Measuring humility in musical contexts: Initial development of the Musical Humility Scale

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to construct and validate a psychometric measure of humility in musical contexts. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (N = 423), we demonstrated initial evidence for the validity of a theoretical model of musical humility. We used CFA to test an a priori model building from prior research, which confirmed five factors: purposeful musical engagement and collaboration, other-orientedness, lack of superiority, acknowledgment of shortcomings and learnability, and healthy pride. The resulting Musical Humility Scale is comprised of 30 items that may be further tested alongside other psychometric batteries for investigating predictors and correlates of humility in musical participation. We offer limitations and directions for future research, including strategies for refining the testing criteria and suggestions for establishing convergent and discriminant validity.

Keywords

humility ego positive psychology prosocial behavior psychometric measurement

A musician’s ego is seemingly inextricable from their artistic pursuits. Musicians’ social identities are interwoven throughout the musical interactions in which they engage, particularly as they negotiate their self-interested musical desires with the artistic contributions of those with whom they interact. Musicians who are unable to overcome their egocentric desires might struggle to cultivate deeper musical connections with fellow musicians or their audiences (Coppola, 2019). On the contrary, musicians who are able to eschew their self-regard in favor of humbler comportments might experience musical encounters that are ultimately more satisfying for all. Despite these promising sociomusical potentials, research regarding humility in musical participation currently remains under-investigated.

Humility research in positive psychology

Nearly 20 years after Tangney’s (2000) call for focused research on humility in psychology, inquiry into the virtue has proliferated but remains elusive to define and measure (Davis, Worthington, & Hook, 2010). Humility has been distinguished from modesty, which is merely a single characteristic of a humble person (Exline & Geyer, 2004), provided that it avoids associations with low self-esteem (Rowatt, Ottenbreit, Nesselroade, & Cunningham, 2002). Humility is instead positioned as a positive and empowering trait, differentiating it from etymological connotations of lowliness or meekness (Exline & Geyer, 2004). Thus, humility can be conceptualized as the “just right” equilibrium between arrogance and deference (Davis et al., 2010; Tangney, 2000).

Scholars have presented a variety of characteristics that serve to define humility. Among the most commonly accepted definitions include an accurate view of oneself (Davis et al., 2011; Davis et al., 2010; Tangney, 2000), a modest self-presentation (Exline & Geyer, 2004; Peterson & Seligman, 2004), an interpersonal stance of other-orientedness and low self-focus (Davis et al., 2010; Tangney, 2000), and an acknowledgment of one’s imperfections and shortcomings (Exline & Geyer, 2004; Tangney, 2000). Definitions of humility also tend to include associations with other desirable qualities such as empathy, compassion, gratitude, forgiveness, and an openness to the views of others and diverse cultures (Davis et al., 2010).

Despite challenges associated with measuring humility, various measurement strategies have been developed that each carry unique strengths and limitations (McElroy-Heltzel, Davis, DeBlaere, Worthington, & Hook, 2019). Self-reports have been used commonly, but this approach is thought by some to be problematic because the heightened social value associated with self-identifying as humble may motivate respondents to augment their self-ratings—a phenomenon called the self-enhancement effect (Davis et al., 2011; Rowatt et al., 2006). Noting these challenges, Tangney (2002) speculated that “humility may represent a rare personality construct that is simply unamenable to direct self-report methods” (p. 415).

Several self-report instruments have been developed despite these cautions, including the Modesty–Humility subscale of the Values in Action Strengths Inventory (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and the Honesty–Humility subscale of the HEXACO Personality Inventory (Lee & Ashton, 2004). However, both have been criticized for potentially drawing out respondents’ potential self-enhancement biases and inaccurately conceptualizing humility as interchangeable with modesty (Davis et al., 2011; Davis et al., 2010).

Psychologists have also developed an implicit measure of humility relative to arrogance through a computer-based Implicit Association Test (IAT; Rowatt et al., 2006). IATs have been used extensively to measure implicit biases in race, ethnicity, gender, politics, and so forth (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013). There has been promising potential with the humility–arrogance version of the test, but researchers have struggled with questionable construct validity and reliability, necessitating further investigation (Davis et al., 2011).

Noting the complications with humility’s objective measurement, Davis (2010) proposed a model of relational humility, which conceives of the virtue as a subjective personality judgment assessed within relationship-specific contexts. The approach has resulted in a strategic shift in humility’s measurement from self-reports to other-reports. Based on this theorizing, the Relational Humility Scale requires a judge to be able to adequately perceive a target subject’s humility. The appropriateness of other-reporting is further supported by Vazire (2010), who suggested that other-ratings tend to be more accurate than self-reports when behaviors are highly observable and evaluative. While it contains both interpersonal and intrapersonal components, humility is a highly valenced social construct, making it amenable to other-report methods—provided sufficient interaction between observer and target (Meagher, Leman, Bias, Latendresse, & Rowatt, 2015).

Various forms of humility

Researchers have also suggested that humility does not necessarily function as a global construct but is rather comprised of various sub-types. Worthington, Davis, and Hook (2017) posited that people may exhibit particular forms of humility within specific contexts, and they may not possess all types simultaneously. Some currently recognized sub-forms include cultural humility (Hook, Davis, Owen, Worthington, & Utsey, 2013), intellectual humility (Roberts & Wood, 2007), leader humility (Owens & Hekman, 2012), political humility (Worthington et al., 2017), and others. Pertaining to the arts, Coppola (2019) has theorized the existence of a sub-form of humility specific to musical participation by ethnographically investigating how humility was manifested within the context of a competitive high school jazz band. This proposed construct is referred to as musical humility, which consists of five components comprising of musicians’ interactions between interpersonal, intrapersonal, social, and musical domains: Purposeful Musical Engagement and Collaboration (MEC), Other-Orientedness (OO), a Lack of Superiority (LS), the Acknowledgment of Shortcomings and Learnability (ASL), and Healthy Pride (HP). For detailed descriptions of these components, refer to the original (2019) study.

Purpose

Coppola (2019) sought to establish a conceptual definition of musical humility qualitatively, and in this study, we build upon those findings by attempting to empirically measure the construct. A psychometric measure of musical humility would serve as an effective tool for evaluating musicians’ degree of virtuous and prosocial behaviors within diverse sociomusical environments, including educational, professional, and community music settings. Such a measure would be advantageous among those holding leadership roles (e.g., directors, conductors, music teachers, section leaders) as well as among musicians seeking to enhance their interpersonal interactions among musical peers. Given that the vast majority of humility research has been examined quantitatively (Davis et al., 2010), the development of a psychometric scale of musical humility would allow for the construct to be robustly documented alongside ongoing psychological research. In addition, it would allow for researchers to examine relationships between musical humility and other sub-types of humility as well as possible correlates. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to develop a psychometric measure of musical humility.

Method

Measure and procedure

We developed an initial 47-item other-report questionnaire based on Coppola’s (2019) theoretical framework. Drawing from Davis and colleagues’ (2011) strategy of measuring relational humility, we asked participants to choose a target with whom they possessed a strong, existing relationship and could therefore reasonably judge in accordance with identifiable behaviors over an extended time period (Kenny, 2004).

Participants responded to items using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Items from the questionnaire were divided with attention to the five a priori components of musical humility. Because the majority of participants were full-time music educators freely volunteering their time, we aimed for the questionnaire to not exceed a 10-min completion time. The final instrument took approximately 7 to 10 min to complete.

The scale was first reviewed by four music education colleagues, who suggested that we revise the instrument to require participants to choose a musical peer rather than choosing between a peer and teacher. This revision was proposed to minimize potential complications of power dynamics on the participants’ ability to equitably judge the humility of their target subject. In addition, while Coppola’s (2019) study took place within a jazz environment, all questions were worded to reflect typical experiences had by musicians generally.

We also collected data regarding the musical context(s) in which the participants’ chosen relationship developed (31.4% band, 13.2% choir, 12.3% orchestra, 11.0% general music, 6.6% chamber group, 6.5% studio, 6.2% jazz ensemble, 4.7% accompanied soloist, 3.4% jazz combo, 5.0% other), the gender identity of the target person (62.3% male), and whether the target person possessed a leadership role within the musical context (74.1%). The questionnaire was provided online and took approximately 7 to 10 min to complete.

Participants

The pilot test was first completed by 120 respondents to assess preliminary reliability and to determine how many items should be retained from the original 47-item instrument. We retained 34 items from the pilot test and conducted a factor analysis with a larger sample. Crocker and Algina (2008) recommended a minimum sample size of 10 respondents per item and a minimum of 100 total respondents; Tabachnick and Fidell (2019) recommended at least 300 survey participants. With these benchmarks in mind, we sought a minimum sample size of 340 participants. Final data collection resulted in a total of 423 participants completing the final version of the questionnaire (211 female, 209 male, 2 nonbinary, 1 non-response). Participants were drawn from both the corresponding author’s academic institution (including undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty members) and state music educators list. Participants reported their ages (18.0% ages 18–24; 15.9% 25–34; 17.3% 35–44; 16.1% 45–54; 22.0% 55–64; 10.7% 65 +) and their racial/ethnic identities (73.6% White, 14.4% Latinx, 2.5% Black, 3.9% Asian, 0.23% Pacific Islander/Hawaiian, 2.1% Multiracial, 3.4% non-response). Participants were not primed of the construct prior to completing the survey.

Results

Preliminary reliability statistics

Internal consistency for each of the five component subscales was calculated following pilot testing of the 47-item pilot survey (n = 120). In general, Cronbach’s alpha values above .90 are considered excellent, above .80 are considered good, and above .70 are considered acceptable (DeVellis, 1991). The alphas were as follows: MEC, α = .87, eight items; OO, α = .92, 11 items; LS, α = .90, 10 items; ASL, α = .81, six items; and HP, α = .86, eight items. The survey also included four general musical humility items, α = .86 for comparison. For the pilot study only, participants were able to opt out of a response for any item. Given the item-total statistics for each subscale and the frequency at which participants opted out of an item response (n ⩾ 5), we eliminated 13 under-performing items. A revised 34-item scale was then tested (n = 423) and Cronbach’s alphas for the five component subscales were again calculated: α_MEC = .89, seven items; α_OO = .90, eight items; α_LS = .92, seven items; α_ASL = .84, four items, and α_HP = .85, six items (plus two remaining items for general musical humility).

Confirmatory factor analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is used to verify the underlying dimensions of a construct that has been supported by theory or research (Brown, 2006; Thompson, 2004). In order to test the validity of Coppola’s (2019) five-factor structure of musical humility, we conducted a CFA using maximum likelihood estimation. A non-significant chi-square goodness-of-fit test is indicative of strong model fit. The chi-square goodness-of-fit test for the five-factor model was significant, χ²(390) = 1,770.59, p < .001; however, this is common given the test’s sensitivity to large samples (Barrett, 2007). We utilized two additional fit indices to assess model fit: the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; levels < .08 indicate acceptable fit) and the confirmatory fit index (CFI; levels > .90 indicate acceptable fit). The RMSEA reflected less than adequate fit at 0.10, but the CFI showed evidence of good fit at 0.98. Thus, the 34-item, five-factor model demonstrated some evidence of initial validity. The items of the Musical Humility Scale (MHS-34) are listed in Table 1 and ranked by factor loading. Four items (8, 13, 28, and 32) reflected factor loadings lower than 0.70, which indicates that these items were not strongly correlated with their respective factors; thus, we removed these four items from the final instrument.

Table 1.

Thirty-four-item Musical Humility Scale.

Item	Scale	Item textThis person . . .	M (SD)	Factor loading
19	LS (–)	Thinks too highly of themselves	3.85 (1.26)	.94
34	MHG (–)	Is an arrogant person (in musical contexts)	3.89 (1.28)	.94
29	HP (–)	Acts arrogant or conceited when getting an award or compliment for their playing	4.08 (1.11)	.91
18	LS (–)	Constantly shows off musical skill through bragging and boasting	4.03 (1.21)	.90
31	HP (–)	Is self-absorbed and overly self-focused	3.79 (1.30)	.89
33	MHG	Is a humble person (in musical contexts)	3.76 (1.21)	.89
25	ASL (–)	Believes they have nothing left to learn to about becoming a better musician	4.22 (1.03)	.88
3	MEC (–)	Disregards or ignores others’ musical contributions during rehearsals and performance	4.04 (1.03)	.87
2	MEC (–)	Acts like their contributions are more important than others during rehearsals and performances	3.81 (1.21)	.86
11	OO (–)	Ignores other musicians’ ideas and suggestions	3.94 (1.08)	.86
26	ASL (–)	Thinks that they have mastered all the skills he or she possibly can	4.04 (1.02)	.86
14	OO	Respects others, even when they disagree	3.91 (1.05)	.85
7	MEC (–)	Only seems to listen to themselves, even when others are playing	4.06 (1.07)	.84
12	OO (–)	Considers themselves the sole arbiter of musical decisions (i.e., “my way or the highway”)	3.84 (1.18)	.84
16	LS (–)	Seeks lots of attention through their playing or conducting	3.70 (1.28)	.84
24	ASL (–)	Would deny that they have room to grow as a musician	4.19 (0.97)	.83
9	OO (–)	Has a selfish character	3.94 (1.26)	.81
17	LS (–)	Constantly shows off musical skill through over-performing	3.96 (1.23)	.81
21	LS (–)	Thinks certain tasks are beneath them	3.73 (1.24)	.81
15	OO	Is willing to hear others out, even when they disagree	3.88 (1.07)	.79
20	LS (–)	Takes it personally when someone disagrees with their musical decisions or preferences	3.49 (1.18)	.79
27	HP (–)	Takes it personally when being critiqued during musical interactions	3.51 (1.19)	.78
1	MEC	Actively collaborates with others during rehearsals and performances	4.03 (1.00)	.76
4	MEC	Would find musical experiences most rewarding when everyone works together	4.23 (0.89)	.76
10	OO	Is open-minded to new ideas and suggestions from fellow musicians	3.88 (1.09)	.76
22	LS (–)	Constantly “name drops” the musicians they have played with or studied with	3.75 (1.24)	.76
5	MEC (–)	Would find musical experiences most rewarding when they are calling the shots on their own	3.20 (1.22)	.75
6	MEC	Appears to be actively engaged with other musicians’ contributions when they are playing	4.06 (0.90)	.75
23	ASL	Willingly recognizes their shortcomings as a musician	3.66 (1.08)	.73
30	HP	Is confident but not cocky	3.75 (1.10)	.72
13^a	OO	Attributes their musical success to others (teachers, peers, role models, community)	3.77 (1.00)	.69
8^a	OO	Has a selfless character	3.49 (1.26)	.67
32^a	HP	Accepts compliments on their musical skill graciously	4.09 (0.84)	.59
28^a	HP	Takes appropriate pride in their performance when earned	4.11 (0.87)	.51

SD: standard deviation; MEC: Musical Engagement and Collaboration; OO: Other-Orientedness; LS: Lack of Superiority; ASL: Acknowledgment of Shortcomings and Learnability; HP: Healthy Pride; MHG: general musical humility (comparison items). (–) indicates reverse-scored items. ^aItems recommended for removal from the final scale.

CFA was conducted once again for a final 30-item scale. All five factors were highly correlated, as depicted in the CFA path model (Figure 1). While some would recommend that factor relationships surpassing 0.85 should be eliminated, the high correlations were to be expected given the limits of the testing parameters for this study (see “Discussion”). Therefore, we recommend the use of a 30-item Musical Humility Scale (MHS-30) for further testing (see Appendix for final MHS-30 instrument).

Figure 1.

CFA path model of 30-item measure.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to provide initial evidence for the reliability and validity of the MHS. This work represents an initial step in measuring musical humility as a distinct construct. Because the MHS took an average of 7 to 10 min to complete, we elected to save battery testing with other psychometric scales for future research once establishing a more parsimonious scale. With this future research, we plan to further investigate the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity with other psychometric measures (e.g., empathy, compassion; narcissism, authoritarianism). These efforts will provide further robustness to the construct and add support to the claim that musical humility may be a related but empirically unique sub-type of humility. It will also be important to establish predictive validity between musical humility and possible correlates such as cooperation, compassion, helping, altruism, and certain motivation orientations. Furthermore, it is plausible that musical humility might be variously viewed as a desirable virtue depending on the target’s identity. In line with Exline and Geyer’s (2004) findings, perhaps musical humility would be viewed as a strength for some (e.g., music teachers) but a weakness for others (e.g., conductors, entertainers). Future research should address these possible discrepancies in perceptions of musical humility as an artistic strength or weakness.

Although the RMSEA demonstrated less than adequate model fit, the CFI showed evidence of good fit and the internal consistency of the MHS was high, as evidenced from subscale alpha scores and inter-factor correlations. However, there also appeared to be enough range in factor loadings to indicate that subscales were multidimensional. In addition, the subscales were highly correlated with each other, and further testing should clarify whether highly related subscales are measuring one factor or multiple factors.

We further note that loadings indicated participants’ focused attention toward the negative aspects of their target’s personality, as evidenced by the higher loadings for negatively coded items (see Table 1). This concern may have been compounded by the greater proportion of negatively worded items in the MHS-34 (61.8%), which might have slightly altered participants’ mind-sets. Using a disproportionate ratio of negatively worded items was a deliberate scale development strategy, given the human penchant for more saliently identifying negative traits (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001); however, further scale testing might seek a more optimal balance of positively and negatively worded items while maintaining the palpability of one’s judgments. Furthermore, it is possible that respondents may have had uncertainty about certain aspects of their target’s personality. Indeed, it is logical that some targets would be more transparent and easier to read than others. Therefore, future testing should ensure that participants possess an adequate relationship with their target(s) in order to reliably judge their humility—a consideration emphasized by Davis and colleagues (2010). For example, respondents might be prompted to judge a single target with whom a deeper relationship has already been established, such as the director of an ensemble or a section leader. Alternatively, respondents might be provided with a scenario task, perhaps judging the humility of a single target based on prolonged interactions. Focusing on a single target over an extended time period will also further assess the validity of other-report measures of musical humility by establishing an aggregated consensus between respondents (Kenny, 2004; Meagher et al., 2015).

The CFA loadings from this initial study indicate that with the elimination of four low-loading items, these subscales are adequate for further testing alongside other humility scales. The reduction of the MHS into 30 items will result in a more efficient measure, making it appropriate for battery testing alongside related personality correlates. Its brevity will also enable it to be quickly administered at the conclusion of a rehearsal or other musical interaction.

This brief study represents merely the first step in an ongoing series of necessary studies to further validate the MHS across various other humility measures and related psychological constructs. In the meantime, the 30-item MHS can accordingly be administered within various musical contexts and settings, allowing for musicians and music leaders to better recognize the degree to which they may be adequately embodying (or lacking) an appropriately humble approach to their musical interactions. Through a deeper understanding of their collaborative, other-oriented, non-superior, and non-authoritarian ethos, musicians may yield the productive benefits of musical encounters that are more socially rewarding, gratifying, and transcending.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix.

Final 30–Item Musical Humility Scale (MHS–30).

Final version item no.	Subscale	Item text (“This person . . . ”)
1	MEC	Actively collaborates with others during rehearsals and performances
2	MEC (–)	Acts like their contributions are more important than others during rehearsals and performances
3	MEC (–)	Disregards others’ musical contributions during rehearsals and performances
4	MEC	Would find musical experiences most rewarding when everyone works together
5	MEC (–)	Would find musical experiences most rewarding when they are calling the shots on their own
6	MEC	Appears to be actively engaged with other musicians’ contributions when they are playing
7	MEC (–)	Only seems to listen to themselves, even when others are playing
8	OO (–)	Has a selfish character
9	OO	Is open-minded to new ideas and suggestions from fellow musicians
10	OO (–)	Ignores other musicians’ ideas and suggestions
11	OO (–)	Considers themselves the sole arbiter of musical decisions (aka “my way or the highway”)
12	OO	Respects others, even when they disagree
13	OO	Is willing to hear others out, even when they disagree
14	LS (–)	Seeks lots of attention through their playing
15	LS (–)	Constantly shows off musical skill through over-performing
16	LS (–)	Constantly shows off musical skill through bragging and boasting
17	LS (–)	Thinks too highly of themselves
18	LS (–)	Takes it personally when someone disagrees with their musical decisions or preferences
19	LS (–)	Thinks certain tasks are beneath them
20	LS (–)	Constantly “name drops” the musicians they have played with or studied with
21	ASL (–)	Would deny that they have room to grow as a musician
22	ASL (–)	Believes they have nothing left to learn to about becoming a better musician
23	ASL	Willingly recognizes their shortcomings as a musician
24	ASL (–)	Thinks that they have mastered all the skills they possibly can
25	ASL (–)	Takes it personally when being critiqued during musical interactions
26	HP (–)	Acts arrogant or conceited when getting an award or compliment for their playing
27	HP	Is confident but not cocky
28	HP (–)	Is self-absorbed and overly self-focused
29	MHG	Is a humble person (in musical contexts)
30	MHG (–)	Is an arrogant person (in musical contexts)

MEC: Musical Engagement and Collaboration (seven items); OO: Other-Orientedness (six items); LS: Lack of Superiority (seven items); ASL: Acknowledgment of Shortcomings and Learnability (five items); HP: Healthy Pride (three items); MHG: general musical humility (two items). (–) indicates negatively worded items.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

William J Coppola

References

Banaji

M. R.

Greenwald

A. G.

(2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. New York, NY: Random House.

Barrett

(2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

Finkenauer

Vohs

K. D.

(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

Brown

T. A.

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research: Methodology in the social sciences. New York, NY: Guilford.

Coppola

W. J.

(2019). Musical humility: An ethnographic case study of a competitive high school jazz band. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 222, 7–26. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.222.0007

Crocker

Algina

(2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Davis

D. E.

(2010). Relational humility (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

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, 9, 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.558871

Davis

D. E.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Hook

J. N.

(2010). Humility: Review of measurement strategies and conceptualization as personality judgment. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439761003791672

10.

DeVellis

R. F.

(1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. London, England: SAGE.

11.

Exline

J. J.

Geyer

A. L.

(2004). Perceptions of humility: A preliminary study. Self and Identity, 3, 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500342000077

12.

Hook

J. N.

Davis

D. E.

Owen

Worthington

E. L.

Utsey

S. O.

(2013). Cultural humility: Measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032595

13.

Kenny

D. A.

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

14.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

(2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8

15.

McElroy-Heltzel

S. E.

Davis

D. E.

DeBlaere

Worthington

E. L.

Hook

J. N.

(2019). Embarrassment of riches in the measurement of humility: A critical review of 22 measures. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14, 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1460686

16.

Meagher

B. R.

Leman

J. C.

Bias

J. P.

Latendresse

S. J.

Rowatt

W. C.

(2015). Contrasting self-report and consensus ratings of intellectual humility and arrogance. Journal of Research in Personality, 58, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.07.002

17.

Owens

Hekman

(2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviours, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 787–818. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0441

18.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

19.

Roberts

R. C.

Wood

W. J.

(2007). Intellectual virtues: An essay in regulative epistemology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

20.

Rowatt

W. C.

Ottenbreit

Nesselroade

K. P.

Jr. Cunningham

P. A.

(2002). On being holier-than-thou or humbler-than-thee: A social-psychological perspective on religiousness and humility. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500342000077

21.

Rowatt

W. C.

Powers

Targhetta

Comer

Kennedy

Labouff

(2006). Development and initial validation of an implicit measure of humility relative to arrogance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760600885671

22.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

23.

Tangney

J. P.

(2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2000.19.1.70

24.

Tangney

J. P.

(2002). Humility. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 411–419). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

25.

Thompson

(2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

26.

Vazire

(2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908

27.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Davis

D. E.

Hook

J. N.

(Eds.). (2017). Handbook of humility. New York, NY: Routledge.