Chapter 2: Youth, parent, and teacher perspectives on intellectual humility

Intellectual humility is a rich subject of academic research and discussion.

知识分子的谦逊是学术研究和讨论的一个丰富主题。

It engages psychologists, philosophers, and education researchers, filling pages of scholarly journals and animating debates at academic seminars.

它吸引了心理学家、哲学家和教育研究人员，在学术期刊上占据了版面，并在学术研讨会上引发了激烈的辩论。

But discussions of intellectual humility should not be confined to these arenas.

但关于知识谦逊的讨论不应仅限于这些领域。

Intellectual humility is not an esoteric or inaccessible idea.

知识谦逊并不是一个深奥或难以理解的想法。

It’s about the universal experience of being wrong and how we respond to our fallibility.

这是关于犯错的普遍经验以及我们如何应对自己的错误。

It’s a virtue that gives us a capacity to engage constructively with people and ideas we disagree with—and, in fact, to seek out those engagements because we find them enriching.

这是一种美德，它使我们有能力与我们不同意的人和想法进行建设性的接触——事实上，我们会寻求这些接触，因为我们发现它们丰富了我们。

It helps us appreciate and grow from the diversity that surrounds us.

它帮助我们欣赏周围的多样性并从中成长。

Intellectual humility is a virtue that we should want people to know, think, and talk about.

知识分子的谦逊是一种我们应该让人们了解、思考和谈论的美德。

This certainly includes those who work and learn in schools.

这当然包括那些在学校工作和学习的人。

Schools are the primary institutions we have for equipping people to become contributing members of our society and democracy.

学校是我们培养人们成为对社会和民主做出贡献的成员的主要机构。

If we believe our collective well-being depends on our capacity to learn and disagree productively, then we should want intellectual humility to be part of the everyday vocabulary of our education systems.

如果我们相信我们的集体福祉取决于我们有效学习和提出异议的能力，那么我们应该希望知识谦逊成为我们教育系统日常词汇的一部分。

And we should invite those who inhabit schools into conversation about how to build that vocabulary.

我们应该邀请学校里的人参与讨论如何建立词汇量。

That is the starting point for this chapter.

这就是本章的起点。

Rather than treating the question of whether and how schools should cultivate intellectual humility as one for scholars alone to debate, we sought the perspectives of adolescents, parents, and teachers.

我们没有将学校是否以及如何培养知识谦逊这一问题仅作为学者们讨论的问题，而是寻求青少年、家长和教师的观点。

We did this by administering three nationally representative surveys.

我们通过开展三项具有全国代表性的调查来做到这一点。

The surveys help us understand how these groups think about intellectual humility and whether they are open to a more deliberate effort to cultivate it in students.

这些调查帮助我们了解这些群体如何看待知识谦逊，以及他们是否愿意更加刻意地努力培养学生的谦逊。

The surveys also allow us to examine similarities and differences across subgroups of adolescents, parents, and teachers (e.g., by gender and race), as well as test whether the way intellectual humility is described affects how people respond to it.

这些调查还使我们能够检查青少年、家长和教师亚组（例如，按性别和种族）之间的相似性和差异，并测试描述智力谦逊的方式是否会影响人们对此的反应。

We draw five main conclusions based on the survey results.

根据调查结果，我们得出五个主要结论。

These conclusions, which we describe in detail below, are:

我们在下面详细描述的这些结论是：

If there is one key takeaway from these survey results, it’s that adolescents, parents, and teachers—across demographic groups—see value in cultivating intellectual humility.

如果说这些调查结果有一个重要的结论的话，那就是青少年、家长和教师——所有人口群体——都看到了培养知识谦逊的价值。

And they want schools to do something about it.

他们希望学校为此采取行动。

For this study, we asked questions of youth, parents, and teachers as part of three separate RAND omnibus surveys .

在这项研究中，我们向青少年、家长和教师提出了问题，作为三项独立兰德综合调查的一部分。

The items were similar across surveys to facilitate comparisons in the responses of these stakeholder groups.

各项调查的项目相似，以便于比较这些利益相关者群体的反应。

This was particularly true for the youth and parent surveys, for which the items were nearly identical.

对于青少年和家长调查尤其如此，其项目几乎相同。

We asked slightly different questions of teachers, as we sought additional perspectives from teachers (e.g., how, if at all, they would like schools to cultivate intellectual humility).

我们向教师提出的问题略有不同，因为我们寻求教师的更多观点（例如，他们希望学校如何（如果有的话）培养智力谦逊）。

1 For all groups, we asked for respondents’ views of the importance of developing intellectual humility, whether schools can and should develop it, and whether they see a conflict between developing intellectual humility and developing confidence.

1 对于所有群体，我们询问了受访者对培养智力谦逊重要性的看法，学校是否可以并且应该培养这种能力，以及他们是否认为培养智力谦逊与培养自信之间存在冲突。

We administered items to youth through RAND’s American Life Panel (ALP).

我们通过兰德公司的美国生活小组 (ALP) 向青少年提供项目。

The ALP was fielded in spring 2026 and yielded 1,000 responses from participants between the ages of 12 and 21.

ALP 于 2026 年春季开展，收到了 1,000 份来自 12 岁至 21 岁参与者的回复。

As seen in Appendix Table A1 , 24% of respondents were in 6th to 8th grade, 20% in 9th or 10th grade, 20% in 11th or 12th grade, and 21% were enrolled in college or graduate school.

如附录表 A1 所示，24% 的受访者就读于 6 至 8 年级，20% 就读于 9 或 10 年级，20% 就读于 11 或 12 年级，21% 就读于大学或研究生院。

Another 10% were not enrolled in school at the time they completed the survey (and 4% had a missing value for their school level).

另外 10% 的人在完成调查时尚未入学（4% 的人的学校水平存在缺失值）。

We also administered items to parents through the ALP and obtained 1,000 responses for this group as well.

我们还通过 ALP 向家长提供项目，并获得了该群体的 1,000 份回复。

The ALP targeted parents of youth between the ages of 12 and 17.

ALP 针对 12 至 17 岁青少年的父母。

Demographic characteristics of the weighted sample are available in Appendix Table A2.

加权样本的人口统计特征可参见附录表 A2。

We administered items to teachers via RAND’s American Teacher Panel (ATP).

我们通过兰德公司的美国教师小组 (ATP) 向教师管理项目。

The ATP was fielded in fall 2025 and yielded 1,007 responses.

ATP 于 2025 年秋季投入使用，收到了 1,007 份回复。

This panel consists of teachers across a range of grade levels, subjects, and types of communities ( Appendix Table A3 ).

该小组由不同年级、学科和社区类型的教师组成（附录表 A3）。

RAND designs these surveys to be nationally representative of the populations they represent.

兰德公司设计的这些调查能够在全国范围内代表其所代表的人群。

It does so through a probability-based recruitment approach and a weighting strategy that improves the alignment between the sample and the broader population.

它通过基于概率的招募方法和加权策略来实现这一点，从而提高样本与更广泛人群之间的一致性。

All the results that we report come from these weighted samples.

我们报告的所有结果都来自这些加权样本。

For some analyses, we disaggregate the results by subgroup, which allows us to compare responses within the same survey (e.g., for middle school versus high school students).

对于某些分析，我们按小组对结果进行分类，这使我们能够比较同一调查中的回答（例如，中学生与高中生）。

Intellectual humility is not a widely used term, and we suspect that many respondents had not encountered it before.

知识谦逊并不是一个广泛使用的术语，我们怀疑许多受访者以前没有遇到过这个词。

This led us to wonder if the term itself (“intellectual humility”) or the way it is typically defined (about personal limitations) might affect how young people, parents, and teachers respond to it.

这让我们想知道这个词本身（“知识谦逊”）或它的典型定义方式（关于个人局限性）是否会影响年轻人、父母和老师对此的反应。

Perhaps the language is jargony or negative in ways that undermine its resonance.

也许这种语言是行话或消极的，从而削弱了它的共鸣。

To explore these possibilities, we embedded two randomized experiments into the surveys:

为了探索这些可能性，我们在调查中嵌入了两个随机实验：

First, we randomly assigned each respondent to either an “intellectual humility” or “open-mindedness” condition.

首先，我们将每位受访者随机分配为“知识谦逊”或“思想开放”条件。

This determined which term respondents saw throughout the survey.

这决定了受访者在整个调查中看到的术语。

About half the respondents in each survey saw items that explicitly mentioned intellectual humility.

每项调查中约有一半的受访者看到了明确提到知识谦逊的项目。

The other half saw otherwise identical items that substituted “open-mindedness” for intellectual humility.

另一半则看到了其他相同的项目，用“开放思想”代替了知识谦逊。

This allows us to test if using a more familiar, accessible term affects how people think about intellectual humility.

这使我们能够测试使用更熟悉、更容易理解的术语是否会影响人们对知识谦逊的看法。

(We should note that researchers generally regard intellectual humility and open-mindedness as distinct but related concepts .)

（我们应该注意到，研究人员普遍认为智力谦逊和开放思想是不同但相关的概念。）

Second, we randomly assigned each respondent to either a “personal limitations” or “learn from others” condition.

其次，我们将每个受访者随机分配到“个人限制”或“向他人学习”条件。

This determined whether the framing of the definition emphasized people’s limits (a negative framing) or their opportunities to learn and grow (a positive framing).

这决定了定义的框架是强调人们的局限性（消极框架）还是强调人们学习和成长的机会（积极框架）。

Here, for example, are the definitions provided to youth respondents:

例如，以下是向青年受访者提供的定义：

Because we ran two experiments at once, each respondent ended up in one of four groups.

因为我们同时进行了两项实验，所以每个受访者最终都被分到了四组中的一组。

For example, about one-quarter of respondents saw the open-mindedness term paired with the personal-limitations framing.

例如，大约四分之一的受访者将开放思想一词与个人限制框架结合在一起。

To keep the reporting simple, we describe the results of the two experiments separately.

为了使报告简单，我们分别描述两个实验的结果。

2 Also, when reporting descriptive results for the full sample, we combine respondents across all four groups.

2 此外，在报告完整样本的描述性结果时，我们将所有四个组的受访者结合起来。

3

3

If one theme emerges across our findings, it is that young people, parents, and teachers all believe that cultivating intellectual humility in adolescence should be a priority.

如果说我们的研究结果中有一个主题的话，那就是年轻人、父母和老师都认为，培养青春期的谦逊应该是首要任务。

Here, in greater detail, are the main findings of these surveys:

以下是这些调查的更详细的主要发现：

Both youth and parents—across demographic groups—believe that developing intellectual humility in adolescence is highly important.

各个人口群体的青少年和家长都认为，在青春期培养谦逊的智力非常重要。

Our first item asked about the importance of developing intellectual humility (or open-mindedness) in adolescence.

我们的第一个项目询问了青春期培养智力谦逊（或开放思想）的重要性。

We used a 7-point Likert scale for their responses, ranging from “Not important at all” (1) to “Extremely important” (7).

我们对他们的回答使用了 7 点李克特量表，范围从“一点也不重要”(1) 到“极其重要”(7)。

Across all youth respondents, we found a mean response of 5.73 on this scale.

在所有青年受访者中，我们发现该量表的平均回答为 5.73。

The most common response was a 7 (selected by 43%).

最常见的回答是 7（43% 的人选择）。

These results appear in Figure 1 and Appendix Tables B1 and C1 .

这些结果显示在图 1 和附录表 B1 和 C1 中。

Perhaps the most meaningful subgroup finding—across these surveys—is that all subgroups value the cultivation of intellectual humility.

在这些调查中，最有意义的亚群体发现可能是所有亚群体都重视知识谦逊的培养。

However, we do see a few notable subgroup differences among our youth respondents.

然而，我们确实看到青年受访者之间存在一些显着的亚组差异。

For one, females (mean=5.97) place slightly more importance on developing intellectual humility than males (mean=5.49).

其一，女性（平均值=5.97）比男性（平均值=5.49）更重视培养智力谦逊。

Also, we see a stepwise pattern by student age.

此外，我们还看到了按学生年龄划分的逐步模式。

The level of importance increases as respondents move from middle school (mean=5.50) to lower high school (mean=5.68) to upper high school (5.79) and then college or graduate school(mean=6.00).

随着受访者从初中（平均值 = 5.50）到初中（平均值 = 5.68）再到高中（5.79），然后是大学或研究生院（平均值 = 6.00），重要性程度也会增加。

We asked this same “importance” question of parents.

我们向父母提出了同样“重要”的问题。

Here, too, the most common response was the highest possible rating of 7 (selected by 50%).

在这里，最常见的回答也是最高的评分 7（50% 的人选择）。

Parents’ response (mean=6.01) to the item was very high, as shown in Figure 2 and Appendix Tables B2 and C2 .

家长对此项目的回应（平均值=6.01）非常高，如图2和附录表B2和C2所示。

We see some differences between parent subgroups, though we are struck here, too, by how highly all these groups value the cultivation of intellectual humility.

我们看到父辈亚群体之间存在一些差异，尽管我们也对所有这些群体如此重视智力谦逊的培养感到震惊。

Regarding the differences, parents who identify as Democrats and parents with a bachelor’s degree or higher rated the importance especially highly.

对于这些差异，民主党人的父母和拥有学士学位或更高学位的父母认为其重要性特别高。

Both youth and parents say that schools should try to develop intellectual humility in students, despite being a little less confident that schools can do so effectively.

青少年和家长都表示，学校应该努力培养学生谦逊的智力，尽管他们对学校能否有效做到这一点不太有信心。

Our next items asked, separately, whether schools can develop intellectual humility in students and whether they should try.

我们的下一个项目分别询问学校是否可以培养学生的智力谦逊以及他们是否应该尝试。

We again offered a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from “Not at all” (1) to “A great deal” (7).

我们再次提供了 7 点李克特量表，范围从“一点也不”(1) 到“很大”(7)。

These items speak to a question people have long asked about schools: Can they cultivate virtues in students, and is it appropriate to try?

这些项目解答了人们长期以来对学校提出的一个问题：学校能否培养学生的美德，是否适合尝试？

To frame the question for respondents, we noted that some people think schools can help students learn to be intellectually humble, while others believe schools can’t really teach it.

为了向受访者提出这个问题，我们注意到，有些人认为学校可以帮助学生学会在智力上保持谦虚，而另一些人则认为学校无法真正教授这一点。

Figure 3 shows youth and parent responses to questions about whether schools can and should help students develop intellectual humility.

图 3 显示了青少年和家长对学校是否能够并且应该帮助学生培养智力谦逊问题的回答。