No file available
To read the file of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Humble and Apologetic? Predicting Apology Quality with Intellectual and General Humility
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.
Abstract
Apologies are powerful predictors of reconciliation, but transgressors often fail to offer optimal, high-quality apologies that are comprehensive and non-defensive. We tested whether intellectual humility and general humility predict the use of high-quality apologies versus taking no action to resolve a conflict, and the processes that mediate these associations using online vignette experiments. In Study 1 (N = 397), transgressors with greater intellectual humility offered higher-quality apologies and were less likely to take no action following a relational offense. However, these associations did not remain significant when controlling for general humility. In Study 2 (N = 394), intellectual humility uniquely predicted greater apology comprehensiveness and less inaction following an intellect-based offense, demonstrating its context-specific associations with apology behavior. By contrast, general humility was a robust predictor of higher-quality apologies and less inaction across offense contexts. Consistent with recent theorizing on psychological barriers to apologizing, both studies also found support for the mediating roles of empathic effort and self-protection.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Wisdom involves certain types of pragmatic reasoning to navigate challenges in social life. Scholars presented aspects of wise reasoning that include perspective taking, consideration of change and alternatives, intellectual humility, search for compromise, and adopting an outsider’s vantage point. Researchers have found that most WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) people can reason more wisely about friends’ social problems than their own (i.e., Solomon’s paradox). However, it is not clear whether Solomon’s paradox will exhibit different characteristics and mechanisms among Chinese people who are mainly interdependent selves. We hypothesized that 1) Americans endorsed greater wise-reasoning strategies in the friend-conflict condition than in the self-conflict condition, while among Chinese, endorsement of wise-reasoning strategies did not differ between the two conditions; 2) People with independent self exhibited greater wise reasoning in the friend-conflict condition than in the self-conflict condition, whereas people with interdependent self didn’t have significant differences between the two conditions.
In study 1, we recruited 594 American participants from MTurk and 610 Chinese participants from a Chinese survey platform to participate in “a survey of daily life”. Participants who responded less attentiveness to the study was excluded. The final sample consisted of 282 American participants (125 females, 155 males 2 with unreported gender; M = 36.87 y, SD = 11.04; 218 Whites, 21 African Americans, 27 Asian, 13 Latino, and 3 other) and 295 Chinese participants (151 females, 144 males; M = 23.22 y, SD = 4.34). Participants were randomly assigned to either self-conflict or friend-conflict conditions. They were asked to think about a close relationship that was currently not going very well, and then responded to the wise-reasoning scale and self-construal scale. The results using the alignment and ANOVA both showed that Americans reason more wisely about friend’s interpersonal conflict than about their own, while the Chinese didn’t have significant differences between the two conditions. Moreover, the interaction effect of independent self and conflict type on wise reasoning was significantly positive in Chinese culture. Among participants high in independent self, endorsement of wise-reasoning strategies was greater in the other-conflict condition than in the self-conflict condition (β = .21, t(287) = 2.48, p = .014), whereas among participants low in independent self, endorsement of wise-reasoning strategies did not differ between the two conditions (β = -.07, t(287) = -.81, p = .419). In study 2 (n = 710) and 3 (n = 537), we created a 2 (priming independent vs. interdependent self-construal) × 2 (self-conflict vs. friend-conflict) between-subjects design online and in study 4 (n = 200), we created same design in lab. The results all showed that independent participants reason more wisely about friend’s conflict than about their own, while the differences between the conditions were not significant among interdependent participants.
The results from the two studies indicate that Solomon’s paradox is not universal and may only exist in individuals with high independent self. This study also suggests that we should not only focus on the WEIRD samples but also pay attention to the WEIRD researchers who use these samples to make inferences about humans in general.
During the last decade, intellectual humility has gone from a topic of philosophical inquiry to one of serious scientific investigation. It has been variously described as a remedy for political polarization, a tool for advancing scientific credibility, and a disposition that promotes learning. However, less attention has been paid to how intellectual humility has been defined and measured or how well psychologists’ definitions and measures align with one another or with philosophers’ accounts. Through a systematic review of empirical intellectual humility research, we identified 18 separate definitions and 20 measures including16 unique questionnaires. We then synthesized this research to advance a new framework of intellectual humility. Implications of this framework for measurement and future research on intellectual humility are discussed.
Although apologies are effective at promoting reconciliation, perpetrators often choose not to apologize because doing so can be threatening to the self. We hypothesized that dispositional self-protection would be negatively associated with willingness to apologize, but only when the transgression pertained to the self rather than another person. Only in that case would self-positivity be threatened, thereby activating the self-protection motive. In addition, we hypothesized that the negative association between self-protection and willingness to apologize for self-referent offenses would be serially mediated by responsibility-taking and guilt. This would be so because perpetrators can self-protect by lowering their felt responsibility and, in turn, reduce guilt for the transgression. The results were consistent with the hypotheses. We discuss implications of this motivational account for unwillingness to apologize.
Robust evidence supports the importance of apologies for promoting forgiveness. Yet less is known about how apologies exert their effects. Here, we focus on their potential to promote forgiveness by way of increasing perceptions of relationship value. We used a method for directly testing these causal claims by manipulating both the independent variable and the proposed mediator. Namely, we use a 2 (Apology: yes vs. no) × 2 (Value: high vs. low) concurrent double-randomization design to test whether apologies cause forgiveness by affecting the same causal pathway as relationship value. In addition to supporting this causal claim, we also find that apologies had weaker effects on forgiveness when received from high-value transgressors, suggesting that the forgiveness-relevant information provided by apologies is redundant with relationship value. Taken together, these findings from a rigorous methodological paradigm help us parse out how apologies promote relationship repair.
If left unresolved, interpersonal offenses can poison people's relationships. Fortunately, transgressors can promote reconciliation with the victim by offering comprehensive and non‐defensive apologies. What predicts whether transgressors go the extra mile to offer these high‐quality apologies? In Study 1 (N = 289), participants who reported greater state empathy toward their romantic partner offered more comprehensive and less defensive apologies for an unresolved offense they had committed. In Study 2 (N = 150), participants who reported greater state empathy toward a friend offered more comprehensive and less defensive apologies for an imagined offense. In Study 3 (N = 251), participants who were experimentally induced to experience high (vs. low) empathy offered more comprehensive apologies for unresolved transgressions across a variety of relationship types. These studies are the first to provide experimental and behavioral evidence of the empathy–apology link, and suggest that fostering empathy might be a powerful way to promote more constructive conflict responses in interpersonal relationships.
How can people wisely navigate social conflict? Two preregistered longitudinal experiments (Study 1: Canadian adults; Study 2: American and Canadian adults; total N = 555) tested whether encouraging distanced (i.e., third-person) self-reflection would help promote wisdom. Both experiments measured wise reasoning (i.e., intellectual humility, open-mindedness about how situations could unfold, consideration of and attempts to integrate diverse viewpoints) about challenging interpersonal events. In a month-long experiment (Study 1), participants used either a third- or first-person perspective in diary reflections on each day's most significant experience. Compared with preintervention assessments, assessments made after the intervention revealed that participants reflecting in the third person showed a significant increase in wise reasoning about interpersonal challenges. These effects were statistically accounted for by shifts in diary-based reflections toward a broader self-focus. A week-long experiment (Study 2) replicated the third-person self-reflection effect on wise reasoning (vs. first-person and no-pronoun control conditions). These findings suggest an efficient and evidence-based method for fostering wise reasoning.
During a national reckoning against sexual violence, the public read or heard dozens of apologies offered by prominent public figures in response to allegations of sexual misconduct. This study examined people’s reactions to these apologies, with a focus on whether their implicit theories of personality—their beliefs about whether personality is changeable—influenced their evaluations of the apologies and the men who issued them. Using a nationally representative sample (N = 720) and real apologies offered during the #MeToo movement, it was found that, relative to people holding more of an entity (i.e., fixed) view of personality, those holding more of an incremental (i.e., malleable) view evaluated the apologies and apologizers more favorably, held more positive general attitudes toward this recent wave of apologies for misconduct, and were more likely to indicate that redemption was possible for the accused men. These findings suggest that people who hold more of an incremental theory of personality might interpret an apology as a meaningful signal that a person is ready and willing to change their ways and work toward self-improvement.
Researchers commonly conceptualize forgiveness as a rich complex of psychological changes involving attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. Psychometric work with the measures developed to capture this conceptual richness, however, often points to a simpler picture of the psychological dimensions in which forgiveness takes place. In an effort to better unite forgiveness theory and measurement, we evaluate several psychometric models for common measures of forgiveness. In doing so, we study people from the United States and Japan to understand forgiveness in both nonclose and close relationships. In addition, we assess the predictive utility of these models for several behavioral outcomes that traditionally have been linked to forgiveness motives. Finally, we use the methods of item response theory, which place person abilities and item responses on the same metric and, thus, help us draw psychological inferences from the ordering of item difficulties. Our results highlight models based on correlated factors models and bifactor (S-1) models. The bifactor (S-1) model evinced particular utility: Its general factor consistently predicts variation in relevant criterion measures, including 4 different experimental economic games (when played with a transgressor), and also suffuses a second self-report measure of forgiveness. Moreover, the general factor of the bifactor (S-1) model identifies a single psychological dimension that runs from hostility to friendliness while also pointing to other sources of variance that may be conceived of as method factors. Taken together, these results suggest that forgiveness can be usefully conceptualized as prosocial change along a single attitudinal continuum that ranges from hostility to friendliness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
The prosocial personality trait of honesty‐humility has received extensive attention in the last decade. However, research on the mechanism underlying the relationship between honesty‐humility and prosocial behavior is rather scarce. This study aims to explore the internal mechanism underlying this relationship to draw a complete picture of the honesty‐humility trait. A sample of 458 Chinese young adults was obtained to complete self‐report measures of honesty‐humility, perspective taking, guilt‐proneness, and prosocial behavior. The mediation model revealed that: (1) honesty‐humility positively related to prosocial behavior; (2) perspective taking and guilt‐proneness mediated the relationship between honesty‐humility and prosocial behavior, separately; and (3) the effect of honesty‐humility on prosocial behavior was mediated via perspective taking and then guilt‐proneness. In conclusion, we provide an initial support for the mediating roles of perspective taking and guilt‐proneness in the relationship between honesty‐humility and prosocial behavior. Both theoretical and practical implications for understanding the psychological mechanisms of prosocial behavior are discussed.
Five studies (N = 1,189) examined how intellectual humility (IH) relates to acquiring knowledge (learning). IH was associated with more general knowledge, but was unrelated to cognitive ability, and associated with slightly lower GPA. Findings were also mixed for meta-cognition. IH was associated with less claiming of knowledge one doesn’t have, indicating a more accurate assessment of one’s knowledge. However, IH was also associated with underestimating one’s cognitive ability. The differences may have resulted from using multiple measures of IH, each tapping unique aspects of the construct. Finally, IH was associated with a variety of characteristics associated with knowledge acquisition, including reflective thinking, need for cognition, intellectual engagement, curiosity, intellectual openness, and open-minded thinking. IH was also associated with less social vigilantism, which may promote collaborative learning. Finally, IH was associated with an intrinsic motivation to learn. These links may help explain the observed relationship between IH and possessing more knowledge.
The need for cognition refers to people’s tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking and has become influential across social and medical sciences. Using three samples from the United States and the United Kingdom (N = 1,596), we introduce a six-item short version of the Need for Cognition Scale (NCS-18). First, we reduced the number of items from 18 to 6 based on the items’ discrimination values, threshold levels, measurement precision (item information curve), item–total correlations, and factor loadings. Second, we confirmed the one-factor structure and established measurement invariance across countries and gender. Finally, we demonstrated that while the NCS-6 provides significant time savings, it comes at a minimal cost in terms of its construct validity with external variables such as openness, cognitive reflection test, and need for affect. Overall, our findings indicate that the NCS-6 is a parsimonious, reliable, and valid measure of need for cognition.
In this article, we discuss the role of moral character in negotiation and identify open questions and promising directions for future scholars to explore. We advance research in this area by introducing a dyadic model of moral character in negotiation that highlights the joint influence of each party’s moral character on negotiation attitudes, motives, and behaviors. We discuss the implications of our model and conclude that personality science—especially the study of moral character—has great potential to enhance research and practice in negotiations. Our hope is that this work will accelerate theoretical development and empirical studies that address the question of how moral character influences negotiation processes and outcomes—from pre-negotiation (e.g., planning, selecting negotiating partners) to actual bargaining (e.g., bargaining tactics, concessions) to post-negotiation (e.g., deal implementation, long-term consequences, relationship building and maintenance, reputations)—and provide a springboard for future studies on this topic.
Less than ten years ago, humility science seemed stuck with intractable measurement problems. Due to theoretical innovations, measures have proliferated in recent years. Humility science now faces a critical task of reconciling definitions and measures. We reviewed 22 measures of humility, including (a) survey measures of general humility, (b) survey measures of humility subdomains, (c) indirect measures of humility, and (d) state measures of humility. We coded each item of each measure into a humility content domain and compared the various content areas covered by each measure. Then, we described the scale structure and evidence pertaining to reliability and validity. Finally, we identified the relatively stronger measures of humility and recommended a consolidated definition of humility.
After committing an offense, transgressors face an important decision regarding how to respond to the people they hurt. Do they make themselves emotionally vulnerable by offering high-quality, comprehensive apologies? Or do they seek to protect themselves with defensive strategies, such as justifications and excuses? In two studies, we examined the link between attachment styles and apology quality. We hypothesized that because people high in attachment avoidance are uncomfortable with emotional vulnerability and tend to defensively disengage from the emotional aspects of relationships, they would offer less comprehensive and more defensive apologies. In Study 1, participants imagined hurting a friend and then rated their likelihood of using each of eight apology elements and five defensive strategies. In Study 2, participants wrote a real e-mail to a person they had hurt. Our prediction was supported in both studies, suggesting that attachment avoidance plays an important role in how transgressors manage their offenses.
Developed, on the basis of responses from 608 undergraduate students to the 33-item Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, three short forms of 11, 12, and 13 items. The psychometric characteristics of these three forms and three other short forms developed by Strahan and Gerbasi (1972) were investigated and comparisons made. Results, in the form of internal consistency reliability, item factor loadings, short form with Marlowe-Crowne total scale correlations, and correlations between Marlowe-Crowne short forms and the Edwards Social Desirability Scale, indicate that psychometrically sound short forms can be constructed. Comparisons made between the short forms examined in this investigation suggest the 13-item form as a viable substitute for the regular 33-item Marlowe-Crowne scale.
Strong disagreements have stymied today’s political discourse. We investigate intellectual humility – recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge and appreciating others’ intellectual strengths – as one factor that can make disagreements more constructive. In Studies 1 and 2, participants with higher intellectual humility were more open to learning about the opposition’s views during imagined disagreements. In Study 3, those with higher intellectual humility exposed themselves to a greater proportion of opposing political perspectives. In Study 4, making salient a growth mindset of intelligence boosted intellectual humility, and, in turn, openness to opposing views. Results suggest that intellectual humility is associated with openness during disagreement, and that a growth mindset of intelligence may increase intellectual humility. Implications for current political polarization are discussed.
We hypothesized that narcissists would be unwilling to apologize for their interpersonal transgressions, and that reduced levels of self-reported empathy and guilt would serially mediate this effect. Narcissism is characterized by little empathy for the victim, which reduces guilt about one’s transgressions. Low guilt, in turn, is associated with unwillingness to apologize. In Study 1, we assessed dispositional narcissism, empathy, guilt, and willingness to apologize. In Study 2, we assessed dispositional narcissism and obtained state measures of empathy, guilt, and willingness to apologize. In Study 3, we manipulated narcissism and collected state measures of empathy, guilt, and willingness to apologize. Narcissism was negatively associated with (Studies 1-2) and decreased (Study 3) willingness to apologize, with this link being explained (i.e., serially mediated) by low empathy and guilt. Finally, in Study 4, we showed that antagonistic narcissism (i.e., narcissistic rivalry), but not agentic narcissism (i.e., narcissistic admiration), was negatively associated with willingness to apologize and apologizing behaviour. In all, narcissists are unwilling to apologize for their transgressions, as they experience little empathy for their victims and lower guilt.
Humility is a core psychological process theoretically marked by low self-focus, secure identity, and balanced awareness of strengths and weaknesses. We began with a consensual definition of humility before theoretically unpacking it. First, using 25 samples and 2622 adults, we developed the Brief State Humility Scale, which demonstrates strong construct validity and good reliability, is sensitive to experimental manipulation, and is uncorrelated with social desirability. Second, using this measure, we replicated previously reported relationships involving interpersonal processes; revealed links between state humility and intrapersonal processes (e.g. affect, creativity, and personality); and demonstrated key theoretical differences between state humility and modesty. This framework highlights new avenues for humility research and suggests how humility plays a critical role in emotional experience.
Research has established links between humility and prosocial outcomes. This study examined, with self-report data, whether humility with regard to one’s knowledge would be predictive of prosocial values. Consistent with hypotheses, intellectual humility was associated with higher levels of empathy, gratitude, altruism, benevolence, and universalism, and lower levels of power seeking. Analyses supported empathy and gratitude as mediators between intellectual humility and prosocial values. These findings leave open the possibility that intellectual humility may be a precursor to links previously established between empathy and gratitude and prosocial outcomes. Characteristics of intellectual humility such as recognizing one’s cognitive limits, having a non-defensive stance toward one’s beliefs, and respecting others’ viewpoints may put one in a unique position to experience empathy and gratitude, and by extension, a host of prosocial values. Future research would be required to examine whether intellectual humility is a possible point of intervention for promoting positive social interactions.
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.
This article focused on how perceptions of intellectual humility (IH)-humility regarding one's 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.
Humility is marked by the regulation of selfish impulses for the sake of others, including holding a modest view of one’s beliefs (and their relative strengths and weaknesses). In three studies, we evaluated the extent to which humility attenuates negative attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behaviors toward religious out-group members. In Study 1 (N = 159), humility regarding religious beliefs was associated with positive attitudes toward religiously different individuals. In Study 2 (N = 149), relational and intellectual humility were associated with less aggressive behavioral intentions in a hypothetical situation in which their cherished beliefs were criticized. In Study 3 (N = 62), participants implicitly primed with humility administered significantly less hot sauce (a behavioral measure of aggression) to a religious out-group member who criticized their cherished views relative to participants in the neutral prime condition. We highlight the importance of humility in promoting positive attitudes and behaviors toward religious out-group members.
In two experiments and one diary study, we examined the relationship between self- and other-oriented processes by considering how gratitude can influence humility and vice versa. Humility is characterized by low self-focus, secure sense of self, and increased valuation of others. Gratitude is marked by a sense that one has benefited from the actions of another. In the first experiment, participants who wrote a gratitude letter showed higher state humility than those who performed a neutral activity. In the second experiment, baseline state humility predicted the amount of gratitude felt after writing a gratitude letter compared to a neutral
activity. Finally, in a 14-day diary study, humility and gratitude mutually predicted one another, even after controlling for the other’s prior level. Our results suggest that humility and gratitude are mutually reinforcing.
Apologizing is often seen as the appropriate response after a transgression for perpetrators. Yet, despite the positive effects that apologies elicit after situations of conflict, they are not always delivered easily. We argue that this is due—at least in part—to perpetrators overestimating the averseness of apologizing, thus committing a forecasting error. Across two laboratory experiments and one autobiographical recall study, we demonstrate that perpetrators overestimate the averseness they will experience when apologizing compared to the averseness they experience when they actually apologize. Moreover, we show that this effect is driven by a misconstrual of the effects of an apology. Perpetrators overestimate the potentially negative effects of apologizing while simultaneously underestimating the potentially positive effects of apologizing. This forecasting error may have a negative effect on the initiation of the reconciliation process, due to perpetrators believing that apologizing is more averse than it actually is.
Empathy is often thought to occur automatically. Yet, empathy frequently breaks down when it is difficult or distressing to relate to people in need, suggesting that empathy is often not felt reflexively. Indeed, the United States as a whole is said to be displaying an empathy deficit. When and why does empathy break down, and what predicts whether people will exert effort to experience empathy in challenging contexts? Across 7 studies, we found that people who held a malleable mindset about empathy (believing empathy can be developed) expended greater empathic effort in challenging contexts than did people who held a fixed theory (believing empathy cannot be developed). Specifically, a malleable theory of empathy-whether measured or experimentally induced-promoted (a) more self-reported effort to feel empathy when it is challenging (Study 1); (b) more empathically effortful responses to a person with conflicting views on personally important sociopolitical issues (Studies 2-4); (c) more time spent listening to the emotional personal story of a racial outgroup member (Study 5); and (d) greater willingness to help cancer patients in effortful, face-to-face ways (Study 6). Study 7 revealed a possible reason for this greater empathic effort in challenging contexts: a stronger interest in improving one's empathy. Together, these data suggest that people's mindsets powerfully affect whether they exert effort to empathize when it is needed most, and these data may represent a point of leverage in increasing empathic behaviors on a broad scale. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
Committing an offense creates psychological need within a victim and offender that can act as barriers to reconciliation. This paper examines the process of an offender addressing these needs independent of a victim's response in order to facilitate a process of self-forgiveness that promotes reconciliation and self-trust. We present two studies involving interventions following recent real-life interpersonal transgressions. Results suggest that meeting an offender's need for moral identity through the affirmation of the values violated by the offense, but not affirmation of belonging (Study 1), or affirmation of unrelated values (Study 2) increased genuine self-forgiveness, through shame acknowledgment. This process had downstream benefits for reconciliation and self-trust at one week follow-up.
Most past research on apologies examines participants’ responses to imaginary transgressions or minor offenses against strangers. This research consequently neglects how the quality of pre-existing relationships might influence responses to apologies in everyday life. I examined whether relationship satisfaction moderated the association between apologies and forgiveness in romantic relationships by influencing perceptions of apology sincerity. Members of 60 married or cohabiting couples first assessed their relationship satisfaction. Participants then completed daily diaries, reporting transgressions by their partners, apologies by their partners, perceived apology sincerity, and willingness to forgive their partners. Apologies predicted forgiveness only for participants highly satisfied with their relationships. In addition, relationship satisfaction was positively associated with participants' ratings of the sincerity of the apologies, which in turn predicted forgiveness. The findings suggest that, relative to less satisfied individuals, highly satisfied individuals are more forgiving following apologies, because they regard their partners’ apologies as sincere expressions of remorse.
Effective processing of a transgression must involve accepting responsibility for one's wrongdoing. However accepting responsibility may mean increasing the threat of social exclusion which offenders face as a result of their transgression, yet humans are fundamentally motivated to avoid this type of threat. Pseudo self-forgiveness is the use of minimization of harm, denial of wrongdoing, or victim derogation in order to release oneself from guilt and shame. This research examines the defensive psychological process of pseudo self-forgiveness and the impact of threat to belonging on a transgressor's engagement with this defensive response in both an experimental setting and real life. Study 1 used a lab based approach, manipulating the threat to belonging with an ostracism task. Ostracized participants minimized harm to the victim, reported less shame, regret and self-anger and less desire to reconcile with the victim. Study 2 followed participants over the 11 days after committing an interpersonal transgression. Results of analyses with linear mixed modeling suggest that the more rejected participants felt the more they engaged in pseudo self-forgiveness. Hostile responses from the victim were positively associated with pseudo self-forgiveness and others' respectful confrontation was negatively associated with pseudo self-forgiveness. Results suggest that need for belonging is a key variable for rehabilitation after committing a transgression.
Across various disciplines apologies are discussed as an instrument of conflict transformation. Questions regarding "how" and "why" apologies contribute to resolving conflicts need to be illuminated further. These questions are addressed in two experimental vignette studies in Germany. Study 1 supports the idea that the inclusion of more verbal elements in an apology increases forgiveness, especially after a more severe offense. The study also reveals that the relationship between the completeness of apology and forgiveness is mediated by anger reduction. Study 2 demonstrates that for a more severe offense four elements of apology are particularly relevant, namely conveying emotions, admitting fault, a statement of apology such as "I apologize," and an attempt at explanation. Implications for conflict transformation and further scholarly inquiries are discussed.
The most widely used measure of trait narcissism is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), which can provide both total and subscale scores. However, with a length of 40 items, this measure may not be ideal in settings in which time or participant attention may limit the types of measures that can be administered. In response, Ames, Rose, and Anderson (2006) created the NPI-16, which provides a shorter, unidimensional measure of the construct. In the present research, we examine the reliability and validity of the NPI-16 in conjunction with a new short measure of narcissism, the NPI-13, which provides both a total score and 3 subscale scores (Leadership/Authority; Grandiose Exhibitionism; Entitlement/Exploitativeness). Across 2 studies, we demonstrate that both short measures manifest good convergent and discriminant validity and adequate overall reliability. The NPI-13 may be favored over the NPI-16 because it allows for the extraction of 3 subscales, consistent with the use of its parent measure. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
This study primarily sought to determine the relative strengths of the concurrent associations between satisfaction with the main romantic relationship and the four conflict indices of avoidance, negative handling, no resolution, and outcome dissatisfaction in 61 female and 35 male students. A path model in which outcome dissatisfaction mediated the association between relationship satisfaction and avoidance, negative handling, and no resolution was tested. None of these three conflict indices had a direct effect on relationship satisfaction and only no resolution had a significant effect on outcome dissatisfaction. These results highlight the role that the actual resolution of conflict may have in determining relationship satisfaction and indicate that it should be included in both self-report and observational measures of conflict.
The present study was focused on self-esteem and narcissism as predictors of intellectual humility. Two multidimensional measures of intellectual humility (Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale and Limitations- Owning Intellectual Humility Scale) were administered, along with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, to 165 Polish adults aged 20–50. Self-esteem and narcissism turned out to independently predict intellectual humility at the domain level, with the former being a positive, and the latter – a negative predictor. As expected, the regression models were most effective for the most ego-involved domains of intellectual humility.
In recent years, an upsurge of polarization has been a salient feature of political discourse in America. A small but growing body of research has examined the potential relevance of intellectual humility (IH) to political polarization. In the present investigation, we extend this work to political myside bias, testing the hypothesis that IH is associated with less bias in two community samples ( N 1 = 498; N 2 = 477). In line with our expectations, measures of IH were negatively correlated with political myside bias across paradigms, political topics, and samples. These relations were robust to controlling for humility. We also examined ideological asymmetries in the relations between IH and political myside bias, finding that IH–bias relations were statistically equivalent in members of the political left and right. Notwithstanding important limitations and caveats, these data establish IH as one of a small handful psychological features known to predict less political myside bias.
Ideally, following an interpersonal transgression an offender will accept responsibility, work through guilt or shame, and be willing to reconcile with the victim. However, this process can be thwarted by defensiveness or self-condemnation. We tested whether humility was associated with increased self-forgiveness, decreased self-condemnation and defensiveness, and increased willingness to reconcile. In Study 1 ( N = 302), we found trait humility was associated with higher levels of trait self-forgiveness directly and indirectly via reduced defensiveness (but not self-condemnation). In Study 2 ( N = 194), we found that trait and state humility were associated with higher levels of self-forgiveness directly and indirectly via reduced defensiveness, and through both of these, humility was positively associated with willingness to reconcile. There was also a weak positive indirect effect of humility on willingness to reconcile via reduced self-condemnation. These studies suggest that humility, long ignored in forgiveness studies, might play several crucial roles.
Two studies tested the hypothesis that humility is characterized by the belief that, no matter how extraordinary one’s accomplishments or characteristics may be, one is not entitled to be treated special because of them (hypo-egoic nonentitlement). Participants identified either one (Study 1) or five (Study 2) positive accomplishments or characteristics, rated those accomplishments/characteristics, indicated how they believed they should be treated because of them, and completed measures of humility and related constructs. As predicted, humility was inversely associated with the belief that other people should treat one special because of one’s accomplishments and positive characteristics. However, humility was not related to participants’ ratings of the positivity of their accomplishments or characteristics or of themselves. Ancillary analyses examined the relationships between hypo-egoic nonentitlement, humility, and measures of self-esteem, narcissism, self- and other-interest, psychological entitlement, individualism-collectivism, and identification with humanity.
After committing an offense, a transgressor faces an important decision regarding whether and how to apologize to the person who was harmed. The actions he or she chooses to take after committing an offense can have dramatic implications for the victim, the transgressor, and their relationship. Although high-quality apologies are extremely effective at promoting reconciliation, transgressors often choose to offer a perfunctory apology, withhold an apology, or respond defensively to the victim. Why might this be? In this article, I propose three major barriers to offering high-quality apologies: (a) low concern for the victim or relationship, (b) perceived threat to the transgressor’s self-image, and (c) perceived apology ineffectiveness. I review recent research examining how these barriers affect transgressors’ apology behavior and describe insights this emerging work provides for developing methods to move transgressors toward more reparative behavior. Finally, I discuss important directions for future research.
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.
Humility is a central virtue of many world religions. In this paper, we explored whether religious and nonreligious individuals conceptualize and respond to humility differently. In Study 1, we surveyed 361 students and found that religious participants described themselves as more humble than nonreligious participants. In Study 2, we studied community members in 2 samples (N = 180, Sample A; N = 112, Sample B) using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk). We found that experimentally priming humility had different effects based on religious affiliation. After receiving criticism about their social attitudes (Sample A) or religious beliefs (Sample B), religious participants primed with humility reported lower retaliatory intentions and nonreligious participants reported greater retaliatory intentions relative to a neutral prime. Moreover, religious individuals more strongly desired to be described as humble. In Study 3 (N = 254), we altered the priming induction to reduce the possibility participants would recall a time of humiliation, and we statistically controlled for embarrassment and shame linked to the recall episode. Doing so eliminated the moderating effect of religious status and revealed a main effect for humility in reducing defensiveness. These findings suggest that religious individuals may prioritize or conceptualize humility differently than nonreligious individuals.
Four studies examined intellectual humility—the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs might be wrong. Using a new Intellectual Humility (IH) Scale, Study 1 showed that intellectual humility was associated with variables related to openness, curiosity, tolerance of ambiguity, and low dogmatism. Study 2 revealed that participants high in intellectual humility were less certain that their beliefs about religion were correct and judged people less on the basis of their religious opinions. In Study 3, participants high in intellectual humility were less inclined to think that politicians who changed their attitudes were “flip-flopping,” and Study 4 showed that people high in intellectual humility were more attuned to the strength of persuasive arguments than those who were low. In addition to extending our understanding of intellectual humility, this research demonstrates that the IH Scale is a valid measure of the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs are fallible.
Forgiveness has received widespread attention among psychologists from social, personality, clinical, developmental and organizational perspectives alike. Despite great progress, the forgiveness literature has witnessed few attempts at empirical integration. Toward this end, we meta-analyze results from 175 studies and 26,006 participants to examine the correlates of interpersonal forgiveness (i.e. forgiveness of a single offender by a single victim). A tripartite forgiveness typology is proposed, encompassing victims’ cognitions, affect, and constraints following offense. Hypotheses are tested with respect to 22 unique constructs that have been measured across different fields within psychology. Key sample and study characteristics including gender, age, time, and methodology are also assessed as main effects and moderators. Results highlight the multifaceted nature of forgiveness, which is related to each factor within the proposed tripartite typology and 20 of the 22 modeled constructs. Sample and study characteristics yielded negligible effects on forgiveness, despite previous theorizing to the contrary. Preliminary evidence suggests that methodology may exhibit some moderating effects. Scenario methodologies strengthened the role of cognitions while recall methodologies strengthened the role of affect.
Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings.
Humility is a neglected virtue in the social and psychological sciences. Virtually no empirical research directly has addressed this long-revered construct. In this article, contrasting conceptions of humility are reviewed. Although humility frequently is equated with a sense of unworthiness and low self-regard, theoreticians view true humility as a rich, multifaceted construct that entails an accurate assessment of one's characteristics, an ability to acknowledge limitations, and a "forgetting of the self." Scientific study of the nature and implications of humility is still in its infancy. Work in this area would be greatly enhanced by the development of theoretically informed measures of humility. Closely related constructs (self-esteem, modesty, and narcissism) are discussed, along with future directions for research.
We investigated the links of the HEXACO personality factors and facets with the proclivity to apologize for transgressions, using self- and observer-reports of personality in two adult samples. The proclivity to apologize showed its strongest correlations with the honesty–humility factor, whether evaluated by the self or a knowledgeable observer. Agreeableness was a positive correlate of the proclivity to apologize in one sample only. In both samples, self-reported conscientiousness was positively associated with a proclivity to apologize. We also obtained self-reports on the guilt and shame proneness scales, given the strong conceptual link between guilt and apology. The proclivity to apologize was associated positively with facets of guilt (especially Negative Behavior Evaluation) but negatively with one facet of Shame (Withdrawal).
Comprehensive apologies are powerful tools that transgressors can use to promote reconciliation with the people they have hurt. However, because many apology elements require transgressors to admit fault, express shameful emotions and promise change, transgressors often avoid these threatening elements and instead choose to use more perfunctory apologies or even defensive strategies, such as justifications or attempts to blame the person they hurt. In two studies, I aimed to increase apology comprehensiveness and reduce defensiveness using self-affirmation. I predicted that self-affirmation would help transgressors maintain their self-integrity, consequently allowing them to offer more comprehensive apologies and bypass defensive strategies. Participants received a values affirmation, recalled an unresolved conflict, and indicated what they would say to the person they had hurt. As predicted, affirmed participants offered more comprehensive apologies and used fewer defensive strategies than control participants. These studies thus identify a simple method for promoting responses that facilitate conflict resolution and demonstrate the successful application of self-affirmation to the domain of interpersonal conflict.
Two studies examined correlates of apology predicted by the theoretical conceptualizations of Tangney and colleagues (e.g., Tangney, 1995) and Sandage, Worthington, Hight, and Berry (2000) concerning guilt and empathy in people’s responses to interpersonal transgressions. In Study 1, 90 undergraduates completed measures of guilt, shame, and apology. As predicted, greater guilt (but not greater shame) was associated with greater generalized willingness to apologize, greater endorsement of the importance of apology in relation to a hypothetical transgression scenario, and greater inclusion of important elements of an apology in a written response to the scenario. In Study 2, with 338 undergraduates, greater guilt, lesser shame, and greater empathy were associated with a greater generalized willingness to apologize. Results are considered in relation to viewing apology as an adaptive capacity.
Relative to forgiveness, individual differences in apology willingness have received limited empirical attention. We correlated responses of >900 undergraduate students to a newly devised Proclivity to Apologize Measure (PAM) with responses to related and dissimilar constructs. In Study 1a, PAM scores correlated positively with well-being, acceptance, and viewing oneself as amenable to change, and negatively with self-monitoring. In Study 1b, PAM scores correlated positively with seeking forgiveness, self-esteem, neuroticism, and agreeableness, and negatively with narcissism and entitlement. In Study 2a, PAM scores correlated positively with care as a moral foundation, and with compassion and other positive emotions. In Study 2b, PAM scores correlated positively with autonomy and competence. We discuss a framework of research concerning apology which mirrors the more established domain of forgiveness.