Heroic Humility: What the Science of Humility Can Say to People Raised on Self-Focus

In this age of selfies, instant celebrity, and corporate scandals, there is a pressing need for greater humility. This book synthesizes research and theory relevant to humility and heroism, articulating a vision of heroic humility — humility of such great depth that it inspires others. Fortunately, humility can be learned. It has three aspects: an honest self-appraisal (including an attitude that one is teachable), modest self-presentation, and an orientation toward building others up rather than putting them down. People who embody heroic humility not only demonstrate instances of great humility, but practice it throughout their lives, even when severely tested. This book likens the formation of a humble character to a hero\u27s journey, with a call, a passage through challenges and temptations, a descent into abyss, and redemption. An impressive array of examples — such as Mother Teresa, Malala Yousafzai, and Abraham Lincoln — illustrate that no two heroic journeys are identical. This insightful volume challenges readers to embark on their own journey of heroic humility in their work, service, and personal lives.https://scholarship.richmond.edu/bookshelf/1306/thumbnail.jp

Supreme Court Voting Behavior: 1995 Term

This Article, the eleventh in a series, attempts through statistical analysis to determine whether individual Justices on the United States Supreme Court (as well as the Court as a whole) voted more conservatively, more liberally, or about the same in the 1995 Terms as compared with past terms. The 1995 figures reveal a Court in ideological tension. Although some statistical measures suggest conservatism on the High Bench, there are notable contrary liberal indicators as well (principally in the areas of state criminal cases, federal jurisdiction, and First Amendment claims). Indeed, regression analysis demonstrates that the 1995 liberal movement in state criminal cases by the Court\u27s three most conservative members (the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas) is statistically significant. Perhaps the most important (although least surprising) statistics are those that demonstrate the Court\u27s identifiable division into two wings: a liberal coalition composed of Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, and a conservative bloc composed of the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas. Justices Kennedy and O\u27Connor remain between these two factions, casting the deciding votes in the most hotly contested cases. The voting behavior of these moderate swing voters has caused the Court to vacillate markedly between liberal and conservative outcomes during the past four Terms. This ideological dynamic is likely to be altered only by resignations and replacements on the Court

Efficacy of a Workbook to Promote Forgiveness: A Randomized Controlled Trial with University Students

Objective The present study investigated the efficacy of a 6-hour self-directed workbook adapted from the REACH Forgiveness intervention. Method Undergraduates (N = 41) were randomly assigned to either an immediate treatment or waitlist control condition. Participants were assessed across 3 time periods using a variety of forgiveness outcome measures. Results The 6-hour workbook intervention increased forgiveness, as indicated by positive changes in participants’ forgiveness ratings that differed by condition. In addition, benchmarking analysis showed that the self-directed workbook intervention is at least as efficacious as the delivery of the REACH Forgiveness model via group therapy. Conclusion A self-directed workbook intervention adapted from the REACH Forgiveness intervention provides an adjunct to traditional psychotherapy that could assist the mental health community to manage the burden of unforgiveness among victims of interpersonal harm

Supreme Court Voting Behavior: 2007 Term

This Study, the twenty-second in a series, tabulates and analyzes the voting behavior of the United States Supreme Court during the 2007 Term. The analysis is designed to measure whether individual Justices and the Court as a whole are voting more conservatively, more liberally, or about the same when compared with past Terms. This Study attempts to remove this subjectivity by applying the following consistent classification scheme to ten categories of cases across time: conservative votes are those that favor an assertion of governmental power, while liberal votes are those that favor a claim of individual liberty. The voting patterns tabulated by the 2007 Study reveal (as should be expected) a somewhat unsettled Court. The areas most indicative of bias diverged in opposite directions. Most surprising has been the voting behavior of the more liberal Justices in a more conservative bent. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer voted conservatively in civil-state cases-an area that is the second most indicative of ideological bias on the Court. On Table 2, Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer voted toward the conservative side of the liberal bloc. Table 3, the most indicative of bias, revealed a decidedly conservative leaning. When considered as a whole, however, the ideological posture of the Court appears to lean liberally. As for individual voting behavior, some of the Justices are voting somewhat uncharacteristically. For example, factor analysis highlights Tables 1 and 3, civil-state and criminal-state cases, as the most indicative of bias. Those Tables, however, shake up the classic five/four, conservative/liberal divide on the Court. Interestingly, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer cast the majority of their votes with the government on Table 1-the second most reliable indicator of bias this Term-falling in with the most conservative Justices on civil-state cases. Also, Justice Thomas joined Justice Kennedy in being the determinative vote for closely decided cases. As we noted last Term, a change in the ideological orientation of only a single Justice, in such circumstances, can dramatically impact the outcome across the entire range of issues examined by this Study

Supreme Court Voting Behavior: 1999 Term

This Study, the fourteenth in a series, tabulates and analyzes the voting behavior of the United States Supreme Court during the 1999 Term. The analysis is designed to determine whether individual Justices and the Court as a whole are voting more conservatively, more liberally, or about the same as compared with past Terms. This Term\u27s survey suggests a reversal of the Court\u27s liberal trend over the past two Terms, with conservative movement in six of the ten categories. Specifically, the Court\u27s support of statutory civil rights claims plummeted to an all time low, while the Court exhibited a dramatic conservative shift in cases decided by one vote. Furthermore, the Study\u27s second most reliable category for indicating liberal/conservative trends, Civil/ State Party, showed solid conservative movement in all types of decisions. Yet, this apparent conservative movement is counterbalanced somewhat by the fact that the Study\u27s most reliable category for indicating conservative/liberal trends, Criminal/Federal Party, demonstrated some liberal movement. A more in-depth analysis for each category is set forth in Part IV-B of this Study

Supreme Court Voting Behavior - 2003 Term

The 2003 Term, for the second year, notes a liberal trend across a majority of the Tables of this Study. The voting behavior of individual Justices in 2003 was somewhat more stable this Term in that individual departures from past voting behaviors were less pronounced than in 2002. Nevertheless, the Study still demonstrates continuing instability in the voting behavior of individual Justices. This Term, statistically significant departures from past behavior by at least five Members of the Court are present on six Tables. This might suggest that the voting behavior of the Justices on these Tables is in transition, although the often-small statistical samples reported on many of these Tables also suggests caution in making (or relying upon) this inference. Bloc voting continues to control the outcome of a substantial number of the most controversial questions presented to the Court. But, as noted in the past few Studies, the voting power of conservative voting blocs seems to be losing steam. Justice O\u27Connor maintained her position as the Member of the Court most likely to cast the key swing-vote in closely divided opinions. The Study also demonstrates that Justice O\u27Connor\u27s voting behavior in state criminal cases has been a reliable indicator of the outcome of Majority Opinions in this category for a number of years. Her absence might alter decisional outcomes, not only in state criminal cases, but in the often-important cases decided by five-to-four votes of the Court