Thirty Years of Psychological Wisdom Research: What We Know About the Correlates of an Ancient Concept. Mengxi Dong, Nic M. Weststrate, and Marc A. Fournier. Perspectives on Psychological Science, November 2, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221114096
Abstract: Psychologists have studied the ancient concept of wisdom for 3 decades. Nevertheless, apparent discrepancies in theories and empirical findings have left the nomological network of the construct unclear. Using multilevel meta-analyses, we summarized wisdom’s correlations with age, intelligence, the Big Five personality traits, narcissism, self-esteem, social desirability, and well-being. We furthermore examined whether these correlations were moderated by the general approach to conceptualizing and measuring wisdom (i.e., phenomenological wisdom as indexed by self-report vs. performative wisdom as indexed by performance ratings), by specific wisdom measures, and by variable-specific factors (e.g., age range, type of intelligence measures, and well-being type). Although phenomenological and performative approaches to conceptualizing and measuring wisdom had some unique correlates, both were correlated with openness, hedonic well-being, and eudaimonic well-being, especially the growth aspect of eudaimonic well-being. Differences between phenomenological and performative wisdom are discussed in terms of the differences between typical and maximal performance, self-ratings and observer ratings, and global and state wisdom. This article will help move the scientific study of wisdom forward by elucidating reliable wisdom correlates and by offering concrete suggestions for future empirical research based on the meta-analytic findings.
Discussion
By meta-analyzing the extant literature, we summarized wisdom’s correlations with age, intelligence, the Big Five traits, narcissism, self-esteem, social desirability, and well-being. Although phenomenological and performative approaches to conceptualizing wisdom have their distinct correlates, both are correlated with openness, hedonic well-being, and eudaimonic well-being, especially the growth aspect of eudaimonic well-being. Transcending differences in conceptualizations and operationalizations of wisdom, these commonalities may reflect the fundamental characteristics of wisdom that are shared across theoretical perspectives. Specifically, wisdom entails being flexible in one’s thinking, the tendency and willingness to take on different ideas and perspectives, and an orientation toward exploration, psychological growth, and personal fulfillment. Furthermore, the results suggest that wisdom may indeed predict a good life, both in the hedonic and eudaimonic sense. Although not all forms of wisdom predict lives that are affectively positive, wiser individuals are ultimately happy, perhaps suggesting that wisdom may enable one to find contentment in life regardless of objective circumstances and one’s affective reactions to them. Importantly, the commonalities that we have identified through meta-analyses empirically corroborate earlier work (Glück, 2018; Grossmann et al., 2020) in showing that the diverse theoretical traditions and measurement approaches are not to be taken as an indication that the construct of wisdom lacks validity; instead, they should be seen as attempts that, although each incomplete and imperfect on their own, capture different aspects of the same phenomenon. We believe that these findings will in turn help future efforts at designing wisdom measures by providing more reliable estimates of wisdom correlates that will help with the evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity.
Beyond the common correlates, however, the meta-analytic results paint two distinct portraits for phenomenological and performative wisdom. The portrait for phenomenological wisdom is one of adaptation and adjustment. Individuals who experience wise cognition, motivation, emotion, and behavior are uniquely more likely to report higher self-esteem, more positive affect, less negative affect, and greater life satisfaction and have an adaptive profile of personality traits, in which agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness are high and neuroticism is low. As suggested by results of the supplementary analyses, this positive association between phenomenological wisdom and adjustment cannot be fully explained by methodological artifacts such as socially desirable responding. Instead, echoing previous theorizing (e.g., Ardelt, 2019), we argue that these correlations are at least in part substantive and reflect the nature of wisdom as subjectively experienced by individuals.
However, when wisdom is judged by other people through wisdom-relevant products, as is the case with performative wisdom, it is not associated with most of the indicators of adaptation. Intelligence, a cognitive ability, is relevant to at least some (i.e., the Berlin wisdom paradigm), although not all, indicators of performative wisdom. Notably, the association between intelligence and wisdom is the strongest for crystallized intelligence. Taken together with the findings that performative wisdom correlated with openness and the growth aspect of eudaimonic well-being, it appears that in the eyes of the beholder, wisdom entails not only one’s orientation toward thinking wisely but also one’s competence at doing so. We argue that, rather than being contradictory, the findings for phenomenological and performative wisdom are complementary to one another. Perhaps analogous to the distinction in creativity research between “little-c” creativity, or the everyday, subjectively defined form of creativity, and “big-C” creativity, or the consensually recognized form of creativity (e.g., Simonton, 2017), phenomenological wisdom may capture the everyday experiences of wisdom, but whether these subjective experiences are recognized as wise by other people is a different question, which is in turn captured by performative wisdom.
Surprisingly, neither phenomenological nor performative wisdom correlated negatively with narcissism, which should be theoretically antithetical to wisdom. For phenomenological wisdom, one possible explanation of the nonsignificant correlation may be that although narcissism may decrease the endorsement of communal items in self-report wisdom measures, it may enhance the endorsement of agentic items. This is because narcissists have been shown to have overly positive perceptions of their agentic traits (e.g., intelligence, creativity, adjustment) but have accurate perceptions of their low levels of communal traits (e.g., care, compassion, and morality; Carlson & Khafagy, 2018). The lack of significant correlation with performative wisdom is hard to explain because performative wisdom measures are unlikely to have been strongly affected by self-enhancement. Because very few studies have measured wisdom alongside with narcissism, the estimates of the current meta-analysis may not be reliable, and it is possible that a clearer pattern of the relationship between the two constructs will emerge after more empirical research. We suggest that, given its theoretical relevance, future research should look more into the relationship between wisdom and narcissism, and associations with narcissism may offer an opportunity to evaluate the validity and comprehensiveness of wisdom measures.
Reconciling the two forms of wisdom
Results of the current study necessitate a better understanding of the differences between phenomenological and performative wisdom. We speculate that three potential sources of these differences may be (a) the distinction between typical and maximal performance, (b) the distinction between self-ratings and other-ratings, and (c) the distinction between global and state wisdom.
Typical versus maximal performance
In the context of wisdom, maximal performance refers to how wise one can be, whereas typical performance refers to how wise one is in daily life. Maximal performance is episodic and is typically elicited when individuals know that their performance will be evaluated and so exert their full effort (Sackett et al., 1988). Although these conditions for maximal performance are not explicitly expressed in the instructions of performative wisdom measures, performative wisdom measures can reasonably be seen as measures of maximal, rather than typical, performance. This is because most extant measures of performative wisdom, especially those involving interviews with experimenters, press participants to think more thoroughly about the dilemmas through a series of standard questions. In addition, the task of working through challenging dilemmas in a lab setting may itself be enough to suggest evaluation to participants. Responding to phenomenological wisdom measures, on the other hand, typically entails recalling how one typically behaves in the past, across many situations. Even when phenomenological wisdom measures assess state-level wisdom, as is the case with the SWIS, it is likely that they capture typical, rather than maximal, performance, because there is no reason to believe that the situational contexts elicit full effort in these cases. The discrepancies between performative and phenomenological wisdom may therefore be exaggerated by the fact that one assesses maximal performance whereas the other assesses typical performance. This implies that the discrepancies may be reduced if performative wisdom can be compared to maximal levels of phenomenological wisdom and vice versa. Because no extant phenomenological wisdom measures assess maximal performance and no performative wisdom measures assess typical performance, the development of these scales may constitute promising areas of future research.
Self-ratings vs. other-ratings
Another source of difference between phenomenological and performative wisdom may be the fact that phenomenological wisdom is experienced, whereas performative wisdom is evaluated. All extant performative wisdom measures entail the evaluation of products of wisdom (i.e., participants’ attempts at thinking through a challenging dilemma), whereas phenomenological wisdom measures entail reporting one’s subjective experience of wisdom-related cognitions, motivations, emotions, and behaviors. A high correspondence between the two forms of wisdom therefore entails the successful translation of one’s subjective experience of wisdom into products of wisdom, which are then recognized by other people. It is conceivable that several factors may affect the success of this process, such as ability and knowledge. A high correspondence between subjective (phenomenological) measures and objective (performative) measures also implies a high level of self-knowledge accuracy. Because accurate self-knowledge is regarded as an essential aspect of wisdom (Mickler & Staudinger, 2008), it is possible that the discrepancy between phenomenological and performative wisdom is reduced for wise individuals, a possibility to be examined by future research.
Global versus state wisdom
In this meta-analytic study, we categorized measures of wisdom as capturing either phenomenological or performative wisdom. Phenomenological and performative wisdom are not only theoretically distinct but are also consistent with how wisdom measures cluster together in principal component analysis (e.g., Dong & Fournier, 2022). However, there are other distinctions among the wisdom measures. For instance, wisdom measures also differ in whether they assess state or global wisdom. Specifically, all performative wisdom measures included in this meta-analysis are measures of state wisdom because they assess wisdom performance in one or a few instances. Of the phenomenological wisdom measures, only the SWIS assesses state wisdom, whereas all other phenomenological wisdom measures included in this study assess global wisdom. It is conceivable that some of the differences between phenomenological and performative wisdom are attributable to the state versus global wisdom distinction. The moderate correlations among state wisdom in different situations (Brienza et al., 2018) may explain why performative wisdom measures showed more divergent patterns of correlations than phenomenological wisdom measures. State wisdom also only moderately correlates with global wisdom (Brienza et al., 2018), which may partly explain the finding that the SWIS was unlike the rest of the phenomenological wisdom measures in its correlations with many of the variables examined (i.e., conscientiousness, neuroticism, self-esteem, and negative affect).
The distinctions that we have observed between phenomenological and performative wisdom in the current study may therefore be due to a variety of reasons beyond disagreements among conceptualizations of wisdom. The assessment of typical versus maximal performance, the source of judgment (self vs. others), and the assessment of state versus global wisdom likely all contributed to the divergence between phenomenological and performative wisdom in their relationships with other variables. These factors should be taken into consideration when designing future empirical studies of wisdom.
Implications
The findings of the current study allow us to make a few suggestions for future research. The first of these suggestions concerns the selection of the proper wisdom measure(s) to administer in empirical studies. Although some studies have employed a battery of wisdom measures, encompassing measures of both phenomenological and performative wisdom to comprehensively assess the construct (e.g., Dong & Fournier, 2022; Weststrate et al., 2018; Weststrate & Glück, 2017b), such an approach is time-consuming, resource-intensive, and infeasible in many circumstances. Researchers are therefore faced with the decision of choosing one or a few wisdom measures to administer. In many cases, this decision seems to have been made based on the researchers’ knowledge of and familiarity with specific measures, rather than on a systematic evaluation of all available measures given one’s research goals, which can obfuscate the relationships of interest.
Based on the insights gained from the current study, we propose that the following questions should be considered when selecting wisdom measures for a study. First, one should identify the form of wisdom that should be assessed given the research question. Phenomenological wisdom may be more relevant for some research questions (e.g., whether one’s self-perception of one’s wisdom agrees with the perceptions of other people), whereas performative wisdom may be more relevant for other research questions (e.g., whether wisdom predicts more negotiation successes). In addition, it is important to consider whether state wisdom or global wisdom is more relevant. If one is interested in the relationships between wisdom and other variables in specific contexts, then it is more appropriate to administer state measures of wisdom. Conversely, if one is interested in assessing wisdom as a stable characteristic, then one can either administer global measures of wisdom or administer state measures of wisdom multiple times and use the average of states to approximate global wisdom. Second, it is important to consider the content of wisdom measures and how that may affect the results of the study. Ideally, the wisdom measure(s) chosen for a study should be relevant to the research question, but not so much so as to share common dimensions with other variables in the study. For instance, the SAWS showed the highest meta-analytic correlation with trait openness; however, this is likely because openness constitutes one dimension of the SAWS. Thus, if wisdom is to be examined in relation to openness, it may be advisable to avoid using the SAWS as the measure of wisdom because it may artificially inflate the relationship between the constructs.
Limitations
The current study has several limitations. First, despite our best effort to gather relevant studies, it is unlikely that we have gathered all. Studies that were not in PsycINFO would have escaped the initial literature search. If these studies were not cited by one of the coded studies or submitted by their authors in response to our calls, then they would not have been included in the meta-analyses. Furthermore, some authors did not respond to our requests for submissions, so we were unable to obtain the relevant effect sizes that were not reported in the articles we gathered. There could also be relevant, unpublished data that were not submitted in response to our call. Given that the effect sizes meta-analyzed in the current study are only a subset of all relevant effect sizes, the results of the meta-analyses we present are only approximations of the true associations between wisdom and the criterion variables. Although we have no reason to believe that there were systematic differences between the studies included in the meta-analysis and those that were not, it is possible that the inclusion of additional studies would change the results of the meta-analyses. The results and conclusions of the current study should therefore be viewed as preliminary evidence, rather than final verdicts, on wisdom’s correlations with age, intelligence, the Big Five traits, narcissism, self-esteem, social desirability, and well-being.
Second, our meta-analyses were unable to address the more nuanced associations between wisdom and the criterion variables. For instance, previous studies have shown that the association between age and wisdom changes with age (e.g., Ardelt et al., 2019; Brienza et al., 2018; Webster, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer, 2014). Although we have offered some preliminary evidence for this postulation by examining the moderating role of age range on the correlation between wisdom and age, the meta-analytic data and technique did not allow us to evaluate whether the association between age and wisdom followed a curvilinear relationship. Likewise, many researchers consider intelligence to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for wisdom (e.g., Glück, 2017; Grossmann et al., 2020; Staudinger & Pasupathi, 2003), which has already received some empirical support (Dong & Fournier, 2022; Glück & Scherpf, 2022); however, we were unable to examine this postulation in the current study. Therefore, although the study provides insights into the rudimentary, linear relationships between wisdom and criterion variables, it is insufficient for a full understanding of these relationships.
Third, because of the small numbers of effect sizes and samples of participants, it was impossible to examine the interactions between the moderators reliably, leading us to decide against conducting such analyses in the current study. Moderators were tested one at a time and independently from each other. This meant that we were unable to address questions such as whether age range moderates the association between age and wisdom differently for different measures of wisdom or whether phenomenological and performative wisdom were differentially associated with crystallized and fluid intelligence. These questions are important and should be addressed by future meta-analytical attempts as more primary studies accumulate.
Fourth, we could not address the moderating role of culture in wisdom’s association with the criterion variables. This was primarily because of the difficulty in appropriately coding the culture of participant samples, as most samples included a mixture of ethnicities, indicating that they may not be uniform in culture. Moreover, most of the samples were collected in Europe and North America. Because other cultures were underrepresented, estimated cultural effects were unlikely to be reliable or accurate. Although the current study could not examine culture as a moderating variable, evidence suggests that culture may indeed play a moderating role in wisdom’s correlation with other variables (e.g., Grossmann et al., 2012). To date, relatively few studies have examined whether the correlates of wisdom change across cultures, a gap that should be addressed by future studies.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment