How to Be More Tolerant: 5 Practical Tips

Your coworker says something you find ridiculous in a meeting. Not mildly mistaken. Ridiculous. You feel the familiar heat in your face, a quick urge to correct them, and a private little speech assembling itself behind your teeth. Then somebody asks what you think. You can either flatten the room with it or pause long enough to ask one useful question. That pause is where tolerance lives.

Being more tolerant doesn’t mean becoming passive, spineless or endlessly agreeable. It means holding your convictions while accepting that other people may see the world, live their lives or make choices in ways you don’t approve of. It asks for self-control, curiosity and a willingness to separate disagreement from danger. Not glamorous skills. Very useful ones.

And yes, it gets harder when you’re tired, scared or certain you’re right.

This guide explains how to be more tolerant, why tolerance matters, where its limits sit, and five practical tips for becoming more open without abandoning your values.

What does it mean to be more tolerant?

Tolerance is the decision to allow beliefs, identities, behaviors or opinions that you dislike or disagree with, as long as they do not violate other people’s basic rights or safety. It is not endorsement. You can think an idea is poorly argued, a lifestyle is not for you, or a relative is behaving badly, and still refuse to humiliate, silence or dehumanize them.

That distinction gets lost constantly. People hear “be tolerant” and assume it means “pretend everything is equally good.” It doesn’t. Tolerance is more demanding than approval because it requires you to hold discomfort without immediately trying to erase the person who caused it.

The social psychologist Gordon Allport treated prejudice as something that develops through categorization, fear and social learning. His 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice argued that hostile attitudes toward groups could be reduced through meaningful contact, especially where people have equal status, shared goals, cooperation and support from authority figures. Later evidence refined the claim but kept its central insight: familiarity can make room for complexity.

Think of a neighbor whose political signs drive you mad. Tolerance does not require you to put up the same sign. It means resisting the easy conversion from “I dislike that view” to “This person is stupid, evil, or beyond conversation.” That conversion is tempting because it saves time. It also makes the world very small.

There are at least four forms of tolerance:

• Interpersonal tolerance: patience with another person’s habits, pace, moods or imperfections.
• Intellectual tolerance: allowing disagreement and uncertainty without becoming defensive or contemptuous.
• Cultural tolerance: respecting differences in customs, faith, language, identity and traditions.
• Emotional tolerance: staying present with discomfort, frustration or ambiguity instead of reacting impulsively.

Each has limits. You do not have to tolerate abuse, harassment, racism, threats, coercive control or repeated cruelty. Tolerance without boundaries becomes self-erasure. The more useful question is: can I make room for difference without making room for harm?

That is the kind of tolerance worth practicing.

Why is tolerance harder than it sounds?

Because your brain is built to make fast judgments, protect your group and notice threat. Tolerance asks you to interrupt those shortcuts, often when you are stressed and would rather not.

Humans categorize quickly. We sort people into “like me” and “not like me,” scan for signs of trustworthiness, and use familiar rules to reduce uncertainty. None of this makes you a bad person. It makes you a person with an old nervous system trying to manage a complicated social world.

The psychologist Daniel Kahneman described much everyday thought as fast, automatic and efficient. Fast thinking is useful when a car swerves into your lane. It is less useful when you see one social-media post from a stranger and decide you understand their whole character. Tolerance requires shifting, at least briefly, from reflex to reflection.

Stress narrows that capacity. When you’re hungry, overstimulated, under pressure at work or carrying grief, other people’s odd habits can feel like personal attacks. A slow cashier becomes intolerable. A partner’s messy counter becomes evidence they do not respect you. A different opinion becomes a threat. That is why some arguments are never really about the argument.

Consider an illustrative example. Liam gets home after a difficult day, sees his roommate’s shoes in the hallway and launches into a speech about selfishness. On a calmer day he would have moved them with his foot and sent a polite message. The shoes are the same. His bandwidth is not.

Group loyalty adds fuel. If you feel your identity is tied to a belief, challenge can feel like rejection. You may hear “I disagree with your view” as “I reject you.” This is especially common around politics, religion, parenting, diet, money and anything else people build identities around.

There is also the matter of status. Being wrong can sting because it threatens your image of yourself as competent, moral or sensible. Sometimes intolerance is simply embarrassment wearing armor.

None of this excuses harmful behavior. It does explain why “just be open-minded” is thin advice. Openness is easier when your body is regulated, your self-worth is not on trial and you have learned to distinguish difference from danger.

What is the difference between tolerance and acceptance?

Tolerance means allowing something you may dislike. Acceptance means recognizing reality as it is, without futile struggle. Approval means judging something positively. These overlap sometimes, but they are not interchangeable.

You might tolerate a family member’s religious practice while not sharing it. You might accept that a friend has different priorities without approving of the way they handled a situation. You might approve of a colleague’s ambition while not wanting their career path for yourself.

Confusing these categories creates bad relationships. If you think tolerance requires approval, you may become resentful and fake. If you think boundaries are intolerance, you may keep accepting behavior that harms you. If you think acceptance means giving up, you may keep fighting battles that cannot be won.

The philosopher Karl Popper raised a famous problem in 1945: unlimited tolerance can destroy tolerance if a society tolerates movements devoted to eliminating the rights of others. People often cite this as the “paradox of tolerance.” It is not permission to silence everyone you dislike. It is a reminder that tolerance has moral boundaries when speech turns into organized intimidation, violence or exclusion.

In private life, the same logic applies in miniature. You can tolerate a friend’s tendency to be late sometimes. You do not need to tolerate repeated contempt. You can accept that your parent will never understand your career choice. You do not have to accept racist comments at dinner.

Consider Maya, an illustrative composite, whose friend makes cutting jokes about her appearance. Maya tells herself she is trying to be tolerant because her friend “has a hard life.” But she leaves every lunch feeling smaller. That is not tolerance. That is a missing boundary.

Healthy tolerance says, “You are allowed to be different from me.” Healthy boundaries add, “You are not allowed to harm me.” Holding both statements is adult work. It is also the only way tolerance stays generous rather than self-destructive.

Why does contact with difference make people more tolerant?

Because real contact replaces a flat stereotype with an actual person. You may still disagree afterward, but it becomes harder to believe that everyone in a group is identical, dangerous or beneath you.

Gordon Allport proposed the contact hypothesis in 1954: contact between groups can reduce prejudice, particularly under conditions of equal status, shared goals, cooperation and institutional support. His original conditions make intuitive sense. A forced encounter where one group has power over another can deepen hostility. Working alongside someone as an equal toward a shared goal has a better chance.

The social psychologists Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp tested the idea in a 2006 meta-analysis of 515 studies involving more than 250,000 participants across 38 countries. On average, more intergroup contact was associated with less prejudice, with a mean correlation of about −.21. The effects generalized beyond the particular person someone met to their broader group. Allport’s ideal conditions strengthened the effect, though they were not strictly necessary for contact to help.

That number is modest. Human beings are not transformed by one friendly coffee. Still, across hundreds of studies, the direction matters. Contact works partly by reducing anxiety and partly by increasing empathy and knowledge. It becomes harder to hold a cartoon version of someone after you have learned their name, heard about their messy commute and watched them worry about the same ordinary things you worry about.

Take an illustrative example. A college student who has only heard stereotypes about refugees volunteers at a language exchange program. The first meetings are awkward. Months later, she still has political questions and disagreements, but “refugees” are no longer an abstract category to her. They are Noor, who loves bad horror films, and Elias, who is studying accounting. That shift is not sentimental. It is cognitive.

There are limits. Contact can backfire when it is hostile, tokenizing or forced. Asking one person to explain an entire identity is exhausting and unfair. “I have a friend who is…” does not make anyone immune to prejudice. And structural discrimination does not vanish because individuals get along.

But contact is one reason tolerance is a practice, not merely an opinion. Reading about people helps. Sharing a task with them helps more. You do not have to agree on everything to discover that the other person has an inner life as detailed and irritating as your own.

Tip 1: Pause before you label someone

The first practical tip is simple: pause before labeling. When someone annoys or shocks you, delay the verdict long enough to separate what they did from the story you immediately tell about who they are.

Labels are efficient. “Lazy.” “Entitled.” “Dramatic.” “Ignorant.” They give the mind a neat box and relieve you of curiosity. They are also often wrong, or at least incomplete. A colleague who misses a deadline may be careless, yes. They may also be dealing with a sick child, burnout, depression, unclear instructions or a workload that would flatten anyone. You don’t have to invent excuses for them. You do have to notice that you don’t know yet.

The psychologist Lee Ross coined the phrase fundamental attribution error to describe our tendency to explain other people’s behavior through their personality while explaining our own behavior through circumstances. When I am late, traffic was terrible. When you are late, you are disrespectful. It is a deeply human double standard.

Try a small interruption phrase: “What else could this mean?” Use it when you catch yourself assigning a global trait from one event. Other useful versions include:

• “What facts do I actually have?” Separate observable behavior from interpretation.
• “What context might I be missing?” Consider stress, culture, role, timing and information gaps.
• “Would I explain my own behavior this harshly?” Apply the same generosity you grant yourself.
• “What question could I ask?” Move from assumption to conversation.

Take Ben, an illustrative manager, who sees a junior employee stop speaking in meetings. His first thought is that she lacks initiative. Before giving feedback, he asks whether anything is getting in the way. She tells him she was interrupted repeatedly in the previous meeting and has stopped trying to enter the conversation. His original label would have made the problem worse.

Pausing is not being naive. It is refusing to confuse your first explanation with reality. That is tolerance in miniature.

Tip 2: Practice intellectual humility without becoming indecisive

The second tip is to practice intellectual humility: recognizing that your beliefs may be incomplete or wrong, while still holding them with conviction. It is not weakness, fake neutrality or saying every idea is equally valid.

Intellectual humility begins with a sentence most people hate: “I could be missing something.” It does not require you to abandon your values. It asks you to distinguish between the confidence of a conclusion and the certainty that you possess every relevant fact.

Research on this is still growing, but it is promising. In 2023, Mark Leary and colleagues studied how intellectual humility relates to political hostility. Their work found that people who showed greater humility about their political views expressed less negativity toward people who disagreed with them. A survey experiment that prompted humility also reduced hostility toward dissenters without making people give up their policy positions. That matters: tolerance does not require diluted beliefs.

A related study found that intellectual humility was associated with less affective polarization and more willingness to interact with people of different political views. The evidence is not a magic switch, and most of it relies on self-report and short interventions. Still, the pattern is sensible. If you treat disagreement as evidence that you may have something to learn, you are less likely to treat the dissenter as an enemy.

Try these questions during a disagreement:

“What would make me change my mind?” If the honest answer is “nothing,” you are defending identity, not testing belief. “What is the strongest version of their argument?” State it in a way they would recognize before criticizing it. “Where might we actually agree?” Even bitter disputes often contain shared values and different assumptions about how to protect them.

Here is the catch. Humility without boundaries can become paralysis. You do not need to reopen every settled moral question each time someone objects. Racism, cruelty and conspiracy theories do not become respectable simply because you are practicing openness. The aim is accurate confidence: firm where evidence and ethics warrant it, flexible where uncertainty remains.

It is a difficult balance. That is why humility is a practice rather than a personality type.

Tip 3: Learn to regulate irritation before you respond

The third tip is regulate first, respond second. Tolerance collapses when your nervous system is overloaded. You cannot reason generously while your body is preparing for a fight.

Irritation arrives quickly: the chest tightens, shoulders rise, voice speeds up, and suddenly the other person’s chewing or opinion or typing style has become unbearable. In that state, you may believe you are “being honest.” More often, you are being flooded.

The psychologist Ethan Kross and colleague Özlem Ayduk studied self-distancing, the practice of reflecting on a difficult event from a slight third-person perspective rather than replaying it from inside the heat of the moment. In their research, participants who viewed a painful conflict like a fly on the wall showed less emotional and physical reactivity and more ability to make sense of it than people who immersed themselves in the experience. They were not being asked to deny the emotion. They were changing their distance from it.

Try this after a conflict. Instead of replaying, “How could she say that to me?”, ask, “Why did that conversation become so hard for both of us?” Use your own name for a moment: “What does Priya need right now?” It can feel slightly ridiculous. It also creates enough space for your prefrontal cortex to return to the room.

Small physical moves help too:

• Lengthen the exhale for a minute before replying to a message.
• Change rooms if the conversation is escalating; say when you will return.
• Feel your feet on the floor and name five visible objects.
• Delay the send button on any message written while angry.

Take an illustrative example. Rosa receives a patronizing email from a colleague and drafts a reply so sharp it could cut glass. She saves it, walks around the block, and comes back forty minutes later. The revised email contains the same boundary but none of the insult. Her colleague still has to answer for the problem. Rosa simply no longer hands them a new one.

Being tolerant does not mean suppressing anger. Anger often signals a boundary, injustice or unmet need. Regulation lets you use that signal instead of throwing it at someone like a chair.

Tip 4: Replace certainty with a real conversation

The fourth tip is to ask a real question. Not a question shaped like a trap, not “So you seriously believe that?”, but one that gives the other person room to explain their reasoning and gives you evidence you did not have before.

Conversation is not automatically tolerant. People can talk for hours while merely taking turns loading ammunition. A useful conversation has three features: curiosity, accurate listening and a willingness to let the answer affect your next question.

The communication scholar Julian Treasure popularized the idea that listening is an active skill shaped by attention, assumptions and intention. In therapy research, the broader evidence on empathy and the therapeutic alliance makes the same point more rigorously: people open up when they feel heard, and they become more defensive when they feel categorized.

Try questions that invite context:

• “What led you to that view?”
• “What matters most to you about this?”
• “What experience makes that feel true?”
• “What do you wish people on my side understood?”
• “Can I tell you what I heard, to check if I got it?”

A warning: do not use this technique to cross-examine a person from a marginalized group about their identity, trauma or politics. Curiosity can become extraction. You are not entitled to anyone’s story just because you are trying to be open-minded.

Consider an illustrative family argument. Nina’s father says he dislikes her decision to move in with her partner. Nina could say, “You’re controlling.” He could say, “You’re irresponsible.” Instead, she asks, “What are you most worried will happen?” He talks about his own difficult divorce and fear of instability. She still moves in. He still disapproves. But the conversation changes from a battle over obedience into a conversation about fear.

That is not always possible. Some people do not want dialogue; they want victory. When that is clear, you can stop trying to persuade them. Tolerance includes knowing when a conversation has become unproductive.

Listen for understanding, not agreement. That distinction saves a remarkable amount of energy.

Tip 5: Choose exposure to difference, with boundaries

The fifth tip is to choose meaningful exposure to difference. Read, watch, work, volunteer or spend time in settings where you encounter people outside your usual social bubble. Do it with enough safety and structure that you can remain curious instead of overwhelmed.

This is not a call to turn every friendship into a sociology project. It is a practical response to the fact that stereotypes flourish in isolation. If all your information about a group comes from headlines, algorithms or one bad encounter, your mind will fill the gaps with whatever it already fears.

Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp‘s large meta-analysis found that contact typically reduces prejudice, especially when contact allows cooperation, equal status and the possibility of friendship. The effect was not enormous, and it varied across settings. Still, contact repeatedly mattered more than simply being told to “respect diversity.”

Exposure can be ordinary. Read fiction written from a perspective you rarely encounter. Attend a community event without appointing yourself the critic. Take a class. Work on a shared project. Follow writers who challenge your assumptions and who also have enough intellectual honesty to make the challenge worth your time. The point is not to consume difference like entertainment. It is to let your categories become more detailed.

Take Oliver, an illustrative composite, who complains that young coworkers are “entitled.” His company pairs him with a new graduate for a project, and he expects trouble. Over several months he learns she is caring for a parent with chronic illness, paying down student debt and asking for flexibility because she has learned to protect her health. He does not become a fan of every workplace trend. He does stop using “young people” as one big insult.

Boundaries matter here too. Do not seek exposure to people who are abusive, threatening or determined to humiliate you. Tolerance is not an obligation to remain in unsafe spaces. You can learn about difference while keeping your dignity intact.

A good weekly question is: “Whose experience have I not heard directly?” It may lead to a book, a conversation or a quiet correction in your own thinking. All three count.

What should you never tolerate?

You should not tolerate behavior that threatens safety, dignity or basic rights. Tolerance has boundaries, and naming them plainly prevents the idea from becoming a tool for excusing abuse.

There is a strange pressure, especially on people who are kind or conflict-avoidant, to prove their tolerance by enduring mistreatment. They excuse the insult because the other person is stressed. They accept control because the partner has “trust issues.” They keep listening to harassment because they want to be fair. That is not moral sophistication. It is often fear wearing a noble coat.

Do not tolerate violence, threats, stalking, coercive control, repeated humiliation, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, religious harassment, sexual pressure or the deliberate erosion of your freedom. You can understand why a person behaves badly without offering them continued access to you.

It may help to use a simple boundary formula:

“I understand that you feel strongly about this. I will not continue the conversation if you insult me.”

Or:

“You are free to disagree. You are not free to control my choices.”

Or, shorter still:

“No.”

The philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that freedom should be limited only to prevent harm to others. Modern life is more complicated than his nineteenth-century examples, but the principle remains useful: disagreement deserves room; harm requires response.

In relationships, watch for the difference between a clumsy person and a controlling one. A clumsy person may apologize, learn and change. A controlling person reframes your boundaries as cruelty, demands proof of love, monitors your time or contacts, and punishes you for saying no. That is not a tolerance exercise. It is a safety concern.

If you are in immediate danger, call emergency services: 911 in the US and Canada, 999 in the UK, 112 or 999 in Ireland, 000 in Australia or 111 in New Zealand. If you are experiencing coercive control or abuse, speak with a local domestic violence service, a trusted doctor, a licensed counselor or someone you trust. Leaving can be a high-risk period, so safety planning matters.

Tolerance is strongest when it has a spine.

How do you practice tolerance in close relationships?

Start with the small, repetitive irritations: differences in pace, communication style, spending, family habits and emotional expression. Close relationships are where tolerance is hardest because the stakes are high and the annoyances repeat.

The relationship researcher John Gottman found that many long-term couple conflicts are perpetual rather than solvable. Partners differ in temperament, values, habits and dreams; the goal is often not to erase the difference but to manage it with respect. That is tolerance in its least glamorous form: discussing the thermostat for the thousandth time without turning it into a verdict on love.

Try these relationship moves:

• Describe the behavior, not the person. “The dishes were left overnight” lands differently from “You are selfish.”
• Ask about meaning. A partner’s spending may represent freedom, security, generosity or fear, not simply irresponsibility.
• Separate preference from principle. The towels folded “wrong” may be a preference. Repeated lying is a principle.
• Use time-outs wisely. Pause an argument when flooded, but agree when you will return to it.
• Make room for benign difference. One person needs quiet after work; the other needs conversation. Neither is defective.

Consider an illustrative couple. Priya wants to talk immediately after conflict. Theo needs an hour alone. Their old pattern was predictable: she followed him through the apartment, he shut down harder, and both ended up lonely. Their new rule is simple: Theo says, “I need sixty minutes. I will come back at seven,” and Priya lets him go because the return is explicit. Nobody has changed their basic temperament. They have changed the meaning of the difference.

Family requires a particular kind of tolerance because old roles wake up fast. You may become fourteen again around a parent who has not changed a sentence in twenty years. Plan ahead. Decide what topics are off limits. Keep visits shorter if needed. Use neutral responses instead of relitigating every old story. Tolerance sometimes looks like changing the subject before the familiar trap closes.

And if you repeatedly feel smaller, frightened or unheard in a relationship, do not call that tolerance. Call it data.

How do you know whether you are becoming more tolerant?

You are becoming more tolerant when you react less quickly, ask better questions, recover from irritation faster and maintain boundaries without contempt. You do not need to become endlessly calm or agree with everyone to see progress.

Look for behavioral evidence rather than a feeling of sainthood. Do you interrupt less? Do you catch yourself using labels and revise them? Can you hear an opposing view without your pulse jumping? Are you able to say “I disagree” without adding “and you’re a terrible person”? Can you leave a conversation without replaying it for six hours?

Self-distancing research by Ethan Kross suggests that people who can reflect on upsetting events from a little distance experience less rumination and blame. That gives you a practical marker: after conflict, are you able to ask why it happened, or do you only replay what the other person did wrong?

Another marker is the quality of your apologies. More tolerant people apologize without adding a defense in the next breath. “I was impatient with you, and I’m sorry” is an apology. “I’m sorry you felt that way, but you were being difficult” is a receipt for an argument.

Keep a simple record for a month. Once a week, note:

• One moment you paused instead of reacting.
• One assumption you corrected after getting more information.
• One boundary you kept without attacking anyone.
• One difference you tolerated without needing to fix it.

Do not turn tolerance into another perfectionism project. You will still have opinions. You will still find some people difficult. You will still lose your patience in traffic or with family or during an exhausting week. The point is not to have no reaction. The point is to make your reaction less likely to injure someone, including you.

A final complication: tolerance can feel lonely at first. If your social circle runs on mockery, outrage or constant agreement, becoming more curious may make you seem less entertaining. That may be a cost. It may also tell you something about the kind of company you keep.

Being more tolerant is not becoming less yourself. It is becoming less ruled by your first impulse.

FAQs about Being More Tolerant

What does it mean to be tolerant?

Being tolerant means allowing people to hold beliefs, identities, habits or opinions that differ from yours, even when you dislike or disagree with them, as long as they do not harm others or violate basic rights. Tolerance is not approval, agreement or passivity. You can maintain firm values and boundaries while refusing to dehumanize or silence people simply because they are different from you.

Can I be tolerant without agreeing with someone?

Yes. In fact, tolerance matters most when you disagree. Approval means you think something is good; tolerance means you permit another person to make a choice or hold a view you would not choose yourself. You might tolerate a relative’s religious beliefs without sharing them, or accept a friend’s lifestyle without wanting it for yourself. The limit is harm: tolerance does not require accepting abuse, threats, prejudice or violations of another person’s freedom.

Why do I lose my patience so quickly?

Stress, fatigue, hunger, overstimulation and old emotional triggers all narrow your ability to pause before reacting. When your nervous system feels threatened, even a small annoyance can look like disrespect or danger. Try regulating first: slow your breathing, change rooms, walk briefly or delay a reply. If irritability is frequent, intense or affecting relationships, it may be worth discussing with a doctor or therapist, as anxiety, depression, trauma and sleep problems can all contribute.

Does meeting different people really reduce prejudice?

Often, yes. Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp’s 2006 meta-analysis of 515 studies found that intergroup contact was typically associated with less prejudice. Contact works best when people have equal status, cooperate toward common goals and receive support from institutions, though the evidence suggests ideal conditions are helpful rather than essential. Contact is not a cure-all, and hostile or tokenizing encounters can backfire, but real relationships make stereotypes harder to maintain.

What is intellectual humility?

It is the recognition that your beliefs may be incomplete or wrong, combined with openness to evidence and other perspectives. It does not mean having no convictions or treating all views as equally valid. Research suggests that intellectual humility is associated with lower political hostility and less affective polarization. A practical question is: “What evidence would make me revise this belief?” If nothing could, you may be defending identity rather than examining an idea.

How can I tolerate a difficult family member?

Separate what you can accept from what you cannot. You may accept that a parent will never share your values while setting limits on insulting comments or intrusive questions. Plan short visits, avoid predictable flashpoint topics, prepare neutral responses and leave when the conversation becomes harmful. Tolerance does not mean giving unlimited access to your time or emotional energy. It may mean accepting the person’s limits while protecting your own wellbeing.

What should I never tolerate?

Never tolerate violence, threats, coercive control, stalking, sexual pressure, repeated humiliation, racism, harassment or behavior that erodes your safety and freedom. These are not differences of opinion to be managed through better communication. If you feel afraid or controlled, seek support from someone you trust, a licensed counselor, a doctor or a domestic violence service. Call emergency services if there is immediate danger.

Can tolerance become people-pleasing?

Yes. Tolerance becomes people-pleasing when you silence your needs, avoid all conflict, accept repeated mistreatment or feel responsible for everyone else’s comfort. Healthy tolerance includes clear boundaries and the ability to say no. A useful check is whether your tolerance leaves you feeling calm and self-respecting, or resentful, anxious and smaller. If it consistently costs you your voice, it needs a boundary beside it.

Bibliography

• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
• Ayduk, Ö., & Kross, E. (2008). Enhancing the pace of recovery: Self-distancing accelerates the reduction of blood pressure reactivity to negative emotion. Psychological Science, 19(3), 229-231.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kross, E., & Ayduk, Ö. (2011). Making meaning out of negative experiences by self-distancing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 187-191.
• Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Isherwood, J. C., Raimi, K. T., Deffler, S. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (2017). Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), 793-813.
• Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. John W. Parker and Son.
• Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.
• Popper, K. R. (1945). The open society and its enemies. Routledge.
• Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). Academic Press.
• Smith, C. T., & McLaughlin, B. (2023). You know you’re right: How intellectual humility decreases political hostility. Political Psychology, 44(6), 1127-1145.