Self and Identity, 3: 95–114, 2004

Copyright # 2004 Psychology Press

1529-8868/2004
DOI: 10.1080/13576500342000077

Perceptions of Humility: A Preliminary Study

JULIE JUOLA EXLINE

ANNE L. GEYER
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Do people perceive humility as a strength or a weakness? The current study

examined this question in a sample of 127 undergraduates. Contrary to common
dictionary definitions of humility, which often emphasize its association with self-
abasement, participants reported consistently positive views of humility. When
recalling situations in which they felt humble, they typically reported success
experiences associated with positive emotion. Participants clearly associated
humility with good psychological adjustment, although they were less decisive about
whether humility was associated with confidence or leadership. Although
participants viewed humility as a strength across all social roles sampled, humility
was viewed most favorably as a quality of religious seekers, less favorably as a
quality of close others or subordinates, and least favorably as a quality of leaders or
entertainers. Positive views of humility were associated with high self-esteem and
religiosity. Less favorable views of humility were associated with narcissism—
particularly its exploiting/entitled dimension.

Do people perceive humility as a strength or a weakness? As described by Tangney

(2000), dictionary definitions often paint a negative picture of humility, linking it
with self-abasement, low self-esteem, and humiliation. On the other hand, humility
could also be viewed as a strength and a virtue, as suggested in religious writings
(e.g., Casey, 2001; Murray, 2001), philosophical treatises (e.g., Morgan, 2001;
Richards, 1992), and recent conceptual work in psychology (e.g., Exline, Campbell,
Baumeister, Joiner, & Kruger, 2004; Emmons, 1999; Friesen, 2001; Landrum, 2002;
Sandage, 1999, 2001; Tangney, 2000, 2002).
In spite of the recent conceptual attention devoted to humility, psychologists
still know little about people’s perceptions of humility—in particular, whether
they view it as a strength or a weakness. Thus, the purpose of this preliminary
study was to examine perceptions of humility in a sample of North American
undergraduates. We were particularly interested in the following questions: Do
people think of humility as a virtue to be cultivated or a weakness to be
downplayed? Is humility viewed as a trait that is desirable only for specific types
of people—religious figures, perhaps, as opposed to leaders or entertainers? We
also wanted to examine whether individual difference variables such as
religiosity, narcissism, and self-esteem might be relevant to perceptions of
humility.

Received 9 July 2002; accepted 16 November 2003

Portions of this research were presented at a meeting of the American Psychological Society.
Address Correspondence to Julie Juola Exline, Department of Psychology, 11220 Bellflower, Case
Western University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106 – 7123, USA. E-mail: julie.exline@case.edu

95
96 J. J. Exline & A. L. Geyer

Attempts to Conceptualize Humility

Modern Western culture places tremendous emphasis on helping people to see
themselves in a positive light. Low self-esteem has been blamed for many serious
social problems such as violence (see Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996, for a
discussion). The last few decades have witnessed state-funded task forces on self-
esteem (Mecca, Smelser, & Vasconcellos, 1989) and myriad self-help books on how
to increase self-esteem (e.g., Branden, 1994). When faced with personal weaknesses
or failings, people may need to distort the truth in order to feel good about
themselves. Some evidence suggests that such favorable distortions, used in
moderation, are associated with good mental health—and possibly physical health
as well (e.g., Taylor & Brown, 1988; Taylor, Kemeny, Reed, Bower, & Gruenewald,
2000). Favorable self-views generate confidence and positive emotion, which can
spread to bring benefits in other areas of adjustment.
Given the current Western preoccupation with positive self-views, it is easy to
imagine that the unassuming trait of humility might be seen as distasteful. As
discussed by Tangney (2000), people might readily associate the term humility with
negative self-views, including a low opinion of the self and a sense of worthlessness.
In sharp contrast with this negative picture of humility, recent writings offer ample
evidence that humility can be framed as a virtue or strength. Theologians and
devotional writers have written extensively about the merits of humility (e.g., Casey,
2001; Mogabgab, 2000; Murray, 2001; Roberts, 1982; von Hildebrand, 1997) and the
pitfalls of pride, which often appears as one of the ‘‘Seven Deadly Sins’’ (e.g.,
Schimmel, 1992). Philosophers have also written about humility as a virtue, and they
have debated extensively about the precise definition, benefits, and risks of humility
(e.g., Ben-Ze’ev, 1993; Driver, 1989; Hare, 1996; Morgan, 2001; Richards, 1992).
Humility also forms a major cornerstone of Alcoholics Anonymous and other
‘‘Twelve-Step’’ programs designed to treat addictions (e.g., Kurtz & Ketcham, 1992).
Within Alcoholics Anonymous, writers have referred to humility as the ability to
honestly accept one’s humanity and the knowledge of one’s own imperfections—
including one’s powerlessness over alcohol (Step 1) (Kurtz & Ketcham, 1992).
According to Kurtz and Ketcham (1992), humility involves rejecting implicit
demands to be ‘‘all or nothing’’, instead choosing to be content about one’s status as
an ordinary human being. They describe how humility can pave the way for
alcoholics to surrender to the existence and availability of a Higher Power (Step 2)
and to submit control of one’s recovery to this Higher Power (Step 3). According to
this reasoning, a lack of humility will impede recovery from alcoholism (see Tiebout,
1944). Recent empirical work with newly recovering alcoholic outpatients (Hart &
Huggett, 2003) offers results relevant to this argument. The study revealed that
narcissistic self-perceptions of authority and superiority correlated negatively with
recovering alcoholics’ willingness to surrender to a Higher Power in the ways
delineated in Steps 2 and 3.
Other recent conceptualizations of humility offer complementary perspectives.
For example, Means, Wilson, Sturn, Biron, and Bach (1990) propose that humility
implies: (a) a willingness to admit one’s faults; (b) a recognition that one cannot
control all social encounters; (c) an attitude of patience and gentleness with other
people; and (d) a sense of empathy for others. Roberts (1982) emphasizes a lack of
concern with social rank as a core feature of humility. Sandage (1999) uses the term
ego-humility to refer to a realistic orientation toward self and other that includes a
willingness to acknowledge one’s strengths and to face one’s limitations.
 Perceptions of Humility: A Preliminary Study 97

More recently, social and personality psychologists have begun to examine

humility as a form of virtue or personal strength. Emmons (1999) suggests that
humility involves accuracy, self-acceptance, understanding one’s imperfections,
keeping one’s talents and accomplishments in perspective, and freedom from both
arrogance and low self-esteem. In her list of key features of humility, Tangney (2000,
2002) includes an accurate sense of one’s abilities and achievements, the ability to
acknowledge one’s mistakes, imperfections, gaps in knowledge, and limitations
(often with reference to a Higher Power), openness to new ideas, contradictory
information, and advice, and an ability to keep one’s abilities and accomplishments
in perspective. According to Landrum (2002), humility involves an open-minded
attitude, a willingness to admit mistakes and seek advice, and a desire to learn. Our
own conceptualization (Exline et al., 2004) suggests that humility involves a
nondefensive willingness to see the self accurately, including strengths and
limitations. We have proposed that humility is likely to stem from a sense of
security in which feelings of personal worth are based on stable, reliable sources
(e.g., feeling unconditionally loved; belief in value of all life) rather than on
transient, external sources such as achievement, appearance, or social approval (cf.
Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Such a sense of security might stem from personal values,
religious views, or life experiences.
These recent psychological definitions suggest a positive view of humility,
portraying it primarily as a source of strength rather than a weakness. However, lay
definitions do not always align with scholarly definitions, a problem that has arisen
in research on other thorny constructs such as forgiveness (for a discussion, see
Exline, Worthington, Hill, & McCullough, 2003). And given our cultural
preoccupation with positive self-views, it is easy to imagine that humility might
be seen as distasteful. As discussed by Tangney (2000), people might readily
associate the term humility with negative self-views, including a low opinion of the
self or a sense of worthlessness. And even if they hold generally positive views of
humility, they might have reservations about its appropriateness for specific types of
persons and situations. We turn to this issue next.

Potential Benefits and Costs of Humility

Given the various ways to define and conceptualize humility, it becomes clear that
individual views of the construct could take either a positive or a negative tone. On
the positive side, people might view humility as being a healthy alternative to an
arrogant, boastful attitude. They might view humble people as having positive
adjustment qualities such as a sense of security, an accurate view of self, and a
nondefensive, open attitude. It also seems likely that people would associate
humility with modesty. Both qualities would seem to work against boasting and
arrogance, and a truly humble view of self might lead to modest self-presentations as
opposed to grandiosity or self-promotion. Finally, it seems reasonable to predict
that humble people would be seen as likeable. Humility should help people to avoid
the pitfalls of unwarranted boasting and visibly grandiose attitudes, both of which
can prompt negative impressions by other people (e.g., Colvin, Block, & Funder,
1995; Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986; Leary, Bednarski, Hammon, & Duncan, 1997).
Yet there are equally compelling reasons to predict that people would hold
negative views of humility. As mentioned earlier, individuals may associate humility
with humiliation, low self-esteem, or harsh self-criticism—none of which seem
particularly positive. Even if people hold personal definitions of humility that align
98 J. J. Exline & A. L. Geyer

more closely with scholarly definitions, they might focus on potential costs of
humility. Because humility involves a willingness to consider one’s shortcomings,
people may associate humility with failure experiences that are depressing or
threatening to recall. People might also associate humility with interpersonal risks.
For example, in competitive situations or when dealing with highly aggressive,
dominant people, those who fail to self-promote or to demonstrate their superiority
run the risk of being shortchanged. Also, although humble people should be willing
to discuss their strengths when appropriate (as in a job interview or in a leadership
role), a willingness to openly discuss one’s limitations could prove detrimental if
one’s strengths are not readily apparent (see Aronson, Willerman, & Floyd, 1966), or
if the audience prefers people with flawless and highly confident self-presentations.

Social Roles and Humility

We also proposed that people would view humility more or less positively
depending on the social role of the humble person. Because humility is commonly
associated with religion (e.g., Morgan, 2001; Murray, 2001), humility should be
seen as a positive quality in religious figures. To the extent that humility facilitates
cooperating, sharing, and a lack of self-preoccupation, people might also
appreciate humility in close others such as friends, family, and romantic partners
(see Friesen, 2001, for a discussion of how humility might facilitate marital
communication). But consider a different type of role—would humility be
considered a desirable trait in people who are expected to show strong, decisive
leadership, such as military or business leaders? Although there are clearly
differences in leadership styles (e.g., directive versus participative; Janis, 1982), we
predicted that the prototypical image of a leader might not be one that people
would strongly associate with humility. One might also consider entertainers, who
are expected to draw attention to themselves. Granted, some entertainers adopt
self-effacing styles (e.g., Woody Allen). But more generally speaking, could being
humble be detrimental to people who are expected to lead or to perform in front of
others? We predicted that college students would make these distinctions, rating
humility as a less favorable quality in entertainers and leaders than in individuals
with whom they shared close relationships.

Individual Differences
We also expected some individual differences in attitudes about humility. More
specifically, we predicted that views of humility would be linked with religiosity,
narcissism, and self-esteem. Our reasoning was as follows:

Religiosity. We hypothesized a positive association between religiosity and views of

humility. Many religions frame humility as a virtue, contrasting it with the vice of
pride (e.g., Schimmel, 1992). Much of the scholarly writing on the topic of humility
comes from a theological or devotional perspective. In fact, some scholars have
argued that humility is a fundamentally religious virtue, one that makes sense only
when considering the relationship between mortal human beings and an omniscient
God (Morgan, 2001; Murray, 2001). Religiosity has also been linked with greater
valuing of related virtues such as forgiveness (e.g., Tsang, McCullough, & Hoyt,
2004). For all of these reasons, we predicted that religiosity would be associated with
more favorable views of humility.
 Perceptions of Humility: A Preliminary Study 99

Gender. Research suggests that women often behave more modestly than men (e.g.,
Heatherington, Burns, & Gustafson, 1998; Heatherington et al., 1993) and are often
more sensitive than men to the social risks of outperforming other people (see Exline
& Lobel, 1999, for a review). Through socialization processes, men might also learn
to value individualism and dominance-seeking to a greater extent than women (e.g.,
Brod, 1987). We thus expected that relative to men, women would endorse more
positive views of humility.

Narcissism. By definition, the trait of narcissism seems antagonistic to humility.

Individuals who are narcissistic are preoccupied with seeing and presenting
themselves in a positive light. They often react defensively to self-esteem threats
(Baumeister et al., 1996; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998)
and are motivated by desires for dominance in interpersonal relationships
(Emmons, 1984; Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991; Raskin & Terry, 1988). We
thus predicted that narcissistic individuals would hold unfavorable views of
humility, associating it with weakness, passivity, or a lack of confidence.

Self-esteem. Competing predictions could be made about self-esteem and views of

humility. To the extent that self-esteem is correlated with narcissism, we expected
high self-esteem to be associated with more negative views of humility. But to the
extent that self-esteem is separable from narcissism, high self-esteem might actually
be associated with more positive views of humility. Why? As discussed earlier, a
number of scholars have proposed that humility is facilitated by a sense of security
or self-acceptance. To the extent that the self-esteem construct taps a general sense
of worthiness or a positive attitude toward the self, humility should be seen in a
positive light.

Social desirability. Prior research (Landrum, 2002) has suggested that self-reported
beliefs about humility may be associated with social desirability. Thus, we wanted to
test for these associations in the current study as well.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 127 introductory psychology students (61 men and 66 women) at
a private university in the Midwestern United States. All participants completed a
questionnaire to receive partial course credit. Average age was 18.9. The sample
was 77% White or Caucasian, 19% Asian, 6% African American or Black, 1%
Latino, 1% Native American, and 2% Middle Eastern. (Summed percentages
exceed 100% because participants selected multiple options where appropriate.)
Religious affiliations were as follows: 30% Protestant, 29% Catholic, 5% Jewish,
2% Hindu, 2% Buddhist, 2% Taoist, 2% Islamic, and 20% atheist/agnostic or no
religion.

Measures
We used Likert-type rating scales for our preliminary analyses. Descriptive statistics
(Cronbach’s alphas, means, standard deviations, ranges) are reported in Table 1.
100 J. J. Exline & A. L. Geyer

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics

Cronbach’s Possible Observed
Variable alpha M (SD) range range
Narcissism .87 15.2 (7.4) 0 – 40 1 – 36
Self-esteem .87 33.0 (7.2) 10 – 50 10 – 45
Religious belief salience .96 5.6 (3.5) 0 – 10 0 – 10
Religious participation .88 1.8 (1.2) 0–5 0 – 4.6
Social desirability .61 4.8 (2.6) 0 – 13 0 – 12
Immediate associations with n/a 2.4 (2.7) 0 – 10 0 – 10
‘‘humility’’
Want to be more humble n/a 6.1 (2.7) 0 – 10 0 – 10
Want to be less humble n/a 2.3 (2.0) 0 – 10 0–8
Humility similar to shame, .84 2.3 (2.3) 0 – 10 0 – 10
embarrassment, or
humiliation
Humility associated with .94 2.0 (1.9) 7 5 – +5 7 4.2 – +5
good adjustment
Humility associated with .85 0.7 (2.0) 7 5 – +5 7 4.8 – +5
confidence/leadership
Humility is a strength in:
religious seekers/leaders .79 3.4 (1.7) 7 5 – +5 7 2 – +5
subordinates .83 2.7 (2.1) 7 5 – +5 7 4 – +5
close others .86 2.9 (1.8) 7 5 – +5 7 2.3 – +5
leaders/entertainers .91 1.0 (2.6) 7 5 – +5 7 4.8 – +5

Given the dearth of research on the topic of humility, we also included open-ended
questions. These questions were coded for use as supplemental descriptive data.

Associations with humility. Participants used an eleven-point scale ( – 5 = negative,

5 = positive) to rate their immediate associations with the word humility. They also
rated from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely) their responses to these items: ‘‘To what
extent do you think that it would be good if you were less humble?’’ and ‘‘To what
extent do you think that it would be good if you were more humble?’’. On a scale
ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely), participants rated the extent to which
they perceived humility as similar to low self-esteem, modesty, humiliation, and
shame.

Definition of humility. Participants were asked to provide definitions of humility in

an open-ended format. Responses were entered into a text file to ensure that coders
were blind to participant scores on all measures. Based on prior theorizing and an
initial reading of responses, the second author generated coding categories and
trained an independent rater in use of the coding system. The second author served
as a second coder. Agreement between the two coders was good, with kappas
ranging from .89 to 1.0. Discrepancies were resolved by the first author.

Situations in which participants felt humble. Participants were asked to recall a real-
life situation in which they felt humble. They were then asked to briefly describe the
 Perceptions of Humility: A Preliminary Study 101

situation, why they felt humble in the situation, and the emotions that they
experienced in the situation. They rated from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely) the
extent to which the memory was pleasant to recall. They then used the same scale to
rate the unpleasantness of the memory. Open-ended responses were coded using the
same procedure described above, and kappas between the two coders ranged from
.89 to .92. Discrepancies were resolved by the first author.

Example of a humble person. Participants read the prompt, ‘‘Please think of an

example of a person who you see as being very humble’’. They were then asked to
give a brief description of the person and why s/he was seen as humble. Responses
were coded using the same procedure described above, and kappas between the two
coders ranged from .85 to 1.0. Discrepancies were resolved by the first author.

Qualities likely to be found in humble people. Participants read, ‘‘A person who is
humble is likely to be . . .’’, followed by 35 pairs of dichotomous adjectives (filler
items and items related to study hypotheses). Participants rated each pair on an
eleven-point scale ( – 5 = anchor for one word in pair, 5 = anchor for other word in
pair). Maximum likelihood factor analysis with varimax rotation suggested creation
of two subscales. The first subscale assessed eight characteristics associated with
psychological adjustment. The anchors for each item were as follows: emotionally
unstable/emotionally stable; rejects help/accepts help; doesn’t respect self/respects
self; pessimistic/optimistic; hates self/loves self; mentally unhealthy/mentally
healthy; unhappy/happy; and inaccurate self-view/accurate self-view. Cronbach’s
alpha was .94. The second subscale assessed four characteristics associated with
confidence or leadership: follower/leader; lacks confidence/confident; passive/active;
unassertive/assertive. Cronbach’s alpha was .85. We also retained a single item with
the anchors religious/spiritual and not religious/spiritual for separate analysis.

Types of people for whom humility is a weakness or a strength. Participants read the
prompt, ‘‘If you knew that ________ (see list below) was a very humble person,
would you see this as a weakness or a strength for this type of person?’’ The prompt
was followed by a list of people in different social roles. An eleven-point scale was
used to rate each item ( – 5 = weakness, 0 = neutral, 5 = strength). Maximum
likelihood factor analysis with varimax rotation suggested creation of four
subscales: leader/entertainer (business leader, military leader, President of the
USA, entertainer, course instructor, alpha .91); close other (dating partner, friend,
parent; alpha .86); subordinate (servant, employee, alpha .83); and religious seeker/
leader (religious or spiritual seeker, religious leader, alpha .79).

Self-esteem. The widely used Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965, 1979)
assessed self-esteem. Participants rated agreement with ten items on a five-point
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Religiosity. Following a procedure used in Exline, Yali, & Sanderson (2000), a

religiosity index was created by combining measures of religious belief salience and
religious participation. Belief salience was assessed using Blaine and Crocker’s
(1995) measure adapted for an eleven-point scale (0 = strongly disagree,
10 = strongly agree). The scale includes five items: ‘‘I allow my religious beliefs to
influence other areas of my life’’; ‘‘My religious beliefs provide meaning and purpose
to life’’; ‘‘My religious beliefs are what lie behind my whole approach to life’’;
102 J. J. Exline & A. L. Geyer

‘‘Being a religious person is important to me’’; and ‘‘I am frequently aware of God in
a personal way’’. The scale was scored by averaging across items. A religious
participation measure designed by Exline and colleagues (2000) was abbreviated for
the current study. Participants were asked to rate how frequently they had
participated in each of the following activities in the past month: praying or
meditating; reading religious books or watching religious programs; attending
religious services; thinking about religious issues; and talking to others about
religious issues. Items were rated from 0 (not at all) to 5 (more than once a day). The
scale was scored by averaging across items. As anticipated, the two measures were
highly correlated, r(127) = .80, p 5 .001. They were thus standardized and combined
into a single index of religiosity.

Narcissism. Narcissism was assessed using the forty-item version of the widely used
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988; for original version,
see Raskin & Hall, 1979). The scale consists of forty items, and responses are made
in a forced-choice between a narcissistic and a non-narcissistic answer. Items are
summed to obtain scores.

Social desirability. The thirteen-item version of the Marlowe – Crowne Social

Desirability Scale was used in the current study. Participants respond to a series
of items in a true/false format. Reliability estimates and validation data can be found
in Reynolds (1982), where the version used in this study is labeled Form C.

Results

Is Humility Seen as a Strength or a Weakness?

Results consistently suggested that students’ overall views of humility were
favorable. As shown in Table 1, immediate associations with the term humility were
generally positive, M = 2.4, SD = 2.7, differing significantly from the neutral scale
midpoint of 0, t(126) = 9.81, p 5 .001. Participants were much more likely to say
that they wanted to become more humble, M = 6.1, than to say that they wanted to
become less humble, M = 2.3, F(1, 124) = 125.05, Wilks’ l = .50, p 5 .001, a
pattern consistent with viewing humility as a strength.
Contrary to what might be expected based on dictionary definitions, humility was
not seen as similar to low self-esteem, M = 2.3, SD = 2.4 on a scale from 0 to 10.
Humility was also not seen as similar to humiliation, M = 2.4, SD = 2.9, or shame,
M = 2.2, SD = 2.7. Humility was seen as similar to modesty, M = 7.8, SD = 2.2.
The mean for modesty differed from the means for low self-esteem, shame, and
humiliation at p 5 .001 using repeated measures contrasts. Due to high correlations
among the items assessing humility’s similarity to shame, embarrassment, and
humiliation (Cronbach’s alpha = .84), these three items were combined into a single
item for remaining analyses.
Open-ended definitions of humility suggested substantial overlap with modesty.
Almost half of participants (44%) used the word ‘‘modesty’’ in their definitions or
made reference to modest behaviors such as not bragging or not taking full credit for
success. Other features associated with humility included unselfishness (17%), a lack
of conceit or arrogance (19%), and the presence of positive attributes or abilities
(17%). Rather than framing humility as a preoccupation with shortcomings, then,
 Perceptions of Humility: A Preliminary Study 103

participants often associated humility with attitudes about one’s positive qualities.
In spite of this generally optimistic view, some participants did associate humility
with shame, humiliation, or embarrassment (10%) or a submissive or passive
attitude (5%).

Situations in Which Humility Was Experienced

When asked to recall a real-life situation in which they felt humble, participants
reported much higher levels of pleasant affect (M = 6.6, SD = 3.0) than
unpleasant affect (M = 2.6, SD = 2.8) associated with the memory, F(1,
119) = 66.44, Wilks’ l = .64, p 5 .001. Consistent with the positive views of
humility reported above, the majority of participants (61%) recalled experiences
involving success or accomplishment (i.e., doing something good; receiving praise;
succeeding or winning; getting more credit than deserved). A minority of
participants (24%) reported situations that involved lowering of the self (i.e.,
exposure to better-faring persons; loss or failure; correction of over-inflated self-
view). Participants who recalled incidents involving success or accomplishment
reported much more positive affect, M = 7.3, SD = 2.5, than negative affect,
M = 2.0, SD = 2.4, F(1, 73) = 105.46, Wilks’ l = .41, p 5 .001. In contrast,
participants who recalled lowering events reported approximately equal levels of
positive affect, M = 5.1, SD = 2.9, and negative affect, M = 4.6, SD = 3.0, F(1,
27) = 0.25, Wilks’ l = .99, p 4 .10.

Characteristics of Humble Individuals

When asked to think of a person they viewed as very humble, participants chose
peers such as friends, classmates, or roommates (41%), relatives (22%), popular
religious figures such as religious leaders, Jesus Christ, or saints (13%), celebrities or
famous individuals (10%), and personal religious leaders such as pastors or priests
(3%). When asked to describe the person and/or why the person was seen as
humble, participants identified positive characteristics such as kindness or caring
toward others (56%), refraining from bragging (55%), success or intelligence (47%),
and an unselfish or self-sacrificing stance (21%). However, some individuals (14%)
did remark on a potential downside of humility, noting that the humble person was
timid, quiet, or unassertive.
When participants were asked about the qualities associated with humble people,
they gave positive ratings. Humble individuals received ratings above the scale
midpoint of 0 on both the adjustment index and the leadership/confidence index.
(For adjustment, M = 2.0, SD = 1.9, t(126) = 11.78, p 5 .001; for leadership/
confidence, M = 0.7, SD = 2.0), t(126) = 4.0, p 5 .001. However, the adjustment
ratings were higher than the leadership/confidence ratings, F(126) = 103.39, Wilks’
l = .54, p 5 .001. These findings suggest that humble people are generally seen as
well-adjusted and kind. But do humble people fare as well in roles that call for
leadership or dominance? This question was examined in the next analysis.

Is Humility Seen as More of a Strength in Certain Social Roles?

When reporting on whether humility would be seen as a strength or a weakness in
other people, participants generally reported that humility was a strength. All scores
were above the neutral scale midpoint of 0, ps 5 .001. Yet participants did make
104 J. J. Exline & A. L. Geyer

distinctions about humility’s merits based on the social role of the humble person.
Repeated measures contrasts suggested that humility was rated more favorably in
religious seekers (M = 3.4, SD = 1.7) than in close others (M = 2.9, SD = 1.8) or
subordinates (M = 2.7, SD = 2.1, both ps 5 .01). These findings mirrored results
from the item suggesting that humble individuals were perceived as being religious or
spiritual, M = 1.6, SD = 2.2, which differed from the neutral midpoint of 0 at
t(125) = 7.99, p 5 .001.
Humility was rated less favorably in the leader/entertainer group than in any of
the other three social roles (M = 1.0, SD = 2.6, ps against other three groups
5 .001). In other words, people were more likely to see humility as a strength in
social roles that specifically emphasized virtue or positive social relationships. They
were less decisive about whether humility would be a strength in roles that might
require assertion, leadership, or entertainment value.

Individual Differences in Views of Humility

Consistent with predictions, religiosity was associated with positive conceptions of
humility. As shown in Table 2, religiosity was associated with a desire to become
more humble, with a belief that humility is associated with good adjustment and
confidence, and with a view of humility as a strength in people in diverse roles
(subordinates, religious seekers/leaders, close others). Religiosity was also associated
with greater likelihood of positive emotion and lower likelihood of negative emotion
as coded from participants’ autobiographical accounts of humble experiences.
Gender did not show consistent associations with views of humility, as shown in
Table 2. Most correlations were nonsignificant. Yet women were more likely than
men to view humility as a strength in religious seekers or leaders, and a
nonsignificant trend suggested that women were somewhat more likely than men
to associate humility with good adjustment. Thus, there was some suggestion that
women’s attitudes toward humility are slightly more favorable than men’s. However,
women were also more likely than men to report negative emotions in their
descriptions of situations in which they felt humble. Closer investigation revealed
that women were more likely than men to report negative emotions in situations
involving success (women 72%, men 28%, w2(77) = 6.12, p = .01). More specifically,
when women recalled success situations in which they felt humble, they tended to be
more likely than men to report embarrassment (23% of women, 8% of men,
w2(75) = 3.52, p 5 .10). Such a finding is consistent with research suggesting that
women are more sensitive than men to the social costs of outperforming others (e.g.,
Exline & Lobel, 1999; Heatherington et al., 1993; Heatherington, Burns, &
Gustafson, 1998).
As shown in Table 2, narcissism correlated negatively with belief that humility is
associated with good adjustment and confidence. Self-esteem did not show consistent
associations with views of humility. However, to the extent that participants had
high self-esteem, they were more likely to link humility with good adjustment and
less likely to associate it with shame, embarrassment, and humiliation. These results
suggested that self-esteem and narcissism might diverge in terms of their associations
with humility. We thus conducted supplemental analyses to disentangle the roles of
narcissism and self-esteem.
Narcissism and self-esteem correlated positively in the current sample,
r(126) = .23, p 5 .01, consistent with the idea that both narcissism and high self-
esteem involve positive self-views. We reasoned that the intercorrelations between
TABLE 2 Correlations between Individual Difference Measures and Attitudes about Humility
Gender1

Perceptions of Humility: A Preliminary Study

Religiosity Narcissism Self-esteem Social desirability
Immediate associations with ‘‘humility’’ .15 + .03 7.16 + .11 .20*
Want to be more humble .26** .00 7.04 .05 .05
Want to be less humble 7.01 7.09 .08 7.13 7.02
Humility similar to shame, embarrassment or humiliation 7.09 .02 .13 7.25** 7.06
Humility associated with good adjustment .25** .16 + 7.18* .18* .15 +
Humility associated with confidence/leadership .22* .05 7.20* 7.06 .22*
Humility seen as strength in:
religious seekers/leaders .26** .18* 7.17 + 7.08 .08
subordinates .22* .01 7.05 7.02 7.03
close others .17 + .07 7.11 7.08 .11
leaders/entertainers .09 .14 7.14 7.08 .15 +
Description of humble situation included:
positive emotions .28** 7.10 7.10 7.02 .10
negative emotions 7.26** .20* .03 7.02 7.11
1
Gender was coded as male = 0, female = 1.
+
p 5 .10; *p 5 .05; **p 5 .01.

105
106 J. J. Exline & A. L. Geyer

narcissism and self-esteem could have suppressed the actual associations of each
variable with attitudes about humility. To examine the unique contributions of both
narcissism and self-esteem, we ran a series of simultaneous multiple regression
analyses. Results of these analyses, which are summarized in Table 3, reveal
divergent associations of narcissism and self-esteem with views of humility.
Narcissism was associated with less favorable views of humility in terms of
adjustment and similarity to negative constructs such as shame, embarrassment, and
humiliation. Self-esteem, in contrast, was associated with more favorable views of
humility in both of these domains. It seems, then, that individuals with the most
positive views of humility should be those low in narcissism but reasonably high in
self-esteem—people who we might categorize as being humble themselves.

Supplemental Analyses: Narcissism Subscales

To more closely examine the association between narcissism and views of humility,
we ran supplemental analyses using subscales of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (NPI). We used two systems to compute subscale scores: First, we used
the seven subscales obtained by Raskin and Terry (1988) for the forty-item measure
used in this study. However, due to low alphas on some of the subscales of interest
(e.g., entitlement; self-sufficiency), we also used slightly abbreviated versions of the
subscales suggested in Emmons’ (1987) factor analysis of the fifty-four-item NPI.
(We included all available items suggested by Emmons. However, because we were
using the forty-item NPI and Emmons used the fifty-four-item version, the items did
not align perfectly.) Table 4 reports alpha coefficients and correlations for all
subscales.
Because these analyses are post hoc, we want to be cautious in interpreting them.
None of the subscales showed strong, consistent associations with perceptions of
humility. Nonetheless, a few findings from Table 4 seem worth noting. Among the
Raskin and Terry (1988) subscales, exhibitionism showed fairly consistent negative
correlations with perceptions of humility, including negative immediate associations,
seeing humility as similar to shame, embarrassment, or humiliation, not seeing
humility as associated with good adjustment or confidence, not seeing humility as a
strength in close others, and not reporting positive emotions in descriptions of
humble experiences. The vanity subscale showed a similar pattern. The item
associating humility with good adjustment correlated negatively with Raskin and
Terry’s (1988) exploitativeness and entitlement subscales and also with the

TABLE 3 Predicting Attitudes about Humility Based on Narcissism and Self-

Esteem: Results of Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analyses
b

Predicted variable Narcissism Self-esteem R2model

Similarity of humility to humiliation, .20* 7.29** .10**
shame and embarrassment
Association between humility and good 7.23** .24** .09**
adjustment
*p 5 .05; **p 5 .01.
TABLE 4 Correlations between Narcissism Subscales and Attitudes about Humility
Whole Raskin & Terry (1988) subscales1 Emmons (1987) subscales2
(40-item)
NPI AUTH EXHIB SUP SUFF VAN EXPL ENT L/A S/A S/S E/E
Cronbach’s alpha .87 .75 .77 .64 .35 .80 .62 .54 .77 .62 .77 .64
Correlations:
Immediate associations with 7.16+ .02 7.25** 7.11 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.09 7.06 7.12 7.10 7.14

Perceptions of Humility: A Preliminary Study

‘humility’
Want to be more humble 7.04 .04 7.01 7.03 7.01 7.08 7.06 7.12 .02 7.01 7.07 7.05
Want to be less humble .08 7.04 .09 .00 .07 .18* .03 .08 7.06 .12 .11 .07
Humility similar to shame,
embarrassment or humiliation .13 7.10 .24** .12 .02 .18* .08 .11 .00 .11 .15+ .12
Humility associated w/ good
adjustment 7.18* 7.02 7.17+ .01 7.14 7.15 7.22* 7.18* 7.02 7.20* 7.08 7.29**
Humility associated with confidence
/leadership 7.20* 7.08 7.18* 7.11 7.16+ 7.12 7.15+ 7.13 7.09 7.15 7.17+ 7.17+
Humility seen as strength in:
religious seekers/leaders 7.17+ 7.08 7.14 7.08 7.09 7.15+ 7.16+ 7.08 7.07 7.19* 7.14 7.12
subordinates 7.05 .06 7.07 .03 .00 7.22* 7.09 7.01 .01 7.04 7.14 7.06
close others 7.11 7.01 7.26** 7.03 7.02 7.16+ 7.02 .01 7.08 7.02 7.14 7.06
leaders/entertainers 7.14 7.05 7.17+ .00 7.05 7.15 7.10 7.14 7.09 7.08 7.10 7.16+
Description of humble situation included:
positive emotions 7.10 .05 7.19* 7.04 7.06 7.18* .04 7.10 .02 .05 7.10 7.13
negative emotions .03 .00 .09 7.02 .01 .10 7.15+ .12 .00 7.13 .03 .09
1
Abbreviations are as follows: AUTH = Authority; EXHIB = Exhibitionism; SUP = Superiority; SUFF = Self-sufficiency; VAN = Vanity;
EXPL = Exploitativeness; ENT = Entitlement.
2
Abbreviations are as follows: L/A = Leadership/Authority; S/A = Superiority/Arrogance; S/S = Self-Absorption/Self-admiration; E/E = Exploiting/
Entitled.
+
p 5 .10; *p 5 .05; **p 5 .01.

107
108 J. J. Exline & A. L. Geyer

abbreviated Emmons (1987) subscales assessing superiority/arrogance and exploit-

ing/entitled attitudes.
Next, we wanted to examine whether any of the narcissism subscales predicted
unique variance in the item associating humility with good adjustment: would any of
them explain additional variance beyond that explained by the total NPI score? We
ran a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses to test this possibility. For
the first step we entered the full NPI score, which yielded an R2 of .03, b = .18, p
5 .05. For the second step we entered (in turn; not simultaneously) each subscale
that correlated negatively with the humility/adjustment item. Only one subscale, the
abbreviated Emmons (1987) subscale measuring exploiting and entitled attitudes,
explained additional variance above and beyond that of the total NPI score,
R2model = .06, R2change = .03, b for exploiting/entitled = .30, b for total NPI = – .02.
As revealed by the standardized regression coefficients obtained on this second step,
not only did the exploiting/entitled subscale explain a unique portion of variance in
the humility/adjustment variable; it almost totally subsumed the association between
the total NPI score and humility/adjustment. In short, although the full NPI score
was useful in predicting negative attitudes about humility and adjustment, the
exploiting/entitled subscale seems to have been responsible for this association.

Supplemental Analyses: Controlling for Social Desirability

Consistent with predictions, social desirability showed some associations with
perceptions of humility. As shown in Table 2, participants who scored high on social
desirability reported more favorable views of humility in terms of immediate
associations, associating humility with confidence and leadership, and (as a
nonsignificant trend) associating humility with good adjustment. To ensure that
the results reported above were not distorted by social desirability biases, we reran
all correlation and regression analyses while controlling for social desirability. All
significant results reported above remained significant.

Discussion
In our self-absorbed Western culture, it would be easy to dismiss an unassuming
virtue such as humility. Yet the reports of the college students in this study suggest
that most of them see humility as a strength rather than a weakness. Immediate
associations with the term humility were typically positive, and most participants
stated that they wanted to become more humble. When recalling situations in
which they felt humble, the majority of participants recalled situations involving
success or accomplishment rather than failure or lowering of the self. They
typically described humble individuals as kind, modest, and high in ability or other
positive attributes. Rather than thinking of humble individuals as harshly self-
critical or low in self-regard, they associated humility with attitudes and behavior
that were relevant to a person’s strengths. Their responses suggested positive views
of humble individuals both in terms of adjustment and in terms of confidence and
leadership ability. They also rated humility as an asset across all of the social roles
that were sampled.
In spite of these favorable views of humility, participants did show some
distinctions in the degree of value assigned to humility. Although they clearly
believed that humility was associated with good personal adjustment, they were less
decisive about whether humility would be an asset in domains involving leadership
 Perceptions of Humility: A Preliminary Study 109

and confidence. When asked to imagine humble people occupying various social
roles, they regarded humility as less of a strength in entertainers or leaders than in
the other groups sampled, which included religious seekers or leaders, close others,
and subordinates.
Participants’ reluctance to associate humility with leadership or dominance
complements research on the social perception of narcissism and self-enhancement.
Research by Colvin and colleagues (1995) suggests that although self-enhancers are
generally not perceived as well-adjusted by peers, they do show socially valued
qualities such as high enthusiasm and a high energy level. People with inflated self-
views, such as narcissists, may also make good first impressions: According to
Paulhus (1998), narcissists are consistently seen as being confident, which could be
seen as a strength in a leadership position. Their peers initially rate them as
entertaining and intelligent, although these perceptions seem to wear thin over time.
In contrast, even if humble individuals seem well-adjusted and likeable, they may
face some social tradeoffs by not being viewed as particularly dynamic or colorful.
The benefits of humility might be more apparent in long-term relationships (see
Campbell, 1999, for a contrast with narcissism).
Consistent with the notion that narcissism is antagonistic to humility, the current
results suggest that narcissists are less likely than other people to see humility in a
positive light. In the current sample, narcissism was associated with less-positive
views of humility—particularly in terms of adjustment and in terms of leadership
and confidence. More specifically, high scores on the exploiting/entitled subscale (see
Emmons, 1987) of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory were associated with a
reduced tendency to link humility with good adjustment. Higher narcissism scores
(particularly on exhibitionism and vanity) were also associated with greater odds of
linking humility with shame, low self-esteem, and humiliation. It seems likely that
for narcissists, who are preoccupied with promoting themselves and defending their
positive self-views, the idea of behaving in a humble manner may seem foolish or
threatening. In the future, it would be useful to see how perceptions of humility
correlate with other personality traits such as the ‘‘Big Five’’.

Methodological Implications of the Current Work

Even though self-esteem overlaps with narcissism, self-esteem was associated with
favorable views of humility in the current sample—particularly when its association
with narcissism was statistically controlled. In other words, to the extent that high
self-esteem implies a positive, accepting orientation toward the self rather than a
feeling of superiority to others, it is associated with a positive outlook on humility.
To take this logic a step further, we speculate that persons with high self-esteem and
low narcissism might actually be categorized as being humble themselves—
particularly if their self-esteem is of the stable variety (Kernis, Cornell, Sun, Berry,
& Harlow, 1993). A generally positive but non-inflated view of the self seems
consistent with recent descriptions of the trait of humility (Tangney, 2000, 2002).
Given the serious measurement barriers that have surrounded the attempt to assess
humility via self-report (Exline et al., 2004; Tangney, 2000, 2002), it would be
extremely useful if scores on existing measures of narcissism, self-esteem level, and
self-esteem stability could be combined to identify humble individuals. Assessment
of other related constructs such as self-compassion (Neff, 2003a, 2003b), validation
seeking (Dykman, 1998), or the need to earn self-esteem (Forsman & Johnson, 1996)
might also help to identify humble individuals. Another possible technique might be
110 J. J. Exline & A. L. Geyer

to assess humility via self-report but to control for social desirability (see Landrum,
2002).
When recalling situations in which they felt humble, participants typically recalled
situations involving success or accomplishment. In other words, they were more
likely to view humility as an attitude toward one’s strengths than a preoccupation
with one’s weaknesses. Thinking about humility as an attitude toward one’s
strengths raises new possibilities for how humble states could be effectively induced
in experimental settings. If humility is seen only as a focus on one’s limitations, it
makes sense to ask participants to reflect on their limitations or failings. However,
we have found that such self-lowering inductions often elicit defensive reactions and/
or negative mood effects. The current data suggest that a more effective way of
inducing humility might be to focus on positive attributes or experiences. Another
alternative might be to ask people to first focus on their positive attributes (or use
other means of affirming themselves) before asking them to focus on their flaws (see
Schimel, Arndt, Pyszczynski, & Greenberg, 2001).
An alternative means of inducing humility might involve providing participants
with a success experience before providing them with compartmentalized negative
feedback. Such a design would presumably give participants a sense of security or
positivity before shifting their focus to their limitations. The idea of preceding self-
lowering experiences with positive ones echoes the approach used in studies on self-
affirmation processes, which suggest that people are more able to tolerate negative
feedback if they have first had a chance to affirm the self (for a review, see Steele,
1999). Regardless of what techniques are used in attempt to induce state humility, it
seems prudent to expect individual differences in the success of such manipulations.
For example, individuals with unstable self-esteem or narcissistic defenses might not
respond to success or failure feedback in the same ways that more humble
individuals would.

Religiosity and Humility

Religiosity showed clear and consistent associations with perceptions of humility in
this predominantly Christian sample. First of all, participants reported that persons
who were humble were likely to be religious or spiritual. Participants also saw
humility as a greater strength in religious/spiritual seekers or leaders than in any of
the other social roles that we sampled. Finally, participants’ own religiosity levels
were associated with their views of humility—greater religiosity was associated with
wanting to be more humble, linking humility with good adjustment, confidence, and
leadership, and seeing humility as a strength in other people. Similar patterns have
been found with other virtues, such as the tendency for religious individuals to assign
higher value to forgiveness (e.g., Tsang et al., 2004). In the future, it would be
interesting to see whether the results obtained here with religiosity apply to
spirituality as well.
Although we found correlations between religiosity and perceptions of
humility, the current data do not address the question of whether highly
religious or spiritual individuals are actually more humble than other individuals.
This remains an empirical question. Both religious imperatives toward humility
and belief in a Higher Power might encourage religious persons to cultivate
humble attitudes. However, one potential barrier to humility for highly religious
individuals might be religious pride, in which religious people see themselves as
being ‘‘holier than thou’’ (Rowatt, Ottenbreit, Nesselroade, & Cunningham,
 Perceptions of Humility: A Preliminary Study 111

2002). To the extent that religious or spiritual strivings lead to improvements in

other moral behaviors, they may paradoxically increase feelings of pride—which
is actually considered the deadliest of sins by many scholars (see Schimmel, 1992,
for a discussion).

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study represents an attempt to begin breaking empirical ground on the
little-studied topic of humility. Due to the dearth of research on the topic, we
developed our own preliminary measures to assess attitudes toward humility. Our
open-ended questions were exploratory in nature and were designed largely to
generate hypotheses for further research. The data reported here share the
limitations of other research that relies on self-report instruments.
The current study relied on a Western college student sample. Individuals in other
age groups or cultures might show differences in how they value humility. For
example, prior research has suggested that people in their adolescent years engage
more heavily in social comparison than middle-aged or older adults (Suls & Mullen,
1982). Such heavy reliance on social comparison information, combined with
limited life experience and a desire for individualistic achievement in college, might
make college students less likely than other people to value humility. Prior research
also suggests cultural differences in individualism and collectivism (e.g., Markus &
Kitayama, 1991), with Western cultures being more individualist—and thus
probably less likely to value a virtue such as humility. In future studies it would
be helpful to draw on diverse samples to evaluate cultural and demographic
predictors of attitudes toward humility. Nonetheless, we found it noteworthy that
humility was viewed quite positively even within this Western college sample—a
group that we might expect to assign relatively low value to humility. (As an aside,
we also confirmed with all three introductory psychology professors that none of
them had discussed problems of narcissism or benefits of humility in their courses;
thus, it is unlikely that many students had encountered course material that would
have systematically biased their responses on this survey.)
Perhaps the greatest limitation of the current research is that we were only able to
assess people’s perceptions and beliefs about humility. We were not able to assess
whether their beliefs and perceptions were accurate. For example, our data revealed
that people have reservations about whether humility is associated with confidence
and leadership ability, but we were not able to examine whether humble people are
more or less likely to be good leaders. Is it more useful to be humble if one occupies
a subordinate role as opposed to a leadership role, or could the opposite actually be
true? Similarly, although we know that people associate humility with religiosity, we
do not know whether religious seekers are actually more humble than other people.
In order to move to the next empirical stage that will permit us to answer questions
such as these, the next crucial step is to develop reliable, valid tools to assess
humility.

References
Aronson, E., Willerman, B., & Floyd, J. (1966). The effect of a pratfall on increasing
interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 4, 227 – 228.
112 J. J. Exline & A. L. Geyer

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence
and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5 – 33.
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1993). The virtue of modesty. American Philosophical Quarterly, 30, 235 – 246.
Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1995). Religiousness, race, and psychological well-being: Exploring
social psychological mediators. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1031 – 1041.
Branden, N. (1994). The six pillars of self-esteem. New York: Bantam Books.
Brod, H. (Ed.) (1987). The making of masculinity: The new men’s studies. Winchester, MA:
Allen & Unwin.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and
direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219 – 229.
Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 1254 – 1270.
Casey, M. (2001). A guide to living in the truth: Saint Benedict’s teaching on humility. Liguori,
MO: Liguori/Triumph.
Colvin, C. R., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (1995). Overly positive self-evaluations and
personality: Negative implications for mental health. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 1152 – 1162.
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108,
593 – 623.
Driver, J. (1989). The virtues of ignorance. The Journal of Philosophy, 86, 373 – 384.
Dykman, B. M. (1998). Integrating cognitive and motivational factors in depression: Initial
tests of a goal-orientation approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 139 –
158.
Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291 – 300.
Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 11 – 17.
Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns. New York: Guilford.
Exline, J. J., Campbell, W. K., Baumeister, R. F., Joiner, T., & Krueger, J. (2004). Humility
and modesty. In C. Peterson & M. Seligman (Eds.), The Values In Action (VIA)
classification of strengths. Cincinnati, OH: Values in Action Institute.
Exline, J. J., & Lobel, M. (1999). The perils of outperformance: Sensitivity about being the
target of a threatening upward comparison. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 307 – 337.
Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgiveness and
justice: A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 7, 337 – 348.
Exline, J. J., Yali, A. M., & Sanderson, W. C. (2000). Guilt, discord, and alienation: The role
of religious strain in depression and suicidality. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 1481 –
1496.
Forsman, L., & Johnson, M. (1996). Dimensionality and validity of two scales measuring
different aspects of self-esteem. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37, 1 – 15.
Friesen, M. D. (2001). The role of humility in marital communication: An introduction and brief
overview. Unpublished manuscript, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
Godfrey, D. K., Jones, E. E., & Lord, C. G. (1986). Self-promotion is not ingratiating. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106 – 113.
Hare, S. (1996). The paradox of moral humility. American Philosophical Quarterly, 33, 235 –
241.
Hart, K. E., & Huggett, C. (2003). Lack of humility as a barrier to surrendering to the spiritual
aspect of Alcoholics Anonymous. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Heatherington, L., Burns, A. B., & Gustafson, T. B. (1998). When another stumbles: Gender
and self-presentation to vulnerable others. Sex Roles, 38, 889 – 913.
 Perceptions of Humility: A Preliminary Study 113

Heatherington, L., Daubman, K. A., Bates, C., Ahn, A., Brown, H., & Preston, C. (1993).
Two investigations of ‘‘female modesty’’ in achievement situations. Sex Roles, 29, 739 –
754.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C., Berry, A., & Harlow, T. (1993). There’s more to self-
esteem than whether it is high or low: The importance of stability of self-esteem. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1190 – 1204.
Kurtz, E., & Ketcham, K. (1992). The spirituality of imperfection: Modern wisdom from classic
stories. New York: Bantam.
Landrum, R. E. (2002, May). Humility: Its measurement and impact on person-perception.
Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association,
Chicago, IL.
Leary, M. R., Bednarski, R., Hammon, D., & Duncan, T. (1997). Blowhards, snobs, and
narcissists: Interpersonal reactions to excessive egotism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.),
Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 111 – 131). New York: Plenum.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 – 253.
Means, J. R., Wilson, G. L., Sturm, C., Biron, J. E., & Bach, P. J. (1990). Humility as a
psychotherapeutic formulation. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 3, 211 – 215.
Mecca, A. M., Smelser, N. J., & Vasconcellos, J. (1989). The social importance of self-esteem.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Mogabgab, J. S. (Ed.) (2000). Humility [Special issue]. Weavings, 15(3).
Morgan, V. G. (2001). Humility and the transcendent. Faith and Philosophy, 18(3), 307 –
322.
Murray, A. (2001). Humility: The journey toward holiness. Bloomington, MN: Bethany
House.
Neff, K. (2003a). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude
toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85 – 102.
Neff, K. (2003b). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self
and Identity, 2, 223 – 250.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement:
A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197 – 1208.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological
Reports, 45, 590.
Raskin, R. N., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissistic self-esteem management.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 911 – 918.
Raskin, R. N., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890 – 902.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe –
Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119 – 125.
Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). Self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporal analysis of
narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 672 – 685.
Richards, N. (1992). Humility. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Roberts, R. C. (1982). Spirituality and human emotion. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. NY: Basic Books.
Rowatt, W. C., Ottenbreit, A., Nesselroade, K. P., & Cunningham, P. (2002). On being
holier-than-thou or humbler-than-thee: A social-psychological perspective on religious-
ness and humility. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 227 – 237.
114 J. J. Exline & A. L. Geyer

Sandage, S. J. (1999). An ego-humility model of forgiveness: Theoretical foundations.

Marriage and Family: A Christian Journal, 2, 259 – 276.
Sandage, S. J. (2001). Contextualizing models of humility and forgiveness: A reply to Gassin.
Journal of Psychology & Theology, 29, 201 – 211.
Schimel, J., Arndt, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2001). Being accepted for who we are:
Evidence that social validation of the intrinsic self reduces general defensiveness. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 35 – 52.
Schimmel, S. (1992). The seven deadly sins: Jewish, Christian, and classical reflections on human
nature. New York: Free Press.
Steele, C. M. (1999). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In
R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology (pp. 372 – 390). Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.
Suls, J., & Mullen, B. (1982). From the cradle to the grave: Comparison and self-evaluation
across the life span. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 97 –
125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tangney, J. (2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for
future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 70 – 82.
Tangney, J. P. (2002). Humility. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 411 – 419). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological
perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193 – 210.
Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E., & Gruenewald, T. L. (2000).
Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist, 55, 99 –
109.
Tiebout, H. M. (1944). Therapeutic mechanisms of Alcoholics Anonymous. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 100, 468 – 473.
Tsang, J., McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2004). Psychometric and rationalization
accounts for the religion-forgiveness discrepancy. Journal of Social Issues, in press.
von Hildebrand, D. (1997). Humility: Wellspring of virtue. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute
Press.