Stacey E. McElroy

Intellectual Humility: Scale Development and Theoretical Elaborations in the Context of Religious Leadership

This article focused on how perceptions of intellectual humility (IH)—humility regarding ones knowledge or influence over ideas—affect relationships with religious leaders. We developed an informant report measure of IH perceptions using exploratory (Study 1; N = 213) and confirmatory (Study 2; N = 213) factor analyses, as well as a basic manipulation of IH (Study 3; N = 139). Then in Study 4 (N = 105), we examined IH in the context of a major betrayal by a religious leader (i.e., aligning with several factors theorized to strain the practice of IH). The results provide preliminary evidence for the psychometric soundness of the scale, including reliability and content validity of the scores. The scale was able to distinguish between IH and other constructs. Furthermore, the results provide initial evidence that IH is related to social bonds, as perceptions of IH were related to trust and higher forgiveness toward the religious leader, and positive attitudes towards the Sacred.

Distinguishing intellectual humility and general humility

Two studies provide evidence for distinguishing intellectual humility (IH) from general humility (GH). Humility involves (a) an Accurate View of Self and (b) the ability to regulate egotism and cultivate an other-oriented stance; IH is a subdomain of humility that involves (a) having an accurate view of one’s intellectual strengths and limitations and (b) the ability to negotiate ideas in a fair and inoffensive manner. First, we present a theoretical framework for distinguishing these constructs. In Study 1, with a sample of undergraduate students (N = 1097), we used confirmatory factor analysis to provide empirical evidence for this distinction. We also found that IH predicted unique variance in openness to experience relative to GH. In Study 2, we examined additional evidence of discriminant validity with another sample of college students (N = 355). IH also predicted unique variance in need for cognition, objectivism, and religious ethnocentrism relative to GH.

Humility and Religion: Benefits, Difficulties, and a Model of Religious Tolerance

In this chapter, we explore the construct of humility, specifically focusing on its connections with religion, spirituality, and well-being. First, we review how the major world religions conceptualize and teach about the role of humility in living a virtuous life. Second, we review definitions of humility in psychological literature and summarize empirical research examining the associations between humility and well-being. Third, we explore the connections between religiousness and humility. Specifically, although religiousness may be one avenue to promote humility, we examine the paradox that, although most world religions teach and advocate for humility as a virtue, maintaining humility about one’s religious convictions is often challenging. Finally, we explore the role of intellectual humility for addressing the challenges involved in remaining humble to divergent belief systems and as a mechanism for reducing between-group conflict among individuals who hold dissonant beliefs.

Is modesty a subdomain of humility

Although many scholars have sharply distinguished humility from modesty, several research teams recently conceptualized modesty as a subdomain of humility. In the present study, we compare these competing conceptualizations using confirmatory factor analyses. In Study 1, a model with general humility (i.e. second-order factor) predicting the subscales of the Relational Humility Scale (RHS) and the Modesty facet of the HEXACO-PI showed adequate fit; and modesty showed one of the stronger factor loadings on the higher order factor. In Study 2, we used a set of items designed to sharpen the potential distinction between modesty (i.e. interpersonal behavior involving moderating attention to self) and humility. Then, we tested a model with a general humility factor (i.e. second-order factor) predicting subscales of the RHS and modesty items. Once again, modesty items loaded strongly on the higher order factor.

Development of the Experiences of Humility Scale

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

Trait Sources of Spirituality Scale: Assessing Trait Spirituality More Inclusively.

ABSTRACT We develop the Trait Sources of Spirituality Scale (TSSS), which assesses experiences of closeness to the sacred, within and outside a religious tradition. After using factor analysis to finalize the scale, we examine evidence of construct validity, including latent profile analysis that reveals 5 patterns of how spirituality is experienced.

Being Committed Conceptualizations of Romantic Relationship Commitment Among Low-Income African American Adolescents

Few studies have examined adolescents’ understanding of romantic relationship commitment, particularly among African American youth. Using three waves of semistructured interviews, the present descriptive study addresses this topic by exploring the ways in which 20 African American adolescents (age range 13-19 years) from low-income backgrounds conceptualize and describe commitment in romantic relationships. Qualitative analyses revealed three main themes related to defining commitment, indicating that which commitment provides, and describing the nature of commitment in different relationship contexts. Findings inform psychological research and practice relating to commitment and romantic relationships among African American adolescents.

The purity/sanctity subscale of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire does not work similarly for religious versus non-religious individuals.

Moral foundations theory (Graham & Haidt, 2010) has been the dominant theory of morality within social psychology for the last decade, and the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ; Graham, Nosek, Haidt, Iyer, Koleva, & Ditto, 2011) is currently the only multi-item measure to study moral foundations theory. Although previous studies have suggested that the MFQ subscales are associated with religiosity, basic research has not yet established whether the measure is understood in the same way by believing and nonbelieving individuals. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine whether the MFQ (and specifically the purity/sanctity subscale) is understood in the same way by these 2 groups. We predicted that the purity/sanctity subscale would not demonstrate strong (i.e., scalar) invariance. Across 2 samples, we found support for configural and metric invariance and problems with scalar invariance. These results suggest that between-groups differences observed in previous studies may be due to measurement artifacts.

Relational Spirituality and Forgiveness of Intergroup Offenses

Many religious individuals use forgiveness to cope with interpersonal offenses. There has been much work on religion/spirituality and interpersonal forgiveness, but little theory or research has focused on religion/spirituality and intergroup forgiveness. The current study extends a model of relational spirituality to the context of intergroup forgiveness. Undergraduates (N = 166) identified an intergroup offense and completed measures of religious commitment, personality, relational spirituality, and forgiveness. After controlling for personality and religious commitment, appraisals of relational spirituality predicted additional variance in forgiveness of an intergroup offense. This study extends the literature on religion/spirituality and forgiveness to the intergroup context.

Relational Spirituality and Forgiveness of Offenses Committed by Religious Leaders

In the present article, we extend a model of relational spirituality and forgiveness to the context of major offenses by clergy. In Study 1, undergraduate students (N = 208) described a major offense that they had experienced by a religious leader and then completed several questionnaires in relation to the offense and the religious leader. Appraisals of relational spirituality were significantly associated with forgiveness, after controlling for known predictors of forgiveness (i.e., hurtfulness, time since the offense, and commitment to God or another source of spirituality). In Study 2, we replicated and extended the findings from Study 1 using an independent sample of undergraduates (N = 365). In a series of structural equation models, we found that relational engagement of God (or another source of spirituality) partially mediated the relationship between anger toward God (or another source of spirituality) and unforgiving motivations. We conclude by discussing implications for future research.