Affective, cognitive, and environmental inductions of humility and intellectual humility that center on self-transcendence

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model of cognitive appraisals of sanctification and self-transcendent emotions resulting in general and intellectual humility.

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

Sample Characteristics	Study 1	Study 2	Study 3
N	418	392	188
Nature of Sample	U.S. adults recruited via Prolific and paid for participation	U.S. adults recruited via Prolific and paid for participation	College students receiving class assignment credit for participating
Age in Years	M = 45.72; SD = 16.34	M = 36.66; SD = 14.58	M = 18.78; SD = 1.02
Gender
Cisgender women	50.4%	57.9%	62.2%
Cisgender men	46.4%	40.1%	36.2%
Transgender women	0.5%	none	none
Transgender men	0.2%	none	none
Other categories	1.5%	2%	1.1%
Race
White	77.0%	76.0%	62.7%
Black or African American	12.9%	6.9%	3.3%
Asian or Asian American	7.4%	9.7%	26.8%
American Indian or Alaskan Native	2.9%	0.6%	none
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	0.2%	0.3%	none
Multi-racial	22.0%	11.0%	19.3%
Ethnicity
Latinx or Hispanic	3.8%	5.7%	5.9%
Highest Education Completed
High school	38.8%	39.3%	100%
Bachelor’s degree	42.1%	42.1%	none
Graduate or professional degree	17%	15.3%	none
Median household income in USD	50,000	50,000	100,000
Political Identification
Liberal	51.6%	34.9%	38.3%
Moderate	18.9%	59%	17%
Conservative	25.5%	6.1%	33.5%
Political Party Affiliation
Democrat	42.8%	50.5%	31.9%
Republican	17%	15.1%	26.6%
Independent	30.6%	28.3%	22.3%
Religiosity
Not religious at all	52.4%	53.8%	16.5%
Slightly religious	19.9%	21.7%	32.4%
Moderately religious	17.5%	17.1%	36.7%
Very religious	8.9%	7.4%	13.8%
Religious Affiliation
Christian	47.4%	41.3%	75.7%
Jewish	1.6%	2.9%	2.6%
Muslim	1.0%	1.3%	0.5%
Buddhist	0.2%	1.8%	0.5%
Hindu	0.5%	0.3%	0.5%
Agnostic	14.8%	15.3%	6.4%
Atheist	13.2%	12.5%	none
No religion	17.9%	23.0%	13.3%
Other religion	2.8	2.6%	0.5%
Spirituality
Not spiritual at all	26.1%	29.8%	6.9%
Slightly spiritual	24.9%	28.1%	29.3%
Moderately spiritual	27%	25.8%	36.7%
Very spiritual	20.6%	16.3%	26.6%

Table 2. Estimated marginal means of variables of interest (N = 188).

	Self-transcendent Positive Emotions
Environment	Main Effect for Environment			Before Walk			After Walk			Within-group Paired Differences
	M	SE	95% CI	M	SE	95% CI	M	SE	95% CI	M	SE	95% CI
Treadmill Indoors	18.47	.69	17.10, 19.83	17.88	.70	16.49, 19.27	19.05	.81	17.45, 20.65	1.17	.65	−.13, 2.47
Urban Outdoors	18.71	.66	17.41, 20.00	17.09	.67	15.78, 18.41	20.32	.77	18.81, 21.83	3.23	.61	2.02, 4.44
Nature	21.77	.67	20.45, 23.09	18.94	.68	17.59, 20.28	24.60	.78	23.06, 26.15	5.67	.54	4.59, 6.74
Main Effect for Walk				17.97	.40	17.19, 18.75	21.32	.45	20.43, 22.22
Universality
Treadmill Indoors	36.62	.71	35.22, 38.02	36.36	.71	34.96, 37.76	36.88	.75	35.40, 38.37	.53	.38	−.24, 1.29
Urban Outdoors	36.61	.67	35.29, 37.93	35.80	.67	34.48, 37.13	37.41	.71	36.01, 38.81	1.61	.31	.99, 2.22
Nature	37.45	.69	36.10, 38.81	36.46	.69	35.11, 37.82	38.44	.73	37.01, 39.88	1.98	.37	1.24, 2.72
Main Effect for Walk				36.21	40	35.42, 36.99	37.58	.42	36.75, 38.41
General Humility
Treadmill Indoors	31.26	.64	29.99, 32.53	30.98	.68	29.64, 32.33	31.54	.69	30.18, 32.91	.56	.44	−.32, 1.44
Urban Outdoors	32.30	.61	31.10, 33.50	32.18	.64	30.91, 33.45	32.42	.66	31.13, 33.72	.24	.52	−.81, 1.29
Nature	33.62	.62	32.39, 34.85	33.13	.66	31.83, 34.43	34.11	.67	32.79, 35.44	.98	.42	.14, 1.82
Main Effect for Walk				32.10	.38	31.35, 32.85	32.69	.39	31.93, 33.46
Intellectual Humility
Treadmill Indoors	22.25	.49	21.29, 23.22	22.09	.47	21.16, 23.01	22.42	.56	21.32, 23.53	.34	.37	−.40, 1.08
Urban Outdoors	21.69	.46	20.78, 22.60	21.44	.44	20.57, 22.31	21.94	.53	20.90, 22.98	.50	.30	−.11, 1,11
Nature	21.94	.47	21.00, 22.87	21.65	.45	20.76, 22.54	22.22	.54	21.16, 23.29	.57	.27	.04, 1.10
Main Effect for Walk				21.73	.26	21.21, 22.24	22.20	.31	21.58, 22.81

Figure 2. Estimated marginal means of outcomes before and after a 20-minute walk in three environments.

Figure 2. (Continued.)

Figure 2. (Continued.)

Figure 2. (Continued.)

Table 3. Cognitive appraisals of sanctification after walk by walking environment (N = 188).

Cognitive Appraisal	Walking Environment
	Indoors			Urban Outdoors			Nature			F (2, 185)	η^2
	M	SD	95% C. I.	M	SD	95% C. I.	M	SD	95% C. I.
Sanctification of Surroundings (sacred qualities)	18.83a	12.20	15.65, 22.01	39.62b	16.91	35.46, 43.78	60.11c	10.87	57.37, 62.85	138.93***	.600
Sanctification of Walk (sacred qualities)	28.73a	15.18	24.77, 32.68	41.08b	15.52	37.26, 44.89	55.43c	12.84	52.19, 58.66	51.41***	.357
Sanctification of Walk (manifestation of God)	12.29a	6.11	10.69, 13.88	15.58b	5.80	14.15, 17.00	18.60c	5.65	17.18, 20.03	17.74***	.161

Note. As indicated by subscripts, post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction indicated that all three walking environments differed significantly from one another (p < .05) for each of the types of sanctification appraisals.

***p < .001.

Data availability

The datasets that support the reported findings are freely available from the corresponding author upon request.