Abstract Objectives Existing assessments of intellectual humility (IH)—a key component of wisdom—do not examine its manifestation in daily life while sufficiently focusing on the core idea of the construct: owning up to one’s intellectual shortcomings. The present research sought to examine situational contingencies underlying daily manifestations of IH-relevant characteristics. Research Design and Methods We developed a trait version of the State-Trait IH Scale in two studies and subsequently examined daily manifestations of IH-relevant characteristics utilizing a contextualized state version of the State-Trait IH Scale in a 21-day experience sampling study. Here, we tested how specific situational contingencies (associated with the context and the personality of the individual with whom participants engaged) influenced the manifestation of IH-relevant qualities. Results We found strong evidence for the validity of both versions of the scale. Specifically, the state measure exhibited high within-person variability, and aggregated state assessments were strongly correlated with the trait measure. Additionally, morality positively predicted manifestation of IH, whereas disagreeableness negatively predicted manifestation of IH. Discussion and Implications These results offer new directions for research on the expression of wisdom-related characteristics in daily life. Intellectual humility, Within-person variability, Multilevel modeling, Density distribution approach From the place where we are right Flowers will never grow In the spring. The place where we are right Is hard and trampled Like a yard. But doubts and loves Dig up the world Like a mole, a plow. And a whisper will be heard in the place Where the ruined House once stood. ― Yehuda Amichai, “The Place Where We Are Right” “It is unwise to be too sure of one’s own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.” ― Mahatma Gandhi Contemporary scientists have expressed an increased interest in understanding wisdom (e.g., Grossmann, 2017; Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2016; Staudinger & Glück, 2011; Sternberg, 1998; Thomas & Kunzmann, 2014; Webster, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer, 2014). One prominent approach to wisdom conceptualizes it in terms of unbiased thought (Brienza, Kung, Santos, Bobocel, & Grossmann, 2017), and as such, researchers have argued that wisdom-relevant cognition is facilitated through the enactment of intellectual humility (IH; Grossmann, 2017; Whitcomb, Battaly, Baehr, & Howard-Snyder, 2015). IH has been primarily defined in terms of a disposition to be alert to, admit to, and take responsibility for cognitive limitations and mistakes (Whitcomb and colleagues, 2015; see also Roberts & Wood, 2007 for an alternative view). Yet, as we outline in the following section, it is necessary to capture the manifestations of IH-related qualities in daily life to gain an accurate understanding of individuals’ trait standing on IH (Brienza & Grossmann, 2017; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015), as well as whether specific situational contingencies (Fleeson, 2007) predict cross-situation variability in daily manifestations of IH-relevant characteristics. The present research, therefore, focuses on examining the extent to which daily manifestations of IH-relevant characteristics are characteristic of a psychological capacity to demonstrate wise reasoning in daily life after challenging interpersonal situations (Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2016), as well as specific situations associated with daily manifestations of IH-relevant characteristics (Fleeson, 2007; see also Bleidorn & Denissen, 2015). To examine this question, we develop a new trait and state measure of IH, which allows for the direct comparison of trait and state responses with instruments assessing the same content. Current Conceptualizations and Assessments of Intellectual Humility Leary and colleagues (2017) conceptualized IH in terms of recognizing the fallibility of personal beliefs accompanied by appropriate attentiveness to the evidence available for that belief, as well as one’s own limitations in obtaining and evaluating relevant information. Hoyle, Davisson, Diebels, and Leary (2016) offer a variation on this view, applying the same definition to specific personal views. Alternatively, Meagher, Leman, Bias, Latendresse, and Rowatt (2015) emphasize “an accurate or modest assessment” of one’s intelligence, being receptive to the contributions of others, and being able to accept criticism about one’s own ideas. McElroy and colleagues (2014) provide a third distinct definition, which emphasizes both insight about the limits of one’s knowledge, involving openness to new ideas, and regulating arrogance, marked by the ability to present one’s ideas in a nonoffensive manner and receive contrary ideas without taking offense, even when confronted with alternative viewpoints. Finally, Krumrei-Mancuso and Rouse (2016) identify four distinct dimensions of IH: independence of intellect and ego, openness to revising one’s viewpoints, respect for others’ viewpoints, and lack of intellectual overconfidence. Although it should be noted that some definitions of humility incorporate aspects of IH (see Chancellor & Lyubomirsky’s  identification of “openness to new information” as a hallmark of humility), definitions of IH all clearly distinguish IH from general humility, as well as emphasizing the fallibility of possessed knowledge. However, insofar as one defines a disposition to be alert to, and to “own” cognitive limitations and mistakes as integral to IH, as argued by some philosophers specializing in epistemology and intellectual virtues (Whitcomb et al., 2015), then many of the above definitions are problematic for capturing this core feature. For example, Meagher and colleagues (2015) focus on “an accurate or modest assessment” of one’s intelligence rather than on taking ownership of one’s mistakes. This focus may further conflate the accuracy of one’s knowledge with moderate estimations (which may sometimes be underestimations) of one’s beliefs. Other IH questionnaires move beyond the disposition to be alert to and to own one’s cognitive limitations, including domains that arguably are not central components to IH. For example, McElroy and colleagues (2014) developed an informant measure of IH in which an ability to weigh a lack of arrogance was conceptualized as equally important to insight into the limits of one’s knowledge (of note, this added dimension may be an attempt to incorporate an additional philosophical perspective on IH provided by Roberts and Wood ). Krumrei-Mancuso and Rouse’s (2016) definition goes even further, adding dimensions that arguably represent outcomes that IH would predict as opposed to core dimensions of the constructs itself, such as independence of intellect and ego. Characteristics such as independence of intellect and ego are possibly characteristics exhibited by wise individuals (Wayment & Bauer, 2008), yet are not a core component of IH per se. Such overinclusion of dimensions therefore represents examples of “concept creep” into the area on IH (Tangney, 2000). Of the existing measures of IH, Leary and colleagues’ (2017; see also Hoyle et al., 2016) definition is the closest to Whitcomb and colleagues’ (2015) definition of IH as a disposition to be alert to and to “own” cognitive limitations and mistakes. The six-item measure by Leary and colleagues (2017) fits closely with the idea of admitting fallibility of one’s ideas that is central to IH (Whitcomb et al., 2015). However, in sharp contrast to the problems of “concept creep,” the relative brevity of Leary and colleagues’ scale’s means that it prioritizes reliability over breadth and therefore may be missing core thoughts, feelings, and behaviors characteristic of IH that manifest in daily life. Specifically, given that IH frequently manifests itself in interpersonal contexts (Grossmann, Gerlach, & Denissen, 2016), a state measure of IH should include assessments of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with IH in interpersonal contexts. This is in contrast with the broader, less contextualized items included in the Leary and colleagues’ (2017) measure (e.g., “I accept that my beliefs and attitudes may be wrong,” “I question my own opinions, positions, and viewpoints because they could be wrong”). In other words, the Leary and colleagues’ focus on a small number of key IH-relevant characteristics may not make it suitable as a comprehensive and contextualized state assessment of IH. The Importance of Assessing IH in Daily Contexts Given that it is imperative to assess the wisdom of an action within the confines of a particular context, Grossmann and colleagues (2016) have asserted that wisdom is best assessed through daily manifestations of wise reasoning and behaviors. This echoes the sentiment of Fleeson (2001, 2007), who proposed that personality traits can be best understood as density distributions of personality states. This conceptualization of personality focuses on the extent to which an individual manifests a given trait at a specific point in time. Fleeson’s (2001) research demonstrated that although individuals’ mean trait levels varied from person to person, individuals demonstrated a greater degree of variation around their own mean. Essentially, an individual’s behavior varies significantly, albeit systematically, depending on the demands of the situation. For example, a shy individual might be less talkative than some individuals on average, but she will be more talkative in situations when she is with friends than when she is alone. We note that states differ from traits in distinct ways (Jayawickreme, Meindl, Helzer, Furr, & Fleeson, 2014). States are phenomenologically experienced and can be thought of a set of emotions, as well as cognitions and actions, in a particular situation. In contrast, traits represent an individual’s base-rate proclivity toward (or away from) a set of emotions, cognitions, or actions (Fleeson, 2001; Sedikides, Slabu, Lenton, & Thomaes, 2017, p. 522). Also, the duration of a state is shorter than that of a trait, meaning that states and traits are quantitatively distinguishable. Additionally, there are certain features associated with states that may not be associated with the corresponding trait. To provide one example, although trait extraversion may be associated strongly with brain structure, such a relationship may not be evident for state extraversion (Jayawickreme et al., 2014, p. 294). Building on this view, Fleeson (2007) provided initial support for the integration of individual-difference theories and within-person process approaches to personality psychology. On this view, within-person variability at the trait level is predicted by characteristics of the situation that are psychologically active for that trait, meaning that the situation evokes a change in the extent to which one might enact behavior consistent with the content of a given trait (Bem & Allen, 1974; Cervone, 2004; Frederiksen, 1972; Funder, 2001; Furr & Funder, 2004; Pervin, 1978; Shoda & Lee Tiernan, 2002; Snyder & Cantor, 1998; Ten Berge & De Raad, 1999; Vansteelandt & Van Mechelen, 2004). Indeed, the research showed that, for characteristics of the Big Five personality traits, situational features or psychologically active characteristics of situations such as anonymity and task-orientation were predictive of within-person variability in the manifestations of trait-relevant characteristics. Fleeson (2007) also acknowledges that, although these psychologically active characteristics influence manifestations of personality traits and can explain within-person variability in manifestations of personality traits, this process is also reliably affected by the trait itself, and the contingencies differ based on the individual. Although this may seem at odds with both the individual difference and within-person process theories of personality, Fleeson (2007) further addresses the idea that these results indicate that variability and stability are not mutually exclusive, nor does the magnitude of one diminish the magnitude of the other. Further, he posits that these findings regarding variability and stability offer unique opportunities for psychologists to understand the mechanisms of personality trait manifestation in a given situation. Building on the findings of Fleeson (2007), further research has found adjacent results when investigating situational contingencies for character traits and virtuous behavior (Bleidorn & Denissen, 2015). Character traits differ from personality traits (e.g., the Big Five explored by Fleeson, 2007) in that the traits themselves are viewed as inherently positive and of moral value. Bleidorn and Denissen examined an individual’s social role—parent or professional—at a given time as a situational contingency for a variety of virtue states. The researchers found that within-person variation in virtue states was reliably contingent on the individual’s social role at the time of the report. In addition to this result, the participants also showed stability over time in their degree of variability as well as the ways in which they reacted to the situation. Thus, a situational contingency is defined here as a systematic relationship between a given state (i.e., intellectual humility) that an individual enacts and a given characteristic of the situation (Fleeson, 2007). For example, an individual may experience an increase in intellectual humility when debating a political issue with a friend. In this example, there is a contingency of the intellectually humble state as a function of engagement with that specific situation. Such contingencies do not refer to the trait of intellectual humility itself or to individual differences in intellectual humility. Instead, they refer to changes in the state, that is, to changes in the extent to which the affective, behavioral, and cognitive content of the trait of intellectual humility describes the way the individual is being at the moment. In our research, the question is whether specific situations increase the extent to which individuals can be described as intellectually humble while they are in that situation, as opposed to how individual differences in intellectual humility are revealed in such situations. We note that recent work has begun to highlight the importance of situational contingencies for the manifestation of IH-relevant characteristics. For instance, Grossmann and Kross have shown that IH is heightened in situations that involve reflecting on challenges faced by others, rather than personal challenges (Grossmann & Kross, 2014; Kross & Grossmann, 2012). Additionally, daily diary research by Grossmann and colleagues (2016) showed evidence for increased state IH in situations where work colleagues or friends were present, as opposed to the presence of strangers. One explanation for these findings is that taking the perspective of another may be a critical mechanism for wise reasoning. Moreover, given that IH has been conceptualized as a morally relevant trait (Baehr, 2011), prior work exploring situational characteristics of virtue-relevant states is relevant here (Bleidorn & Denissen, 2015). Specifically, Bleidorn and Denissen’s work highlights the likelihood that character traits may not be relevant or appropriate to enact in every situation. For example, it may not be relevant to behave in an intellectually humble manner about trivial, factual disagreements. In the context of the present research, we would therefore expect to see within-person variation in IH from moment to moment, as IH would only be expected to manifest in relevant situations. Thus, developing an appropriate state measure of IH allows us to capture this within-person variation and provides a point of comparison to examine the validity of trait measures of IH. Furthermore, as IH is a morally relevant trait, there is potential for socially desirable responding and self-enhancement biases in trait assessments (Brienza et al., 2017). Research shows that daily measures of morally relevant traits are less susceptible to these biases, as people are less willing to misrepresent their behaviors in the moment (Meindl, Jayawickreme, Furr, & Fleeson, 2015). Therefore, self-reports of state IH should be less susceptible to such biases compared to self-reported global trait assessments. Existing State Measures of Intellectual Humility Although Grossmann and colleagues (2016) identified IH as a wisdom-related construct, their state assessment of IH consisted of just one item on gathering more information and two items on the potential impact of challenging experiences, as opposed to directly assessing IH as acknowledging one’s limitations. More recently, Brienza and colleagues’ (2017) expanded contextualized measure included four items assessing IH, which focus on double-checking one’s information before formulating one’s opinion (e.g., “I double-checked whether my opinion on the situation might be incorrect”; “I double-checked whether the other person’s opinions might be correct”; “I looked for any extraordinary circumstances before forming my opinion”; “I behaved as if there may be some information to which I did not have access”), as well as four items assessing change and multiple outcomes that are arguably relevant to IH (e.g., “I often consider multiple ways how social situations may unfold”). Although the assessment of IH as an acknowledgement of the limits of one’s knowledge is indeed consistent with the core conception of the trait as a disposition to be alert to and “own” one’s cognitive limitations and mistakes (Whitcomb et al., 2015), the state version of the measure described in the present research aims to expand on Brienza and colleagues’ (2017) pioneering work by providing a more comprehensive assessment of IH in daily life. The present study thus fills a gap in the literature (Brienza & Grossmann, 2017) by combining an assessment of daily manifestations of characteristics relevant to IH (Grossmann et al., 2016) with a contextualized approach to assessing these qualities (Brienza et al., 2017). Assessing Intellectual Humility Content at Both the Trait and State Levels As we have discussed earlier, assessing IH in daily life utilizing state self-reports can capture dynamic personality processes, including person-by-situation interactions and within-person fluctuations of trait-relevant thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Additionally, recent research has focused on the extent to which self-reported global trait standings capture manifestations of the trait in daily life (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009). Fleeson and Gallagher (2009) found that for the Big Five traits, self-reported global trait standings were strongly predictive of individual differences in trait manifestation in behavior. Specifically, Big Five trait standings predicted average levels with correlations between .42 and .56 and approached .60 for stringently restricted studies. Finnigan and Vazire (2017) however found that aggregated Big Five state responses did not predict additional variance in informant reports of Big Five traits after controlling for global Big Five self-reports. Although these findings point to the importance of examining the measurement limitations of experience sampling (Fleeson, 2017), the present research is innovative in both employing a contextualized approach to assessing state IH (as noted above) and developing an equivalent set of items to assess IH at both the state and the trait levels. With regards to the importance of assessing state and trait IH with the same set of items, we note that the Big Five state items that Finnigan and Vazire (2017, Study 2) employed only contained two to three items per trait. This was in contrast to the global self-report and informant report, which contained eight to nine items per trait. Although Finnigan and Vazire addressed this limitation by performing additional analyses employing only the two to three common items across the state and trait items, having assessments that capture the full range of the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors would have provided important additional information on the trait. Therefore, an important goal of the present study was to develop a measure of IH that both accurately assessed the full range of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with the construct that could be employed at both the trait and the state levels. The main goal of developing the State-Trait IH Scale, in sum, is to create a scale that assesses core features of IH at both the trait level and in daily life while ensuring it sampled an adequate range of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with IH. The Present Research The present research aims to assess wisdom through examining its individual components, focusing specifically on IH. Building on the conceptual research outlined above, in the present research we develop and validate a new measure to assess IH, the State-Trait IH Scale. In a subsequent 21-day, twice-daily experience sampling study, participants reported on interpersonal interactions that could potentially elicit manifestations of IH-relevant characteristics. Here, the researchers validated a state version of the measure, examined intra-individual variability in the measure, explored the relationship between trait and state IH, and tested how specific situational contingencies influenced the manifestation of IH-relevant characteristics. The present research focuses primarily on one feature of the situation—the individual with whom participants were engaging when they reported IH manifestations because admitting to one’s cognitive limitations and taking responsibility for mistakes is an interactive social process. Given that successfully coordinating interpersonal actions is vital for in-group coordination and other survival-related activities (Brienza & Grossmann, 2017; Ellis, Bianchi, Griskevicius, & Frankenhuis, 2017), we would expect state IH to vary in response to changes in the perceived social context. Moreover, following current accounts of IH, situations that fostered defensiveness are typically associated with lower levels of state IH, whereas situations that fostered nondefensiveness are associated with higher levels of state IH (Whitcomb et al., 2015). Therefore, we hypothesized that perceiving an interpersonal situation as a disagreement (fostering defensiveness in the participant) would therefore be associated with low levels of state IH. This trait content-relevant hypothesis is also consistent with past work showing that trait-relevant situations (studying/working) predicted fluctuations in state conscientiousness (Wilson, Thompson, & Vazire, 2017). We also hypothesized that the participants’ perceiving the individual interacting with them as more moral would foster a nondefensive perception of that individual (given that perceiving individuals as moral indicates the nature of a person’s intentions and whether those intentions are oriented toward being helpful or harmful, good, or bad; Goodwin, 2015, p. 42) and would therefore be associated with exhibiting high state IH. Item Development and Pilot Studies The process for generating items for the State-Trait IH scale first required definitional clarity on the core features of IH. An initial review of the literature yielded a number of differing definitions, including a conceptualization of IH as a lack of concern for intellectual vices (Roberts & Wood, 2007). However, the authors, in careful review of the literature and extensive discussions with a moral philosopher with a specific interest in intellectual virtues (Alan Wilson, University of Bristol), determined that a simple lack of intellectual arrogance is not indicative of the presence of IH, as it could instead be the marker of a complete lack of confidence or ability, rather than proper attentiveness to one’s knowledge. As such, we determined that there were significant limitations to Roberts and Wood’s (2007) “low concern” account of IH. The authors determined that these concerns are largely alleviated by adopting the “limitations owning” conceptualization (Whitcomb et al., 2015), which presents IH as a middle ground between intellectual arrogance—that is, overconfidence in the value of one’s intellectual abilities and ideas—and a complete lack of confidence in the value of one’s intellectual abilities and ideas. In the “limitations owning” account, therefore, IH cannot be understood as the absence of arrogance, vanity, conceit, egotism, hyper-autonomy, grandiosity, pretentiousness, snobbishness, impertinence (presumption), haughtiness, self-righteousness, domination, selfish ambition, and self-complacency (as described by Roberts and Wood, 2007) and instead can be more accurately conceptualized as a proper awareness of and attentiveness to intellectual limitations. With the Whitcomb and colleagues’ (2015) conceptualization of IH in mind, and the overarching goal of understanding how IH presents in daily interactions, the team began to generate items that captured the manifestation of IH in daily social interactions. This process consisted of reviewing existing scales for IH and IH-relevant constructs, and identifying ways in which available instruments were appropriate or inappropriate for assessing IH in daily social interactions. Items that we determined to be potentially appropriate for use in assessing IH focused on an awareness and openness to new information that differed from one’s existing opinion or belief. After determining the ways in which these measures successfully accounted for the “limitations owning” conceptualization of IH, the team created a set of items that assessed affective, behavioral, cognitive, and motivational aspects of IH in daily life. Drawing on the contextualized approach of Grossmann and colleagues (2016), the authors and their collaborators sought to identify items that could be applied both broadly to describe personality (traits) and to specific instances (states) by only changing verb tense. These 20 items can be found in Supplementary Appendix A. Across two pilot studies, we subsequently developed and tested the trait version of the State-Trait Intellectual Humility Scale, as well as a contextualized version of the scale in which participants responded to the IH items in their state format, with regards to a particular incident of their choosing. In addition, we collected data pertaining to convergent and discriminant validity and assessed the performance of the State-Trait IH Scale in comparison to existing trait IH scales (Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016; Leary et al., 2017). The pilot studies are briefly summarized below. Pilot Study 1 Participants The participants for Pilot 1 were 612 individuals in the United States recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) service. The data set was randomly divided into two groups to serve as the samples for Pilot 1A (n = 283, exploratory factor analysis) and Pilot 1B (n = 329, confirmatory factor analysis). The entire group of participants served as the sample for Pilot 1C (n = 612). Measures Measures for Pilot Study 1 can be found in Supplementary Appendix C. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results A principal axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation (see Supplementary Appendix A) found that a one-factor solution accounted for 53.4% of the variance (α = .91), with all factor loadings for selected items greater than 0.63. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results We analyzed the one-factor solution identified by the Exploratory Factor Analysis with structural equation modeling, using MPlus. Fit indices supported a one-factor solution (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.923; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.045, see Supplementary Appendix). Estimation of a single-factor model using maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis produced values of 0.91 for the CFI and 0.05 for the SRMR. To confirm that the state version of the State-Trait IH Scale was applicable to state reports, the authors examined the factor structure of the contextualized measure using the lavaan package in R (Rosseel, 2012). The one-factor model fits the data well: χ2 (109) = 180.03, p < .001; CFI = 0.95; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.076 (90% confidence interval [CI] = 0.066, 0.085). Convergent and Discriminant Validity Pearson correlations were used to measure associations between scores on both the trait and state version of the State-Trait IH Scale, and scores on the other measures. Results of these correlation analyses provided support for the conceptualization of IH as a moral trait, and an intellectual virtue, yet still a distinct construct from general humility. Descriptions of these scales, including example items and expected relationships between these scales and trait IH, are outlined in Supplementary Appendix C. In addition, we adapted the methodology of Brienza and colleagues (2017) in administering an event reconstruction task, which was then paired with a contextualized state measure of IH, to test the applicability of the scale to a single event (i.e., state). The event reconstruction task is detailed in Supplementary Appendix D. To confirm that the state version of the Trait-State IH Scale was applicable to state reports, the authors examined the factor structure of the contextualized measure using the lavaan package in R (Rosseel, 2012). The one-factor model fits the data well: χ2 (109) = 180.03, p < .001; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.076 (90% CI = 0.066, 0.085). Finally, Pearson correlations were used to measure associations between scores on both the trait and state IH scales, and scores on the other measures. The values of these correlations can be seen in Supplementary Appendix E. Pilot Study 2 Participants The participants for Study 2 were 445 individuals in the United States recruited through MTurk service. Of the Study 2 participants, seven were excluded from analyses as a result of failure to respond in a satisfactory manner to attention check questions, leaving a sample size of n = 438. Measures Measures for Pilot Study 2 and expected relationships between those measures and the State-Trait IH Scale can be found in Supplementary Appendix F. Analyses and Results As in the research by Leary and colleagues (2017), Pearson correlations were used to measure associations between scores on the IH scale and scores on the other measures. Results of these analyses are presented in Supplementary Appendix G. Overall, the correlational analyses showed similar magnitude and direction to those of the other measures of IH (Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016; Leary et al., 2017). However, of particular interest are a number of correlations that illustrate discriminant validity with constructs that are theoretically expected to bear similarities (or differences) to IH, including relationships with measures of open-mindedness and epistemic curiosity, which distinguish the constructs from IH (see Supplementary Appendix). Finally, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses consistent with the analyses by Krumrei-Mancuso and Rouse (2016) to examine incremental validity of the State-Trait Intellectual Humility Scale in predicting scores on Actively Open-Minded Thinking (Stanovich & West, 2007) and the NPI-40 (Raskin & Terry, 1988). The State-Trait IH Scale was found to have similar predictive validity to the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale for both AOMT and NPI-40. Consistent with the analyses by Krumrei-Mancuso and Rouse (2016), Step 1 predictors were age and social desirability. Step 2 predictors were the greed-avoidance and modesty facets of the HEXACO Honesty-Humility subscale (Lee & Ashton, 2016). Step 3 predictor was either the CIHS (Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016) or the Intellectual Humility Scale (Leary et al., 2017) in respective analyses. Step 4 predictor was the State-Trait IH Scale. Notably, our analyses did not include IPIP Values in Action Humility Scale data (Goldberg et al., 2006), although this scale was included in the original analyses by Krumrei-Mancuso and Rouse (2016). The State-Trait IH Scale has similar predictive validity to the CIHS (Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016) and the Intellectual Humility Scale (Leary et al., 2017) for both AOMT and NPI-40. Results of these analyses are presented in Supplementary Appendices H and I. Additionally, the State-Trait IH Scale predicted additional variance in epistemic curiosity and tolerance (but not AOMT) over both the CIHS and the Leary and colleagues’ IH Scale when controlling for age, social desirability, greed-avoidance, and modesty (see Supplementary Appendices J and K). Main Study: Examining Manifestations of IH in Daily Life As measuring an individual’s IH in daily life can provide important insight into the frequency and stability with which people behave in an intellectually humble manner, the next step was to validate the state version of the State-Trait IH Scale, as approximated in Pilot Study 1. To summarize our progress thus far, we successfully validated a trait version of the State-Trait IH Scale for utilization in tandem with the state version (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009), as well as validating a contextualized daily assessment methodology (Brienza et al., 2017). The main study therefore employs a state version of the scale—after first successfully confirming the factor structure of the state version of the State-Trait IH Scale—to examine manifestations of IH-relevant characteristics in daily life using an experience sampling methodology (ESM). Methods We employed ESM (Conner, Tennen, Fleeson, & Barrett, 2009) to examine the relationships between self-reported trait level IH and self-reported state IH (Wake Forest University IRB #00022643). Participants Participants were students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a small, private university in the southern United States. Of the participants (n = 111) who provided information about their gender identity, 58 (52.3%) identified as male and 53 (47.7%) identified as female. Participants were between 18 and 22 years of age (M = 19.06, SD = 0.94). When reporting their ethnicities, the majority of participants identified themselves as White (n = 79; 71.2%), whereas smaller numbers of Hispanic or Latino (n = 6; 5.4%), Black (n = 7; 6.3%), Asian (n = 14; 12.6%), and other ethnicity (n = 5; 4.5%) individuals participated in the study. Participants received course credit for taking part in the study. Procedure Participants in the main study first completed the trait measure of IH in person. The night after completing their trait measure, participants received an invitation via email to a questionnaire about their recent interactions. The participants received two such invitations per day, for a period of 21 days. Measures Intellectual Humility The participants completed a trait measure of IH at the introductory session as well as a state IH scale twice daily (Supplementary Appendix B). Items in the state scale were identical to trait scale, with the exception of changes in verb tense. As we expected that IH should show itself in daily life, but only in relevant situations, participants were provided with the following prompt at the beginning of each daily response, adapted from the procedure of Brienza and colleagues (2017): “We would like you to think about a challenging situation (e.g., a disagreement, conflict, discussion, problem that you had to solve) that has happened to you with another person since the last survey. This should be a situation that you yourself were involved in, whether or not you were the person who initiated the situation. Have you had such an interaction within the past 60 minutes?” If participants responded “yes” to this question, they were directed toward the IH state scale, along with a series of questions about the person with whom they interacted, including the extent to which they perceived the situation as being a disagreement, whether they saw the other individual in the situation as intelligent, knowledgeable, likeable, moral, and reasonable (on a 5-point Likert scale). Following the procedure employed in Blackie and colleagues (2017), participants who responded “no” to the prompt were directed to a series of questions about a social interaction they had experienced since their last assessment, and measures examining their current well-being and their daily manifestation of four Big Five traits (all Big Five traits except Agreeableness). Both sets of assessments were created to be equivalent in length. (A reviewer noted the possibility reporting an IH-relevant event first could be associated with greater likelihood of subsequent endorsement (or nonendorsement) of IH-relevant events. We tested for this possibility among participants who endorsed experiencing an IH-relevant event at least one point during the study by conducting an independent-sample t test examining differences the percentage of IH-relevant event endorsements across the course of the study for participants endorsed experiencing an IH-relevant event at the first assessment (M = 0.34, SD = 0.24) and those who did not endorse experiencing an IH-relevant event at the first assessment (M = 0.26, SD = 0.22). There was no significant difference between the two conditions, t (100) = −1.84, p = .46.) Results Overall, we collected a total of 3,045 survey responses from participants. However, given that participants did not always report opportunities to enact IH, only 833 of the daily responses included manifestations of IH-relevant characteristics. Furthermore, due to a coding error, two items (“Even when I am certain about my opinion, I will research information supporting the opposing viewpoint” and “I ask others to provide constructive criticism towards my ideas”) were excluded from this analysis of trait IH. Nevertheless, analyses showed that aggregated state and trait IH were highly correlated, r(94) = .47, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.30, 0.61. Examining the Factor Structure of State IH To test whether state and trait IH yielded similar factor structures, we ran a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using R with the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012) and the mcfa.input() function provided by Huang (2017). We specified a single-factor solution for both within-person and between-person levels. The hypothesized models fit the data well. Specifically, confirmatory factor analyses for the state version of the State-Trait IH Scale showed a strong fit for the hypothesized within-person model (CFI = 0.941, RMSEA = 0.061, SRMR = 0.041) and an adequate fit for the hypothesized between-person model (CFI = 0.907, RMSEA = 0.090, SRMR = 0.058). Examining Within-Person Variability in Daily IH The researchers expected substantial within-person variability on state IH. To test this hypothesis, we computed an unconditional means model to partition the total variance into between- and within-level components. The results indicated that there was substantial within-person variance and that the within-person variance was larger than the between-person variance (Table 1). Table 1. Estimates From Multilevel Unconditional Means Model on the State IH Scale IH scale Grand mean 3.34 (3.23, 3.45) Between-person variance 0.25 Within-person variance 0.36 Intraclass correlation 0.41 Between-person n 823 Within-person n 113 IH scale Grand mean 3.34 (3.23, 3.45) Between-person variance 0.25 Within-person variance 0.36 Intraclass correlation 0.41 Between-person n 823 Within-person n 113 Note: 95% confidence interval is reported in the bracket. View Large Table 1. Estimates From Multilevel Unconditional Means Model on the State IH Scale IH scale Grand mean 3.34 (3.23, 3.45) Between-person variance 0.25 Within-person variance 0.36 Intraclass correlation 0.41 Between-person n 823 Within-person n 113 IH scale Grand mean 3.34 (3.23, 3.45) Between-person variance 0.25 Within-person variance 0.36 Intraclass correlation 0.41 Between-person n 823 Within-person n 113 Note: 95% confidence interval is reported in the bracket. View Large Situational Contingencies of IH Manifestations We ran a multilevel model (MLM) regression to examine the extent to which individuals higher in IH perceived the individual with whom they had a difference in opinion as intelligent, knowledgeable, likeable, moral, or reasonable. Perceiving the interaction as a disagreement was negatively related to manifestations of IH, such that lower levels of IH were associated with perceiving the difference in opinion as a disagreement. Additionally, seeing the individual as moral positively predicted IH, such that higher intellectual humility was reported in conjunction with reports of the interaction’s moral relevancy. Seeing the other individual as intelligent or knowledgeable also positively predicted IH, but these effects only reached marginal significance (Table 2). These findings are arguably also consistent with the “non-defensiveness” account of IH (Whitcomb et al., 2015), given that being seen as possessing knowledge may have the same impact on targets as being moral (see Baehr  on the value of epistemic virtue) and thus may signal specific intentions toward targets (Goodwin, 2015). However, these results are tentative and await future replication. Table 2. Random Intercept Model for Variables Predicting State Intellectual Humility Random intercept model Parameters Estimates 95% CI Regression coefficients (fixed effects) Intercept 2.65 (0.16)*** 2.34, 2.97 Disagreement −0.10 (0.02)*** −0.13, −0.06 Intelligent 0.07 (0.04)† 0.00, 0.14 Knowledgeable 0.06 (0.03)† 0.00, 0.13 Likeable 0.04 (0.03) −0.02, 0.09 Moral 0.07 (0.03)* 0.01, 0.13 Reasonable 0.01 (0.03) −0.05, 0.06 Variance components (random effects) Residual 0.23 — Intercept 0.31 — Model summary Deviance statistic 1,528.7 Number of estimated parameters 9 Random intercept model Parameters Estimates 95% CI Regression coefficients (fixed effects) Intercept 2.65 (0.16)*** 2.34, 2.97 Disagreement −0.10 (0.02)*** −0.13, −0.06 Intelligent 0.07 (0.04)† 0.00, 0.14 Knowledgeable 0.06 (0.03)† 0.00, 0.13 Likeable 0.04 (0.03) −0.02, 0.09 Moral 0.07 (0.03)* 0.01, 0.13 Reasonable 0.01 (0.03) −0.05, 0.06 Variance components (random effects) Residual 0.23 — Intercept 0.31 — Model summary Deviance statistic 1,528.7 Number of estimated parameters 9 Note: CI = confidence interval. Parameter estimated standard errors are listed in parentheses. †p < .10. *p < .05. ***p < .001. View Large Table 2. Random Intercept Model for Variables Predicting State Intellectual Humility Random intercept model Parameters Estimates 95% CI Regression coefficients (fixed effects) Intercept 2.65 (0.16)*** 2.34, 2.97 Disagreement −0.10 (0.02)*** −0.13, −0.06 Intelligent 0.07 (0.04)† 0.00, 0.14 Knowledgeable 0.06 (0.03)† 0.00, 0.13 Likeable 0.04 (0.03) −0.02, 0.09 Moral 0.07 (0.03)* 0.01, 0.13 Reasonable 0.01 (0.03) −0.05, 0.06 Variance components (random effects) Residual 0.23 — Intercept 0.31 — Model summary Deviance statistic 1,528.7 Number of estimated parameters 9 Random intercept model Parameters Estimates 95% CI Regression coefficients (fixed effects) Intercept 2.65 (0.16)*** 2.34, 2.97 Disagreement −0.10 (0.02)*** −0.13, −0.06 Intelligent 0.07 (0.04)† 0.00, 0.14 Knowledgeable 0.06 (0.03)† 0.00, 0.13 Likeable 0.04 (0.03) −0.02, 0.09 Moral 0.07 (0.03)* 0.01, 0.13 Reasonable 0.01 (0.03) −0.05, 0.06 Variance components (random effects) Residual 0.23 — Intercept 0.31 — Model summary Deviance statistic 1,528.7 Number of estimated parameters 9 Note: CI = confidence interval. Parameter estimated standard errors are listed in parentheses. †p < .10. *p < .05. ***p < .001. View Large General Discussion The present research builds on new directions in research on personality (e.g., Blackie & Jayawickreme, 2015; Jayawickreme and colleagues, 2014) and existing research to assess within-person variability of state IH in people’s lives. Given the potential self-report biases involved when participants report on positive or socially desirable traits (Paulhus & Vazire, 2007; Vazire & Carlson, 2010), it is important that researchers assess the extent to which participants’ beliefs about their self-concept are manifested in participants’ daily behavior (Blackie et al., 2017). Furthermore, given the recent call to study wisdom in context (Grossmann, 2017), the studies outlined in the present article aimed to build on existing measures of IH to assess a core quality of IH—taking ownership of one’s cognitive limitations by admitting one’s mistakes—in interpersonal contexts. The present scale builds on the existing literature to offer a contextualized understanding of how IH may facilitate wise reasoning in daily life. The State-Trait IH Scale was found in its different instantiations to be a reliable measure of both trait and state IH. The factor structure and reliability of the scale were comparable to existing measures of IH, for example, the Intellectual Humility Scale (Leary et al., 2017). However, the State-Trait IH Scale includes additional content addressing the ability to admit and take ownership of one’s mistakes, which scholars have argued is central to IH (Whitcomb et al., 2015) in interpersonal contexts. Furthermore, the present research demonstrated convergent validity as the trait version of the State-Trait IH Scale was positively correlated with constructs that capture the intellectual nature of this virtue and skills involved in enacting it, such as Need for Cognition (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984) and Intellect (Mussel, 2013). Moreover, we found evidence for discriminant validity because, as expected, the trait version of the State-Trait IH Scale was not related to trait Narcissism (Raskin & Terry, 1988), HEXACO Emotionality (Lee & Ashton, 2016), or religious/spiritual beliefs (Koenig & Bussing, 2010). However, the trait version of the State-Trait IH Scale was also correlated (albeit to a small degree) with other measures that are related, but not central, to the definition of IH (e.g., self-esteem). We also found that the trait measure exhibited good incremental predictive validity over two established IH trait scales. Our findings suggest that the trait versions of the State-Trait IH Scale and Leary and colleagues (2017) are equally valid for assessing IH at the global level. However, we note again the main advantage of the State-Trait IH Scale is that it allows for a direct comparison between trait and state IH utilizing the same content. One goal of the main study was to validate the suitability of the state version of the State-Trait IH Scale for use in daily assessment. The results of the confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the state version of the State-Trait IH Scale is equivalent to the trait version of the State-Trait IH Scale in its validity as an assessment of IH. As Fleeson (2014) argued, showing that the changes people report at the trait level manifest in daily beliefs, behaviors, and emotions is an important criterion for demonstrating that a trait assessment trait in fact reflects daily behavior. We also found that aggregated IH state assessments were strongly correlated with summary trait scores, showing that individuals’ trait reports largely track their reported behaviors in daily life (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009). Although IH is a socially desirable trait that may be sensitive to bias, the contextualized experience sampling assessment utilized in the main study (building on the work of Grossmann et al., 2016) was developed to mitigate some of these biases. Future research should build on this work by examining other methods to combat bias in state assessment (Finnigan & Vazire, 2017; Fleeson, 2017). Moreover, the present research found that participants demonstrated significant within-person variability in state IH and that this variability was greater than the between-person variability. The finding that participants’ own IH daily behavior varies to a greater degree than it does from other participants indicates that further research is needed to understand the situations that promote or hinder the enactment of IH. This contextualized approach to diary assessment represents a novel approach to experience sampling that may help mitigate biases in ESM assessment. Nevertheless, examining the relationship between self-report (state and trait) IH and informant IH represents an important avenue of future research. The main study further assessed situational contingencies that promote engagement in state-IH thoughts, feelings, and behaviors at a particular moment in time. As noted in the introduction, much existing research into IH has viewed it as a character virtue, in which some people are categorized as being more or less humble than others. However, although there are dispositional differences in individuals’ IH, there is a reason to believe that this virtue can be learned through individuals’ experiences. The main study employed this contextual approach (Grossmann, 2017) and focused on one such experience—the social interaction with another person that involved working to resolve a disagreement or problem together. As hypothesized (following Goodwin, 2015), participants who saw the other individual as moral demonstrated more IH in their daily interactions. We also found that perceiving the situation as a disagreement was unsurprisingly negatively related to IH. However, future research should replicate these findings and also test for the hypothesis that seeing the other individual as intelligent or knowledgeable predicts IH. Although this received only marginal support in the present study, such a hypothesis is arguably supported by the nondefensive account of IH (Whitcomb et al., 2015), as seeing someone as an authority could lead to a greater willingness to admit one’s fallibility. Limitations and Future Directions We note a number of limitations. First, we defined state IH in this study as IH assessed twice per day. However, as noted in Jayawickreme, Tsukayama, and Kashdan (2017), there is variability in range of the duration of what is considered a “momentary” assessment. Jayawickreme and colleagues (2017) assessed daily satisfaction once per day, whereas King, Hicks, Krull, and Del Gaiso’s (2006) “momentary” assessments of psychological well-being were from participants’ reflections over their previous 2 days. Changing the frame of state IH may change the observed relationships. Second, our results were based on predominantly white, American students at a private university and might not generalize to other samples. Future work needs to replicate this finding in both similar and different samples, including samples where state-IH manifestations may vary significantly (e.g., across different cultures [Grossmann et al., 2012] and levels of social class [Brienza & Grossmann, 2017]). We note here that college students may not be a representative indicator of how wisdom-related qualities manifest in the general population. Third, future research should both examine other theoretically based psychological properties of the situations people are in when making well-being assessments (Rauthmann et al., 2014) and experimentally manipulate situational contingencies to directly assess their causal relationship with state IH (following Grossmann & Kross, 2014). Fourth, given that an important goal of the present study was to develop a measure of IH that both accurately assessed the full range of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with it and could be employed at both the trait and state levels, our scale development strategy focused on validating the trait measure before the state measure. Although this direction of validation is consistent with past research (e.g., Fleeson  extrapolated state content from the Big Five trait measures), future research on state IH and state wisdom may focus directly on developing valid state assessments (Fleeson, 2017). In summary, the present research developed the State-Trait IH Scale for assessing the construct at the trait and state levels. We believe that future research can build on the present findings to assess state manifestations of wisdom with greater validity and identify the mechanisms underlying wisdom (Fleeson, 2017). We believe that these new measures are novel in that they both offer greater content validity and coverage of IH (focusing on its definition as owning up to one’s intellectual shortcomings; Whitcomb et al., 2015) and provide a robust measure for assessing IH in daily life. We are hopeful that this preliminary research represents the latest step in capturing one of the significant advantages of assessing wisdom in daily life, as opposed to through hypothetical scenarios or one-off trait assessments (Grossmann et al., 2016)—increasing our understanding of the contextual factors that impact within-person variability in wisdom-content characteristics. Supplementary Material Supplementary data is available at The Gerontologist online. Funding This work was supported by the John Templeton Foundation (grant #60450 to E.J.). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. Conflict of Interest None reported. Acknowledgments We thank Alan Wilson, Abby Lovette, Jamie Yang, Bradley Wehrle, Trevor Hautau, Jason Baehr, Rich Lerner, Chris Napolitano, Justin Lerner, and the members of the Growth Initiative Lab for their thoughtful assistance at various stages of this project. References Baehr, J. S. ( 2011). The inquiring mind: On intellectual virtues and virtue epistemology . New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bem, D., & Allen, A. ( 1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review , 81, 506– 520. doi: 10.1037/h0037130 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Blackie, L. E. R., & Jayawickreme, E. ( 2015). The example of adverse life experiences as unique situations. European Journal of Personality , 29, 385– 386. Blackie, L. E. R., Jayawickreme, E., Tsukayama, E., Forgeard, M. J. C., Roepke, A. M., & Fleeson, W. ( 2017) Post-traumatic growth as positive personality change: Developing a measure to assess within- person variability. Journal of Research in Personality , 69, 22– 32. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bleidorn, W., & Denissen, J. ( 2015). Virtues in action—The new look of character traits. British Journal of Psychology , 106, 700– 723. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12117 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Brienza, J. P., & Grossmann, I. ( 2017). Social class and wise reasoning about interpersonal conflicts across regions, persons and situations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences , 284, 20171870. Advance online publication; doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1870 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Brienza, J., Kung, F. Y. H., Santos, H. C., Bobocel, D., & Grossmann, I. ( 2017). Wisdom, bias, and balance: Toward a process-sensitive measurement of wisdom-related cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . doi: 10.1037/pspp0000171 Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. ( 1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment , 48, 306– 307. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Cervone, D. ( 2004). The architecture of personality. Psychological Review , 111, 183– 204. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.183 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Chancellor, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. ( 2013). Humble beginnings: Current trends, state perspectives, and hallmarks of humility. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 7, 819– 833. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12069 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Conner, T. S., Tennen, H., Fleeson, W., & Barrett, L. F. ( 2009). Experience sampling methods: A modern idiographic approach to personality research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 3, 292– 313. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00170.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ellis, B., Bianchi, J., Griskevicius, V., & Frankenhuis, W. ( 2017). Beyond risk and protective factors: An adaptation-based approach to resilience. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 12, 561– 587. doi: 10.1177/1745691617693054 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Finnigan, K., & Vazire, S. ( 2017). The incremental validity of average state self-reports over global self-reports of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . Advance online publication; doi: 10.1037/pspp0000136 Fleeson, W. ( 2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distribution of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80, 1011– 1027. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Fleeson, W. ( 2007). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behavior. Journal of Personality , 75, 825– 861. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00458.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Fleeson, W. ( 2014). Four ways of (not) being real, and whether they are essential for post-traumatic growth. Commentary on Jayawickreme and Blackie. European Journal of Personality , 28, 336– 337. Fleeson, W. ( 2017). The production mechanisms of traits: Reflections on two amazing decades. Journal of Research in Personality , 69, 4– 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. ( 2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 97, 1097– 1114. doi: 10.1037/a0016786 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. ( 2015). Whole trait theory. Journal of Research in Personality , 56, 82– 92. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.009 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Frederiksen, N. ( 1972). Toward a taxonomy of situations. American Psychologist , 27, 114– 123. doi: 10.1037/h0032705 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Funder, D. C. ( 2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology , 52, 197– 221. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.197 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Furr, R., & Funder, D. ( 2004). Situational similarity and behavioral consistency: Subjective, objective, variable-centered, and person-centered approaches. Journal of Research in Personality , 38, 421– 447. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2003.10.001 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C., & Gough, H. G. ( 2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality , 40, 84– 96. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Goodwin, G. P. ( 2015). Moral character in person perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 24, 38– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Grossmann, I. ( 2017). Wisdom in context. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 12, 233– 257. doi: 10.1177/1745691616672066 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Grossmann, I., Gerlach, T., & Denissen, J. ( 2016). Wise reasoning in the face of everyday life challenges. Social Psychological and Personality Science , 7, 611– 622. doi: 10.1177/1948550616652206 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Grossmann, I., Karasawa, M., Izumi, S., Na, J., Varnum, M. E., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. ( 2012). Aging and wisdom: Culture matters. Psychological Science , 23, 1059– 1066. doi: 10.1177/0956797612446025 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Grossmann, I., & Kross, E. ( 2014). Exploring Solomon’s paradox: Self-distancing eliminates the self-other asymmetry in wise reasoning about close relationships in younger and older adults. Psychological Science , 25, 1571– 1580. doi: 10.1177/0956797614535400 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hoyle, R., Davisson, E., Diebels, K., & Leary, M. ( 2016). Holding specific views with humility: Conceptualization and measurement of specific intellectual humility. Personality and Individual Differences , 97, 165– 172. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.043 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Huang, F. L. ( 2017). Conducting multilevel confirmatory factor analysis using R. Retrieved from http://faculty.missouri.edu/huangf/data/mcfa/MCFA%20in%20R%20HUANG.pdf Jayawickreme, E., & Blackie, L. E. R. ( 2016). Exploring the psychological benefits of hardship: A critical reassessment of posttraumatic growth . New York: Springer. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Jayawickreme, E., Meindl, P., Helzer, E. G., Furr, R. M., & Fleeson, W. ( 2014). Virtuous states and virtuous traits: How the empirical evidence regarding the existence of broad traits saves virtue ethics from the situationist challenge. Theory and Research in Education , 12, 1– 26. doi: 10.1177/1477878514545206 Jayawickreme, E., Tsukayama, E., & Kashdan, T. B. ( 2017). Examining the within-person effect of affect on daily satisfaction. Journal of Research on Personality , 71, 27– 32. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J. L., & Del Gaiso, A. K. ( 2006). Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 90, 179– 196. doi: 10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Koenig, H. G., & Bussing, A. ( 2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemiological studies. Religions , 1, 78– 85. doi: 10.3390/rel1010078 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kross, E., & Grossmann, I. ( 2012). Boosting wisdom: Distance from the self enhances wise reasoning, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 141, 43– 48. doi: 10.1037/a0024158 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., & Rouse, S. V. ( 2016). The development and validation of the comprehensive intellectual humility scale. Journal of Personality Assessment , 98, 209– 221. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1068174 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Isherwood, J. C., Raimi, K. T.,… Hoyle, R. H. ( 2017). Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 43, 793– 813. doi: 10.1177/0146167217697695 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lee, K., & Ashton, M. ( 2016). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment . Advance online publication; doi: 10.1177/1073191116659134 McElroy, S. E., Rice, K. G., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Hill, P. C., Worthington, E. L., & Van Tongeren, D. R. ( 2014). Intellectual humility: Scale development and theoretical elaborations in the context of religious leadership. Journal of Psychology and Theology , 42, 19– 30. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Meagher, B. R., Leman, J. C., Bias, J. P., Latendresse, S. J., & Rowatt, W. C. ( 2015). Contrasting self-report and consensus ratings of intellectual humility and arrogance. Journal of Research in Personality , 58, 35– 45. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Meindl, P., Jayawickreme, E., Furr, R., & Fleeson, W. ( 2015). A foundation beam for studying morality from a personological point of view: Are individual differences in moral behaviors and thoughts consistent? Journal of Research in Personality , 59, 81– 92. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.09.005 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Mussel, P. ( 2013). Intellect: A theoretical framework for personality traits related to intellectual achievements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 104, 885– 906. doi: 10.1037/a0031918 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Paulhus, D. L., & Vazire, S. ( 2007). The self-report method. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 224– 239). New York: Guilford Press. Pervin, L. A. ( 1978). Definitions, measurements, and classification of stimuli, situations, and environments. Human Ecology , 6, 71– 105. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Raskin, R., & Terry, H. ( 1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54, 890– 902. doi: 10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1990 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A.,… Funder, D. C. ( 2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 107, 677– 718. doi: 10.1037/a0037250 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Roberts, R. C., & Wood, W. J. ( 2007). Intellectual virtues: An essay in regulative epistemology . New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Rosseel, Y. ( 2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software , 48, 1–36. doi: 10.18637/ jss.v048.i02 Sedikides, C., Slabu, L., Lenton, A., & Thomaes, S. ( 2017). State authenticity. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 26, 521– 525. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Shoda, Y., & Lee Tiernan, S. ( 2002). What remains invariant? Finding order within a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across situations. In D. Cervone & W. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality science (pp. 241– 270). New York: Guilford. Snyder, M., & Cantor, N. ( 1998). Understanding personality and social behavior: A functionalist strategy. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 635– 679). New York: McGraw-Hill. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. ( 2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning , 13, 225– 247. doi: 10.1080/13546780600780796 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Staudinger, U. M., & Glück, J. ( 2011). Psychological wisdom research: Commonalities and differences in a growing field. Annual Review of Psychology , 62, 215– 241. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131659 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Sternberg, R. J. ( 1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology , 2, 347– 365. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Tangney, J. ( 2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 19, 70– 82. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2000.19.1.70 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ten Berge, M., & De Raad, B. ( 1999). Taxonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective: A review. European Journal of Personality , 13, 337– 360. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Thomas, S., & Kunzmann, U. ( 2014). Age differences in wisdom-related knowledge: Does the age relevance of the task matter? The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 69, 897– 905. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbt076 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Vansteelandt, K., & Van Mechelen, I. ( 2004). The personality triad in balance: Multidimensional individual differences in situation–behavior profiles. Journal of Research in Personality , 38, 367– 393. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2003.08.001 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. ( 2010). Self-knowledge of personality: Do people know themselves? Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 4, 605– 620. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00280 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Wayment, H. A., & Bauer, J. J. ( 2008). Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego . Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Webster, J. D., Westerhof, G. J., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. ( 2014). Wisdom and mental health across the lifespan. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 69, 209– 218. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbs121 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Whitcomb, D., Battaly, H., Baehr, J., & Howard-Snyder, D. ( 2015). Intellectual humility: Owning our limitations. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 94, 509– 539. doi: 10.1111/phpr.12228 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Wilson, R. E., Thompson, R. J., & Vazire, S. ( 2017). Are fluctuations in personality states more than fluctuations in affect? Journal of Research in Personality , 69, 110– 123. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences – Oxford University Press
Published: Feb 21, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud