Psychological Wisdom Research: Commonalities And .

2y ago
75 Views
3 Downloads
587.55 KB
30 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Azalea Piercy
Transcription

PS62CH09-StaudingerARIANNUALREVIEWS11 November 201012:33FurtherAnnu. Rev. Psychol. 2011.62:215-241. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby University of Minnesota - Twin Cities - Wilson Library on 05/13/11. For personal use only.Click here for quick links toAnnual Reviews content online,including: Other articles in this volume Top cited articles Top downloaded articles Our comprehensive searchPsychological WisdomResearch: Commonalities andDifferences in a Growing FieldUrsula M. Staudinger1 and Judith Glück21Jacobs Center on Lifelong Learning and Institutional Development, Jacobs University,28759 Bremen, Germany; email: sekstaudinger@jacobs-university.de2Department of Psychology, Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria;email: judith.glueck@uni-klu.ac.atAnnu. Rev. Psychol. 2011. 62:215–41Key WordsFirst published online as a Review in Advance onSeptember 7, 2010personality, expertise, subjective theories, adjustment, personal growthThe Annual Review of Psychology is online atpsych.annualreviews.orgThis article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131659c 2011 by Annual Reviews.Copyright All rights reserved0066-4308/11/0110-0215 20.00AbstractWisdom represents a fruitful topic for psychological investigations forat least two reasons. First, the study of wisdom emphasizes the searchfor the continued optimization and the further cultural evolution ofthe human condition. Second, it exemplifies the collaboration of cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes. The growth and scope ofpsychological wisdom research over the past few decades demonstratethat it is possible to investigate this complex construct with empiricalrigor. Since the 1970s, five main areas have been established: lay definitions of wisdom, conceptualizing and measuring wisdom, understandingthe development of wisdom, investigating the plasticity of wisdom, andapplying psychological knowledge about wisdom in life contexts.215

PS62CH09-StaudingerARI11 November 201012:33ContentsAnnu. Rev. Psychol. 2011.62:215-241. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby University of Minnesota - Twin Cities - Wilson Library on 05/13/11. For personal use only.INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SUBJECTIVE THEORIESOF WISDOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Core Components of Wisdomin Subjective Theories . . . . . . . . . .Wisdom and Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Individual Differences in SubjectiveConceptions of Wisdom . . . . . . . .Cross-Cultural Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .EXPLICIT THEORIESOF WISDOM:CONCEPTUALIZATIONSAND MEASUREMENT . . . . . . . . . .The Distinction Between Personaland General Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . .Approaches to the Studyof General Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . .Approaches to the Studyof Personal Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . .Self-Report Measuresof Personal Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . .Performance Measuresof Personal Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . .ONTOGENESIS OF WISDOM . . . . .PLASTICITY OF WISDOM . . . . . . . . .FIELDS OF APPLICATIONSFOR WISDOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Teaching Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CONCLUSIONS ANDFUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . 33234235INTRODUCTIONThe quest for wisdom is roughly as old as humankind. We are able to document this deephuman concern for wisdom at least since writing made it possible to later retrieve very earlyexamples of the wisdom literature dating back asfar as the third century B.C. (e.g., Mesopotamia,Egypt). Similarly, an interest in and a concernfor wisdom have accompanied the rise of modern psychology from its early days. G. Stanley216Staudinger·GlückHall (1922), in his pioneering conceptual pieceon senescence, was probably the first psychologist to mention the concept of wisdom. Heassociated the development of wisdom in a person with the emergence in later adulthood of ameditative attitude, philosophic calmness, impartiality, and the desire to draw moral lessons.In other words, in early psychological writings,wisdom was described as an ideal endpoint ofhuman development. It was not until the 1970sthat empirical wisdom research began (Clayton1975).In contrast to most other topics of psychological study, the notion of “wisdom” has sucha rich ideational history and carries so manyreligious and philosophical associations that italmost seems to defy any attempt at empiricalstudy (Staudinger & Baltes 1994, Staudinger& Glück 2010). Therefore, psychological workon wisdom is often based on an analysis ofthe historical as well as the contemporaneous philosophical wisdom literature (Assmann1994, Brugman 2006, Curnow 1999).Since the 1970s, five areas of psychological wisdom research have been established:(a) providing a lay definition of wisdom,(b) conceptualizing and measuring wisdom,(c) understanding the development of wisdom,(d ) investigating the plasticity of wisdom, and(e) applying psychological knowledge aboutwisdom in life contexts.Before we venture into these fields, however, we highlight some general issues to beconsidered when reviewing psychological wisdom research. First, we note that wisdom concerns a body of insights, heuristics, and skillsthat can manifest themselves in many different ways, only one of which is the wise person.Even though from a psychological perspectivethis seems to be the most obvious if not important focus, we argue that cultural crystallizations of wisdom as we find them in proverbsand other texts, such as religious writings orconstitutional texts, are as relevant to the psychological study of wisdom as the investigationof personality characteristics of a potentiallywise person or the investigation of behaviorsindicative of wisdom. Second, we suggest that

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011.62:215-241. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby University of Minnesota - Twin Cities - Wilson Library on 05/13/11. For personal use only.PS62CH09-StaudingerARI11 November 201012:33use of the notion of “wisdom” or “wise” is confined to existential and uncertain matters of life,and someone or something is called wise only ifthe range of definitive criteria is fully instantiated. Although the word “wise” in everyday language is often used in a much more inflationarymanner, the scientific usage ought to be precise.Therefore, third, an increase in competencethat results from experience cannot immediately be equated with an increase in wisdom.In this vein, a distinction between two types ofpositive adult development has been suggested,namely, between an increase in adjustment andin growth (e.g., Staudinger & Kessler 2009,Staudinger & Kunzmann 2005). According tothis distinction, a high level of adjustment,which without doubt is positive and functional,would not be sufficient to be labeled wisdom.Rather, the notion of wisdom should be reserved for phenomena that can be described asfollows.Wisdom concerns mastering the basicdialectics shaping human existence, such as thedialectic between good and bad, positivity andnegativity, dependency and independence, certainty and doubt, control and lack of control,finiteness and eternity, strength and weakness,and selfishness and altruism. Mastery of suchdialectics in the sense of wisdom does notmean that a decision for either one or theother side is taken but rather that both sidesare essential for grasping human existence.Wisdom embraces these contradictions oflife and draws insights from them. It furtherdevelops heuristics about when and underwhich circumstances to focus on which side ofeach of these opposites (Staudinger 1999b). Interms of psychological functioning, three facetsneed to be integrated: a cognitive, an emotional, and a motivational facet: (a) deep andbroad insight into self, others, and the world;(b) complex emotion regulation (in the senseof tolerance of ambiguity), and (c) a motivational orientation that transcends self-interestand is invested in the well-being of othersand the world (Staudinger & Kessler 2009).Mastering this kind of challenge clearly is notan obligatory but rather an optional task ofhuman development (Schindler & Staudinger2005).SUBJECTIVE THEORIESOF WISDOMEver since the beginnings of psychological wisdom research, the search for what “wisdom” actually is and how it can be defined has been animportant, if not the most central, area of investigation. In particular, attention has been paidto folk conceptions about wisdom, that is, howordinary people who are not familiar with psychological constructs perceive and define wisdom. The reasons why folk conceptions of wisdom have been investigated in more depth thanis the case for other constructs, such as intelligence, may include its rich cultural history andits loftiness as an ideal state of being, as wellas the fact that the criteria indicative of wisdom are by definition consensual (Staudinger1996). Wisdom often becomes manifest in social situations, such as advice-giving and guidance (Montgomery et al. 2002). When it comesto issues of wisdom, there is no easily retrievable answer to the question of what is “right” or“wrong.” However, based on the fundamentalprecondition that the well-being of the individual and that of the community need to bebalanced (Sternberg 1998), a consensus can bereached within a community of practice as towhat constitutes wise advice or even a wise person. In other words, wisdom follows a consensual rather than an objective criterion of truth(Habermas 1970). If so, then what people viewas characteristic of wisdom is relevant also totheoretical models (Bluck & Glück 2005).Most studies of subjective theories of wisdom have used descriptor-rating methods(Bluck & Glück 2005). Such studies (e.g.,Clayton & Birren 1980, Glück & Bluck 2010,Glück et al. 2010, Holliday & Chandler 1986,Jason et al. 2001, Sternberg 1985) usually consist of two steps. First, participants generate listsof attributes they associate with wisdom. Theselists are merged into a master list, removingidiosyncrasies and synonyms, and the masterlist is presented to another, larger sample ofwww.annualreviews.org Psychological Wisdom Research217

ARI11 November 201012:33participants who rate each term for its centralityto wisdom. Methods such as multidimensionalscaling or factor analysis are used to extract underlying components from these ratings andto label them according to their most typicalattributes.Another approach to studying subjectivetheories of wisdom focuses on people’s perceptions of actual instances of wisdom in themselves or others. For example, several studies investigated whom people view as wiseand why. In some studies (e.g., Orwoll &Perlmutter 1990, Paulhus et al. 2002), participants named historical or famous persons theyconsidered as wise. Other more qualitative research (e.g., Montgomery et al. 2002, Sowarka1989) focused on why participants found a particular person from their own environmentwise. Finally, in some studies, people were askedwhen in their life they had been wise themselves (Bluck & Glück 2004, Glück et al. 2005,Oser et al. 1999). According to studies by Oserand colleagues (1999), wise acts seem to becharacterized by the following seven features:(a) they are paradoxical, unexpected; (b) theyare morally integer; (c) they are selfless;(d ) they overcome internal and external dictates; (e) they strive toward equilibrium; ( f ) theyimply a risk; and ( g) they strive toward improving the human condition. Most individuals considered as wise were in their second half of life,and typically they had guided others in difficult situations (Montgomery et al. 2002). Theforms of wisdom that participants perceived intheir own past varied with participants’ currentage (Glück et al. 2005).Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011.62:215-241. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby University of Minnesota - Twin Cities - Wilson Library on 05/13/11. For personal use only.PS62CH09-StaudingerCore Components of Wisdomin Subjective TheoriesResearchers have labeled the components identified in descriptor-rating studies differently,although the actual content is quite similaracross studies. Bluck & Glück (2005) summarized the results from the available descriptorrating studies by grouping the respectivecomponents into five consistent categories.The cognitive-ability component combines218Staudinger·Glückcrystallized and fluid aspects of intelligence:Both an experience-based body of broad anddeep life knowledge and the ability to reasonwell and think logically about novel problemsare associated with wisdom, although theformer aspect is viewed as more central. Thesecond component, searching for insight,bridges cognition and motivation: Wise individuals are willing and able to understandcomplex issues deeply rather than superficially.If they are lacking sufficient information, theywill search for that information rather thanform a premature judgment. Third, a related,more motivational-emotional component iswise people’s reflective attitude: Rather thanmaking quick judgments or being guided bystrong emotions, they prefer to think deeplyabout people, the world, and themselves.Their attitude of looking at all sides of anissue also implies a willingness to be critical ofthemselves, a balanced manner of regulatingtheir own emotions rather than getting carriedaway by strong feelings, and an unobtrusiveself-presentation. Fourth, wise people alsotend to show high levels of concern forothers: In addition to being cognitively ableto see others’ perspectives, they transcendtheir self-interests and care deeply for thewell-being of others. Because this attitude goesbeyond one’s family and close friends, wisepeople often engage in civic activities for thebenefit of others. These four components manifest themselves in concrete activity rather thanonly in theory: Wise individuals are assumedto have real-world problem-solving skills thatenable them to apply their knowledge and judgment to concrete problems faced by themselvesand others. Additional components of wisdomfound in some studies include spirituality andconnectedness to nature ( Jason et al. 2001),the emancipatory nature of wisdom (Chandler& Holliday 1990), and humor (Webster 2003).Notably, elements of these components, especially cognitive ability and concern for others, are already present in the wisdom conceptions of elementary-school children (Glücket al. 2010). Thus, the concept of wisdom seemsto be culturally transmitted across generations

PS62CH09-StaudingerARI11 November 201012:33(cf. wise figures in fairy tales, fantasy stories,and games). And indeed it has been arguedfrom a stance of evolutionary hermeneuticsthat wisdom has adaptive value for humankind(Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde 1990).Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011.62:215-241. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby University of Minnesota - Twin Cities - Wilson Library on 05/13/11. For personal use only.Wisdom and AgeMost people seem to believe that wise personsare usually old (Clayton & Birren 1980, Orwoll& Perlmutter 1990), and in fact, most personswhom laypeople nominate as wise are at least60 years old (Baltes et al. 1995, Denney et al.1995, Jason et al. 2001, Maercker et al. 1998,Orwoll & Perlmutter 1990). In experimentalstudies, laypeople usually rate older individuals as wiser (Knight & Parr 1999, Stange 2005;but see also Hira & Faulkender 1997). Wisdomwas also one of only two positive characteristics that laypeople viewed both as positive andas specific to old age (Heckhausen et al. 1989).On the other hand, however, older age is viewedas neither necessary nor sufficient for wisdom:Most people are aware that not everyone develops wisdom with old age, and that young people can also be quite wise. The association ofwisdom and age seems to be derived from theidea that experience with the ups and downsof human life, which is a central componentof implicit theories of wisdom (e.g., Clayton& Birren 1980, Glück & Bluck 2010, Holliday& Chandler 1986, Sternberg 1985), indeed follows a cumulative age trajectory. However, aswe discuss in the Ontogenesis of Wisdom section below, this does not seem to be the case(Staudinger et al. 1992, 1994).Individual Differences in SubjectiveConceptions of WisdomThe consistency with which components ofwisdom are identified across studies does notmean that all people view these components asequally central to wisdom. In fact, an attributerated unanimously as central to wisdom couldnot correlate with other attributes because oflacking variance. Thus, although the core components of wisdom show how the structureof this complex construct is represented inpeople’s minds, people differ in the weightsthey assign to the different components. Individual differences in conceptions of wisdom arerelated to age, gender, experience, and expertise. For example, Sternberg (1985) found thatuniversity professors from different disciplinesagreed only partly in their conceptions of wisdom. Art professors defined wisdom largely as abalance of logic and intuition, philosophy professors focused on deep and nonbiased thinking,and business professors emphasized awarenessof limitations and on long-term perspectives.Thus, the hierarchy of wisdom descriptors mostlikely is based on people’s specific experiences,including the specific kinds of complex problems they have faced and their best perceivedsolutions.In a similar vein, age differences in autobiographical wisdom narratives have been found(Glück et al. 2005). Adolescents, people in theirthirties, and people in their sixties differed inwhat they considered as instances of wisdomin their own lives, and indeed those differencesreflected the developmental tasks and prioritiesof each age group. Also, conceptions of wisdomseem to become more differentiated with age.Older adults view affective aspects as more central to wisdom, distinguish fluid and crystallizedaspects of the cognitive component, and associate wisdom less closely with old age than doyounger age groups (Clayton & Birren 1980,Knight & Parr 1999).Gender differences in conceptions of wisdom are relatively small. Men nominate moremen for wisdom than do women (Denney et al.1995, Glück et al. 2010, Jason et al. 2001,Orwoll & Perlmutter 1990, Sowarka 1989), butthe characteristics that people associate withmen’s and women’s wisdom do not seem to differ much, at least in descriptor-rating studies.Thus, wisdom may be a quality that is neitherstereotypically male nor stereotypically female,and individuals viewed as truly wise may notfit with either stereotype (Aldwin 2009, Ardelt2009). On the other hand, when people recall experiences of themselves as wise, men report more job-related events and women reportmore family- and illness-/death-related events,www.annualreviews.org Psychological Wisdom Research219

ARI11 November 201012:33and this effect is maintained when differencesin employment status are controlled (Glücket al. 2009). It is not clear whether these gender differences only concern the areas in whichmen and women perceive their own wisdomor in which it is requested, or whether thereare also gender differences in what men andwomen consider as manifestations of wisdom(Levenson 2009).Rather than analyzing differences between predefined groups of people, ratingsof wisdom-related attributes have also beencluster-analyzed (Glück & Bluck 2010). Suchclustering revealed two predominant typesof conceptualizing wisdom: Individuals with(a) a cognitive conception rated knowledgeand experience, understanding complex issues,and (to a lesser degree) self-reflection andself-evaluation as most central to wisdom.Individuals with (b) an integrative conceptionalso endorsed such characteristics but viewedtolerance, empathy, an orientation to thegreater good, and love for humanity as aboutequally important. The relative frequency ofthe cognitive conception of wisdom decreasedsignificantly across young adulthood, suggesting that the experiences of this life

dialectics shaping human existence, such as the dialectic between good and bad, positivity and negativity,dependencyandindependence,cer-tainty and doubt, control and lack of control, finiteness and eternity, strength and weakness, and selfishness and altruism. Mastery of such dialectics in the sense of wisdom does not

Related Documents:

personified, wisdom is extolled here as a divine gift and superlative virtue. Additionally, wisdom possesses some personal characteristics that form a wisdom aretalogy, a poem in which the virtues of wisdom are listed and praised (las. 1:5 3:13-18 cf. Wis. 7:22-24).3 James gives a clear, ethical connotation to wisdom.4 Wisdom, a gift

wisdom that comes from below and the wisdom that comes from above. The wisdom that is from below is the kind the Bible in James 3 calls earthly, natural, demonic or cosmic. The wisdom that comes from above is God's Truth the mind of Christ. Here's a passage in the Bible that tells us about the two kinds of wisdom in James 3:13-18.

Wisdom Booklet study. It includes a brief synopsis of the academic content of Wisdom Booklets1-28 along with an index of topics for Wisdom Booklets1-54. Each Wisdom Booklet overview is broken down into six areas of academic study: character development, language and communications, history and

7 McKenzie, s.v. “Wisdom, Wisdom Literature,” 930. 8 Ibid. A Message from the Prioress Continued on page 6 by Sister Mary Forman C anticle of S t. G ertrude Winter 2021 A Journal of Our Life The First Gift of the Holy Spirit is Wisdom Gifts of the Spirit: Wisdom Photo by Carlahn Gayda.

to wisdom exist, with major advances made in the last two decades with respect to operationalization and measurement of wisdom as a psychological construct. Importance of wisdom in different ages and societies Wisdom has been held as one of the

Psychological Research Methods Excavating Human Behaviors. 2 Thinking Critically with Psychological Science Chapter 1. 3 Thinking Critically with Psychological Science The Need for Psychological Science The limits of Intuition and Comm

Intelligence tests and personality tests are indeed psychological tests—and they are indeed used to identify giftedness and diagnose psychological disorders. However, this is only a snapshot of what psychological testing is all about. There are many types of psychological tests, and they have many different purposes.

Study program Administrimi Publik (2012/2013) Fakulteti Shkencat Shoqërore Bashkëkohore Cikli i studimeve Cikli i parë (Deridiplomike) SETK 180 Titulli I diplomuar në administrim publik Numri në arkiv i akreditimit [180] 03-671/2 Data akreditimit 22.06.2012 Përshkrimi i programit Programi i Administratës publike ka një qasje multidiciplinare të elementeve kryesore të studimit në .