Home

Paul B. Baltes (1939–2006)

Back to Wisdom

Baltes, P. B., & Kunzmann, U. (2004). The two faces of wisdom: Wisdom as a general theory of knowledge and judgment about excellence in mind and virtue vs. wisdom as everyday realization in people and products. Human Development, 47, 290–299.

There are several legitimate ways of conceptualizing and studying wisdom. One is largely informed by Western philosophy and treats wisdom as an analytic theory of expert knowledge, judgment, and advice about difficult and uncertain matters of life. Another is more consistent with Asian philosophical non-secularized traditions and treats wisdom as instantiated by wise persons or their products. The second approach is always but an approximation to the analytically constructed utopia of wisdom. Wise persons are approximations to wisdom, but they are not wisdom. Ardelt's critique of our work proposes that our theoretical conception of wisdom as a body of expert knowledge in a specific subject matter is similar to 'cold' cognition. We disagree and assert that our conception of wisdom includes as antecedents, correlates, and consequences a rich spectrum of specific cognitive, emotional, motivational and social factors as well as life contexts. Our empirical research unequivocally supports this multidimensional and collaborative view.

Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (2008). The fascination of wisdom: Its nature, ontogeny, and function. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 56–64.

Wisdom has intrigued both scholars and laypersons since antiquity. On the one hand, its seemingly ethereal yet obvious qualities are timeless and universal. On the other hand, these same qualities are evolving and responsive to historical and cultural change. Novel societal and personal dilemmas emerge over time, and the ways and means to deal with recurring dilemmas are revisited and updated with prudence. Building on philosophical analyses of the role of theoretical and practical wisdom in good conduct and judgment about life matters, psychologists have begun to apply scientific methods to questions about the nature, function, and ontogeny of wisdom. We outline these research directions and focus on the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm, which was one of the first attempts to bring wisdom into the laboratory. Future research on wisdom would profit from interdisciplinary collaboration and creative application of new methods drawn from developmental, social, and cognitive psychology.

Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., Maercker, A., & Smith, J. (1995). People nominated as wise: A comparative study of wisdom-related knowledge. Psychology and Aging, 10, 155–166.

This study examined whether our conception of wisdom has a psychological bias, by focusing on a group of distinguished individuals nominated as being wise. The comparison groups included older clinical psychologists and highly educated old and young control groups. Wisdom-related knowledge was assessed by 2 tasks and evaluated with a set of 5 wisdom criteria. First, old wisdom nominees performed as well as clinical psychologists who in past research had shown the highest levels of performance. Second, wisdom nominees excelled in the task of existential life management and the criterion of value relativism. Third, up to age 80, older adults performed as well as younger adults. If there is a psychological bias to our conception of wisdom, this does not prevent nonpsychologists from being among the top performers.

Glück, J., & Baltes, P. B. (2006). Using the concept of wisdom to enhance the expression of wisdom knowledge: Not the philosopher's dream but differential effects of developmental preparedness. Psychology and Aging, 21, 679–690.

In this study, the authors explored whether wisdom-related performance could be enhanced by an instruction referring to the abstract concept of wisdom ("try to give a wise response"). The authors used three levels of activation of the concept of wisdom as well as intelligence-activation and control conditions in a heterogeneous sample of three age groups (N = 318). Results showed no general effect of the wisdom-concept instructions but did show an aptitude (resource) treatment interaction: Participants high in preparedness resources associated with wisdom exhibited some gains, whereas the performance of resource-low participants actually declined after the instruction. Implications and consequences with respect to ways of enhancing the expression of wisdom-related knowledge are discussed.

Kunzmann, U., & Baltes, P. B. (2003). Wisdom-related knowledge: Affective, motivational, and interpersonal correlates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1104–1119.

This study investigated the connection between wisdom as a body of expert knowledge about the meaning and conduct of life and indicators of affective, motivational, and interpersonal functioning. Structural equation analyses showed that individuals higher on wisdom-related knowledge reported (a) higher affective involvement combined with lower negative and pleasant feelings, (b) a value orientation that focused conjointly on other-enhancing values and personal growth combined with a lesser tendency toward values revolving around a pleasurable life, and (c) a preference for cooperative conflict management strategies combined with a lower tendency to adopt submissive, avoidant, or dominant strategies. These findings corroborate the theoretical notion that wisdom involves affective modulation and complexity rather than the predominant seeking of pleasure and also a joint motivational commitment to developing the potential of oneself and that of others.

Kunzmann, U., & Baltes, P. B. (2005). The psychology of wisdom: Theoretical and empirical challenges. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.), Handbook of wisdom: Psychological perspectives (pp. 110–135). New York: Cambridge University Press.

The objective of this chapter is to present psychological work on wisdom, with a focus on the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm developed by the second author and his collaborators. In doing so, the authors will discuss some of the arguably major theoretical and empirical challenges that a psychology of wisdom has to deal with. On a theoretical level, one challenge lies in defining those core elements of wisdom that set wisdom apart from other human strengths. As we have argued in the past, it is not necessarily the ingredients (specific elements or competencies) that distinguish wisdom from other competencies such as social intelligence, creativity, or practical intelligence; rather, it is the way in which these elements interact in wisdom that is unique. The result of this interaction is an integrative and holistic approach toward life's challenges and problems--an approach to the meaning and conduct of life that embraces past, present, and future dimensions of phenomena, considers contextual variation, emphasizes value tolerance, and acknowledges the uncertainties inherent in any sense-making of the past, present, or future. The authors hope to convince the reader that it is worth the effort to face the theoretical and empirical challenges involved in developing a psychology of wisdom.

Pasupathi, M., & Staudinger, U. M. (2001). Do advanced moral reasoners also show wisdom? Linking moral reasoning and wisdom-related knowledge and judgement. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 401–415.

Wisdom and morality are both discussed as developmental ideals. They are often associated in theoretical contexts but the nature of their empirical relation is still an open question. We hypothesised that moral reasoning (one facet of morality), would be related to wisdom-related knowledge and judgement, but that the two represent different facets of high level psychological functioning. A sample of 220 adults ranging in age from 20 to 87 years completed measures of wisdom-related performance, moral reasoning, and a battery of cognitive and personality measures. As predicted, moral reasoning was positively associated with wisdom-related performance, although we also found evidence for divergent validity of these two constructs. This association was mediated by person characteristics (e.g., personality, intelligence, and additional measures). In addition, as predicted by a threshold model, very high levels of wisdom-related performance were unlikely among those with very low moral reasoning performance. In line with neo-Piagetian conceptions, exploratory analyses suggested that higher age was associated with higher levels of wisdom-related knowledge and judgement only for those with high levels of moral reasoning. Results are discussed in terms of a lifespan model of wisdom-related knowledge and judgement.
 

Pasupathi, M., Staudinger, U. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2001). Seeds of wisdom: Adolescents' knowledge and judgment about difficult life problems. Developmental Psychology, 37, 351–361.

The present study examined adolescents' wisdom-related knowledge and judgment with a heterogeneous sample of 146 adolescents (ages 14-20 years) and a comparison sample of 58 young adults (ages 21-37 years). Participants responded to difficult and ill-defined life dilemmas; expert raters evaluated these responses along 5 wisdom criteria. Our findings confirmed that in contrast to adulthood, adolescence is a major period for normative age-graded development in knowledge about difficult life problems. Adolescents performed at lower levels than young adults but also demonstrated substantial age increments in performance. As expected, adolescents' performance varied as a function of criterion and gender. These results hold implications for research on adolescent development and for the development of wisdom-related knowledge and judgment.
 

Smith, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1990). Wisdom-related knowledge: Age/cohort differences in responses to life planning problems. Developmental Psychology, 26, 494–505.

A research framework and method are presented in which wisdom is conceived as expert knowledge about fundamental life matters. Five criteria of wisdom are specified: Rich factual and procedural knowledge, life-span contextualism, relativism, and the recognition and management of uncertainty. As illustration, discourse about normative and nonnormative life-planning problems associated with different life phases was examined. Verbal think-aloud protocols, collected from 60 Ss (25-35, 40-50, and 60-81 years of age), were scored on the wisdom criteria by trained raters. As expected, few (5%) responses were considered wise. These wise responses were equally distributed across age groups. In general, wisdom-related knowledge appears to be one cognitive domain in adulthood that does not show an overall advantage to one age or cohort group but rather reflects individual and specific life experience.
 

Smith, J., Staudinger, U. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1994). Occupational settings facilitating wisdom-related knowledge: The sample case of clinical psychologists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 989–999.

Wisdom can be defined as expert knowledge in the fundamental pragmatics of life. Examined here is whether clinical practice may facilitate access to and acquisition of such knowledge. Spontaneous think-aloud responses to 2 wisdom-related dilemmas from young (M = 32 years) and older (M = 70 years) clinicians were compared with responses obtained from other professionals. Raters judged clinicians' responses as higher on 5 criteria of wisdom: factual knowledge, procedural knowledge, life-span contextualism, value relativism, and management of uncertainty. Contrary to most studies of cognitive aging, young and older adults did not differ. Rather, each age-cohort group received highest ratings when responding to a life dilemma matched to their own life phase. Discussed is the application of a wisdom framework to assessing therapeutic treatment goals and therapist interventions as well as global changes in client's beliefs during therapy.
 

Staudinger, U. M. (1996). Wisdom and the social-interactive foundation of the mind. In P. B. Baltes & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 276–315). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

This chapter examines the social-interactive nature of wisdom , which is defined by the importance of social interaction for (a) its cultural evolution as well as ist ontogeny, (b) its activation and application, and (c) its identification and orientation. Earlier work within the Berlin wisdom paradigm has, to a certain degree, acknowledged the social-interactive nature of wisdom with regard to its ontogenesis and its identification. When it comes to the application and activtion of wisdom, however, people have been studied using a traditional person-centered paradigm. Given the social-interactive nature of wisdom, this approach cannot be considered an optimal performance setting. On the basis of the extremely high demands that the elicitation of wisdom puts on knowledge and skill, one might even argue that wisdom by definition will hardly ever be found in an individual, but rather in cultural or social-interactive products. Drawing on research in the area of everyday problem solving and professional expertise, as well as on the social psychology of group problem solving, a social-interactive wisdom paradigm was developed that gives credit to both individual and interactive cognition in their respective contributions to the activation of wisdom-related knowledge. The results of a first empirical study carried out within that paradigm indicated that indeed a delicate balance between individual and interactive cognition seems to characterize supportive wiedom-related performance settings.
 

Staudinger, U. M. (2001). Wisdom, psychology of. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 24, pp. 16510–16514). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Since the dawn of human culture, wisdom has been considered the ideal of knowledge and personal functioning. In dictionaries, wisdom is defined as "insight and knowledge about oneself and the world ... and sound judgment in the case of difficult life problems." Psychological definitions of wisdom refer to wisdom as knowledge about the human condition at its frontier, knowledge about the most difficult questions of the meaning and conduct of life, and knowledge about the uncertainties of life, about what cannot be known and how to deal with that limited knowledge. Besides lay conceptions of wisdom, wisdom is studied as a personality characteristic, as a form of postformal thinking, and as a problem solving performance when faced with difficult and uncertain matters of life. The latter approach places wisdom within a dual component model of cognitive functioning and conceptualizes wisdom as prototypical marker of the pragmatics of the mind. This means it follows a lifespan trajectory of stability rather than decline. Investigations of the ontogenesis of wisdom have demonstrated that it is not enough to grow old in order to become wise. Rather a complicated pattern of experiential, personality, and contextual characteristics need to work together for wisdom to emerge. Recent intervention studies found evidence for wisdom-related potential.

Staudinger, U. M. (2008). A psychology of wisdom: History and recent developments. Research in Human Development, 5, 107–120.

Wisdom is a phenomenon characterized by a rich cultural history and complex associations. Across cultures and history, wisdom has been discussed as the ideal of human knowledge and character. Starting from the dictionary definition of wisdom as “good judgment and advice in difficult and uncertain matters of life,” psychologists have described wisdom as the search for the moderate course between extremes, a dynamic between knowledge and doubt, a sufficient detachment from the problem at hand, and a well-balanced coordination of emotion, motivation, and thought. Within psychological research on wisdom, two broad approaches can be distinguished. One is the study of lay conceptions of wisdom, and the other is the measurement of wisdom in individuals. In the latter case a personal and a general form of wisdom needs to be distinguished. Age trajectories and antecedents of general and personal wisdom are discussed.
 

Staudinger, U. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1996). Interactive minds: A facilitative setting for wisdom-related performance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 746–762.

Two goals guided the present study: to develop ecologically relevant and functional interactive-minds settings for the assessment of wisdom-related performance and to investigate whether and under which conditions such settings would facilitate higher levels of wisdom-related performance. After baseline assessment of wisdom-related performance, a sample of 122 natural dyads (244 participants), ranging in age from 20 to 70 years, were randomly assigned to 5 experimental conditions. These conditions varied in the degree to which they were judged to be ecologically relevant and functional and involved the interaction of minds. It was found that performance settings that were judged to be ecologically relevant and functional and provided for actual or "virtual" (internal) interaction of minds increased wisdom-related performance levels by 1 SD. In addition, older adults profited more than younger adults from one setting.
 

Staudinger, U. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1996). Weisheit als Gegenstand psychologischer Forschung. Psychologische Rundschau, 47, 57–77.

Weisheit, ein an Bedeutung und Kulturgeschichte reicher Begriff, wird als Gegenstand psychologischer Forschung vorgestellt. Im Zentrum steht die Darlegung eines empirischen Paradigmas zur Erfassung weisheitsbezogenen Wissens und Urteilens. Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede dieses Paradigmas mit Analysen kulturhistorischer Weisheitsliteratur und anderen psychologischen Zugängen zur Erforschung von Weisheit werden aufgezeigt. In dem hier vorgestellten Paradigma wird Weisheit definiert als Expertentum in der fundamentalen Pragmatik des Lebens, das sich in höchstem Wissen und höchster Urteilsfähigkeit im Umgang mit schwierigen Problemen der Lebensplanung, Lebensgestaltung und Lebensdeutung zeigt. Fünf weisheitsbezogene Kriterien (reiches faktisches und prozedurales Lebenswissen, Lifespan-Kontextualismus, Wert-Relativismus, Erkennen und Umgehen mit Ungewißheit) ermöglichen die Bestimmung der Qualität weisheitsbezogener Produkte. In den berichteten Studien sind die bewerteten weisheitsbezogenen Produkte Protokolle lauten Nachdenkens über schwierige Lebensprobleme, die unter standardisierten Bedingungen erhoben wurden. Ein Modell möglicher Vorbedingungen, Korrelate und/oder Konsequenzen weisheitsbezogenen Wissens und Urteilens wird diskutiert. Befunde aus mehreren Studien zu Ausschnitten dieses Modells (u.a. zur Rolle des Lebensalters, der beruflichen Erfahrung sowie zu Leistungen von als weise Nominierten) zeigen, daß weisheitsbezogene Leistungen reliabel zu erfassen sind, theoriekonsistente Zusammenhänge mit Maßen der Persönlichkeit und der Intelligenz bestehen und daß hypothesenkonforme Gruppenunterschiede in weisheitsbezogenen Leistungen zu identifizieren sind. Schließlich werden exemplarisch wechselseitige Querverbindungen zwischen psychologischer Weisheitsforschung und ausgewählten anderen Gebieten psychologischer Forschung vorgestellt
 

Staudinger, U. M., Maciel, A., Smith, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). What predicts wisdom-related knowledge? A first look at the role of personality, intelligence, and facilitative experiential contexts. European Journal of Personality, 12, 1–17.

Wisdom has long been suggested as a desired goal of development (see e.g. Clayton and Birren, 1980; Erikson, 1959; Hall, 1922; Staudinger and Baltes, 1994). Questions concerning the empirical investigation of wisdom and its ontogeny, however, are largely still open. It is suggested that besides person characteristics, certain types of experience may facilitate wisdom-related performance. A sample of clinical psychologists (n=36) and highly educated control professionals (n=54) ranging in age from 25 to 82 years responded verbally to two wisdom-related tasks involving life planning and completed a psychometric battery of intelligence and personality measures. Three primary findings were obtained. First, training and practice in clinical psychology was the strongest predictor of wisdom-related performance (26%) and, in addition, showed some overlap with personality variables in this predictive relationship. Second, 14% of the variance in wisdom-related performance was accounted for by standard psychometric measures of personality and intelligence. Personality variables were stronger predictors than variables of intelligence. Important personality predictors were Openness to Experience and a middle-range location on the Introversion-Extraversion dimension. Third, wisdom-related performance maintained a sizable degree of measurement independence (uniqueness). Predictive relationships were consistent with research on naive conceptions of wisdom and our own theoretical account of the ontogenesis of wisdom-related performance.
 

Staudinger, U. M., Smith, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1992). Wisdom-related knowledge in a life review task: Age differences and the role of professional specialization. Psychology and Aging, 7, 271–281.

The study adopts life review as an avenue to access wisdom-related knowledge and examines the contribution of age and type of professional specialization to individual differences in wisdom-related knowledge. Women from 2 age groups/cohorts (young, M = 32 years; old, M = 71 years) and different professional specializations (human services vs. nonhuman services) were asked to think aloud about the life review of a fictitious woman who was either young or old. Verbal protocols were scored on 5 wisdom-related criteria: factual and procedural knowledge about life, life-span contextualism, relativism of values, recognition, and management of uncertainty. Three major findings emerged. First, human-services professionals outperformed the control group. Second, old adults performed as well as young adults. Third, for older adults wisdom-related performance was enhanced by the match between their own age and the age of the fictitious character.
 
 
 

Contact:
Baltes Office
Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Lentzeallee 94
D-14195 Berlin
Germany
Phone: +49-30-82406-0
Fax: +49-30-824-9939
e-mail: sekbaltes@mpib-berlin.mpg.de

Home

Last updated 05/2008