An official website of the United States government
Because an intellectually humble person is neither diffident nor arrogant in their views, intellectual humility (IH) is considered a virtuous mean. Yet, evidence for the virtuous mean account is mixed, with some studies finding evidence for it and some studies finding evidence against it. To clarify these ambiguities, we examined the curvilinear relations between multiple IH conceptualizations and belief strength across political, religious, and irreligious beliefs. In a secondary analysis of more than 4,000 participants, there was evidence for the virtuous mean account for political beliefs, evidence against it for religious beliefs, and little evidence for irreligious beliefs. Altogether, these results raise the possibility that the virtuous mean account of IH is not as generalizable as originally presumed. Thus, instead of asking whether IH is a virtuous mean, future research should ask when, why, and how IH is a virtuous mean for some beliefs and not for others.
more »
« less
Do children value intellectual humility over intellectual arrogance?
When making social judgments, children prefer confidence over uncertainty. At the same time, they also value calibration and accuracy. How, then, do children reason about calibrated uncertainty, or intellectual humility, versus unwarranted confidence, or intellectual arrogance? Here we examined whether 4- to 11-year-olds evaluated intellectually humble individuals as more likable, more knowledgeable, nicer, and smarter than intellectually arrogant individuals. Across two studies involving 229 children (Study 1: N = 111, 59% White, 39% girls; Study 2: N = 118, 66% White, 49% girls), we found that children, by the age of 5.5 years, preferred an intellectually humble over an intellectually arrogant individual, with this preference strengthening over development. Moreover, children preferred intellectual humility over intellectual arrogance both when an intellectually humble individual appeared to be accurate (Study 1) and when it was unclear whether they were accurate (Study 2). Altogether, these findings indicate that children do not prioritize unwarranted confidence more than calibrated uncertainty in their social judgments. We conclude by highlighting pressing directions for future research surrounding what makes children prefer intellectual humility and why.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2313708
- PAR ID:
- 10650207
- Publisher / Repository:
- American Psychological Association
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Developmental Psychology
- ISSN:
- 0012-1649
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Public trust in scientists is critical to our ability to face societal threats. Here, across five pre-registered studies (N = 2,034), we assessed whether perceptions of scientists’ intellectual humility affect perceived trustworthiness of scientists and their research. In study 1, we found that seeing scientists as higher in intellectual humility was associated with greater perceived trustworthiness of scientists and support for science-based beliefs. We then demonstrated that describing a scientist as high (versus low) in intellectual humility increased perceived trustworthiness of the scientist (studies 2–4), belief in their research (studies 2–4), intentions to follow their research-based recommendations (study 3) and information-seeking behaviour (study 4). We further demonstrated that these effects were not moderated by the scientist’s gender (study 3) or race/ethnicity (study 4). In study 5, we experimentally tested communication approaches that scientists can use to convey intellectual humility. These studies reveal the benefits of seeing scientists as intellectually humble across medical, psychological and climate science topics.more » « less
-
Abstract Wealth‐based disparities in health care wherein the poor receive undertreatment in painful conditions are a prominent issue that requires immediate attention. Research with adults suggests that these disparities are partly rooted in stereotypes associating poor individuals with pain insensitivity. However, whether and how children consider a sufferer's wealth status in their pain perceptions remains unknown. The present work addressed this question by testing 4‐ to 9‐year‐olds from the US and China. In Study 1 (N = 108, 56 girls, 79% White), US participants saw rich and poor White children experiencing identical injuries and indicated who they thought felt more pain. Although 4‐ to 6‐year‐olds responded at chance, children aged seven and above attributed more pain to the poor than to the rich. Study 2 with a new sample of US children (N = 111, 56 girls, 69% White) extended this effect to judgments of White adults’ pain. Pain judgments also informed children's prosocial behaviors, leading them to provide medical resources to the poor. Studies 3 (N = 118, 59 girls, 100% Asian) and 4 (N = 80, 40 girls, 100% Asian) found that, when evaluating White and Asian people's suffering, Chinese children began to attribute more pain to the poor than to the rich earlier than US children. Thus, unlike US adults, US children and Chinese children recognize the poor's pain from early on. These findings add to our knowledge of group‐based beliefs about pain sensitivity and have broad implications on ways to promote equitable health care. Research HighlightsFour studies examined whether 4‐ to 9‐year‐old children's pain perceptions were influenced by sufferers’ wealth status.US children attributed more pain to White individuals of low wealth status than those of high wealth status by age seven.Chinese children demonstrated an earlier tendency to attribute more pain to the poor (versus the rich) compared to US children.Children's wealth‐based pain judgments underlied their tendency to provide healthcare resources to people of low wealth status.more » « less
-
Though adults tend to endorse the stereotype that boys are better than girls in math, children tend to favor their own gender or be gender egalitarian. When do individuals start endorsing the traditional stereotype that boys are better? Using two longitudinal U.S. datasets that span 1993 to 2011, we examined three questions: (1) What are the developmental changes in adolescents’ gender stereotypes about math abilities from early to late adolescence? (2) Do the developmental changes vary based on gender and race/ethnicity? (3) Are adolescents’ stereotypes related to their math motivational beliefs? Finally, (4) do these patterns replicate across two datasets that vary in historical time? Adolescents in grades 8/9 and 11 were asked whether girls or boys are better at math (n’s = 1186 and 23,340, 49–53% girls, 30–54% White, 13–60% Black, 1–22% Latinx, and 2% to 4% Asian). Early adolescents were more likely to be gender egalitarian or favor their own gender. By late adolescence, adolescents’ stereotypes typically shifted towards the traditional stereotype that boys are better. In terms of race/ethnicity, White and Asian adolescents significantly favored boys, whereas Black and Latinx adolescents were more likely to endorse gender egalitarian beliefs. Adolescents’ stereotypes were significantly related to their expectancy beliefs, negatively for girls and positively for boys.more » « less
-
Moral behavior is more prevalent when individuals cannot easily distort their beliefs self-servingly. Do individuals seek to limit or enable their ability to distort beliefs? How do these choices affect behavior? Experiments with over 9,000 participants show prefer- ences are heterogeneous—30 percent of participants prefer to limit belief distortion, while over 40 percent prefer to enable it, even if costly. A random assignment mechanism reveals that being assigned to the preferred environment is necessary for curbing or enabling self-serving behavior. Third parties can anticipate these effects, sug- gesting some sophistication about the cognitive constraints to belief distortion.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001991
