Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility

Porter, T., Elnakouri, A., Meyers, E.A. et al. 

Nat Rev Psychol 1, 524–536 (2022).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00081-9

Abstract

In a time of societal acrimony, psychological scientists have turned to a possible antidote — intellectual humility. Interest in intellectual humility comes from diverse research areas, including researchers studying leadership and organizational behaviour, personality science, positive psychology, judgement and decision-making, education, culture, and intergroup and interpersonal relationships. In this Review, we synthesize empirical approaches to the study of intellectual humility. We critically examine diverse approaches to defining and measuring intellectual humility and identify the common element: a meta-cognitive ability to recognize the limitations of one’s beliefs and knowledge. After reviewing the validity of different measurement approaches, we highlight factors that influence intellectual humility, from relationship security to social coordination. Furthermore, we review empirical evidence concerning the benefits and drawbacks of intellectual humility for personal decision-making, interpersonal relationships, scientific enterprise and society writ large. We conclude by outlining initial attempts to boost intellectual humility, foreshadowing possible scalable interventions that can turn intellectual humility into a core interpersonal, institutional and cultural value.

Importance of intellectual humility

The willingness to recognize the limits of one’s knowledge and fallibility can confer societal and individual benefits, if expressed in the right moment and to the proper extent. This insight echoes the philosophical roots of intellectual humility as a virtue. State and trait intellectual humility have been associated with a range of cognitive, social and personality variables (Table 2). At the societal level, intellectual humility can promote societal cohesion by reducing group polarization and encouraging harmonious intergroup relationships. At the individual level, intellectual humility can have important consequences for wellbeing, decision-making and academic learning.

Notably, empirical research has provided little evidence regarding the generalizability of the benefits or drawbacks of intellectual humility beyond the unique contexts of WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) societies. With this caveat, below is an initial set of findings concerning the implications of possessing high levels of intellectual humility. Unless otherwise specified, the evidence below concerns trait-level intellectual humility. After reviewing these benefits, we consider attempts to improve an individual’s intellectual humility and confer associated benefits.

(cut)

Individual benefits

Intellectual humility might also have direct consequences for individuals’ wellbeing. People who reason about social conflicts in an intellectually humbler manner and consider others’ perspectives (components of wise reasoning) are more likely to report higher levels of life satisfaction and less negative affect compared to people who do not. Leaders who are higher in intellectual humility are also higher in emotional intelligence and receive higher satisfaction ratings from their followers, which suggests that intellectual humility could benefit professional life. Nonetheless, intellectual humility is not associated with personal wellbeing in all contexts: religious leaders who see their religious beliefs as fallible have lower wellbeing relative to leaders who are less intellectually humble in their beliefs.

Intellectual humility might also help people to make well informed decisions. Intellectually humbler people are better able to differentiate between strong and weak arguments, even if those arguments go against their initial beliefs9. Intellectual humility might also protect against memory distortions. Intellectually humbler people are less likely to claim falsely that they have seen certain statements before116. Likewise, intellectually humbler people are more likely to scrutinize misinformation and are more likely to intend to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Lastly, intellectual humility is positively associated with knowledge acquisition, learning and educational achievement. Intellectually humbler people are more motivated to learn and more knowledgeable about general facts. Likewise, intellectually humbler high school and university students expend greater effort when learning difficult material, are more receptive to assignment feedback and earn higher grades.

Despite evidence of individual benefits associated with intellectual humility, much of this work is correlational. Thus, associations could be the product of confounding factors such as agreeableness, intelligence or general virtuousness. Longitudinal or experimental studies are needed to address the question of whether and under what circumstances intellectual humility promotes individual benefits. Notably, philosophical theorizing about the situation-specific virtuousness of the construct suggests that high levels of intellectual humility are unlikely to benefit all people in all situations.

The info is here.

What is intellectual humility? Intellectual humility is the ability to recognize the limits of one's knowledge and to be open to new information and perspectives.

Predictors of intellectual humility: There are a number of factors that can predict intellectual humility, including:

• Personality traits: People who are high in openness to experience and agreeableness are more likely to be intellectually humble.
• Cognitive abilities: People who are better at thinking critically and evaluating evidence are also more likely to be intellectually humble.
• Cultural factors: People who live in cultures that value open-mindedness and tolerance are more likely to be intellectually humble.

Consequences of intellectual humility: Intellectual humility has a number of positive consequences, including:

• Better decision-making: Intellectually humble people are more likely to make better decisions because they are more open to new information and perspectives.
• Enhanced learning: Intellectually humble people are more likely to learn from their mistakes and to grow as individuals.
• Stronger relationships: Intellectually humble people are more likely to have strong relationships because they are more willing to listen to others and to consider their perspectives.

Overall, intellectual humility is a valuable trait that can lead to a number of positive outcomes.

Neuroscience is ready for neuroethics engagement

Das, J., Forlini, C., Porcello, D. M. et al.

Front. Commun., 21 December 2022

Sec. Science and Environmental Communication

Neuroscience research has been expanding, providing new insights into brain and nervous system function and potentially transformative technological applications. In recent years, there has been a flurry of prominent international scientific academies and intergovernmental organizations calling for engagement with different publics on social, ethical, and regulatory issues related to neuroscience and neurotechnology advances. Neuroscientific activities and outputs are value-laden; they reflect the cultural, ethical, and political values that are prioritized in different societies at a given time and impact a variety of publics beyond the laboratory. The focus on engagement in neuroscience recognizes the breadth and significance of current neuroscience research whilst acknowledging the need for a neuroethical approach that explores the epistemic and moral values influencing the neuroscientific agenda. The field of neuroethics is characterized by its focus on the social, legal, and philosophical implications of neuroscience including its impact on cultural assumptions about the cognitive experience, identity, consciousness, and decision-making. Here, we outline a proposal for neuroethics engagement that reflects an enhanced and evolving understanding of public engagement with neuroethical issues to create opportunities to share ideation, decision-making, and collaboration in neuroscience endeavors for the benefit of society. We demonstrate the synergies between public engagement and neuroethics scholarship and activities that can guide neuroethics engagement.

Conclusion

Building on research from numerous fields and experiences of the past, engagement between neuroscience, neuroethics, and publics offers a critical lens for anticipating and interrogating the unique societal implications of neuroscience discovery and dissemination, and it can help guide regulation so that neuroscience products promote societal well-being. Engagement offers a bridge not only for neuroscientists and neuroethicists, but also for neuroethics and the public. It is possible that more widespread use of neuroethics engagement will reveal yet unknown or overlooked ethical conflicts in neuroscience that may take priority over the ones listed here.

We offer this paper as part of a continued and expanded dialogue on neuroethics engagement. The concept we propose will require the input of stakeholders beyond neuroethics, neuroscience, and public engagement in science to build practices that are inclusive and fit for purpose. Effective neuroethics engagement should be locally and temporally informed, lead to a culturally situated understanding of science and diplomacy, aim to understand the transnational nature of scientific knowledge, and be mindful of the challenges raised by how knowledge of discoveries circulates.

The info is here.

Challenges to capture the big five personality traits in non-WEIRD populations

Rachid Laajaj, Karen Macours, and others
Science Advances  10 Jul 2019:
Vol. 5, no. 7
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw5226

Abstract

Can personality traits be measured and interpreted reliably across the world? While the use of Big Five personality measures is increasingly common across social sciences, their validity outside of western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) populations is unclear. Adopting a comprehensive psychometric approach to analyze 29 face-to-face surveys from 94,751 respondents in 23 low- and middle-income countries, we show that commonly used personality questions generally fail to measure the intended personality traits and show low validity. These findings contrast with the much higher validity of these measures attained in internet surveys of 198,356 self-selected respondents from the same countries. We discuss how systematic response patterns, enumerator interactions, and low education levels can collectively distort personality measures when assessed in large-scale surveys. Our results highlight the risk of misinterpreting Big Five survey data and provide a warning against naïve interpretations of personality traits without evidence of their validity.

The research is here.

I Disclose ... Nothing

The Hard Truths About Disclosure
By Elisabeth Rosenthal
The New York Times Sunday Review
Originally Published January 22, 2012

IN New York and a growing number of American cities, diners are encountering sanitary grades in restaurants’ windows — A, B or C. That system is an example of helpful disclosure, researchers say: information that is simple and comprehensible, important to recipients and easily acted upon. I recently chose between outwardly identical Japanese noodle shops on East Ninth Street in Manhattan based on the system, walking into the A rather than the B.

But as greater disclosure has become the go-to solution for a wide range of problems — from unethical campaign financing to rising corporate carbon emissions — it has often delivered lackluster results, researchers say.

Just last week, the Obama administration announced plans to require drug companies to disclose a wide variety of payments and gifts to doctors, from speaking fees to the purchase of breakfasts for office staffs, in the hope of reducing commercial influence on prescribing practices. President Obama has promised to run the most open, transparent administration in history. But is more disclosure the solution?

If recent history serves as a guide, disclosure laws — meant to elucidate — do not necessarily lead to greater transparency or prevent the things they were meant to deter. Every holder of a subprime mortgage that is now underwater once signed an elaborate disclosure statement required by the Truth in Lending Act describing precisely the risky terms of their loan. Likewise, “super PACs” in the presidential campaign are technically compliant with financial disclosure laws, but have so far proved successful at hiding many of the sources of their money.

Everyone agrees that openness is a virtue in a democracy. So what is going wrong?

One fundamental problem is that disclosure requirements merely get information onto the table, but themselves demand no further action. According to political theory, disclosure is both a citizen’s right and a tool to ensure good government and consumer protection, because it provides information that leads to informed decisions. Instead, disclosure has often become an endpoint in the chain of responsibility, an act of compliance with the letter of the law rather than the spirit of transparency.

“In the beginning, disclosure was a means to an end, and now it’s often an end in itself,” said Kevin P. Weinfurt, professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at Duke University. “People think, ‘If we’ve disclosed we’ve fulfilled our responsibilities.’ ”

The entire story is here.