Scholarlink

<p>Although psychological theory views behavior as an interaction between person and situation, the measurement of metacognition often relies on situation-free, abstract self-views. To align measurement with interactionist frameworks, we proposed a situated approach, using intellectual humility (IH)—recognizing one’s limits and fallibility—as a proof-of-concept. We validated this approach across diverse populations: English- and Spanish-speaking North Americans (<i>N</i> = 633) and adults from 136 rural Honduran villages (<i>N</i> = 2567). Rather than rating abstract tendencies, participants reconstructed three recent disagreements (freely chosen, wrong, and right) and reported specific behaviors via branching binary probes. This method demonstrated cross-cultural coherence of the IH construct while capturing substantial situational variability. Notably, 74–81% of variance occurred <i>within</i> persons: IH expression fluctuated significantly based on epistemic context (being wrong vs. right) and social dynamics (partner status). These situational effects also fully explained gender differences in the Honduran sample. The situated approach showed efficiency outside Western, educated contexts and helps overcome the <i>humility paradox</i>—wherein the least intellectually humble overclaim their humility. We discuss four principles for aligning measurement with theory—contextual specificity, sampling from actual experiences via event reconstruction, accessibility across diverse populations via branching probes, and modeling within-person variability—offering a framework for assessing metacognitive and self-regulatory constructs beyond the constraints of static dispositional measures.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Measuring intellectual humility through situated behavior: An alternative to dispositional self-reports

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月4日

查看全文
  • Maksim Rudnev,
  • Ana Lucia Rodriguez de la Rosa,
  • Ryan Barrett,
  • Nicholas A. Christakis,
  • Igor Grossmann

摘要

Although psychological theory views behavior as an interaction between person and situation, the measurement of metacognition often relies on situation-free, abstract self-views. To align measurement with interactionist frameworks, we proposed a situated approach, using intellectual humility (IH)—recognizing one’s limits and fallibility—as a proof-of-concept. We validated this approach across diverse populations: English- and Spanish-speaking North Americans (N = 633) and adults from 136 rural Honduran villages (N = 2567). Rather than rating abstract tendencies, participants reconstructed three recent disagreements (freely chosen, wrong, and right) and reported specific behaviors via branching binary probes. This method demonstrated cross-cultural coherence of the IH construct while capturing substantial situational variability. Notably, 74–81% of variance occurred within persons: IH expression fluctuated significantly based on epistemic context (being wrong vs. right) and social dynamics (partner status). These situational effects also fully explained gender differences in the Honduran sample. The situated approach showed efficiency outside Western, educated contexts and helps overcome the humility paradox—wherein the least intellectually humble overclaim their humility. We discuss four principles for aligning measurement with theory—contextual specificity, sampling from actual experiences via event reconstruction, accessibility across diverse populations via branching probes, and modeling within-person variability—offering a framework for assessing metacognitive and self-regulatory constructs beyond the constraints of static dispositional measures.