Editing Wisdom (section)

=== Measuring wisdom ===

A researcher will measure wisdom differently depending on their theoretical position about the nature of wisdom. For example, some view wisdom as a stable personality trait, others as a context-bound process.<ref name="Grossmann-2017d">{{cite journal | last1 = Grossmann| first1 = I.|year = 2017 | title = Wisdom in context | journal = Perspectives on Psychological Science | volume = 12 | issue = 2 | pages = 233–257| doi = 10.1177/1745691616672066| pmid = 28346113| s2cid = 26818408}}</ref> Those wedded to the former approach often use single-shot questionnaires, which are prone to {{clarify|reason=in what way?|text=biased|date=August 2023}} responses,<ref name="Brienza-2017"/><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Taylor| first1 = M. | last2 = Bates| first2 = G. | last3 = Webster| first3 = J.D. |year = 2011 | title = Comparing the psychometric properties of two measures of wisdom: Predicting forgiveness and psychological well-being with the Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale (SAWS) and the Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale (3D-WS). | journal = Experimental Aging Research | volume = 37| issue = 2 | pages = 129–141 | doi = 10.1080/0361073X.2011.554508 | pmid = 21424954 | s2cid = 205555336 }}</ref> something that is antithetical to the wisdom construct<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Glück| first1 = J. | last2 = König| first2 = S. | last3 = Naschenweng| first3 = K. | last4 = Redzanowski| first4 = U. | last5 = Dorner-Hörig| first5 = L. | last6 = Straßer|first6 = I | last7 = Wiedermann|  first7 = W |year = 2013 | title = How to measure wisdom: Content, reliability, and validity of five measures. | journal = Frontiers in Psychology | volume = 4| page = 405 | doi = 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00405 | pmid = 23874310 | pmc = 3709094 | doi-access = free }}</ref> and fails to study wisdom in the contexts where it is most relevant: complex life challenges. In contrast, researchers who prefer the latter approach measure wisdom-related features of cognition, motivation, and emotion in the context of a specific situation.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Baltes| first1 = P.B. | last2 = Staudinger| first2 = U. |year = 2000 | title = Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. | journal = American Psychologist | volume = 55| issue = 1 | pages = 122–136 | doi = 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.122 | pmid = 11392856 | hdl = 11858/00-001M-0000-0025-9C51-4 | url = http://edoc.mpg.de/191074 | hdl-access = free }}</ref><ref name="Grossmann-2017d"/> Such state-level measures provide less-biased responses as well as greater power in explaining meaningful psychological processes.<ref name="Brienza-2017"/> Also, a focus on the situation allows wisdom researchers to develop a fuller understanding of the role of context in producing wisdom.<ref name="Grossmann-2017d"/> For example, studies have shown evidence of cross-cultural<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Grossmann|first1=I.|last2=Karasawa|first2=M.|last3=Izumi|first3=S.|last4=Na|first4=J.|last5=Varnum|first5=M.E.|last6=Kitayama|first6=S|last7=Nisbett|first7=R.E|year=2012|title=Aging and wisdom: Culture matters.|journal=Psychological Science|volume=23|issue=10|pages=1059–1066|doi=10.1177/0956797612446025|pmid=22933459|hdl=11244/25191|s2cid=4829751|hdl-access=free}}</ref> and within-cultural variability,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Brienza|first1=Justin P.|last2=Grossmann|first2=Igor|title=Social class and wise reasoning about interpersonal conflicts across regions, persons and situations|journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences|volume=284|issue=1869|pages=1869|doi=10.1098/rspb.2017.1870|pmid=29263284|pmc=5745406|year=2017}}</ref> and systematic variability in reasoning wisely across contexts<ref name="Brienza-2017"/><ref name="Grossmann-2017c">{{cite journal|last1=Grossmann|first1=Igor|last2=Kross|first2=Ethan|year=2017|title=Exploring Solomon's Paradox: Self-distancing eliminates the self-other asymmetry in wise reasoning about close relationships in younger and older adults.|journal=Psychological Science|volume=25|issue=8|pages=1571–1580|doi=10.1177/0956797614535400|pmid=24916084|s2cid=3539860}}</ref> and in daily life.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Grossmann| first1 = I. | last2 = Gerlach| first2 = T.M. | last3 = Denissen| first3 = J.J. |year = 2016 | title = Wise reasoning in the face of everyday life challenges. | journal = Social Psychological and Personality Science | volume = 7| issue = 7 | pages = 611–622 | doi = 10.1177/1948550616652206 | s2cid = 148246126 }}</ref>

Many, but not all, studies find that adults' self-ratings of perspective and wisdom do not depend on age.<ref>{{cite book|last=Harter|first=Andrew C.|title=Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification|editor=Peterson, Christopher |editor2=[[Martin Seligman|Seligman, Martin E. P.]]|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|chapter=Perspective [Wisdom]|year=2004|location=Oxford|pages=181–196|isbn=978-0-19-516701-6|title-link=Character Strengths and Virtues (book)}}</ref><ref name="Orwoll-1990">{{cite book|last1=Orwoll|first1=L.|last2=Perlmutter|first2=M. |title=Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development|editor-first=R. J.|editor-last= Sternberg|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=New York|year=1990|pages=160–177|isbn=978-0-521-36718-9}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Serenko|first1=A.| year=2024|title=Practical wisdom in the workplace: Conceptualization, instrument development, and predictive power|url=https://www.aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Practical_Wisdom.pdf |journal=Journal of Knowledge Management |volume=28|issue=7 |pages=2092–2119 |doi=10.1108/JKM-08-2023-0713}}</ref> This conflicts with the popular notion that wisdom increases with age.<ref name="Orwoll-1990" /> The answer to whether age and wisdom correlate depends on how one defines wisdom and one's experimental technique. The answer to this question also depends on the domain studied, and the role of experience in that domain, with some contexts favoring older adults, others favoring younger adults, and some not differentiating age groups.<ref name="Grossmann-2017d"/> Rigorous longitudinal work is needed to answer this question, while most studies rely on cross-sectional observations.<ref>{{cite book|last=Meacham|first=J. A.|year=1990|chapter=The loss of wisdom|editor-first=R. J.|editor-last=Sternberg|title=Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development|location=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|pages=181, 211}}</ref>

The Jeste-Thomas Wisdom Index<ref>{{cite web |title=Jeste-Thomas Wisdom Index |website=U.C. San Diego Health Sciences |url=https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/5991949/Jeste-Thomas-Wisdom-Index}}</ref> is based on a 28-question survey (SD-WISE-28) created by researchers at the [[University of California San Diego]] to determine how wise a person is. In 2021 [[Dilip V. Jeste|Dr. Dilip V. Jeste]] and his colleagues created a 7-question survey (SD-WISE-7) testing seven components: acceptance of diverse perspectives, [[Decision-making|decisiveness]], [[emotional regulation]], [[prosocial behavior]]s, [[self-reflection]], social advising, and (to a lesser degree) [[spirituality]].<ref>{{cite web |title=The 7-Item Wisdom Scale: A Fast Way to See If You're Wise |author=Christopher Bergland |website=Psychology Today |date=5 December 2021 |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/202112/fast-way-see-if-youre-wise}}</ref>