> I've only skimmed so far, but seems interesting and meaningful.
Any meaning the study might have would have to be validated by (a) a successful replication, and (b) construction of a falsifiable theory based on it, one that predicts behaviors and corollaries not yet seen. I won't hold my breath for that.
Much of published psychology consists of taking a common belief that "everyone knows," crafting a study that seems to support it, then publishing the result without bothering to conduct a replication or suggesting a reliable, falsifiable theoretical basis.
The thesis seems sound -- many people see humility as a positive trait. But that's why the study exists -- it's an example of confirmation bias in print.
An equally plausible study could be crafted to prove the opposite point, but that study wouldn't be published. Psychology journals publish articles their readers like, and aggressively reject articles their readers don't like.
Any meaning the study might have would have to be validated by (a) a successful replication, and (b) construction of a falsifiable theory based on it, one that predicts behaviors and corollaries not yet seen. I won't hold my breath for that.
Much of published psychology consists of taking a common belief that "everyone knows," crafting a study that seems to support it, then publishing the result without bothering to conduct a replication or suggesting a reliable, falsifiable theoretical basis.
The thesis seems sound -- many people see humility as a positive trait. But that's why the study exists -- it's an example of confirmation bias in print.
An equally plausible study could be crafted to prove the opposite point, but that study wouldn't be published. Psychology journals publish articles their readers like, and aggressively reject articles their readers don't like.