Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42560636›Full record

ArticleCognitive science2026

Intellectual Humility and Probabilistic Belief.

Logan Nelson, Kathryn McGregor, Tania Lombrozo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Logan NelsonDepartment of Psychology, Princeton University.
Kathryn McGregorDepartment of Psychology, Princeton University.
Tania LombrozoDepartment of Psychology, Princeton University.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4980-7839

Funding

John Templeton Foundation 62265
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is natural to express some beliefs in binary terms (P is either believed or not, e.g., "bribery is immoral"), and others in terms of a subjective probability (P has some probability of being true, e.g., "there's an 80% chance a Democrat will win the next election"). Construing a belief in probabilistic terms (other than 0% or 100%) implicitly conveys a recognition of uncertainty (one's ignorance) and the possibility of being wrong (one's fallibility), which are key characteristics of intellectual humility (IH). Across two studies, we explore the hypothesis that probabilistic belief is associated with greater IH. Although we fail to find this association across participants, comparing their trait-level IH, in either a student sample (Study 1, N = 279) or two nationally representative samples (Study 2a, N = 269; Study 2b, N = 270), we do find the predicted association within participants, analyzing belief-specific IH (Studies 2a and 2b): political and moral beliefs that are classified as probabilistic rather than binary are associated with a more intellectually humble attitude toward those beliefs, even controlling for the extremity of belief. These findings support the psychological reality of a distinction between binary and probabilistic belief, and further raise the possibility that promoting probabilistic belief could foster greater IH, including in consequential domains such as politics and morality.

Indexed as

AttitudeCultureIntelligenceAdultFemaleHumansMaleMoralsPoliticsProbabilityUncertaintyYoung AdultBeliefCredenceEpistemic cognitionIntellectual humilityProbability

Identifiers

PMID42560636
PMCPMC13446413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.