The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2015

Vol. 10, No. 6, 499506, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1004554

Intellectual humility and forgiveness of religious leaders

Joshua N. Hook *, Don E. Davisb, Daryl R. Van Tongerenc, Peter C. Hilld, Everett L. Worthington Jr.e,
a

Jennifer E. Farrella and Phillip Diekef

a
Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA; bDepartment of Counseling and Psychological Services,
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA; cDepartment of Psychology, Hope College, Holland, MI, USA; dDepartment of
Psychology, Biola University, La Mirada, CA, USA; eDepartment of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA,
USA; fHighland Park United Methodist Church, Dallas, TX, USA
(Received 16 July 2014; accepted 2 December 2014)

This article presents two studies that examined how perceptions of intellectual humility affect response to a transgression
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 04:56 16 June 2016

by a religious leader. In Study 1, participants (N = 105) rated the religious leader on intellectual humility regarding
different religious beliefs and values, as well as general humility and forgiveness of the leader for a transgression.
Perceived intellectual humility was positively associated with forgiveness, even when controlling for perceived general
humility. In Study 2, we replicated the ndings from Study 1 on an independent sample (N = 299). Also, the type of
offense moderated the association between perceived intellectual humility and forgiveness. For participants, who reported
an offense in the area of religious beliefs, values, or convictions, the association between perceived intellectual humility
and forgiveness was stronger than for participants, who reported a different type of offense. We conclude by discussing
limitations and areas for future research.
Keywords: intellectual humility; forgiveness; religious leaders

With the rise of the positive psychology movement in the
last decade (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), the
study of virtues such as forgiveness (Fehr, Gelfand, &
Nag, 2010) and gratitude (Emmons & McCullough, 2003)
has increased. Recently, philosophers and theologians
have become interested in epistemic virtue (DePaul &
Zagzebski, 2003), which addresses how to develop and
hold certain beliefs well, including the concept of intellec-
tual humility (IH). Whereas there has been some work in
the eld of psychology on humility in general (e.g. Davis
et al., 2011; Davis, Worthington, & Hook, 2010), there has
been almost no work on IH humility about ones intel-
lectual strengths and weaknesses (Samuelson, Church,
Jarvinen, & Paulus, 2012). Theorizing within the eld of
philosophy has suggested that IH may be especially
important for those having high levels of intellectual inu-
ence such as religious leaders (Roberts & Wood, 2003).
This work also aligns with theorizing within psychology
that (a) perceptions of humility regulate the formation and
repair of social bonds and (b) are especially important in
contexts where humility is most difcult to practice (Davis
et al., 2013). Thus, in the present study, we empirically
examine the importance of perceptions of IH under the
strain of a transgression by a religious leader.
Denitions
Humility has been dened as including both intraper-
sonal and interpersonal dimensions. On the intrapersonal
dimension, humble individuals have an accurate view of
self and an awareness of their limitations; on the
interpersonal dimension, humble individuals have an
interpersonal stance that is other-oriented, rather than
self-focused; characterized by respect for others, rather
than superiority (Davis et al., 2011). McElroy et al.
(2014) suggested that, like constructs such as intelligence
or self-efcacy, humility might involve subdomains
based on contexts that make humility difcult to prac-
tice. For example, Hook, Davis, Owen, Worthington, and
Utsey (2013) recently focused on the subdomain involv-
ing engagement of cultural differences in psychotherapy.
In the present article, we focus on the subdomain of
intellectual humility (IH) while engaging different
religious beliefs, values, and convictions.
The subdomain of IH pertains to how someone han-
dles situations that make it difcult for most people to
negotiate ideas fairly. Accordingly, IH involves having
an accurate view of ones intellectual strengths and
weaknesses, as well as the ability to negotiate different
ideas in an interpersonally respectful manner. Thus, gen-
eral humility (GH) refers to ones behavior across situa-
tions and relationships, whereas IH refers to a particular
subset of behaviors involving ones thinking and behav-
ior while negotiating with different ideas in intellectual
discourse. The intellectually humble person is able to
regulate ones concern for being right and is open to
new information and pursuing and incorporating

*Corresponding author. Email: joshua.hook@unt.edu

2015 Taylor & Francis

 500 J.N. Hook et al.
knowledge and truth from other sources, even when it is
discrepant from ones original position. IH may be espe-
cially important for individuals that are viewed by their
communities to have high levels of intellectual inuence
(Roberts & Wood, 2003).
Function of humility in relationships
Davis et al. (2013) described a model that focused on
humility in the context of social relationships. They
argued that humility is perceived within a social context
in order to help people predict how others will treat
them. They posited that perceptions of humility help reg-
ulate social bonds. Namely, social bonds cause people to
react to the needs of others as if they were their own,
but they can make someone vulnerable to exploitation if
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 04:56 16 June 2016
someone draws on but does not reciprocate a strong
bond. Thus, when people perceive someone as high in
humility, this indicates that the person is unselsh and
capable of a mutually benecial relationship, and thus
the social bond is likely to grow stronger. However, if
one sees a relationship partner acting arrogantly, then
one may perceive the target person as less humble,
which leads one to view the relationship as a riskier
investment and the social bond is likely to weaken. Ini-
tial empirical evidence is consistent with this idea. For
example, Davis et al. (2011, 2013) found that the more
victims perceived an offender as humble, the higher their
level of forgiveness. In a study of dating couples, per-
ceptions of humility were linked with higher levels of
commitment and relationship satisfaction (Farrell et al.,
in press).
Intellectual humility and leadership
Davis et al. (2013) also theorized that humility is espe-
cially important in situations that make it most difcult
to practice. Based on this logic, we describe four factors
that we posit will make IH especially difcult to prac-
tice, especially when they occur simultaneously.
First, the role of leadership makes IH difcult to
express. Namely, a leaders role usually involves having
greater inuence than subordinates over the exchange of
ideas. The leaders opinion counts more than others. In
addition, leaders are charged with moderating the ow of
ideas fairly. Thus, they have greater opportunity to
reward or punish ideas based on their alignment with the
leaders agenda. In fact, a key aspect of leadership style
may involve the degree to which leaders are viewed as
fairly incorporating ideas of team members (e.g. transfor-
mational leadership, Judge & Piccolo, 2004; servant
leadership, Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Second, the role of religious leadership may make IH
even more difcult to express. Religious leaders are
usually entrusted with the role of interpreting and
teaching information about the Sacred (Woodruff,
Van Tongeren, McElroy, Davis, & Hook, 2014).
Religious leaders may be considered by followers to be
especially wise and in tune with the Sacred. Religious
leaders hold positions of power in the area of religious
discourse, sometimes with thousands of followers, who
listen to their sermons and read their books. Religious
individuals often model their thoughts and behaviors
after their religious leaders, such as pastors, priests, or
other clergy.
Third, holding religious convictions often makes IH
difcult to practice. Religious convictions involve ulti-
mate questions about purpose, meaning, and the afterlife,
and religious individuals often have a lot invested in
their particular world view. Adhering to cultural world
views (including religion) may also alleviate existential
anxiety by providing followers with both literal immor-
tality (e.g. eternal life) and symbolic immortality (e.g. be
a part of something greater than the self; Vail et al.,
2010). Finally, certain religious teachings connect ones
faith with being certain that what one believes is true
(Boyd, 2013). Given the important role of conviction in
religious beliefs, it seems that IH may be a particularly
difcult virtue to cultivate in this area.
Fourth, a betrayal by a religious leader ought to espe-
cially strain IH. Indeed, this may be a perfect storm in
terms of challenges to ones ability to perceive a leader
as high in IH. Religious leaders hold a highly trusted
role of governing religious discourse within a commu-
nity, so a major betrayal ought to make the victim feel
particularly vulnerable and likely to adjust their view of
the leaders degree of IH. Indeed, religious individuals
often associate religious leaders with the Sacred, and
thus an offense by a clergy member may negatively
impact a congregants view of the Sacred (Thomas,
White, & Sutton, 2008). Congregants may also be likely
to appraise such offenses as desecrations (Pargament,
Magyar, Benore, & Mahoney, 2005), which intensify
negative moral emotions such as anger, contempt, or
disgust.
Prior research on humility and leadership has found
that humility may be viewed as more important in reli-
gious leaders than other types of leaders (e.g. business
leader, military leader; Exline & Geyer, 2004). Also,
prior work has linked perceptions of humility by vic-
tims to forgiveness of general offenses (Davis et al.,
2013). But this hypothesis has not been examined in
the context of severe strain, such as when multiple fac-
tors align (e.g. betrayals by religious leaders involving
disagreements about convictions). This may be a per-
fect storm in terms of straining IH, and ought to lead
to considerable variability in peoples ability to express
IH. We expect that victims who view their religious
leader as more intellectually humble will report higher
forgiveness.
 The Journal of Positive Psychology
The present studies
The purpose of the present studies was to examine
whether perceptions of IH were positively related to for-
giveness of a religious leader after a major rupture in
trust. In Study 1, we examined the association between
perceptions of leader IH and forgiveness. We hypothe-
sized that perceptions of leader IH would be positively
related to forgiveness of the religious leader, even when
controlling for perceptions of leader GH. In Study 2, we
aimed to replicate the ndings from Study 1, as well as
test whether the type of offense moderated the associa-
tion between perceptions of leader IH and forgiveness.
Specically, we hypothesized that, controlling for hurt-
fulness and GH, the association between perceptions of
leader IH and forgiveness would be stronger for offenses
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 04:56 16 June 2016
that dealt with religious beliefs, values, or convictions
than for other types of offenses.
Study 1
Method
Participants and procedure
Participants were 105 undergraduate students (40 M, 65
F) from a large public university in the Southeastern
United States. Participants ranged in age from 19 to
55 years (M = 25.10, SD = 7.25). Participants reported a
variety of racial backgrounds (24.0% White, 51.9%
Black, 6.7% Latino, 9.6% Asian, 5.8% Multiracial, 1.9%
Other). Participants were mostly Christian (72.4%, Mus-
lim 5.7%, Buddhist 1.9%, Hindu 2.9%, Other 5.7%,
None 11.5%) and heterosexual (94.8%, gay/lesbian
2.1%, bisexual 2.1%, other 1.0%). Participants were
recruited from undergraduate courses and participated in
exchange for a small amount of course credit. Partici-
pants completed the study online. Participants rst gave
consent to participate and then completed the question-
naires. Participants completed the questionnaires in rela-
tion to a religious leader who had committed an actual
transgression in a church. Participants were asked to
describe the offense, and ll out a series of question-
naires in relation to the offense and the religious/spiritual
leader. Participants were debriefed and given the contact
information of the researcher should they have questions.
Measures
Hurtfulness of the offense. Participants rated the hurtful-
ness of the offense to them personally on a scale from
1 = very little hurt to 5 = large amount of hurt.
Perceptions of intellectual humility. Participants
completed the Cultural Humility Scale (CHS; Hook
et al., 2013), which we adapted for the present study to
measure IH (see Appendix 1). The CHS consists of 12
501
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 orienta-
tion). The original version of the CHS allowed people to
choose a highly salient domain, whereas in this study,
the CHS was modied, so that all participants focused
on the domain of religious beliefs and values. Thus, in
the present study, participants rated the degree to which
they perceived the religious leader to be intellectually
humble regarding 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 (seven items; e.g.
Is open to explore) and the negative subscale reects
negative characteristics involving superiority and making
assumptions (ve items; e.g. Makes assumptions).
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. For the current sample, the Cronbachs
alpha was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.880.93).
Perceptions of general humility
Perceptions of GH of the religious leader were measured
with the Relational Humility Scale (RHS; Davis et al.,
2011). The RHS consists of 16 items that assess percep-
tions of GH. The RHS consists of three subscales: global
humility (ve items; e.g. He/she has a humble charac-
ter), superiority (seven items; e.g. He/she thinks of
him/herself too highly), and accurate view of self (four
items; e.g. He/she knows him/herself well). Participants
rate each item on a 5-point rating scale from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Scores on this measure
have shown evidence for internal consistency and con-
struct validity (Davis et al., 2011). For the present study,
we took the mean of all items for a total GH score. For
the current sample, the Cronbachs alpha was 0.89 (95%
CI = 0.86.92).
Forgiveness
Forgiveness toward the religious leader was measured
with the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivation
Inventory (TRIM; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002;
McCullough et al., 1998). The TRIM consists of 18
items that assess interpersonal forgiveness toward an
offender. The TRIM consists of three subscales: benevo-
lence (six items; e.g. Despite what he/she did, I want us
to have a positive relationship again), avoidance (seven
items; e.g. I keep as much distance between us as
possible), and revenge (ve items; e.g. Ill make him
or her pay). Participants rate each item on a 5-point
rating scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
 502
agree. Scores on this measure have shown evidence for
internal consistency and construct validity (McCullough
& Hoyt, 2002; McCullough et al., 1998). For the present
study, we took the mean of all items for a total forgive-
ness score. For the current sample, the Cronbachs alpha
was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.88-.93).
Results and discussion
Before conducting the primary analyses, we checked the
data for assumptions. There were no problems with outli-
ers or normality. Means, standard deviations, and inter-
correlations for all scales are in Table 1.
Our primary hypothesis was that perceptions of leader
IH about religious beliefs and values would be positively
associated with forgiveness of the religious leader, con-
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 04:56 16 June 2016
trolling for the hurtfulness of the offense and perceptions
of GH. We tested this hypothesis using a hierarchical
regression analysis with forgiveness as the dependent vari-
able, hurtfulness and GH entered in Step 1, and IH entered
in Step 2. This hypothesis was supported. In Step 1,
hurtfulness and GH signicantly predicted forgiveness,
R2 = 0.27, p < 0.001. In Step 2, IH was a signicant pre-
dictor of forgiveness over and above the effects of hurtful-
ness and GH, R2 = 0.07, p = 0.001. In this nal model,
both GH ( = 0.27, p = 0.011) and IH ( = 0.35,
p = 0.001) positively predicted forgiveness. The nal
model predicted 33.6% of the variance in forgiveness.
This rst study provided evidence that perceptions of
leader IH regarding religious beliefs and values were
positively related to forgiveness of a religious leader. IH
was a signicant predictor of forgiveness, even when
controlling for hurtfulness and GH. In the second study,
we explored the extent to which the type of offense
moderated the association between IH and forgiveness.
Study 2
Method
Participants and procedure
Participants were 299 undergraduate students (97 M, 201
F, 1 other) from a large public university in the
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of study
variables (Study 1).
M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Hurtfulness 2.98 1.32
2. CHS Total 2.86 0.82 0.16
3. RHS Total 3.06 0.60 0.02 0.62*
5. TRIM 3.41 0.75 0.18 0.53* 0.48*
Note: CHS = Cultural Humility Scale, which reects perceptions of lea-
der IH; RHS = Relational Humility Scale, which reects perceptions of
leader GH; TRIM = Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivation
Inventory; all scales range from 1 to 5.
*p < .01.
J.N. Hook et al.
Southwestern United States. Participants ranged in age
from 18 to 53 years (M = 20.77, SD = 4.13). Participants
reported a variety of racial backgrounds (60.2% White,
18.7% Black, 11.0% Latino, 4.3% Asian, .3% Native
American, 5.0% Multiracial, .3% Other). Participants
were mostly Christian (80.6%, Muslim 1.3%, Jewish
.7%, Other 1.3%, None 16.1%) and heterosexual
(90.3%, gay/lesbian 5.7%, bisexual 3.3%, other .7%).
Participants were recruited from undergraduate courses
and participated in exchange for a small amount of
course credit. Participants rst gave consent to participate
and then completed questionnaires online. Participants
completed the questionnaires in relation to a religious
leader who had committed an actual transgression in a
church. Participants were asked to describe the offense,
and ll out a series of questionnaires in relation to the
offense and the religious/spiritual leader. Participants
were debriefed and given the contact information of the
researcher should they have questions.
Measures
Hurtfulness of the offense. As in Study 1, participants
rated the hurtfulness of the offense to them personally
on a scale from 1 = very little hurt to 5 = large amount
of hurt.
Type of offense
Two independent coders evaluated whether or not the
offense was related to a conict in the area of religious
beliefs, values, or convictions. The two coders agreed on
94.0% of cases. In cases of disagreement, the two coders
discussed and reached consensus. 8.7% of offenses were
related to a conict in the area of religious beliefs,
values, or convictions. An example of this type of
offense was: I was told I would go to Hell for not being
Christian and for [sic] friending people who are homo-
sexual. Examples of other types of transgressions (i.e.
not related to conict in the area of religious beliefs, val-
ues, or convictions) included nancial and sexual
offenses.
Perceptions of intellectual humility. As in Study 1,
participants completed the Cultural Humility Scale
(CHS; Hook et al., 2013), which we adapted for the
present study to measure perceptions of IH of the reli-
gious leader in relation to religious beliefs and values
(see Appendix 1). For the current sample, the Cronbachs
alpha was 0.90 (95% CI = 0.88.91).
Perceptions of general humility
As in Study 1, participants completed the Relational
Humility Scale (RHS; Davis et al., 2011) to measure
 The Journal of Positive Psychology
perceptions of GH of the religious leader. For the current
sample, the Cronbachs alpha was 0.92 (95% CI = 0.91
0.93).
Forgiveness
As in Study 1, forgiveness toward the religious leader was
measured with the Transgression-Related Interpersonal
Motivations Inventory (TRIM; McCullough & Hoyt,
2002; McCullough et al., 1998). For the current sample,
the Cronbachs alpha was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.85.89).
Results and discussion
Before conducting the primary analyses, we checked the
data for assumptions. The TRIM had one low outlier,
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 04:56 16 June 2016
which we recoded to three standard deviations below the
mean. There were no problems with normality. Means,
standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all scales
are in Table 2.
Our rst hypothesis was that the ndings from Study
1 would replicate on an independent sample. We tested
this hypothesis using a hierarchical regression analysis
with forgiveness as the dependent variable. We entered
hurtfulness and GH in Step 1, and IH in Step 2. This
hypothesis was supported. In Step 1, hurtfulness and GH
predicted a signicant amount of variance in forgiveness,
R2 = 0.27, p < 0.001. In Step 2, controlling for hurtful-
ness and GH, IH was a signicant predictor of forgive-
ness over and above hurtfulness and GH, R2 = 0.03,
p = 0.001. In this nal model, both GH ( = 0.30,
p < 0.001) and IH ( = 0.27, p = 0.001) were signicant
predictors of forgiveness. The nal model predicted
29.7% of the variance in forgiveness.
Our second hypothesis was that the type of offense
would moderate the association between perceptions of
leader IH and forgiveness. Specically, we expected that
if the offense was in the area of religious beliefs, values,
or convictions, the association between perceptions of
leader IH and forgiveness would be stronger than for a
different type of offense. We tested this hypothesis using
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of study
variables (Study 2).
M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Hurtfulness 2.84 1.31
2. CHS Total 2.98 0.84 0.24*
3. RHS Total 3.11 0.82 0.23* 0.79*
4. TRIM 3.36 0.71 0.14 0.51* 0.52*
Note: CHS = Cultural Humility Scale, which reects perceptions of lea-
der IH; RHS = Relational Humility Scale, which reects perceptions of
leader GH; TRIM = Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivation
Inventory; all scales range from 1 to 5.
*p < .01.
503
a hierarchical regression analysis with forgiveness as the
dependent variable. We entered hurtfulness, GH, IH, and
offense type in Step 1, and the interaction between IH
and offense type in Step 2. This hypothesis was sup-
ported. In Step 1, hurtfulness, GH, IH, and offense type
predicted a signicant amount of variance in forgiveness,
R2 = 0.30, p < 0.001. In Step 2, controlling for the afore-
mentioned variables, the interaction between offense type
and IH was a signicant predictor of forgiveness,
R2 = 0.02, p = 0.009 (see Figure 1).
To explore this signicant interaction, we conducted
follow-up hierarchical regression analyses, examining the
effect of IH on forgiveness separated by offense type,
controlling for hurtfulness and GH. We entered hurtful-
ness and GH in Step 1, and IH in Step 2. For offenses
that were in the area of religious beliefs, values, or
convictions, in Step 1, hurtfulness and GH predicted a
signicant amount of variance in forgiveness, R2 = 0.49,
p < 0.001. In Step 2, controlling for hurtfulness and GH,
IH was a signicant predictor of forgiveness over and
above the effect of hurtfulness and relational humility
R2 = 0.16, p = 0.005. In the nal model, IH was a sig-
nicant predictor of forgiveness ( = 0.67, p = 0.005),
but GH was not ( = 0.08, p = 0.707).
For other types of offenses, in Step 1, hurtfulness
and GH predicted a signicant amount of variance in
forgiveness, R2 = 0.26, p < 0.001. In Step 2, controlling
for hurtfulness and GH, IH was a signicant predictor of
forgiveness over and above the effect of hurtfulness and
GH, R2 = 0.02, p = 0.012. In the nal model, both GH
( = 0.34, p < 0.001) and IH ( = 0.21, p = 0.012) were
signicant predictors of forgiveness. Thus, IH was a
stronger predictor of forgiveness for offenses in the area
of religious beliefs, values, or convictions.
This second study replicated the results from Study
1, and also explored whether the type of offense moder-
ated the association between perceptions of leader IH
and forgiveness. Namely, when the offense focused on a
5
4.5
4 Conviction
Other
3.5
3
IHLow IHHigh
Figure 1. Moderator effects of the type of offense on the
association between perceptions of leader IH and forgiveness
( = 0.14, p = 0.009).
 504 J.N. Hook et al.
conict in the area of religious beliefs, values, or convic-
tions, the association between perceptions of leader IH
and forgiveness was stronger than for different types of
offenses. Thus, IH might be especially important for
religious leaders who commit offenses in the area of
religious beliefs, values, or convictions.
General discussion
Prior work has provided evidence for the social bond
hypothesis that perceptions of humility help regulate
the formation, maintenance, and repair of social bonds
(Davis et al., 2011; Farrell et al., in press). Prior work
examined this hypothesis in the context of general
offenses. The present set of studies examined this
hypothesis in a situation theorized to be a perfect storm
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 04:56 16 June 2016
in terms of making IH difcult to practice (i.e. an
offense committed by a religious leader). We focused on
this context for two reasons. First, IH may be an espe-
cially important virtue in individuals who are viewed by
their communities as having a high level of intellectual
inuence (Roberts & Wood, 2003). The role of a reli-
gious leader certainly falls within this denition. Second,
it may be especially difcult to engage with IH around
ones religious beliefs, values, and convictions. Religious
beliefs, values, and convictions are often strongly
defended because they answer ultimate questions, such
as (a) ones meaning and life and (b) the afterlife (Vail
et al., 2010), and IH is theorized to play an important
role in religious tolerance (see Woodruff et al., 2014).
Overall, our hypotheses were supported. The more
victims perceived the religious leader to have IH, the
more they reported being able to forgive him or her. This
was true even after controlling for perceptions of leader
GH. Furthermore, the association between perceptions of
IH and forgiveness was especially strong for offenses
that involved religious beliefs, values, or convictions.
These ndings provide initial evidence that domain-
specic constructs such as IH may predict unique vari-
ance relative to measures of GH. Moreover, they provide
additional evidence for the social bond hypothesis and
the role of humility perceptions in regulating victims
relationships with offenders.
The present study adapted the Cultural Humility
Scale (CHS; Hook et al., 2013) to assess IH of religious
beliefs and values. In general, scores on the CHS
showed evidence for internal consistency and construct
validity, although more research is needed on this mea-
sure as applied to religious beliefs and values. Future
research could (a) explore both other-ratings and self-
reports of IH, as well as (b) explicitly measure the level
of agreement (or not) between the religious leader and
the person judging their level of IH.
More generally, the present study provides support
for a growing body of literature that has shown humility
to be important to the development and repair of social
bonds (Davis et al., 2013; Farrell et al., in press). The
present study expanded on this body of literature by spe-
cically measuring perceptions of IH toward religious
leaders. Furthermore, the present study supports prior
theorizing by Davis et al. (2013) that identies certain
difcult situations or contexts as being important to
study humility. The present study examined a context
that involved (a) conict and (b) a hierarchical relation-
ship (religious leader and member).
Limitations and suggestions for future research
There were several limitations to the present set of stud-
ies. First, both studies used a sample of undergraduate
students. The religious experience of undergraduate stu-
dents may be unique, as some evidence suggests that
religious participation declines and the nature of reli-
gious/spiritual beliefs may change during the college
years (Mayrl & Oeur, 2009). Generalizing the ndings
from these studies to adolescents or older adults is not
recommended. Future research should examine the
perceptions of IH in these populations.
Second, both studies used cross-sectional, correla-
tional designs. Thus, causal conclusions should not be
made. Although the data were consistent with our theo-
retical model (i.e. perceptions of IH leading to increased
forgiveness), there may be other theoretical models that
are consistent with the data as well. Longitudinal or
experimental research is necessary to further explicate
the nature of these relationships.
Third, the present study adapted an existing measure
of cultural humility (Hook et al., 2013) to measure IH.
This strategy focused on assessing a subdomain of rele-
vant behaviors by adjusting the focus of the directions of
the scale. The original prompt had people focus on a
particular cultural identity, which is somewhat broader in
focus. The present study focused on humility regarding
different kinds of religious beliefs and values. Presum-
ably, such domain-specic assessments ought to predict
domain-relevant behaviors more strongly than more gen-
eral measures of humility, but this prediction has not
been thoroughly examined, and it is important to see if
the ndings in our study continue to replicate across a
variety of samples.
Fourth, although the present study offered some evi-
dence for the unique predictive ability of IH relative to
GH, other variables that may be related to IH or GH,
such as perceived agreeableness, trustworthiness, or nar-
cissism of the leader, were not assessed. Future research
could explore the relationship between IH and forgive-
ness controlling for other personality and relationship
variables.
Fifth, the present study explored the links between
IH and forgiveness in one type of leadership context (i.e.
 The Journal of Positive Psychology
religious leaders). It is important to explore whether
these ndings will extend to other leadership contexts
(e.g. politics, business). Some research has found that
humility in religious leaders may be viewed as more of a
strength than other types of leaders (Exline & Geyer,
2004). Future research should investigate the relationship
between intellectual humility and forgiveness in other
leadership contexts.
Conclusion
We encourage researchers to continue to explore the role
of IH in regard to different types of religious beliefs, val-
ues, and convictions. It may be especially difcult to act
humbly about different types of religious beliefs, values,
and convictions, especially for individuals who have
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 04:56 16 June 2016
high levels of religious commitment (Woodruff et al.,
2014). However, conict in religious contexts, as seen in
the present study, is common. IH toward religion may be
an effective way to help repair damaged relationships
when such conict inevitably occurs.
Funding
We would like to acknowledge the generous nancial support
of Fuller Theological Seminary/Thrive Center in concert with
the John Templeton Foundation, [grant number 108] (Intellec-
tual Humility in Religious Leaders), as well as the John Tem-
pleton Foundation [grant number 29630], The Development,
Validation, and Dissemination of Measures of Intellectual
Humility and Humility; [grant number 14979], Relational
Humility: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of
Humility).
References
Boyd, G. A. (2013). Benet of the doubt: Breaking the idol of
certainty. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
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: Conceptualiz-
ing and measuring humility as a personality judgment.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 225234.
Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr, & Hook, J. N. (2010).
Humility: Review of measurement strategies and conceptu-
alization as personality judgment. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 5, 243252.
Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr, Hook, J. N., Emmons, R. A.,
Hill, P. C., Bollinger, R. A., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2013).
Humility and the development and repair of social bonds:
Two longitudinal studies. Self and Identity, 12, 5877.
DePaul, M., & Zagzebski, L. (2003). Intellectual virtue: Per-
spectives from ethics and epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting bless-
ings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of grati-
tude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377389.
Exline, J. J., & Geyer, A. L. (2004). Perceptions of humility: A
preliminary study. Self and Identity, 3, 95114.
505
Farrell, J. E., Hook, J. N., Ramos, M., Davis, D. E., Van
Tongeren, D. R., & Ruiz, J. M. (in press). Humility and
relationship outcomes in couples: The mediating role of
commitment. Couple and Family Psychology: Research
and Practice.
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to for-
giveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and
dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136,
894914.
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, 353366.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their rela-
tive validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 3651.
Mayrl, D., & Oeur, F. (2009). Religion and higher education:
Current knowledge and directions for future research. Jour-
nal for the Scientic Study of Religion, 48, 260275.
McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression-
related motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of
forgiveness and their links to the big ve. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 15561573.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington,
E. L., Jr, Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal
forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration
and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 15861603.
McElroy, S. E., Rice, K. G., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Hill, P.
C., Worthington, E. L., Jr, & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2014).
Intellectual humility: Scale development and theoretical
elaborations in the context of religious leadership. Journal
of Psychology and Theology, 42, 1930.
Pargament, K. I., Magyar, G. M., Benore, E., & Mahoney, A.
(2005). Sacrilege: A study of sacred loss and desecration
and their implications for health and well-being in a com-
munity sample. Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion,
44, 5978.
Roberts, R. C., & Wood, W. J. (2003). Humility and epistemic
goods. In M. DePaul, & L. Zagzebski (Eds.), Intellectual
virtue: Perspectives from ethics and epistemology
(pp. 203226). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Samuelson, P. L., Church, I. M., Jarvinen, M., & Paulus, T.
(2012). The science of intellectual humility white paper.
Unpublished manuscript, Fuller Theological Seminary
School of Psychology.
Seligman, M. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive
psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55,
514.
Thomas, E. K., White, K., & Sutton, G. W. (2008). Clergy
apologies following abuse: What makes a difference?
Exploring forgiveness, apology, responsibility-taking,
gender, and restoration. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 27, 1629.
Vail, K. E. III., Rothschild, Z. K., Weise, D. R., Solomon, S.,
Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2010). A terror manage-
ment analysis of the psychological function of religion.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 8494.
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and
synthesis. Journal of Management, 37, 12281261.
Woodruff, E., Van Tongeren, D. R., McElroy, S., Davis, D. E.,
& Hook, J. N. (2014). Humility and religion: Benets, dif-
culties, and a model of religious tolerance. In C. Kim-
Prieto (Ed.), Positive psychology of religion and spirituality
across cultures (pp. 271285). New York, NY: Springer.
 506 J.N. Hook et al.

Appendix 1. Cultural Humility Scale (CHS)
religious beliefs and values
Directions: Please think about the clergy/minister you
identied. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to
which you agree or disagree with the following statements
about your clergy/minister, regarding different types of reli-
gious beliefs/values.

Regarding different types of religious beliefs and values, the Strongly Mildly Neutral Mildly Strongly
clergy/minister disagree (1) disagree (2) (3) agree (4) agree (5)
1. Is respectful 1 2 3 4 5
2. Is open to explore 1 2 3 4 5
3. Assumes he/she already knows a lot 1 2 3 4 5
4. Is considerate 1 2 3 4 5
5. Is genuinely interested in learning more 1 2 3 4 5
6. Acts superior 1 2 3 4 5
7. Is open to seeing things from other perspectives 1 2 3 4 5
8. Makes assumptions 1 2 3 4 5
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 04:56 16 June 2016

9. Is open-minded 1 2 3 4 5
10. Is a know-it-all 1 2 3 4 5
11. Thinks he/she understands more than he/she actually does 1 2 3 4 5
12. Asks questions when he/she is uncertain 1 2 3 4 5
Note: Positive subscale items: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12.
Negative subscale items: 3, 6, 8, 10, 11.