[MUSIC] This lecture will focus more specifically on measuring intellectual humility. As a domain-specific humility, it is unclear of the extent to which intellectual humility is independent of a broader disositional characteristic; only time will tell. To answer that question empirically, we have to be able to measure both humility as a general construct as well as intellectual humility. Fortunately, there have now been several measures developed to assess specifically intellectual humility. The first of these measures that we will look at is called the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale. This is based on a conception of intellectual humility as a non-threatening awareness of one's intellectual fallibility. The scale consists of 22 items answered on a-5 point Likert format, again strongly disagree to strongly agree. By now, you might have gathered that that's a common scale that is used. And the four subscales of the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale are: an openness to revising one's viewpoint, a lack of intellectual overconfidence, a respect for others' viewpoints, and an independence of intellect and ego. Let me give some example items of these. The first is an example item of openness to revising one's viewpoint: "I am willing to change my position on an important issue in the face of good reasons." The second that I'll give you is reverse-scored, and it's dealing with the factor of lack of intellectual over-confidence: "My ideas are usually better than other people's ideas." Again, that's a reverse-scored item. A third, that is getting at the respect for others factor: "I can respect others even if I disagree with them in important ways." And then finally, the fourth factor, and this item will also be reverse scored, is the independence of ego and intellect: "When someone contradicts my most important beliefs, it feels like a personal attack." The second scale that has been developed is referred to just simply as the Intellectual Humility Scale. This is a 17-item self-report measure based on the conceptual work of June Tangney that we talked about briefly in an earlier lecture, as well as the work of Robert Roberts and Jay Wood. Like most of the other scales reported here, this scale is also rated on the five-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater degrees of humility. The measure resulted in three factors. The first factor is a low concern for intellectual status. The second factor is what's called perspective taking, and the third factor the authors identified as a low intellectual defensiveness. Sample items include statements such as this, for the low concern for intellectual status, and this item is reverse-scored: "It is important to me to get special attention from others for my intellectual achievements." For the second factor, which is the perspective taking factor: "Even if something is important to me, I listen to opinions that differ from my own." And the third factor, which is the intellectual defensiveness factor, and this is a reverse-scored item: "I would rather continue to believe in something untrue than to find out I am wrong about it." So, what we have discussed thus far are all different measures that involve self-reports of intellectual humility. The next two scales reviewed here provide an alternative type measure to the use of self-reports. They both use informant ratings. Now, by informant rated, it means that the person completing the items in the scale is not answering the questions about him or herself, but rather is answering the questions in terms of some other targeted person. The validity of the informant report nature of the scale circumvents the problem of self-reports that we talked about in a prior lecture, but raises the question as to how well an informant can answer the items being asked, at least as it applies to discerning intellectual humility. In one study, it was found that group consensus of intellectual humility and intellectual arrogance could be reached only after considerable engagement over months. Within-group consensus was not found among unacquainted participants, even after a 20-minute group task. But the question about the ability of friends, family members, or coworkers to discern humility in others, remains open and will require further work. So let's look at two measures that take this approach. The first is called the McElroy Intellectual Humility Scale. This intellectual humility scale was the first published measure specifically of intellectual humility, and is an informant rated measure based upon a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating higher humility. This scale consists of two factors: an intellectual openness scale, with such items as: "seeks out alternative view points" (again referring to a targeted other), and the intellectual arrogance subscale, with items such as "often becomes angry when their ideas are not implemented." The two sub-scales correlate highly with each other, ad to date this particular scale has been utilized to measure attitudes towards religious out groups, as well as perceptions of the intellectual humility of religious leaders. There have been some other attempts to provide measures of humility and intellectual humility that do not rely upon other reports. And the final attempt at measuring humility that we'll talk about is called the Humility-Arrogance Implicit Association test. The Humility-Arrogance Implicit Association test provides yet another alternative for measuring humility. Using computer administration, participants are shown single word attributes related to humility. For example, on the computer, you might just see the word "humble" or you might see the word "respectful." And then you will also see words that are related to arrogance. For example, you might see single words such as "egotistical", or "conceited", or "closed-minded." And each person must classify each word as related to the self or others. An implicit humility score is then calculated, not based upon whether they made a connection between themselves and the particular word, but it's actually based upon their reaction times, with shorter reaction times indicating higher implicit associations with particular attributes, because less time is needed to determine if the attributes are characteristics of oneself. The jury is still out on how accurate, and therefore how useful, this alternative measure will be. But it does represent an effort to deal with self-report problems. So in conclusion, let's think about what are some future measurement efforts. Though challenging, we strongly advise the move towards measures beyond self reports. Such efforts have begun with informant scales and an implicit attitude test measure. Research will benefit from implementing more complex psychometrics as researchers begin to pursue, with greater precision, the humility construct. For example, could humility be discerned from an analysis of facial expressions in humility relevant situations? Sophisticated video analysis technology exists that might support such assessment. Furthermore, the subdomains of humility are many, and the applications multitudinous. Research will benefit from casting even wider measurement nets in an attempt to apply humility research in numerous applied settings. And in so doing, the field can begin making recommendations for both interventions to develop humility as well as creating social conditions under which humility may be fostered.
