Pastoral Care of Political Discourse: Shepherding Communication

I argue that the tradition(s) of pastoral care contributes to our understanding of Christian discipleship vis-à-vis political discourse. In particular, I understand pastoral care, in part, as shepherding political discourse. To care for and about political discourse involves a radical openness to the Other, which is made possible by the virtues of hospitality, compassion, humility, and forgiveness. The primary pastoral aim in shepherding political discourse is not the realization of political power or the realization of Christian beliefs through rhetorical coercion, evangelical assimilation, or consensus. Positively, the aim of pastoral political discourse is to shepherd the communicative processes such that there is a possibility of real meetings.     

Personality,Punishment and Public Goods: Strategic Shifts Towards Cooperation as a Matter of Dispositional Honesty–Humility

Contributions in the public goods game—a classical social dilemma situation—have been shown to depend strongly on the presence versus absence of punishment or sanctions for free riders. Also, there appear to be noteworthy individual differences in the degree to which decision makers cooperate. Herein, we aimed to bring these two lines of research together. Firstly, we predicted that both presence of punishment and high dispositional Honesty–Humility (as conceptualized in the Honesty–Humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience model of personality) should yield higher contributions. Secondly, and more importantly, we expected an interaction, such that only those low in Honesty–Humility would condition their behaviour on the presence versus absence of punishment, thus employing cooperation strategically. In line with the hypothesis, the results of two experiments (one of which comprised a longitudinal design) corroborated that the degree to which decision makers shift towards higher contributions when punishment is introduced depends on their dispositional level of Honesty–Humility. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Embarrassment of riches in the measurement of humility: A critical review of 22 measures

Abstract

Less than ten years ago, humility science seemed stuck with intractable measurement problems. Due to theoretical innovations, measures have proliferated in recent years. Humility science now faces a critical task of reconciling definitions and measures. We reviewed 22 measures of humility, including (a) survey measures of general humility, (b) survey measures of humility subdomains, (c) indirect measures of humility, and (d) state measures of humility. We coded each item of each measure into a humility content domain and compared the various content areas covered by each measure. Then, we described the scale structure and evidence pertaining to reliability and validity. Finally, we identified the relatively stronger measures of humility and recommended a consolidated definition of humility.     

The complementarity of humility hypothesis: Individual,relational, and physiological effects of mutually humble partners

Abstract

We report two studies of romantic couples that examine the interactive effects of actor and partner humility on individual, relational, and physiological well-being. Using both longitudinal (Study 1) and physiological (Study 2) methods from two samples of romantic couples, we explored the interactive effects of actor and partner humility. Individuals in dyads with complementary high humility reported better mental health over time following a major life transition, the birth of their first child, in Study 1 and higher relationship satisfaction and lower physiological responses (i.e. blood pressure) following the discussion of a topic of disagreement in Study 2. These results suggest that being humble is beneficial when one has a humble partner, but being arrogant – especially within a disagreement with one’s partner – could undermine the benefits of humility. That is, the benefits of humility are greatest in dyads in which both partners are humble.     

Intellectual humility and religious tolerance

Abstract

The present study explored the relationship between (a) intellectual humility toward religious beliefs and values and (b) religious tolerance. Pastors who identified as Christian (N = 196) completed measures of conservatism, religious commitment, intellectual humility toward religious beliefs and values, and religious tolerance. Intellectual humility was a positive predictor of religious tolerance, even when controlling for conservatism and religious commitment. An interaction was found between exposure to religious diversity and intellectual humility, such that exposure to religious diversity was positively related to religious tolerance only for participants who reported high levels of intellectual humility. We conclude by discussing limitations, areas for future research, and implications for interfaith dialog and engagement.     

Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view

Strong disagreements have stymied today’s political discourse. We investigate intellectual humility – recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge and appreciating others’ intellectual strengths – as one factor that can make disagreements more constructive. In Studies 1 and 2, participants with higher intellectual humility were more open to learning about the opposition’s views during imagined disagreements. In Study 3, those with higher intellectual humility exposed themselves to a greater proportion of opposing political perspectives. In Study 4, making salient a growth mindset of intelligence boosted intellectual humility, and, in turn, openness to opposing views. Results suggest that intellectual humility is associated with openness during disagreement, and that a growth mindset of intelligence may increase intellectual humility. Implications for current political polarization are discussed.     

The Impact of Job Insecurity on Counterproductive Work Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Honesty–Humility Personality Trait

The detrimental effects of job insecurity on individual and organizational well-being are well documented in recent literature. Job insecurity as a stressor is generally associated with a higher presence of negative attitudes toward the organization. In this article, the moderating role of Honesty–Humility personality trait was investigated. It was assumed that Honesty–Humility would function as a psychological moderator of the job insecurity impact on counterproductive work behaviors. Participants were 203 workers who were administered a self–reported questionnaire. Results confirmed that job insecurity was positively related to counterproductive work behaviors whereas Honesty–Humility was negatively associated to them. More importantly, Honesty–Humility moderated this relationship, even after controlling for gender, age, type of contract, and the other HEXACO personality traits. For individuals with low Honesty–Humility, job insecurity was positively related to counterproductive work behaviors, whereas for individuals with high Honesty–Humility, job insecurity turned out to be unrelated to counterproductive work behaviors.     

The relations of gratitude to religiosity,well-being,and personality

The relations of gratitude toward God and dispositional gratitude with well-being and personality were investigated, in an Iranian sample. As expected, gratitude was associated with higher scores on happiness, life satisfaction, psychological well-being, and the Big Five factors of personality. Dispositional gratitude out-predicted religious gratitude in relation with well-being. A second study confirmed the results in a second sample of Iranian Muslims, and in a sample of Polish Christians, providing cross-cultural evidence that the dispositional gratitude is a unique predictor of well-being. Positive links between gratitude and Honesty–Humility provided additional construct validity for these variables, as personality dimensions representing the bases of reciprocal altruism.     

Be it ever so humble: Proposing a dual-dimension account and measurement of humility

What does it mean to be humble? We argue that humility is an epistemically and ethically aligned state of awareness – the experience of ourselves as a small part of a larger universe and as one among a host of other morally relevant beings. So conceived, humility can be operationalized and measured along the dual dimensions of low self-focus and high other-focus and is distinct from other related constructs (e.g., modesty and open-mindedness). We discuss our newly developed scale (Study 1 and 2), and provide preliminary validation using self-report (Study 3) and behavioral measures (Study 4), showing that humility is related to people’s general ethical orientation (e.g., empathy, universalism/benevolence, and civic responsibility), their well-being (e.g., sense of autonomy, life-purpose, and secure attachment), mature religious beliefs/practices, and reactions to disagreement – specifically, people high in humility sat closer and less angled away from their conversation partner with whom they disagreed. Together, this provides support for our new Dual-Dimension Humility Scale.     

It takes two: Honesty–Humility and Agreeableness differentially predict active versus reactive cooperation

Recently, similar six-factor solutions have emerged in lexical studies across languages, giving rise to the HEXACO model of personality. As a core extension of its most well-known predecessor, the five-factor model, the HEXACO model distinguishes between two factors predicting complimentary aspects of prosocial behavior or, more specifically, reciprocal altruism: Honesty–Humility (the tendency toward active cooperation, i.e. non-exploitation) and Agreeableness (the tendency toward reactive cooperation, i.e. non-retaliation). However, this dissociation has not yet been tested to its full extent. To this end, we herein present re-analyses of published studies (N = 1090), showing that Honesty–Humility, but not Agreeableness, indeed predicts active cooperation. More importantly, in a new experiment (N = 410), we found a pattern of two concurrent selective associations, supporting the theoretical distinction between the two factors: Honesty–Humility (but not Agreeableness) predicted active cooperation (non-exploitation in the dictator game), whereas Agreeableness (but not Honesty–Humility) was linked to reactive cooperation (non-retaliation in the ultimatum game).