ABSTRACT
Definitional disagreements as well as measurement challenges (principally, the dubious validity of a self-report measure of humility) have hindered humility research. Some resolution may have been achieved regarding the latter, as a cogent argument has been made that humility should be measured as a personality judgment (Davis et al., 2010). However, disagreement continues over defining humility (or the various types of humility, as illustrated in many chapters of this volume). Many researchers proffer multidimensional elements that include both intrapersonal and interpersonal components (e.g., Davis et al., 2011; Sheppard & Boone, 2012). The intrapersonal elements usually emphasize a moderate and/or relatively accurate self-view (Davis et al., 2011; Van Tongeren, Davis, & Hook, 2014). The interpersonal elements typically are more wide ranging and thus have been harder on which to come to consensus (Davis et al., 2013); they involve pro-relationship behaviors such as forgiveness and helping and may occur in both egalitarian relationships (e.g., romantic partners; Farrell et al., 2015) and in hierarchical relationships (e.g., religious and business settings; McElroy et al., 2014). Given our topic of relational predictors and correlates of humility, we focus on humility within the context of relationships, or relational humility.
