Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A cross-cultural assessment of the semantic dimensions of intellectual humility

  • Original Article
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Intellectual humility can be broadly construed as being conscious of the limits of one’s existing knowledge and capable of acquiring more knowledge, which makes it a key virtue of the information age. However, the claim “I am (intellectually) humble” seems paradoxical in that someone who has the disposition in question would not typically volunteer it. Therefore, measuring intellectual humility via self-report may be methodologically unsound. As a consequence, we suggest analyzing intellectual humility semantically, using a psycholexical approach that focuses on both synonyms and antonyms of ‘intellectual humility’. We present a thesaurus-based methodology to map the semantic space of intellectual humility and the vices it opposes as a heuristic to support analysis and diagnosis of this disposition. We performed the mapping both in English and German in order to test for possible cultural differences in the understanding of intellectual humility. In both languages, we find basically the same three semantic dimensions of intellectual humility (sensibility, unpretentiousness, and knowledge dimensions) as well as three dimensions of its related vices (self-overrating, other-underrating and dogmatism dimensions). The resulting semantic clusters were validated in an empirical study with English (n = 276) and German (n = 406) participants. We find medium-to-high correlations (0.54–0.72) between thesaurus similarity and perceived similarity, and we can validate the three dimensions identified in the study. But we also find limitations of the thesaurus methodology in terms of cluster plausibility. We conclude by discussing the importance of these findings for constructing psychometric measures of intellectual humility via self-report vs. computer models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Interestingly, Galton (1884) used Roget’s thesaurus as a source, but since then almost all psycholexical research has used the dictionary.

  2. We used the LEO online dictionary, one of the largest and most popular German–English dictionaries (http://dict.leo.org).

  3. A distance measure has to fulfill the triangle inequality, i.e., \(d\left(a,b\right)+d(b,c)\ge d(a,c)\), where \(d(a,b)\) stands for the distance between points \(a\) and \(b\). This inequality is violated by our measure \(S({t}^{1},{t}^{2})\). In the following, we use the term “dissimilarity” to denote \(1-S({t}^{1},{t}^{2})\) in the original space, whereas on the map, we use the term “distance”, as we refer to the Euclidean distance of points on the two-dimensional plane.

  4. For philosophical views, see Alfano (2016, Chap. 5), Moody-Adams, (1997), and Wong (2006). For psychological views, see Fischer et al. (2010) and Shweder (2012).

References

  • Alfano M (2015) Ramsifying virtue theory. In: Alfano M (ed) Current controversies in virtue theory. Routledge, Oxford, pp 123–135

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alfano M (2016) Moral psychology: an introduction. Polity, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfano M, Robinson B (2014) Bragging thought 3(4):263–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport G, Odbert H (1936) Trait-names: a psycho-lexical study. Psychol Monogr 47(1):i-171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton M, Lee K, Perugini M, Szarota P, de Vries R, Di Blas L, Boies K, De Raad B (2004) A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. J Pers Soc Psychol 86(2):356–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakshy E, Messing S, Adamic LA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348(6239):1130–1132

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Christen M, Alfano M, Bangerter E, Lapsley D (2013) Ethical issues of ‘morality mining’: when the moral identity of individuals becomes a focus of data-mining. In: Rahman H, Ramos I (eds) Ethical data mining applications for socio-economic development. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Christen M, Robinson B, Alfano M (2014) The semantic space of intellectual humility. In Herzig A, Lorini E (eds) Proceedings of the European conference on social intelligence, pp 40–49

  • Clyne M (1987) Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. J Pragmat 11(2):211–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver J (2001) Uneasy virtue. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbanks SJ (2010) Environmental goodness and the challenge of American culture. Ethics Environ 15(2):79–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer R, Vauclair C-M, Fontaine J, Schwartz S (2010) Are individual-level and country-level value structures different? Testing Hofstede’s legacy with the Schwartz value survey. J Cross Cult Psychol 41:135–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fricker M (2007) Epistemic injustice: power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Galton F (1884) Measurement of character. Fortn Rev 36:179–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris R (1973) Synonymy and linguistic analysis. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins ET (1996) Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability and salience. In: Higgins ET, Kruglanski AW (eds) Social psychology: handbook of basic principles. Guilford, New York, pp 133–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill T (1999) Ideals of human excellence and preserving the natural environment. In: Gruen L, Jamieson D (eds) Reflecting on nature: readings in environmental philosophy. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hüllen W (2004) A history of Roget’s thesaurus. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson D (2007) When utilitarians should be virtue theorists. Utilitas 19(2):160–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones SK (1986) Synonymy and semantic classification. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D (1966) An argument for the identity theory. J Philos 63(1):17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D (1970) How to define theoretical terms. J Philos 67(13):427–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D (1972) Psychophysical and theoretical identifications. Australas J Philos 50:249–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody-Adams M (1997) Fieldwork in familiar places: morality, culture, and philosophy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietzsche F (1887/1967) The genealogy of morals. Trans. W. Kaufmann. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostendorf F (1990) Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur: Zur Validität des Fünf-Factoren-Modells der Persönlichkeit. S. Roderer Verlag, Regensburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott T, Kern A, Steeb W-H, Stoop R (2005) Sequential clustering: tracking down the most natural clusters. J Stat Mech Theory Exp:P11014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott T, Eggel T, Christen M (2014) Generating low-dimensional denoised embeddings of nonlinear data with superparamagnetic agents. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international symposium on nonlinear theory and its applications (NOLTA), Lucerne, Switzerland, September 14–18. https://www.encyclog.com/_upl/files/2014_Nolta_supagents.pdf. Accessed 26 Dec 2017

  • Peabody D, Goldberg L (1989) Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. J Pers Soc Psychol 57(3):552–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quine WVO (1951) Two dogmas of empiricism. Philos Rev 60:20–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quine WVO (1960) Word and object. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey F (1931) Theories. In: Braithwaite RB (ed) The foundations of mathematics. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts R, Wood J (2007) Intellectual virtues: an essay in regulative epistemology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ross J, Irani I, Silberman M, Zaldivar A, Tomlinson B (2010) Who are the crowdworkers? Shifting demographics in Amazon Mechanical Turk. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (Atlanta, GA, April 10–15), pp 2863–2872

  • Saucier G (1997) Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors. J Pers Soc Psychol 73(6):1298–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shweder R (2012) Relativism and universalism. In: Fassin D (ed) A companion to moral anthropology. Wiley, Oxford, pp 85–102

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sidgwick H (1907/1962) The methods of ethics, 7th edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  • Snow N (1995) Humility. J Value Inq 29(2):203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel JG (2012) Open-mindedness and intellectual humility. Theory Res Educ 10:27–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor G (1985) Pride, shame and guilt. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Trier J (1931) Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes: Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes. vol 1: Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts. Quelle und Meyer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins JS (1973) Personality and prediction: principles of personality assessment. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong D (2006) Natural moralities: a defense of pluralistic relativism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Youyou W, Kosinski M, Stillwell D (2015) Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(4):1036–1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Daniel Lapsley, ACE Collegiate Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology of the University of Notre Dame, and Paul C. Stey, Department of Psychology of the University of Notre Dame, for their input to this research. This work was made possible through a grant from the Thrive Center at Fuller Theological Seminary.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 30, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland

    Markus Christen

  2. Faculty of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX, Delft, The Netherlands

    Mark Alfano

  3. Department of History, Political Science and Philosophy, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, 78363, USA

    Brian Robinson

Authors
  1. Markus Christen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Alfano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Christen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Christen, M., Alfano, M. & Robinson, B. A cross-cultural assessment of the semantic dimensions of intellectual humility. AI & Soc 34, 785–801 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0791-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0791-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation