Wisdom: When thinking about others, we often take a perspective of an impartial observer, a third person viewing the events from afar; it seems a good idea to work on our issues from a distant observer perspective

Grossmann, Igor. 2021. “Wisdom: Situational, Dispositional, or Both?.” PsyArXiv. May 28. doi:10.31234/osf.io/q2whm

Abstract: Some people think wisdom is a stable and invariable individual disposition. Others view wisdom as deeply embedded in culture, experiences, and situations, and treat these features as mutually making up wisdom. Who is right and what are the implications for measurement, training and the fundamental (essentialist vs. constructivist) nature of wisdom itself? In this chapter, we will review evidence concerning the dispositional versus situational approaches to study wisdom. Even though main features of wisdom show some stability, there is also a profound and systematic variability in response to situational demands. We will also learn about a novel theoretical framework, conceptualizing dispositions as a distribution of situation-specific responses, thereby resolving the dispositional versus situational debate on the nature of wisdom. Drawing on these insights, we will conclude by reflect on recommendations for best measurement practices and ways to boost and train wisdom in everyday life.

Boosting and training wisdom

One of the most exciting implications of cross-situational variability in wisdom is that we can possibly shape situations to our benefit. Here, the insight about wisdom being lower when dealing with personal issues appears troublesome: In many domains of our lives, we cannot always defer decisions to someone else. What to do? As we discussed earlier when introducing the idea of naïve realism in perception of reality, people tend to subjectively represent and construct the events they encounter ⁸. The notion of subjective construal can help shed possible light on the difference in wisdom when reflecting on person- and non-person-centric situations. Ethan Kross and I reasoned that the reason wisdom appeared heighted in reflection on non-personal challenges concerns a particular vantage point one adopts when construing other people’s problems compared to personal problems. When thinking about others, we often take a perspective of an impartial observer, a third person viewing the events from a far. In contrast, when we reflect on personal issues we typically do so from an immersed, first-person perspective. If this difference in the subjective vantage point is elemental for the self-other asymmetry in manifest wisdom, it may be possible to boost wisdom in reflection on personal issues by construing personal situations as an “impartial observer.”

We first sought to test this idea in the context of job prospects at the peak of "great recession" in the U.S., asking college seniors, none of whom had a secured job at this point, to consider their future career prospects ⁴³. Participants were randomly assigned to two conditions. In one condition, we instructed participants to reflect on their job prospects from a perspective of a "distant observer," envisioning the situation unfolding from a far. In the control condition, seniors envisioned the situation unfolding before their own eyes. What we found is that compared to the control group, the “distant observer” instructions prompted greater wisdom – greater recognition of limits of their knowledge and consideration of things may unfold and change. In follow-up set of experiments, we showed equivalent results when instructing participants to reflect on a polarized political issue at a peak of 2008 U.S. presidential election ⁴³, trust and infidelity conflicts ¹⁰, and personal autobiographical experiences – i.e., recent unresolved conflicts people experienced in their own lives ^44,45. In each case, linguistic and temporal prompts promoting a distant observer vantage point (e.g., by using a third-person language “he”/”she” or perspective of “one year from now”) fostered wisdom (recognition of the limits of one's knowledge and recognition of change) in reflections on hypothetical and autobiographical issues compared to prompts promoting an immersed vantage point (e.g., by using a first-person language “me”/”mine” or a perspective of “here and now”). Moreover, using this manipulation, we were able to attenuate the self-other asymmetry discussed above. That is, observer vantage point led to greater wisdom for both personal and a friend’s problems, reducing self-other asymmetry ^{10; Studies 2-3}. It appears that experimental instructions altered the perception of the situation—from exclusively self-focused to a situation considering viewpoints of other persons involved, in turn recreating wisdom-enhancing contexts in one's mind. Overall, it appears that a wide range of construal-altering instructions (see Figure 4) increases participants' ability for applied central features of wisdom in hypothetical and real-world situations, both in the context of interpersonal and intergroup conflicts.

fig 4

Can the distanced observer construal be trained to promote changes in wisdom over time? Building on the insights from the contextual view of wisdom, my colleagues and I decided to address this question ⁴⁶. Given that people experience a range of issues in their lives, we reasoned that an effective shift in subjective construal toward a vantage point of an impartial observer requires repeated practice of wisdom-enhancing strategies over time. In turn, practice-driven shifts in subjective construal should promote greater wisdom after the practice. We tested this idea in a set of randomized control trial (RCT) intervention. In each study, participants reflected on their interpersonal conflicts twice – before and after the intervention, and we analyzed their reflections for presence of wisdom-related themes. In-between these measurement points, participants were randomly assigned to the third-person intervention condition or the first-person control condition (in the second study we also added no instruction control condition). In each condition, participants were instructed to keep a diary, each day writing a short reflection on the most significant (positive or negative) issue of the day. Based on the earlier experimental work, in the intervention condition participants had to write the diary using third-person language, reflecting on the event from an observer perspective. In the control condition(s), participants wrote their diary in a first-person, as one would typically do. Figure 5 shows the results we saw in the first study, which demonstrate that this month-long intervention impacted a range of features of wisdom, resulting in post-intervention growth in wisdom in the third-person condition compared to the control condition. These results were statistically accounted by a shift toward more inclusive subjective construal of the interpersonal conflicts participants reflected on in the experimental conditions. In the spirit of humility, it is worth highlighting that these training results are preliminary and require further replications and extensions to other cultures. None the less, they are encouraging, for the first time providing empirical support from randomized control trials for training-based shifts in wisdom over time.

fig 5