5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using self-affirmation to increase intellectual humility in debate

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Intellectual humility, which entails openness to other views and a willingness to listen and engage with them, is crucial for facilitating civil dialogue and progress in debate between opposing sides. In the present research, we tested whether intellectual humility can be reliably detected in discourse and experimentally increased by a prior self-affirmation task. Three hundred and three participants took part in 116 audio- and video-recorded group discussions. Blind to condition, linguists coded participants' discourse to create an intellectual humility score. As expected, the self-affirmation task increased the coded intellectual humility, as well as participants’ self-rated prosocial affect (e.g. empathy). Unexpectedly, the effect on prosocial affect did not mediate the link between experimental condition and intellectual humility in debate. Self-reported intellectual humility and other personality variables were uncorrelated with expert-coded intellectual humility. Implications of these findings for understanding the social psychological mechanisms underpinning intellectual humility are considered.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Society and the Adolescent Self-Image

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Refining the theory of basic individual values.

              We propose a refined theory of basic individual values intended to provide greater heuristic and explanatory power than the original theory of 10 values (Schwartz, 1992). The refined theory more accurately expresses the central assumption of the original theory that research has largely ignored: Values form a circular motivational continuum. The theory defines and orders 19 values on the continuum based on their compatible and conflicting motivations, expression of self-protection versus growth, and personal versus social focus. We assess the theory with a new instrument in 15 samples from 10 countries (N = 6,059). Confirmatory factor and multidimensional scaling analyses support discrimination of the 19 values, confirming the refined theory. Multidimensional scaling analyses largely support the predicted motivational order of the values. Analyses of predictive validity demonstrate that the refined values theory provides greater and more precise insight into the value underpinnings of beliefs. Each value correlates uniquely with external variables.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Journal
                R Soc Open Sci
                R Soc Open Sci
                RSOS
                royopensci
                Royal Society Open Science
                The Royal Society
                2054-5703
                Feburary 1, 2023
                February 2023
                Feburary 1, 2023
                : 10
                : 2
                : 220958
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Psychology, University of Essex, , Colchester Campus, CO4 3SQ Colchester, UK
                [ 2 ] Department of Psychology, University of Bath, , Bath, UK
                [ 3 ] Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Surrey, , Guilford, UK
                [ 4 ] School of English, Communication and Philosophy, Cardiff University, , Cardiff, UK
                Author notes
                [ † ]

                The first two authors contributed equally.

                Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6384937.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3225-1395
                Article
                rsos220958
                10.1098/rsos.220958
                9890103
                541ea2c0-35b3-4831-9cf1-d30cf5ba28d5
                © 2023 The Authors.

                Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : July 21, 2022
                : December 22, 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Templeton Foundation;
                Award ID: 58942
                Categories
                1001
                205
                Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
                Research Articles

                intellectual humility,debate,value affirmation,emotions
                intellectual humility, debate, value affirmation, emotions

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content730

                Cited by1

                Most referenced authors812