The Journal of Positive Psychology Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice ISSN: 1743-9760 (Print) 1743-9779 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20 The complementarity of humility hypothesis: Individual, relational, and physiological effects of mutually humble partners Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Joshua N. Hook, Marciana J. Ramos, Megan Edwards, Everett L. Worthington Jr., Don E. Davis, John M. Ruiz, Chelsea A. Reid, Rachel C. Garthe, Camilla W. Nonterah, Richard G. Cowden, Annabella Opare- Henaku, Ruth Connelly, Osunde Omoruyi, Thobeka S. Nkomo & Judith Ansaa Osae-Larbi To cite this article: Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Joshua N. Hook, Marciana J. Ramos, Megan Edwards, Everett L. Worthington Jr., Don E. Davis, John M. Ruiz, Chelsea A. Reid, Rachel C. Garthe, Camilla W. Nonterah, Richard G. Cowden, Annabella Opare-Henaku, Ruth Connelly, Osunde Omoruyi, Thobeka S. Nkomo & Judith Ansaa Osae-Larbi (2019) The complementarity of humility hypothesis: Individual, relational, and physiological effects of mutually humble partners, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14:2, 178-187, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2017.1388433 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1388433 Published online: 16 Oct 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 188 View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpos20 The Journal of PosiTive Ps ychology 2019, Vol. 14, No. 2, 178–187 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1388433 The complementarity of humility hypothesis: Individual, relational, and physiological effects of mutually humble partners Daryl R. Van Tongerena, Joshua N. Hookb, Marciana J. Ramosb‡, Megan Edwardsa, Everett L. Worthington Jr.c, Don E. Davisd, John M. Ruize, Chelsea A. Reidf, Rachel C. Gartheg, Camilla W. Nonterahc§, Richard G. Cowdenh#, Annabella Opare-Henakui, Ruth Connellyj, Osunde Omoruyik, Thobeka S. Nkomol and Judith Ansaa Osae-Larbii aDepartment of Psychology, hope college, holland, Mi, usa; bDepartment of Psychology, university of north Texas, Denton, TX, usa; cDepartment of Psychology, virginia commonwealth university, richmond, va, usa; dDepartment of counseling and Psychological services, georgia state university, atlanta, ga, usa; eDepartment of Psychology, university of arizona, Tucson, aZ, usa; fDepartment of Psychology, college of charleston, charleston, sc, usa; gschool of social service administration, university of chicago, chicago, il, usa; hDepartment of Psychology, north-West university, Potchefstroom, south africa; iDepartment of Psychology, university of ghana, accra, ghana; jstudent counselling, career and Development centre, nelson Mandela Metropolitan university, Port elizabeth, south africa; kDepartment of sociology and anthropology, university of Benin, Benin city, nigeria; lDepartment of social Work, university of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, south africa ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY We report two studies of romantic couples that examine the interactive effects of actor and partner received 21 february 2017 humility on individual, relational, and physiological well-being. Using both longitudinal (Study accepted 20 september 2017 1) and physiological (Study 2) methods from two samples of romantic couples, we explored the interactive effects of actor and partner humility. Individuals in dyads with complementary high KEYWORDShumility; dyadic couples; humility reported better mental health over time following a major life transition, the birth of their relationship satisfaction; first child, in Study 1 and higher relationship satisfaction and lower physiological responses (i.e. mental health blood pressure) following the discussion of a topic of disagreement in Study 2. These results suggest that being humble is beneficial when one has a humble partner, but being arrogant – especially within a disagreement with one’s partner – could undermine the benefits of humility. That is, the benefits of humility are greatest in dyads in which both partners are humble. Past research has shown that humility may be important Social and relational benefits of humility for relationship functioning in couples (e.g. Farrell et al., We define humility as character strength marked by (a) 2015; Van Tongeren, Davis, & Hook, 2014). However, most of this research has not examined humility in both part- an accurate view of self, (b) a modest self-presentation, ners simultaneously. The effect of humility on relationship and (c) an orientation toward others (Davis et al., 2011; functioning (e.g. reported mental health following a life Van Tongeren & Myers, 2017). We draw from research on transition, relationship satisfaction) may also depend on relational humility that suggests that one’s humility can be the humility of one’s romantic partner. We suspect that the assessed by third parties like a personality judgment, and interactive effects of partner humility may have important that one’s perceived humility may vary between situations effects on relationship outcomes. For example, relation- and among individuals (Davis, Worthington, & Hook, 2010; ships could be characterized as dyads in which one partner Davis et al., 2011). Accordingly, in the present research, is humble and the other is arrogant (at a cost to the humble humility was assessed by ratings provided by individuals’ partner), dyads in which both partners act arrogantly (at romantic partners. substantial cost to both partners), and dyads in which both There are many social and relational benefits to humil- partners act humbly. Our central prediction is captured ity. Research has suggested that humility is associated with in what we call the complementarity of humility hypothe- higher levels of social functioning, including initiating new sis: relationships marked by humility in both partners will relationships (Davis et al., 2013), repairing strained close reflect benefits of humility that relationships with imbal- relationships (Van Tongeren et al., 2014), and reducing anced levels of humility or arrogance exhibited by both defensiveness following interactions with a critical out- partners will not. group member (Van Tongeren et al., 2016). Indeed, humble CONTACT Daryl r. van Tongeren vantongeren@hope.edu ‡Marciana J. ramos is now at Berklee college of Music, liberal arts, Boston, Ma, usa§camilla W. nonterah is now in university of richmond, Department of Psychology, richmong, va, usa#richard g. cowden is now in university of KwaZulu-natal, Department of Behavioural Medicine, Durban, south africa © 2017 informa uK limited, trading as Taylor & francis group THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 179 individuals are generally considered more helpful (LaBouff, among married couples, interacting with a more hostile Rowatt, Johnson, Tsang, & Willerton, 2012) and less selfish spouse is acutely associated with greater perceived stress (Exline & Hill, 2012) than are less humble or arrogant peo- and cardiovascular reactivity (Smith & Brown, 1991; Smith ple. Relationally, individuals are more satisfied with hum- & Gallo, 1999), and higher hostility in one spouse is associ- ble partners, in part because of their greater commitment ated with lower perceived marital quality both cross-sec- to such partners (Farrell et al., 2015). The social benefits of tionally and longitudinally for both spouses (Baron et al., humility seem to be well supported. 2007). Conversely, higher dispositional optimism in one On the other hand, given the selfless nature of humble spouse is cross-sectionally associated with, and longitu- individuals, it is possible that less humble partners may dinally predictive of, greater relationship satisfaction for exploit more humble partners. When arrogant individuals both partners (Ruiz et al., 2006). know that their humble partners will consistently sacrifice Emerging data suggests that the principle of comple- and be less selfish, they might prioritize their own needs mentarity may be more salient for personality traits like over those of their partners or their relationships (e.g. humility. Interpersonal theorists posit that behavior varies Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991). Previous along two key orthogonal axes: (1) affiliation, ranging from research has found that exploitation risk is a key concern in friendly to hostile; and (2) control, ranging from dominance relational maintenance processes (Burnette, McCullough, to submission (Kiesler, 1996; Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1979). Van Tongeren, & Davis, 2012). Accordingly, with the risk of Research suggests that for warmth-based traits, comple- possible exploitation, humility may be relationally detri- mentarity is especially potent (Cundiff, Smith, Butner, mental with arrogant partners. Critchfield, & Nealey-Moore, 2015). These findings suggest that traits like humility, which emphasize interpersonal A framework for understanding the warmth and harmony, are more likely to evoke comple- interpersonal effects of humility mentarity during interpersonal interactions. Indeed, pre- vious research has highlighted how humility is associated The interpersonal tradition in psychology (Kiesler, 1996; with behaviors that convey interpersonal warmth: humble Leary, 1957; Ruiz, Matthews, Scheier, & Schulz, 2006) pro- individuals are generally helpful (LaBouff et al., 2012) and vides a theoretical framework for understanding how generous (Exline & Hill, 2012), highlighting how humility humility moderates a consistent set of interpersonal is associated with other-orientedness (see Van Tongeren dynamics and effects. A primary tenet in the interpersonal & Myers, 2017 for a review). Humility from one partner approach is the principle of complementarity (Kiesler, 1996; may elicit humility from the other partner, but that need Sadler, Ethier, & Woody, 2011), which posits that one actor’s not always be true. Indeed, humble individuals with less behavior tends to ‘pull, invite, or evoke restricted classes of humble or arrogant partners may run the risk of exploita- responses’ from their interaction partner(s) (Pincus & Ansell, tion. In such cases, because the humble individual may be 2003, p. 215). Hence, warm, affiliative behavior invites a more selfless, the more arrogant partner may capitalize on warm behavioral response from an interaction partner, such sacrifice and take advantage of the humbler partner, whereas a cold or hostile action evokes a less affiliative, leading to poorer relational outcomes. That is, the whole more negative behavioral response. Importantly, the prin- relationship may suffer when only one partner’s needs are ciple of complementarity suggests that the behavior of one being met. Conversely, in situations where both partners actor ‘restricts’ the cognitive appraisals and affective valence are humble, and both individuals are prioritizing the needs of the receiver. For example, a warm smile from one person of their partner, relationships may flourish. restricts interpretation in the receiver to positive affect and appraisals of affiliative intent rather than negative affect and Benefits of two humble partners hostile intent. The evoked response from the receiver is then constrained by this cognitive-affective experience to a set of Drawing on this approach, although humble individuals actions which complement the actions of the first person. may risk exploitation with arrogant partners, when both Importantly, this principle implies reciprocal determinism in partners act humbly, they may experience considerable that an individual not only moderates the experience of the individual and relational benefits. That is, when both part- interpersonal target, but, through a transactional exchange, ners forgo their selfish impulses for the benefit of the other their own interpersonal experience as well. partner or the relationship (Rusbult et al., 1991), considera- The interpersonal approach further suggests that per- ble benefits may accrue to both individuals. Both partners sonality traits and individual differences, like humility, may be more trusting, satisfied, and committed (see Farrell moderate interpersonal dynamics to engender a con- et al., 2015). However, these benefits may not occur if only gruent interpersonal experience across social audiences one partner acts humbly. For example, if an arrogant part- and contexts (Cantor, 1990; Sullivan, 1953). For example, ner takes advantage of a humble partner, who prioritizes 180 D . R. VAN TONGEREN ET AL. the needs of the arrogant partner before their own, the has highlighted how that period is marked by significant relationship functioning is likely to suffer. Trust may erode, stress and relational strain (Ripley et al., 2016; for a review, satisfaction may decline, and commitment may wane. see Roudi, Schumm, & Britt, 2013). Moreover, humility may Similarly, a relationship with two arrogant individuals may ease adjustment to stressful aspects of the transition to wither because neither partner tends to the other’s needs. parenthood, such as the need to communicate around However, when both partners are humble – aware of their sensitive topics, adjust to different roles and responsibil- own strengths and weaknesses, modest, and focused on ities, and negotiate decisions associated with parenting. the well-being of the other – the relationship may be par- Thus, we examined the complementarity of humility in a ticularly beneficial for both partners. longitudinal study in which we assessed humility prior to Humility has been found to be associated with other vir- the birth of a couple’s first child as a predictor of changes in tues (e.g. Davis et al., 2011; Exline & Hill, 2012). When looking stress, anxiety, and depression from pre- to post-birth. This for a relationship partner, people tend to favor forming new sample allowed us to test our complementarity of humility relationships with more humble partners (Van Tongeren hypothesis in a community sample. et al., 2014). Having a humble partner also reduces stress Next, as a more stringent test of our hypothesis, in a (Ripley et al., 2016), helps to strengthen social bonds, and second study, we strained humility by asking participants promotes forgiveness (Davis et al., 2013). Such research to discuss an area of disagreement. Such a conversation suggests the benefits of two humble partners. ought to create the greater potential for egotism, selfish- In addition, relational humility is positively associated ness, and arrogance, making humility more important but with relationship satisfaction through promoting commit- also more difficult to practice. Discussion of issues in which ment (Farrell et al., 2015). However, this process is likely the disagreement is present reliably induces stress in couples, strongest when both members of the relationship view even among happy couples (Gottman, 2000), which usu- their partner as acting unselfishly. Otherwise, the less hum- ally results in increased activity in the sympathetic nervous ble, selfish partner may exploit the more humble one. High system (Sapolsky, 2004). We examined whether comple- relational functioning requires considerable sacrifice and mentarity in humility among partners improved physio- contributions – ideally from both partners. An arrogant logical functioning and perceived relationship satisfaction partner may contribute less to the well-being of the rela- following the disagreement discussion. At present, no tionship, which will negatively affect both partners, unless research exists that relates humility to biomarkers of stress. the humble partner gives more than their share. However, Both of these situations (i.e. couples during the transi- if both partners are humble, both will sacrifice and pri- tion to parenthood and during a disagreement discussion) oritize the relationship, which will yield positive effects involve humility tests, in that the context creates a greater on relationship satisfaction for both partners. In this way, potential for selfishness and egotism to emerge and esca- relationship satisfaction will have the chance of reaching late. Accordingly, they represent the ideal conditions in its full potential, but only if both act humbly. which to test the individual and relational benefits of both partners acting humbly. Thus, we sought to examine how Humility under fire humility helps ease social interactions between committed dyads during times of relational strain. Sampling from two Previous research has suggested that one way to test vir- separate studies of couples, we examined the benefits of tues, such as humility, is to examine it in situations that humility in naturally occurring periods of stress following make humility’s expression difficult (Davis et al., 2010). For the life transition of the birth of a first child (Study 1) and example, humility should be more difficult to express in experimentally-induced stress following discussion of an situations involving conflict, stress, the receipt of praise or ongoing relational transgression (Study 2). credit, a substantial power differential, or high stakes for protecting one’s ego. Many of those conditions character- Hypotheses ize several life transitions. For example, a source of consist- ent disagreement with a spouse likely cultivates implicit In Study 1, we examined the interactive effects of actor and explicit conflict and stress, which may evoke a desire to and partner humility on three primary outcomes – stress, protect one’s ego. Likewise, life transitions (getting a new anxiety, and depression – prior to the birth of a couple’s job, starting a family, moving to a new state) may similarly first child (Time 1) and following the birth of their first child exert pressure on one’s ability to act humbly. several months later, when the newborn was 3  months Toward that end, we sought to test our complemen- old (Time 2). To ensure these associations were not due tarity of humility hypothesis in situations of considera- to baseline levels of stress, anxiety, or depression, we con- ble stress where there was likely to be conflict. First, we trolled for each outcome at Time 1 when predicting Time 2. focused on the transition to parenthood. Previous research In Study 2, we examined how humility affects physiological THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 181 responses (i.e. blood pressure) following discussion of a their partner’s humility at Time 1 (α = 0.86). Thus, humility current disagreement within the relationship. measures were other-report: each participant rated her Our central prediction is that dyads with complemen- or his partner’s humility (and, in turn, were rated by their tarity of humility – both partners are humble – will report partner on humility). the highest levels of relational functioning following a transition. Specifically, we predict that when both actor Perceived stress. Participants self-reported their own and partner humility is high, participants will report lower stress by completing the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; perceived stress, less anxiety, and less depression in Study Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983), which is a 10- 1, and greater relationship satisfaction and better physio- item self-report measure of the frequency of stress across logical responding following discussion of a disagreement various domains over the past month (e.g. ‘In the last in Study 2. month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life’, ‘In the past Study 1 month, how often have you felt nervous and stressed’), using a 5-point response option (0  =  never to 4  =  very Method often). Participants completed this measure at both Time Participants and procedure 1 (α = 0.88) and Time 2 (α = 0.88). Participants were 69 heterosexual married couples (N = 138; Mage = 30.80, SDage = 4.76) in their last trimester of Anxiety. Participants self-reported their own anxiety pregnancy with their first child together, recruited through using the state version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory labor and parenting classes at local hospitals. Couples were (SAS; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970), which is a together for an average of 75.48 months (SD = 34.45), and 20-item measure of anxiety (e.g. ‘I feel anxious’, ‘I feel high the sample was primarily Caucasian (71.7%). Participants strung’). Participants completed this measure at both completed a baseline survey in the lab (Time 1), and Time 1 (α = 0.90) and Time 2 (α = 0.90) using a 4-point research staff visited them at their home, when their new- response option (0 = not at all to 3 = very much so). born was 3 months old, for a follow-up survey (Time 2). Most (59 of the 69 couples; N = 118; 85.51%) participants Depression. Participants self-reported their own completed the Time 2 follow-up. This sample was part of a depression using the CES-D (Radloff, 1977), which is a larger investigation on the transition to parenthood (that 20-item measure of depressive symptoms during the also involved two additional follow-up sessions when the previous week (e.g. ‘I felt depressed’, ‘I felt sad’). Participants child was 9- and 21-months old); for the purposes of this completed this measure at both Time 1 (α = 0.87) and Time study, we examined only the immediate transition from 2 (α = 0.88) using a 4-point response option (0 =  rarely/ pre- to post-child, given the stress associated with a new none of the time to 3 = most or all of the time). child (Feaster & Szapocznik, 2002). Finally, because the fol- lowing analyses were conducted using the available data Results for the measures included in each analysis, the sample sizes vary slightly between analyses Data analytic plan We examined the interaction between one’s own humility Materials (as rated by their partner) and each partner’s own humil- Humility. Participants completed the Relational ity (as rated by participants) at Time 1 on stress, anxiety, Humility Scale (RHS; Davis et al., 2011), which is a 16- and depression at Time 2, while statistically controlling for item measure in which participants indicate their the outcome variable at Time 1. Because the data were partner’s humility across 16 items (e.g. ‘He/she has nested within couples, we employed multilevel mode- humble character’, ‘He/she knows his/her strengths’) ling (MLM) to account for couple-level differences in our using a 5-point response option (1 = strongly disagree to dependent variables. Because, like regression, MLM esti- 5 = strongly agree). The RHS has demonstrated construct mates the unique association between a predictor and and incremental validity, predicting humility above outcome variable, we used a three-phase analysis plan. and beyond variance accounted for by relational (i.e. First, we examined the independent effects of actor humil- similarity, closeness) and personality characteristics ity alone. Second, we examined the independent effects of (i.e. empathy, positive and negative affect) (Davis et al., partner humility alone. Third, we examined the interactive 2011). Because we were interested in how the dyad’s effects of actor and partner humility. When a significant humility before the stressful transition (i.e. birth of a interaction emerged, we followed-up by exploring the child) affected changes in important outcomes following conditional effects of the predictor at varying levels of the transition, participants completed this assessment of the moderator (±1SD) over 5000 bootstrapping iterations 182 D. R. VAN TONGEREN ET AL. using PROCESS (Hayes, 2013). As a reminder, the humil- humble is associated with lower state anxiety following ity measures were other-report; that is, each participant’s the transition to parenthood. However, contrary humility was assessed by her or his partner. Thus, actor to predictions, the interaction was not significant humility was the partner’s assessment of the participant’s (est. = −0.45, p = 0.094). humility, and partner humility was the participant’s assess- ment of their partner’s humility. Depression. When examining the independent effect of actor humility and partner humility, neither main Primary analyses effect was significant (ps > 0.197). However, the predicted Means and standard deviations for study variables are interaction between the actor and partner humility reported at pre-birth assessment (Time 1) and 3-month- on depression at Time 2 was significant (est.  =  −0.59, post-birth assessment (Time 2) in Table 1. SE = 0.24, t = −2.48, p = 0.015, 95% CI = −1.058, −0.118). Using PROCESS to examine conditional effects revealed Stress. When examining the independent effect of that – similar to the pattern found above for stress – at actor humility and partner humility, neither main effect lower levels of partner humility (−1SD), actor humility was significant (ps  >  0.226). However, the predicted was positively related to reported depression at Time 2 interaction between the actor and partner humility on (est. = 0.35, SE = 0.13, t = 2.75, p = 0.007, 95% CI = 0.098, stress at Time 2 was significant (est.  =  −0.88, SE  =  0.36, 0.605). That is, when one’s partner is arrogant, being t  =  2.43, p  =  0.019, 95% CI  =  −1.606, −0.150). Using humble is related to greater reported depression. PROCESS to examine conditional effects revealed that at However, whereas among participants with lower levels lower levels of partner humility (−1SD), actor humility was of actor humility (−1SD), partner humility was not signif- positively related to reported stress at Time 2 (est. = 0.51, icantly associated with depression at Time 2 (est. = 0.37, SE = 0.19, t = 2.60, p = 0.010, 95% CI = 0.119, 0.890). That p  =  0.078), but when actor humility was high (+1SD), is, when one’s partner is arrogant, being humble is related partner humility was negatively related to depression at to greater perceived stress. Time 2 (est. = −0.35, SE = 0.15, t = −2.35, p = 0.021, 95% However, whereas at lower levels of actor humility CI = −0.636, −0.054). Thus, among more humble individu- (−1SD), partner humility did not affect stress at Time 2, als, a partner’s humility is negatively associated with future when actor humility was high (+1SD), partner humility was depression following the transition to parenthood. Again, negatively related to reported stress at Time 2 (est. = −0.56, when both partners are humble, participants report lower SE = 0.22, t = −2.61, p = 0.010, 95% CI = −0.992, −0.136). depression. Thus, arrogant individuals may not be affected by their partner’s humility, but for humble individuals, having a Discussion humble partner reduces future stress following a major life transition. Thus, when both partners are humble, life Negotiating a major life transition, such as the transi- is perceived as less stressful. tion to parenthood, likely places considerable strain on a relational dyad. We designed Study 1 to investigate Anxiety. When examining the independent effect of how an individual’s humility, and their partner’s humil- actor and partner humility, although the main effect for ity, affected the degree of stress, anxiety, and depres- actor humility was not significant (est. = 0.00, p = 0.993), sion experienced in the months after childbirth. Partner partner humility was negatively associated with anxiety humility predicted lower anxiety at Time 2 (after the at Time 2 (est. = −0.19, SE = 0.10, t = −1.98, p = 0.050, 95% birth of a child). Moreover, there was a significant inter- CI = −0.383, 0.000). That is, viewing one’s partner as more action between the individual’s and partner’s humility Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of variables from study 1.   1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. actor humility (T1) –               2. Partner humility (T1) 0.00 –             3, stress (T1) 0.06 −0.33*** –           4. anxiety (T1) −0.02 −0.26** 0.65*** –         5. Depression (T1) 0.02 −0.39*** 0.68*** 0.59*** –       6. stress (T2) 0.08 −0.23* 0.53*** 0.44*** 0.39*** –     7. anxiety (T2) −0.03 −0.30** 0.54*** 0.49*** 0.48*** 0.76*** –   8. Depression (T2) 0.09 −0.22* 0.38*** 0.23* 0.46*** 0.72*** 0.64*** – Mean 3.33 3.49 1.59 0.84 0.53 1.71 0.76 0.55 standard Deviation 0.84 0.45 0.65 0.49 0.38 0.69 0.47 0.44 *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 183 on both stress and depression. First, we found that when following interpersonal conflict, blood pressure may one’s partner was arrogant, humility was associated increase as a physiological marker; however, individu- with greater perceived stress and reported depression als who prioritize the maintenance and repair of rela- at Time 2. This supports our theorizing that an imbal- tionships (i.e. more forgiving individuals) reported lower ance of humility may result in poorer outcomes for the blood pressure and better recovery from such stressful humble individual. Being the only humble partner in a inductions (Lawler et al., 2003). Other work has high- relational dyad appears to be taxing. However, when lighted how conciliatory behaviors by members of a both partners are humble, individuals report benefits. marital couple when discussing a marital transgres- Specifically, whereas less humble (i.e. arrogant) individ- sion reduces the blood pressure of both the victim and uals were unaffected by their partner’s humility, among offender in the situation (Hannon, Finkel, Kumashiro, & humble participants, the degree of their partner’s humil- Rusbult, 2012), suggesting the mutually beneficial role ity was directly related to lower stress and depression. of pro-relational behaviors in attenuating physiological That is, in couples in which both partners are humble, reactions following conflict. stress and depression are lower than when only one To our knowledge, no prior work has examined the partner is humble. These results provide initial evidence effects of humility on physiological responses to discuss- for the complementarity of humility hypothesis. ing a conflict. However, given that forgiveness and humility When only one partner is humble, it can create an are closely related (e.g. Davis et al., 2013; Van Tongeren et imbalance in the relational functioning of the dyad. For al., 2014), and both may be considered relational main- example, the arrogant partner may exploit the more hum- tenance mechanisms, we suspected that just as forgiv- ble partner, either intentionally or inadvertently – that is, ing individuals would demonstrate better physiological the humble partner may take on more of the household responses following conflict (i.e. lower blood pressure), and childcare responsibilities, or may simply prioritize in couples where both partners were humble, individ- the needs of their partner (e.g. Davis et al., 2011, 2013; uals would experience lower blood pressure following Van Tongeren et al., 2014). This aligns with the findings discussion of a conflict. Accordingly, consistent with our from Study 1 where humility was associated with greater central hypothesis, we predicted that in situations with perceived stress and depression when one’s partner was high humble complementarity (i.e. both partners are hum- arrogant. On the other hand, when both partners are hum- ble), individuals would demonstrate better psychological ble, demonstrating a modest view of self and a prosocial (i.e. higher relationship satisfaction) and physiological orientation toward the other partner, both individuals reap responses (i.e. lower blood pressure) following discussion the relational benefits. The degree of stress and depression of an ongoing disagreement. they both experience is lower. Thus, the benefits of humil- ity across a life transition appear to be reserved for those Method marked by humble relationships – both members of the couple are humble. Participants and procedure A strength of Study 1 is its longitudinal nature. The Participants were 93 heterosexual married couples positive effects of partner humility on anxiety, as well as (N = 186; Mage = 37.98, SDage = 13.31), recruited through the evidence for the benefits of humble complementarity local advertisements and compensated for their partic- (i.e. both partners are highly humble) during the transition ipation in this study. Couples were married for an aver- to parenthood, were found when controlling for the out- age of 143.16 months (SD = 140.40), and the sample was come variable (i.e. stress, anxiety, and depression) before primarily Caucasian (72.1%). Participants spent approx- the birth of a child. Moreover, we relied on other-reports of imately two hours in the lab completing electronic sur- humility. Building on the strengths of Study 1, in Study 2, veys and engaging in video and audio-recorded dyadic we similarly relied on other-report data from couples, but tasks. Specifically, each participant was asked to inde- extended our investigation to study how humble comple- pendently identify three areas of ongoing disagreement mentarity affects relationship quality and a physiological with their current spouse. Next, the researcher read aloud measure of blood pressure. the combined 3–6 topics the couple identified (number of unique topics varied as a result of some common, Study 2 overlapping topics between spouses). Couples were instructed to select a topic, from their combined list – Relational discord is common. The stress associated usually (one of ) the topic(s) both partners identified, if with interpersonal conflict can have significant effects applicable – about which they would engage in a 9-min on one’s psychological and physiological responses structured discussion. Each partner was asked to pres- (Sapolsky, 2004). Previous research has found that ent their perspective on the topic for 3 uninterrupted 184 D . R. VAN TONGEREN ET AL. minutes while the other partner listened. Those 6 min Results were followed by 3 min of open dialogue between the We hypothesized that complementarity of humility (i.e. partners. During that discussion, their blood pressure high humility in both partners) would result in higher rela- measured at six time-points. Finally, because the follow- tionship satisfaction than in partners in which at least one ing analyses were conducted using the available data for partner had lower humility. Moreover, we examined the the measures included in each analysis, the sample sizes physiological effects of both partners being humble (i.e. vary slightly between analyses. using the potential significance of a statistical interaction), Materials as measured by blood pressure (i.e. mean arterial pressure). Humility. Study 2 included the same assessment of α Data analytic planhumility (RHS;  = 0.90) used in Study 1. As with Study 1, using MLM to account for couple-level differences in our dependent variables, we first examined Relationship satisfaction. Participants self-reported the effects of actor and partner humility independently, their own relationship satisfaction using the Perceived and then examined the interaction between actor and Relationship Quality Components (PRQC) Inventory partner humility. Finally, we tested the conditional effects (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000), which is an 18-item across 5,000 bootstrapping iterations using PROCESS measure of relationship satisfaction (e.g. ‘How satisfied (Hayes, 2013). are you with your relationship?’ ‘How much do you trust your partner?’) using a 7-point response option (1 = not Primary analyses at all to 7 = extremely). Previous work has demonstrated Means and standard deviations for study variables are convergent validity between this scale and other reported in Table 2. established relationship measures (e.g. assessing commitment, satisfaction, intimacy, love, passion, and Relationship satisfaction. When examining the trust) (Fletcher et al., 2000). This measure demonstrated independent effect of actor humility and partner humility, acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.95). both actor humility (est. = 0.20, SE = 0.07, t = 2.63, p = 0.009, 95% CI = 0.049, 0.345) and partner humility (est. = 0.49, Blood pressure. Prior to beginning the procedure, SE = 0.07, t = 7.18, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.353, 0.620) were participants were fitted with machine-operated blood positively associated with relationship satisfaction. In pressure cuffs controlled by researchers from an adjacent addition, the predicted interaction between the actor’s room with video monitoring of participants during tasks. humility and their partner’s humility on relationship Blood pressure was measured throughout pre- and satisfaction was significant (est. = 0.25, SE = 0.10, t = 2.46, post-discussion tasks (i.e. looking at neutral landscape p = 0.016, 95% CI = 0.049, 0.278). Analyzing simple slopes stimuli and selecting preferred photos) in order to revealed that when one’s partner was arrogant (−1SD), orient participants to the procedure, establish baseline actor humility was not associated with relationship measures of blood pressure, and record the time elapsed satisfaction, whereas when one’s partner was humble after the discussion before blood pressure readings (+1SD), actor humility was significantly associated with returned to established baseline levels. During the 9-min relationship satisfaction (est.  =  0.47, p  <  0.001). That discussion, blood pressure was taken during the first and is, being humble does not yield greater relationship last minute of each of the three previously described satisfaction if one’s partner is arrogant. These findings are 3-min components of the discussion for a total of six consistent with the results of Study 1. readings during the discussion of a topic of ongoing However, simple slopes analysis revealed that part- disagreement. ner humility was more strongly associated with relation- ship satisfaction at high levels of actor humility (+1SD; est. = 0.72, p < 0.001) than at low levels of actor humility Table 2.  Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of variables from study 2. (−1SD; est. = 0.33, p < 0.001). Thus, similar to Study 1, view- ing one’s partner as high in humility is strongly associated   1. 2. 3. 4. with greater relationship satisfaction for highly humble 1. actor humility –       2. Partner humility 0.27*** –     individuals. Again, when both partners are humble, indi- 3, relationship satisfaction 0.35*** 0.52*** –   viduals report greater relationship satisfaction. 4. Blood pressure change 0.01 0.00 −0.03 – Mean 3.97 3.97 6.09 7.68 standard Deviation 0.78 0.78 0.85 5.48 Blood pressure change. When examining the ***p < 0.001. independent effect of actor humility and partner THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 185 humility, neither main effect was significant (ps > 0.849). with an arrogant partner is costly for a humble individual, However, the predicted interaction between actor being part of a mutually humble dyad may help buffer and partner humility on blood pressure change was some of the relational strain of the stressful transition to significant (est.  =  −1.61, SE  =  0.76, t  =  −2.12, p  =  0.036, parenthood that can exact costs on one’s mental health. 95% CI  =  −3.112, −0.104). Using PROCESS to examine In Study 2, we examined couples following a discussion conditional effects revealed that at lower levels of actor of an ongoing relational disagreement. After undergoing humility (−1SD), partner humility did not affect blood this situationally-induced stressful event, partners marked pressure, but when actor humility was high (+1SD), by humble complementarity reported greater relationship partner humility was marginally negatively related to satisfaction and lower blood pressure. Humility was unre- blood pressure (est. = −1.41, SE = 0.84, t = −1.67, p = 0.096, lated to relationship satisfaction when one’s partner was 95% CI = −3.071, 0.254). Thus, arrogant individuals may arrogant. These data suggest that mutually high humility not be affected by their partner’s humility, but for humble in a dyad helps the perception of the quality of the rela- individuals, having a humble partner was associated tionship, as well as one’s cardiac responses to the stress of with decreased blood pressure from before to after the discussing current tensions in a relationship. Thus, compli- discussion of a disagreement with one’s partner. This mentary humility not only buffers against relational wear- provides initial evidence for the physiological benefits of and-tear, but it is also related to improved physiological complementarily humble partners in a dyad. functioning following conflict. Previous research has examined how interpersonal interactions may operate under the principle of com- Discussion plementarity (Kiesler, 1996; Sadler et al., 2011). Dyadic The findings of Study 2 lend additional support to our exchanges, such as those typically comprising romantic overarching hypothesis: dyads in which both partners relationships, are often affected by each partners’ actions are humble report better relational and physiological out- (Pincus & Ansell, 2003). Research from this tradition sug- comes. That is, we found that when both actor and partner gests that positive behavior from one partner may elicit humility was high, individuals report greater relationship positive behavior from the other partner. The current satisfaction and lower blood pressure over time (i.e. greater work adds to that research by showing in such situations recovery) following a disagreement. Because existing where complementarity regarding humility is evident, main effects are subsumed by interactions, this suggests relationships function better. In humble dyads – where that when only one partner is humble, neither individual both actor and partner humility is high – individuals report fully reaps the benefits. When one’s partner was arrogant, lower stress and depression after a stressful life transition humility was unrelated to relationship satisfaction. This (Study 1) and higher relationship satisfaction and reduced suggests that the optimal configuration for maximizing physiological responses following an interpersonal con- benefits is a complementarily humble dyad. The pattern of flict (Study 2). Thus, this work is consistent with work on interactions resembled our findings from Study 1: the ben- complementarity in interpersonal relationships (Cundiff efits of humility are clear when both partners are humble. et al., 2015). These findings also add to, and expand, previous General discussion research that has revealed the social benefits of humil- ity. Research has found that humility is helpful in forming Our primary hypothesis was that relationships in which (Davis et al., 2013) and maintaining (Van Tongeren et al., both partners were humble would yield the greatest indi- 2014) relational bonds, and can help reduce defensiveness vidual and relational benefits. Specifically, humble com- following criticism of one’s beliefs (Van Tongeren et al., plementarity – when both the actor and their partner are 2016). Other work has suggested why humility plays such perceived as humble – results in the most favorable out- an important role in relationships: To the degree that indi- comes. We tested this hypothesis in two studies, both of viduals view their partner as humble, they report greater which found support for our hypothesis. commitment to such relationships (Farrell et al., 2015). That In Study 1, we examined couples during their transition is, some of the relational benefits of a humble partner are to parenthood. The findings reveal that whereas humble due to increased commitment. Our work suggests that the individuals report poorer outcomes when their partners social benefits of humility extend to the dyadic level. are arrogant, individuals in relationships marked by hum- Moreover, previous work on related virtues, such as ble complementarity – when both partners are humble – forgiveness, suggest that individuals assess the likeli- report less stress and lower levels of depression following hood of future exploitation as a key mechanism in deter- the birth of their first child (although we did not find the mining whether they will act virtuously toward their similarly expected results on anxiety). Thus, whereas being partner (Burnette et al., 2012). People are more likely to 186 D. R. VAN TONGEREN ET AL. forgive partners whom they value and who are less likely upon work using non-self-report assessments (see Dorn, to exploit them in the future. We suspect that humility Hook, Davis, Van Tongeren, & Worthington, 2014). Finally, signals to relationship partners how one is likely to be this work helps define boundary conditions in which treated in relationships. Given that humility is marked by humility may be more or less helpful. That is, the benefits both an awareness of one’s limitations and an other-ori- of humility in a relationship were evidenced, or amplified, ented approach, people may view humble individuals as when one’s partner was likewise humble. Future work desirable partners and esteem the relationship. On the should similarly explore the conditions in which humility other hand, individuals lacking humility may act selfishly within relationships may be maximally beneficial for both (LaBouff et al., 2012), running the risk that a less humble partners and under which, if any, conditions humility may partner may exploit the more humble partner. Situations be less effective in improving social relationships. in which one partner is highly humble and the other part- ner is not may create a relationship imbalance in which Conclusion relational functioning may suffer. In fact, being humble with an arrogant partner may actually exact relational Evidence for the social benefits of humility has been rap- costs. Thus, our findings support the positive impact of idly accumulating. The current work advances prior work complementarity in humility – where both partners are in several important ways, including clarifying that indi- high in humility – on relational flourishing, which is con- vidual and relational benefits appear to be at their highest sistent with previous work on complementarity in dyads when both partners are humble. The dyads in which both (Cundiff et al., 2015) and with the broader literature on partners are humble appears to flourish more than where complementarity (e.g. Ruiz et al., 2006; Smith & Brown, only one partner is humble. This finding suggests that in 1991; Smith & Gallo, 1999). the realm of close relationships, people might do well not only to cultivate humility in their own lives, but also to look for, and help encourage, humility in their romantic Suggestions for future research partners. Our methodological approach was diverse, moving well beyond cross-sectional self-report data with college stu- Disclosure statement dents. The data from Study 1, which examined commu- nity couples during their transition to parenthood, were No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. (a) dyadic (i.e. included both partners’ responses), (b) oth- er-report (i.e. did not rely on self-reports of humility), (c) Funding longitudinal (i.e. comparing responses before and after the This research was supported by the John Templeton Founda- birth of their first child), and (d) investigated individuals tion [grant number 48321]; Fuller Theological Seminary/Thrive in naturally occurring times of heightened stress, which Center in concert with the John Templeton Foundation [grant increases the external validity of the results. The data from number 108]; Fetzer Institute [grant number 2266, Forgiveness Study 2, which examined community couples following a and Relational Spirituality]; the John Templeton Foundation discussion of an ongoing disagreement in their relation- [grant number 14979, Relational Humility]; and the Templeton ship, were also obtained from (a) dyadic and (b) other-re- World Charity Foundation [grant number TWCF0101/AB66]. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors port data, but also assessed (c) physiological responses and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton (i.e. blood pressure change across the discussion of the Foundation, the Templeton World Charity Foundation, the Full- relational transgression) – the first of such studies in the er Thrive Center, or the Fetzer Institute. humility literature. Thus, across two studies, our findings are buttressed by dyadic, other-report, longitudinal, and References physiological responses involving couples in highly exter- nally valid situations. Still, we see several avenues for future Baron, K. G., Smith, T. W., Butner, J., Nealey-Moore, J., Hawkins, research. M. W., & Uchino, B. N. (2007). Hostility, anger, and marital adjustment: concurrent and prospective associations with First, our research focused on dyadic interactions among psychosocial vulnerability. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, romantic partners. Other relational dynamics could be 1–10. explored, such as the role of complementarity of humility Burnette, J. L., McCullough, M. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Davis, in the workplace or in places where power differentials are D. E. (2012). Forgiveness results from integrating information salient and may be important. Second, we included oth- about relationship value and exploitation risk. Personality er-reports in both studies and a physiological assessment and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 345–356. Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: Having and of blood pressure in Study 2. Future work could assess doing in the study of personality and cognition. American other physiological or health-related measures, to build Psychologist, 45, 735–750. THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 187 Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York, measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social NY: Ronald Press. Behavior, 24, 385–396. Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2003). Interpersonal theory of Cundiff, J. M., Smith, T. W., Butner, J., Critchfield, K. L., & Nealey- personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Moore, J. (2015). Affiliation and control in marital interaction: psychology: Personality and social psychology, Vol. 5 (pp. 209– Interpersonal complementarity is present but is not 229). New York, NY: Wiley. associated with affect or relationship quality. Personality and Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 35–51. scale for research in the general population. Applied Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Van Tongeren, D. Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. R., Gartner, A. L., Jennings, D. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2011). Ripley, J. S., Garthe, R. C., Perkins, A., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Relational humility: Conceptualizing and measuring humility Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., … Eaves, D. (2016).Perceived partner as a personality judgment. Journal of Personality Assessment, humility predicts subjective stress during transition to 93, 225–234. parenthood. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., & Hook, J. N. (2010). Humility: Practice, 5, 157–167. Review of measurement strategies and conceptualization as Roudi, N. R., Schumm, W. R., & Britt, S. L. (2013). Transition to personality judgment. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, parenthood. New York, NY: Springer. 243–252. Ruiz, J. M., Matthews, K. A., Scheier, M. F., & Schulz, R. (2006). Does Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Hook, J. N., Emmons, R. A., Hill, P. who you marry matter for your health? Influence of patients' C., Bollinger, R. A., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2013). Humility and and spouses' personality on their partners' psychological the development and repair of social bonds: Two longitudinal well-being following coronary artery bypass surgery. Journal studies. Self and Identity, 12, 58–77. of Personality and Social Psychology., 91, 255–267. Dorn, K., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, Worthington, E. L., Jr (2014). Behavioral methods of assessing I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: forgiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 75–80. Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Exline, J. J., & Hill, P. C. (2012). Humility: A consistent and robust Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78. predictor of generosity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, Sadler, P., Ethier, N., & Woody, E. (2011). Interpersonal 208–218. complementarity. In L. M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Eds.), Farrell, J. E., Hook, J. N., Ramos, M., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory research R., & Ruiz, J. M. (2015). Humility and relationship outcomes assessment and therapeutic interventions (pp. 123–142). in couples: The mediating role of commitment. Couple and Hoeboken, NJ: Wiley. Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 4, 14–26. Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Why zebras don’t get ulcers (3rd ed.). New Feaster, D. J. & Szapocznik, J. (2002). Interdependence of York, NY: Henry Holt Publishers. stress processes among African American family members: Smith, T. W., & Brown, P. C. (1991). Cynical hostility, attempts to Influence of HIV serostatus and a new infant. Psychology and exert social control and cardiovascular reactivity in married Health, 17, 339–363. couples. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 14, 581–592. Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The Smith, T. W., & Gallo, L. C. (1999). Hostility and cardiovascular measurement of perceived relationship quality components: reactivity during marital interaction. Psychosomatic Medicine, A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and 61, 436–445. Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual Gottman, J. M. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting interaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 927–947. Psychologists Press. Hannon, P. A., Finkel, E. J., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. E. (2012). The Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New soothing effects of forgiveness on victims’ and perpetrators’ York, NY: Norton. blood pressure. Personal Relationships, 19, 279–289. Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Social Hayes, Andrew F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, benefits of humility: Initiating and maintaining romantic and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. relationships. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 313–321. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Van Tongeren, D. R., & Myers, D. G. (2017). A social psychological Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and perspective on humility. In E. L. Worthington, Jr., D. E. Davis, research: Personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. & J. N. Hook (Eds.), Handbook of humility (pp. 150–164). New New York, NY: Wiley. York, NY: Routledge. LaBouff, J. P., Rowatt, W. C., Johnson, M. K., Tsang, J., & Willerton, Van Tongeren, D. R., Stafford, J., Hook, J. N., Green, J. D., Davis, G. M. (2012). Humble persons are more helpful than less D. E., & Johnson, K. A. (2016). Humility attenuates negative humble persons: Evidence from three studies. The Journal of attitudes and behaviors toward religious out-group Positive Psychology, 7, 16–29. members. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 199–208. Lawler, K. A., Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Billington, E., Jobe, R., Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait- Edmondson, K., & Jones, W. H. (2003). A change of heart: descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Cardiovascular correlates of forgiveness in response to Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412. interpersonal conflict. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 26, 373–393.