Date of Award


Degree Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)


Counseling and Psychological Services

First Advisor

Don Davis

Second Advisor

Maggie Renken

Third Advisor

Ken Rice

Fourth Advisor

Jeff Ashby


Early intellectual humility research has largely relied on questionnaires that require individuals to self-evaluate their own intellectual humility, despite concerns that people low in intellectual humility may lack awareness of their degree of intellectual humility. Because of this potential source of error, it is important that self-report measures of intellectual humility are thoroughly tested for validity. In Chapter 1, I conducted a systematic literature review of measures of intellectual humility. For each measure, validity evidence is summarized and critically evaluated. Validity evidence was found lacking with respect to addressing potentially serious problems with self-report. This finding points to a need for additional validity testing for self-report measures of intellectual humility. In Chapter 2, I conducted a set of pointed tests of validity for one such measure, the General Intellectual Humility Scale (GIHS). In a sample recruited from Prolific (N = 481), GIHS scores were weakly associated with or unassociated with endorsement of epistemically unwarranted beliefs, unassociated with endorsing such beliefs as certainly true, and unassociated with endorsing such beliefs despite claiming to have carefully researched the issue. Additionally, GIHS scores predicted greater bias blind spot, and this effect remained significant when controlling for science intelligence. Finally, GIHS scores predicted belief in anthropogenic global warming when controlling for political orientation but did not attenuate political polarization about global warming. I argue that these findings are clear departures from theory yet are consistent with suspected problems with direct self-report. I conclude by discussing limitations and implications for future research.

File Upload Confirmation