Clarifying the Content of Intellectual Humility: A Systematic Review and Integrative Framework
Abstract
During the last decade, intellectual humility has gone from a topic of philosophical inquiry to one of serious scientific investigation. It has been variously described as a remedy for political polarization, a tool for advancing scientific credibility, and a disposition that promotes learning. However, less attention has been paid to how intellectual humility has been defined and measured or how well psychologists' definitions and measures align with one another or with philosophers' accounts. Through a systematic review of empirical intellectual humility research, we identified 18 separate definitions and 20 measures including16 unique questionnaires. We then synthesized this research to advance a new framework of intellectual humility. Implications of this framework for measurement and future research on intellectual humility are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Despite different conceptual approaches, most philosophers and psychologists agree that intellectual humility necessarily includes recognizing one's ignorance and intellectual fallibility.
“Despite different conceptual approaches, most philosophers and psychologists agree that intellectual humility necessarily includes recognizing one's ignorance and intellectual fallibility 26 .”
From Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility (2022) · cites this paper as [26]
Over the last decade, psychological scientists have developed many questionnaire measures of intellectual humility at the trait level.
“Over the last decade, psychological scientists have developed many questionnaire measures of intellectual humility at the trait level 26 .”
From Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility (2022) · cites this paper as [26]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 155
- Authors
- Porter, T., Baldwin, C. R., Warren, M. T., Murray, E. D., Cotton Bronk, K., Forgeard, M. J. C., Snow, N. E., & Jayawickreme, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Wake Forest University (US)
- Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate University
- William James College (US)
- University of Oklahoma (US)
- Corresponding author
- Porter, Tenelle
- Jayawickreme, Eranda
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Personality Assessment
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-09-27
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 573-585
- ISSN
- 0022-3891 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7752
- OpenAlex
- W3203897666
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 3.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality Assessment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- John Templeton Foundation (#, 2)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Forgiveness and Related Behaviors
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Keywords
- intellectual humility, questionnaire, integrative framework, political polarization, scientific credibility, learning
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Personality, Surveys and Questionnaires
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
