Humble teaching style and active learning behavior: A mentor perspective
Main Article Content
Cite this article:
Wang, L., Bian, T., & Ma, J.
(2026). Humble teaching style and active learning behavior: A mentor perspective.
Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal,
54(9),
e16370.
Abstract
Full Text
References
Tables and Figures
Acknowledgments
Author Contact
Using social exchange theory as a basis, this study examined how university teachers’ humble teaching style predicts students’ active classroom learning behavior. We collected data from 447 Chinese university students via a survey. Results of regression and mediation analysis showed that humble teaching was positively related to active classroom behavior, with students’ perceived trust partially mediating this effect. Additionally, through a moderation analysis we found that the relationship between humble teaching and perceived trust was stronger for students with high, compared to low, levels of proactive personality, thereby amplifying the indirect effect on active learning. These results highlight the role of trust and individual traits in promoting student engagement.
Article Highlights
A humble teaching style was found to be positively correlated with active classroom learning behavior among university students.
Perceived trust mediated the relationship between a humble teaching style and active classroom learning behavior.
Proactive personality moderated the effect of a humble teaching style on students’ perceived trust and enhanced the indirect effect on active classroom learning behavior.
In higher education, teachers and students are the fundamental subjects, and their interactions are a key indicator of classroom teaching quality (Wendt & Courduff, 2018). Factors significantly influencing these interactions include the hierarchical status of both parties; cultural background; individual psychology (Fisher & Waldrip, 1999); and teachers’ classroom concepts, styles, and methods (Le et al., 2017).
Current Chinese university teaching reforms have been focused on fostering students’ creativity to meet the local demand for innovative talents (Chen, 2024). However, the predominant teaching method remains “teachers speak, students listen” (Trigwell et al., 1999, p. 59), where teachers deliver lectures, but students often do not fully grasp the content (Beausaert et al., 2013). This mandatory method of indoctrination-style teaching diminishes students’ enthusiasm and initiative, hindering the development of innovative thinking and abilities (Jones et al., 2018).
Unlike humility theory (Cho et al., 2021), social exchange theory posits that interpersonal communication is a process of social exchange centered on the principle of reciprocity (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Classroom teaching is an interconnected, interdependent interaction process between teacher instruction and student learning (Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2010). Thus, drawing on social exchange theory, we argued that teachers’ humble teaching style would promote students’ active learning and foster innovative talent.
Social Exchange Theory
Social exchange requires establishing trust and follows the principle of reciprocity (Khoreva et al., 2017); the exchange relationship continues only if both parties receive the expected returns (Ashforth et al., 2008). For example, the teacher–student relationship is a nonutilitarian internal exchange carried out sincerely through communication, grounded in mutual trust (Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2011). If teacher and student both benefit or meet each other’s needs, the exchange continues, improving classroom quality (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
Humble Teaching Style and Students’ Active Classroom Learning Behavior
Although research on the humble teaching style is scarce, studies on humble leadership offer valuable insights (Chandler et al., 2023; Kelemen et al., 2023). We drew on Owens and Hekman’s (2012) behavioral perspective to define a humble teaching style as a bottom-up approach where teachers positively influence students by adopting behaviors such as acknowledging limitations, valuing others’ strengths, and learning from students and colleagues (see also El-Gazar et al., 2022). Active behavior in the workplace refers to constructive initiatives undertaken by individuals to change themselves, their roles, their work environment, or even organizational processes (Griffin et al., 2007). Accordingly, active classroom learning behavior involves students actively engaging in learning and influencing or changing the behavior of their team or class (Park & Choi, 2014).
According to social exchange theory, individuals are willing to invest effort only when they perceive meaningful returns (Blau, 1964). A dominant teaching style often fails to engage students, leading to a dull classroom atmosphere and low student participation (Jones et al., 2018). In contrast, teachers with a humble teaching style appreciate and praise students’ strengths, boosting their confidence and stimulating active learning (Zou & Chen, 2025). Additionally, humble teachers acknowledge their own shortcomings and listen to students’ opinions, reducing the power distance between them (Hu et al., 2018). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: A humble teaching style will positively predict students’ active classroom learning behavior.
The Mediating Effect of Students’ Perceived Trust
In a Chinese cultural context, perceived trust refers to individuals’ subjective sense of being trusted and entails both a psychological state and a behavioral tendency (Wu et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2015), with its value realized through trustees’ behavioral responses (Brown et al., 2014). In education settings, perceived trust reflects students’ sense of being trusted by teachers (Mitchell et al., 2018).
Use of a humble teaching style conveys trust in students’ capabilities through modest and teachable behaviors, signaling expectations for proactive engagement and thereby providing socioemotional support that fosters reciprocal obligation in line with social exchange theory (Khoreva et al., 2017; Owens & Hekman, 2012). Trust acts as a catalyst for reciprocity, such that when individuals perceive trust, they recognize the support from the trustor and are motivated to reciprocate through proactive learning behaviors, sustaining the exchange (Blau, 1964). Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: A humble teaching style will positively predict students’ perceived trust.
Hypothesis 3: Students’ perceived trust will mediate the relationship between a humble teaching style and students’ active classroom learning behavior.
The Moderating Effect of Students’ Proactive Personality
Bateman and Crant (1993) defined proactive personality as a stable trait where individuals actively identify opportunities, take initiative, and persistently strive to achieve goals regardless of the environment. Scholars have analyzed differences between students with high and low levels of proactivity, and found that those with a highly proactive personality are more likely to perceive trust signals from humble teachers, fostering a stable internal exchange relationship (Seibert et al., 1999; S. Wang et al., 2019). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Proactive personality will positively moderate the relationship between a humble teaching style and students’ perceived trust.
On the basis of the above analysis, we further proposed a moderated mediation hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Proactive personality will positively moderate the indirect relationship between a humble teaching style and active classroom learning behavior via the mediator of perceived trust.
The theoretical model of this study is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Theoretical Model
Method
Participants and Procedure
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of our institution. Participation was voluntary and informed consent was obtained from all respondents. For those aged under 18 years, we further obtained the approval of school authorities. Responses were anonymous and participants were informed that they could withdraw at any time without penalty.
We recruited participants via cluster sampling by class, focusing on undergraduates with a range of disciplinary orientations across three universities in Beijing, China. Among the 500 questionnaires we distributed, 447 (89.4%) responses were valid, of which 160 were from men and 287 were from women. In terms of year level, 174 were freshmen, 146 were sophomores, 87 were juniors, and 40 were seniors. Regarding age, 35.0% were aged 18 years or younger, 60.7% were aged 19–22 years, and 4.3% were aged over 22 years. In terms of academic performance, as rated via self-report, 10.0% achieved excellent scores, 46.4% had good scores, 35.7% had average scores, 5.4% had pass scores, and 2.5% had fail scores.
Measures
Items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), and were translated from English into Chinese using a back-translation procedure. Prior to data collection, we interviewed 10 students in a pilot test to assess item clarity.
Humble Teaching Style
Humble teaching style was measured with a nine-item scale (Owens et al., 2013) that we adapted to the teaching context. A sample item is “My teacher often praises students’ strengths.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .93.
Perceived Trust
Perceived trust was measured using a 10-item scale adapted from Gillespie (2003), which we revised to fit the classroom context. A sample item is “My teacher is willing to share their mood and classroom feelings with students.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .86.
Active Classroom Learning Behavior
Active classroom learning behavior was measured using an eight-item scale (Parker & Collins, 2010), adapted to the student context. A sample item is “Providing suggestions for teachers in classroom teaching.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .95.
Proactive Personality
Proactive personality was measured using an 11-item unidimensional scale (Seibert et al., 1999). A sample item is “If I see others in trouble, I will try my best to help them.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .94.
Control Variables
To rule out possible alternative explanations for the findings, we controlled for the demographic variables of gender, age, academic year, and academic performance.
Data Analysis
We conducted statistical analysis of the data using SPSS 27.0 and Mplus 8.0.
Results
Measurement Validity
To evaluate item performance in the Chinese context, we conducted two preliminary analyses. First, item–total correlations for humble teaching, perceived trust, active learning, and proactive personality ranged from .75 to .82, indicating strong internal consistency. Second, comparisons between high- and low-scoring groups (top and bottom 27%) showed significant differences across all items (p < .001; see Table 1), confirming adequate item differentiation.
Table 1. Results of Independent-Samples t Tests
Common Method Bias Test
The standardized loadings from a confirmatory factor analysis further supported the measures’ construct validity (see Table 2). Harman’s single-factor test extracted six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, with the first factor accounting for 38.45% of the variance. This is below the 40% threshold, indicating no serious common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Common method bias was further evaluated using the unmeasured latent method factor approach (Richardson et al., 2009). Comparison of base and control models (see Table 2) showed negligible changes in fit indices and a nonsignificant chi-square difference, confirming that common method bias was not a serious problem.
Table 2. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square error of approximation.
a Humble teaching style, Perceived trust, Active classroom learning behavior, Proactive personality + potential method factor (control model); b Humble teaching style + Perceived trust + Active classroom learning behavior + Proactive personality.
Correlation Analysis
Correlation analysis results (see Table 3) showed that a humble teaching style was positively associated with perceived trust and active classroom learning behavior, and that perceived trust was positively associated with active classroom learning behavior. This provided preliminary support for subsequent hypothesis testing.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables
Note. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; Age: 1 = ≤ 18 years, 2 = 19 years, 3 = 20 years, 4 = 21 years, 5 = ≥ 22 years; Academic year: 1 = freshman, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, 4 = senior; Academic performance: 1 = fail (< 60), 2 = pass (60–69), 3 = average (70–79), 4 = good (80–89), 5 = excellent (90+).
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Hypothesis Testing
Main and Mediation Effect Testing
The results of regression analysis (see Table 4) showed that a humble teaching style significantly predicted active classroom learning behavior (Model 5), and was positively related to perceived trust (Model 2), supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2. After controlling for humble teaching style, perceived trust positively predicted active classroom learning behavior (Model 6), and the positive relationship between humble teaching style and classroom active learning behavior was significant (Model 6). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Table 4. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Note. † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Moderation and Moderated Mediation Effect Testing
Table 4 shows that the interaction between humble teaching style and proactive personality significantly predicted perceived trust (Model 3). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported. We conducted a simple slope analysis (see Figure 2) for high and low levels of proactive personality. The results indicated that a humble teaching style was positively related to perceived trust at both high (M + 1 SD), β = .51, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.46, 0.59], and low (M − 1 SD), β = .26, 95% CI [0.23, 0.30], levels of proactive personality, further supporting Hypothesis 4.
Figure 2. Moderating Effect of Proactive Personality on the Relationship Between Humble Teaching Style and Perceived Trust
Table 5 shows that the indirect path of teacher’s humble teaching style on active classroom learning behavior via perceived trust differed according to the level of proactive personality, thereby supporting Hypothesis 5.
Table 5. Moderating Effects Analysis
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
Discussion
Theoretical Implications
First, we found that a humble teaching style positively predicted students’ active classroom learning behavior, extending the application of humility theory beyond leadership contexts. Previous research has primarily focused on humble leadership in organizations, which can be seen as either an innate trait or a bottom-up behavioral style granting autonomy and performance opportunities (Cho et al., 2021; Morris et al., 2005). Moreover, we conceptualized active learning behavior as students’ proactive engagement that enhances classroom and team dynamics, adapting a workplace concept to the educational context (Griffin et al., 2007).
Second, our results showed that students’ perceived trust mediated the effect of a humble teaching style on active in-class learning. This extends the concept of perceived trust to the education field and aligns with the focus in social exchange theory on reciprocal relationships (Khoreva et al., 2017), as students who sense trust through teachers’ reliance and open communication are motivated to reciprocate with proactive classroom participation (Jones et al., 2018).
Third, students’ proactive personality was found to positively moderate the effect of humble teaching style on perceived trust, with a stronger relationship being observed for those with a highly proactive personality (Zhang & Chi, 2025; Zou & Chen, 2025). Furthermore, the indirect effect of humble teaching on active classroom learning behavior via perceived trust was stronger for students with a higher level of proactive personality, highlighting the moderating role of individual traits within social exchange theory, rather than trust being a stable and automatic driver of positive behavior (S. W. Wang et al., 2015). This finding expands understanding of the boundary conditions for humble teaching and emphasizes the bridging role of personality traits in educational interactions, offering theoretical support for examining individual differences in classroom settings.
Practical Implications
First, teachers should adopt a humble teaching style, moving away from traditional authoritarian roles to prioritize student engagement, respectful and approachable teacher–student relationships, constructive feedback, and active listening (Owens & Hekman, 2012). Second, teachers should consider students’ individual traits, especially proactive personality, when applying humble teaching practices. Students with higher, compared to lower, proactive personality perceive and respond more effectively to teachers’ trust signals (Cho et al., 2021; Khoreva et al., 2017). Moreover, teachers should provide feedback and maintain open communication, as affirmation and timely responses help students feel valued and trusted, which can promote active classroom learning behavior.
Limitations and Future Research
First, this study relied solely on questionnaires for data collection. Future research could adopt a mixed-methods approach, such as using interviews, observations, or objective metrics (e.g., academic performance). Second, the sample was limited to university students. Expanding the sample to include other age groups or grade levels could improve the generalizability of the results. Third, future studies could examine the effects of diverse teaching or leadership styles (i.e., authoritative or collaborative) on students’ active learning.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202
Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.033
Beausaert, S. A. J., Segers, M. S. R., & Wiltink, D. P. A. (2013). The influence of teachers’ teaching approaches on students’ learning approaches: The student perspective. Educational Research, 55(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.767022
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, G., Crossley, C., & Robinson, S. L. (2014). Psychological ownership, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team contributor: The critical role of trust in the work environment. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12048
Chandler, J. A., Johnson, N. E., Jordan, S. L., B, D. K., & Short, J. C. (2023). A meta-analysis of humble leadership: Reviewing individual, team, and organizational outcomes of leader humility. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(1), Article 101660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101660
Chen, J. (2024). Development of creative skills of future specialists in higher polytechnic colleges of the People’s Republic of China. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, Article 101505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101505
Cho, J., Schilpzand, P., Huang, L., & Paterson, T. (2021). How and when humble leadership facilitates employee job performance: The roles of feeling trusted and job autonomy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051820979634
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
El-Gazar, H. E., Zoromba, M. A., Zakaria, A. M., Abualruz, H., & Abousoliman, A. D. (2022). Effect of humble leadership on proactive work behaviour: The mediating role of psychological empowerment among nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(7), 2689–2698. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13692
Fisher, D. L., & Waldrip, B. G. (1999). Cultural factors of science classroom learning environments, teacher‐student interactions and student outcomes. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514990170107
Gillespie, N. (2003). Measuring trust in working relationships: The behavioral trust inventory. Melbourne Business School.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634438
Hu, J., Erdogan, B., Jiang, K., Bauer, T. N., & Liu, S. (2018). Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000277
Jones, S., Gopalakrishnan, S., Ameh, C. A., Faragher, B., Sam, B., Labicane, R. R., Kanu, H., Dabo, F., Mansary, M., Kanu, R., & van den Broek, N. (2018). Student evaluation of the impact of changes in teaching style on their learning: A mixed method longitudinal study. BMC Nursing, 17(1), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-018-0293-z
Kelemen, T. K., Matthews, S. H., Matthews, M. J., & Henry, S. E. (2023). Humble leadership: A review and synthesis of leader expressed humility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2608
Khoreva, V., Vaiman, V., & Van Zalk, M. (2017). Talent management practice effectiveness: Investigating employee perspective. Employee Relations, 39(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/er-01-2016-0005
Le, T., Bolt, D., Camburn, E., Goff, P., & Rohe, K. (2017). Latent factors in student–teacher interaction factor analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 42(2), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998616676407
Mitchell, R. M., Kensler, L., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2018). Student trust in teachers and student perceptions of safety: Positive predictors of student identification with school. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1157211
Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323–1350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705059929
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 787–818. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0441
Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517–1538. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0795
Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9742-0
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109332834
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003548313194
Van Maele, D., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). The quality of school life: Teacher–student trust relationships and the organizational school context. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9605-8
Wang, S., Li, Y., & Tu, Y. (2019). Linking proactive personality to life satisfaction in the Chinese context: The mediation of interpersonal trust and moderation of positive reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(8), 2471–2488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0056-2
Wang, S. W., Ngamsiriudom, W., & Hsieh, C.-H. (2015). Trust disposition, trust antecedents, trust, and behavioral intention. The Service Industries Journal, 35(10), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2015.1047827
Wendt, J. L., & Courduff, J. (2018). The relationship between teacher immediacy, perceptions of learning, and computer-mediated graduate course outcomes among primarily Asian international students enrolled in an U.S. university. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0115-0
Wu, J., Zeng, M., & Xie, K. L. (2017). Chinese travelers’ behavioral intentions toward room-sharing platforms: The influence of motivations, perceived trust, and past experience. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(10), 2688–2707. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0481
Yang, Q., Pang, C., Liu, L., Yen, D. C., & Tarn, J. M. (2015). Exploring consumer perceived risk and trust for online payments: An empirical study in China’s younger generation. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.058
Zhang, X., & Chi, J. (2025). Enhancing creative process engagement in university students: The mediating role of trust and empowerment and the moderating effect of proactive personality in humble teacher leadership. BMC Psychology, 13(1), Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02382-z
Zou, W.-Q., & Chen, S.-C. (2025). Teacher-expressed humility and students’ learning motivation: The mediating role of academic self-efficacy and the moderating role of teacher ability trustworthiness. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 34(1), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00856-z
Figure 1. Theoretical Model
Table 1. Results of Independent-Samples t Tests
Table 2. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square error of approximation.
a Humble teaching style, Perceived trust, Active classroom learning behavior, Proactive personality + potential method factor (control model); b Humble teaching style + Perceived trust + Active classroom learning behavior + Proactive personality.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables
Note. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; Age: 1 = ≤ 18 years, 2 = 19 years, 3 = 20 years, 4 = 21 years, 5 = ≥ 22 years; Academic year: 1 = freshman, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, 4 = senior; Academic performance: 1 = fail (< 60), 2 = pass (60–69), 3 = average (70–79), 4 = good (80–89), 5 = excellent (90+).
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Table 4. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Note. † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Figure 2. Moderating Effect of Proactive Personality on the Relationship Between Humble Teaching Style and Perceived Trust
Table 5. Moderating Effects Analysis
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
This research was supported by the Graduate Academic Rising Star Program of Capital University of Economics and Business (2026XSXR06).
The authors thank all the participants who generously contributed their time and insights.
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Jikang Ma, School of Business Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, No. 121 Zhangjia Lukou, Huaxiang, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]
Article Details
© 2026 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.