ford geront.gnq022.full

7/29/2019 FORD Geront.gnq022.Full

1/13

The Gerontologist The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.doi:10.1093/geront/gnq022 All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].

1

Purpose: Wisdom has received increasing atten-tion in empirical research in recent years, especiallyin gerontology and psychology, but consistent defni-tions o wisdom remain elusive. We sought to bettercharacterize this concept via an expert consensuspanel using a 2-phase Delphi method. Design

and Methods: A survey questionnaire comprised53 Likert scale statements related to the concepts owisdom, intelligence, and spirituality was developedto determine i and how wisdom was viewed asbeing distinct rom the latter 2 concepts. O the 57international wisdom experts contacted by e-mail, 30completed the Phase 1 survey and 27 also completedthe Phase 2 survey. Results: In Phase 1, therewere signifcant group dierences among the con-cepts o wisdom, intelligence, and spirituality on 49o the 53 items rated by the experts. Wisdom diered

rom intelligence on 46 o these 49 items, whereaswisdom diered rom spirituality on 31 items. InPhase 2, we sought to defne wisdom urther byselecting 12 items based on Phase 1 results. Mostexperts agreed on many o the suggested character-istics o wisdomthat is, it is uniquely human; a ormo advanced cognitive and emotional development thatis experience driven; and a personal quality, albeit arare one, which can be learned, increases with age,can be measured, and is not likely to be enhancedby taking medication. Implications: There was

considerable agreement among the expert participantson wisdom being a distinct entity and a numbero its characteristic qualities. These data shouldhelp in designing additional empirical research onwisdom.

Key Words: Intelligence, Spirituality, Personalitytrait, Cognition, Emotion

The concept o wisdom is ancient (Birren &Svensson, 2005;Jeste & Vahia, 2008; Takahashi &Overton, 2005), although interest in empiricalresearch on this entity has only been recent(Sternberg & Jordan, 2005). The number o articleson wisdom ound in a PubMed database searchusing the keyword wisdom increased sevenoldrom the 1970s through 2008 (Meeks & Jeste,

2009). Yet, there is no single consensus denitiono wisdom, despite a number o multiaceteddescriptions and several rating scales or assessingwisdom (Ardelt, 2003; Brown & Greene, 2008;Brugman, 2000; Jason et al., 2001; Levenson,Jennings, Aldwin, & Shiraishi, 2005; Takahashi &Overton, 2002; Webster, 2003, 2007; Wink &Helson, 1997).

There are several major denitions o wisdom.The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm (Baltes & Smith,1990; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000) dened wisdom

Expert Consensus on Characteristics ofWisdom: A Delphi Method Study

Dilip V. Jeste, MD,*,1

Monika Ardelt, PhD,2

Dan Blazer, MD, PhD, MPH,3

Helena C. Kraemer, PhD,4

George Vaillant, MD,5

and Thomas W. Meeks, MD1

1Sam and Rose Stein Institute or Research on Aging, and Department o Psychiatry,

University o Caliornia, San Diego, La Jolla.2Department o Sociology and Criminology & Law, University o Florida, Gainesville.

3Department o Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.4Department o Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanord University, Palo Alto, Caliornia.

5Department o Psychiatry, Harvard University, Brigham and Womens Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

*Address correspondence to Dilip V. Jeste, MD, Department o Psychiatry, University o Caliornia, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, # 0664,La Jolla, CA 92093. E-mail: [email protected]

Received October 16, 2009; Accepted February 16, 2010Decision Editor: William J. McAuley, PhD

The Gerontologist Advance Access published March 15, 2010


2/13

The Gerontologist2

as expert knowledge in the undamental pragmaticso lie that permits exceptional insight, judgment,and advice about complex and uncertain mattersand expertise in the conduct and meaning o lie.Sternbergs (1990) balance theory ocused on wis-dom as application o tacit knowledge as mediatedby values toward achievement o a common goodthrough a balance among multiple interpersonal,

intrapersonal, and extrapersonal interests in orderto achieve a balance among adaptation to existingenvironments, shaping o existing environments,and selection o new environments. The epistemictheory (Brugman, 2000, 2006) highlighted threekey components o wisdom: meta-cognition (ac-knowledging uncertainty and ability or dialecticalthinking), personality/aect (emotional stabilitydespite uncertainty and openness to new experi-ence), and behavior (ability to act in the ace ouncertainty). Finally, Ardelt (2000, 2004) stressed

three primary dimensions o wisdom: cognitive(ability to understand a situation thoroughly,knowing the positive and negative aspects ohuman nature, awareness o lies inherent uncer-tainty, yet ability to make decisions in spite o this),refective (ability and willingness to examine phe-nomena rom multiple perspectives and absence oprojections/blaming others or ones own situationor eelings), and aective (positive emotion andbehaviors with absence o indierent or negativeemotions toward others and remaining positivein the ace o adversity). Meeks and Jeste (2009)

identied six subcomponents o wisdom that wereincluded in several o the published denitions:prosocial attitudes/behaviors, social decision making/pragmatic knowledge o lie, emotional homeostasis,refection/sel-understanding, value relativism/tolerance, and acknowledgment o and dealingeectively with uncertainty/ambiguity.

Traditionally, wisdom has been associated witholder age in most societies (Assmann, 1994; Baltes &Smith, 1990; Holiday & Chandler, 1986). Modernempirical research does not, however, consistently

support a signicant relationship between old ageand wisdom (Brugman, 2006; Vaillant, 2002),possibly because wisdom is not a result o agingper se, but rather, only those older people who usetheir lietime experiences optimally tend to acquirewisdom with aging. According to Eriksons (1959)theory o personality development, the nal stagein late lie involves resolving the psychosocial crisisbetween ego integrity and despair, with the desiredoutcome being attainment o wisdom. Baltes andcolleagues (e.g., Baltes & Smith; Baltes, Smith, &

Staudinger, 1992; Glck & Baltes, 2006) haveproposed that wise older people are more likelyto age successully than older people withoutwisdom. Under optimal circumstances, aging wouldbe associated with greater emotional balance, con-tentment with lie, and a theosophical approachthat corresponds to wisdom (Blazer, 2006;Jamuna,2000). Carstensen, Mikels, and Mather (2006)

have sought to integrate the domains o cognitiveaging and socioemotional aging rom the perspec-tive o a motivational theory o lie-span develop-ment, although they do not use the term wisdom.

It is essential or valid empirical research inwisdom that a consensus be developed regardingits main characteristics. Two constructs that sharesome eatures with wisdom are intelligence andspirituality.Jung and Haier (2007) reviewed neu-roimaging studies relevant to human intelligenceand reasoning and concluded that several distinct

brain regions involved in parietorontal inte-gration contributed to intelligence/reasoning.Similarly, based on a literature overview ocusingprimarily on neuroimaging/brain localization oidentied components o wisdom, Meeks and Jeste(2009) proposed a putative model o the neurobi-ology o wisdom comprised rontostriatal androntolimbic circuits. There is thus a partial over-lap in the brain regions implicated in intelligence/reasoning and wisdom. Nonetheless, there are alsoseveral important characteristics in which wisdomdiers rom intelligenceor example, wisdom

(but not intelligence) may include domains such aspractical application o knowledge, use o knowl-edge or common social good, and integration oaect and knowledge.

There is considerable literature on the relation-ship o spirituality and aging (Kimble, McFadden,Ellor, & Seeber, 1995). In general, religious andspiritual commitment provides meaning to lie(Koenig, 2007; Pargament, Magyar-Russell, &Murray-Swank, 2005; Silberman, 2005; Wong,1998), which is particularly important or emo-

tional well-being in old age when people are acedwith multiple losses, physical decline, and the near-ing o death (Ardelt & Koenig, 2009; McFadden,2000; Neill & Kahn, 1999). The role o spiritualityin the construct o successul aging and mentalhealth has been emphasized in recent years (Crowther,Parker, Achnebaum, Larimore, & Koenig, 2002).A ew studies using biomarkers have supported anassociation between spirituality and successul health-related outcomes (Borg, Andree, Sorderstrom, &Farde, 2003; Ironson et al., 2002). An important


3/13

3

caveat in studies o spirituality is that its deni-tions have been inconsistent (Blazer, 2007; Blazer& Meador, 2009).Jason et al. (2001) incorporat-ed harmony and warmth as well as spiritual ele-ments and mysticism in their denition o wisdom;however, the inclusion o spirituality in the deni-tion o wisdom has been an exception rather thana rule. Most researchers have dened and opera-

tionalized wisdom in secular rather than spiritualterms (e.g., Ardelt, 2003; Baltes & Staudinger,2000; Brugman, 2000; Sternberg, 1990; Sternberg &Jordan, 2005; Webster, 2003).

A widely used and accepted method or seekingconsensus among experts within a certain topicarea is the Delphi technique, developed at theRAND Corporation in the 1950s (Dalkey, 1969).It is based on the principle that orecasts rom astructured group o experts are more accurate thanthose rom unstructured groups or individuals.

The Delphi method provides a well-dened processor collecting and examining group agreement ona topic. It acilitates anonymity (the participantsidentity is not revealed even ater the completiono the nal report) and also allows geographicalspread o the participants at low cost and in atimely manner (Becker & Roberts, 2009). Interac-tions among the participants are discouraged toavoid the common problems o group dynamics inace-to-ace panel discussions including the band-wagon eect or halo eect (Dalkey). The selectedexperts answer questionnaires in two or more

rounds. Ater each round, a acilitator distributescontrolled eedback in the orm o a well-organizedsummary without naming the specic experts(Dalkey; Hsu & Sanord, 2007). Participants areree to revise their earlier answers in light o theaveraged replies o other members o the group.Finally, appropriate statistical analyses are em-ployed to allow or an objective and impartialanalysis and summary o the collected data (Hsu &Sanord), while also ensuring that opinions gener-ated by each participant are well represented in the

nal iteration (Dalkey).The goal o the present two-phase study was, in

Phase 1, to compare experts Likert-type ratingson a number o items pertaining to the concepts owisdom, intelligence, and spirituality to determinei and how wisdom was viewed as being distinctrom the latter two concepts and, next, in Phase 2,to characterize wisdom urther by using specicdescriptors derived rom Phase 1. We hypothesizedthat components o wisdom would dier signi-cantly rom those o intelligence and spirituality,

consistent with the notion that wisdom is a distinctentity.

Design and Methods

The University o Caliornia, San Diego Hu-man Subjects Protection Committee approvedthis project with a waiver o the need or a written

inormed consent rom panel participants. How-ever, a consent orm was attached along with thesurvey questionnaire or the participants use at theirdiscretion. Participation was entirely voluntary.

Phase 1

The authors o this paper (who came romve dierent institutions and represented diversedisciplines) selected, by consensus, top 60 expertson wisdom, ocusing on those outside their owninstitutions. Sixty was considered to be a reason-

able number o experts to contact because o thelikelihood that some o them would reuse to or beunable to participate. Each o the nominees wasrequired to have at least two peer-reviewed publi-cations on wisdom or spirituality. We did not,however, use the number o peer-reviewed publi-cations as the sole criterion or selection o expertsbecause, despite its objectivity, it has severallimitationsor example, book chapters are alsoan important source o publications on wisdomgiven that the amount o empirical research onwisdom published in peer-reviewed journals is

limited. Furthermore, it is dicult to determine iall the coauthors o a published paper can beconsidered equal experts in wisdom. Finally, someexperts who have worked on wisdom are no longeractively pursuing that topic. O the 60 expertsselected, we could not obtain e-mail addresses othree, resulting in the nal sample o 57 who weresent the survey by e-mail. O these 57 experts, 21were women and 36 were men. Forty-nine werebased in North America and 18 in other continents,predominantly Europe. The experts represented

various disciplines including gerontology, soci-ology, psychology, and psychiatry. We did notseek inormation about an experts age, sel-identiedethnicity, number o publications, extent o exper-tise, or type o institution.

Next, the authors developed a survey ques-tionnaire comprised 53 Likert scale items relevantto the concepts o wisdom, intelligence, and/orspirituality. Although the primary goal o thestudy was to develop a consensus denition owisdom, many expert and lay theories o wisdom


4/13

The Gerontologist4

include denitions at the intersection o intelli-gence and wisdom (e.g., rich knowledge o lie,pragmatic decision making, desire or learning/knowledge) as well as spirituality and wisdom (e.g.,altruism, other-centeredness, a connection with awider universe). Thereore, ratings on the concepts ointelligence and spirituality were also included in oursurvey due to their likely overlap with the concept o

wisdom in some domains and to determine whetherwisdom was viewed as being distinct rom theserelated concepts. A majority o the items were chosenbased on prior expert and lay theories o wisdom(e.g., Ardelt, 2004; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000;Brown & Greene, 2006; Brugman, 2000; Jasonet al., 2001; Levenson et al., 2005; Sternberg, 1990;Webster, 2003), with a ew items added specicallyor the concepts o intelligence (e.g., skepticism) andspirituality (e.g., participation in religious services,rituals, membership in a aith community).

Based on their knowledge o empirical evidenceand their own belies and experiences, experts wereasked to rate the importance o each o the listedcomponents in describing the concepts o intelli-gence, wisdom, and spirituality on a scale rangingrom 1 (defnitely not) to 9 (defnitely so) or State-ments Q1Q6 and rom 1 (defnitely not impor-tant) to 9 (defnitely important) or the remaining47 items (see Table 1). We also encouraged quali-tative comments about the listed componentsand solicited additional characterizations o wisdomin open-ended questions. The survey requiredapproximately 4560 min to complete.

An individual e-mail was sent to each o the se-lected experts exploring their interest in participat-ing in the proposed investigation. A reminder wassent to those participants who did not respond bythe deadline given. Nonrespondents to this re-minder were considered to be uninterested in thestudy and were not contacted again. Once an ex-pert agreed to participate, the survey was e-mailedto that person. Responses remained anonymous(except to the rst author) so that no individuals

opinions were identied as belonging to a specicperson when eedback about the survey was sentto the participants. No ace-to-ace meetings orconerence calls were held among participants tomaintain anonymity, ease burden on the panelexperts, and cast a wide geographic net.

Phase 2

Ater the initial surveys were completed andreturned, overall descriptive statistics on each survey

item (i.e., mean, median, standard deviation, range)were computed and reported back to the panelparticipants along with qualitative comments romindividual respondents (sent anonymously). A sec-ond survey, ocusing on characteristics o wisdomonly, was then prepared by the authors with asmaller number o items (12 pairs o polar state-ments), ater eliminating those items rom Phase 1

on which there was such high consensus (as re-fected in statistically signicant dierencesamong wisdom, intelligence, and spirituality) thatno urther questioning was thought to be necessary.The items in Phase 2 included some statementsrom Phase 1 in a modied ormat because theratings o those components had been inconclu-sive, and some new characteristics that arose romthe qualitative responses or that we elt were mis-takenly let out o Phase 1. We presented the itemsin Phase 2 as pairs o quasicontradictory or polar

statements. For example, one pair o queriesasked experts to rate whether wisdom could beviewed as a uniquely human trait or whether itwas also present in lower animals. Another pairinquired i wisdom was culture specic or universal.The respondents were not asked to choose be-tween the two statements in a given pair, butrather to rate each item on a scale ranging rom1 (defnitely not) to 9 (defnitely so). Again, weencouraged qualitative comments about the state-ments and invited respondents to include additionalwisdom characteristics.

Statistical Analysis

Phase 1.We rst assessed i there were signi-cant dierences between survey respondents andnonrespondents in terms o gender distributionand geographic location (North America vs. othercontinents) using Fishers exact probability tests.We then examined whether there were signicantdierences among wisdom, intelligence, and spiri-tuality on each o the survey questions using Fried-

mans test, a nonparametric analog o multivariateanalyses o variance. Pairwise dierences betweenthe constructs were investigated with Wilcoxonsigned-rank tests. The eect sizes o these pairwiserelationships were described using the area underthe curve (AUC; Kraemer et al., 2003). An AUC >0.7 (or 0.63 (or


5/13

5

Table 1. Phase 1: Summary of Expert Ratings of Items Related to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Spirituality (N= 30 respondents)

Intelligence, M (SD) Wisdom, M (SD) Spirituality, M (SD)

Question

Q1The concept can be applied to human beings 9.0 (0.2) 8.5 (1.8) 8.5 (1.6)

Q2The quality is rare in the general population 4.5 (2.0) 7.1 (2.3) 4.0 (1.9)

Q3The quality is a trait, not present or absent, butpresent to some degree in everyone

8.1 (1.2) 6.0 (2.7) 6.2 (2.4)

Q4The quality can be enhanced through appropriate

education

7.6 (1.5) 6.8 (1.5) 6.0 (1.7)

Q5The quality can be enhanced through appropriateexperiences

6.5 (1.9) 7.9 (1.2) 7.2 (1.6)

Q6The quality requires learning rom experiences 5.8 (2.5) 8.2 (1.5) 5.9 (2.1)

C1 Emotional regulation 3.9 (2.3) 8.0 (1.4) 5.1 (2.3)

C2Rich knowledge o lie 5.4 (2.6) 8.4 (0.9) 4.7 (2.1)

C3Social cognition 4.4 (2.4) 8.4 (0.9) 4.7 (2.5)

C4Tolerance o ambivalence 5.1 (2.3) 8.3 (1.2) 5.1 (2.6)

C5Practical lie skills 5.3 (2.4) 8.1 (1.1) 3.4 (2.3)

C6Pragmatic decision making 6.0 (1.9) 7.9 (1.3) 3.2 (1.9)

C7Altruism 2.5 (1.6) 7.4 (1.6) 6.8 (2.2)

C8Empathy 3.0 (1.8) 8.3 (1.1) 7.0 (1.9)

C9Social cooperation 3.4 (1.9) 7.6 (1.3) 5.1 (2.3)

C10Value relativism 5.4 (2.3) 8.2 (1.5) 4.8 (2.9)

C11Tolerance o dierences among others 4.2 (2.6) 8.5 (0.8) 5.5 (2.7)

C12A deep sense o a transcendent other or connectionwith a wider universe

2.2 (1.8) 5.9 (2.5) 8.6 (0.9)

C13Participation in religious services, rituals, andmembership in a aith community

1.4 (1.1) 2.1 (1.7) 4.9 (2.4)

C14Recognizing limits o ones own knowledge 6.5 (1.8) 8.8 (0.5) 4.5 (2.6)

C15Sense o higher power 1.8 (1.3) 4.7 (2.6) 7.8 (2.1)

C16Sense o purpose in lie 2.9 (2.3) 7.4 (1.5) 7.2 (1.9)

C17Optimism 2.3 (1.7) 4.9 (2.3) 5.5 (2.4)

C18Realism 5.8 (2.2) 7.4 (1.7) 3.9 (2.3)

C19Skepticism 6.7 (2.1) 6.7 (2.3) 3.2 (2.2)

C20Successul coping strategies 4.6 (2.5) 7.2 (2.3) 4.7 (2.5)

C21Resilience 3.7 (2.1) 7.1 (2.2) 5.6 (2.6)

C22Lie satisaction 2.9 (1.7) 6.3 (2.2) 6.7 (1.6)

C23Generativity 2.8 (2.2) 7.7 (1.6) 6.0 (2.7)

C24Ego integrity 2.4 (1.6) 7.7 (1.5) 7.2 (1.9)

C25Sense o peace with eventual death 2.8 (2.2) 7.3 (1.8) 7.9 (1.5)

C26General sense o well-being 2.7 (2.0) 6.6 (1.6) 7.1 (1.5)

C27Openness to new experience 5.7 (2.6) 8.2 (0.9) 5.4 (2.3)

C28Desire or learning/knowledge 8.1 (1.5) 8.0 (1.2) 4.8 (2.3)

C29Sense o humor 3.8 (2.3) 6.8 (2.4) 3.8 (2.1)

C30Maturity gained with experience 4.4 (2.8) 8.6 (0.9) 5.3 (2.4)

C31Other-centeredness 2.3 (1.9) 7.4 (1.4) 6.7 (2.2)

C32Humility 2.5 (2.1) 7.7 (1.3) 7.0 (2.0)

C33Gratitude 2.4 (1.7) 7.1 (1.6) 7.4 (1.8)

C34Willingness to orgive others 2.3 (1.7) 7.4 (2.0) 7.3 (2.3)

C35Ability to give good advice 5.4 (1.9) 8.2 (1.1) 4.1 (2.2)

C36Sel-compassion 2.5 (1.9) 6.4 (2.0) 6.8 (1.7)

C37Mindulness 2.9 (2.4) 6.2 (2.6) 6.9 (1.9)

C38Reverence or nature 2.9 (1.9) 7.0 (2.1) 6.9 (2.1)

C39Acceptance o uncertainty in lie 4.6 (2.5) 8.4 (1.0) 6.0 (2.5)C40Sel-refection 4.7 (2.4) 8.6 (0.7) 6.1 (2.3)

C41Sel-insight 4.8 (2.5) 8.6 (0.7) 5.6 (2.1)

C42Sense o justice or airness 3.8 (2.3) 8.4 (0.9) 6.1 (2.6)

C43Nonattachment to the material world 2.4 (1.8) 5.9 (2.3) 7.3 (2.2)

C44Nonviolence 2.7 (2.1) 7.1 (2.0) 7.4 (1.6)

C45Ethical conduct 3.8 (2.4) 8.2 (1.6) 7.4 (1.9)

C46Calmness 2.8 (1.9) 6.8 (2.2) 6.7 (2.1)

C47Sel-esteem 4.5 (2.3) 5.8 (2.4) 5.3 (2.2)

Notes: The respondents were asked to rate the importance o each o the listed components, based on their knowledge o empiricalevidence and their own belies and experiences, in the concepts o intelligence, wisdom, and spirituality on a scale ranging rom 1(defnitely not) to 9 (defnitely so) or statements Q1Q6, and rom 1 (defnitely not important) to 9 (defnitely important) or the remaining 47items.


6/13

The Gerontologist6

threshold o .0001 or the overall group dierencesand .01 or pairwise comparisons.

Phase 2.Paired t tests were conducted ineach statement pair. A Bonerroni correction wasapplied to the 12 comparisons resulting in analpha level o .004. All the tests were two tailed.

Results

O the individual e-mails sent to the 57 identi-ed experts, 8 e-mails were returned as undeliver-able because o wrong e-mail addresses, 13 receivedno response even ater a reminder, and 6 expertsdeclined participation because o lack o time.A total o 30 experts completed the Phase 1 survey;13 o these respondents were women and 17 men;22 were based in North America and 8 in othercontinents (mostly Europe). O the 27 nonrespon-

dents, there were 8 women and 19 men; 17 werebased in North America and 10 in other continents(mostly Europe). Neither the gender dierence northe dierence in geographic location between therespondents and nonrespondents was signicant us-ing Fishers exact probability test (bothp values >.4).Twenty-seven o the Phase 1 respondents alsocompleted the Phase 2 survey.

Phase 1

Table 1 gives descriptive statistics o the expert

ratings on wisdom, intelligence, and spirituality,and Table 2 provides statistical comparisons o theratings on these three constructs. Overall groupdierences among the concepts o wisdom, intelli-gence, and spirituality were signicant at an alphalevel o


7/13

7

Table 2. Phase 1: Comparison of Intelligence, Wisdom, and Spirituality (N= 30 respondents)

Friedmans test Pairwise AUC

c2 d p I vs. W I vs. S W vs. S

Question

Q1The concept can be applied to human beings 3.8 2 0.1496 0.53 0.55 0.50

Q2The quality is rare in the general population 30.4 2


8/13

The Gerontologist8

that the ndings made sense and were consistentwith their expectations. None o the respondentssought to revise their original responses, althoughone expert thought that certain aspects o wisdomsuch as objectivity, balancing o interests o selversus dierent groups that one belongs to (e.g.,country, religion), holistic understanding o pat-terns and relationships, and a growing sense o in-

terdependence might have been underrepresentedby the items in the survey.

The Phase 1 responses helped us in developingthe Phase 2 survey. For example, there were a ewinconclusive ratings, as illustrated by the responseto the statements The quality is rare in the gen-eral population and The quality is a trait, notpresent or absent, but present to some degree ineveryone. The mean ratings or these two items asthey applied to wisdom were comparable (7.1 and6.0, respectively), although we believed that these

two statements were contradictory. Thereore, wepresented them in a quasicontradictory ormat inPhase 2 (Wisdom is a rare quality and Wisdomis normally distributed in the population similar tointelligence or height). As may be noted in theresults described subsequently, the mean ratingson these two items were now clearly dierentthat is, 6.7 and 3.9, respectively. Examples onew items included in Phase 2 included relation-ship o wisdom to age, ability to measure wisdom,and possibility o enhancing wisdom by takingmedication.

Phase 2

Table 3 summarizes the mean ratings as well aspairwise dierences in responses to the two itemsin each o the 12 pairs o statements. There was asignicant agreement on nine o the suggestedcharacteristics o wisdomthat is, it is a personal(and not a group/social) quality, it is a uniquelyhuman trait, it is a orm o advanced cognitive andemotional (not just cognitive) development, it is a

rare quality, it is experience driven (rather than in-nate), it can be learned, it increases with age, it canbe measured, and it would not be possible to in-crease wisdom by taking some medication. On theother hand, the experts did not preer either o thetwo seemingly contradictory statements related tothe ollowing three descriptions o wisdom: Wisdomis a trait with specic subcomponents versusWisdom is a convenient label or a group o desirabletraits, Wisdom is culture specic versus Wisdomis universal, and Wisdom can be best judged by

studying a persons behavior versus Wisdom canbe best judged by studying a persons thoughtprocesses.

Qualitative Comments.Most respondentsound the project interesting and useul. However,two participants, while they were happy to help,remained somewhat skeptical about the exercise

because o questions about the nature o wisdombeing assessed (e.g., innate vs. acquired, practicalproblem-ocused wisdom vs. a more refective,spiritually-ocused detachment rom practical con-cerns). Several experts ound that some o thestatements were noncontradictory even i theywere posed in a contradictory way. For example,some components o wisdom could be culturedependent, whereas others could be universal. Oneparticipant commented that although s/he tendedto think o wisdom as a personal or individual

quality, it was possible that certain groupsorexample, amilies, riendships, marriages, aithgroups, support groups, lie-writing groups, andmaybe whole subculturescould in certain respectson certain occasions under certain conditions beconsidered wise, insoar as, when gatheredtogether, their members oster, or acilitate amongthemselves a wisdom environment. The sameexpert opined that wisdom should not be consid-ered a personality trait but rather as a way o beingin the world or a way o knowing that is character-ized by an assortment o qualities such as humor,

irony, open-mindedness, curiosity, humility, integ-rity, discernment, insight, acceptance, compassion,courage, sel-acceptance, balance, and the capacityto see broad patterns and to look at lie issues romvarious sides.

There were also a ew interesting dierencesamong experts perceptions regarding characteris-tics o wisdom on which there was signicant con-sensus. Thus, with respect to wisdom and age, oneparticipant stressed that wisdom was clearly relatedto age up to 40 years, but not much ater 40.

Another expert believed that despite the stereo-type, people do not automatically grow wiser asthey age; nonetheless, the process o aging itselprovides many o the conditions in which wisdomcan conceivably fourishor example, a rich storeo experiences to refect on and memories to seekmeaning within; a tendency toward post-ormalthought; an openness to myth, metaphor, paradox,and contradiction; and a general physical slowingdown that makes us more aware o the limits oour bodies and the reality o mortality while, at the


9/13

9

same time, allowing us (ideally) more time to dowhat has been termed the philosophic home-work that the second hal o lie presents to us.

A number o experts suggested adding other

pairs o statementsor example, wisdom is a traitversus wisdom is a developmental process, wisdomis person centered versus wisdom is other-centered,wisdom requires supporting cultures versus wis-dom is independent o culture. Similarly, someparticipants recommended additional questions: Iswisdom situation specic and topic/context spe-cic? What actors promote wisdom? What are theways (other than developing dementia) in whichone can lose wisdom? There were other sugges-tions too. For example, one respondent recom-

mended considering the perceptual domain asdistinct rom the cognitive domain. Another opinedthat what people say might be revelatory o peo-ples wisdomand much more accessible than apersons thought process.

Discussion

One o the most elusive psychological constructsis wisdom (Sternberg, 1990). Although the concepto wisdom is possibly almost as old as the history

o human civilization, there is still no standarddenition o wisdom. There are notable similaritiesbetween the ancient and modern notions o wis-dom (Birren & Svensson, 2005); yet, the scientic

study o wisdom dates back only to the 1970s.Baltes and Smith (1990), who pioneered empiricalresearch on wisdom, dened it as expert knowl-edge in the undamental pragmatics o lie. Subse-quently, Ardelt (2004) and others argued that theterm wisdom needed to be reserved or wise per-sons rather than or expert knowledge and thatwisdom was more than cognitive expertise; it alsoinvolved refective and aective personality char-acteristics. Controversy also continues regardingthe role o spirituality as a necessary component

o wisdom. Religious traditions in Buddhism,Christianity, Hinduism, and Judaism stress religi-osity or at least spirituality as a characteristic owise people. Although most modern westerndescriptions o wisdom include prosocial behaviorsand attitudes as being integral to wisdom, spiritu-ality is oten excluded rom such denitions.

On this background, it is noteworthy that weound a remarkable consensus among the expertparticipants on wisdom being a distinct entity anda number o its characteristic qualities. In Phase 1,

Table 3. Phase 2: Pairwise Comparisons (N= 27 respondents)

M (SD) t d Signicance(two tailed)

1aWisdom is a personal quality 8.12 (1.14) 8.935 25


10/13

The Gerontologist10

overall group dierences among wisdom, intelli-gence, and spirituality were signicant on 49 o the53 items rated by the participants. Wisdom di-ered rom intelligence on 46 o these 49 items,whereas wisdom diered rom spirituality on 31items. In Phase 2, there was signicant agreementon 9 o the 12 suggested characteristics owisdomthat is, wisdom is a uniquely human

but rare personal quality, which can be learnedand measured, and increases with age throughadvanced cognitive and emotional developmentthat is experience driven. At the same time, wisdomis not expected to increase by taking medication.

The slight overlap between wisdom and intel-ligence is consistent with most expert and laydenitions o wisdom (e.g., Sternberg & Jordan,2005). A critical element o wisdom is the desireor learning and in-depth knowledge (Ardelt,2000; Blanchard-Fields & Norris, 1995; Kekes,

1983; Sternberg, 1990), which requires a certainbasic level o intelligence. As noted by one o therespondents, intelligence is necessary but notsucient or wisdom; wisdom is oten dened asjudicious application o knowledge or intelligence(Staudinger, Lopez, & Baltes, 1997). Similarly, wis-dom and spirituality share prosocial attitudes andbehaviors such as compassion, other-centeredness,and altruism that are essential elements in mostexpert and lay theories o wisdom (e.g., Ardelt &Oh, 2010). Yet, past research also indicates thattraditional religiosity and religious practices are

unrelated to wisdom (Ardelt, 2008; Le, 2008;Wink & Dillon, 2003). This suggests that wisdomdoes not require religious aith but might benetrom a spirituality that is characterized by humility,gratitude, altruism, and compassionate love orothers (Ardelt, 2008).

Applying the three-dimensional cognitiverefectiveaective wisdom model originally pro-posed by Clayton and Birren (1980) and urtherdeveloped by Ardelt (2003) to interpret the nd-ings, it is interesting to note that o the 25 items

signicantly more characteristic o the concept owisdom than o intelligence or spirituality accord-ing to the expert ratings, 7 can be classied asbelonging to the cognitive dimension o wisdom(rich knowledge o lie, social cognition, toleranceo ambivalence, pragmatic decision making, recog-nizing limits o ones knowledge, realism, and ac-ceptance o uncertainty in lie), 8 to the refectivewisdom dimension (the quality requires learningrom experiences, practical lie skills such as soundjudgment/advice about dicult problems translated

into action, value relativism, tolerance o dier-ences among others, ability to give good advice,sel-refection, sel-insight, and sense o justice orairness), and 3 to the aective dimension (empathy,social cooperation, and generativity). Four addi-tional items that were considered by the experts asmore descriptive o wisdom than o intelligence orspirituality (emotional regulation, openness to new

experiences, sense o humor, and maturity gainedwith experience) overlap with Websters (2003)Sel-Assessed Wisdom Scale that was specicallydesigned to assess the noncognitive components owisdom. The experts also tended to agree thatresilience and successul coping strategies were sig-nicantly more important components o wisdomthan o intelligence and spirituality and that incontrast to intelligence and spirituality, wisdomwas rare in the general population.

The relationship between age and wisdom is com-

plex and needs to be explored urther. Although theexperts believed that wisdom was positively asso-ciated with aging, the qualitative comments sug-gested nuances to this generalization.Vaillant (2002)has reported that wisdom increases with age only upto the end o the ourth decade o lie. Althoughpeople continue to gather additional experience inlater lie, whether this leads to enhancement owisdom would depend on the type o experience aswell as on the individuals ability to learn rom it ina meaningul way (Webster, 2003).

There are several limitations to our study. The

identication o experts was necessarily subjective,although it was done jointly by our group oauthors and required at least two peer-reviewedpublications on wisdom or spirituality. We soughtto cast our net wide so as not to restrict the sampleto a selected ew academic centers or schools othought in the world. O the 57 experts whom wetried to contact, 30 completed the Phase 1 surveyand 27 completed the Phase 2 survey. However,the exact denominator is dicult to determineprecisely because 8 e-mails were returned undelivered

and no responses were received to 13 e-mails evenater a reminder. Only six experts explicitly de-clined participation. Although wisdom expertsrom across the world were nominated or thisstudy, 22 o the participating 30 experts came romNorth America. It is possible that the conceptual-ization o wisdom derived rom this study mightbe biased by the predominantly Eurocentric per-spective o the participating experts. The modernwestern conceptualization o wisdom is in manyways substantially rooted in the writings o Greek


11/13

11

philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle,and places emphasis on personal well-being as animportant goal o lie as well as cognitive use oknowledge (Brugman, 2006). In contrast, easternconcepts o wisdom tend to de-emphasize the mate-rial world instead o valuing control over desiresand renunciation o materialistic pleasures. There isalso a greater ocus on emotional than on cognitive

domains o wisdom in eastern denitions (Takahashi,2000). Nonetheless, the basic conceptualization owisdom does not seem to have changed markedlyacross dierent cultures and over a period o mil-lennia (Jeste & Vahia, 2008). It might also be thatthe denitions o younger wisdom researchers dierrom those o older wisdom researchers, but be-cause we did not ask or the age o the wisdom ex-perts, this hypothesis could not be tested. It was,however, remarkable that the expert denitions owisdom in this study were notably similar to lay

denitions o wisdom generated in earlier studies(Ardelt & Oh, 2010; Bluck & Gluck, 2005).We chose the Delphi method because o its

advantages summarized earlier in the introduction.It is possible that in-person meetings might haveproduced a dierent outcome, although this seemsunlikely in view o the signicant consensus obtainedor the Phase 1 survey. Although we noted a con-sensus among our respondents on a large majorityo the items, there was no unanimity on a numbero these items, which is not surprising given thevaried perspectives, ancient origins, and religious/

philosophical roots o the conceptualization owisdom. We did not dene the concept o wisdom(or that o intelligence or spirituality) to our par-ticipants, so that they might have interpreted theseterms dierently, as could be seen in the qualita-tive comments o several participants. However,our goal was to determine the characteristics othese concepts identied by various experts usingtheir own denitions; hence, providing them withour own denitions would have biased their re-sponses. We conducted this survey using e-mails.

We are not certain i any previous studies oDelphi method have employed e-mail surveys, al-though we suspect that at least a ew recent studiesmight have. An even more ecient technology oruture studies o this type may rely on Survey-Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com) or a similarsotware tool that enables researchers to createand publish customized surveys and then analyzethe data as well as view results graphically.

We believe that this study is only an early stepin the process o dening wisdom. I dening wis-

dom is a challenge, it is still easier than measuringthis elusive concept. Although several wisdomscales exist (Ardelt, 2003; Brown & Greene, 2006;Brugman, 2000;Jason et al., 2001; Levenson et al.,2005; Takahashi & Overton, 2002; Webster,2003, 2007; Wink & Helson, 1997), they do notassess wisdom per se but rather characteristics andqualities related to wisdom, which might also be

associated with other psychological constructs,such as intelligence, spirituality, or maturity. More-over, most wisdom scales are aected by a socialdesirability bias. Just as it would be problematic toask research participants to rate their own degreeo wisdom directly (e.g., on a scale ranging rom0 = not wise at allto 10 = extremely wise) becausewise people typically know that they still lack inwisdom, whereas less wise people might be underthe illusion that they are wise, so it is also prob-lematic to ask respondents, or example, to agree

or disagree that they have learned important lielessons rom past experiences. Everyone knows thatlearning rom ones past is desirable, and ew areso honest or sel-aware to admit that they did not.Hence, assessing wisdom through a scale mightonly be partially successul. One may consider apossibility o constructing a measure o wisdomusing orcechoice paired options similar to thoseused in the Edwards Personality Preerence Schedule(Piedmont, McCrae, & Costa, 1992). It might beadvisable to supplement the quantitative data withqualitative semistructured interviews that inquire,

or example, how research participants have dealtwith crises and hardships in the past and what theyhave learned rom those lie experiences. In thisway, the lie stories and coping strategies o rela-tively high and low scorers on the wisdom scalescould be compared (e.g., Ardelt, 2005).

The goal o this study was to arrive at an expertconsensus o what wisdom is in comparison withintelligence and spirituality. The aim was not nec-essarily to develop a scale to measure wisdom.Nonetheless, the results o this study could help

develop a measure (including a semistructured in-terview) or assessing wisdom, although this wouldrequire item piloting and eld administration alongwith an appraisal o its reliability and validity. In-vestigations in dierent demographic and culturalgroups as well as longitudinal evaluations o thecourse and stability o wisdom across the lie spanwould then be warranted. Finally, there is a needor developing and testing interventions to enhancewisdom to test its benecial eects on individualsand groups as suggested by Parisi et al. (2009).


12/13

The Gerontologist12

Funding

This work was supported, in part, by the Sam and Rose Stein Instituteor Research on Aging at University o Caliornia, San Diego, and a grantrom the National Institute o Mental Health (P30 MH66248).

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Ian Fellows, MS, Shah Golshan, PhD, and RebeccaDaly or their help with data analysis.

References

Ardelt, M. (2000). Intellectual versus wisdom-related knowledge: The caseor a dierent kind o learning in the later years o lie. EducationalGerontology: An International Journal o Research and Practice ,26, 789.

Ardelt, M. (2003). Empirical assessment o a three-dimensional wisdomscale. Research on Aging, 25, 275324.

Ardelt, M. (2004). Wisdom as expert knowledge system: A critical reviewo a contemporary operationalization o an ancient concept. HumanDevelopment, 47, 257285.

Ardelt, M. (2005). How wise people cope with crises and obstacles in lie.ReVision: A Journal o Consciousness and Transormation, 28, 719.

Ardelt, M. (2008). Sel-development through selfessness: The paradoxicalprocess o growing wiser. In H. A. Wayment, & J. J. Bauer (Eds.),Transcending sel-interest: Psychological explorations o the quiet ego(pp. 221223). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ardelt, M., & Koenig, C. S. (2009). Dierential roles o religious orienta-tion on subjective well-being and death attitudes in old age: Mediationo spiritual activities and purpose in lie. In A. L. Ai, & M. Ardelt(Eds.), Faith and well-being in later lie: Linking theories with evidence inan interdisciplinary inquiry (pp. 85112). Hauppau, NY: Nova Science.

Ardelt, M., & Oh, H. (2010). Wisdom: Denition, assessment, and itsrelation to successul cognitive and emotional aging. In D. V. Jeste, &C. Depp (Eds.), Successul cognitive and emotional aging(pp. 87113).Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Assmann, A. (1994). Wholesome knowledge: Concepts o wisdom in ahistorical and cross-cultural perspective. Lie-span development andbehavior (pp. 187224). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (1990). The psychology o wisdom and its onto-genesis. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins and devel-opment(pp. 87120). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baltes, P. B., Smith, J., & Staudinger, U. M. (1992). Wisdom and successulaging. In T. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation(pp. 123167). Lincoln, NE: University o Nebraska Press.

Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (prag-matic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. AmericanPsychologist, 55, 122136.

Becker, G. E., & Roberts, T. (2009). Do we agree? Using a Delphi techniqueto develop consensus on skills o hand expression.Journal o HumanLactation, 25, 220225.

Birren, J. E., & Svensson, C. M. (2005). Wisdom in history. InR. J. Sternberg, & J. Jordan (Eds.), A handbook o wisdom: Psycho-logical perspectives (pp. 331). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Blanchard-Fields, F., & Norris, L. (1995). The development o wisdom. InM. A. Kimble, S. H. McFadden, J. W. Ellor, & J. J. Seeber (Eds.),Aging, spirituality, and religion. A handbook (pp. 102118).Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Blazer, D. G. (2006). Successul aging. American Journal o GeriatricPsychiatry, 14, 25.

Blazer, D. G. (2007). Religious belies, practices and mental health out-comes: What is the research question? American Journal o GeriatricPsychiatry, 15, 269272.

Blazer, D. G., & Meador, K. G. (2009). The role o spirituality in healthaging. In C. A. Depp, & D. V. Jeste (Eds.), Successul cognitive andemotional aging (pp. 7386). Arlington, VA: American PsychiatricPublishing, Inc.

Bluck, S., & Gluck, J. (2005). From the inside out: Peoples implicittheories o wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. Jordan (Eds.), A handbooko wisdom. Psychological perspectives (pp. 84109). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Borg, J., Andree, B., Sorderstrom, H., & Farde, L. (2003). The serotoninsystem and spiritual experiences.American Journal o Psychiatry, 160,19651969.

Brown, S. C., & Greene, J. A. (2006). The Wisdom Development Scale:Translating the conceptual to the concrete.Journal o College StudentDevelopment, 47, 119.

Brown, S. C., & Greene, J. A. (2008). The Wisdom Development Scale:Translating the conceptual to the concrete.Journal o College StudentDevelopment, 47, 119.

Brugman, G. M. (2000). Wisdom: Source o narrative coherence andeudaimonia. Delt, The Netherlands: Eburon.

Brugman, G. M. (2006). Wisdom and aging. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Carstensen, L. L., Mikels, J. A., & Mather, M. (2006). Aging and the

intersection o cognition, motivation and emotion. In J. E. Birren &

K. Warner-Schaie (Eds.), Handbook o the psychology o aging(pp. 343362). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Clayton, V. P., & Birren, J. E. (1980). The development o wisdom across

the lie-span: A reexamination o an ancient topic. In P. B. Baltes, &O. G. Brim (Eds.), Lie-span development and behavior, (Vol. 3)(pp. 103135). New York: Academic Press.

Crowther, M., Parker, M., Achnebaum, W., Larimore, W. L., &Koenig, H. G. (2002). Rowe and Kahns model o successul aging

revisited: Positive spiritualitythe orgotten actor. The Gerontologist,42, 613620.

Dalkey, N. C. (1969). The Delphi method: An experimental study ogroup opinion. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the lie cycle. New York: InternationalUniversity Press.

Glck, J., & Baltes, P. B. (2006). Using the concept o wisdom to enhancethe expression o wisdom knowledge: Not the philosophers dream butdierential eects o developmental preparedness. Psychology and

Aging, 21, 679690.Holiday, S. G., & Chandler, M. J. (1986). Wisdom: Explorations in adult

competence. Basel, Switzerland: Karger.Hsu, C.-C., & Sanord, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense

o consensus. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation.Retrieved September 10, 2009, rom http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=10.

Ironson, G., Solomon, G. F., Balbin, E. G., OCleirigh, C., George, A.,Kumar, M., et al. (2002). The Ironson-woods Spirituality/ReligiousnessIndex is associated with long survival, health behaviors, less distress,and low cortisol in people with HIV/AIDS. Annals o Behavioral Med-icine, 24, 3448.

Jamuna, D. (2000). Ageing in India: Some key issues.Ageing International,25, 1631.

Jason, L. A., Reichler, A., King, C., Madsen, D., Camacho, J., & Marchese, W.(2001). The measurement o wisdom: A preliminary report.Journal o

Community Psychology, 29, 585598.Jeste, D. V., & Vahia, I. (2008). Comparison o the conceptualization owisdom in ancient Indian literature with modern views: Focus on theBhagavad Gita. Psychiatry, 71, 197209.

Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2007). The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory(P-FIT) o intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence.Behavioraland Brain Sciences, 30, 135154.

Kekes, J. (1983). Wisdom. American Philosophical Quarterly, 20, 277286.

Kimble, M. A., McFadden, S. H., Ellor, J. W., & Seeber, J. J. (1995).Aging, spirituality, and religion. A handbook. Minneapolis, MN:Fortress Press.

Koenig, H. G. (2007). Spirituality and pain: Finding purpose, meaningand hope in the midst o suering. In P. T. P. Wong, L. C. J. Wong,M. J. McDonald, & D. W. Klaasen (Eds.) The positive psychology omeaning & spirituality. Selected Papers rom Meaning Conerences (pp. 211220). Abbortsord, BC, Canada: INPM Press.

Kraemer, H. C., Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gliner, J. A., Vaske, J. J., &Harmon, R. J. (2003). Measures o clinical signicance.Journal othe American Academy o Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42,15241529.

Le, T. N. (2008). Age dierences in spirituality, mystical experiences andwisdom. Ageing & Society, 28, 383411.

Levenson, M. R., Jennings, P. A., Aldwin, C. M., & Shiraishi, R. W.(2005). Sel-transcendence: Conceptualization and measurement.International Journal o Aging & Human Development, 60, 127143.

McFadden, S. H. (2000). Religion and meaning in late lie. In G. T. Reker, &K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Exploring existential meaning. Optimizinghuman development across the lie span (pp. 171184). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Meeks, T. W., & Jeste, D. V. (2009). Neurobiology o wisdom: An over-view. Archives o General Psychiatry, 66, 355365.


13/13

13

Neill, C. M., & Kahn, A. S. (1999). Role o personal spirituality and reli-gious social activity on the lie satisaction o older widowed women.Sex Roles, 40, 319329.

Pargament, K. I., Magyar-Russell, G. M., & Murray-Swank, N. A. (2005).The sacred and the search or signicance: Religion as a unique pro-cess.Journal o Social Issues, 61, 665687.

Parisi, J. M., Rebok, G. W., Carlson, M. C., Fried, L. P., Seeman, T. E.,Tan, E. J., et al. (2009). Can the wisdom o aging be activated andmake a dierence societally? Educational Gerontology, 35, 867879.

Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1992). An assessmento the Edwards Personal Preerence Schedule rom the perspective othe ve-actor model.Journal o Personality Assessment, 58, 6778.

Silberman, I. (2005). Religion as a meaning system: Implications or thenew millennium.Journal o Social Issues, 61, 641663.

Staudinger, U. M., Lopez, D. F., & Baltes, P. B. (1997). The psychometriclocation o wisdom-related perormance: Intelligence, personality, andmore? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 12001214.

Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Jordan, J. (2005). A handbook o wisdom: Psycho-logical perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Takahashi, M. (2000). Toward a culturally inclusive understanding owisdom: Historical roots in the East and West. International Journalo Aging and Human Development, 51, 217230.

Takahashi, M., & Overton, W. F. (2002). Wisdom: A culturally inclusivedevelopmental perspective. International Journal o Behavioral Devel-opment, 26, 269277.

Takahashi, M., & Overton, W. F. (2005). Cultural oundations o wisdom:An integrated developmental approach. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. Jordan(Eds.), A handbook o wisdom: Psychological perspectives. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Vaillant, G. E. (2002). Aging well: Surprising guideposts to a happier lierom the landmark Harvard study o adult development. Boston:Little, Brown and Company.

Webster, J. D. (2003). An exploratory analysis o a sel-assessed wisdomscale.Journal o Adult Development, 10, 1322.

Webster, J. D. (2007). Measuring the character strength o wisdom.Inter-national Journal o Aging & Human Development, 65, 163183.

Wink, P., & Dillon, M. (2003). Religiousness, spirituality, and psychoso-cial unctioning in late adulthood: Findings rom a longitudinal study.Psychology and Aging, 18, 916924.

Wink, P., & Helson, R. (1997). Practical and transcendent wisdom: Theirnature and some longitudinal ndings.Journal o Adult Development,4, 5.

Wong, P. T. P. (1998). Spirituality, meaning, and successul aging. In P. T. P.Wong, & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest or meaning: A handbooko psychological research and clinical applications (pp. 359394).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

ford geront.gnq022.full

Documents