logo
ResearchBunny Logo
Dimensions of wisdom perception across twelve countries on five continents

Psychology

Dimensions of wisdom perception across twelve countries on five continents

M. Rudnev, H. C. Barrett, et al.

Explore how wisdom is perceived across cultures in this intriguing study conducted by a diverse group of scholars, revealing two key dimensions—Reflective Orientation and Socio-Emotional Awareness. This research shines a light on the cognitive and emotional characteristics that define wisdom globally.

00:00
00:00
Playback language: English
Introduction
The concept of wisdom, central to social judgment, lacks clarity regarding its cross-cultural recognition. Philosophical traditions vary significantly in their emphasis on wisdom's features, suggesting potential societal differences in its perception. Individualistic cultures might prioritize analytical and reflective skills, while collectivist cultures may emphasize socio-emotional competencies. Anthropological and psychological research highlights cultural variations in attention to emotions, thoughts, and sensations, even to the point of lacking specific terminology for certain mental states. This raises the question of whether 'wisdom' itself is a culturally specific construct. Counter to the expectation of significant cultural differences, certain theories in psychology suggest potential convergence in wisdom judgment. First, wisdom perception, as a form of social judgment, involves assessing desirable mental states—reflection on mental states being a potentially universal aspect of human life. Research identifies two dimensions in evaluating others' minds: intentional agency (reasoned action, self-control) and conscious experience (metacognition, awareness). Existing research suggests cross-cultural similarity in perceiving cognitive abilities, particularly reasoned action. Second, the self-enhancement bias, inflating one's competence in valued characteristics, might influence social judgments of wisdom. If wisdom-related traits are universally desirable, similar self-enhancement processes might affect cross-cultural judgments. Third, the assertion that similar dimensions of person perception are used across cultures (mastering tasks, coordinating with others) suggests that analytical competencies and socio-emotional experiences could similarly influence wisdom perception. However, empirical evidence remains inconclusive regarding cultural diversity or convergence in wisdom perception. Most social judgment research stems from Western countries, lacking sufficient representation from the Global South. Previous studies, while attempting cross-cultural comparisons, often suffer from limitations such as small sample sizes, methodological flaws (response bias), and inadequate representation of diverse populations. Moreover, inconsistencies exist in defining the dimensions of mind perception, with studies identifying one, two, or three dimensions depending on the sample and methodology. Additionally, the dimensions used in prior social judgment research—assessing abstract traits in groups—may differ from those evaluating concrete mental states related to wise judgment under uncertainty. This study addresses these limitations by employing a bottom-up approach across 16 samples from diverse cultural regions, examining the latent dimensions guiding wisdom evaluation and their cross-cultural consistency. We examine the relationship between these dimensions and the explicit attribution of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to individuals and oneself.
Literature Review
Existing literature presents contrasting views on the cross-cultural perception of wisdom. Some suggest significant variability, rooted in differing philosophical traditions and cultural values. Individualistic societies may emphasize rational deliberation and reflective thinking, while collectivist societies might prioritize socio-emotional intelligence and contextual understanding. This diversity is further supported by anthropological observations highlighting the cultural specificity of mental state descriptions and the potential for divergent interpretations of what constitutes 'wisdom'. However, other research points towards potential universality, highlighting the fundamental role of mental state reflection in human experience and proposing cross-cultural consistency in the perception of cognitive abilities, particularly reasoned action. Self-enhancement bias, the tendency to inflate one's competence in valued traits, offers another potential pathway to convergence, particularly if wisdom-related traits are universally considered desirable. Finally, the suggestion that common dimensions of person perception exist across cultures—analyzing competencies and socio-emotional experiences—provides another theoretical basis for cross-cultural similarities in wisdom judgment. However, the existing empirical evidence is limited by geographical bias, methodological weaknesses, and inconsistencies in defining the dimensions of mind perception. This study seeks to address these gaps by incorporating diverse samples and robust methodology to explore the cross-cultural validity of wisdom perception dimensions.
Methodology
This study employed a bottom-up approach to investigate latent dimensions of wisdom perception and their cross-cultural consistency. Data were collected from 16 convenience samples across 12 countries spanning five continents and 11 languages. The study involved 2707 participants (minimum 100 from indigenous or minority groups and 180 from larger populations). The participants, aged between 12 and 75, came from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and had varying levels of religiosity. The methodology included several key steps: 1. **Target Selection:** Ten targets (including 'self') were selected to represent a spectrum of wisdom exemplars and non-exemplars (scientist, doctor, teacher, fair person, politician, religious person, 75-year-old, 45-year-old, 12-year-old). The choice of targets aimed for cultural relevance and broad applicability across societies. 2. **Pairwise Comparisons:** Participants engaged in pairwise comparisons of targets based on 19 wisdom-related characteristics (e.g., 'think logically,' 'care for others' feelings'). These characteristics were selected to capture a range of cognitive, emotional, and social aspects of wisdom. Participants used a five-point Likert scale to rate the likelihood of each target exhibiting each characteristic compared to a reference target. 3. **Explicit Wisdom Ratings:** Following the pairwise comparisons, participants explicitly rated each target's wisdom, knowledge, and understanding using a five-point Likert scale. The ordering of these ratings was randomized to mitigate carry-over effects. 4. **Data Analysis:** A multilevel analysis framework was used to analyze the data. The within-individual level focused on comparisons made by a single participant, while the between-individual level examined differences across participants and cultures. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to identify latent dimensions underlying the ratings of wisdom-related characteristics. Multilevel structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationship between the latent dimensions and explicit wisdom ratings, considering various demographic factors. 5. **Cross-cultural Invariance Testing:** Measurement invariance tests were performed to assess the stability of the identified dimensions across different cultural regions. The study used a multiple-group multilevel factor model to compare model parameters across regions, considering the possibility of variations in factor loadings for certain characteristics.
Key Findings
The study identified two latent dimensions consistently influencing wisdom perception across diverse cultures: * **Reflective Orientation:** This dimension encompasses traits like logical thinking, planning, considering multiple perspectives, emotional control, and applying past experiences. It reflects pragmatic, rational, and analytical skills. * **Socio-Emotional Awareness:** This dimension includes traits such as care for others' feelings, humility, attention to emotions, and considering others' perspectives. It incorporates social coordination, empathy, and social metacognition. Both dimensions showed a positive association with explicit wisdom ratings, though the association was stronger for Reflective Orientation. Interestingly, when controlling for Reflective Orientation, Socio-Emotional Awareness showed a negative relationship with wisdom ratings, suggesting that high socio-emotional awareness without sufficient reflection might be perceived as less wise. The wisest targets were perceived as high on both dimensions. The least wise were characterized by a lack of reflection combined with moderate socio-emotional awareness. Cross-cultural invariance tests revealed remarkable consistency in the two-dimensional model across eight cultural regions, although some variations were observed in the loadings of specific items ('paying attention to nature and divinity,' 'considering others' perspectives,' 'awareness of bodily expressions'). These variations were more evident in the Socio-Emotional Awareness dimension and could be related to sociocultural contexts or specific interpretations of these characteristics. However, the overall structure of the two dimensions remained largely consistent. Self-enhancement bias was evident, with participants rating themselves higher in socio-emotional awareness but lower in reflective orientation compared to wisdom exemplars. This bias was consistent across cultures. The findings demonstrated remarkable cross-cultural consistency in the rankings of targets for wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. The study's robustness checks, including excluding specific targets or subsets of data, yielded similar results, supporting the stability of the two-dimensional model.
Discussion
The findings support the existence of two universal dimensions in wisdom perception—Reflective Orientation and Socio-Emotional Awareness—across diverse cultures. This extends previous research on mind perception and social judgment, demonstrating that the identified structure of wisdom perception transcends geographical and cultural boundaries. The study directly investigated characteristics attributed to wise decision-making under uncertainty, unlike past research focusing on abstract trait ascription to groups. This direct approach enhances the ecological validity of the study's results. The study's key contribution lies in the interaction between the two dimensions. While high Reflective Orientation appears as a necessary condition for high wisdom ratings, Socio-Emotional Awareness contributes positively only when sufficient reflection is present. This highlights the importance of balanced cognitive and emotional skills in wisdom. Cultural variations were observed primarily in the Socio-Emotional Awareness dimension, which might stem from the culturally contingent nature of social and emotional norms. This observation also suggests that Reflective Orientation may be more universally considered essential to wisdom than Socio-Emotional Awareness. The self-enhancement bias reveals a tendency to overestimate socio-emotional awareness and underestimate reflective orientation relative to wisdom exemplars. This suggests that individuals may place higher subjective value on socio-emotional skills and that those skills may be more difficult to objectively assess than reflective competencies. The study's findings offer a potential reconciliation of philosophical debates on practical versus theoretical wisdom. The two dimensions may reflect underlying facets of both types of wisdom, with Reflective Orientation more central to theoretical and practical wisdom and Socio-Emotional Awareness playing a more pronounced role in practical wisdom.
Conclusion
This study reveals a remarkably consistent two-dimensional structure for wisdom perception across diverse cultures, composed of Reflective Orientation and Socio-Emotional Awareness. These dimensions interact, with high reflective ability necessary for high wisdom, and socio-emotional awareness contributing positively only when sufficient reflection is present. The cross-cultural consistency is robust despite variations in loadings of specific items, suggesting underlying universal aspects of wisdom perception. Future research should investigate the role of these dimensions in trust formation, expand the range of targets, and further explore cultural nuances in the relative importance of each dimension. These findings have implications for understanding social judgment, cross-cultural psychology, and the nature of wisdom itself.
Limitations
The study employed convenience sampling, which may limit the generalizability of findings to broader populations within each cultural region. While the large sample size and inclusion of diverse groups enhance the study’s scope, the convenience sampling method might not fully represent the heterogeneity within each cultural group. Furthermore, the limited number of targets and the overlap in their characteristics could potentially inflate the interdependence of the identified dimensions, although robustness checks mitigate this concern to a degree. The use of a standardized questionnaire might also have influenced responses, and future research using open-ended narratives could provide further insights. Finally, the study focused on a specific set of wisdom-related characteristics, and the inclusion of additional traits might reveal further dimensions.
Listen, Learn & Level Up
Over 10,000 hours of research content in 25+ fields, available in 12+ languages.
No more digging through PDFs, just hit play and absorb the world's latest research in your language, on your time.
listen to research audio papers with researchbunny