CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 275Aging and Gerontology ResearchPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Defining and Assessing Wisdom: A Review of the Literature

Open access
Bangen, Katherine J., Meeks, Thomas W., Jeste, Dilip V.·2013·The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.020PMC PMC3896261
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

With increasing longevity and a growing focus on successful aging, there has been a recent growth of research designed to operationalize and assess wisdom. We aimed to (1) investigate the degree of overlap among empirical definitions of wisdom, (2) identify the most commonly cited wisdom subcomponents, (3) examine the psychometric properties of existing assessment instruments, and (4) investigate whether certain assessment procedures work particularly well in tapping the essence of subcomponents of the various empirical definitions. We searched PsychINFO-indexed articles published through May 2012 and their bibliographies. Studies were included if they were published in a peer-reviewed journal and (1) proposed a definition of wisdom or (2) discussed the development or validation of an instrument designed to assess wisdom. Thirty-one articles met inclusion criteria. Despite variability among the 24 reviewed definitions, there was significant overlap. Commonly cited subcomponents of wisdom included knowledge of life, prosocial values, self-understanding, acknowledgment of uncertainty, emotional homeostasis, tolerance, openness, spirituality, and sense of humor. Published reports describing the psychometric properties of nine instruments varied in comprehensiveness but most measures were examined for selected types of reliability and validity, which were generally acceptable. Given limitations of self-report procedures, an approach integrating multiple indices (e.g., self-report and performance-based measures) may better capture wisdom. Significant progress in the empirical study of wisdom has occurred over the past four decades; however, much needs to be done. Future studies with larger, more diverse samples are needed to determine the generalizability, usefulness, and clinical applicability of these definitions and assessment instruments. Such work will have relevance for the fields of geriatrics, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, education, and public health, among others.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.020

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kekes, 1983, Wisdom, Am Philos Q, 20, 277
  2. Olejnik, 1999, Wisdom as value orientation: a cross sectional study with a person-oriented approach, Polish Psychol Bull, 30, 99

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 275

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bangen, K. J., Meeks, T. W., & Jeste, D. V.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
ORCID
Venue
The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
21
Issue
12
Pages
1254-1266
ISSN
1064-7481 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.020
PMC
PMC3896261
OpenAlex
W1986430855
Cited by
275
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (T32 MH 19934-17, P30 MH080002, NCRS UL1RR031980)
  • Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
wisdom, psychometric properties, knowledge of life, prosocial values, self-understanding, emotional homeostasis, tolerance, openness, spirituality, sense of humor, successful aging, self-report measures, performance-based measures
MeSH terms
Aging, Cognition, Humans, Psychometrics, Knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review