Printer Friendly

Exploring Religious Intellectual Humility and Spiritual Humility.

Since the beginning of the positive psychology movement in the late 1990s (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), research on several virtues and character strengths, such as forgiveness (Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010) and gratitude (Emmons & McCullough, 2004), has received extensive empirical attention. However, research on humility has progressed more slowly, likely due to problems defining and measuring the construct (Davis, Worthington, & Hook, 2010). Despite these difficulties, researchers are beginning to address these challenges by developing research programs to study humility (Davis & Hook, 2014; Worthington, Davis, & Hook, 2017).

Several research studies have focused on contexts in which humility might be difficult to practice, such as marriage (Ripley et al., 2016), leadership (Owens, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2013), and religion (Hook & Davis, 2014), the latter being the focus of the present article. Although religion can be perceived as a source of coping (Pargament, 1997) and benevolence (Johnson, Li, Cohen, & Okun, 2013; Johnson, Memon, Alladin, Cohen, & Okun, 2015), religion is also associated with conflict and violence (Juergensmeyer, 2003; Zhang et al., 2015). For example, people may draw on religious concepts to fortify their positions in arguments or power struggles. People might battle for the moral high ground, seeking to be seen by others as more righteous than their opponent. Others may use religious authority (e.g., scripture and spiritual favor from leaders) as a method of influence.

Humility and Religion

Disagreements involving religious convictions may make humility difficult to practice, especially for individuals who are highly religious (Hook et al., 2015). Namely, religious beliefs and convictions often answer important questions about one's purpose in life, morality, and the afterlife (Van Tongeren, Davis, Hook, & Johnson, 2016). Highly religious individuals are often very invested in their own worldview, and they may be resistant to considering alternative viewpoints. A hurt or conflict that is associated with a cherished religious worldview may be especially difficult to resolve in a positive way. For example, criticism of one's cherished beliefs often results in retaliation, though such responses are attenuated for humble individuals (Van Tongeren, Stafford et al., 2016). Therefore, maintaining humility about one's religious beliefs can be difficult, but important, when engaging others with different religious convictions.

Existing research on the intersection of humility and religion has generally followed one of two paths. First, several research studies have explored intellectual humility (IH) in the context of religion. IH involves having an accurate view of one's intellectual strengths and weaknesses as well as the ability to negotiate different ideas in an interpersonally respectful manner (Hook et al., 2015). In the context of religion, IH involves acknowledging the limitations of one's religious perspective and being open to the diverse religious perspectives of others. IH may be an important construct for studying the relationship between humility and religion. For example, IH regarding different kinds of religious beliefs and values has been associated with forgiveness of religious conflict (Hook et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015) as well as religious tolerance (Hook et al., 2017).

Second, research has also explored the construct of being humble in relation to God or whatever object a person considers to be Sacred (e.g., nature, humanity, cosmos). Davis et al. (2010) developed a scale to measure spiritual humility (SH), the extent to which people consider themselves humble in relation to God (or the Sacred). Research has found that people were more forgiving of an offender if they also saw them as being higher in spiritual humility (Davis et al., 2010), though there has been relatively little research on this type of humility.

Distinguishing Religious Intellectual Humility and Spiritual Humility

Although there has been some initial research on these two types of humility, and both types of humility have been linked to forgiveness (e.g., Davis et al., 2010; Van Tongeren, Davis, & Hook, 2014), relatively little theory and research have discussed the similarities and differences between these two types of humility. Thus, the aim of the present study is to explore the relationships among (a) religious IH, (b) SH, and (c) other related constructs, including religious variables and moral decision making. Our overarching hypotheses are that (a) religious IH will be more closely related to openness to differences and awareness of the limitations of one's views (Davis et al., 2010; Davis & Hook, 2014), whereas (b) SH will be more aligned with the notion of submission to God or religious authority.

Study 1

The main purpose of Study 1 was to explore the relationships between religious IH, SH, and various measures of religious belief and participation. First, we hypothesized that religious IH would be a positive predictor of having a quest religious orientation. People who have a quest religious orientation view their religion as a search for truth and are more comfortable with changes or shifts in their religious views over time (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993). Second, we hypothesized that SH, on the other hand, would be a positive predictor of having an intrinsic religious orientation and religious fundamentalism. Intrinsic religious orientation involves seeing religion as an end itself and believing and practicing the religious teachings as taught by the religion (Batson et al., 1993). Religious fundamentalism is the belief that the basic and essential truths about deity and humanity can only be accessed from certain religious teachings, which would enable those who follow them to obtain a special relationship with the deity (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992). We did not have a specific hypothesis about the relationships between religious IH, SH, and extrinsic religious orientation, which refers to seeing religion as a means to achieve non-religious goals (e.g., a sense of belonging and connection with the religious community; Batson et al., 1993).

We included political conservatism and religious commitment as control variables to control for the effects of political orientation and general religiousness. Research on politics and religion suggest that religion significantly predicts political values and voting trends (Wilde & Glassman, 2016). Religious commitment refers to the degree to which a person integrates their religious values, beliefs, and practices into their lives (Worthington et al., 2003). Because both religious IH and SH were expected to be correlated with general religiousness, we thought that it was important to control for this variable in all analyses.

Method

Participants. Participants were 244 undergraduate students (60 male, 184 female). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 50 years (M = 20.47, SD = 3.96). Participants reported a variety of racial backgrounds (54.1% White, 18.9% Hispanic, 11.1% Black, 4.9% Asian, 1.2% Native American, 1.2% Middle Eastern, 0.8% Pacific Islander, 7.8% Multiracial). Participants were mostly Christian (65.2%, 1.6% Muslim, 1.2% Buddhist, 0.4% Hindu, 0.4% Jewish, 7.0% Atheist, 13.1% Agnostic, 11.1% None/Other) and Heterosexual (92.2%, 3.3% Gay/Lesbian, 4.5% Bisexual).

Procedure. Participants were recruited from undergraduate courses at a large university in the Southwestern United States and participated in exchange for a small amount of course credit or extra credit. Participants first read an informed consent form and indicated consent to participate. Participants then completed a series of questionnaires online. After completing the questionnaires, they were debriefed, compensated, and given the contact information of the investigator should they have questions or concerns.

Measures

Religious intellectual humility. Religious intellectual humility (IH) was measured with a self-report version of the Cultural Humility Scale (CHS; Hook, Davis, Owen, Worthington, & Utsey, 2013), which we adapted for the present study to measure the participant's IH toward different types of religious beliefs and values. The CHS consists of 12 items that assess the extent to which a target person is humble regarding an aspect of their cultural identity (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, religion/spirituality, sexual orientation). The original version of the CHS allowed people to choose a highly salient domain, whereas in this study the CHS was modified so that all participants rated their own level of IH toward different types of religious beliefs and values. Participants rate items on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). There are two subscales on the CHS: the positive subscale includes positive other-oriented characteristics (7 items; e.g., "Am open to explore"), and the negative subscale reflects negative characteristics involving superiority and making assumptions (5 items; e.g., "Assume I already know a lot"). Scores on this measure have shown evidence for internal consistency and construct validity (Hook et al., 2013). For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a total IH score. Higher scores indicated higher self-reported IH. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .79.

Spiritual humility. Spiritual humility (SH) was measured with the self-report version of the Spiritual Humility Scale (SHS; Davis et al., 2010). SHS consists of 4 items that assess the extent to which participants view themselves to be humble in relation to God or whatever they consider Sacred (e.g., "I accept my place in relation to the Sacred"). Participants rate items on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores on this measure have shown evidence for internal consistency and construct validity (Davis et al., 2010). For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a total SH score. Higher scores indicated higher self-reported SH. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .83.

Political orientation. Political orientation was measured with three items that assessed attitudes toward foreign policy issues, economic issues, and social issues. Participants rate items on a 7-point rating scale from 1 (very liberal) to 7 (very conservative). For the present study, we took the mean of these three items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of conservatism. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .86.

Religious commitment. Religious commitment was measured with the Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI-10; Worthington et al., 2003). The RCI-10 consists of 10 items that assess commitment to one's religion (e.g., "My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life"). Participants rate items on a 5-point rating scale from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5 (totally true of me). Worthington et al. (2003) reported that the RCI-10 had high levels of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and was significantly associated with frequency of religious service attendance and self-rated spiritual intensity. For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a total religious commitment score. Higher scores indicate higher levels of religious commitment. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .95.

Religious orientation. Religious orientation (i.e., intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest) was measured by the New Indices of Religious Orientation (NIRO; Francis, 2007). The NIRO consists of 27 items that assess different ways of being religious. The NIRO has 3 subscales: intrinsic (e.g., "I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life"), extrinsic (e.g., "One reason for me to go to church is that it helps to establish me in the community"), and quest (e.g., "As I grow and change, I expect my religion to grow and change as well"). Participants rate items on a 5-point rating scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Francis (2007) provided evidence for the internal consistency and construct validity of this scale. For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a total intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest religious orientation score, respectively. Higher scores indicate higher levels of intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest religious orientation. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .93 for intrinsic, .74 for extrinsic, and .85 for quest.

Religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism was measured by the Intratextual Fundamentalism Scale (IFS; Williamson, Hood, Ahmad, Sadiq, & Hill, 2010). The IFS consists of 5 items that assess beliefs that a sacred text is divine in origin, inerrant, privileged above all other texts, authoritative, and unchanging (e.g., "Everything in the Sacred Writing is absolutely true without question"). Participants rate items on a 6-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Scores on this measure have shown evidence for internal consistency and construct validity (Williamson et al., 2010). For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a total fundamentalism score. Higher scores indicate higher levels of fundamentalism. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .95.

Results and Discussion

We checked the data for outliers and normality. There were a small number of outliers (less than 2% per variable). We recoded outliers to three standard deviations above or below the mean. There were no problems with normality. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables are reported in Table 1. Religious IH was positively associated with quest religiosity, whereas SH was positively associated with conservatism, religious commitment, intrinsic religiosity, extrinsic religiosity, and intratextual fundamentalism.

The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of religious IH and SH on religious orientation and religious fundamentalism, controlling for political conservatism and religious commitment. We used a series of four hierarchical regressions with religious orientation (i.e., extrinsic religiosity, intrinsic religiosity, quest) and religious fundamentalism as dependent variables. Political conservatism and religious commitment were entered as predictors in Step 1 and Religious IH and SH were entered as predictors in Step 2.

Our hypotheses were supported. First, SH was a significant positive predictor of intrinsic religiosity ([beta] = .13, p = .002), but religious IH was not ([beta] = .01, p = .746; see Table 2). Second, neither religious IH ([beta] = -.02, p = .787) nor SH ([beta] = .13, p = .096) were significant predictors of extrinsic religiosity (see Table 3). Third, religious IH was a significant positive predictor of quest religiosity ([beta] = .15, p = .022), but SH was not ([beta] = -.08, p = .320; see Table 4). Fourth, religious IH was a significant negative predictor of intratextual fundamentalism ([beta] = -.09, p = .019) and SH was a significant positive predictor ([beta] = .23, p < .001; see Table 5).

This study provides initial evidence that religious IH and SH are distinct constructs. Religious IH was associated with a greater emphasis on asking questions, searching for truth, and lower religious fundamentalism, whereas SH was associated with viewing religion as an end in itself and higher religious fundamentalism. Therefore, religious IH appears to be more associated with awareness of limitations and openness to other perspectives regarding religion, whereas SH appears to be more associated with viewing religion as an end in itself and submission to God or religious authority. However, although this study explored the relations between religious IH, SH, and different ways of being religious, these findings were limited to a few broad religious variables. In the next study, we explored the relations between religious IH, SH, and specific ways of thinking about morality.

Study 2

The main purpose of Study 2 was to explore the relationships between religious IH, SH, and moral foundations in a second sample. The five moral foundations include (a) harm, which taps into concerns about caring, nurturing, and protecting vulnerable individuals, (b) fairness, which involves concern about equity and social justice, (c) loyalty, involving concern for patriotism and self-sacrifice, (d) authority, focusing on obedience, respect, and leadership, and (e) purity, emphasizing boundaries and protection from contamination (Graham et al., 2011).

Graham, Haidt, and Nosek (2009) found that individuals who are more liberal tend to make moral decisions based on the foundations of harm and fairness, whereas individuals who are more conservative also consider the foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. The foundations of harm and fairness are referred to as the individualizing foundations, as they are most associated with the rights and welfare of individuals. The foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity are referred to as the binding foundations, as they emphasize "group-binding loyalty, duty, and self-control" (Graham et al., 2009, p. 1031). Prior research, as well as our findings from Study 1, suggest that political liberalism is associated with religious IH, whereas political conservatism is associated with SH. Thus, we hypothesized that religious IH would be a significant positive predictor of the moral foundations of harm and fairness, whereas SH would be a significant predictor of all five moral foundations. Similar to Study 1, we included political conservatism and religious commitment as control variables to eliminate this possible confound.

Method

Participants. Participants were 202 undergraduate students (83 male, 119 female). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 58 years (M = 24.21, SD = 6.30). Two participants did not provide information regarding racial background. However, of the 200 participants who did report racial background, the racial breakdown was as follows: 38% White, 36% African-American/Black, 13% Asian, 6.5% Multiracial, 6.5% Other. Participants were mostly Christian (63.9%, 7.4% Muslim, 2.5% Buddhist, 2.5% Hindu, 2% Jewish, 3% Atheist, 5.9% Agnostic, 12.8% None/Other) and Heterosexual (81.4%, 4.5% Bisexual, 2.5% Gay/Lesbian, 11.5% either did not answer or provided answers that were unable to be categorized).

Procedure. Participants were recruited from undergraduate courses at a large university in the Southeastern United States and participated in exchange for a small amount of course credit or extra credit. Participants first read an informed consent form and indicated consent to participate. Participants then completed a series of questionnaires online. After completing the questionnaires, they were debriefed, compensated, and given the contact information of the investigator should they have questions or concerns.

Measures

Religious intellectual humility. Participants reported their IH by completing the adapted CHS (Hook et al., 2013), as described in Study 1. For the present sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .77.

Spiritual humility. Participants completed the four-item SHS (Davis et al., 2010), as described in Study 1. For the present sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .87.

Political orientation. Participants completed three items that were used to assess political orientation, as described in Study 1. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .87.

Religious commitment. Participants completed the 10-item RCI-10 (Worthington et al., 2003), as described in Study 1. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .95.

Moral decision-making. Moral decision-making was measured by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ; Graham et al., 2011). The MFQ consists of 30 items that assess how individuals make moral judgments in five domains (e.g., harm/care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity). Participants rate items on a 6-point rating scale from 1 (not at all relevant or strongly disagree) to 6 (extremely relevant or strongly agree). Scores on this measure have shown evidence for internal consistency and construct validity (Graham et al., 2011). For the present study, we took the mean of all items for a total harm/care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity score, respectively. Higher scores indicate a higher priority for each of the moral foundations. For the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .60 for harm/care, .62 for fairness, .71 for loyalty, .66 for authority, and .77 for purity.

Results and Discussion

We checked the data for outliers and normality. There were a small number of outliers (less than 2% per variable). We recoded outliers to three standard deviations above or below the mean. There were no problems with normality. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables are reported in Table 6. Religious IH was positively associated with harm and fairness, whereas SH was positively associated with religious commitment and all five moral foundations.

The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of religious IH and SH on moral foundations, controlling for political conservatism and religious commitment. We used a series of five hierarchical regressions with the five moral foundations (i.e., harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity) as dependent variables. In the five hierarchical regressions, political conservatism and religious commitment were entered as predictors in Step 1 and religious IH and SH were entered as predictors in Step 2.

Our hypotheses were partially supported. First, regarding the variables of harm (see Table 7) and fairness (see Table 8), as hypothesized, religious IH was a significant positive predictor of both harm ([beta] = .35, p < .001) and fairness ([beta] = .38, p < .001). Additionally, SH was also a significant positive predictor of harm ([beta] = .19, p = .011) and fairness ([beta] = .19, p = .009), although the regression weights were smaller in magnitude.

Second, in line with our hypotheses, SH was a significant positive predictor of loyalty ([beta] = .25, p = .001), and religious IH was not ([beta] = .07, p = .266, see Table 9). Additionally, SH was a significant positive predictor of purity ([beta] = .21, p = .004) and religious IH was not ([beta] = .06, p = .349; see Table 10). Contrary to our hypotheses, SH was not a significant predictor of authority ([beta] = .12, p = .127); neither was religious IH ([beta] = .06, p = .366; see Table 11). Consistent with our hypotheses, religious IH was not a significant predictor of the variance for any of the "binding" moral foundations.

This second study provided evidence that religious IH was associated with a greater emphasis on the moral foundations of harm and fairness, whereas SH was associated with all of the moral foundations, with the exception of authority. Thus, religious IH appears to be associated with values that are held by individuals that are more politically liberal, whereas SH appears to be associated with values held by individuals that are more politically conservative.

General Discussion

The present study investigated differences between religious IH and SH by exploring the relationships between these constructs and religious and political/moral variables. There has been relatively little prior work that has explored these two types of humility. Our overarching hypothesis was that religious IH would be more closely linked with awareness of limitations and openness to other perspectives, whereas SH would be more closely linked with submission to God or religious authority.

Overall, this general hypothesis was supported. In regard to religious variables, religious IH was a significant positive predictor of having a quest religious orientation, indicating these individuals were more likely to view religion as a flexible journey to truth where they were free to change their religious views as needed (Batson et al., 1993). It is likely that this adjustable view of one's religious journey requires at least some openness to different religious viewpoints. On the other hand, SH was a significant positive predictor of having an intrinsic religious orientation and religious fundamentalism. Thus, individuals who are strongly committed to a particular religious perspective may view submission to God or religious authority as especially important.

Considering political and moral variables, as hypothesized, religious IH was a significant positive predictor of the moral foundations of harm and fairness. SH, on the other hand, was a significant positive predictor of four of the five identified moral foundations. Although both religious IH and SH are aspects of humility, religious IH appears to be related to more liberal political values, and SH appears to be related to more conservative political values. These findings align with prior research that has found the moral foundations of harm and fairness to be associated with more liberal political and religious values, whereas individuals with more conservative political and religious values make moral judgements utilizing all five moral foundations (Graham et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2016).

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The findings of the present study should be interpreted in light of its limitations. First, the samples utilized in both studies consisted of undergraduate college students. Some research has found that the experience of religion and spirituality may be unique during the college years. Specifically, religious participation can decline over the college years, and college students often experience changes in their religious/spiritual beliefs (Mayrl & Oeur, 2009). Thus, the religious experience of undergraduate students may be unique and not representative of the general population. Therefore, the findings of the current studies should not be generalized to children or older adults, and future research should examine religious IH and SH in samples of individuals from other age groups. Also, the sample from Study 1, while including individuals of various genders, racial/ethnic groups, and religions, were largely homogeneous with participants primarily being women (75.4%), White (54.1%), and Christian (65.2%). The sample from Study 2 was more diverse in regard to race/ethnicity and gender; however, the large majority of participants also identified as Christian (63.9%). Future studies could consider exploring these variables among different gender, racial, and religious groups.

Second, the current studies used a cross-sectional design, so causal conclusions should not be made. Although we can describe significant associations between religious IH, SH, and various religious and moral constructs, we cannot conclude that one variable caused the other, or rule out that perhaps an unmeasured variable resulted in some spurious correlations between the variables in our study. Moreover, the current studies collected data at one point in time. Therefore, future studies could use experimental or longitudinal designs to further explore the nature of these relationships.

Third, the present studies utilized self-report measures for all variables. Self-report measures have been found to be prone to socially desirable responding and other response biases (John & Robins, 1993). Therefore, different modes of assessment, such as implicit measures (Rowatt et al., 2006) or behavioral measures (Dorn, Hook, Davis, Van Tongeren, & Worthington, 2014), could be used in future studies. Additionally, the subscales of harm/care, fairness, and purity from the MFQ utilized in Study 2 had Cronbach alphas less than .70. These values indicate marginal reliability, which may have attenuated the correlations between these variables, religious IH, and SH.

Conclusion

The present research explored two strategies that researchers have used to investigate humility in the context of religion and spirituality: religious IH (Hook et al., 2015) and SH (Davis et al., 2010). Overall, religious IH was associated with greater openness to differences and more liberal political/moral values, whereas SH was associated with commitment to one's religious views and more conservative political/moral values. We encourage researchers to continue to explore religious IH and SH and their relationships with other variables in various contexts.

References

Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.

Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. (1993). Religion and the individual. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Humility, religion, and spirituality: An endpiece. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 111-117.

Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Van Tongeren, D. R., Gartner, A. L., & Jennings, D. J. II. (2010). Relational spirituality and forgiveness: Development of the Spiritual Humility Scale (SHS). Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38, 91-100.

Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Hook, J. N. (2010). Humility: Review of measurement strategies and conceptualization as personality judgment. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 243-252.

Dorn, K., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2014). Behavioral measures of assessing forgiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 75-80.

Emmons, R.A., & McCullough, M. E. (Eds.) (2004). The psychology of gratitude. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894-914. doi:10.1 037/a0019993

Francis, L. J. (2007). Introducing the new indices of religious orientation (NIRO): Conceptualization and measurement. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 10, 585-602.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046.

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385.

Hook, J. N., & Davis, D. E. (2014). Humility, religion, and spirituality: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 3-6.

Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Utsey, S. O. (2013). Cultural humility: Measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 353-366.

Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Hill, P. C., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Farrell, J. E., & Dieke, P. (2015). Intellectual humility and forgiveness of religious leaders. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 499-506. doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1004554

Hook, J. N., Farrell, J. E., Johnson, K. A., Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., & Aten, J. D. (2017). Intellectual humility and religious tolerance. Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 29-35.

John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521-551. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00781.x

Johnson, K. A., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Sandage, S. J., & Crabtree, S. A. (2016). Moral domain priorities reflect U.S. Christians' individual differences in religiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 56-61.

Johnson, K. A., Li, Y. J., Cohen, A. B., & Okun, M. A. (2013). Friends in high places: The influence of authoritarian and benevolent God concepts on social attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 15-22.

Johnson, K. A., Memon, R., Alladin, A., Cohen, A. B., & Okun, M. A. (2015). Who helps the Samaritan? The influence of religious vs. secular primes on spontaneous helping of members of religious outgroups. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 15, 217-231.

Juergensmeyer, M. (2003). Terror in the mind of God: The global rise of religious violence. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Mayrl, D., & Oeur, F. (2009). Religion and higher education: Current knowledge and directions for future research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 260-275. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01446.x

Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24, 1517-1538.

Pargament, K.I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York, NY: Guilford.

Ripley, J. S., Garthe, R. C., Perkins, A., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N.,... Eaves, D. (2016). Perceived partner humility predicts subjective distress during transition to parenthood. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 5, 157-167.

Rowatt, W. C., Powers, C., Targhetta, V., Comer, J., Kennedy, S., & Labouff, J. (2006). Development and initial validation of an implicit measure of humility relative to arrogance. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 198-211. doi:10.1080/17439760600885671

Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.

Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Social benefits of humility: Initiating and maintaining romantic relationships. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 313-321.

Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & Johnson, K. A. (2016). Security versus growth: Existential tradeoffs of various religious perspectives. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 8, 77-88.

Van Tongeren, D. R., Stafford, J., Hook, J. N., Green, J. D., Davis, D. E., & Johnson, K. A. (2016). Humility attenuates negative attitudes and behaviors toward religious outgroup members. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 199-208.

Wilde, M., & Glassman, L. (2016). How complex religion can improve our understanding of American politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 42, 407-425.

Williamson, W. P., Hood, R. W., Jr., Ahmad, A., Sadiq, M., & Hill, P. C. (2010). The Intratextual Fundamentalism Scale: Cross-cultural application, validity evidence, and relationship with religious orientation and the Big 5 factor markers. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13, 721-747.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2017). Handbook of humility. New York, NY: Routledge

Worthington, E. L. Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W.,... O'Connor, L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory-10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 84-96.

Zhang, H., Farrell, J. E., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Johnson, K. A. (2015). Intellectual humility and forgiveness of religious conflict. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 43, 255-262.

Adam S. Hodge

Katelyn Melian

University of North Texas

Sarah Gazaway

Georgia State University

Laura E. Captari

Steven P. Coomes

University of North Texas

Daryl R. Van Tongeren

Hope College

Don E. Davis

Georgia State University

Authors

Adam S. Hodge, M.S., is a PhD student in Counseling Psychology at the University of North Texas. His research interests include religion/spirituality, humility, and forgiveness.

All the other authors are associated with the University of North Texas, Georgia State University, and Hope College and have research interests in positive psychology and religion/spirituality.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Adam Hodge, M.S., Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Humility and Religious
Variables

                    M     SD    1.         2.         3.

1.  Religious IH    4.00  0.52  -
2.  SH              3.55  0.79   .19 (**)  -
3.  Conservatism    3.67  1.45  -.15        .26 (**)  -
4.  RC              2.44  1.10  -.03        .52 (**)   .36 (**)
5.  Extrinsic RO    2.80  1.11   .01        .22 (**)   .05 (**)
6.  Intrinsic RO    2.82  0.70   .01        .54 (**)   .36 (**)
7.  Quest RO        3.08  0.83   .16 (*)   -.11       -.19 (**)
8.  Fundamentalism  4.65  2.07  -.09        .56 (**)   .47 (**)

                    4.         5.         6.         7.    8.

1.  Religious IH
2.  SH
3.  Conservatism
4.  RC              -
5.  Extrinsic RO     .26 (**)  -
6.  Intrinsic RO     .84 (**)   .46       -
7.  Quest RO        -.14 (*)    .25 (**)  -.07       -
8.  Fundamentalism   .76 (**)   .30 (**)   .82 (**)   .26  -

Note. IH = Intellectual Humility, SH = Spiritual Humility, RC =
Religious Commitment, RO = Religious Orientation, Fundamentalism =
Religious Fundamentalism. IH, Spiritual humility, Religious commitment,
Intrinsic RO, Extrinsic RO, and Quest RO range from 1 to 5.
Conservatism ranges from 1 to 5. Religious fundamentalism ranges from
1 to 6.
(*) p < .05, (**) p < .01.

Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Intrinsic Religiosity

      Predictor           [DELTA][R.sup.2]  [beta]    [sr.sup.2]

Step 1                    .71
  Political Conservatism                    .07       .00
  Religious Commitment                      .82 (**)  .58

Step 2                    .72
  Political Conservatism                    .06       .00
  Religious Commitment                      .75 (**)  .37
  Religious Intellectual                    .01       .00
  Humility
  Spiritual Humility                        .13 (*)   .01

Note. (*) p < .05 (**) p < .001.


Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Extrinsic Religiosity

      Predictor           [DELTA][R.sup.2]  [beta]     [sr.sup.2]

Step 1                    .06
  Political Conservatism                    -.05       .00
  Religious Commitment                       .27 (**)  .07

Step 2                    .06
  Political Conservatism                    -.07       .00
  Religious Commitment                       .21 (*)   .03
  Religious Intellectual                    -.02       .00
  Humility
  Spiritual Humility                         .13       .01

Note. (*) p < .05 (**) p < .001.

Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Quest Religiosity

      Predictor           [DELTA][R.sup.2]  [beta]    [sr.sup.2]

Step 1                    .03
  Political Conservatism                    -.17 (*)  .02
  Religious Commitment                      -.08      .00

Step 2                    .05
  Political Conservatism                    -.14 (*)  .02
  Religious Commitment                      -.04      .00
  Religious Intellectual                     .15 (*)  .02
  Humility
  Spiritual Humility                        -.08      .00

Note. (*) p < .05 (**) p < .001.

Table 5
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Intratextual Fundamentalism

      Predictor           [DELTA][R.sup.2]  [beta]     [sr.sup.2]

Step 1                    .62
  Political Conservatism                     .22 (**)  .04
  Religious Commitment                       .69 (**)  .41

Step 2                    .66
  Political Conservatism                     .19 (**)  .03
  Religious Commitment                       .57 (**)  .22
  Religious Intellectual                    -.09 (*)   .01
  Humility
  Spiritual Humility                         .23 (**)  .04

Note. (*) p < .05 (**) p < .001.

Table 6
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Humility and Moral
Foundation Variables (Study 2)

                 M     SD    1.         2.         3.         4.

1. Religious IH  4.05  0.47  -
2. SH            3.83  0.93   .17 (*)   -
3. Conservatism  3.37  1.39  -.06        .10       -
4. RC            2.97  1.16   .13        .52 (**)   .16 (*)   -
5. Harm          4.89  0.86   .40 (**)   .25 (**)  -.19 (**)   .16 (*)
6. Fairness      5.11  0.80   .42 (**)   .24 (**)  -.17 (*)    .13
7. Loyalty       3.62  1.02   .09        .28 (**)   .32 (**)   .15 (*)
8. Authority     4.14  0.91   .10        .27 (**)   .25 (**)   .33 (**)
9. Purity        4.01  1.09   .13        .41 (**)   .20 (**)   .49 (**)

                 5.         6.         7.         8.         9.

1. Religious IH
2. SH
3. Conservatism
4. RC
5. Harm          -
6. Fairness       .79 (**)  -
7. Loyalty        .21 (**)   .24 (**)  -
8. Authority      .36 (**)   .37 (**)   .59 (**)  -
9. Purity         .33 (**)   .29 (**)   .45 (**)   .61 (**)  -

Note. IH = Intellectual Humility, SH = Spiritual Humility, RC =
Religious Commitment. IH and SH range from 1 to 5; Conservatism ranges
from 1 to 7; Harm, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Purity range from
1 to 6.
(*) p < .05, (**) p < .01.

Table 7
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting MFQ Harm

      Predictor           [DELTA][R.sup.2]  [beta]     [sr.sup.2]

Step 1                    .07
  Political Conservatism                    -.23 (*)   .05
  Religious Commitment                       .20 (*)   .04

Step 2                    .22
  Political Conservatism                    -.20 (*)   .03
  Religious Commitment                       .05       .00
  Religious Intellectual                     .35 (**)  .11
  Humility
  Spiritual Humility                         .19 (*)   .03

Note. (*) p < .05 (**) p < .001.

Table 8
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting MFQ Fairness

      Predictor           [DELTA][R.sup.2]  [beta]     [sr.sup.2]

Step 1                    .05
  Political Conservatism                    -.20 (*)   .04
  Religious Commitment                       .16 (*)   .02

Step 2                    .22
  Political Conservatism                    -.17 (*)   .03
  Religious Commitment                       .01       .00
  Religious Intellectual                     .38 (**)  .14
  Humility
  Spiritual Humility                         .19 (*)   .03

Note. (*) p < .05 (**) p < .001.

Table 9
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting MFQ Loyalty

      Predictor           [DELTA][R.sup.2]  [beta]     [sr.sup.2]

Step 1                    .11
  Political Conservatism                     .31 (**)  .09
  Religious Commitment                       .10       .01

Step 2                    .15
  Political Conservatism                     .31 (**)  .09
  Religious Commitment                      -.04       .00
  Religious Intellectual                     .07       .01
  Humility
  Spiritual Humility                         .25 (*)   .05

Note. (*) p < .05 (**) p < .001.

Table 10
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting MFQ Authority

      Predictor           [DELTA][R.sup.2]  [beta]    [sr.sup.2]

Step 1                    .14
  Political Conservatism                    .20 (*)   .04
  Religious Commitment                      .30 (**)  .08

Step 2                    .15
  Political Conservatism                    .21 (*)   .04
  Religious Commitment                      .23 (*)   .04
  Religious Intellectual                    .06       .00
  Humility
  Spiritual Humility                        .12       .01

Note. (*) p < .05 (**) p < .001.

Table 11
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting MFQ Purity

      Predictor           [DELTA][R.sup.2]  [beta]    [sr.sup.2]

Step 1                    .25
  Political Conservatism                    .13 (*)   .02
  Religious Commitment                      .47 (**)  .22

Step 2                    .28
  Political Conservatism                    .13 (*)   .02
  Religious Commitment                      .36 (**)  .09
  Religious Intellectual                    .06       .00
  Humility
  Spiritual Humility                        .21 (*)   .03

Note. (*) p < .05 (**) p < .001.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CAPS International (Christian Association for Psychological Studies)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hodge, Adam S.; Melian, Katelyn; Hook, Joshua N.; Gazaway, Sarah; Zhang, Hansong; Farrell, Jennifer
Publication:Journal of Psychology and Christianity
Date:Mar 22, 2019
Words:6229
Previous Article:A Christian Psychology of Rumor.
Next Article:Exploring the Association between Self-Discrepancy in Spiritual Functioning and Positive and Negative Religious Coping for Students in a Christian...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters