On the
intrapersonal dimension, humility involves an accurate view of self and
an awareness of one's limitations. On the interpersonal dimension,
humility involves an interpersonal stance that is other-oriented rather
than self-focused. McElroy et al. (2014) suggested that there may be
subdomains of humility that reflect different types of humility. One
subdomain of humility which has received increased theoretical and
empirical attention in recent years is intellectual humility (IH; Davis
& Hook, 2014; Roberts & Wood, 2003). IH refers to the way
someone handles situations and ideas that most people find difficult to
negotiate fairly. More specifically, IH involves an accurate view of
one's intellectual strengths and weaknesses as well as the ability
to negotiate different ideas in an interpersonally respectful manner
(Hook et al., 2015). Thus, general humility (GH) deals with how a person
behaves in general across situations and relationships, whereas IH
refers to a subset of behaviors involving one's thinking and
behavior while negotiating different ideas in intellectual discourse
(Hook et al., 2015). Intellectually humble people are able to constrain
their need for being 'right' and are open-minded towards new
information, even when it differs from their original position.
Intellectual Humility and Forgiveness
Humility helps strengthen and repair relationships (Davis et al.,
2013; Van Tongeren, Davis, & Hook, 2014). First, drawing on
selective investment theory (Brown & Brown, 2006), Davis et al.
(2013) suggested that humility may be important for regulating the
strength of social bonds. People judge humility in others in order to
help them predict the behavior of relationship partners. Thus,
perceiving a person as humble (i.e., less selfish, other-oriented, etc.)
may enhance trust in and commitment toward the target person. In
contrast, when someone is viewed as selfish and arrogant (lacking
humility), the perceiver may take steps to protect herself or himself
from the target person (Davis et al., 2013). Supporting this theory, Van
Tongeren et al. (2014) found that individuals were more attracted to
humble (relative to arrogant) dating partners, and Farrell et al. (2015)
found that perceptions of humility were linked with higher levels of
commitment and relationship satisfaction in dating couples.
In addition to maintaining and enhancing social relationships,
humility helps repair relationships that have been damaged or ruptured.
For example, Davis and colleagues (2011, 2013) found that the more
victims perceived an offender as humble, the more likely they were to
forgive the offender. Similarly, both Van Tongeren et al. (2014) and
Farrell et al. (2015) found that perceptions of humility were associated
with higher levels of forgiveness in dating couples.
As a subdomain of general humilicy, IH also correlates with higher
levels of forgiveness (Hook et al., 2015; McElroy et al., 2014). Indeed,
IH may play a critical role in promoting forgiveness in the context of
religious conflict. Although religion can be a source of coping
(Pargament, 1997) and benevolence (Johnson, Li, Cohen, & Okun, 2013;
Johnson, Memon, Alladin, Cohen, & Okun, 2015), people may also draw
on religion when they engage in power struggles and arguments. People
may battle for the moral high ground, seeking to be seen by others as
more righteous and pure than their opponent. Some may use religious
authority (e.g., scripture and spiritual favor from leaders) as a weapon
of influence. In support of this theorizing, Hook et al. (2015) found
that perceived IH was positively associated with forgiveness of a
religious leader for a transgression, even when controlling for
perceived GH. In other words, perceived IH accounted for a significant
amount of variance in the forgiveness of a religious leader above and
beyond perceived GH. Furthermore, when the offense involved a conflict
that centered on religious beliefs or convictions, IH was an especially
strong predictor of forgiveness.
Disagreements involving religious convictions may make humility
very difficult to practice, especially for individuals who are highly
religious (Hook et al., 2015). Namely, religious beliefs and convictions
often answer important questions about one's purpose in life,
morality, and the afterlife. Highly religious individuals are often
greatly invested in their particular worldview, and they may be
resistant to considering alternative viewpoints. A hurt or conflict that
is associated with a cherished religious worldview may be especially
difficult to resolve in a positive way. For example, criticism of
one's cherished beliefs often results in retaliation, though such
responses are attenuated for humble individuals (Van Tongeren et al.,
2015). Because religious disagreements are so common in our nation and
world, it is important to explore how IH might affect forgiveness in the
context of religious conflict.
Present Study
The current study investigated the effects of IH on forgiveness in
the context of religious conflict. Although past research has explored
the effects of GH and IH on forgiveness in general, there is relatively
little research on these relationships in the context of religious
conflict. Thus, this study is unique in that it focuses on a more
specific type of offense: a religious hurt or conflict. Also, past
research has generally focused on either (a) the victim's IH toward
the offender or (b) the victim's perspective of the offender's
IH. In the present study, we examined how victims view their own IH and
the offender's IH. We had two primary hypotheses. First, we
hypothesized that the way victims viewed their own IH and the
offender's IH would predict forgiveness (when statistically
controlling for GH). Second, based on the hypothesis by Hook et al.
(2015), we predicted that religious commitment would moderate the
association between the IH of the victim and forgiveness, such that
among participants with higher religious commitment, there would be a
stronger relationship between IH and forgiveness than among participants
with lower religious commitment.
Method
Participants
Participants were 200 undergraduate students (47 Male, 153 Female)
from a large public university in the Southwestern United States.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 50 years (M = 20.29, SD = 3.81).
Participants reported one of a variety of racial backgrounds (54.5%
White, 10.0% Black, 18.0% Latino/a, 5.0% Asian, 1.5% Native American,
1.0% Middle Eastern, 0.5% Pacific Islander, 9.5% multiracial).
Participants were mostly Christian (65.5%; Muslim 1.5%, Buddhist 1.0%,
Jewish 0.5%, atheist 7.5%, agnostic 12.0%, none/other 12.0%) and
heterosexual (91.5%; bisexual 4.5%, gay/lesbian 4.0%).
Measures
Religious commitment. Religious commitment was measured with the
Religious Commitment Inventory (10) (RCI-10; Worthington et al., 2003).
The RCI-10 consists of 10 items that assess one's commitment to
one's religion (e.g., "My religious beliefs lie behind my
whole approach to life."). Participants rate their agreement with
each item on a 5-point rating scale from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5
(totally true of me). For the present study, we took the mean of all
items for a total religious commitment score. Higher scores indicate
higher levels of religious commitment. Worthington et al. (2003)
reported evidence for estimated internal consistency and validity of
this scale. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .95.
General humility. The participant's general humility (GH) was
measured with the self-report version of the Relational Humility Scale
(RHS; Davis et al., 2011). The RHS consists of 16 items that assess
perceptions of GH. It consists of three subscales: global humility (5
items; e.g., "I have a humble character."), superiority (7
items; e.g., "I think of myself too highly."), and accurate
view of self (4 items; e.g., "I know myself well.").
Participants rate each item on a 5-point rating scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores on this measure have shown
evidence for internal consistency and construct validity (Davis et al.,
2011, 2013). For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a
total GH score. Higher scores indicate higher GH. For the current
sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .84.
Intellectual humility of victim. Intellectual humility (IH) of the
victim was measured with a self-report version of the Cultural Humility
Scale (CHS; Hook, Davis, Owen, Worthington, & Utsey, 2013), which we
adapted for the present study to measure the participant's IH
toward the offender's religious perspective. The CHS consists of 12
items that assess the extent to which a target person is humble
regarding an aspect of their cultural identity (e.g., gender, race/
ethnicity, religion/spirituality, sexual orientation). The original
version of the CHS allowed people to choose a highly salient domain,
whereas in this study the CHS was modified so that all participants
rated their own level of IH toward the offender's religious
perspective. Participants rate items on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). There are two subscales on the CHS: the
positive subscale includes positive other-oriented characteristics (7
items; e.g., "Is open to explore"), and the negative subscale
reflects negative characteristics involving superiority and making
assumptions (5 items; e.g., "Makes assumptions"). Scores on
this measure have shown evidence for internal consistency and construct
validity (Hook et al., 2013). There is also evidence for the internal
consistency and construct validity of the measure adapted to assess IH
(Hook et al., 2015). For the present study, we took the mean of all
items for a total IH score. Higher scores indicated higher self-reported
IH. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .84.
Perceived intellectual humility of the offender. Perceived IH of
the offender was measured with the Cultural Humility Scale (CHS; Hook et
al., 2013), which we adapted for the present study. This version of the
CHS was identical to the previously described measure, except it
assessed the victim's perceptions of the offender's IH toward
the victim's religious perspective. For the present study, we took
the mean of all items for a total IH score. Higher scores indicated
higher perceived IH. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha
was .91.
Forgiveness. Forgiveness toward the offender was measured with the
Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM;
McCullough & Hoyt, 2002; McCullough et al., 1998). The TRIM consists
of 18 items that assess interpersonal forgiveness toward an offender.
The TRIM consists of three subscales: benevolence (6 items; e.g.,
"Despite what he/she did, I want us to have a positive relationship
again."), avoidance (7 items; e.g., "I keep as much distance
between us as possible."), and revenge (5 items; e.g.,
"I'll make him or her pay."). Participants rate each item
on a 5-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 {strongly
agree). Scores on this measure have shown evidence for internal
consistency and construct validity (McCullough & Hoyt, 2002;
McCullough et al., 1998). For the present study, we took the mean of all
items for a total forgiveness score. Higher scores indicated higher
levels of forgiveness. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha
was .96.
Procedure
Participants were recruited from undergraduate courses and
participated in exchange for a small amount of course credit.
Participants first read a consent form and indicated consent to
participate then completed the questionnaires online. Participants were
asked to think of a time in which they felt hurt or offended in a
relationship because of a disagreement around a religious or theological
issue. Participants wrote a description of the event then completed the
online questionnaires in relation to the specific offense and offender.
After completing the questionnaires, participants were debriefed, and
given the contact information of the investigator should they have
questions.
Results
Participants reported a range of religious conflicts. Typical
conflicts included (a) sexuality and LGBT issues, (b) the existence of
God, (c) heaven/hell, (d) the Bible, and (d) differing religious beliefs
among family members and romantic partners. We checked the data for
outliers and normality. IH had one low outlier, which we recoded to
three standard deviations below the mean. There were no problems with
normality. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all
variables are in Table 1. Religious commitment was positively related to
GH, r = .20, p = .006; GH was positively related to victim IH, r = .25,
p < .001; victim IH was positively related to perceived offender IH,
r = .32, p < .001; and both victim IH and perceived offender IH were
positively related to forgiveness, rs = .41 and .35, respectively, both
ps < .001. Interestingly, participants reported that their IH toward
the offender's religious perspective (M = 3.52, SD = .66) was
higher than the offender's IH toward the participants'
religious perspective (M = 2.44, SD = .86, t[199] = 16.94, p < .001).
Our first hypothesis was that both (a) victim IH toward the
offender's religious perspective and (b) perceptions of offender IH
toward the victim's religious perspective would be significant
positive predictors of forgiveness of the offender, controlling for the
victim's GH. We tested this hypothesis using a hierarchical
regression analysis with forgiveness as the dependent variable. GH was
entered in Step 1, and both victim IH perceptions of the offender's
IH were entered in Step 2.
This hypothesis was supported. In Step 1, GH was not a significant
predictor of forgiveness, [R.sup.2] = .01, [beta] = .11, p = .134. In
Step 2, when statistically controlling for GH, victim IH and perceptions
of offender IH predicted about 21% of the variance in forgiveness
([DELTA][R.sup.2] = .21, p < .001). In the final model, GH ([beta] =
.04, p = .533) was not a significant predictor of forgiveness. However,
both victim IH ([beta] = .31, p < .001) and perceptions of offender
IH ([beta] = .26, p < .001) were significant positive predictors of
forgiveness.
Our second hypothesis was that religious commitment would moderate
the association between victim IH toward offender's religious
perspective and forgiveness. Specifically, we expected that victim IH
would have a stronger effect on forgiveness for participants with high
levels of religious commitment than for participants with low levels of
religious commitment. We tested this hypothesis using a hierarchical
regression analysis as outlined by Aiken and West (1991). The predictor
and moderator variables were standardized to reduce multicollinearity
and to aid interpretation. We controlled for GH in this analysis.
This hypothesis was not supported. In Step 1, GH predicted about 1%
of the variance in forgiveness ([R.sup.2] = .01, p = .134). In Step 2,
religious commitment and victim IH predicted an additional 15% of the
variance in forgiveness ([R.sup.2] = .15, p < .001). However, in Step
3, the addition of the interaction term did not predict a significant
amount of variance in forgiveness ([DELTA][R.sup.2] = .00, p = .771). In
the final model, victim IH was a significant predictor of forgiveness
([beta] = .40, p < .001), but GH ([beta] = .00, p = .993) and
religious commitment ([beta] = .03, p = .627) were not significant
predictors of forgiveness, nor was the interaction between victim IH and
religious commitment significant ([beta] = -.02, p = .771). Thus, IH
toward the offender's religious perspective was a significant
predictor of forgiveness irrespective of one's level of religious
commitment.
Discussion
Prior work has demonstrated that both GH and IH may be important
for regulating the strength of social bonds (Davis et al., 2011, 2013;
Farrell et al., 2015; Hook et al., 2015; Van Tongeren et al., 2014). The
present study examined forgiveness in the context of a religious hurt or
conflict. We chose this context because IH and forgiveness may be
particularly difficult to extend to another amidst religious hurts and
conflicts, especially for highly religious individuals who have a lot
invested in their particular religious viewpoint (Hook et al., 2015). In
addition, prior research has generally focused on either the
victim's humility or the victim's perceptions of the
offender's humility. The current study aimed to explore both
aspects of humility simultaneously.
Our first hypothesis was that both victim IH and perceptions of
offender IH would be positively related to forgiveness, controlling for
one's GH. This hypothesis was supported. The more intellectually
humble victims were toward the offender's religious perspective,
the more they reported being able to forgive the offender. Similarly,
the more victims perceived the offender as having IH toward their own
religious perspectives, the more they reported being able to forgive the
offender. IH was a positive predictor of forgiveness even when
controlling for one's GH. These findings provide further evidence
that domain-specific constructs such as IH may predict unique variance
above and beyond the measures of GH, especially in contexts that deal
with intellectual disagreement or conflict (Davis et al., 2015; Hooket
al., 2015; McElroy et al., 2014). Moreover, the findings provide
additional evidence for the effects of IH in promoting forgiveness and
regulating victims' relationships with offenders in more specific
contexts, such as religious conflicts.
Both the victim's IH toward the offender and the victim's
perceptions of the offender's IH were positively related to
forgiveness. Most of the research on the relationship between humility
and forgiveness has examined the victim's perceptions of the
offender's humility (e.g., Davis et al., 2011, 2013; Farrell et
al., 2015; Hook et al., 2015; McElroy et al., 2014; Van Tongeren et al.,
2014). The results from the present study indicate that it may be
important to focus on the victim's own level of humility as well.
Our second hypothesis was that IH would be especially important for
individuals who had high levels of religious commitment. This hypothesis
was not supported. Instead, IH was a strong positive predictor of
forgiveness irrespective of one's level of religious commitment.
Static religious variables such as religious commitment have been shown
to have small associations with forgiveness (Davis, Worthington, Hook,
& Hill, 2013), and this finding is consistent with that body of
research. One possible explanation for this finding is that even if
individuals have low levels of religious commitment, they may still have
strong feelings about religious disagreements and conflict (although
their views may be opposite to those with high levels of religious
commitment). Thus, IH may be an important factor in promoting
forgiveness regardless of one's religious commitment. More research
is needed to explore the experience of religious disagreement and
conflict for people expressing various levels of religious commitment.
When comparing (a) the victim's self-reported levels of IH
toward the offender's religious perspective and (b) the
victim's perceptions of the offender's IH toward their own
religious perspective, participants rated their own levels of IH much
higher than the offender's IH. This may indicate an
'above-average effect' in regard to IH, in which we (perhaps
ironically) think we are more intellectually humble than others, at
least in our religious beliefs, values, and convictions. Another
interpretation of this finding is that participants viewed an offender
as less humble than themselves (as the victims) because the moral
culpability of committing a transgression may be incompatible with
certain aspects of humility, such as being other-oriented.
In sum, the present study provided further support for a growing
body of literature that has shown IH to be important in promoting
forgiveness of conflicts or hurts that arise from intellectual conflicts
or disagreements (Choe et al., 2015; Hook et al., 2015; McElroy et al.,
2014). The present study enriched the body of literature by specifically
demonstrating how IH was positively related to forgiveness in the
context of religious conflict, an area where being humble (e.g., open to
and respectful of alternative viewpoints) may be especially challenging.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
There were several limitations to the present study. First, this
study used a sample of undergraduate college students. The religious
experience of undergraduate students may be unique, as some evidence
suggests that religious participation declines and the nature of
religious/spiritual beliefs may change during the college years (Mayrl
& Oeur, 2009). It is likely that religious conflicts may take
different forms or have more or less impact for individuals in various
age groups. Thus, our findings may not generalize to adolescents or
older adults. Future research should examine IH and forgiveness in these
populations.
Second, the current study used a cross-sectional, correlational
design. Thus, causal conclusions should not be made. Although the data
were consistent with our theoretical model (i.e., IH and perceptions of
IH leading to increased forgiveness), there may be other theoretical
models that are consistent with the data as well. For example,
individuals who have already forgiven their offender may in turn view
the offender as more humble. Or there may be some third variable that
affects both perceptions of IH and forgiveness. Longitudinal or
experimental research is necessary to further explicate the nature of
these relationships.
Third, with the exception of the other-report measure of IH, the
present study used self-reported ratings. Self-report measures are prone
to certain response biases such as socially desirable responding (John
& Robins, 1993). Therefore, future studies could explore the
possibility of adapting alternative measures, such as behavioral
measures (Dorn, Hook, Davis, Van Tongeren, & Worthington, 2014) or
implicit measures (Rowatt et al., 2006), to avoid such potential biases.
Future research could also further explore possible explanations for the
difference found between self-reported victim IH and perceptions of
offender IH.
Practical Application
Our findings that both IH and perceptions of IH were associated
with forgiveness in the context of religious conflicts have important
implications for interfaith dialogue, pastoral ministry, and counseling.
Pastors, for example, could advocate for IH more often in their sermons
so their religious followers are informed of the benefits of assuming a
more humble intellectual position regarding religious perspectives. When
trying to resolve religious disputes, pastors might encourage humility,
an awareness of the limitations of one's own religious perspective,
and an openness to the religious perspective of the other. Additionally,
pastors might choose to be more intellectually humble themselves as a
way of decreasing the potential for religious conflict in their own
lives.
Counselors could also benefit from integrating IH into work with
their religious clients, especially those clients who are struggling
with religious disagreement or conflict. In addition to supporting their
client's perspective, counselors could encourage clients to
consider the limitations of their own particular religious perspective.
Counselors could also work with clients to consider the religious
perspective of the individual or group they are in conflict with. These
types of discussions--exploring the limitations of one's own view
as well as the possible merits of another's view--could help a
client to work toward forgiveness. The counseling setting may be an
ideal place to have such discussions because it is ideally a safe,
supportive environment for clients to explore different perspectives.
In addition to pastoral and counseling settings, the findings from
the present study have important considerations for interfaith dialogue
and conflict among religious individuals in everyday life. Religion is
often a sensitive topic for many individuals, and people's
religious perspectives are often strongly defended. When religious
conflict or disagreement does occur, it may be difficult to resolve
because each side becomes entrenched and committed to defending their
particular perspective. If individuals can engage religious disagreement
and conflict with humility--noting the limitations of their particular
viewpoint and genuinely trying to understand the viewpoint of the
religious 'other'--this may have notable benefits for
ameliorating religious conflict in society among both religious and
non-religious individuals.
Conclusion
We encourage researchers to continue to explore the role of IH in
regard to different religious perspectives and religious conflicts.
Religious dissension can estrange social relationships (e.g., setting up
division) and even lead to tragic consequences (e.g., violence) which
implies the necessity of practicing humility in these situations
(Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003). Therefore, IH in the context of
religious disagreement might offer help in effectively and peacefully
resolving such conflicts and warrants further attention in psychological
research.
Hansong Zhang, Jennifer E. Farrell, and Joshua N. Hook
University of North Texas
Don E. Davis
Georgia State University
Daryl R. Van Tongeren
Hope College
Kathryn A. Johnson
Arizona State University
Author Note: We would like to acknowledge the generous financial
support of the Fuller Theological Seminary / Thrive Center in concert
with the John Templeton Foundation, Grant No. 108. The opinions
expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Fuller Thrive Center or the John
Templeton Foundation.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Hansong Zhang, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203. Email:
[email protected]
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, S. L., & Brown, R. M. (2006). Selective investment
theory: Recasting the functional significance of close relationships.
Psychological Inquiry, 17, 1-29. doi: 10.1207/s15327965plil701_01
Choe, E., Davis, D. E., McElroy, S., Westbrook, C., Van Neunen, M.,
Van Tongeren, D. R., & Hook, J. N. (2015). Relational spirituality
and forgiveness of offenses committed by religious leaders.
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. Advance online
publication, doi: 10.1080/10508619.2014.992752
Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Humility, religion, and
spirituality: An endpiece. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42,
111-117.
Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Van Tongeren,
D. R., Gartner, A. L., Jennings, D. J., II., & Emmons, R. A. (2011).
Relational humility: Conceptualizing and measuring humility as a
personality judgment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 225-234.
Davis, D. E., Rice, K. G., McElroy, S., DeBlaere, C., Choe, E., Van
Tongeren, D. R., & Hook, J. N. (2015). Distinguishing intellectual
humility and general humility. Journal of Positive Psychology. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1048818
Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Hook, J. N. (2010).
Humility: Review of measurement strategies and conceptualization as
personality judgment. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 243-252.
Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., Emmons, R. A.,
Hill, P. C., Bollinger, R. A., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2013).
Humility and the development and repair of social bonds: Two
longitudinal studies. Self and Identity, 12, 58-77.
Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., & Hill, P.
C. (2013). Research on religion/spirituality and forgiveness. Psychology
of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 233-241.
Diener, E., Tay, L., & Myers, D. G. (2011). The religious
paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1278-1290.
Dorn, K., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., &
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2014). Behavioral measures of assessing
forgiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 75-80.
Eidelson, R. J., & Eidelson, J. I. (2003). Dangerous ideas:
Five beliefs that propel groups toward conflict. American Psychologist,
58, 182-192. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.3.182
Farrell, J. E., Hook, J. N., Ramos, M., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren,
D. R., & Ruiz, J. M. (2015). Humility and relationship outcomes in
couples: The mediating role of commitment. Couple and Family Psychology:
Research and Practice, 4, 14-26.
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to
forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and
dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894-914. doi:
Greer, C. L., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Lin, Y., Lavelock, C. R.,
& Griffin, B. J. (2014). Efficacy of a self-directed forgiveness
workbook for Christian victims of within-congregation offenders.
Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 1,218-230. doi:10.1037/scp0000012
Haidt, J. (2013). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided
by politics and religion. New York, NY: Vintage.
Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., &
Utsey, S. O. (2013). Cultural humility: Measuring openness to culturally
diverse clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 353-366.
Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Hill, P. C.,
Worthington Jr, E. L., Farrell, J. E., & Dieke, P. (2015).
Intellectual humility and forgiveness of religious leaders. The Journal
of Positive Psychology, 10(6), 499-506.
doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1004554
John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge
agreement on personality traits: The Big Five 820 domains,
observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self.
Journal of Personality, 61, 521-551.
Johnson, K. A., Li, Y. J., Cohen, A. B., & Okun, M. A. (2013).
Friends in high places: The influence of authoritarian and benevolent
God-concepts on social attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Religion
and Spirituality, 5, 15-22.
Johnson, K. A., Memon, R., Alladin, A., Cohen, A. B., & Okun,
M. A. (2015). Who helps the Samaritan? The influence of religious and
secular primes on spontaneous helping of members of the religious
out-group s. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 15, 217-231.
Juergensmeyer, M. (2003). Terror in the mind of God: The global
rise of religious violence. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Mayrl, D., & Oeur, F. (2009). Religion and higher education:
Current knowledge and directions for future research. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 260-275.
McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression-related
motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and
their links to the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
28, 1556-1573. doi: 10.1177/014616702237583
McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (Eds.).
(2000). Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E.
L., Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal
forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and
measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1586-1603.
McElroy, S. E., Rice, K. G., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Hill, P.
C., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & VanTongeren, D. R. (2014).
Intellectual humility: Scale development and theoretical elaborations in
the context of religious leadership. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
42, 19-30.
Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping:
Theory, research, practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2012). American grace: Flow
religion divides us and unites us. New York, NY: Simon Sc Schuster.
Roberts, R. C., & Wood, W. J. (2003). Humility and epistemic
goods. In M. DePaul and L. Zagzebski (Eds.), Intellectual virtue:
Perspectives from ethics and epistemology (pp. 203-226). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Rowatt, W. C., Powers, C., Targhetta, V., Comer, J., Kennedy, S.,
& Labouff, J. (2006). Development and initial validation of an
implicit measure of humility relative to arrogance. Journal of Positive
Psychology, 7, 198-211.
Thomas, E. K., & Sutton, G. W. (2008). Religious leadership
failure: Forgiveness, apology, and restitution. Journal of Spirituality
in Mental Health, 10, 308-327.
Thomas, E. K., White, K., & Sutton, G. W. (2008). Clergy
apologies following abuse: What makes a difference? Exploring
forgiveness, apology, responsibility-taking, gender, and restoration.
Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 16-29.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Social
benefits of humility: Initiating and maintaining romantic relationships.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 313-321.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Stafford, J., Hook, J. N., Green, J. D.,
Davis, D. E., & Johnson, K. A. (2015). Humility attenuates negative
attitudes and behaviors toward religious outgroup members. Journal of
Positive Psychology. Advance online publication, doi:
10.1080/17439760.2015.1037861
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S.,
McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., ... O'Connor, L. (2003). The
Religious Commitment Inventory-10: Development, refinement, and
validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 50, 84-96.
Author Information
ZHANG, HANSONG. MA. Address: University of North Texas, 1155 Union
Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203. Title: Doctoral student. Degrees: MA
(Psychology) Indiana University South Bend. Specializations:
spirituality and its interaction with psychology.
FARRELL, JENNIFER E. MA. Address: University of North Texas, 1155
Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203. Title: Research assistant and
teaching assistant. Degrees: MA (Psychology). Specialization: Positive
psychology.
HOOK, JOSHUA, N. Address: University of North Texas, 1155 Union
Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203. Title: Assistant Professor of
Psychology. Degrees: BS (Psychology) University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign; MS (Counseling Psychology) Virginia Commonwealth
University; PhD (Counseling Psychology) Virginia Commonwealth
University. Specializations: Positive psychology, humility, forgiveness,
religion/spirituality.
DAVIS, DON E. PhD. Address: College of Education Georgia State
University, P.O. Box 3980, Atlanta, GA 30302-3980. Title: Assistant
Professor of Counseling and Psychological Services Georgia State
University. Degrees: PhD (Counseling Psychology) Virginia Commonwealth
University; BA (Psychology) Yale University. Specializations: Humility,
forgiveness, positive psychology, religion/ spirituality.
VAN TONGEREN, DARYL R. PhD. Address: Department of Psychology, Hope
College, Schaap Science Center, 35 East 12th Street, Holland, MI
49423-3605. Title: Assistant Professor of Psychology. Degrees: BA
(Psychology) Colorado Christian University; MA (Experimental Psychology)
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs; PhD (Social Psychology)
Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: social psychological
approaches to meaning, religion, and virtues.
JOHNSON, KATHRYN A. PhD. Address: Department of Psychology
(Social), Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister Ave, P.O. Box
871104, Tempe, AZ 85287. Title: Assistant Research Professor. Degrees:
PhD (Psychology) Arizona State University.
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. RCI 2.43 1.09 --
2. RHS 3.95 0.47 0.20 * --
3. Victim IH 3.52 0.66 0.02 0.25 * --
4. Offender IH 2.44 0.86 0.12 -0.06 0.32 * --
5. TRIM 3.94 0.91 0.04 0.11 0.41 * 0.35 * --
Note. RCI = Religious Commitment, which reflects participants'
commitment to their religion; RHS = Relational Humility Scale,
which reflects participants' self-reported GH; Victim IH =
Victim's Intellectual Humility, which reflects participants'
self-reported intellectual humility toward the offender s
religious perspective; Offender IH = Offender Intellectual
Humility, which reflects the victims' perceptions of the
offender's IH toward their religious perspective; TRIM =
Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivation Inventory; All
scales range from 1 to 5.
* p < .01.
