Contrasting self-report and consensus ratings of intellectual humility and arrogance

Despite a growing interest in intellectual humility (IH) and intellectual arrogance (IA), adequate measurement remains a challenging issue. This paper presents a pair of studies that compare two strategies: self-assessments and relational measures of group consensus. In Study 1, unacquainted participants provided round-robin judgments following a set of collaborative tasks. A social relations analysis revealed no consensus for either construct, making the relational measure untenable. However, a round-robin design following months of cooperative course work (Study 2) produced consensus for both constructs. Self-reported IH in both studies was positively associated with self-enhancement, despite the construct's definitional association with accurate self-appraisals, whereas relational IH was not. These studies reveal key ways in which personal and relational assessments can differ.