Humility and Its Implication for Therapist Epistemology and Practice

Material Information

Humility and Its Implication for Therapist Epistemology and Practice
Siahpoush, Farhad
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 online resource (119 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Counseling Psychology
Committee Chair:
Neimeyer, Greg J.
Committee Members:
Ziller, Robert C.
Epting, Franz R.
Isenberg, Sheldon R.
Graduation Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Constructivism ( jstor )
Constructivist epistemology ( jstor )
Empathy ( jstor )
Epistemology ( jstor )
Honesty ( jstor )
Modesty ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Rationalism ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
World view ( jstor )
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
constructivism, epistemology, honesty, humility, qualities, therapist
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Counseling Psychology thesis, Ph.D.


This study explored how the epistemological position of therapists is related to the important personal qualities of humility and universal orientation. It also investigated how the psychological measures of humility and universal orientation are related. Findings of this study provide provisional support for the notion that there are differences in the personal quality of humility of therapists according to therapists? epistemic assumptions (rationalist versus constructivist). In addition a therapist?s epistemology was partially a predictor of a therapist?s personal quality of universal orientation. Finally, the Honesty-Humility measure correlated positively with the Universal Orientation Scale. Our study is the first and only empirical research on the relationship between therapists' epistemic styles and therapists' personal qualities of humility and universal orientation. Our study extends the developing literature investigating the relationship of epistemic style, therapist personal qualities and practice. It contributes to the development of a measure of humility. Further work is needed to develop such a measure and to investigate how humility and universal orientation of therapists affect the outcomes of therapy work. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Adviser: Neimeyer, Greg J.
Electronic Access:
Statement of Responsibility:
by Farhad Siahpoush.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Siahpoush, Farhad. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
LD1780 2008 ( lcc )


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




2 2008 Farhad Siahpoush


3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I extend m y special thanks to Dr. Greg Ne imeyer. Without his guidance, unconditional regard, care, kindness and support this project would have never been realized. I would also like to thank Darby Claire Delane for her love, he lp and patience throughout trying times. Finally, I thank the three sages: Dr. Franz Epting, Dr. Robert Ziller and Dr. Sheldon Isenberg.


4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........6 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................7 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................8 Therapist Qualities Are Linked to T herapist Epistemology..................................................... 9 The Personal Quality of Humility........................................................................................... 11 Constructivist Epistemology and the Quality of Hum ility..................................................... 13 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................16 Section One: Therapists Qualities are linked to T herapists Epistemology.......................... 16 Epistemic Style................................................................................................................ 17 Personal Epistemology and Therapist Qualities.............................................................. 20 Summary of Therapist Epistemology and Qualities........................................................ 30 Section Two: Conceptions of Humility.................................................................................. 31 Tangney (2000): Theoretical Perspe ctives and Empirical Findings ................................ 32 Exline and Geyer (2004): Perception of Humility.......................................................... 36 Worthington (1998): The Empathy-Humility-Commitment Model of Forgiveness....... 42 Rowatt, Ottenbreitt, Nesselroade, an d Cunnigham (2002): On Being Holier-ThanThou or Humbler-Than-Thee .......................................................................................43 Sandage, Weins, and Dahl (2001): Humility and Attention............................................ 45 Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez ( 2004)*: Strategic Virtues ................................................... 47 Summary of Conceptions of Humility............................................................................ 58 The Honesty-Humility Measure: Devel opm ent of the HEXACO Personality Inventory...................................................................................................................... 60 Honesty-Humility and its Facets..................................................................................... 63 Factor Analysis of HEXACO-PI.....................................................................................64 Convergent Validities of the HEXACO-PI Scales.......................................................... 64 Advantages of HEXACO-PI........................................................................................... 65 HonestyHumility Factors Relations with other Variables........................................... 67 The Universal Orientation Scale.....................................................................................69 Section Three: Importan ce of Humility.................................................................................. 72 Humility is an Important Quality for Therapists that is Supported by Constructivism .............................................................................................................72 Humility compared with Constructivist and Rationalist Qualities.................................. 73 The Hypotheses...............................................................................................................77


5 3 METHODS.............................................................................................................................78 Participants.............................................................................................................................78 Procedures..................................................................................................................... ..........79 Instruments.................................................................................................................... .........79 Honesty-Humility Scale: HEXACO-PI...........................................................................79 Universal Orientation Scale............................................................................................. 79 Therapist Attitudes Questionnaire-Short Form............................................................... 80 4 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................81 Descriptive and Preliminary Analyses.................................................................................... 81 Measurement Reliability................................................................................................. 81 Correlational Analyses.................................................................................................... 82 Regression Analyses............................................................................................................ ...83 Hypothesis 1................................................................................................................... .83 Hypothesis 2................................................................................................................... .86 Hypothesis 3................................................................................................................... .86 5 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................89 Summary of the Results......................................................................................................... .89 Discussion of Results within the Context of Current Literature .............................................90 Relationship between Therapist Epis tem ology and Therapist Qualities......................... 91 Relationship between Rationalist Epistemology and the Quality of Humility................ 92 Importance and Implicat ions for Therapy ....................................................................... 93 Relationship between Constructivist Epis tem ology and the Quality of Humility.......... 95 Relationship between Therapist Episte m ology and the Quality of Universal Orientation...................................................................................................................96 Relationship between Humility and Universal Orientation............................................. 97 Importance and Implicat ions for Therapy ....................................................................... 98 Limitations and Future Research............................................................................................ 99 Conclusion............................................................................................................................103 APPENDIX A HONESTY-HUMILITY MEASURE: HEXACO-PERSONALITY INVENTORY........... 105 B UNIVERSAL ORIENTATION SCALE.............................................................................. 107 C THE THERAPIST ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE SHORT-FORM (TAQ-SF) .............. 109 D DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION.................................................................................... 111 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................112 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................119


6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Comparison of Mechanistic and Organism ic worldviews................................................. 22 2-2 Comparison of Mechanistic and Or ganism ic worldviews with NEO-PI...........................23 2-3 Comparison of worldviews with Rationalism and Constructivism................................... 31 4-1 Internal consistencies for the TAQ-SF, H-H, and UOS.....................................................87 4-2 Pearson correlations for therapist ep istemology, honesty-humility, and universal orientation..........................................................................................................................87 4-3 Means and standard deviations for th erapist epistem ology, honesty-humility, and universal orientation...........................................................................................................88 4-4 Results of Multiple regression analys es on the f ive dependent variables.......................... 88


7 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy HUMILITY AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR THERAPIST EPISTEMOLOGY AND PRACTICE By Farhad Siahpoush August 2008 Chair: Gregory J. Neimeyer Major: Counseling Psychology This study explored how the epistemological position of therapists is related to the important personal qualities of humility and univers al orientation. It also investigated how the psychological measures of humility a nd universal orientation are related. Findings of this study provide provisional suppo rt for the notion that there are differences in the personal quality of humility of therapists according to therapists epistemic assumptions (rationalist versus construc tivist). In addition a th erapists epistemology was partially a predictor of a therapists personal quality of universal orientation. Finally, the Honesty-Humility measure correlated positively with the Universal Orientation Scale. Our study is the first and only empirical research on the relationship between therapists epistemic styles and therapists personal qualities of humility and universal orientation. Our study extends the developing literatu re investigating the relationship of epistemic style, therapist personal qualities and practice. It contributes to the development of a measure of humility. Further work is needed to develop such a measure and to investigate how humility and universal orientation of therapists affect the outcomes of therapy work.


8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The relationship between personal episte m ology and personal qualities has been investigated by a number of researchers (Johnson et al., 1988; Babbage & Ronan, 2000; Berzonsky, 1990; Neimeyer et al., 1993; Mahon ey, 1995; Aksoy, 2005). The work of such researchers, along with the study of humility, suggests that constructivist therapists would value humility as an important quality and that cons tructivist epistemology invites greater humility. In order to appreciate the studies linking personal episte mology with personal qualities it is helpful to be acquainted with th e groundings of their research. The work of these researchers is based on two classification systems. One is th e classification of worldviews established by Pepper (1942), and the second is the classificat ion of epistemologies by Royce (1964). Pepper (1942) perceived four worldviews, including formis m, mechanism, contextualism, and organism. Formism is the view that there are predetermine d forms in the universe, and that meaning comes from contrasting these forms. Mechanism views the world as working by cause and effect. Contextualism is the idea that meaning is depe ndent on context. Finall y, in organism meaning follows a developing dialectic process. Roy ce (1964) and Royce and Powell (1983) propose three ways of knowing. These are empiricism, rationalism and metaphorism. Empiricists rely on sense perception and public consensus for validat ion. Rationalists rely on logic for validation. Metaphorists base their validation on the generalizabil ity of knowledge. Mahoney and Gabreil (1987) subsume all of th ese epistemologies under rationalism and constructivism. Rationalism includes mechanistic and objectivist worldviews. These epistemologies uphold reality as in dependent of the observer. In addition, reality is seen as stable and knowable. For the rationalist the knower has a passive role Constructivism includes both contextualist and organismic worldviews, and sees reality as be ing interactional and


9 constructed within relationships and contexts. For the constructivist the knower is an active participant in the making of reality. In this view reality is not stable, nor is it independent of the knower. Later, Botella and Gallifa (1995) augm ented this understanding by finding a positive correlation between rationalism and cognitive simplicity and a similar relationship between constructivism and cognitive complexity. Therapist Qualities Are Linked to Therapist Epistemology In view of the above-m entioned categories of worldviews and epistemologies, Johnson, J., Germer, C., Efran, J., and Overton, W. (1988) st udied the relationship between epistemology and personality. The results of their study showed that people with th e mechanistic worldview tend to be conventional and conforming, while persons with organismic worldview tend to be efficient, flexible, imaginative, empathic, tolerant, and femini ne. In addition, they e xhibit more of a social presence, self-acceptance, and are responsible and autonomous. Babbage and Ronan (2000) found that scientists with organismic epistemol ogies tended to be women. In addition, many were social scientists. Thes e scientists exhibited imagin ation, compassion, a good-natured personality, an eagerness to cooperate, and tended to have broad interests. In contrast, they found that scientists with a mechanistic epistemology tended to be men. These scientists took more traditional approaches to their disciplines, were seen as hardheaded, skeptical, proud, and competitive. Berzonsky (1990) proposed that peoples construc tion of identity could be categorized into three groups, including information-oriented self-t heorists, normative-oriented self-theorists, and diffuse-oriented self-theorists. I ndividuals in the first group activ ely seek information, elaborate and evaluate it for their self-construction. The second group consider others expectations and points of view and often comply and use these for their self-identity. The third group depends on immediate environmental cues in the form of reward and punishment fo r their self-definition.


10 Following Berzenskys (1990) conceptualization, Neimeyer et al. (1993) found that both constructivist (metaphorist) and ra tionalist epistemologies correla tes positively with informationoriented self-theory. However, the constructivist epistemology also correlates significantly and negatively with normative-oriented self-theory and correlates positively with diffuse-oriented selftheory. This indicates ope nness for alternative constructi ons and also an autonomous interpersonal style for an individual with a cons tructivist epistemology. Berzonsky (1994) went on to find that pers ons with contextual, organismic and constructivist epistemologies act like scientists because they regularly gather data, analyze information, and then make changes in their c onstructions of self. On the other hand, persons with mechanistic and social-deterministic epistemologies tend to submit to the orders and expectations of others. Berzonsky also found a correlation between epistemology and coping styles of people. For example, he found that constructivists are more likely to cope with problems by seeking social support. These conceptual and empirical works suggest that the personal epistemologies of therapists are linked to their personal qualities. Mahone y (1995) agrees with such a conclusion and offers some examples of how constructivist epistemology is linked to therapist quality and character. An instance would be the construc tivist assumption that humans actively construct their own reality. A therapist wo rking from a constructivist epistemology is more than likely going to be very open to and respectful of many ve rsions of reality. In addition, s(he) would also likely be very aware of her/his own personal cons tructions, inner processe s and emotions, as not to interfere with anothers equa lly valuable construction of re ality. In the face of such a multiplicity of reality, such a therapist would prob ably also be both highly tolerant of ambiguity and accepting of diversity. As mentioned previous ly, therapists working from a constructivist


11 stance can be contrasted with the character tr aits and behavioral te ndencies of rationalist therapists. Such rationalist therapists assume a singular, stable and ex ternal reality. This assumption has the implication that in order to be healthy, the self and others need to overcome all impediments to the pe rception of that reality. Aksoy (2005) investigated exactly such contrasts between therapists working from constructivist and rati onalist epistemologies. She found c onstructivist therapists to be significantly more tolerant of ambiguity and in pursuit of self-awareness than therapists who subscribe to a rationalist episte mology. In agreement with the s uggestion from these studies that epistemologies held by therapists are linked to their personal qualities, the present study investigates the personal quality of humility, its importa nce for and congruence with constructivist epistemology. The Personal Quality of Humility A num ber of researchers have investigated the construct of humility and have delineated the qualities of such a person. In an extensive review of many literatur e sources, Tangney (2000) found that humble individuals are open-minded, s eek advice, and are open to learning. She also found that the humble tend to be highly self-aware and knowing their own limits. They have a contextual and holistic worldview and a respect toward themselves and others. They do not see self, others or the world in simplistic terms, but, rather, they exhibit an appreciation for complexity. In an empirical investigation, Exline and Ge yers (2004) came to several conclusions about humility, some of which overlap and support Tangneys (2000) findings. They found that humble persons are perceived as honest, empath ic, caring, gentle, unselfish and patient. In addition, they are seen as self -respecting, self-accepti ng people who know their own strengths. Humble people are not necessarily passive or su bmissive, but rather ac tive and autonomous. The


12 humble are also perceived as being non-defensive and secure. Like Tangney (2000), Exline and Geyers found the humble to be open-minded, aware of their own limits, w illing to seek advice, and focused on learning and growing. They also found that humble people are perceived as having a complex worldview. In proposing a model of forgiveness that integrates empathy, humility and forgiveness, Worthington (1998) suggests that the humble are highly self-a ware, and they know their own weaknesses, needs and wants. They see the fallib ility of self and others. They empathize and understand the points of view of others. In Wo rthingtons model humility is seen on a par with empathy, which is a highly espoused quali ty within the therapeutic community. In a conceptual work on this topic, hum ility is equated with self-awareness, selfacceptance, selfrespect, equanimity and even-m indedness, as well as with the giving up of idolatry (Sandage et al., 2001). Th ese researchers also associated humility with having universal consciousness, and conceptualized humility as knowing that everyone is subject to time and change. In other words, humility is more closel y tied to contextual awareness, rather than to self-centeredness. Rowatt et al. (2002) found that humility is linke d to an openness to change, as well as to flexibility, an eagerness to listen to others, a nd openness to facing doubts and multiple points of view. Humility is not overor undervaluing self and others. Finally, they found that humility is not related to simplistic worldviews, but rather is related to an appreciation of complexity and a willingness to face existential questions. Analyzing many interviews and citing numerous real life examples, Vera and RodriguizLopez (2004) conceptualize that a humble person is open to new paradigms, is eager to learn, acknowledges personal limits and mistakes, asks for advice, asks for critique of ideas, and


13 accepts help. The humble person is not over-confident or stubborn. Rather, s(he) is flexible, open to change, and is not attached to one way of doing things. The humble individual respects others, listens, cooperates, integrates others ideas in to decisions, and helps in the development and learning of others. S(he) apprecia tes complexity within the worl d. The humble person is honest, genuine, sincere, caring, and acknow ledges the strengths of others. Constructivist Epistemology and the Quality of Humility The above-m entioned studies show the complex construct of humility and the characteristics of a humble person. The characteri stics of the humble, such as self-awareness, open-mindedness, flexibility, appreciation of co mplexity and diversity, the dynamic position of asking for help and advice and integrating new information, contextual awareness are qualities that many constructivist therapists accept as important for therapy (Mahoney, 1995; Babbage & Ronan, 2000; Berzonsky, 1990, 1994; Neimeyer et al., 1993; Aksoy 2005). The work of these researchers, suggest constructivist epistemology invites a greater degree of humility, which is consistent with other qualities linked with c onstructivism. Constructivist epistemology is associated with flexibility, empathy, toleran ce, self-acceptance and autonomy (Johnson et al., 1988). These are the qualities that Exline and Geyers (2004) found to be true of the humble person. Johnson, et al. (1988) also found that persons with a mechanistic worldview and a rationalist epistemology tend to be conventional and conforming. This is not true of a humble person. According to Exline and Geyers (2004), the humble person is not necessarily conforming, submissive or passive, as some imagine, but is, in fact, autonomous and active. Babbage and Ronan (2005) found that person s with an organismic (constructivist) epistemology are compassionate and good-natured, eager to cooperate, and ha ve broad interests. The work of Exline and Geyers (2004) and Ve ra and Rodriguez-Lopes (2004) also shows the humble to be kind, gentle, caring, open to new paradigms, unattached to one way of doing


14 things, and active in generating new knowledge According to Babbage and Ronan (2005), persons subscribing to the mechanistic (rationalist) ep istemology were shown to be hardheaded and proud. As Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez (2004) i ndicate, the humble are not over-confident or stubborn. This suggests that ra tionalists are not so humble. More recently, Aksoy (2005) found a positive relationship between constructivist epistemology and therapists personal characteris tics, such as openness to experience, tolerance of social diversity, tolerance for ambiguity, pur suit of self-awareness, and attendance to emotions. As mentioned previously, these are the qualities Tangney (2000), Rowatt et al. (1998) and Vera and Rodriguez-Lopes (2004) show to be true of the humble person. Aksoy (2005) found a negative correlati on between rationalist epistemology and the therapist qualities in her investigation mentioned above. In all, there seems to be enough evidence to warrant the proposition that constructivist epistemology invi tes greater humility than does the rationalist epistemology. The present study sets out to empirically demonstrate th is relationship between humility and constructivist and rationalist epistemologies. It is not yet clear as to w hy, but in the field of psychology there has been little research focusing on the personality characteristic of humility. This study found a handful of studies between 1960 and 2006. They are mostly in the 2000-2006 period. The trend is encouraging but in the same period there were more than 35,000 studies on depression and 25,895 on anxiety. This study seeks to contribute to the remedy of the paucity of research on humility. The Second Chapter (2) of this study of relationship between epistemological position and humility will comprise of three sections: 1. A review of literature establishing the relationship between epistemology and therapists qualities concluding with a summary. 2. A review of the literature on humility concl uding with a summary and review of literature about development of a measure of humility and universal orientation.


15 3. Based on the above literature reviews and summaries, a comparison of humility with qualities linked to constructivist and rationalist epistemologies concluding with an outline of a set of predictions on how epistemological positions might relate to humility. This will be followed in Chapter Three (3) by a description of methods used to test the above-mentioned predictions. The results of the study will then be presented in Chapter Four (4). Finally, the implications of the findings for counseling psychology will be discussed in Chapter Five (5). Since there is no known theory of humility, this study contributes vital information to the formulation of one by clarifying its interacti on with the complex domain of epistemological positions of therapists. Ultimately, this study hopes to help counselors better their therapeutic relationships and outcomes.


16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Research has dem onstrated that the personal epistemologies of therapists are linked to therapists personal characteristics and qualities. A review of psychological l iterature reveals that humility is an important quality for therapists to possess. A study of therapists epistemologies and their related qualities, in conjunction with a study of literature on the topic of humility, suggest that constructivist epistemology values humility and is particularly congenial and supportive of the personal quality of humility. In this chapter, three areas of the research literature will be reviewed. These areas pertain to the epistemologies of therapists, how such epistemologies relate to therapist qualities, and the specific personal quality of humility. The literature on humility will include a discussion regarding the development of a measure for humility and the related construct of universal orientation. The chapter is divided into three sections and will incorporate the above-mentioned areas in the following order: First, it is shown that therapists personal quali ties are linked to the epistemo logies that they hold. Second, conceptions of humility will be outlined and th e development of a measure of humility and universal orientation will be discussed. Third, th e importance of humility will be underlined and compared with constructivist a nd rationalist epistemologies. There it is suggested constructivist epistemology invites greater humility for therapists. Then, the hypotheses of the present study will be presented. Section One: Therapists Qualities are linked to Therapists Epistemology Bhaskar (1989) states that epistemology is th e theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the nature, varieties, origins, objects and limits of knowledge (p. 450). In recent times attention is being paid to epistemology and how the epistemologies held by therapists relate to psychotherapeutic theories, preferences and practices. Some res earchers have investigated the


17 relationship between therapist epistemology and personal qualities (Johnson et al., 1988; Babbage & Ronan, 2000; Berzonsky, 1990, 1994; Neimeyer et al., 1993; Mahoney, 1995; Aksoy, 2005). In order to have a better understand ing of their work, it is necessary to study the foundation upon which such work is based. Epistemic Style If we trace the develop ment of research in the field of therapist epistemology and its relation to therapist va riables we come to conceptualiza tions by Pepper (1942) in his book, World Hypothesis as well as to Royce (1964). Pepper (1942) formulates the following four ways of seeing the world: formism, mech anism, contexualism, and organism. 1. Formism holds that there are predetermined fo rms in the universe, and that meaning comes from comparison and co ntrasting of objects. 2. Mechanism is a deterministic view that sees the universe as working by cause and effect. 3. Contextualism holds that meaning is not predetermined, but changes with context. 4. Organism suggests that meaning follows an ever-developing dialectic process. Therefore, in formism and mechanism meani ng is static and deterministic, while in contextualism and organism mean ing is fluid and process-orie nted. Mechanism and organism stand opposite each other. Royce (1964) and Royce and Powell (1983) pro pose that there are three ways of knowing, which include empirism, rationalism and metaphoris m. Empirisists rely on sense perception, as well as public consensus and va lidation. Rationalists rely on l ogic for validation. Metaphorists base their validation on the workabi lity and generalizability of knowledge. Mahoney and Gabreil (1987) con ceptualized rationalism and c onstructivism as standing opposite each other and discussed the implica tion of each for therapy and therapeutic relationships. Their work contributes insights to the work on re lation of therapist epistemology


18 and therapist qualities. They unde rline the parallels between r ealism and rationalism: Realism assumes a single, stable, external reality that is accurately perceived by the organisms sensory receptors (p 45). Realism sharply distinguishes between internal and external realms. About rationalism they state: Rationalism has argue d that thought is superi or to sensation in determining experience and va lidating knowledge. Rationalism emphasizes thought over bodily processes. From this perspective knowledge is the brain accurately copying the external world. Mahoney and Gabreil (1987) go on to discuss pa rallels between constructivism and recent findings in various approaches and disciples, such as motor metatheo ries, developmental and systems approaches, autopoiesis, social learning and attachment theories. They delineate the implications of such parallels as follows. In congruence with motor metatheroires, constructivism challenges realism and rationalism. Constructivism holds that humans actively construct reality. From this perspective knowledge involves meaning-making processes that are complex and creative, rather than a simple act of the brain accurately copying the ex ternal world. For constructivism reality is not basically external and stable a nd human thought is not separate fr om bodily processes, feelings and actions. Constructivism stands against lin ear models of causalit y, and the view that experience can be compartmentaliz ed into cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. It stands against billiard-ball determinism (p. 4647). In agreement with developmental theories, constructivism stands for cha nge throughout the lifespan and competes with the longstanding preoccupation with outcome alone. In agreem ent with systems theory, constructivism is conscious of the dynamic (versus static) equilib rium evident in spontaneously self organizing complex phenomenon (p.47).


19 Mahoney and Gabreil (1987) relate that Autopoieses refers to self-organizing or selfdeveloping processes in complex, open systems (page 36). Seeing humans as self-organizing complex systems, constructivism conceives disorder as a natural phenomenon, calling the organism to reorganize in a more viable ma nner. In congruence with social learning and attachment theory, a constructiv ist therapist perceive s early social inte raction, beliefs and expectations about self, emo tional attachments and separatio ns as powerful influences on behavior, adjustment and development. Consider ing the above, the authors hold that there are substantial differences between rationalist and co nstructivist traditions. They categorize the implications of the differences between rationali st and constructivist trad itions for therapy as follows. Intervention emphases: Rationalists ar e problem-focused and control-focused. Constructivists are process-focused and development-focused. Conceptualization of problems: Rationalists conc eive problems as dysfu nctions, or deficits that should be controlled and eliminated. Constructivis ts conceive problems as discrepancies between environmental de mands and current personal capabilities. Conceptualization of emotions: Rationalists perceive emotion as the problem and irrational thinking is the cause. Constructiv ists perceive emotions as powerful ways of knowing and that emotional experiences and thei r exploration need be encouraged. Resistance: Rationalists percei ve resistance as lack of motiv ation or avoidance that must be overcome. Constructivists perceive resistan ce as self-protection of the system against rapid change and an attempt to keep integrit y. It should be worked with, rather than against. Therapeutic relationship: Rati onalists conceive the therapeu tic relationship as requiring instruction and guidance. Constr uctivists conceive the therapeutic relationship as providing a safe, caring, and intense environment for the cl ient to develop relationships with self and the world. Studying this work of Mahoney and Gabreil (1987), one can infer the personality and qualities of a rationalist or constructivist therapist. For exampl e, the constructivist would be open to many versions of reality, considering each to be as valuable as the other. A rationalist


20 believing in a singular external reality might not be open to such multiplicity. The constructivist would be more aware of ones own and others em otions, considering them important inroads to development and growth. The rationalist percei ving emotions as problems caused by irrational thinking might be less attentive to them, choose not to delve d eeply into them, and even be dismissive of them. Mahoney and Gabreils work is foundational to the link between epistemology and therapist qualities. Botella and Gallifa (1995) consider rationalis m a simple worldview and constructivism a complex worldview. In terms of Peppers (1942) conceptualization ra tionalists would be mechanistic and constructivists would be organismic. Personal Epistemology and Thera pist Qualities As mentioned previously, a number of researchers have related epistemology with personality, character and quali ties. Johnson et al. (1988) inve stigated the relation between scientists worldviews and personalities. They pr oposed that scientists characters and qualities are reflected in their worldviews. They tested this idea within four groups of personality psychologists, behaviorists, human developmentalis ts and sociobiologists. They considered two worldviews of organism and mechanism and th e assumptions of these worldviews. These assumptions are as follows. Mechanistic Epistemology: Reality is extern al to the knower (rea lism); the object of knowledge is separate from knower (objectivism). Organismic Epistemology: The world and knower are unified (interac tionism); the known world is an active construction of th e knower-in-context (constructivism). Mechanistic View of Persons: People ar e by nature passive, determined by the environment, have no inherent function, have no true development towards endpoints, and are separate from the social environment. Organismic View of Persons: People are seen as active, purposive, and autonomous, have inherent function, are creative, changing, progr essive, and integrated into the social environment.


21 Mechanistic Ontology: Existence is associ ated with stability and elementarism. Organismic Ontology: Existence is a ssociated with change and holism. Mechanistics Ideal Explanation: Best explan ation comes from a re ductionistic analysis where parts are related in antecedent-consequence manner Organismics Ideal Explanation: Best explan ation comes from a synthetic understanding of organization where functions serv ed by structures are shown. Johnson et al. (1988) noted that each of th ese worldviews contains assumptions about personhood that are consistent with assumpti ons about existence (ontology), knowledge (epistemology), and the ideal expl anation of phenomenon. That is, if people were administered personality tests they would presen t themselves in ways that are consistent with their preferred worldview. For example, if a person subscribes to the mechanistic worldview and sees people as reactive, passive, and determined by the environment, a personality test will reveal him/her to be reactive and determined by environment. That is, there is congruence between individuals worldview and his/her own personality. Johnson et al. (1988) tested this hypothesis by having eight groups of students from the above-mentioned four disciplines take two psycho logical tests. One m easured personality and the other was an inventory measuring preference for either the organismic or mechanistic worldview. They found that pers ons with a mechanistic worldview tend to be orderly, conventional, and conforming, while persons with an organismic worldview tend to be efficient, responsible, flexible, imaginative, empathic, tolerant, feminine, in terpersonally ac tive, and have social presence, self-acceptan ce, autonomy and individualism. The organismic person was found to be intuitive and perceiving, while the m echanistic person was revealed as more sensing and judging. More specifically, on various dimens ions of the Bipolar Adjectives Rating Scale (BARS), the organismic and mechanistic subscription to various bipolar adjectives was as shown in Table 2-1.


22 Table 2-1: Comparison of Mechanis tic and Organismic worldviews. BARS Dimensions Mechanistic Organismic Mentality Simple Ordinary Inartistic Complex Creative Aesthetic Likeableness Cold Self-centered Warm Empathic Power Passive Active Novelty Conservative Traditional Predictable conventional Liberal Unorthodox Changeable Experimenting As an example from Table 2-1, a person with a mechanistic worldview presents the self as simple, passive, conservative, traditional, a nd conventional. A person with an organismic worldview presents the self as complex, active, liberal, unorthodox, changeable, and experimenting. On the likeableness dimensions the mechanistic i ndividual is shown to be cold and self-centered and the organism ic person is shown to be warm and empathic. These are in line with the assumptions associated with each of thes e two worldviews. That is to say that a persons worldview and personal qualities are linked in a consistent manner. Babbage and Ronan (2000) noted two shortcomi ngs in the work of Johnson et al. (1988). The first was that although Johnson et al. (1988) intended to inve stigate the relationship between the worldviews and personalitie s of scientists, they had, in fact, used undergraduates from various disciplines. They had not used scientists who were actually worki ng in their fields in a professional capacity. The second was that alth ough Johnson et al. (1988) had intended to generalize their findings to all scie ntists, they had used only social scientists for their research. Babbage and Ronan (2000) remedied both shortcomi ngs of the research of Johnson et al. (1988). They replicated that research but used academica lly-based social and physical scientists. For a measure of personality they used an instrument (NEO-PI) that is based on the five-factor model introduced by McCrea and Costa (1987). The five factors of this model are labeled: 1)


23 extroversion or surgency, 2) agreeableness, 3) conscientiousness, 4) emotional stability vs. neuroticism, and 5) cultural or openness to experience. They also used the BARS measure mentioned previously. They found that the social scientists are more orga nismic and traditional scientists, such as chemists, phys icists, mathematicians and statisticians, are more mechanistic. The results from the BARS instrument showed that their findings more or less matched the finding of Johnson et al. (1988) with some additi onal interesting details. The additional findings for scientists with organismic and mechanistic worldviews who subscrib ed to one of bipolar adjectives are shown in Table 2-2. Table 2-2: Comparison of Mechanistic a nd Organismic worldviews with NEO-PI. BARS Dimensions Mechanistic Organismic Likeableness Irritable Blunt Stubborn Good-natured Tactful Cooperative Power Unenergetic Unambitious Vigorous Enterprising Novelty Old fashioned Preserving Modern Progressive NEO-PI Factors Openness to Experience Less Open More open Agreeableness Less Agreeable More Agreeable Table 2-2 further demonstrates features of personality associated with mechanistic and organismic worldviews. As an example, on the likeableness dimensions, the mechanistic respondents were shown to be irritable and st ubborn, while the organi smic respondents were shown to be good-natured and cooperative. On the novelty dimension, the mechanistic individuals were found to be oldfashioned and preserving while th e organismic individuals were found to be modern and progressive. Results from NEO-PI personal ity inventory indicated that two factors related more positively with the organismic worldview. They were the Openness to Experience and Agreeableness factor s This is supported by conventionality and stubbornness found by the


24 BARS results for the mechanistic worldview. Table 2-2 shows the additional findings of Babbage and Ronan (2000). Babbage and Ronan (2000) found that scientists with an organismic epistemology tended to be women, gravitated toward the social sc iences, and were imaginative, compassionate, good-natured, eager to cooperate, and held broad interests. The scientists with a mechanistic epistemology tended to be men, practiced more traditional [hard] sciences, and were hardheaded, skeptical, proud, and competitive. Another study examining the relationship between epistemology and personal qualities was by Berzonsky (1994). He studied the rela tion between personal epistemology and the construction of self-identity. Previously, Berzonsky (1990) had conceptualized identity as a selfconstructed theory about oneself, or, a self-t heory. Self-theory is a framework for making meaning out of life experiences, which allow in dividuals to deal with environmental demands. The effectiveness of the self-theory depends on ho w it practically helps one cope with and solve life problems, as well as how open and flex ible it is for revision and change. Berzonsky (1990) proposed a model of identity development that posits that people construct their theory of self in three distinct ways or styles. These three self-theorists are: 1. Information-oriented self-theorists 2. Normative-oriented self-theorists 3. Diffuse/avoidant oriented self-theorists Information-oriented self-theorists: are skeptical about thei r self-construction and are open to environmental evidence, and willing to evaluate and accommodate self-constructs in light of discrepant information. They act like scientists in the process self-identity. For example, they hypothesize, gather data and test th eir theories. This style is related to personally defined identity, introspectiven ess and openness to ideas, values and actions. Berzonsky (1994)


25 cites research that indicates that this style is re lated to more self-exploration and to an internal locus of control. Normative-oriented self-theorist: base their self-identity on the expectations and the dictates of significant others. It is preoccupied with protect ing and conserving existing selfconstructs. So it is, at times, biased, dogmatic and unyielding. It is al so associated with a collectively defined identity. Diffuse/avoidant orie nted self-theorists: work in an impromptu and ad hoc manner, delaying self-identity as much as possible. Ultimately, the situati on or context persuades or leads to a decision. These situation-specific acts do not lead to a stab le, long-term self-theory. This self-identity needs continuous i nput from environment in the form of approval, pleasure, and reassurances. Berzonsky reports that this style is related to soci ally defined identity, externalcontrol expectancies and negatively correlated with introspectiveness and openness to personal feelings. Berzosky agrees with Lakatos (1970) that a scientific research program involves three components: 1) a hard-core philosophical assumption, 2) a revisable theoretical hypothesis, and 3) a methodological procedure. From this Berzons ky argues that self-theorists also have a hard core philosophical assumption a bout themselves, the nature of knowledge, and life. In other words, they have an ontological and epistemological position and a theory about the self that guides their interaction with th e world and their development. Berzonsky hypothesized that info rmation-oriented self-theor ists would subscribe to a constructivist epistemology, and ar e active in their construction of reality including their selfidentity. The normative-oriented self-theorists would subscribe to social deterministic epistemology. That is, for such individuals self identity is determined by mechanical


26 environmental forces. A third alternative is that self-identity reflects a formistic predetermined inner essence. People subscribing to the last two would tend to be passive or situationally controlled; they may see themselves as having relatively less control over their identity. Berzonzkys hypotheses proved to be true. Informa tion-oriented self-the orists were related to constructivist epistemology and normative-orie nted self-theorists we re related to socialdeterministic epistemology. That is to say, Be rzonsky found that persons with contextual, organismic and constructivist epistemologies act like scientists because they gather data, analyze information and make changes in their constr uctions of self. In contrast, persons with mechanistic and social-deterministic epistemologies tend to submit to orders and expectations of others. Berzonsky had also used a measure of re lativism/absolutism in this study and found that constructivism had a significant positive correlation with relativism, while social-determinism showed no correlation. Berzonsky also found a correlation between epistemology and coping styles of people. He found that constructivists ar e more likely to seek social support. A negative correlation between constructivism and normative oriented self-identity indicated an inverse relation between constr uctivism and dogmatism. In the third part of his study Berzonsky (1994) related his three orientations to self-theory to constructivist epistemological assumptions an d Peppers (1946) classifications of worldviews. He found that: 1. Constructivist epistemological assumptions ar e positively related to information-oriented self-theory and the contextual and organismic worldviews assumption. 2. Normative-dogmatic oriented self-theory is associated to mechanistic and formistic worldviews assumptions. 3. Avoidant-diffuse oriented self-theor y is related to formistic worldview. Here, constructivism is related positively with information-oriented self theory that, as Berzonsky concludes, is a contex t oriented style that monito rs environment for effective


27 alternatives, revising self-views and promo ting an ongoing interchange between assimilative and accommodative processes; a dialectical process of identity development. In summary, constructivists are active in th e construction of self -identity, are open and sensitive to environmental evidence, are open to ideas, are not absolutist or dogmatic, are open to self-exploration, have internal locus of control and so can be said to be autonomous. Following Berzonskys (1990) conceptualization, the research of Neim eyer et al. (1993) found that both constructivist (metaphorist) and rationalist epistemologies correlate positively with information-oriented self-theory. However, the constructivist epis temology also correlates significantly and negatively with normative-orient ed self-theory and correlates positively with diffuse-oriented self-theory. This indicates openness to alternative constructi ons. It also suggests that individuals with a constr uctivist epistemology hold an au tonomous interpersonal style. Another work that suggests therapists episte mologies are linked to their qualities is a conceptual work by Mahoney (1995) In that work he delineates the challenges for a constructivist therapist as opposed to challenges to a non-constr uctivist therapist. He organizes the challenges around four themes. One is ep istemological challenge and another is the existential challenge, both of which relate to th erapist qualities and beha vior. Epistemologically, constructivists reject objectivism. They do not believe that there is one reality or that there is one unbiased authority. Therefore they cannot depend on one leaders collected works as a solid base for decisions. They also cannot trust that their own experien ces are unbiased. Existentially, constructivist therapists know that their experi ences may come close but are not the same as anothers, such as the experien ces of the client. Constructivist counselors knows there are limits how much s(he) can understand another. Thes e epistemological positions and existential challenges lead to particular qua lities for the constructivist. For example the therapist rarely


28 teaches. If there is any teaching and therefore learning, it is in both directions. That is, the constructivist therapists need to be open to exploration and new learning. For a constructivist every client is unique with her/ his own construction of reality a nd so every encounter is a new opportunity for learning. This lear ning is personal and not the same as anothers experience. One constructivist position is that much of our experiences organize in an unconscious manner. For example much of what is comm unicated in therapy session might not be on a conscious level. The same is true of learningthe learning in se ssion might be deeper than what is recognized at the moment. Also the integrat ion of experience takes pl ace holisticallyi.e. not in a delimited and predetermined way. The result is the constructivist therapist, other than attending to the explicit also wo rks intuitively. It follows that su ch a therapist must also have developed a high tolerance for ambiguity. Since the constructivist therapist believes individuals ar e active, dynamic constructors of reality s(he) does not come with prepared maps for directing the therapy session. The direction of the session is an ever-evolving and dynamic inter action. (p.387) That means the therapist trusts and respects the process. The therapist may lead or may follow and is not focused on her/his preconceptions. The constructiv ist is open to new experien ces and personal change. About values Mahoney (1995) states: Values li ke objective truth, canno t be justified or otherwise univocally authorized. What is good or bad, sacred or profane, and right or wrong is always framed within individual, social, and historical contexts .(p.389) Constructivist therapist being conscious that human activities are value-laden and interacting with multiple contexts is necessarily accepting of diversity. Aksoy (2005) tested the relationship of personal qualities that Mahoney (1995) conceptualized as related to constructivist epistemology. In particular she focused on five


29 therapist qualities: Pursuit of self-awareness, attending emotions, toleran ce of ambiguity, social tolerance of diversity an d openness to experience. She also test ed the presence of the same set of qualities in therapists who subs cribed to rati onalist epistemology. She re quested a large group of practicing therapist to answer questionnaires meas uring these qualities as well as a questionnaire indicating epistemological position. The following is a review of her work and all citations are from that work. Pursuit of self-awareness in cludes awareness of inner worl d, awareness of inner messages and also personal behavior. It is awareness of discomfort and stress (Glicken, 1983; Wityk, 2002). This is awareness of own needs, past unr esolved trauma (Jaffe, 1986) and awareness of meaning of self as helper a nd finally being aware of own ab ilities and limitations (Farber and Heifetz, 1982; Glicken, 1983). Attending to emotions is simila r to pursuit of self-awareness but focused on emotions. It is of particular importance in close relationship with clients and facilitation of clients emotional expression (Mahoney, 1995). Tolerance of ambiguity is how a person deals with unfamiliar, complex, and inconsistent information. It is analogous with comfort with shades of gray rath er than seeing things in blackand-white terms (Beitel et al., 2004). It is related with openness to and su pport and appreciation of diversity (Chen & Hooijberg, 2000). It is also related to comfort with less structure and direction (Vasco, 1994). It is re lated to openness to revision of the course of therapy (Mahoney, 1995). Social tolerance of diversity is respect and tolerance of diver se sets of values, life-styles and identities. (Aksoy, 2005 p.53) It is apprec iating personal and cultural differences. It


30 supports cooperativeness and is the tendency to ac cept people as they are. (Cloninger, Savkic, & Przybeck, 1993) Openness to experience is defined as ones openness to fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas and values. (McC rae & Costa, 1991) It reflects active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, receptiveness to inner feelings, pr eference for variety, intellectual curiosity and independence of judgment. Higher levels of openness to experience imply flexibility and tolerance of ambiguity and novelty, whereas lo wer levels of openness imply rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity and comple xities. (McCrae & Costa, 2003). Based on the epistemological a nd ontological views of ratio nalists and constructivists Aksoy (2005) conceptualized that all of the above mentioned qualitie s to be positively related to the constructivism, contextual and organismic wo rldview and negatively rela ted to a rationalistic and mechanistic worldviews. The result of her work showed such conceptualizations to be true. Her work showed that all these therapists qualities are significantly and positively related to constructivist epistemology and si gnificantly and negatively related to rationalist epistemology. Summary of Therapist Epistemology and Qualities The above findings clearly dem onstrate the in teraction of epistemic position and personal qualities of people, in general, a nd of therapists, in particular. Th ey are represented in Table 2-3 and related to the two epistemo logical positions of rationalism and constructivism. The table summarizes that constructivists have a contextual worldview. That is, th ey are aware of context in their making of meaning. They have complex cogni tive processes; that is, they appreciate and see world as complex. They have broad interests and they are imaginative and creative. They are compassionate and good-natured. They are cooperative in that they work in harmony with others. They are empathic, tolerant, and flexible. They are active, efficient, autonomous, and selfaccepting. They are open to other view s and constructions of reality.


31 Table 2-3: Comparison of worldviews w ith Rationalism and Constructivism. Author Rationalism Constructivism Pepper (1946) Formism, Mechanism Contextualism, Oraganism Royce (1964) Empiricist, Rationalist Metaphorist Reality Mahoney and Gabreil (1987) External, stable, universal, knowable Internal, developing, personal, social, constructed Botella & Gallifa (1995) Objectivist simple Constructivist complex View of Human Agency Johnson et al. (1988) Passive Active Qualities Johnson et al. (1988) Conventional, conforming Efficient, flexible, imaginative, empathic, tolerant, feminine, have social presence, self-acceptance, responsible, autonomous. Qualities Babbage & Ronan (2000) Men, traditional scientists, hardheaded, skeptic, proud, competitive, traditional. Women, social scientist, and have imagination, compassion, a good nature, eager to cooperate, have broad interests. Self-Theory Berzonsky (1994) Social-deterministic Hypot hetical, scientist style, personally constructed Self-theory Berzonsky (1990) Self-theory Neimeyer et al. (1993) Normative oriented self style (+ r) Information oriented self style (+ r) Normative oriented self style (r) diffuse oriented self style (+ r): open to alternative constructions, autonomous Qualities Aksoy (2005) Negative correlation (-r) with Pursuit of self-awareness, attending to emotions, tolerance of ambiguity, social tolerance of diversity and openness to experience. Positive relationship (+ r) with Pursuit of self-awareness, attending to emotions, tolerance of ambiguity, social tolerance of diversity and openness to experience. Section Two: Conceptions of Humility As m entioned before, the subject of humility ha s been granted little at tention in the social and psychological sciences. A revi ew of the psychological literatur e results in very few studies,


32 most of which do not have a focus on humility. Of th e handful of studies that refer to this topic, more than half are from the year 2000 and onw ard. In this section th e present study reviews existing articles on the subject. Also, literature on development of a measure of humility and universal orientation will be reviewed. Tangney (2000): Theoretical Persp ectives and Empirical Findings Personality constructs, such as self-esteem or narcissism, have had much research devoted to them. According to Tangney (2000), there are two main factors for the lack of research on humility. One is that humility is typically perceived as being related to values and religion. She observes that mainstream psychology has stayed clea r of topics that are value-laden, such as those related to virtue and morality. Psychology has also traditionally avoided the study of human experiences surrounding wisdom, gratitude and forgiveness. The second factor Tangney considers is the current lack of a measure for humility. She argues if there were measures for humility, the research might be profuse. She men tions studies of shame as a case in point. The development of a measure for shame resulted in an explosion of research on the subject in the1990s. To measure humility we need to be able to de fine what it is. Tangney invites us to look at existing conceptions and studies of humility, starting with various dictionary meanings. The American Heritage Dictionary offers synonyms for humility which include modesty, unpretentiousness, and reserve. It also gives sel f-effacement as a synonym. For the concept of humble, it gives the following definition: low in ra nk, quality, or station; humiliate, to give a lower condition or station to; abase. Tangney referred to The Oxford En glish Dictionary, which defines humility as having a lowly opinion of oneself, meekness, lowlin ess. Funk and Wagnells Standard College Dictionary defines humble as lowly in kind, state, condition, etc.; of little worth, unimportant;


33 common lowly in feeling; lacking self-esteem. Having a sense of insignificance, unworthiness, dependence, or si nfulness; meek; penitent. Such definitions certainly do not frame humility as something to aspire for. Tangney (2000) cites a number of psychologists who have a similar conception of humility as found in the dictionaries. However, this is far from universal, as we shall see from the following viewpoints. For example, Emmons (1999, in Tangney, 2000) gives another view: To be humble is not to have a low opinion of oneself, it is to have an accurate opinion of oneself. It is the ability to keep ones talent s and accomplishments in perspective, to have a sense of self acceptance, an understanding of ones imperfections, and to be free from arrogance and self-estee m (Clark 1992). (p.33) Templeton (1997) states: Humility is not self-depreciationhumility represents wisdom humility is knowing you are smart but are not all know ing. It is accepting that you have personal power but not omnipotentInherent in humility resides an open and receptive mindit leaves us more open to learn from others and refrain from seeing issues and people only in black and white. The opposite of humility is arrogance th e belief that we are wiser or better than others. Arrogance promotes separati on rather than community. (p.162-163) On the faith-based dimension of humility, Tangney says there is the notion of a higher, greater power and the implication that although we may have considerable wisdom and knowledge, there are always limits to our pe rspective. And, citing Hwang, 1982; Templeton 1997, adds: Humility carries with it an open-mindedness, a willingness to admit mistakes and seek advice and learn. Also, Humility is th e key to progress. (Templeton 1997, p.30) Tangney continues: Also inherent in the state of humility is a re lative lack of self-focus or self-preoccupation. Templeton (1997) refers to a process of b ecoming unselved, which goes hand in hand with the recognition of ones place in the world. We are each just one person in a much larger state of affairs. A person who ha s gained a sense of humility is no longer phenomenologically at the center of his or he r world. His or her focus is on the larger community, of which he or she, is a part. It is from this perspective that the excessively self-depreciating person can be seen in some important aspect as lacking humility.


34 Tangney goes on to say that in giving up egocentricity, persons with humility become ever more open to recognizing the abilities, potential, worth and importance of others. One important consequence of becoming unselved is that we no longer have the need to enhance and defend an all-important self at the expense of our evaluation of othe rs (Halling et al., 1994). Our attention shifts outward, our eyes are opened to the beauty and potential of those around us. As Means, et al. (1990) observed, humility is an increase in the valuation of others and not a decrease in the valuation of oneself.(p.214) Tangney summarizes humility into six principles and says the theological, philosophical and psychological literature portray humility as a rich, multifaceted construct in sharp contrast to the dictionary definitions that emphasize a sense of unworthiness and low self regard. The six key elements are: 1. An accurate assessment of ones abilities and achievements (rather than low self-esteem or self-depreciation) 2. An ability to acknowledge ones mistakes, impe rfections, or gaps in knowledge (often vis-vis a higher power) 3. An openness to new ideas, contradictory information, and advice 4. A keeping ones abilities, accomplishments, and one s place in the world in perspective (such as seeing ones self as just one pers on in the larger scheme of things) 5. A relatively low self-focus, or a forgetting of the self, again recognizing that one is but one part of a larger universe 6. An appreciation of the value of all things, and the many different ways that people and things can contribute to our world After considering that humility is not constructs such as low self-esteem or absence of narcissism, Tangney turns to issues involved with constructing a measure of humility. She proposes that it may be wise to consider such a measurement on two levels. One level to consider would be situational, which is the cont extual and relational aspe cts of the expression of


35 humility. Another level would be dispositional, which includes the personality traits and characteristics associated with humility. Tangney notes that there is a f orgetting of self involved in humility. She refers to Halling et al. (1994) who say that hum ility calls attention towards the other. Or, as Singh (1967) says, true humility is freedom from all conscious ness of self, which includes freedom from consciousness of humility. The true humble man never knows that he is humble. (p.4) Tangney also looks at past failed attempts at the construction of measures for humility, as well as the despondency of those who have tried. She concl udes that humility may represent one of the constructs of personality that is difficult to m easure. Tangney closes her chapter by stating that the work in humility research will be greatly enhanced by a clear and consistently articulated conceptualization of this ri ch construct and by developmen t of theoretically informed measure(s) of humility. Summary: In essence, Tangney and scholars that she cites do not conceptualize humility as a negative trait. Specif ically, they do not equate hum ility with self-depreciation, unworthiness, or a lack of self-respect. On the contrary, they conceptualize humility as an accurate and realistic opinion of self, which involves self-acceptan ce, knowing ones own imperfections, open-mindedness, a willingness to admit to mistakes, an ability to seek advice, an openness to learning, a lack of self-focus and egocentricity, and knowing ones place in the world. A humble person sees him/herself holistica lly and contextually as one of many in the larger scheme of things. A humble person does not consider him/herself as better or superior to others, but such an individual also does not see him/herself as inferior. Rather, a humble person sees equality in all human beings. This leads to an inclusive attitude wh ereby others are valued and appreciated, and there is a sense of and focus on commun ity instead of isolation and


36 separation. Such a person has a more complex wo rldview, avoiding seeing others in dichotomous black and white terms. In all, it seems a humble person is a dynami c, progressive and growing person who knows her/his own limits and takes steps to better her/ himself. S(he) is realistic, non-judgmental, respectful, appreciates and values the self, ot hers, life and the universe, and probably has good interpersonal relationships. There seems to be a strong self/other dyna mic present in this respecting of others, listening, feeling of e quality, valuing of others and having a holistic, inclusive and complex world view. Exline and Geyer (2004): P erception of Humility Following T angneys (2000) call for a conceptua lization of two levels for research on humility, namely the situational and dispositional, Exline and Geyers (2004) considered the situational aspects of humility. They wanted to know how people perceived humility. They asked a group of 127 young adults what their impression s of humility were, how they saw humility manifested in others who represented various socioeconomic backgrounds and professions. They asked participants about aspects they asso ciated with humility, how they defined humility, situations where they felt humble, examples of humble people, qualities likely to be found in humble people, and the types of people in w hom humility would be seen as a weakness or strength. These research ers then correlated these responses with measures of self-esteem, religiosity, narcissism, and social desirability. Contrary to dictionary definitions of humility, participants expressed positive views toward humility, associating it with success and positive emotions. They also associated strong psychological adjustment and high self-esteem with humility. Exline and Geyer relate that many theo logians, philosophers, and some recent psychologists have written about humility as a virtue or strength. They point to Alcoholic


37 Anonymous (AA) and the fact that humility is co nsidered a cornerstone of their treatment of addiction. Within Alcoholic Anonymous, writers have referred to humility as the ability to honestly accept ones humanity and the knowledge of ones own imperf ections-including ones powerlessness over alcohol (Step1) (Kurtz & Ketcham, 1993). They add that humility involves rejecting implicit all or nothing instead choosing to be conten t about ones status as an ordinary human being. According to AA they sa y, A lack of humility will impede recovery from alcoholism. Exline and Geyer also refer to a study by Hart and Hugget (2003) that revealed a negative correlation between an aspect of narcissism and the recovery from alcoholism. This implies that there may be a negative correlation between narc issism and humility. As mentioned before, they found such a relationship between the two Exline and Geyer, citing Mean et al. (1990), refer to various conceptualizations of humility. They say that humility implies the following four dispositions: 1. A willingness to admit ones faults 2. A recognition that one cannot control all social encounters 3. An attitude of patience and gentleness with other people 4. A sense of empathy for other people In addition, the authors cite Roberts (1982), w ho emphasizes a lack of concern with social rank as a core feature of humility. They also refer to Sandage (1999), who uses the term egohumility to refer to a realistic orientation towards self and other that includes a willingness to acknowledge ones strengths and to face ones limitations. As for psychologists who consider humility a virtue and strength, Exliner and Geyer refer to Emmons (1999), Tangney (2002) and Landrum (2002): Emmon (1999) suggests humility involves accu racy, self-acceptance, understanding ones imperfections, keeping ones talents and acco mplishments in perspective and freedom from both arrogance and low self-esteem.


38 Tangneys (2000) definition, reviewed previously, ag rees with this. Landrum (2002) adds to the construct of humility such behaviors and disposit ions as open-mindedness, the seeking of advice, and a desire to learn. And, Exlin e et al. (2004) add a non defens ive willingness to see the self accurately, including strengths and limitations to this list. They suggest that humility stems from a sense of security in which feelings of personal worth are based on stable, reliable sources. These conceptualizations certainly do not posit ion humility as a weakness. The reason it is frequently seen as such may be, the author s suggest, due to a North American cultural preoccupation with positive self-views. That is, part of humility is openness and acceptance of ones limitations and errors. This does not agree with an all positive self-view. Considering the benefits and costs of humilit y, the authors enumerate a number of logical possibilities. On the positive and beneficial side humility may be considered an alternative to boastfulness. In the case of positive psychological adjustment, it could be associated with a sense of security, an accurate self -perception, a non-defensive and ope n attitude, non-grandiosity and self-promotion. On the negative side, Exline and Geyers (2005) say humility may be associated with humiliation, low self-esteem, and harsh self-cri ticism. Because being humble involves being open to accepting ones shortcomings, it may be asso ciated with failure. It may be perceived as risky in relationships, especially in competitive s ituations where domination is valued, such as in a job interview or in a place where confident and decisive self-presentation is required. While humility may be seen as positive where cooperation and sharing is valued, such as in marriage or romantic relationships, it may not be considered a positive trait in a military or business situation.


39 Overall, the results of this study showed that views of humility were favorable. Humility was seen as a strength rather than weakness. Most of the participants wanted to develop humility. Humility was not seen as related to low self -esteem or shortcomings. Humility overlapped considerably with modesty. Other qualities asso ciated with humility were unselfishness and a lack of conceit. Humility was perceived as re lated to positive qualities and had a much lower association with shame, embarrassment, humilia tion, or attitudes of submissiveness and passivity. Regarding the affect and the experien ce of humility, participants reported a much higher level of pleasant than unpleasant emotions The majority reported relating humility to experiences of success or accomplishment. Participants also named characteristics of a humble person. They iden tified qualities like kindness, caring towards others, re fraining from bragging, success, intelligence, unselfishness, and self-sacrifice. A minority characterized humble people as timid, quiet and unassertive. On the whole, humble people were rated positively. However adjustment ratings were higher than leadership and conf idence ratings. That is, humble individuals were seen as well adjusted and kind. However, when relating the virtue of humility to leadership positions, participants offered mixed responses. Although part icipants saw humility as strength, it was seen more favorably in religious seekers than in close ot hers. It was viewed as least favorable in roles associated with leadership and entertainment. So views of humility are moderated by social roles. This is also complicated by gender. Mo re women than men see humility as a strength in leaders and religious seekers. Women, more th an men, also see humility as an aspect of good psychological adjustment. However, more women than men report negative experiences when they have felt humble. This is especially true in success experiences whereby women


40 specifically report embarrassment in such situations Exline and Geyer believe this is related to what research report as the social costs of women outperforming others. Another result of this research was that the higher the narcissism of an individual, the lower was his/her positive view of humility, par ticularly as it was associated with strong psychological adjustment and confidence. The o pposite was true of self-esteem. The higher the self esteem of a person, the more s(he) associat ed humility with good adjustment and confidence, and the less s(he) associated hum ility with shame, embarrassment or humiliation. More detailed analysis showed that the exhibitionist and vani ty subscales of the narcissism measure showed consistent negative correlations with the perception of humility. In summary most experiences of humility were recalled as situations involving success and accomplishment, rather than failure or a lowering of self. Humble individu als were described as kind, modest, able and resourceful, and having po sitive attributes. Humble persons were not described as harsh self-critics or low in self-respect. The humble were seen positively in terms of adjustment, confidence and leadership. Humility was s een as an asset in all social roles, but to different degrees depending on the role. Another conclusion was that narcissists are less likely to see humility positively. Self esteem defined as a positive, accepting view of self, rather than a feeling of superiority, correlates with positive views toward humility. In this aspect, Exline and Geyer conclude that a person with high self-esteem and low na rcissism may be considered humble. As for the shortcomings of their research, Ex line and Geyer suggest that work with other age groups beyond early adulthood needs be undertake n. Having researched in what they identify as an an American individualistic culture, th ey also point out the need for research in comparatively more collectivist cultures. Finally their research focused on how people perceive


41 humility. It did not interrogate the validity of these perceptions. For example, some people did not associate humility with effective leadership, but this research did not examine whether humble people actually made good leaders or no t. However, their research does point to a number of important aspects of humility, in cluding how people perceive and experience humility. This is important because if humility is such a positive quality and strength, its development, or lack thereof, depends on how it is perceived in society. Summary: Summarizing the work of Exline and Geyers shows the humble as seen positively. People see the humble as a well-adjust ed and self-respecting person. Humility is equated with honesty, lack of conceit, knowing ones own imperfections, admitting to ones own faults, accepting ones self as ordinary and equal to all others. In humility an all or nothing mentality is absent and so it is associated with a complex worlview. The humble lacks egocentricity and a concern with social rank. Hu mble people have self-acceptancethey accept their own strengths and limitations hold realistic conceptions of themselves and others, and are neither arrogant nor lacking in self-respect. They are secure, open-minded, seek advice, and continually learn. Other qualities of humble people include nondefensiveness, intelligence, successfulness, unselfishness, kindne ss, patience and gentleness with others, empathy for others, and care. They are neither harsh nor boastful, a nd they are not exhibitionists. They are neither shamed, nor embarrassed, nor humiliated. They are not necessarily submissive or passive but are, instead, perceived as aut onomous, dynamic and active people. These researchers also found that more women than men see humility as a personal strength and sign of positive psychological adjustme nt. In all it seems that their findings share much with Tangneys research mentioned previously. They also found additional traits accompanying a humble person whereby humility is seen as strength and a positive experience.


42 Worthington (1998): The Empathy-Humili ty-Commitment Model of Forgiveness In this conceptual work, Wo rthington proposes a model of for giveness that has three components: empathy, humility, and commitment. He states that forgiveness requires empathy for the offender, humility in order to see the self as fallible as the offender, and an ability to commit to forgiving. For the purpose of the present research, a focus on Worthingtons conception of humility will be used. He states th at without empathy for one who hurt us we are unlikely to forgive. But later he adds this ma y not be enough. He says that although we may cognitively consider the offenders view, and even identify emoti onally with this person, we may still continue to consider the o ffender as sinful and evil. Citing M eans et al. (1990), he says there is need for humility. He offers the follo wing thought process of a humble person: I see my offenders motivation and understand his or her point of view. I feel what he or she might have been feeling. Further, I have felt similar feelings. I see that I have done things or have wanted things as wicked as the other person. In thos e instances of my own weakness, I would like to have forgiveness extended to me. I want mercy for my own foibles. Who am I to demand justice for this person when I want mercy for myself? I know the other person is needy. I want to help this person. I want to release him or her from the hate, anger and desire for retribution that I fell That is the decent th ing to do. That is the right thing to do. (p. 5) It seems the humble person has a clear, real istic conception of self, what is decent and wants to do the right thing. Worthington adds such reasoning sees hum ans as fallible, the offender as human, and (finally) the self as one of those fallible human beings. Instead of ragefocused demand for justice, the person can respond in humility. Forgiveness is the natural response to empathy and humility. (p. 5) Bryant (1999), further deve loping the Worthington model, emphasizes the emotional component of forgiveness. She rightly states that the whole process of forgiveness starts with an emotional wound. She holds that, ultimately, cognitiv e and behavioral therapies will not be able to heal this wound. She suggests f orgiveness is initiated by empa thy for the offender, furthered


43 by humility in the person who was hurt and so lidified through making a public commitment to forgiveness. (p.45) The humility Bryant talks of is based on reasoning. Examples of such reasoning might include: I have done bad things I have weaknesses, I have needed forgiveness, and I make mistakes. Summary: In essence, Worthington says a humbl e person is empathic and understanding of others points of view. The humble person sees th e self and others as fallible human beings. In this way s(he) has a clear and realistic concep tion of self. The humble person is self-aware and accepts his/her own weaknesses, needs, wants, mistakes and faults. Rowatt, Ottenbreitt, Nesselroade, and Cunnig ham (2002): On Being Holier-Than-Thou or Humbler -Than-Thee Rowatt et al. (2002) engaged in a study of humility and have defined it as involving a genuine modesty that does not engender low se lf-esteem. (p.227) In addition, they refer to Emmons (1999), who says: Humility involves a realistic appraisal of ones positive and negative characteristics in relation to others. The research of Rowatt et al. looks how humility and religiousness relate to one another. They refer to Allport and Ross (1967) who conceptualized intrinsic and extr insic varieties of religiousness. Intrinsic religiousness implies a devout commitment to religious beliefs as an ultimate end (p.228). They hypothesize intrinsic religiosity should correlate positively with humilit y. Extrinsic religiousness involves the use of religion as a means to achieve another self-servi ng end (p. 228). These self-serving ends might include comfort or social reward (Kirkpatrick, 1989). Rowatt et al. (2002) also cite research (Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis 1993; Dona hue, 1985) that has found that extrinsic religiousness correlates with prejudice and dogmatism. They s uggest that an extrinsically religious person might use religion to a ppear generous, selfless or humble. (p.228)


44 The authors also inform us that there is a co mponent of religiousness that is called quest. It involves the degree to which a person faces complex existential questions, perceives religious doubt as positive, and remains open to religious change (citing Batson & Schoenrade, 1991) Quest is associated with increased sensitivity to a victims desire for help (Darely & Batson 1973; Batson & Gray 1981), increased cognitive complexity (Batson & Raynor-Price 1983), and decreased self-righteousness (Falbo & Shepperd 1986). Increases in quest, therefore, are likely to be associated with more humility. In other word s, for the purposes of the present work, humility is associated with openness to change, flexibility, seeing doubt as a positive experience, sensitivity, and, therefore, listening to the voices of victims. Humility does not involve seeing things in a simplistic manner, but rather invo lves an appreciation for complexity. Finally, humility requires less self-complacency. In summary, considering the quest compone nt of religiousness, the authors had three hypotheses. The first is an intrinsic-humility hyp othesis which follows that the more intrinsic ones religious orientation is, the more humble the person is. The second is an extrinsic-humility hypothesis. This hypothesis states that the more extrinsic ones re ligious orientation is, the less humble this person will be. Fi nally, the last hypothesis suggests that the more one is oriented toward quest, the more humble one is. The authors operationalized humility as being th e difference between evaluation of self and other in religiosity. That is, ove rvaluing the self in relation to ot hers or undervaluing others in relation to self (p.228). The result s of the research were surprisi ng: contrary to expectation the intrinsically oriented people were found to be less humblei.e. the intrinsically oriented considered self as more religious. In the case of extrinsically orientated people, they were not associated with the holier-than-thou effect. But in the case of the quest orientated people they


45 were shown to associate with a small but signifi cant decrease in the ho lier-than-thou orientation indicating the possibility of higher relative leve ls of humility. In other words the summary presented above is true. That is: humility is associ ated with openness to change (i.e. flexibility), seeing doubt as positive, sensitivit y and therefore listening to victim s voice, not seeing things in a simplistic manner and appreciating comp lexity, and finally less self-complacency. Summary: These authors hold that humility does not imply low self-respect, but a realistic perception of self, which includes both positive and negative traits. They found that humility invites flexibility because it is linked to an ope nness to change, a lack of self-righteousness, a willingness to listen to others, an openness to doubt or multiple points of view, and an inability to see the world in simplistic terms. That is, hum ility is linked to an a ppreciation of complexity and a desire to face complex issues. Humility is not associated with being dogmatic. Nor does it suggest an overor undervaluing of the self or others. Sandage, Weins, and Dahl ( 2001): Humility and Attention Sandage, Weins, and Dahl focus on the cont em plative psychology and spirituality of Simone Weil. Weil was a French philosopher and po litical activist who died in the Second World War. In this study they find two themes in Weils writing, one of which highlights humility. The authors consider Weil a perfect example of wholeness and holiness, and mark her work and writing as relevant to clinical psychological work. Weil said that humility is the crowns all virtue s, and she linked humility to the ability to honestly face and accept own vulnerability. She wrot e: Humility consists of knowing that in this world the whole soul, not only what we term the ego in its totality, but also the supernatural part of the soul, which is God present in it, is subj ect to time and the vicissi tudes of change (Weil, 1951/1973, p.225) Humility for Weil involves the appreciation of our smallness as compared to the cosmos and to the totality of creation. From what Sandage et al. relate, it seems humility


46 requires an open and wide vision of life an universe. It requires an inclusive, holistic vision. In the context of humility, Weil also asks that we have an attitude of equanimity, an evenmindedness and calmness, or as the authors quote, an accepting (of) things the way they are. Weil makes a distinction between feelings of inadequacy, deficiency, lack, ineptitude and the disposition of humility. She says, I am not saying this out of humility, for if I possessed humility, the most beautiful of all the virtues perh aps, I should not be in this miserable state of inadequacy (Weil, 1973, p.46) Sandage (1999), himself, had menti oned that at times humility is mistaken as low self-esteem or the shame of ineptitude. But, as the authors suggest, it could be that Weil knew that humility and inadequacy should not be confused. Therefore, humility, it seems, is not a negative em otion or self-perception. The authors note that some of Weils writi ng may confuse us regarding the difference between humility and failure because she recommends that we carefully study our own failings. The authors speculate that this may be due to her strong ego, or due to her perfectionism, marked by how she tortured herself with the details of her failings. The answer could be quite to the contrary. It may be found in what the aut hors had mentioned previ ously concerning Weils thoughts on intellectual idolatry. This type of idolizing of ones self leads to becoming intellectually prideful. It could be that Weil intended to mean that an increased awareness of our fallibility could help us maintain a more modest perception of ourselves. In congruence with the review of other literatu re, Weil implies that humble people ar e open to and inviting of criticism and correction. Sandage et al. (2001) also quote Springfield (1998): Humility involves a stripping away of the false self and illusions about the world (p.111). It seems that here, again, that being humble calls for a realistic perception of self and world. Humility requires openness to the world


47 and to others. However, as opposed to a self-cen teredness that keeps us from attending to world and to others, this openness must not exclude th e self. Humility, therefore, can be seen as the opposite of egotism or narcissism. Summary: Sandage et al. (2001) considers humility the topmost virtue. They see humility as knowing that the self and others are subjec t to time and change. Humility means knowing one is small compared to the universe. Humility is accepting things as they are. The humble have equanimity and even-mindedness. Humility means being aware of ones own failings while not disrespecting ones self, or feeling shame, inadequacy or ineptitude. Humility allows one to remain realistic and give up false ideas about the self and the world. Humility also allows one to give up idolatry and worship of self-made images. Here again, humility is equated with a realistic conception of self, as well as a holistic, inclusive perspective. Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez (2004)*: Strategic Virtues Vera and Rodriguez-Lop ez (2004) investigate how humility manifests in business settings and positively effects firm performance. Th eir work refers to positive psychology and is conceptually one of the richest writing on the subject of humility. Their work concludes with the offering of suggestions to help managers develo p the individual and or ganizational virtue of humility. Looking at humility from the point of view of organizational dynamics, these authors note that humility in the minds of many people is associated with shyne ss, lack of ambition, passivity and lack of confidence (p.393). They argue against this popular perception and posit that humility provides persons with a realistic perspective of themselves, the firm and the environment (p.393). They believe humility is an indispensable facet of corporate leadership. In fact, a lack of humility in business leaders is actually dangerous to the health of such organizations.


48 Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez (2004) bring exampl es from many companies and their leaders to establish their proposition. One founder and chairman of a company with 36,000 employees worried that his company, enjoying outstanding perf ormance, would fall into the success trap. He advised his staff that they needed to remember that humility was what had made them successful to begin with. Another example of a corporate leader who attributes success to humility is Mr. Matsushita, the founder of a huge electric company in Japan. He is famous for his determination to eradicate complacency a nd arrogance in his company (p.393). Both of these leaders believe humility is critical for success. Other exam ples are from founders of Mary Kay Inc., Southwest Airlines, Kimberly Cl ark Corporation, the IKEA group, and others. With so many current corporate scandals people are reminded of the virtues of humility, integrity, and honesty. But humility has been little discussed. Martin Seligman and Christopher Peterson are two of the exceptions to this. Their work stems from the positive psychology movement, which aims to focus on what is right with people, rather than what might be wrong with them. Positive psychology helps people develop their human strengths and potentials, rather than attend to their weaknesses. The authors re port that some business schools have started integrating positive psychology principles into their program. The University of Michigan is one such example. The goal of such programs is to promote a positive vision of humility as a virtue with strategic value for organizations (p. 394). Although such a trend has started that seeks to appreciate and develop humility as a human asset, it is still not well understood. In his book, Good to Great Jim Collins (2001) found that contrary to popular expectation, greatness was not a quality related to effective, high level CEOs. Rather, humility was the quality associated with such people. Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez (2004) report that: in contrast to humb le leaders, those who are arro gant, narcissistic, egotistical,


49 prideful, or hubristic are a threat to their firms (p.394). For example, the word arrogance is used when people talk about leaders of Enron Corp or People Express Airlin e. People such as Lee Iacocca of the Chrysler Corporat ion and Michael Saylor of MicroS trategy, Inc. are described as lacking in humility and exhibiting great hubris. In doing so, Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez say these leaders are endangering thei r respective companies. Definition of Humility: As for a definition for humility in corporate management, Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez quote Robert Solomon, who says that humility is a rea listic assessment of ones own contribution and the r ecognition of the contri butions of others, along with luck and good fortune that made ones own success possible (p.394). The authors go on to say that Humble individuals have a downto-earth perspective of themselves and of the events and relationships in their lives. Humility involves a cap ability to evaluate success, failure, work, and life without exaggeration (p.395). Humility make s it possible to distinguish between healthy self-confidence, self-esteem, and self assessment and those of over-confidence, narcissism, and stubbornness. Humility is the midpoint between the tw o negative extremes of arrogance and lack of self-esteem (p.395). The authors further say th at humility tends to be silent as compared with the visibility of gratitude, justice or compassion. The authors delineate thirteen characteristics describing a humble leader. They compiled this from various journals, books and magazine s. In addition, they conducted thirty-three interviews with managers from seven countries Their findings identified a humble leader as: 1. Is open to new paradigms 2. Is eager to learn from others 3. Acknowledges his or her own limitations and mi stakes, and attempts to correct them 4. Accepts failure with pragmatism 5. Asks for advice 6. Develops others 7. Has genuine desire to serve 8. Respects others


50 9. Shares honors and recognition with collaborators 10. Accepts success with simplicity 11. Is not narcissistic and repels adulation 12. Avoids self-complacency 13. Is frugal These characteristics refer to personal hum ility. The authors hold that organizations, as whole entities, may exhibit similar behavioral te ndencies. They propose that the manifestation of humility within organizations is a function of thr ee factors. These include the depth of humility demonstrated by strategic leaders, the humility of individual members, and the emphasis placed on the development of humility as a key factor for success within the organizations culture, systems, procedures, and structure. Cultural Aspects of Humility: Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez (2004) ask whether or not humility is a universal virtue. They ponder that perhaps collectivist cultures may be more naturally inclined to uphold hum ility as opposed to more individualistic cultures that associate success with competition. They refer to Seligman a nd Martin who identified a set of core virtues that are cross-culturally valued. These included the virtue of humility. The authors believe that attitudinal differen ces associated with humility come from a general misunderstanding of its meaning. They hold that people from any culture will likely reject humility when it is associat ed with self-denial or abasemen t. The opposite is true when humility is associated with a down-to-earth perspective of ones self in relation to all other beings and accurate and r ealistic self-knowledge (p.396). Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez (2004) make the obs ervation that in Western countries where a particular and narrow view of success is hi ghly valued, a lack of humility is at times overlooked. That is to say that hum ility is sacrificed for success. However, the apparent charm of narcissists soon wears thin, leaving others with impressions of superficiality and hostility (p.


51 397). Arrogance is not attractive and is seen as a threat. They add we only tolerate arrogance while success lasts (p.397). In an example of the popular link between arrogance and success or competence, such as in the case of Donald Trump, the authors contend that such a link is a false one. They believe that this popular association is actually due to th e increased visibility of such successful people due to exposure by the media. Th e same is true of narcissistic managers who put a lot of energy into making the headlines. As opposed to the idea that arrogant leaders are more successful, the authors propos e that humility is a much more stable source for success, and that success built on humility is more sustaina ble than success built on arrogance (p.397). The authors also contend that compared to th e organizational virtues of cost consciousness and innovation, humility is a virtue that is strategi c for all because it is of competitive advantage. That is to say that humility is a resource that is valuable, rare irreplaceable and difficult to imitate In short it is beneficial and unique. The authors discuss each of its advantages. Humility is valuable because it enhances the underst anding and response to external threats. It helps avoid self-complacency and overc onfidence. It is fundamental to learning, which is the ability to generate new knowledge and t o capture organizational repositories such as procedures, systems, and culture (page 397). Hu mility provides high quality service, which is improved through learning. Finally, humility is va luable because it facilitates the development of resiliency, which means how effectively a fi rm adapts to change and how likely it is to achieve growth and survival in the long run (p.397). Humility is rare in many companies, which tend to overemphasize charisma, power and pride. The authors hold that there are degrees to humility. The low and moderate levels may be common, but higher levels of humility are rare and associated with exceptional performance.


52 Humility is irreplaceable according to the authors, who say that the Lack of humility tends to weaken other virtues. For example, courage without humility may become rashness (p.397). Nothing can compensate for a lack of humility. Hard work and convincing people to invest may make an arrogant, narcissistic manager tolerable, but then the company is open to the dangers that result from arrogance and narcissism. Humility is difficult to imitate Faking humility may work only for a short while. This is because humility represents a certain attitude towards life and the world around us (p.398). Humility needs to be authentic, honest and genuine. Developing humility is hard because it involves an effort and a commitme nt to change rooted in persona l preferences, and may lead to radical transformation of personal paradigms (p.398). The authors pose the following question: If humility helps leaders and companies achieve outstanding performance, then why do some companies and leaders lacking in humility continue to be successful? The answer they provi de is that humility exists in a continuum. A minimum level of humility is needed for firms to remain successful in the long run. However, dropping below this minimum level will place that the company in jeopardy. The authors divide the thirteen characteristic s of humble organizati onal leaders mentioned above into the three domains of learning, service and resiliency and then they elaborate on them. This is illuminating for the purposes of the present research. Their comments follow. Learning: In the domain of learning the authors include the following characteristics: an openness to new paradigm, an eagerness to learn from others, the acknowledgment of their own limitations and mistakes, as well as the ability to correct them, the pr agmatic acceptance of failure, an ability to ask for advi ce, and the development of others.


53 Openness to new paradigm: Accepting a new paradigm is more painful for egocentric leaders than humble ones because th e latter do not consider themselves to be the holders of truth, are not afraid of knowing the trut h and are not fearful of losing th eir status or control. Humble leaders have a more realistic perspective of the complexity of the world and acknowledge the limitations of their current paradi gm and strategies. They are not anchored to told solutions (p. 399). In summary, the humble are not egocentric and do not feel they have a monopoly on the truth. They are fearless, realisti c, and unattached to social positi ons or one way of doing things. They appreciate complexity and they know their own limits. Eagerness to learn from others: Since the humble know there are other views of reality, they have a multifaceted perspective. They we lcome ways to discover and discuss different views. The humble recognize that they do not k now everything and that they have much to learn; they develop a true capacity to admire a nd learn from others (p.39 9). In other words, the humble know that they do not know. They do their research and they respect others. Acknowledgment of their own limitations and mistakes, and ability to correct them: Humble people correctly assess their own strengths and wea knesses and learn from their experiences. Therefore, they grow. There is much evidence in support of the fact that arrogant leaders have made overconfident assessments, ha ve overpaid to buy out other companies, and have overestimated their own companys capacit y to integrate with a new company. The humble know their limits. On the other hand, the proud hi de, deny and defend their errors. They think that admitting mistakes takes away from their authority. Ironically they lose authority when eventually they are found out. The humble ad mit mistakes, accept help, try to overcome and correct errors. They are open to criticism.


54 Pragmatic acceptance of failure: The humble are not afraid of failure. One great leaders perspective is described as follows: Many of the biggest lessons he drew from his own life were related to growth: even the poorest can achieve mu ch if they are willing to relentlessly stretch themselves; do not view difficult ti mes as threats, see them as opportunities to learn; in hardship and failure one can be reborn stronger; success can stop personal development if it leads to arrogance and risk aversion; a willingness to humb ly and honestly assess your action is at the heart of the personal development (p.400). The hu mble are honest, they ta ke risks, they learn from failure, and so they stretch and grow. Ability to ask for advice: Those who think they know it all and are superior to others do not ask for advice. In contrast, the humble ask for criticism and for the testing of their ideas. They take advice and integrate others ideas into their decisions. Company founder, Mary Kay, recommended to her collaborators to: Listen long enough and the person will generally come up with an adequate solution (p.400). The humble listen. The f ounder of Dell admitted his own errors in front of his workers and established th e principle that every d ecision needs be made by at least two people. In contra st, the CEO of Rubbermaid was known as a manager who knows everything about everything. Th e Rubbermaid Company failed. Development of others: While narcissistic or arrogant managers want others to be dependent on them, humble leaders are committed to training those who might actually surpass them in learning (p.401). The humble do not st ymie others growth and do not keep people down. The humble see themselves as replaceable. They know they are not indispensable. The universe will go on without them. They prepar e for that. Humble executives do not become attached to their posts, since they see their jobs as an opportunity for se rvice and recognize that their final duty is to prepare, help and clear the path for th eir successors (p.401)


55 At this point, Vera and Rodriguez-Lop ez (2004) summarize the humility components of the learning domain in terms of performance outcomes. Hum ility helps innovation, enables an open attitude towards experimentation, and s upports multiple learning opportunities. It contributes to high productivity because people can openly discuss better ways. Finally, it helps the workplace become a learning organization, and is the basis for a concept called servantleadership. Such humble leaders su pport others in managing and learning. Service: In the domain of service the authors include four characteristics. They are: genuine desire to serve, respect towards other, ability to share, and unwillingness to monopolize honor. Genuine desire to serve: Service stands in stark contrast to manipulation. Service is not something one learns in seminars. Genuine atti tude of service demands a certain degree of humility. People lacking humility believe they are better than others; consequently their service is conditioned upon personal benefit (p.402). The humble care for the needs of others and have a sincere desire to serve. Firms and organizations that have a service attitu de and who care about their customers and employees have flexible sc hedules and structures and high mobility inside the company (p.402). As one leader put it, the leader is at th e service of others, not to be served (p.402). Firms that refuse to take on projects that will be detrimental to a customer have been known to later attract the same customer, who then becomes loyal. Respect towards others: The humble respect others and kn ow they are not superior to others. Humility in this sense means: trusting the potential of each human being, listening with empathy, and acknowledging the strengths of others. Indeed harmony within a company demands great respect (p.402). Research shows that the major cause of dissatisfaction within a company is not based on salary, but due to feeling disrespected. One CEO did not accept a


56 dinner invitation at the White House because she ha d promised to take part in a workshop with her employees. Another head of an internationa l company considered humility and respect for other cultures to be superior qualification over language acquisition and international experiences (p.402). Ability to share and not monopolize honor: Wanting to be the center of attention is opposite of humility. The humble do not look for fame and attent ion. The humble down-play honor, not neglecting to recognize th e contributions of their colla borators level 5 leaders never aspired to be put on a pedestal or b ecome an unreachable icons, but were seemingly ordinary people quietly produci ng extraordinary results (p.402). Resiliency: In the domain of resiliency, Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez include these characteristics: acceptance of success with simp licity, pragmatic acceptance of failure, avoidance of narcissism and resilience against adulati on, avoidance of self-complacency, and frugality. Acceptance of success with simplicity: The authors caution that success may turn to liability. Citing a number of cases they add, Success assimilated inappropriately turns into arrogance and superiority (p.403). The hubris of a company brought it to collapse. Its CEO has a new mantra: Be humble because in success humility will win, and in failure, humility will win (p.403). As an example, the founder of IBM emphasizes a humble perspective on success: We want you to feel that you are aiming for success but you are never going to catch up with it, for if you do, you are finished (p.403). The humble do not think they have made it. Pragmatic acceptance of failure: Humble managers do not blame others for failures but try to learn, instead. A humble l eader does not try to fix his or her damaged ego but tries to reduce the damage to the company and others. Quite the opposite, the ar rogant leader cannot


57 manage failure. Instead, s(he) gets irritated and looks to blame someone. One learns and corrects any harm while the other only increases the damage As an example of an arrogant leader the authors cite the case of a bank manager who could not manage failure to such a degree that he went into a depression and soon passed away. Othe rs in the company felt that his depression was due to the shame he felt for his mistake. In times of difficulty, humility seems to be a positive adaptive character. Avoidance of narcissism and resilience against adulation: Humble managers, the authors observe, use their self-c onfidence and ambition in service of others. A healthy sense of self make managers adapt and cope while an ex aggerated sense of self-worth can make them promise more than they can deliver and i gnore words of warning or advice (p.404). A Fortune magazine report argues that huge egos make CEOs deaf, blind and dumb. That article quotes case after case of egotistic blunders. Avoidance of self-complacency: The humble are not self-righteous. Humility comprises an attitude of constant improvement, which in cludes the acknowledgement of ones limitations, low levels of self complacency, and the desire to serve better. Humble leaders seek perfection serenely, with calmness, and at the same time with perseverance and determination(p.404). So humility is accompanied by peace and calmness. The authors later comment that humility protects individuals from self-righteous complacen cy, which leads them to become comfortable and satisfied with their achievements (p.404). The authors offer a case for the opposite for the Johnson and Johnson company. This company displayed self-complacency regarding medical supplies. They produced a product that was first to be introduced to the market, but they failed to adapt to doctors requirements. Therefor e, they lost the mark et for that product.


58 Frugality: Some managers live very extravagan tly and luxuriously. Humble managers shun status symbols. Temperance is a key el ement of humility. The founder of the large Matashushita Electric Company argued, No ma tter how large Matashushita Electric might become in the future, never forget to have a mode st attitude of a mercha nt. Think of yourself as being employed in a small store, and carry out your work with simplicity, frugality and humility (p.405). Finally, the authors go on to make sugge stions about how to develop humility in organizations. They conclude by defining humility as accurate self-kno wledge and a realistic perspective of the self in the context of others (p.406). The findings of this article are very informative, conceptually very rich, and have cont ributed greatly to the pr esent work, as we shall see. A technical note about presentation of this article is that it was published in the Organizational Dynamics Journal and did not follow the APA referencing standards. So the reader may not find references to sources within the text. Summary of Conceptions of Humility Overall, thes e scholars conceptualize humility as realistic and accu rate self-knowledge. The humble are non-egotistical, non-n arcissistic, and they are not self-righteous. They have a realistic view of their own contributions, they value and recognize the co ntributions of others, and they are down-to-earth. The humble are neith er in self-denial, nor do they engage in selfabasement. They exaggerate neither success no r failure, and they are not over-confident or stubborn. They do not see the self as the all-important center becau se they recognize themselves as replaceable and dispensable. They do not ex aggerate their self-worth in a posture of superiority. They do not engage in extravagance or luxury, but ar e frugal, instead. The humble assimilate success without arrogance and never u ltimately conclude that they have made it.


59 The humble person is open to new paradigms, is eager to learn, acknowledges personal limitations and mistakes, accepts and learns from failure, asks for advice, and demonstrates resiliency, flexibility, and openne ss to both change and the generation of new knowledge. Such a person is not attached to one way of doing th ings. S(he) does not th ink that anyone has a monopoly on truth. S(he) appreciates the complexity of world. The humble person does not think s(he) knows all the answers, and so s(he) does research and enga ges in experimentation, asks for criticism and the testing of his/her ideas, liste ns to and respects the opi nions of others, avoids over-estimating self, admits mistakes, accepts help, and tr ies to overcome and correct errors. The humble is open to criticism and is not afraid of failure. S(he) admires and learns from others, is ever-stretching, -growing, and -developing, and s(he) is au thentic, honest, genuine, and unattached to social position. The humble are committed to facilitating th e learning and development of others by honoring their contributions and strengths, sharing, reaching out and taking risks, and integrating others ideas into collaborative decisions. Th e humble are open to discuss better ways and support various paths to learning and multiple pe rspectives. They are non-manipulative and sincerely focused on service. They care for and trust others, exhibit empathy, harmonize and cooperate with others, respect other cultures, refr ain from blame, and effectively manage failure. Humble people are not easily agitated or depre ssed, but are peaceful, calm and fearless. They are adaptive, constantly improving, and they are not self-complacent. Humility is an attitude toward life and the world. Humility is a way of being. It is a critical source for success and is related to perceptions a ssociated with a great person. Humility is a virtue highly valuable within organizations. It is not experienced as a threat. Rather, humility is universally valued, attractiv e, and related to excep tional human performance.


60 The Honesty-Humility Measure: Developmen t of the HEXACO Personality Inventory In their research Ashton and Lee establish the existence of a sixth factor of personality, Honesty-Hum ility, and propose a six-factor model of personality in place of the prevailing fivefactor model of Costa and McCrea (1992). They accomplish this through a series of research undertakings. They first proposed an Honesty f actor (Ashton, Lee & S on 2000; Ashton &Lee, 2001) then established it as the Honesty-Hum ility Factor (Lee &Asht on, 2004) reported its validity across several languages (A shton, Lee & Perugini, 2004), a nd then correlated it with the Big Five Personality Factors and other person ality inventories (e.g. Ashton & Lee 2005, Lee, Ashton & Shin, 2005). Here is a review of their work. Ashton, Lee and Son (2000) first reported the exis tence of a sixth factor in addition to the Big Five Factors. The Big Five are usually called 1) Extraversion, 2) Agreeableness, 3) Conscientiousness, 4) Emotional Stability, and 5) Intellect. These f actors are the result of pscyholexical studies of personality structure. Lee, Ashton and Shin (2005) say that the lexical hypothesis states: The major dimens ions of personality variation wi ll tend to be represented by the largest numbers of personality adjectives in human language. Studies based on these lexical studies across several languages have yielded a sixth factor very si milar in form. Aston, Lee, and Son (2000) report that the sixth factor has been interpreted as e.g., integrity in Hungarian, truthfulness in Korean, Value s In English, Morality-Values in German, trustfulness in Italian. They offer a list of adjectives that define this sixth factor in vari ous languages; truthful, honest, fair/just, sincere, and fa ithful/loyal versus haughty, greedy, and sly. Based on these, they suggest the name Honesty for the sixth factor. In a later work, Ashton and Lee (2001) report a more elaborat e list of adjectives from international studies describing the sixth factor. They cite Goldberg (1990, 1993) for a better description of lexical hypothesis that is befitting to represent here:


61 An important goal of personality psychology is to discover the factor structure of personality characteristics, but attempts to find that structure must be based on representative samples of the universe of t hose characteristics. The only recognized basis for obtaining such sample is derived from Lexical Hypothesis, which states that the most important personality traits are encoded as si ngle terms in natural language. Based on this assumption, the lexical approach to personality structure attempts to identify the major dimensions of personality by factor analyzi ng ratings (usually selfor peer ratings) on comprehensive sets of pers onality adjec tives. (p.328) Some of the defining terms of the new sixth fact or from international studies are as follows (present authors underlining): German: Honest, sincere, humane truth-loving, truthful, modest, just/fair versus dishonest, corrupt, boastful, grasping, arrogant. Hungarian: veracious, just, trustworthy, secr et-keeping, humane versus hypocritical, swellheaded, greedy, overbearing, show-off Italian (Rome): sincere, modest unpretentious, loyal, honest vers us egocentric, narcissistic, arrogant, megalomaniac, presumptuous. Italian (Trieste): sincere, l oyal, trustworthy, altruistic, na tural versus liar, untruthful, hypocrite, greedy, stingy Polish: Sincere, honest, noble-mi nded, disinterested, faithful, gentlemanly versus crafty, dishonest, sly Korean: truthful, frank, conscientious, honest, unassuming versus cunning, sly, calculating, hypocritical, pompous French: true/genuine, sincere, honest, just/fair, loyal/faithful versus dishonest, false/not genuine, lying, unjust/unfair, hypocritical Studying the above adjectives defining the sixth factor and review of lite rature about humility it is no wonder that Ashton and lee later on decided to name this factor as Honesty-Humility. Other than the obvious adjectives related to modest y and humility the adjectives associated with honesty and truthfulness are prominent After their review of international lexical st udies of personality structure, Ashton and Lee conclude that the six dimensional model of pers onality structure is the most parsimonious and comprehensive model. And, the majority of the st udies they reviewed, i. e. seven out of nine,


62 have come up with a six dimensional model and no additional factor has emerged in these studies. Following the abovementioned studies Aston and Lee (2004) introduced their HEXACO Personality Inventory designed to measure six majo r dimensions of persona lity. In that article they begin by a short history of studies to discover the structure of human personality and its basic dimensions. They report that by the 1980s many researchers agreed that there were five dimensions to personality. These came to be known as the Big Five (Goldberg, 1990). Costa and McCrea (1985) incorporated these into a pe rsonality research ques tionnaire. They proposed a Five-Factor Model (FFM) simila r but not quite the same as the Big Five. The names of the dimensions are: 1) Extraversion, 2) Agreeableness, 3) Conscientiousness, 4) Neuroticism and 5) Openness to Experience. Later, various scales we re developed and evolved based on the Big Five or the FFM such as the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) or NE O Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) that have various versions. Ashton and Lee hold that although such instruments are widely used and have psychometric quality the five-factor model has lim itations. Research reports and repeated results from around the world and from various languages poi nt to a sixth factor. And so it is the Ashton and Lee propose their six dimensional model with the following nomenclature: HonestyHumility (H), Emotionality (E), eXtraversion (X ), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O)The HEXACO Model. The questionnaire developed from this model is the HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO-PI). The measure has 24 facet-level personality trait scales. That is 4 for each of the six dimensions. It also has 32 items for each dimension. What follows is a description of Honesty-Humility dimension in particular and the HEXACO-IP in general.


63 Honesty-Humility and its Facets Ashton et al. (2004) report that a factor de fined by honesty, fairness, sincerity, m odesty and lack of greed has been obs erved in several studies. As mentioned above Ashton, Lee and Son (2000) named this Honesty but here they hold th at name did not completely cover the domain and suggest Honesty-Humility. They consider this one of the most important characteristics of the HEXACO model, and represents a major departure from the Big Five Model or the FiveFactor Model. They conceptualize the Honest-Humility dimensi on in terms of four distinct facets: 1) Sincerity, 2) Fairness, 3) Greed Avoidance and 4) Modesty. A brief definiti on of these scales is as follows: Sincerity: assesses a tendency to be genuine in interpersonal relationships. Low scores will flatter others or pretend to lik e them in order to obtain favors, whereas high scores are unwilling to manipulate others. Fairness: assesses a tendency to avoid fraud a nd corruption. Low scores are willing to gain by cheating or stealing, whereas high scores are unwilling to take advantage of other individuals or society at large. Greed Avoidance: assesses a tendency to be uninterested in po ssessing lavish wealth, luxury goods, and signs of high social status. Low scorers want to enjoy and to display wealth and privilege, whereas high scores ar e not especially motivated by monetary or social-status considerations. Modesty: assesses a tendency to be modest and unassumi ng, low scorers consider themselves as superior and as entitled to privileges that others do not have, whereas high scorers view themselves as ordinary pe ople without claim to special treatment. For the HEXACO-PI, Lee and Ashton (2004) repor t high internal consis tency reliabilities and adequate convergent validities with external variables. They tested the HEXACO-PI against five scales of Goldbergs (1999) International Personality Item Pool (IPIP).


64 Internal Consistency Reliabilities of the HEXACO-PI (Coefficient alpha) were found to be: Honesty-Humility Scale (.92), and for the four subscales: Sincerity (.79), Fairness (.85), Greed Avoidance (.87), Modesty (.83). Aston and Lee had expected to find significant gender difference in Honesty-Humility and found a consistent pattern of sizable gender differen ce (d = .59) in the same direction. This was highest in the subscale of Fair ness (d = .62) and Modesty (d = .71). It is note worthy that HEXACO-PI also showed a high gender differen ce (d = 1.01); women being higher than men in all these. Factor Analysis of HEXACO-PI Aston and Lee report: All the scales show ed their highest loading on the designated factors, and the sizes of the co rresponding factor loadings were large, ranging from .54 to .73. The factor loadings of the scale on non-loadi ng factors were genera lly small; none of the secondary loadings exceeded an absolu te value of .30 in this sample. Inter-Correlations among the factor-Level Scales: The low correlation among the factor level scales of HEXACOPI indicate that the scales are independent. This includes the low correlation of Honesty-Humility scale with the ot her scales and shows that the other factors do not represent this factor. Highest correlation (.28) was between Honest-Humility and conscientiousness. One important fact is the co rrelation between the f actor-level scales of HEXACO-PI is lower than Costa and McCreas (1992) NEO-PI-R and Goldbergs (1999) IPIPNEO or IPIP-Big Five scales. Convergent Validities of the HEXACO-PI Scales Ashton and Lee (2004) tested the convergent va lidities of the HEXACOPI scales against the scales of the established Measure IPIP (Goldberg, 1999) and The results showed high convergent validity of between .86 to .68. This shows that the scales have theoretically


65 meaningful relations with IPIP. The HEXACO-IP and IPIP scales correlated strongly with each others conceptually similar scales and not strong ly with others showing discriminant validity. The HEXACO-IP was also tested against the Primary Psychopathy (L evenson et al., 1995). For the purposes of the present research it needs be reported here that the Honesty-Humility showed high negative correlation of (-0.75) w ith Primary Psychopathy. Primary Psychopathy scale measures superficial charm, egocentricity, pathological lying, manipulation and lack of sincerity (Aston, Lee & Son, 2000). Interestingly, when their HonestyHumility scale was only Honesty the negative correlation with Primar y Psychopathy was lower (-0.45). In summary the HEXACO-PI shows good levels of internal consistency reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. Regarding Honesty-Humility as a marker, Ast on and Lee state, High levels of HonestyHumility are associated with a tendency to c ooperate even when one could exploit another individual who seems relativel y unlikely to retaliate. Aston and Lee (2005) report that many resear chers have conceptualized interpersonal behavior within two dimensions, that gr adually came to be equated with the Extravesion/Agreeablness plane of the Big Five. Ashton and Lee point to other less known researchers and hold that personali ty and interpersonal relationships are not so simple. They say that several lexical studies ha ve found there are more than two factors involved in the interpersonal circle. These studies point to four : Extraversion, Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality. Advantages of HEXACO-PI Ashton and Lee hold that although the agreeablen ess scale of NEO-PI-R has som e of the content of the Honesty-Humility scale there ar e areas that NEO-PI-R does not detecti.e. Fairness and Greed-Avoidance. These facets have no similar representation in the NEO-PI-R are


66 likely to have strong correlation with constructs like integrit y, Materialism, status seeking. Honesty-humility may better explain exploitive or deceptive behavior than the Five Factor Model. There is evidence of this in resent research. Honesty-Humility factor relates more strongly than the Big Five Factors to workplace deviance and sexual harassment (Lee, Ashton & Son, 2005; Lee, Gizzarone, & Ashton 2003). This predic tive gain was mainly due to inclusion of Honesty-Humility Factor in the measurement. There may be a concern that the facet scales of Honesty-humilityi.e. sincerity, fairness, modesty and greed avoidanceare desirable in some social contexts and therefore respondents may fake good on these and so the scores may increase when self report is for purpose of selection. There may be concern that the varian ce in personality reported by Honesty-Humility may be due to response style. This may not be a concern where there is no particular motivation to make a good impression. For example, in a study (Lee et al., 2003) particip ants provided self and peer ratings in the HonestyHumility scale and the IPIP-Big Five scale. The correlation for Honesty-Humility was .43, which is within the range of typical personality trait reports. Th e self/peer report for the Five Factor was between .27 (emotional st ability) and .48 (Extraversion). Ashton and lee state that In terms of cross-source correlations, HEXACO Honesty-Humility was the second highest, surpassed only by IPIP-Big Five Extraversion. Aston et al. (2004) conducted a more exhaustive review of st udies reporting a six factor. This review is new version of their afor ementioned cross-language study but after the introduction of the HEXACO-PI. Their review s hows that a similar six-factor model emerged across eight independent st udies from seven different languages. They also report that number of studies have tried to come up with a seven-factor solution to personality structure. They report


67 These results suggest there is li ttle consistency overall in the seven-factor solutions in these psycholexical studies. In othe r words, although intern ational lexical studies have reported a sixth factor instead of five factors non was ab le to show existence of a seventh factor. The seven languages included three from IndoEuropean language family (Germanic, Romance, and Slavic) and two Non-Indo-Europe an languages (Hungarian and Korean). They conclude The fact that a similar solution ha s occurred so many times, in such highly diverse languages, makes inconceivable that this pattern is merely due to chance. HonestyHumility Factors Re lations w ith other Variables Ashton et al. (2000) report that some personality traits do not correlate strongly with any of the Big Five dimensions, but they do so strong ly with Honesty-Humility. Specifically HonestyHumility substantially increased the explained va riance in such traits as Primary Psychopathy, Machiavellianism and social adroitness beyond the le vel that the Big Five factors could achieve. (p.338) Finally, I will report on a study by Ashton and Lee (2005) that investigated the relations of the Honest-Humility Factor with dimensions of the English Big Five and Five-Factor Model (FFM). The results showed that Honesty-Hu mility was substantially correlated with the Agreeableness of FFM. And this correlation was largely due to Straightforwardness and Modesty facets of the Agreeableness factor. As mentioned previously the Big Five Mode l was operationalized by Goldberg (1992) into the IPIP inventory and the FFM was operationa lized by Costa and McCrea (1985, 1992) via the Neo-PI-R. The Agreeableness dimension of NEO-PI-R c ontains two facets straightforwardness and Modesty. Straightforwardness assess es frankness, sincerity, avoida nce of manipulation, flattery, and trickery while Modesty assesses being unassuming, self-effacing, avoiding bragging and


68 expressing feelings of superiority. These two face ts of NEO-PI-R are suggestive of the HonestyHumility Factor and, and the authors hypothesize should correlate strongly with that. The authors also hypothesize these tw o facets correspond to traits that are weakly loaded on the Big Five Agreeableness factor and would be expected to correlate rather weakly with the markers of that factor. The results of the study showed both hypothese s to be correct; all Honesty-Humility subscales correlated significantly with the Ag reeableness of NEO-PI-R. Honesty-Humility Factor (.58), and the facets: Sincerity (.35), Fairness (.43), Gr eed-Avoidance (.36), and Modesty (.51). Agreeableness of IPIP Big Five did not correlate significantly with Honesty-Humility (.28). NEO-PI-I Agreeableness has six facets: Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, and Tender-mindedness. The highest co rrelation between these and Honesty-Humility Factor and its facets were: Honesty-Humility an d Straightforwardness (0.55), Honesty-Humility and Modesty (facet of Agreeableness) (0.42). The NEO-PI-R Straightforwardness also correlated well with Honesty-Humility Sincerity facet (.49), Fairness facet (.47). The authors also correlated Honesty-Humility with Social Adroitness scale (Jackson, 1970) that describes a style of social interaction that is intended to influen ce others indirectly, for example by flattering others or by pretending to like things. And, The Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974), that describes soci al confidence, conformity, and-of particular interest to the present researcha deceptive a nd affected style of interperso nal interaction. Most of the Honesty-Humility facets showed stronger negative correlation with Social adroitness than did NEO-PI-R. Honesty-Humility also showed a mu ch stronger negative co rrelation with Self-


69 Monitoring than did the NEO-PI-R. This show s the importance and utility of the HonestyHumility factor as an independent measure. The Universal Orientation Scale In view the above-m entioned qualities of a humb le person there seems to be a strong self and other dynamics at work. Whether it be seeing self and other as equally valuable, appreciating diversity, having a focus on community, coopera ting and harmonizing with others, not being judgmental, or lastly not being dogmatic. Th e Honesty-Humility measure does not seem to explicitly and with more nuances represent these qualities. This is the reason that the present work deems it proper to enlist the assistance of another measure the Universal Orientation Scale (Phillips & Ziller, 1997). It is a measure of perception of similarities between self and other rather than the differences. It is a measure of non-prejudice and correlates with a number of other measures of personal character such as ope n-mindedness, appreciation of multiplicity and dogmatism. Prejudice is taken as prior negative judgment of the members of a race or religion or occupants of any other social role. (cited from Jones 1981). Phillips and Ziller (1997) say: The study prejudice is a negative approach to the study of interp ersonal relations. (p.420) They say prejudice stands against in clusiveness. Their definition of non-prejudice is in line with Allports idea of habitual open-mindedness (cited from Billing, 1985). The non-prejudiced person is a tolerant personality who has no spec ial need to categorize quickly, nor persist in categorizations once made. (Allport, 1954, p 427) Such people are highly suspicious of labels, categories, and ethnic generalizations because of an awareness of the complexity and variety of human nature. (Phillips & Ziller, 1997) The authors points to the fact that in studies of prejudice the perception of differences between self and other(s) is assumed to be a universal and primary cognitive process that ultimately results in prejudice. (Phillips & Ziller, 1997, p 421) They object to this and hold that


70 there is nothing more basic in our thinking and la nguage than our sense of similarities between us. They hold that classification according to sim ilarities is fundamental to learning, judgment, connecting information and forming more holistic ideas and essential for integration. They quote Woike (1994) as conceptualizing integration as the process of connectin g oneself to others by seeing perceiver-object similarity. The authors al so point to research that suggest perceived similarity rather than actual similarity is the fundamental link to liking, helping, understanding, and even reduced prejudice. In other words, similari ty is in the eyes of the perceiver. Moreover, the perceiver is agentic in the sense that he or she can create the social environment to a degree by orienting towards, or selectivel y attending to similarities rather than differences between self and other. We refer to this interaction of pers onality and cognitive processes that are linked to the perception of similarities between self and other as uni versal orientation. (p. 421) According to the authors, universal orient ation is a habitual orientation to seeing similarities and commonalities between self and others and underlining or accenting those similarities. The authors developed a valid meas ure of universal orientationthe Universal Orientation Scale (UOS). The authors also tested the relation ship of the UOS with a number of other psychological instruments namely Do gmatism scale (Rokeach, 1960), Modern Racism (McConahay et al., 1981), Social Desirability (Crowne & Marlowe, 1966), HumanitarianismEgalitarianism Scales (Katz & Hass, 1988), Self Complexity Scale (Zill er, Martell & Morrison, 1977), and Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983). The results from the Social desirability showed participants did not tr y to reflect a positive image of self. The other results showed that UOS correlated negatively with dogmatism and modern racism. UOS correlated positively with Humanitarianism-Egalitarianism. Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983) in general correlated positively w ith UOS, but specifically three


71 of its subscales, that is, Em pathic Concern, Perspective-Taki ng, and Fantasy also correlated positively with UOS. The Self Complexity Scale (Ziller, Marte ll & Morrison, 1977) measures the number of facets a person identifies as repres entative of the self. It has five self-social schemas. They are as follows: Openness, Marginality, Heteroge neity, Non-hierarchy, a nd Self-Other unity. Openness refers to Perception of similarity betw een self and other presents fewer barriers between self and others and a greater probability of connections between self and others. Marginality refers to the tendency to perceive self as between separated groups rather then within either group. A marginal person does not pe rceive the self as belonging to one group to the exclusion of another. Heterogeneity refers to the preference to perceive self within a heterogeneous as opposed to homogeneous group of persons. This suggests: universally oriented persons are not threatened by dive rsity and may actually be attracted to it. Nonhierarchy refers to less concern with status. This is manifested opera tionally as the tendency to avoid arranging people schematically in a vertical order of social importance, category or rank and instead arranging people in terms of equal status. Self-Other Unity refers to integration of self and other. (p.425) The results showed positive relationship betw een UOS and all these subscales the highest correlation being with openness, heterogeneity and nonhierarchyin that orde r. As we have seen before, these qualities and others such as empathy, perspective taking and lack of dogmatism are qualities related to humility. In view of the previously mentioned studi es, the present study considers the HEXACOPIs Honesty-Humility Scale in combination with Universal Orientation Scale most appropriate for its purposes. What follows is a comparison of the findings from the literature on therapist


72 epistemology and its link to therapist qualities literature on humility and development of two measures of Honesty-Humility and universal orient ation. After that, the hypotheses of the present study will be postulated. Section Three: Importance of Humility In this sec tion the importance of humility fo r therapy will be delineated. Also in this section the relationship of humility to rationalism and constructivism will be discussed. Included in this section are the descriptions of qualities of a humble pe rson. Finally the hypothesis of the present work will be presented. Humility is an Important Quality for Therapi sts that is Supported by Constructivism The above studies of hum ility reveal it to be a complex construct. A humble person displays many characteristics such as self-awa reness and open-mindedness. He/she is flexible and holds an appreciation of complexity and di versity. He/she is activ e in his or her selfconstruction, maintains contextual awareness, takes the dynamic position of asking for help and advice and integrating new information, is coop erative, warm and empathic. A humble person does not feel superiority, is not boastful and is honest. But, is humility important and supported by therapists? The answer is yes. Corey (1996) st udied the personal charac teristics of effective counselors. He came up with a list of personal qu alities and characteristic s that are optimal for therapeutic work and personal growth of both ther apists and clients. Hi s findings support each and every characteristic of a humble person mentioned a bove. Since his approach was considerate of many perspectives in therapy it can be conclude d the qualities of a humble person is widely accepted by therapists but, as the following comparison suggests, humility is particularly supported by constructivist epistemology and not by rationalist epistemology. Let us look at some of the qualities of a humble pe rson and compare it with qualities related to constructivist and rationalist epistemologies.


73 Humility compared with Constructivist and Rationalist Qualities Self-awaren ess: Self-awareness as a characteristic of humility will be examined first. Selfawareness is seen as awarene ss of ones own stress and frus tration (Glicken, 1983; Wityk, 2002) and how one handles pressure (Jaffe, 1986). It entails the knowledge of ones own needs (Farber, 1990) and being aware of ones own boundaries and limitations (Farber & Heifetz, 1982). As the humility literature shows, the humble person is highly conscious of his or her own strengths and limits and is awar e of personal imperfections (E xline & Geyers, 2004). The humble individual knows her or his own limits and ta kes steps to better her/himself (Tangney, 2000). Therapists are called to be awar e of their thoughts and emotions as they interact with clients (Mahoney, 1995). Mahoney states that amongst vari ous theories of psyc hotherapy, constructivist theory places a particularly high demand on therapis ts to be self-aware and conscious of their power as they engage in therapy in order for clie nt to achieve deep leve ls of change and selfunderstanding. Aksoy (2005) found that rationalist therapists are gene rally not so inclined in the pursuit of self-awareness. In fact, she found a ne gative relationship betw een therapists with rationalist epistemology and this pursuit. Openness: Openness is another quality associated with humility. Costa and McCrea (1991) conceptualize this as openness to feelings, actions and values. It is receptiveness to inner feelings. It includes intellectua l curiosity. The work of McCrea and Costa (2003) suggests that openness is related to flexibility and tolerance of ambiguity. Low levels of openness are related to rigidity and an intolerance of ambiguity. The humility literature shows the humble display this quality to a high degree. The humble have an openness to change (Rowatt et al., 2002). They have an open and receptive mind, they are open to learning, open to admitting to mistakes, and they seek advice (Tangney, 2000). They are ope n to both change and generations of new knowledge (Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). In rega rd to how openness is related to flexibility,


74 inflexibility can be related to closed-m indedness, stubbornness and dogmatism. Berzonsky (1994) found the rationalist to be dogmatic and unyielding and the constructivist to be explorative and open to alternativ e ideas. One of the qualities of a humble person is a lack of stubbornness (Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). Aks oy (2005) demonstrated that constructivist therapists value and display this quality while rationalist therapists showed a negative association with this quality. Since openness also means being open to different people and different values (Berzosky, 1990), this implies that therapists who are more open to different values are more likely to be more tolerant of ambiguity a nd appreciative of human diversity (Aksoy ,2005). Appreciation of complexity and diversity: An appreciation of comple xity and diversity is related to tolerance for ambiguity when ambiguity is defined as how a person handles unfamiliar, complex and inconsistent information (Furham & Richester, 1995). Toleran ce of ambiguity also means how a person deals with the presence of multiple meanings, and dealing with shades of gray in life (Beitel et al., 2004) Chen and Hooijberg (2000) suggest that tolerance for ambiguity is positively associated with a tolerance of diversity. In other words, the less a person tolerates ambiguity, the less the person supports diversity. Toleration of ambiguity is highly valued by constructivist therapists (Mahoney, 1995). This is because constructivist therapists rely less on structure, preplanned goals and direction. Rather, such therapists view the course of therapy to be in a constant state of revision. The humility literature shows the humble to have a complex worldview because they avoid seeing others in dichotomous black and white terms (Tangney, 2000). In humility an all or nothing mentality is absent (Exline & Geyers, 2004). The humble appreciate the complexities of the world and do not shy away from complex issues. S(he) is open to new paradigms. S(he) is open to facing doubt and multiple points of view (Rowatt et al., 2002). In contrast to constructivis t therapists and humble indivi duals, the rationalist therapist


75 does not seem to appreciate diversity. Aksoy (2005) found a negative relationship between therapists with a rationa list epistemology and their tolerance for diversity. Active: The work of Babbage and Ronan (2000) s uggests that those who subscribe to a constructivist epistemology tend to be active in their self-con structions. In comparison, the humility literature shows that th e humble is not passive, but ve ry active and dynamic in pursuit of personal development and grow th (Exline & Geyers 2004). In contrast, Johnson et al. (1988) showed that rationalists view the person to be determined by circumstance, and as a passive reactor to his/her environment. Contextual awareness and holism: As Mahoney (1995) has conceptualized, for the constructivist therapist the integration of experience takes place holistically, rather in a delimited and predetermined manner. Such a therapist cons iders the individual as part of a social and historical context. As Berzonsky (1994) found, constructivists are open to environmental evidence. The constructivists have a holistic and contextual approach where the known world is an active construction of the know er-in-context (Johnson et al., 1988) The humble are the same. The humble have a holistic and incl usive worldview and see the self holistically and contextually (Tangney, 2000). The humble are actively engage d with the environment for self-betterment (Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). In contrast, th e rationalists perceive a sharp distinction between internal and external worlds (Mahoney & Gabreil, 1987). For them, the person is separate from the social environment (Johnson et al., 1988). Their awarene ss of environment is not holistic or unified. The dynamic position of asking for help a nd advice and integrating new information: Berzonsky (1994), as mentioned before, found that constructivists act like scientists in the pursuit of self-identity. That is, they hypothesize, gather data and te st their theories. This is the


76 way the humble lead their life; they are open to and invite criticism they are not attached to one way of doing things, they are open to change, an d they support the generation of new knowledge and varied paths of learning (V era & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). Su ch a dynamic, active, creative and purposive view of humans is absent in rationalist epistemo logy. They are less energetic, and uninterested in novel ways of being or knowing (Babbage & Ronan, 2000). They are conservative, traditional and have a negativ e view regarding the power of human agency (Johnson et al., 1988). Cooperativeness and acceptance of people: There are a number of other qualities of a humble person that are valued by therapists. For example, Cloninger, Svrakic and Pryzbeck (1993) conceptualized social tole rance as a basis for a persons cooperativeness, and linked it to accepting people as they are. Cooperation (V era & Rodriguez-Lopez 2004) and accepting people as they are (Sandage, 2001) both constitute qualities of a humble person. Rationalists are non-cooperative but rather adam ant (Babbage & Ronan, 2000). Warmth and empathy: Johnson et al. (1988) found that the individual adhering to mechanistic (rationalist) epistemology to be cold and self-centered, while the individual adhering to the organismic (constructivist) epistemology was found to be warm and empathic. The humble are perceived as kind and car ing (Tangney, 2000, Vera & Rodri guez-Lopez, 2004)) and they have empathy for others (Worthington, 1998; Exli ne & Geyers, 2004; Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). In contrast, rationalists were found to be cold, not empathic but rather self-centered (Johnson et al., 1988). Honesty, non-boastfulness and not feeling superiority: As the work for the development of the HEXACO-PI personality measure shows, honesty and humility are inseparable. As mentioned before, Babbage and Ronan (2000) used the NEO-PI personality measure for their


77 investigation. One of the five factors therein is Agreeableness. Agreeableness contains two subscales that have items pert aining to sincerity, avoidance of bragging, and experiences of superiority. Babbage and Ronan found a positive relation for the constructivists and the Agreeableness factor and a negative relation for the rati onalists. That is, th e constructivists are more sincere, less inclined to bragging, and do not e xperience themselves as superior to others in comparison to rationalists. The humility literature shows the humble to be honest (Exline & Geyers, 2004; Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004), not boastful (Exline & Geyers, 2004) and having less feelings of superiority to others (Tangney, 2000; Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). The above review and comparison of research l iterature seem to sugge st that the qualities linked to constructivist epistemology are consis tent with the important quality of humility and that constructivist epistemology supports greater humility. This does not seem to be true of rationalist epistemology. Such conclusions br ing the present study to propose a number of hypotheses and offer methods of testing these hypotheses. The Hypotheses In view of the literature about relationship of therapis t epistem ic style and personal qualities, the literature studying humility, and the recent development of a measure of humility and a related measure of universal orientati on, the present study propose three hypotheses as follows: 1) Therapists higher commitment to constructivist epistemology is related to more humility and therapists higher commitment to rationalist epistemology is related to less humility, 2) Therapists higher commitment to constructivist epistemology is related to more universal orientation and therap ists higher commitment to rationa list epistemology is related to less universal orientation, and 3) The Honesty-Humility measure correlates positively with the Universal Orientations Scale. The next chapter discusses the method of testing these three hypotheses.


78 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Participants The sam ple consisted of 586 therapists (345 female, 241 male) with a mean age of 36.86 (SD = 8.28). The sample was primarily Caucasian, 84.0% (N = 521), followed by Hispanic, 3.5% (N = 22), African American, 2.3% (N = 14), Asian American, 1.0% (N = 6), Multiracial, 1.1% (N = 7), and American Indian/Native Am erican, 0.2 % (N= 1), and other, 2.3% (N= 14). The majority of the participants were from U.S., 91.1% (N= 565), whereas 2.4% (N= 15) were from Canada and 0.2% (N= 4) were from other countries. Participants were asked to i ndicate the level of their highest degree, which consisted of primarily Ph.D., 64.5% (N = 400), followed by Psy.D., 15.0% (N = 93), M.A./M.S., 7.6% (N = 47), Ed.D., 1.9% (N = 12), M.S.W., 1.3% (N =8), BA/BS, 0.2% (N = 1), and Other, 3.1% (N = 19). Participants were additionally asked about their specialty area s with the majority indicating that they were psychologists, 83.4% (N = 517) fo llowed by mental health counselors, 3.9% (N = 24), marriage and family therapists, 2.3% (N = 14 ), social workers, 1.0% (N = 6), psychiatrist, 0.2% (N = 1), and other, 3.9% (N = 24). Mean number of years in clinical practice was 19.74, and ranged between 1 and 52 (SD=11.01). When asked about their primary employment setti ng, the largest percentage of participants indicated they were in private practice, 45.0% (N = 279), followed by a hospital, 10.6% (N = 66), mental health care, 9.7% (N = 66), uni versity academic department, 7.3% (N = 45), university service delivery department, 5.8% (N = 36), community center, 3.2% (N = 20), school, 2.3% (N = 14), correctiona l facility, 1.6%(N=10), research, 0.5 % (N=3), and other, 11.7% (N = 134).


79 Procedures Mem bers from these divisions or organizations were sent an online survey containing an informed consent, a brief demographics sheet, and the three instruments (HEXACO-PI H-H, UOS, TAQ-SF). Participants were asked to re ad and sign the informed consent form. Once participants completed the questionnaires and su bmitted their responses, they were directed to read a short debriefing that desc ribed the nature of the study. Instruments Honesty-Humility Scale: HEXACO-PI As m entioned previously, this scale assesses the closely relate d constructs of Honesty and Humility. It measures tendencies such as being genuine or fraudulent, pretending to like other or unwillingness to manipulate, tendency to live simply or luxuriously, Motivation for social status, considering self superior to othe rs and entitled to privileges or viewing self as ordinary. The scale has 32 items8 for each subscale. The partic ipants are asked to determine the degree to which they endorse the statements on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Sample Items include If there is some chance of improving my social status I take big risks And Sometimes I feel laws should not apply to someone like me. Internal consistency reliabilities of the HEXACO-PI (Coefficient alpha) were found to be: HonestyHumility Scale (.92), and for the four subscales: Sincerity (.79), Fairne ss (.85), Greed Avoidance (.87), Modesty (.83). Universal Orientation Scale The Universal Orientation Scale (UOS), deve loped by Phillips and Ziller (1997), consists of twenty verbal items. Participants rate each it em on a 5-point Likert scale 1 (Does not describe me well) to 5 ( Describes me we ll). The internal reliabilities co efficient (Cronbachs alpha) was reported to be .76 and a six-week test-retest re liability check was .75 (P hillips & Ziller, 1997). It


80 has items that indicate seeing no difference betw een self and other coup led with a universal expansive vision (e.g. At one level of thinking we a ll of a kind, or The same spirit dwells in everyone) and the opposite (e.g. Little difference amongst people means a lot) The UOS has correlated significantly but negatively with D ogmatism and Modern Racism and positively with Davis measure of empathy (Davis, 1983). It was shown that the UOS is associated with being less evaluative of others and preferring heterogeneous to hom ogeneous composition (Phillips and Ziller, 1997). Construct validity st udies of the instrument conclude that the UOS is a valid measure of non-prejudice and tolerance or, even more generally of the peace personality. Therapist Attitudes Ques tionnaire-Short Form The TAQ-SF, developed by G. Neim eyer and Mo rton (1997), is a revision of the Therapist Attitudes Questionnaire (TAQ) developed by Di sGiuseppe and Linscott (1993). The TAQ-SF measures philosophical, theoretical, and technica l dimensions of rationa list and constructivist therapies. The instrument is self-administered, contains 16 items, eight items pertaining to a Rationalist commitment (e.g., Realit y is singular, stable and extern al to human experience) and eight items pertaining to a Constr uctivist commitment, (e.g., Reality is relative. Realities reflect individual or collective construc tions of order to ones experien ces), and requires approximately 5 minutes to complete. Respondents are asked to rate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly 26 agree). The TAQ-SF re plicates the basic factor stru cture of the original TAQ and has shown its predictive validity by predicting the th erapeutic identifications and descriptions of a group of practicing professionals (G. Neimeyer & Morton, 1997). TAQ-SF scores in the present study yielded a Cronbachs alpha of .72 for rationalist sc ale and a Cronbachs alpha of .63 for the constructivist scale.


81 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Results from the current study are describe d below. First, measurem ent issues are discussed. This is followed by descriptive information regarding the psychometrics and relationship among the variables of interest, next is the multiple re gression analyses that address each of the predictions concerning the relation of humility and universal orientation to epistemic style. Finally the relationship between humility and universal orientation is described. Descriptive and Preliminary Analyses Multiv ariate analyses of vari ance were conducted on the 3 meas ures used in the current study (TAQ-SF, H-H, and UOS) suggest ed that there were no differe nces in the mean scores of the variables of interest among the si x types of questionnaire forms (all ps > .001). Thus for all analyses, the data from six different forms were combined. Analyses of Variance conducted to test for gender difference in H-H and UOS s uggested there is gender difference for the H-H measure. Females scored significantly higher than males for H-H. This is consistent with previous reports (Lee & Ashton, 2004). For the TAQ-SF, t-test analyses revealed gender differences in constructivism and rationalism scores. Males scored higher than females for rationalism and females scored high er than males for constructivism. This is also consistent with previous reports (Aksoy, 2005). Measurement Reliability Measurem ent reliabilities for the TAQ-SF, H-H, and UOS scores appear in Table 4-1. Cronbachs coefficient alpha for the TAQ-SF was .70 for the rationalist subscale and .64 for the constructivist subscale. This is comparable to previous report s (G. Neimeyer & Morton, 1997). Reliability for the H-H indicated an alpha level of .85 for the whole Honesty-Humility scale, and an alpha level of .67 for the Sincer ity subscale, .66 for the Fairness subscale, .80 for


82 the Greed subscale, .77 for the Modesty subscale. This is somewhat comparable with Lee and Ashton (2004) report of reliabilities for the HEXACO-PI: the Honesty-Humility Scale (.92), and for the four subscales: Sincerity (.79), Fairness (.85), Greed Avoida nce (.87), and Modesty (.83). Reliability findings for the UOS revealed a Cronbachs coefficient alpha of .79 for the scale. This is also comparable to Phillips a nd Ziller (1994) finding Cronbachs coefficient alpha of .76 and a test-retest re liability check that yielded an alpha of .75. Correlational Analyses Person Product Mom ent correlations, using a criterion level of .05 (2-tailed), were computed between the two epistemology subscale s (Rationalist and Constructivist) and each of the criterion variables in an attempt to confirm that the relationships were in the predicted directions. A Pearson Product Moment correlation was first conducted between the H-H and the TAQ-SF to verify that therapists with highe r scores on the rationalis t epistemology subscale scored lower on the H-H compared to therapis ts with higher scores on the constructivist epistemology subscale. Most results were in th e predicted directions, revealing a negative and modest correlation between the TAQ-SF rationalist subscale and all of the H-H subscales, and a positive correlation between the TAQ-SF constructivist subscale and two of the H-H subscales. Additionally, a Pearson Product Moment correlation was conducted on the TAQ-SF rationalist and constructivist subscales to justify their use as two separa te continuous subscale scores, r = 0.17, P < .001. For H-H Subscales, the TAQ-SF rationalist subscale was negatively, although modestly, correlated with the Sincerity ( r = -0.14, p < .001) and Fairness ( r = -0.16, p < .007) subscales. The rationalist subscale was also nega tively correlated with the Greed ( r = -0.19, p < .001), Modesty ( r = -0.20, p < .001) subscales.


83 The TAQ-SF constructivist subscale was positiv ely, although modestly, correlated with the sincerity (r = 0.16, P = .001), and modesty ( r = -0.18, p < .001). The constructivist subscale was not positively correlate d with the Fairness ( r = 0.04, p < .23) and Greed (r = 0.06, p < .14) subscales. These two correlations we re not significant. See Table 4-2. As for the UOS, the TAQ-SF rationalist subscale did not correlate with it ( r = -0.06, p < .112). This relationship was not a significant The TAQ-SF construc tivist subscale was positively, although modestly, correlated with UOS ( r = 0.16, p < .001) in the predicted direction. See Table 4-2. Finally, all the H-H subscal es and UOS were positively, and modestly, correlated: Sincerity and UOS ( r = 0.09, p < .02) and Fairness and UOS ( r = 0.16, p < .000) the Greed Avoidance and UOS ( r = 0.15, p < .000), Modesty and UOS ( r = 0.19, p < .000). Regression Analyses In order to a ssess the capacity of the data to be in line with the normality assumptions of multiple regression, the data was subjected to te sts of skewness and kurtosis. Results of these analyses indicate that the assumptions for mu ltivariate normalcy were met. All skewness and kurtosis estimates for the variables fell between 1 and -1 except for the Fairness subscale, which had a kurtosis value of 1.84. Please see Table 4-3 fo r overall means and standard deviations for each of the measures. Hypothesis 1 The first hy pothesis concerned therapist epis temology as a predictor of Honesty-Humility. More specifically, it posited that a therapists higher commitment to constructivist epistemologies would be relate d to tendency to more sincerity fairness, less greed and more modesty and a therapists higher commitment to rationalist epistemology w ould be related to a lower tendency to these four qualities. Thus, fo r the first hypothesis, a multiple linear regression


84 analysis was conducted to determine if therapis t epistemology was a significant predictor of the criterion variables using the four subscales of the Honesty-Humility (sincerity, fairness, greed, and modesty). Separate regression analyses we re conducted for each of the four H-H scores measuring honesty-humility. Please see Table 4-4. As was previously described, epistemology was operationalized as two separa te continuous subscale scores (ratio nalist and constructivist) in all regression analyses. Sincerity: The epistemology scores accounted for a modest variation in sincerity scores, F (2, 564) = 11.58, p < .001 ( R = .039). The standardized beta coefficient for the rationalist epistemology ( = -.116) was in the negative directi on, although modest, for the sincerity subscale, t (564) = -2.75, p < .006. The standardized beta coefficient for the constructivist epistemology ( = 0.142) was modest and in the positive direction for the sincerity subscale, t (564) = 3.39, p < .001. The direction of effect suggested that the more a therapist was inclined toward rationalist epistemology, the less likely that therapist was inclined toward sincerity and the more a therapist was inclined toward constructivist epistemology, the more likely that therapist was inclined toward sincerity. This tentatively supported the hypothesis that a therapists leaning toward rationalist epistemology tends less towards Honesty-Humility and a therapists leaning to ward constructivist ep istemology tends more towards Honesty-Humility. Fairness: Epistemology was partially a significant predictor of the Honesty-Humility along the Fairness subscale, F (2, 567) = 7.98, p < .000 ( R = .027). The standardized beta coefficient ( = -0.162) was significant and modest for the rationalist epistemology t (567) = -3.85, p < .000 and in the negative direction, whereas the standardized beta coefficient for the constructivist epistemology ( = 0.017), was not significant t (567) = 0.40, p < .69 along the Fairness subscale.


85 This supported the hypothesis that a therapist leaning toward rationa list epistemology tends less towards fairness on the Fairness subscale, whereas, it did not support the hypothesis that a therapist leaning toward cons tructivist epistemology tends to wards greater fairness on the Fairness subscale. The prediction regarding the di rection for constructivist epistemology was not correct. Greed Avoidance: Epistemology was partially a signifi cant predictor of Honesty-Humility along the Greed Avoidance subscale, F (2, 566) = 12.13, p < .001 ( R = .041). The significant but modest standardized beta coefficient ( = -0.195) for the ra tionalist epistemology, t (566) = -4.65, p < .001, was in the negative direction whereas the standardized beta coefficient ( = 0.030) for the constructivist epistemology was not significant, t (566) = .70, p < .48, along the Greed Avoidance subscale. This provided provisional support for the hypothesis that a therapists leaning toward rationalist ep istemology tends towards more Greed on the Greed Avoidance subscale but it did not su pport the hypothesis that a therapists leaning toward constructivist epistemology tends towards less Greed on th e Greed Avoidance subs cale. The prediction regarding the direction for construc tivist epistemology was not correct. Modesty: Epistemology was a significant predictor of Honesty-Humility along the Modesty subscale, F (2, 565) = 19.24, p < .000 ( R = .064). The significant but modest standardized beta coefficient ( = -0.171) for the rationalist epistemology t (565) = -4.14, p < .000, was in the negative direction; whereas th e significant but modest standardized beta coefficient ( = 0.157) for the constructivist epistemology t (565) = 3.78, p < .000, was in the positive direction along the Modesty subscale. This provided provisional support for the hypothesis that a therapists lean ing toward rationalist epistemo logy tends less toward modesty


86 on the Modesty subscale, and a therapists leaning toward constructivist epistemology tends more toward modesty on the Modesty subscale. Hypothesis 2 According to the second hypothesis a ther apists greater com mitment to rationalist epistemologies would be related to less tendency towards universal orientation whereas a greater commitment to the constructivist epistemologies would be related to more tendency to universal orientation. Another multiple linear regression anal ysis was conducted to determine if the same predictor variable (therapist ep istemology) would influence therap ists ratings of the criterion variables (univers al orientation). Epistemology was partially a significant pred ictor of therapist emphasis on the Universal Orientation, F (2, 536) = 9.06, p < .001 ( R = .03). The standardized beta coefficient for the rationalist epistemology ( = -0.05) was not significant t (536) = -1.18, p < .23. The significant but modest standardized beta coefficient ( = 0.16) for the constructivist epistemology, t (536) = 3.82, p < .000, was in the positive direction. The results were inconsistent with the hypothesis that the therapists higher commitment to ra tionalist epistemology would be related to a significantly less emphasis on univers al orientation. However, the di rection of the effect for the constructivist epistemology was according to the hypothesis. Th at is, a therapists higher commitment to constructivist epistemology w ould be related to an emphasis on universal orientation. Hypothesis 3 The third and final analysis was designed to address the prediction that H onesty-Humility measure correlates positively with Universal Orie ntation. More specifical ly, that a therapists higher commitment to Universal Orientation woul d be related to a therapists higher leaning toward the Sincerity, Fairness, Greed and Modesty subscales of the Honest-Humility measure.


87 Person Product Moment correlations, using a criterion level of .05 (2-tailed), were computed between the Honesty-Humility subscales (Sincerity, Fairness, Greed and Modesty) and Universal Orientation Scale in an attempt to conf irm that the relationships were in the predicted directions. As mentioned previously the re sults were in the predicted di rections suggesting a modest and positive correlation between the Honesty-Hum ility subscales and the Universal Orientation Scale. The results were as follows: Sincerity and UOS (r = 0.09, p < .02) and Fairness and UOS ( r = 0.16, p < .000) the Greed Avoidance and UOS ( r = 0.15, p < .000), Modesty and UOS ( r = 0.19, p < .000). Please see Table 4-2 for all correlation analyses. Table 4-1: Internal consistencie s for the TAQ-SF, H-H, and UOS. Scale N Alpha P-Value TAQ-Rational 587 .70 .001 TAQ-Constructivist 593 .64 .001 H-H-Sincerity 593 .67 .001 H-H-Fairness 597 .66 .001 H-H-Greed Avoid. 596 .80 .001 H-H-Modesty 594 .77 .001 H-H-Total 563 .85 .001 UOS 557 .79 .001 Table 4-2: Pearson correlations for therapis t epistemology, honesty-humility, and universal orientation. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.TAQ-R 2.TAQ-C -.174 ** 3.H-H-S -.147** .163** 4.H-H-F -.160** .047 .310** 5.H-H-G -.194** .061 .329** .318** 6.H-H-M -.200** .183** .300** .388** .460** 7.UOS -.068 .164** .099* .161** .156** .193** Note: TAQ-R = Therapist Assumption Questionnaire -Rationalism; TAQ-C = Therapist Assumption Questionnaire Constructivism; H-H-S = HonestyHumility scaleSincerity; H-HF = HonestyHumility scaleFairness; H-H-G = HonestyHumility scale-Greed; H-H-M = HonestyHumility scale-Modesty; UOS = Universal Orientation Scale P<.05, ** P<.01


88 Table 4-3: Means and standard deviations for therapist ep istemology, honesty-humility, and universal orientation. Variable N M SD Min. Max. Skewness Kurtosis N of items 1.TAQR 587 22.46 5.36 8.00 38.00 -0.50 -0.12 8 2.TAQC 596 33.48 3.59 19.00 40.00 -0.55 0.51 8 3.H-HS 593 29.84 4.45 18.00 40.00 -1.77 -0.41 8 4.H-HF 597 34.67 4.80 12.00 40.00 -1.18 2.047 8 5.H-HG 596 29.87 5.35 9.00 40.00 -0.43 0.13 8 6.H-HM 594 32.87 4.96 17.00 36.00 -0.72 -0.68 8 7.UOS 557 72.64 7.97 34.00 99.00 -1.46 1.08 20 Note: TAQ-R = Therapist Assumption Questionnaire -Rationalism; TAQ-C = Therapist Assumption Questionnaire Constructivism; H-H-S = HonestyHumility scaleSincerity; H-HF = HonestyHumility scaleFairness; H-H-G = HonestyHumility scale-Greed; H-H-M = HonestyHumility scale-Modesty; UOS = Universal Orientation Scale Table 4-4: Results of Multiple regression analyses on the five dependent variables. Variable t R2 F df1 df2 R2 f2 Dependent Variable: Honesty Humility scaleSincerity TAQ-R -.11 -2.75* TAQ-C .14 3.39** .039 11.58 2 564 .039 .04 Dependent Variable: Honesty Humility scaleFairness TAQ-R -.162 -3.85* TAQ-C .017 .40 .027 7.98 2 567 .027 .01 Dependent Variable: Honesty Hum ility scaleGreed Avoidance TAQ-R -.19 -4.65** TAQ-C .03 .70 .041 12.13 2 566 .041 .04 Dependent Variable: Honesty Humility scaleModesty TAQ-R -.17 -4.14** TAQ-C .15 3.78* .064 19.24 2 565 .064 .04 Dependent Variable: Univ ersal Orientation Scale TAQ-R -.05 -1.18 TAQ-C .16 3.82** .03 9.06 2 536 .03 .03 Note: TAQ-R = Therapist Assumption Questionnaire -Rationalism; TAQ-C = Therapist Assumption Questionnaire Constructivism *p < .01 **p < .001


89 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This discussion section is divided into three p arts. In the first pa rt the hypotheses and findings of the study are reviewed. In the second part explanations of the findings are presented. These findings are presented within the context of the current literature on therapists epistemologies in relation to therapist qualities as well as the literature on the qualities of humility and universal orientation. The importan ce and implications of the findings are also discussed there. Finally, streng ths and limitations of the present study are reported along with suggestions for future research. Summary of the Results This study investigated the relationship betw een therapists epistem ological assumptions (rationalist versus constructivist) and therapists qualities of humility an d universal orientation. The specific questions in this study included: 1) Is therapists greater commitment to constructivist epistemology supportive of the qua lity of humility while therapists commitment to rationalist epistemology less supportive of the quality of the humility? That is, does a therapists epistemology predict a therapists hu mility? 2) Is therapists greater commitment to constructivist epistemology supportiv e of the quality of universal orientation while therapists commitment to rationalist episte mology less supportive? That is, does a therapists epistemology predict a therapists universal orientation? 3) Is the Honesty-Humility measure related positively with the Universal Orientation Scale? Each of these three questions wi ll now be discussed in more detail in relation to th e findings of the present study. Overall, therapists epistemol ogies (rationalist vers us constructivist) were found to be a significant but modest predictor of therapists hu mility and universal orientation. In particular, the findings provide provisional support for the idea that there are specific differences in the


90 humility and universal orientation of the therapis t according to his or her epistemic assumptions. More specifically, th e current study found significant but m odest support for the notion that therapists who were committed more to rationalist epistemology tended toward the negative direction of the Sincerity, Fairness, Greed Avoidance and Modesty subscales on the HonestyHumility Measure. At the same time, therapists that committed more to constructivist epistemology tended toward the positive direction of the Sincerity and Modesty subscales of the Honesty-Humility Measure. Additionally, there was significant but modest support for the idea that therapists who committed more to constr uctivist epistemologies tended to be more universally oriented. Finally, it was found that the Honesty-Hum ility measure is positively related to the Universal Orientation Scale and what it represen ts. More specifically, the Sincerity, Fairness, Greed Avoidance and Modesty subscales of th e Honesty-Humility Measure positively, although modestly, related to the Universal Orientation Scale that represents constructs such as nonprejudice, non-dogmatism, and open-mindedness. The sum of these findings are valuable when considering the differences between a therapists rationalist versus constructivist epistemologies that are, in turn, related to important qualitie s for a therapist to have, such as humility and universal orientation. Discussion of Results within th e Context of Current Literature In this sec tion the relationship between ther apist epistemology and therapist qualities will be discussed first. Then the relationship betw een rationalist epistemology and the quality of humility will be considered followed by a discussion of the importance and implications of these findings for therapy. After that the relationshi p between constructivist epistemology and the quality of humility will be discussed followed by a discussion of the relationship between


91 humility and universal orientation. Finally, th e importance and implication of the findings regarding the relationship of constructivist epistemology and humility will be discussed. Relationship between Therapist Epis temology and Therapist Qualities One goal of the present study was to invest igate the relationship between therapists epistem ology and personal qualities of humility and universal orientation according to the asserted hypotheses. These hypotheses we re informed by relevant literature. As mentioned before, a number of studies have established the link between the epistemological orientations and qualities of therapists (Johnson et al., 1988; Babbage & Ronan, 2000; Berzonsky, 1990; Neimeyer et al., 1993; Mahoney, 1995; Aksoy, 2005). The present study reviewed this literature linking therapist epistemology and ther apist personal qualities. The literature regarding the quality of humility was then reviewed (Tangney, 2000; Exline & Geyers, 2004; Sandage, et al., 2001; Rowatt et al., 2002; Vera & Rodriguiz-Lopez, 2004; Ashton & Lee 2004). In addition, the literature about the personal qualities of effective therapists was studied. As mentioned previously, Corey (199 6) has assembled a list of sixt een therapist qualities that are optimal for the therapeutic work and personal gr owth of therapists. This was reported in the second chapter of this work. These qualities supp ort and fit the qualities of a humble person and underline the fact that humility is an impor tant quality for therapists to possess. The literature addressing the relationship betwee n therapist epistemology and therapist qualities lends itself to the results of this study. A comparison of the results about the relationship of therapist epistemology, therapist qualities and the quality of humility suggested that there might be a negative relationship be tween therapists commitments toward rationalist epistemology and the quality of humility. In addition, the comparison sugge sted that there might be a positive relationship between therapists commitment towards cons tructivist epistemology and the quality of humility.


92 Relationship between Rationalist Epis temolo gy and the Quality of Humility Some of the qualities related to the ra tionalist epistemology included being rigid, hardheaded, skeptical, competitive and proud (Ba bbage & Ronan, 2000), as well as conventional and conforming (Johnson et al., 1988). In addition, rationalist qualities included submission to the orders, explanations and di ctates of others, and an adhe rence to social determinism (Berzonsky, 1990;1994). They also included be ing normative-oriented and evaluative (Berzonsky, 1990; Neimeyer et al., 1993), less to lerant of ambiguity, and less accepting of diversity (Mahoney, 1995; Aksoy 2005). In contrast, some of the qualities linked to humility were being willing to accept ones mistakes, being open-minded, and not being boast ful (Tangney, 2000). They also included a lack of self-righteousness (Row att et al., 1998), an avoidance of passivity or submissiveness, autonomy, a knowledge of ones imperfections, a nd an absence of allor-nothing mentality (Exline & Geyers, 2004). Finally, these qualities also included an openness to change, an openness to facing doubts, non-attachment to one way of doing things, and an appreciation of complexity (Vera & Rodriguiz-Lopez, 2004). In the present study the hypothesis for the li nk between rationalist epistemology and the quality of humility was that the more a therapist adheres to a rational epistemology, the less s(he) leans towards humility. The prediction of the hypothesis was modestly supported by the data. The relationship between therapists rationalist epistemology and all four components of the Honesty-Humility measure was in the negative di rection. The strongest of these relationships was between rationalist epistemology and the two subscales of the Honesty-Humility measure that represented humility. These were the Mode sty and Greed Avoidance subscales. Modesty is reversely represented by items such as: I deserve mo re influence and authority than most other people do, I am special and superior in many wa ys, and, Sometimes I feel that laws should


93 not apply to someone like me. The results suggest ed that the more a therapist tended toward a rationalist epistemology, the more the ther apist tended to subscr ibe to these items. Greed Avoidance is reversely represented with items such as: I prefer to have high-status, successful people as my friends, I would get a lot of pleasure from owning expensive luxury goods, and, If there is some chance of improving my social status, I take big risks. The results again suggested that the more a therapist was oriented toward a rationalist epistemology, the more a therapist tended to subscribe to these items. The two other subscales of the Honesty-Hum ility measure are the Sincerity and Fairness subscales. The Sincerity subscale assesses the tendency to be genuine in interpersonal relationships, to avoid flattering or pretending to like others in order to obtain favors, and to be unwilling to manipulate others. The Fairness subs cale assesses a tendency to avoid fraud and corruption. Low scorers on this s ubscale are willing to gain by ch eating or stealing, whereas high scorers are unwilling to take advantage of other individuals, or society at large. Sincerity is reversely represented by items such as: I dont see anything wrong with flattery, and, I sometimes make people feel guilty so that they will do what I want. Fairness is reversely represented by items such as: I wouldnt feel ba d about deceiving people who allow themselves to be deceived, and, I would be tempted to buy stolen property if I were financially tight. Therapists rationalist epistemology related negatively, al though modestly with these two subscales. Importance and Implications for Therapy W hat are the implications when a therapist is not humble? What if a therapist is hardheaded, proud, conforming, submitting to the dictates of others, believing in social determinism, intolerant of ambiguity and unaccepti ng of diversity? One of the most basic skills in therapy is the ability to listen. As Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez (2004) indicated, not being


94 humble and having an inflated ego makes one deaf, dumb and b lind (p. 404). Being hardheaded and stubborn does not allow learning to take plac e. As Corey (1996) suggests openness is one of the important qu alities that an effective counselor needs to possess. Costa and McCrea (2003) suggest that openness is related to flexibility and a tolerance for ambiguity. Tolerance for ambiguity means how a person deal s with multiple meanings, such as dealing with shades of gray in life (Beitel et al., 2004). As most ther apists will agree there are many shades of gray in therapy situ ations. Tolerance for ambiguity is also related to tolerance for diversity (Chen & Hooijberg, 2000). Appreciation of diversity is one of the qualities enumerated by Corey (1996) as a desired quality for therapists. This is particularly important when considering that demographic dive rsity is a hallmark of todays world. Multiculturalism is now a required course of study and integrated in most if not all, current psychology textbooks and university programs. Aksoy (2005) re ports that rationalist epistemo logy does not positively relate to the acceptance of diversity. Another quality important for therapists is ope nness to asking for help and advice (Corey, 1996). As reported above, pride is positively rela ted with rationalist epistemology (Babbage & Ronan, 2000). Pride will prevent a person from ad mitting ignorance or asking for help. This stands against the importance of consultation with other therapists, which is a tenet of counseling psychology. This tenet is taught and emphasized repeatedly in all tr aining programs for therapists. Honesty is another one of the qualities highl y valued in a therapist. Honesty, as the research of Ashton and Lee (1999) has shown, is inseparable from humility. Babbage and Ronan (2000) reported a negative relationship between rationalist epistemology and sincerity, and the present research confirms this finding by th e negative relationship between rationalist


95 epistemology and Sincerity and Fairness subscales of the Honesty-Humility measure. These findings highlight what the current literature s uggests regarding differe nces between rationalist and constructivist epistemology in relation to important qualities for a therapist to possess, and the quality of humility, in particular. They can guide therapist to more carefully consider their epistemological orientation and how it affects their therapy work. Relationship between Constructivist Ep istemology and the Qu ality of Humility The qualitie s related to constructivist epistemology included being efficient, flexible, imaginative, empathic, tolerant, as well as havi ng social presence, self-acceptance, and being autonomous (Johnson et al., 1988). They also included being good-natu red, being eager to cooperate, and having broad interests (Babba ge & Ronan, 2000). Qualities related to a constructivist epistemology also included being normative-oriented while also being diffuseoriented, being open to alternat ive constructions, and having an autonomous interpersonal style (Berzonsky, 1990; Neimeyer et al., 1 993). Regarding self concept, c onstructivists tend to gather data, analyze and change the self, and cope by seeking social support (Berzonsky, 1994). They are open to many versions of reality, accept divers ity, tolerate ambiguity, are aware of their own constructs, inner processes and emotions, and they avoid interfering with others (Mahoney, 1995). Finally, they pursue self-awareness, attend to emotions, have a social tolerance for diversity, and are open to experience (Aksoy, 2005). The qualities linked to humility were flexibil ity, empathy, eagerness to listen to others (Rowatt et al., 2002; Worthingt on,1998), self-acceptance, aut onomy (Exline & Geyers, 2004), and having a universal consciousne ss (Sandage et al., 2001). Other qualities included an ability to ask for advice, cooperation, openness to ch ange, acknowledgement of ones own limits, a respect for others, and an openness to new paradigms (Vera & Rodriguiz-Lopez 2004).


96 In the present study the hypothesis for the link between constructivist epistemology and the quality of humility posited that a therapists tendency toward c onstructivist epistemology meant that s/he tended to be more oriented towa rd humility. The prediction of the hypothesis was partially supported. The relati onship between Therapists cons tructivist epistemology and two components of the Honesty-Humility measure were in the predicted positive direction. The results were significant, although provisional. The strongest of these relationships was between Therapists constructivist epistemology and one s ubscale of the Honesty-Humility measure. This subscale representing humility was the Modesty subscale. The second strongest relationship between Therapists co nstructivist epistemology and a subscale of the Honesty-Humility measure was with the subscale representing hones ty. This was represented by the Sincerity subscale. Here again the findings highlight wh at the current literatu re suggests regarding differences between rationalist and constructivist epistemology in relation to important qualities for therapists to possess, and particularly for the quality of humility. Relationship between Therapist Epistemology and the Quality o f Universal Orientation The literature review on humility and the Hone sty-Humility measure revealed that there are many nuances among certain characteristics of a humble person that the Honesty-Humility measure does not capture. For example, humility contains the sense of seeing the self and other as equal. Humility tends to be relate d to non-hierarchy, and focuses on community, inclusiveness (Tangney, 2000) and cooperation (V era & Rodriguiz-Lopez, 2004). A humble person tends to connect information to form holis tic ideas, is integrativ e (Sandage, et al., 2001), non-judgmental, aware and appreciative of comp lexity, and avoids dogmatism (Rowatt et al., 2002). Universal orientation is positively related to all of these qualities (Phillips & Ziller, 1997; Ziller, Martell & Morrison, 1997), and this is the reason the Universal Orientation Scale was utilized to assist in this research.


97 A comparison of the results about the relations hip of therapist epis temology and therapist qualities, as well as the qualities related to universal orientation, suggested that there might be a negative relationship between ther apists rationalist epistemology and the quality of universal orientation. The comparison also suggested a positive relationship between therapists constructivist epistemology and the quality of universal orientati on. The hypothesis in this case was that the higher a therapists commitment to a rational epistemology, the less s(he) would lean towards a universal orie ntation. In addition, the hypothesi s stated that the higher a therapists commitment to constructivist epis temology, the more s(he) would lean towards a universal orientation. The pred iction of the hypothesis was part ially supported by the results. Therapists rationalist ep istemology was unrelated to univers al orientation wh ile therapists constructivist epistemology related po sitively to universal orientation. Relationship between Humility and Universal Orientation The com parison between the qualities related to humility and universal orientation suggested that there might be a positive relationship be tween qualities and char acteristics related to humility and those related to un iversal orientation. Philip and Zille r (1997) have reported that a universal orientation includes the inclination to see similarities and commonalties between self and other. They report that such an orientation is related to open-mindedness, an appreciation of multiplicity, an appreciation of complexity, bei ng agentic, inclusive and integrative. They reported that it correlates positiv ely with non-hierarchy, egalit arianism, empathic concern, perspective-taking, and has less correlation with an emphasis on status. Again, these are qualities associated with a humble person. The h ypothesis in this case was that the HonestyHumility measure and its subscales would correl ate positively with the Universal Orientation Scale. The prediction of the hypothe sis was suggested by the results.


98 Importance and Implications for Therapy W hat are the implications of a therapist be ing humble? As mentioned previously, Corey (1996) studied the personal characteristics of effective therapists which are optimal for therapeutic work. He compiled a list of sixteen qualities, which included self-awareness, appreciation of complexity, contextual awarenes s, and holism (see Chapter Two for the complete list). And, as emphasized previously, each and every one of those qualities are the qualities that the present research found to be the characteristics of a humble person. In other words, a humble person possesses self-awareness (Exline & Geyers, 2004; Tangney, 2000). The humble person possesses openness, including an openness to cha nge (Rowatt et al., 2002). S(he) is open to learning and is open to seeking advice (Tangne y, 2000). S(he) is open to the generation of new knowledge (Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). Th e humble person does not see others in dichotomous black and white terms (Tangney, 2000) but appreciates comple xities of the world and is open to multiple points of view (Rowatt et al., 2002). The humble person is active and pursues personal development and growth (Exline & Geyers 2004) by holding a holis tic and inclusive worldview, and by perceiving the self holistically and contextually (T angney, 2000). S/he is actively e ngaged with the environment for self-betterment (Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). Humble people are open to and invite criticism. That is, they are not attached to one way of doing thi ngs and they support varied paths of learning (Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). C ooperativeness (Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004) and the acceptance of people as they are (Sandage, 2001) cons titute two other qualities of humble people. The humble are perceived by others as kind, cari ng (Tangney, 2000; Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004) and empathic (Wor thington, 1998; Exline & Geyers, 2004; Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). The humility literature de scribes humble people as honest (Exline &


99 Geyers, 2004; Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004), not boastful (Exline & Geyers, 2004) and having less feelings of superiority toward others (Tangney, 2000; Vera & R odriguez-Lopez, 2004). What is the importance and implications of these findings? Humility as a personal trait supports and contains all of the important and valuable characteristics of an effective therapist. Therapists and scholars in counseling psychology can design programs to develop these myriads of qualities in separation from one another, or they can simply work to develop humility. The question then becomes how to develop a program that nurtures the development of humility. One way would be to study any of the wisdom traditions, such as Buddhist, Taoist, Sufi, JudeoChristian, or Vedic traditions. Thes e traditions are rich and hold within them thousands of years of experience and know-how in the personal de velopment of such quali ties as humility. Another way, or in conjunction with the study of such tr aditions, this study proposes that one may adopt a constructivist epistemology. Constructivism has very ri ch and robust philosophical underpinnings, as well as extensive literature fr om which to draw. The findings from this study suggest that in order to devel op the important quality of humili ty, therapists should consider studying constructivist epistemolog y, and focus particularly on th e literature on the practical application of constructivist epistemol ogy to counseling and therapeutic work. Limitations and Future Research The lim itations within this study will now be addressed. To begin, the procedure of data collection was conducted online. Users of the Internet constitute a part icular audience, which may bias the sample. Another possible threat to the external validity of the current study regarded the fact that all of the participants were volunteers. Rosenthal and Rosnow (1975) suggest that there may be a difference between volunteers and non-vol unteers, which could impact research studies. For example, volunteeri sm is associated with a particular level of education and a desire for social approval. Ho wever, parallel to these limitations, we must

PAGE 100

100 consider that having an overall sample size of more than fi ve hundred practic ing psychologists from across the United States may have increased the significance of the finding. However, it must be emphasized that sample size does not in crease the representativeness in this particular case, and so the generalizabil ity of the findings should be considered with caution. It must be added that the sample of psyc hologists in the present study approximates the demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, ethnicity, and age) of the members of the American Psychological Association. This increases the conf idence in the representativeness of the sample in the present study. For example, in the curren t study, 64% of the sample was female and 36% of the sample was male, which is somewhat comp arable to APA members who are reported to be approximately 53% female and 47% male. In the cu rrent study the mean age of participants was 45.09 (SD = 12.54), which is again roughly comparable to the mean age reported by APA as being 53.30 (SD = 13.6). The ethnicities in th e current study were Caucasian (84.0%), Multiracial (1.1%), Hispanic ( 3.5%), African Americ an (2.3%), and Asian American (1.0%). Again, this is somewhat close to APA member ship, which reports ethnicities as Caucasian (67.6%), Multiracial (0.3%), Hispanic (2.1%), African American (1.7%), and Asian American (1.9%) (http://research.apa .org/profile2007t1.pdf, 2007). There may be a concern that the variance in personality reported by Honesty-Humility measure might be affected by social desirability. That is, there ma y be a particular motivation to make a good impression. This was addressed by L ee et al. (2003). In their study participants provided self and peer ratings for the HonestyHumility measure and the IPIP-Big Five scale. The correlation for Honesty-Humility was .43, which is within the range of typical personality trait reports. These researchers state that I n terms of cross-sour ce correlations, HEXACO Honesty-Humility was the second highest, surpa ssed only by IPIP-Big Five Extraversion.

PAGE 101

101 A final limitation to the present study is the fact that it used questionn aires in the form of self-reports. This may have impacted the gene ralizability of the findi ngs. Self-reports may be influenced by social desirability effects, ac cording to Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991). Also participants actual behavior may not be in accord with their own self-reports. The findings in the current study do not imply causal relationships. Rather, they suggest relationships between the variables of interest. For example, therapists with constructivist epistemologies may tend to subscribe to humility or to a universal orientation, but this does not mean that therapists constructivist epistemologies cause them to be more humble or universally oriented. It may be that a therapists emphasis on humility inclines him/her towards endorsing greater constructivist epistemologi cal assumptions. Or, it may be that a third variable influences the relationship between humility and constructivist inclinations. This is why it is important to consider that the current results do not suggest causality but only relationships. Further research could prioritize the deve lopment of a better measure for humility. Although the results supported the h ypotheses, the effect sizes were relatively small. One reason for this small effect size could be due to the constitution of the measure of humility used in this study. The review of literature on humility reveal ed it to be a very complex construct. In comparison, a study of items, constituent of the Honesty-Humility measure, show it to be quite narrow. It does not contain all of the dime nsions of humility. Amalgamation of the HonestyHumility measure with the Universal Orientation Scale may be a first step towards developing a more comprehensive measure of humility that respects its complexity. Research utilizing qualitative research methods may also be a good next step towards shedding additional light on the construct of humility.

PAGE 102

102 One important point needs to be emphasized here. The research question and the findings of this study should not suggest that there is a division among therapists who fall into two camps or categories that of rationali sts and of constructivists. Rath er, one should conceptualize these epistemologies along a continuum existing within each therapist. That is to say, therapists possess various shades of these tendencies and epistemologies and apply them according to situation and context. The intent of the present st udy is not to divide, but ra ther to integrate. The purpose of this study is to increase the awarene ss of the fact that th erapists qualities and behaviors are related to their epistemologies This awareness may increase understanding and control over therapists behavior and assist in their personal a nd professional development. The findings of the present study provide a promising but modest contribution to the literature addressing the relations hip between epistemology and pr actice. This study tentatively supports the idea that ther apists who lean predominantly towa rd rationalist epistemologies are consistently different from therapists who lean predominantly toward constructivist epistemologies, particularly in regard to thei r personal characteristics of humility and universal orientation. Since epistemology has been linke d with therapist qualities and therapeutic interventions, it can be assumed that this work will contribute to increasing clarity and enlightenment regarding the dynamics and workings of therapeutic interventions. These findings are important because (1) th ey demonstrate the relationship between therapist epistemology and the qualities of humility and universal orientation; (2) they provide information about the important quality of humilit y and universal orientation and how these may be useful for therapy, educati on, and the training of therapists ; (3) they provide information about the relationship between humility and univ ersal orientation and the constructs and characteristics involved in each; (4) they assist in the development of a measure for humility.

PAGE 103

103 Conclusion The presen t study examined the relationship be tween therapists epistemic styles, humility and universal orientation. Results of the study su ggested that therapists epistemologies were associated with an inclination toward humility and universal orientation. Therapists stronger commitments to rationalist epistemology tended toward the negative direction on the HonestyHumility Measure and its subscales. Therapists stronger commitments to constructivist epistemology tended toward the positive direction on two subscales of the Honesty-Humility Measure. They also tended toward the positiv e direction on the Univer sal Orientation Scale. Results of the study also showed that the H onesty-Humility Measure correlates positively with the Universal Orientation Scale. The pr esent study suggests that humility and universal orientation are very important qualities for a therapist to possess. This study furthered the developing literature on therapists epistemologies as factors relating to therapists qualities. From there it contributes to the practice of ther apy. Further outcome-related research is required to understand how humility and universal orientati on of therapists affects work with clients. This study was the first and only empirical in vestigation of the re lationship between therapist epistemology and the quality of hum ility. It was also the first and only empirical investigation of the relationshi p between therapist epistemology and the quality of universal orientation. Finally, it was the fi rst and only empirical investiga tion of the relationship between humility and universal orientation. Most of th e results of this study (nine out of eleven) supported the predicted direction of the interaction of therapist epistemic style with the psychological measures used. They tentat ively supported the consistency between epistemological commitments of therapists with their personal qualities of humility and universal orientation. Further work may benefit from focusing on how the humility and universal

PAGE 104

104 orientation of therapists, in accordance with their epistemic commitments, might impact the effectiveness of practicing psychotherapy.

PAGE 105

105 APPENDIX A HONESTY-HUMILITY MEASURE: HEXACO-PERSONALITY INVENTORY 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Mode rately Neither Agree Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree 1. If I want something from a person I dislike, I will act very nicel y toward that person in order to get it. 2. I don't see anything wrong with using flattery to get ahead in life. 3. I sometimes try to make people feel guilty so that they will do what I want. 4. I wouldn't use flattery to get a raise or pr omotion at work, even if I thought it would succeed. 5. If I want something from someone, I w ill laugh at that person's worst jokes. 6. I wouldn't pretend to like someone just to get that person to do favors for me. 7. If I want something from someone, I ask fo r it directly, instead of manipulating them into giving it. 8. I often get people to do favors for me by making them feel that they owe me. 9. If I knew that I could never get caught, I would be willing to steal a million dollars. 10. I wouldn't cheat a person even if he or she was a real "sucker". 11. I wouldn't feel bad about deceiving people who allow themselves to be deceived. 12. I would be tempted to buy stolen pr operty if I were financially tight. 13. I would still pay my taxes even if I would not get caught for avoiding them. 14. I would never accept a bribe, ev en if it were very large. 15. I would like to know how to sm uggle things across the border. 16. Id be tempted to use counterfeit money, if I were sure I could get away with it. 17. Having a high level of social status is not very important to me. 18. Having a lot of money is not especially important to me. 19. I prefer to have high-status, successful people as my friends. 20. I would like to live in a very expensive, high-class neighborhood. 21. I would like to be seen driving around in a very expensive car. 22. I would enjoy being a member of a fancy, high-class casino. 23. I would get a lot of pleasure fr om owning expensive luxury goods. 24. If there is some chance of improving my social status, I take big risks. 25. I deserve more influence and auth ority than most other people do.

PAGE 106

106 26. I am an ordinary person who is no better than others. 27. I wouldnt want people to treat me as though I were superior to them. 28. I am special and superior in many ways. 29. Sometimes I feel that laws shoul d not apply to someone like me. 30. I think that I am entitled to more respect than the average person is. 31. Some people would say that I have an over-inflated ego. 32. I want people to know that I am an important person of high status. Reprinted with permission from Lee, K., and As hton, M. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39(2), 329-358.

PAGE 107

107 APPENDIX B UNIVERSAL ORIENTATION SCALE The following statem ents inquire about your thoughts and feelings in a variety of situations. For each item, indicate how well it describes you by c hoosing the appropriate le tter on the scale at the top of the page: 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. When you have decided on your answer, fill in the letter on the answer sheet next to the item numb er. READ EACH ITEM CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. Answer as honestly and as accurately as you can. Thank you. ANSWER SCALE: 1 2 3 4 5 Does not describe me well Describes me well 1. The similarities between males and females are greater than their differences. 2. I tend to value similarities over differences when I meet someone. 3. At one level of thinking we are all of a kind. 4. I can understand almost anyone because Im a little like everyone. 5. Little differences among people mean a lot. 6. I can see myself fitting into many groups. 7. There is potential for go od and evil in all of us. 8. When I look into the eyes of others I see myself. 9. I could never get accustomed to living in another country. 10. When I first meet someone I tend to notice th e differences between myself and the other person. 11. Between describes my position with regard to groups better than do in and out. 12. The same spirit dwells in everyone. 13. Older persons are very different than I am. 14. I can tell a great deal about people by knowing their gender. 15. There is a certain beauty in everyone. 16. I can tell a great deal about a person by knowing his or her age. 17. Men and women will never totally understa nd each other because of their inborn differences.

PAGE 108

108 18. Everyone in the world is very much a like because in the end we all die. 19. I have difficulty relating to persons who are much younger than I am. 20. When I meet someone I tend to notice simila rities between myself and the other person. Reprinted with permission from Phillips, S., & Ziller, R. (1997). Toward a theory and measure of the nature of nonprejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (2), 420-434.

PAGE 109

109 APPENDIX C THE THERAPIST ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE SHORT-FORM (TAQ-SF) 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Moderately Neither Agree Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree 1. Reality is singular, stable and external to human experience. 2. Knowledge is determined to be valid by logic and reason. 3. Learning involves the con tiguous or contingent chai ning of discrete events. 4. Mental representations of reality involve accurate, explicit and extensive copies of the external world which are encoded in memory. 5. It is best for psychothera pists to focus treatment on clie nts current problems and the elimination or control f these problems. 6. Disturbed affect comes from irrational, invalid, distorted or/and unrealistic thinking. 7. Clients resistance to cha nge reflects a lack of motiva tion, ambivalence or motivated avoidance and such resistance to change is an impediment to therapy which the psychotherapist works to overcome. 8. Reality is relative. Realities reflect individual or collective constructions of order to ones experiences. 9. Learning involves the refine ment and transformation (assimi lation and accommodation) of mental representation. 10. Cognition, behavior and affect are interd ependent expressions of holistic systemic processes. The three are functiona lly and structurally inseparable. 11. Intense emotions have a disorganizing eff ect on behavior. This disorganization may be functional in that it initiates a reorganization so that more viable adaptive constructions can be formed to meet the environmental demands. 12. Psychotherapists should encourage emoti onal experience, expre ssion, and exploration. 13. Clinical problems are current or recurrent discrepancies between our external environmental challenges and internal adaptive capacities. Problems can become powerful opportunities for learning. 14. Awareness or insight is one of many strategies for improvement, however, emotional and/or behavioral enactments are also very important.

PAGE 110

110 15. Therapists relationship with clients is be st conceptualized as a professional helping relationship which entails the service and delivery of technical, instructional information or guidance. 16. Psychotherapists relationship with clients can best be conceptuali zed as a unique social exchange which provides the clients a safe supportive context to explore and develop relationships with themselves and the world. Reprinted with permission from Neimeyer, G ., & Morton, R. (1997). Personal epistemologies and preferences for rationalist vers us constructivist psychotherapies. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 10(2), 109-123.

PAGE 111

111 APPENDIX D DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Please tell us a little about yourself. This Inform ation will be used to describe the sample as a group. 1. Gender: Male ____ Female____ 2. Age: 3. Ethnic background: W hite/Caucasian, Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino/a-Black, Hispanic/Latino/a-White, Asian-American, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian/Native American, Multi-racial_______, Other________ 4. Name of your highest degree: BA/BS, MA/MS, MSW, PsyD, PhD, Other_______ 5. Years of Education 6. The Year you obtained your highest degree (e.g. 1985): 7. Total number of years you spen t in clinical practice: 8. Specialty area: Psychologist, Mental Health Counselor, Marriage and Family Therapist, Social Worker, Psychiatrist, Other ________ 9. Primary job responsibility: Practice/Clinical work, Research Academic, Administrative, Other_______ 10. Primary employment setting: Private practice, University academic department, University service delivery department, Hosp ital, Mental Health care, School setting, Research setting, Community Center, Other ________ 11. Average number of c lients you see weekly: 12. Country you live in: US, Canada, Other________

PAGE 112

112 LIST OF REFERENCES Am erican Psychological Association Website, De mographic characteristics of APA members by membership status. ( Aksoy, G. (2005). Epistemology and psychotherapists clarif ying the link among epistemic style, experience, and therapist characteristics. Unpublished masters th esis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Ashton, M., Lee, K., & Son, C. (2000). Honest as th e sixth factor of pers onality: Correlations with machiavellianism, primary psychopathy, and social adroitness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 359-368. Ashton, M., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basi s for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality 15 327-353. Ashton, M., & Lee, K. (2005). The Lexical Appro ach to the Study of Personality Structure: Toward the Identification of Cross-Culturally Replicable Dimensi ons of Personality Variation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(3), 303-308. 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 pe rsonality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 356-366. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley. Babbage, D., & Ronan, K. (2000). Philosophical worl dview and personality factors in traditional and social scientists: Studying the world in our own image. Personality and Individual Differences 28(2), 405-420. Batson, C., & Gray, R. (1981). Religious orientati on and helping behavior: Responding to one's own or the victim's needs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40(3), 511-520. Batson, C., & Raynor-Prince, L. (1 983). Religious orient ation and complexity of thought about existential concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 22(1), 38-50. Batson, C., & Schoenrade, P. (1991). Measurin g religion as Quest: I. Validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30 (4), 416-429. Batson, C., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. (1993). Religion and the individual: A socialpsychological perspective New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. Beitel, M., Ferrer, E., & Cecero, J. (2004). Psychological Mindedness and Cognitive Style. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 567-582.

PAGE 113

113 Berzonsky, M. (1990). Self-construction over the lif e-span: A process pers pective on identity formation. In G.J. Neimeyer & R.A. Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in personal construct psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 155-186). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Berzonsky, M. (1994). Individual differences in self-construction: The role of constructivist epistemological assumptions. Journal of Constr uctivist Psychology 7(4), 263-281. Bhaskar, R. (1989). Reclaiming reality : A critical in troduction to contemporary philosophy New York, NY: Verso. Billing, M. (1985). Individual differences in se lf-construction: The role of constructivist epistemological assumptions. European Journal of Personality, 15, 79-103. Botella, L., & Gallifa, J. (1995) A constructivist approach to the development of personal epistemic assumptions and worldviews. Journal of Construc tivist Psychology, 8(1), 1-18. Bryant, W. J. (1998) The application of cognitive dissonance th eory in a forgiveness workshop: Inducing hypocrisy to crea te a commitment to give. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. Chen, C., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Ambiguity in tolerance and support for valuing-diversity interventions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30(11), 2392-2408. Cloninger, C., Svrakic, D., & Przybeck, T. ( 1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry 50(12), 975-990. Corey, G. (1996). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy (5th ed.) Belmont, CA, US: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences 13(6), 653-665. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scal e of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology 24(4), 349-354. Darley, J., & Batson, C. (1973). 'From Jerusale m to Jericho': A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 100-108. Davis, M.H. (1990). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 113-126.

PAGE 114

114 DiGiuseppe, R., & Linscott, J. (1993). Philo sophical differences among cognitive behavioral therapists: Rationalism, constructivism, or both? Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 7(2), 117-130. Donahue, M. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48 (2), 400-419. Emmons, R. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concer ns: Motivation and spirituality in personality New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Exline, J., & Geyer, A. (2004). Perceptions of humility: A preliminary study. Self and Identity 3(2), 95-114. Falbo, T., & Shepperd, J. (1986). Self-righteousness: Cognitive, power, and religious characteristics. Journal of Research in Personality 20(2), 145-157. Farber, B., & Heifetz, L. (1982). The process an d dimensions of burnout in psychotherapists. Professional Psychology 13(2), 293-301. Funk, I. (Ed.). Funk & Wagnalls Standard college dictionary (3rd ed.). (1973). New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls. Glicken, M. (1983). A counseling approach to employee burnout. Personnel Journal 62 (3), 222228. Goldberg, L. (1990). An alternative 'description of personality': The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (6), 1216-1229. Goldberg, L. (1992). The development of mark ers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment 4(1), 26-42. Goldberg, L. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist 48, 26-42. Goldberg, L. (1999). A broad-ba ndwidth, public domain, personal ity inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five -factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Halling, S., Kubz, G., & Rowe, J.O. (1994). The contributions of dialogical psychology tp phenomenological research. Shame and forgiveness. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 34, 109-131. Jaffe, D. T. (1986). The inner strains of heali ng work: Therapy and self-renewal for health professionals. In C. D. Scott & J. Hawk (Eds.), Heal thyself: The health of health care professionals (pp. 194-208). New York: Brunner/Mazel Inc.

PAGE 115

115 Johnson, J., Germer, C., Efran, J., & Overton, W. (1988). Personality as the basis for theoretical predilections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55 (5), 824-835. Jones, J. (1986). Racism: A cultural analysis of the problem. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 279-314). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Katz, I., Wackenhut, J., & Hass, R. (1986). Raci al ambivalence, value duality, and behavior. Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 35-59). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. Kirkpatrick, L. (1989). A psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin measures of intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. Research in the social scie ntific study of religion: A research annual, Vol. 1 (pp. 1-31). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press. Landrum, R. E. (2002). Humility: Its measurement and impact on person-perception. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39 (2), 329-358. Lee, K., Ashton, M., & Shin, K. (2005). Personality Correlates of Workplace Anti-Social Behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review 54(1), 81-98. Lee, K., Gizzarone, M., & Ashton, M. (2003). Pers onality and the Likeli hood to Sexually Harass. Sex Roles 49 (1), 59-69. Levenson, M., Kiehl, K., & Fitzpatrick, C. (199 5). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68(1), 151-158. Mahoney, M. (1995). The psychological demands of being a constructive psychotherapist. Constructivism in psychotherapy (pp. 385-399). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Mahoney, M., & Gabriel, T. (1987). Psychothera py and the cognitive sciences: An evolving alliance. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 1(1), 39-59. McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivale nce, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. Dovidio & S.L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp.91-125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. McConahay, J., Hardee, B., & Batts, V. (1981). Has racism declined in America? It depends on who is asking and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution 25(4), 563-579.

PAGE 116

116 McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1985). Updating Norman's 'adequacy taxonomy': Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 (3), 710-721. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 227. McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1992). Discriminant validity of NEO-PIR facet scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 52(1), 229-237. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective. New York: Guilford Press. Means, J., Wilson, G., Sturm, C., & Biron, J. (1990). Humility as a psychotherapeutic formulation. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 3 (2), 211-215. Neimeyer, G., & Morton, R. (1997). Personal ep istemologies and pref erences for rationalist versus constructivi st psychotherapies. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 10(2), 109123. Neimeyer, G., Prichard, S., Lyddon, W., & Sherrard, P. (1993). The role of epistemic style in counseling preference and orientation. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71(5), 515-523. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Phillips, S., & Ziller, R. (1997). Toward a theory and measure of the nature of nonprejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (2), 420-434. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: investigations into the natu re of belief systems and personality systems. Oxford, England: Basic Books. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. (1975). The volunteer subject Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analyses (2nd Edition). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Rowatt, W., Ottenbreit, A., Nesselroade, K., & Cunningham, P. (2002). On being holier-thanthou or humbler-than-thee: A social-psyc hological perspective on religiousness and humility. Journal for the Scientif ic Study of Religion 41(2), 227-237. Royce, J. R. (1964). The encapsulated man: An inte rdisciplinary search for meaning. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

PAGE 117

117 Royce, J. R., & Mos, L. P. (1980). Psycho-epistemological profile manual. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta Press. Royce, J. R., & Powell, A. (1983). Theory of personality and personal differences: Factors, systems, processes Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sandage, S. J. (1999). An ego-humility model of forgiveness: Theoretical foundations. Marriage and Family: A Christian Journal, 2, 259 276. Sandage, S., Wiens, T., & Dahl, C. (2001). Humility and attention: The contemplative psychology of Simone Weil. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 20 (4), 360-369. Sing, S.K. (1967). Untitled [online]. Ava ilable: Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526-537. Springfield, E. (1998). Simone Weil Maryknoll, NY: Obis. Tangney, J. (2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for future research. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology 19(1), 70-82. Tangney, J. (2002). Humility. In C. R. Snyder & Lopez, Shane J. (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 411-419). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Templeton, J. M. (1997). Worldwide laws of life Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press. Morris, W. (Ed.). The American Heritage dictionary (2nd college ed.). (1982). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Simpson, J. & Weiner, E. (Eds.). The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). (1989). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Vasco, A. (1994). Correlates of constr uctivism among Portuguese therapists. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 7(1), 1-16. Vera, D., & Rodriguez-Lopez, A. (2004). Strategi c Virtues: Humility as a Source of Competitive Advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 393-408. Weil, S. (1973). Waiting for God (E. Craufurd, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. (Original work published 1951). Winter, D. A., & Watson, S. (1999). Personal construct psychotherapy and the cognitive therapies: Different in theory but can they be differentiated in practice? Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 12 1 22.

PAGE 118

118 Wityk, T. L. (July, 2002). Burnout and the ethics of self-care for therap ists. Symposium Paper presented at Linking Research to Educational Practice II, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Woike, B. (1994). The use of differentiation and integration processes: Empirical studies of 'separate' and 'connected' ways of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 142-150. Worthington, E. (1998). An empathy-humility-commi tment model of forgiveness applied within family dyads. Journal of Family Therapy, 20(1), 59-76. Ziller, R., Martell, R., & Morrison, R. (1977). Social insu lation, self-complexity, and social attraction: A theory chain. Journal of Research in Personality 11(4), 398-415.

PAGE 119

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Farhad Siahpoush attended Northern Virgin ia Community College in Annandale and earned the Associate of Arts degreesumma cum laude (1998). He then attended George Mason University in Fairfax. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in psychol ogy from George Mason University in May 2001. He joined the Department of Psychology at the University of Florida in Gainesville for the graduate program in counseling psychology in August 2001. He was awarded the prestigious Hillis J. Miller Presidential Fellowship. He co mpleted his Master of Science degree in May 2005 and his Doctor of Philosophy degree in August 2008.