The quickly growing study on intellectual humility (IH) is just beginning to define and measure the virtue, other studies reviewed within this paper helped to establish intellectual humility as a subdomain of Humility. This not only involves being able to weigh ideas in an appropriate and reasonable manner, but is also the accuracy to which one views their own strengths and weaknesses (intellectually speaking). This virtue just may be the reason an intellectually humble person (someone that scores high on the IHS) possess the ability to think and reason in a more effective manner than that of a low scoring subject. The purpose of this study is to attempt to determine if there are any relationships between the intellectual humility scale (IHS), recently validated by Leary et al. (2017), and 3 alternate measures of personality called; the need for cognition scale (NCS), dogmatism scale (DS), and social desirability scale (SDS). The 4 psychometric scales are all used to measure personality, first of all , Intellectual humility can be operationally defined as the degree to which someone recognizes that their beliefs could be errant, the intellectual humility scale (IHS) is a valid self-report measure that is used to quantify this personality so we can compare it to the other scales. High scores on this scale have been said to be related to things such as holding alternate views versus people who change their views. The high scoring students also show indication that they posses an enjoyment for learning new information, even if it differs from their previously established beliefs. Secondly, the need for cognition scale (NCS) is an instrument used for the assessment of one’s tendency to partake in learning or get enjoyment from thinking, this is because the scale quantitatively measures this tendency. The need for cognition scale (NCS) has a multitude of uses, but the reason it was used in this study is because it allows us to examine the relationship between one’s need for cognition and their want to learn new information. High scores on the need for cognition scale are closely related to how much student’s engage in, enjoy =,and are motivated to apply their cognitive skills on a day to day basis. It is also found that students with a higher score on the NCS posses a more inclined ability to sort, process and systemize information, including determining between relevant and irrelevant information. This increased thinking skill is also related to being more diligent and open to try new things than those with low need for cognition (Bost, A. (2007)). The dogmatism scale (DS) is related to being open/close-minded, this theory touches on cognition as well as personality and focuses on investigating the structure and set up of a system (belief/disbelief) rather than what they include within the organization. High scorers are thought to be closed minded, this is because this score is associated with being very “set in one’s ways” or being unreceptive to new ways of thinking, information, or arguments. This makes these personality types difficult to argue against and even harder to try and convince. Having said that, low scores yield the opposite, these people are more willing to do new things, hear new information or even consider someone else’s idea(s), making an open minded person. Social desirability is the degree to which one’s answers are influenced by what others want to hear. So when people succumb to this pressure it can cause distortion of the results within experiences, interviews, and surveys included in studies. The social desirability scale (SDS) is a self-report instrument that quantifies the degree to which someone wishes to appeal to society (with their answers). So, the average person should fall in the middle of this scale, and not really be all that concerned about how others see them, but not completely ignoring others opinions all together. Students with high SDS scores are those who are concerned with what others think about them and they are very concerned with getting their approval. Low scores would indicate the opposite, these subjects will be less concerned with how other see them so they will most likely be more willing to reply the most truthfully out of the sample. The use of this scale is important to the purpose of this study as it measures the degree to which someone is concerned with society’s view of them, if someone is concerned with how their answers may make them look, they will answer less truthfully, therefore, this scale will help determine the accuracy of student’s responses to each scale based on their concern to be socially desirable. These scales have been proven reliable instruments for quantitatively measuring these personalities. The first article, written by Davis et al. (YEAR), involves 2 studies that, together, attempt to ascertain intellectual humility (IH) from general humility (GH/Humility). Throughout the paper, the authors define general humility as one’s ability to govern their egotism in order to alter their own view, as well as their ability to develop an accurate view of one’s self. Similar to the current study, Davis and his colleagues were focused on conducting an investigation that determines when IH can distinctively foresee criteria/variables related to the GH. Though the study of intellectual humility had begun, Davis and his peers had a number of questions that they set out to test in their paper, therefore they set out in hopes to determine whether or not the discriminant validity can be ascertained from the general humility. Through the use of a confirmatory factor analysis within a model that contains items from a IH/GH measure, the results from this (study 1), provided them with evidence that shows a relationship between latent traits involved with IH and traits from GH that are related but different. They then set out in hopes to distinguish between IH and GH with the use of a theoretical framework. All the findings from the report, support their initial purpose for determining whether or not IH is a subdomain of GH, they also indicate that an empirical investigation of intellectual humility would be beneficial to the scientific community. In conclusion, the group was unable to gather evidence to support the discriminant validity, although this could have been bad for the platform for IH, but instead this study provides us with evidence that there is quite possibly many more subdomains of general humility that go beyond IH. The second article for literature review is by Leary et al., (2017), in this study Leary and his peers set out looking for a series of correlations between intellectual humility and a variety of other personality traits such as need for cognition, social desirability score and even arrogance. Four studies were conducted throughout this paper that investigated IH and the extent to which someone may accept their beliefs could be incorrect. The first study introduced the new intellectual humility scale which provided us with evidence that IH is linked to variables such as; openness, tolerance for ambiguity, curiosity, and closed-mindedness. The purpose of this paper was to come up a self-report method of measuring intellectual humility whilst keeping 5 criterion in mind, and these criteria ensure that the test/scale is relative to everyone, and lessens variance in answers. The second study portrayed that; high scores on the IHS were relative to people who weren’t as certain about what they believe in and therefore judge others less based on religious values. Another purpose outlined within the study was to provide evidence to support discriminant validity with respects to other traits and theories that relate to or involve open/closed – mindedness, this can be seen on the dogmatism scale, explained further on in the paper. Study 3 gave evidence that highly intellectually humble people are less likely to negatively judge someone (a politician for example) for changing his attitude/mind. The fourth study showed evidence of highly intellectually humble people being more accustomed to how persuasive an argument is. These four studies provide readers with a comprehension of the psychological traits of people that range across the IHS, they also considered and investigated correlation patterns between many constructs that all provide “hints” about the underlying information about intellectual humility. Although there were many correlations worth mentioning, there were 3 other virtues pertaining to the current study mentioned in Leary’s findings; NCS, DS and SDS in regards to whether they correlate with IHS or not. The third article being reviewed was written by Samuelson et al. (2014), this study is focused on intellectual humility and the implicit theories of intellectual vices and virtues. This article attempts to define intellectual humility through a series of studies that have been designed to guide the measurement of IH that, over time has become an implicit theory. This paper conducted a series of 3 different studies, the first involved a method of free-listing to generate a list of traits, one for each “person-concept” (wise, intellectual humility and intellectual arrogance), the second included another group of students. In this study the students were required to rate the generated descriptors based on how representative they are to the target person-concept. The third and final study consisted of sorting the person-concepts used in the previous studies by similarity to each person-concept, through the technique of comparison; a complex outline was drawn of an intellectually humble person. This study was conducted to investigate specific person-concepts that were adapted through a multitude of other factors. The overall purpose of this study was to discover and develop a comprehension for the “folk” meaning of an intellectually arrogant person,intellectually humble person, or a wise person, that is in the general public, as well as the relationship(s) (if any) between the 3 person-concepts as they can provide evidence to strengthen our meaning of intellectual humility. The current study is interested in the investigation of intellectual humility and the attempts to determine a relationship, if any, between intellectual humility and the 3 other personality measures mentioned in the paper, NCS, DS, and SDS. The variables of the study are the scales being used or more importantly; the traits being measured with the scales in order to determine correlations between each personality and Intellectual Humility (IH). The need for cognition can be operationally defined as a quantitative measure for the tendency that one engages and enjoys cognitive tasks, the NCS is related to processing information as well as sorting/systemizing it. I predict that there were will a positive correlation between the results from NCS and those from IHS. This is because those who score high on the IHS are known to indicate a joy for learning new information, where those who score high on the NCS are said to enjoy engaging in not only cognitive tasks, but learning new things and sorting information. Another reason for this is because in Leary’s paper he and his peers make a comment on the positive correlation found between the scales in their study that those who enjoy learning new information may seek out that new information. Meaning, when someone is interested in new information or is intellectually humble, they may just go searching for it (satisfying the NCS). My second prediction is that there will be a negative correlation between IH and Dogmatism, this is because those who are high in dogmatism are closed-minded, closed minded people don’t typically enjoy hearing others ideas meaning they would score low on the IHS. Again, this prediction is supported by Leary et al. (2017), just as the following prediction is as well. The third and final prediction is that there will be a no correlation between the IHS and SDS, this is because intellectual humility and social desirability don’t tend to cross paths as much. This is also mentioned in Leary’s study, the tendency for one to acknowledge the accuracy of their own views, doesn’t really relate to the degree that someone is concerned with society’s views of them Leary et al.,(2017).