UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A psychological analysis of the concept of wisdom Holliday, Stephen George 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A1 H64.pdf [ 14.24MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095866.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095866-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095866-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095866-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095866-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095866-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095866-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095866-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095866.ris

Full Text

A PSYCHOLOGICAL  ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT OF WISDOM by  STEPHEN GEORGE HOLLIDAY B.Sc. M.A.  Northern Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ,  The U n i v e r s i t y  of B r i t i s h  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED  1975  Columbia,  1978  IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE Department The  We  University  accept  this to  STUDIES  of Psychology of B r i t i s h  Columbia  d i s s e r t a t i o n as  the required  conforming  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FEBRUARY, 1983  ©STEPHEN  GEORGE HOLLIDAY,  1983  THE  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  It is  understood t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l n o t be allowed without my w r i t t e n  permission.  Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  DE-6  C3/81}  A?£/t  /9 /?eSr  1  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I c o u l d n o t have c o m p l e t e d  this  project  t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f a l a r g e number o f p e o p l e . members, Dr.  Michael Chandler,  Dr.  t h e e n c o u r a g e m e n t and  to develop  dissertation  completed College, and  UBC  data  product. Silver  The  from  s t a f f members a t L a n g a r a  procedures.  People  Phase I I o f t h e  study.  My  h e a r t o f the  rating  the  study.  My  list  of descriptors Sun,  complaints,  p a t t e d me  course throughout of  these people  on  t h e b a c k , and  the p r o j e c t .  and  t o any  m e n t i o n f o r h e l p i n g me  I am  listened h e l p e d me  and to  keep  very g r a t e f u l  project  a  typed  my on  to a l l  o t h e r s whom I h a v e f a i l e d  t o make t h i s  the  provided valuable  copy.  friends  f o r Phase  which form  the  f a m i l y and  to organize  s p e n t many  a s s i s t a n c e i n p r e p a r i n g the manuscript My  Centre  students,  editorial final  Community  data  B e v e r l y Fehr  wife, Kathleen  a  Thomas Moran  f e l l o w graduate  M i c h a e l B o y e s , Ross B r o u g h t o n and arduous hours  idea to  h e l p e d me  C h r i s K i n g and  Jerry  needed  H a r b o u r C e n t r e , West V a n c o u v e r S e n i o r  p r o v i d e d much n e e d e d a s s i s t a n c e i n c o l l e c t i n g and  Dr.  expert guidance  a g l i m m e r o f an  Summer P r o g r a m f o r R e t i r e d  collection  committee  M e r r y B u l l o c k and  W i g g i n s g a v e me this  My  without  to  success.  I  ii  ABSTRACT  The  purpose o f t h i s p r o j e c t was to p r o v i d e a  p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y based a n a l y s i s o f the concept o f wisdom. Although wisdom has long been used to l a b e l competent people, psychologists  have l a r g e l y ignored  v a r i a b l e s as i n t e l l i g e n c e .  wisdom i n favour o f such  This study used a prototype  analysis  procedure t o i d e n t i f y the a t t r i b u t e s that c h a r a c t e r i z e wise people t o g e t h e r w i t h the d e s c r i p t o r s and  other types o f i n d i v i d u a l s .  This  for intelligent,  perceptive  served as a b a s i s f o r  d e s c r i b i n g wisdom and d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g i t from other competency descriptors.  The study a l s o examined g e n e r a t i o n a l  differences  i n conceptions o f wisdom and assessed the manner i n which the p r o t o t y p e f o r wisdom i n f l u e n c e d  The  information  p r o j e c t was d i v i d e d i n t o three  processing.  studies.  I , groups o f f i f t y young a d u l t s , middle aged a d u l t s a d u l t s provided  people.  In Study I I , groups o f subjects  the same age cohorts r a t e d  An a d d i t i o n a l group of subjects  associated  and e l d e r l y  d e s c r i p t i o n s o f wise, i n t e l l i g e n t and other  types o f i n d i v i d u a l s . representing  In Study  w i t h other c a t e g o r i e s .  the d e s c r i p t o r s rated  f o r wise  descriptors  In Study I I I , t h i r t y - e i g h t  young a d u l t s were administered a r e c o g n i t i o n memory task to assess the b i a s i n g e f f e c t s o f p r o t o t y p e d e s c r i p t o r s .  iii  The is  results  a well-defined,  Reliability  o f S t u d i e s I and I I i n d i c a t e d  prototypically  analyses  indicated  within  a g r e e m e n t on t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s overlap  between c a t e g o r i e s  independent  of other  components a n a l y s i s "Exceptional Skills,"  wise  factors,  "Judgement  The  results  o f Study influenced  Examination  A  which  of  largely  principal were  labelled  and C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s , " and  I I I indicated by  "Social  that  the prototypes of  people.  wisdom  may  evidence  be v i e w e d  results  both  complete  picture  people.  The  t h e emergence  from  S t u d i e s I , I I and I I I s u g g e s t  as a p r o t o t y p i c a l l y  replicate  are interpreted  emphasizes several o f wisdom.  organized  previous studies  of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  results  development which to  five  memory p r o c e s s e s w e r e  The  These  competency d e s c r i p t o r s . yielded  cohort  w i s d o m was  Competency," " I n t e r p e r s o n a l  Unobtrusiveness." people's  people.  that  wisdom  concept.  and between  of wise  indicated  Understanding,"  "Basic  organized  that  concept.  and p r o v i d e a more  and a b i l i t i e s  within factors  that  of  wise  a theory of that  may  contribute  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  i  ABSTRACT  i i  TABLES  v i i  CHAPTER I. II.  INTRODUCTION  TO THE PROBLEM  1  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14 T r a d i t i o n a l Adult Psychology 14 The C r i t i q u e o f D e v e l o p m e n t a l M e t h o d o l o g y and T h e o r y 23 The C r i t i q u e o f R e s e a r c h Methods 24 The C r i t i q u e o f T h e o r i e s o f Human Development 30 The Wisdom T r a d i t i o n 43 D e f i n i t i o n a l Meanings o f Wisdom 44 The S e c u l a r Wisdom T r a d i t i o n 45 The P h i l o s o p h i c a l T r a d i t i o n . . . . . . . 50 The G r e e k C o n c e p t i o n o f Wisdom 51 The C l a s s i c a l G r e e k Philosophers 52 The E a r l y C h r i s t i a n T r a d i t i o n o f Wisdom 55 Renaissance Conceptions of Wisdom 57 C a r t e s i a n and Modern C o n c e p t i o n s o f Wisdom 59 The P s y c h o l o g i c a l T r a d i t i o n 63 J u n g i a n and E r i k s o n i a n C o n c e p t i o n s o f Wisdom 64 Modern P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o n c e p t i o n s o f Wisdom 71 E m p i r i c a l S t u d i e s o f Wisdom 75 C a t e g o r i z a t i o n T h e o r y and Research 80 C a t e g o r i z a t i o n Theory 81 C a t e g o r i z a t i o n and Prototype Research 86 P r o t o t y p e s and Person P e r c e p t i o n 87 P r o t o t y p e s and C l i n i c a l Research 89 P r o t o t y p e s and O t h e r R e s e a r c h . . . 9 0 P r o t o t y p e s and C o g n i t i o n 91 A P r o t o t y p e A n a l y s i s o f Wisdom 95  V  III.  IV.  V.  VI. VII. VIII.  METHOD SECTION - STUDIES I AND I I Method S e c t i o n - S t u d y 1 Method S e c t i o n - S t u d y I I  99 99 118  RESULTS - STUDIES I AND I I Inter-rate R e l i a b i l i t y Analyses Describing the Prototype Characteristics I d e n t i f y i n g U n d e r l y i n g Dimensions A n a l y s i s o f t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Wisdom and O t h e r C a t e g o r i e s  124 124  STUDY I I I Validating Method Results  the Prototype  127 135 140 155 155 157 165  DISCUSSION  172  DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH  213  CONCLUDING COMMENTS  222  APPENDICES REFERENCES  vi TABLES I.  Age  Characteristics  II.  E d u c a t i o n a l L e v e l Study I S u b j e c t s  III.  D e s c r i p t o r s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h the Target W i s e , O t h e r T a r g e t C a t e g o r i e s and V a r i o u s Sources  V.  E d u c a t i o n a l L e v e l Study I I S u b j e c t s  120  VI.  Intraclass Targets  126  IX.  X.  Correlation  II  I l l  Age  VIII.  o f Study  102  IV.  VII.  Characteristics  o f S t u d y I S u b j e c t s ....101  Coefficients A l l  D e s c r i p t o r s f o r the Category G r o u p e d by R a t i n g V a l u e s  Wise  134  P e r c e n t o f Items i n a P a r t i c u l a r C a t e g o r y O v e r l a p p i n g w i t h Other C a t e g o r i e s  143  P e r c e n t O v e r l a p Between W i s e and C a t e g o r i e s as a F u n c t i o n o f C h a r a c t e r i s t i c n e s s o f Items  XVI.  and  136  XII.  XV.  129  V a r i a b l e s D e f i n i n g the F i v e F a c t o r s I d e n t i f i e d i n t h e P r i n c i p a l Components Analysis  Percent T h a t Do  XIV.  People  Average R a t i n g Values f o r P r o t o t y p e Non-prototype D e s c r i p t o r s  XI.  XIII.  Subjects...119  o f Items W i t h i n E a c h C a t e g o r y Not O v e r l a p W i t h O t h e r Categories..145 Other  O v e r l a p Between P a i r s o f C a t e g o r i e s A n a l y t i c a l l y D e r i v e d Dimensions  146 Using 149  Summary o f Items Used t o D e s c r i b e t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l and C o n t r o l C h a r a c t e r s  160  R a t i n g s o f E x p e r i m e n t a l and C o n t r o l C h a r a c t e r s f o r Membership i n t h e C a t e g o r i e s o f Wise P e o p l e and Shrewd People  167  Mean V a l u e s  169  o f Item T y p e s  1  INTRODUCTION TO THE  PROBLEM  This d i s s e r t a t i o n introduces  and  presents  r e s u l t s of a r e s e a r c h program f o r studying  the  the  concept  of wisdom as a unique competency d e s c r i p t o r r e f e r e n c i n g special a b i l i t i e s  that are d i f f e r e n t i a l l y  w i t h the a d u l t y e a r s .  From a t r a d i t i o n a l  p e r s p e c t i v e , wisdom may begin  associated psychological  seem to be a c u r i o u s p l a c e  a study of human competency, as i t i s o f t e n  thought of as an arcane, mysterious holdover ancient p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n . other  to  from  Perhaps more than  f a c t o r s , the s u s p i c i o n t h a t wisdom only  a n a c h r o n i s t i c b e l i e f s may ignore wisdom, i n favour manageable concepts.  references  have l e d p s y c h o l o g i s t s  to  of l e s s m y s t i f y i n g and more  When i t i s considered  at a l l ,  wisdom i s most o f t e n regarded by p s y c h o l o g i s t s r e l a t i o n of the more popular,  and  p r o f i t a b l y studied, construct  of i n t e l l i g e n c e .  than d i s p e n s i n g with  an  as a poor  presumably more Rather  the concept of wisdom, however, the  reasons f o r i t s p l a c e i n o l d e r t r a d i t i o n s should  be  considered. The i s only one  p h i l o s o p h i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e a l l u d e d to above  aspect  of a l a r g e r wisdom h e r i t a g e .  T r a d i t i o n a l Western c u l t u r e i s steeped with the  idea  2  that the  there  i s a p r a c t i c a l wisdom w h i c h i s o r i e n t e d  problems of a d u l t  special life.  i n s i g h t s i n t o the This  forward tales  competence and n a t u r e and  may  be  i n every bodies  expressed  i n the  various  also  to  conclusion  lead  the  p r a g m a t i c wisdom t h a t w i s e p e o p l e and analysis. there  oriented  however, a l t h o u g h we  pattern  of  life  psychological  task  There are contemporary  life  the  l e a s t some  continue  t o use  the  of  word  this  'wise',  buried  deciphering  the people,  thesis. issues  flowing  twenty y e a r s  from  research  d e c i s i o n to undertake past  kinds  Today,  d i s t i n g u i s h wise  this  of  i t s significance in  Excavating  several  actions  philosophers  at  span p s y c h o l o g i c a l  s u p p o r t my During  the  well.  that  a  psychological  living  features  ideas  must be  toward  competency and  folk  literature  i n the  theme t h a t  function.  t h e n , became t h e  wisdom.  of  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y examined  dimension of adult  further  there  and  The  o f wisdom  w h i c h i s amenable t o  is a highly visible  have not  society.  that  writings  been c a r r i e d  parables  i s exemplified  Even i n the  o f wisdom a r e  has  stories,  found  with  m e c h a n i c s o f human  mundane wisdom t r a d i t i o n  l a r g e l y through the  that  concerned  to  the  the  which study  combined  of  we the  3  critical  efforts  theorists  of a small  army o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l  have been d i r e c t e d a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g  o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l changes d u r i n g and  Lipsitt,  1980).  adulthood  These e f f o r t s  ( B a l t e s , Reese  have l e d t o a l a r g e  scale  r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f many l o n g  about  t h e t r a j e c t o r y o f human d e v e l o p m e n t .  also pointed negative  o u t t h e need  research  standing  t o supplement  t r a d i t i o n with  the nature  beliefs T h e y have  an e a r l i e r  new r e s e a r c h  aimed a t e x p l i c a t i n g p o s i t i v e and p r o g r e s s i v e during  later  effort  to identify  reference  life.  T h i s has r e s u l t e d i n a new competency  p o s i t i v e age-related provide  trends  sections of this  i n later  summarize  them h e r e  appropriateness  The life  results  i n an e f f o r t  dissertation,  o f wisdom as a t o p i c o f  of psychological  o f most r e s e a r c h  poorly  demonstrated  function i n later  than t h e i r  on a g e - r e l a t e d  only  that  (Schaie  f i n d i n g s were p a r a l l e l e d  regarding  In the past, the changes  i n human  o l d e r p e o p l e do more  younger c o u n t e r p a r t s  of psychological function  I will  to further j u s t i f y the  d i r e c t i o n s f o r new r e s e a r c h .  abilities  These  ( B i r r e n , 1982).  i s currently i n a state of uncertainty  possible  concerted  a d e t a i l e d review o f those  of the choice  study  changes  i n d i c a t o r s that  change  Although I w i l l  programs  on most  and G r i b b e n ,  measures 1975).  by r e p o r t s o s t e n s i b l y  4  showing t h a t t h e s o c i a l w o r l d characterized 1961).  both  by m u l t i p l e l o s s e s  Although  progressive  t h e r e were o c c a s i o n a l r e p o r t s o f  and p r o v i d e d  of  r e g r e s s i v e change.  of  development  explanations  Consequently,  i n later  life  critiques  regarded  i n the l i t e r a t u r e ,  i n conventional  life  differ level  o f performance.  because  standard  separate other  factors.  studies  differed  potentially results for  by  Since fro™  the e l d e r l y  the i n e v i t a b i l i t y  influence their  were u n a b l e t o  literature  of declining  argued  competence  accounted  case  with  further  demonstrated  effects  t h a t most  made no c l e a r  T h i s argument was g i v e n  or cohort,  o f these  s u b j e c t s i n many  ways, c r i t i c s  s t u d i e s which e m p i r i c a l l y  historical,  i n age a l s o  t h e i r younger c o u n t e r p a r t s i n  significant  age.  theme o f  o f age f r o m t h e e f f e c t s  i n the a v a i l a b l e  advancing  designs  T h i s was s e e n as a p r o b l e m  research designs  the e f f e c t s  decline.  each p o i n t i n g out  who d i f f e r  i n o t h e r ways, some o f w h i c h  as  methodological  The c e n t r a l  a r g u m e n t s was t h a t p e o p l e  views  o l d e r people  span r e s e a r c h  ( S c h a i e , 1965; B a l t e s , 1 9 6 8 ) . these  t h e dominant  t h e mid-1960s, s e v e r a l  appeared  and a g i n g  f o r patterns  i n a state o f gradual, but continuous, During  flaws  (Cumming and H e n r y ,  c h a n g e , most t h e o r i e s o f a d u l t h o o d  anticipated  being  o f t h e e l d e r l y was a l s o  credence  that f o r apparent  5  age-related (Schaie  differences  critiques  t h e 1970s, a s e r i e s  appeared  a g i n g were r o o t e d  suggesting that  throughout  an i m p o s s i b i l i t y (1970), Pepper untested  the idea  life,  often  suggested that  assumed, r a t h e r  constraints theorists  for,  result  possible  has been  as  A s Kuhn such  influence This  p e r s p e c t i v e s on the b e l i e f  that  In o r d e r t o escape the  views,  some  changes  contemporary  i n basic  development.  o f these c r i t i q u e s  approaches  and W i l l i s ,  approaches  than t e s t e d ,  forradical  the p o s s i b i l i t y  (Baltes  traditional  a b o u t human  of alternative  o r saw s u c h d e v e l o p m e n t  research a c t i v i t y .  of traditional  The  that  of continued  deterministically  as t h e y a ~ e .  argued  assumptions  views o f  (1970) and many o t h e r s h a v e n o t e d ,  the course o f c o n c e i v a b l e  people regress  traditional  (Reese and O v e r t o n , 1 9 7 0 ) .  assumptions  argument  of theoretical  i n m o d e l s o f human d e v e l o p m e n t  d i d not e n t e r t a i n  development  aging  areas o f f u n c t i o n  e t a l , 1973). During  either  i n several  that  considered,  of progressive 1977). that  adult  or l e f t  room  development  The common t h r e a d  i n these  t h e r e may be n o t one b u t many  d e v e l o p m e n t a l outcomes.  developmental course that  was an emergence  The p a r t i c u l a r  a person follows  i s , from  this  6  vantage  point,  biological  a function  and s o c i a l / h i s t o r i c a l  experiences  (Riegel,  1975).  open-ended v i e w s  i s that  r e s e a r c h agendas  focusing  negative,  developmental  alternatives rather  of the psychological,  It  might  that  An argument  f o r such  on p o s i t i v e ,  pathways.  as w e l l as  Such  even-handed  a p p e a l o f making  seem e a s y  t o choose  an a l t e r n a t i v e  of interesting  In p r a c t i c e ,  t o be q u i t e  Although current  has proven opinion  m u l t i - a l t e r n a t i v e models, little  o b s e r v a b l e impact  ( H u l t s c h and D e u t s c h , of adult  development  frameworks traditional  runs  have  on p e o p l e ' s r e s e a r c h  These  are used  1974) o r i f s i m p l e  argue  that  d i s a p p e a r when  ( S c h a i e and intervention  ( F u r y and B a l t e s ,  have made i m p o r t a n t  t o o u r knowledge o f a d u l t  as c o n c e p t u a l  critiques  appropriate methodologies  these c r i t i q u e s  ideas  t h e doomsday c o n c l u s i o n s o f  deficiencies  While  agendas  Instead, p l u r a l i s t i c  served p r i m a r i l y  d e c l i n e models.  are undertaken  difficult.  i n favour o f such  many a p p a r e n t a g e - r e l a t e d  procedures  research.  t h e s e c o n c e p t i o n s have h a d  1981).  for critiquing  LaBouvie-Vief,  more,  research options possible.  model and g e n e r a t e a p r o g r a m this  the person  they allow the p o s s i b i l i t y o f  have t h e i n t u i t i v e  than fewer,  factors  function,  1973).  contributions  t h e y have n o t  7  substantially changing  advanced  competencies The  formulating is  postulation  multipathway  o f a number o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l  advantages  i t i s important  questions  span  t h e y have n o t s u c c e e d e d  a s y s t e m a t i c s e a r c h f o r such o p t i o n s .  the p o t e n t i a l  models,  of the l i f e  The s t r e n g t h o f  T h e i r weakness i s t h a t  inspiring  step i n  the existence o f p o s i t i v e  options.  models i s t h e i r  Given  and n e c e s s a r y n e x t  a more b a l a n c e d p s y c h o l o g y  to demonstrate  courses.  i n adulthood.  logical  developmental  in  our knowledge o f p r o g r e s s i v e l y  about  i n m a i n t a i n i n g such  to generate  interesting  progressive aspects of adult  development. This when t h e need felt  most  life  pathways t h a t life.  Thomae  of personality  important  later  was  span  lead  Schaie  in later  would  life  the c h i l d  argued  in a  that the  functioning i n  (1977-1978) h a s b o t h c a l l e d descriptive  middle-aged  people.  and a d u l t  adults  f o r such  model a r e more  More r e c e n t l y , R y f f  f o r conceptions of successful link  f o r example,  research task i s to i d e n t i f y  to successful  d i s c u s s i n g ways i n w h i c h complex t h a n y o u n g e r  at a point  change was b e i n g  (1980),  an agenda and p r e s e n t e d a b r o a d ,  called  initiated  f o r studying positive  i n many q u a r t e r s .  discussion  the  research project  function  developmental  (1982)  which  8  literatures. look  I t was  f o r a new  way  within  of  this  context  construing  that  progressive  I began  to  adult  development. One examine t h e  means o f a p p r o a c h i n g etaphors  (Birren,  1982).  research  and  the  people." earlier  Much o f  theory  maxim t h a t  can  "The  and  researchers  status.  of  age  age-related  d e c l i n e may  upon t h e  necessarily  Pepper that  by  ( 1 9 7 0 ) , Kuhn  guiding  maxims t o  questions  must be  p o s i t i o n argues  about  serve adult  as  social  later  to i n t e r p r e t other  a symptom o f that  an  people  than over are  time.  not  others  easily  s u p e r c e d e d by i n favour  a means o f  function.  roles,  of  anything  (1970) and  metaphors are  counter evidence, but This  and  of  physical  about r e g r e s s i v e  s e e n as  age  majority  proclivity  o r i e n t i n g assumption  defeated  embodying defeat  l o s s of  demonstrating be  as  time  of people  to  development  for evidence of  reluctance  r e s u l t s as  reliance  and  is  gerontological  maxim, t h e  Both the  to pose q u e s t i o n s the  adult  characterized  forces  conflicting  o f new  be  of  task  traditional  d e t e r i o r a t i o n and  c h a n g e s and  views.  the  i n v e s t i g a t o r s searched  activities  noted  field  In k e e p i n g w i t h t h i s  or p s y c h o l o g i c a l  life  i n the  this  of  have  refuted  by  alternative  the  production  reorienting  F u e r b a c h has  proposed  9  that one may break out o f o l d modes o f thought by turning propositions 1979).  onto t h e i r l o g i c a l heads  Rather than arguing  (Buss,  that "Man i s made i n the  image o f God", f o r example, one might reverse the subject-object  r e l a t i o n and suggest that "God i s made i n  the image o f man." trivial  Although that example "may seem  toHay, i n Fuerbach's time i t had d r a s t i c  consequences f o r how people considered Applying  Fuerbach's t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  religion.  method to the  p r o p o s i t i o n "The f o r c e s o f age and time defeat y i e l d s the novel defeat  and i n t e r e s t i n g c l a i m that  the f o r c e s o f age and time."  ° • i^w o f l a t e r l i f e s t i u l a t e questions  people",  "People  This r e v e r s a l poses  f u n c t i o n which may serve to about p r o g r e s i v e  change i n  adulthood. The was  immediate c h a l l e n g e  i n t h i s undertaking  to i d e n t i f y an i n t e r e s t i n g i n s t a n c e  of adult  competency which r e f l e c t e d such a new and o p t i m i s t i c maxi .  After c a r e f u l l y considering  t h i s problem, I  chose to s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i n v e s t i g a t e the concept o f wisdom.  T h i s seemed to be a promising launching  point,  as the common language t r a d i t i o n and c e r t a i n p a r t s o f ancient wisdom w r i t i n g s wisdom r e f e r e n c e s  suggested that the concept o f  e s p e c i a l l y competent a d u l t  function.  10  Choosing t h i s t o p i c was the prelude to f i n d i n g a n o n - t r i v i a l means o f e x p l o r i n g the p s y c h o l o g i c a l features  o f wisdom.  While the common usage o f wisdom  suggests that i t i s a popular competency d e s c r i p t o r , the words "wise" and 'wisdom' are t y p i c a l l y a p p l i e d as descriptive labels.  Although they presumably  a c o n s t e l l a t i o n of features behaviour, they provide  reference  that c h a r a c t e r i z e wise  little  information  about the  p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o r r e l a t e s o f wisdom.  Reference to  p h i l o s o p h i c a l accounts was o f l i t t l e  help as most  formal  t h e o r i e s emphasized metaphysical i s s u e s and not the pragmatic features  o f wisdom that i n s p i r e d t h i s  study.  Examining the ancient wisdom l i t e r a t u r e proved to be i n t e r e s t i n g , but y i e l d e d l i t t l e  information  about the  p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes c h a r a c t e r i z i n g wise people. The  l a c k o f a working theory  to t r y to c o n c e p t u a l i z e  o f wisdom l e d me  wisdom i n a way that was  p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y sound, but not o v e r l y narrow. concluded that while p s y c h o l o g i s t s  say l i t t l e  I about  wisdom, l a y people may know, w i t h some p r e c i s i o n , what they mean when they say someone i s wise.  Since I was  i n t e r e s t e d i n wisdom as i t i s manifested i n a d u l t  life,  11  it  seemed a p p r o p r i a t e  establishing In  t o b e g i n my i n v e s t i g a t i o n b y  t h e meaning o f wisdom w i t h i n  the absence o f a p r e - e x i s t i n g formal  theory  wisdom, I c h o s e t o s t u d y p e o p l e ' s n a i v e , theories nature  as a means o f s y s t e m a t i c a l l y  and f u n c t i o n There  this  context. of  or i m p l i c i t ,  i n v e s t i g a t i n g the  o f wisdom.  i s considerable  course of a c t i o n  particularly  that  precedent  i n psychological  i n a r e a s where t h e r e  f o r pursuing  investigations,  i s assumed t o be some  d e g r e e o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l and social  use o f concepts.  psychologists to  claim  formal  that  to expect  and i n f o r m a l  formal  notions  Demonstrating  clarify  and v a l i d a t e i d e a s  to suggest  colloquial  usage.  socially-bound theories  that  theories  life  of intelligence  function,  i t is  this  of intelligence  about  (Neisser,  intelligence.  psychological R a t h e r , whp  social  between  correspondence has served  theories  that  p r a c t i c e , people's  to  This i s  should  psychologists  phenomenon, and c l a i m  reflect  'intelligent'  some d e g r e e o f s i m i l a r i t y  1979).  not  both  i n d i v i d u a l s , and s i n c e  h a v e some c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h reasonable  since  and l a y p e o p l e u s e t h e t e r m  c o n n o t e competent  psychologists  F o r example,  mirror  discuss  formal informal  12  conceptions may  serve to keep formal t h e o r i e s  oriented  to the world that they r e f l e c t and e l a b o r a t e . One  of the more elegant ways of a n a l y z i n g  people's i n f o r m a l t h e o r i e s flows from Rosch's demonstration that we determine comparing  category membership by  o b j e c t s to a p r o t o t y p i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the  category (Rosch, 1975,  1978).  T h i s work a l s o  suggested  t h a t one could study c a t e g o r i e s by d e s c r i b i n g the category p r o t o t y p e .  T h i s r e s e a r c h was  extended  i n t o the  study of person p e r c e p t i o n by Cantor and M i s c h e l (1979) , who  used a p r o t o t y p e a n a l y s i s to study how  personality descriptors.  The procedure was  people used subsequently  a p p l i e d to the study of human i n t e l l i g e n c e where i t was used to c l a r i f y  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between psychometric  and common language (Neisser,  ideas of the nature of i n t e l l i g e n c e  1979). S i n c e wise, l i k e i n t e l l i g e n t , may  a l a b e l r e f e r e n c i n g a d i s t i n c t group  be viewed  of i n d i v i d u a l s , I  concluded that category a n a l y s i s procedures could serve as the b a s i s f o r a n a l y z i n g the nature of wisdom. In t h i s study I used a prototype a n a l y s i s to d e s c r i b e the category of wise people.  In c a r r y i n g out  this  a n a l y s i s , I hoped to p r o v i d e a s y s t e m a t i c d e s c r i p t i o n which c o u l d serve as a means of i d e n t i f y i n g the set of  as  13  psychological  competencies that c h a r a c t e r i z e wise  behaviour. In order  to demonstrate the  psychological  v a l i d i t y of the concept, I undertook two of analyses.  The  first  involved  f u r t h e r types  systematically  examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p between wisdom, i n t e l l i g e n c e and  other  r e l a t e d terms.  demonstrate that the word  In so doing, I hoped to 'wise' r e f e r e n c e s  a different  set of p s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t e s than does the word 'intelligent.  1  The  second i n v o l v e d an attempt  to  demonstrate that the prototype f o r the category of wise people has  c o g n i t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r how  actually categorize  people  competent i n d i v i d u a l s .  In summary, I attempted to present  converging  l i n e s of evidence i n d i c a t i n g that wisdom i s a u s e f u l psychological  competency d e s c r i p t o r .  This i n c l u d e d  demonstration that people hold c l e a r , r e l i a b l e  and  d e t a i l e d conceptions of the nature of wisdom, that conceptions are e x p l a i n a b l e meaningful a b i l i t i e s ,  and  those  i n terms of p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  that people's conceptions o f  wisdom a c t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e the manner i n which they process i n f o r m a t i o n  a  about competent i n d i v i d u a l s .  14  REVIEW OF THE  T r a d i t i o n a l Adult  The  LITERATURE  Psychology  b u l k of r e s e a r c h  on a d u l t development  c o n s i s t s of attempts to determine i f p s y c h o l o g i c a l abilities  thought to peak during  childhood,  adolescence  or e a r l y adulthood are maintained through adulthood i n t o o l d age  (Botwinick,  & P a p a l i a , 1971;  1977,  1978;  and  Hooper, F i t z g e r a l d  Horn & Donaldson, 1976).  These  have c o n s i s t e n t l y i n d i c a t e d that o l d e r a d u l t s  studies  fare  p o o r l y r e l a t i v e to younger people on most measures o f psychological a b i l i t y . researchers efficient 1941;  reported  i n the use  Bromley, 1958),  Schnorre, 1971;  During the  that o l d e r people were l e s s of memory s t r a t e g i e s ( G i l b e r t , slower and  poorer l e a r n e r s  Arenberg, 1968), more r i g i d  of d e c i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s (Botwinick, and  less i n t e l l i g e n t  1958).  1978;  than younger a d u l t s  type c o g n i t i v e tasks able to a p p r e c i a t e 1971;  e l d e r l y subjects  (Rowe 8c  in their  Rabbitt,  use  1977)  (Wechsler,  A s m a l l e r number of s t u d i e s examining  performance of young and  Charles,  l a s t s e v e r a l decades  the  on P i a g e t t i a n  found that o l d e r people were l e s s  multiple perspectives  DelVento-Bielby and  (Looft  Papalia,  and  1975),  15  less  able  t o use higher  more l i k e l y  to use simple  younger people Storck, short,  order  Looft  c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s and  organizational  and H o o p e r , 1972; P a p a l i a ,  adulthood  inevitable  developed  The  developmental  forces  eroded  i n early  susceptible organic  life. as a t i m e o f  i n the c l i n i c a l  t h e e l d e r l y were  particularly  to certain cognitive  disturbances,  brain  Neale, 1978).  syndromes and d e p r e s s i o n  assumed  o f mental d i s o r d e r s  that  including  ( D a v i s o n and  In the absence o f accurate  m o d e l s , many r e s e a r c h e r s incidence  literature  moving b u t  emergent p i c t u r e o f a d u l t h o o d  that  In  away t h e  l o s s was r e i n f o r c e d b y t h e s u g g e s t i o n literature  1972).  as a t i m e when s l o w l y  regressive  competencies  than  ( S a n d e r s , L a u r e n d e a u and B e r g e r o n , 1966;  much o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  portrayed  strategies  etiological  the increase i n  represented  an  e x a g g e r a t i o n o f the supposedly normal d i s i n t e g r a t i o n o f the idea  c e n t r a l nervous that  reported across  degenerative brain performance d e f i c i t s  a variety of cognitive In  retrospect,  these viewpoints decline  system.  This  r e i n f o r c e d the  changes u n d e r l a y t h e exhibited  by the e l d e r l y  tasks.  t h e most d i s t u r b i n g  i s the acceptance  i s a n o r m a l and e x p e c t e d  that  feature of  pathological  consequence o f aging.  16  Despite  the  fact  success  in relating  f u n c t i o n a t any quick  that  psychologists  biological  point  i n the  and  life  considerable  a t t e n t i o n was  span, r e s e a r c h e r s  deterministic life  Age  this  specifying  in psychological  the  a bio-behavioural  links  decline  i n d i v i d u a l s on  the loss  often at  and  The  poor  showing  tasks  was  thought  brain  and  central  to  regressive  nervous  system  ( J a r v i k and  Cohen, 1 9 7 3 ) .  The  commonly c i t e d  explanation  was  i s accompanied  a progressive  structure on and  age  proposed either  other  and  cellular  of  and  aging  and/or  This  was  1942).  genetic  synaptic  initially  Later,  physiological theories random l o s s e s  function  most  c o r r e l a t i o n between b r a i n  Appel,  programmed o r  efficiency  1977) .  negative  (Appel  that  loss of neuronal  (Bondaroff,  a reported  i n the  in  reflect  by  changes  then,  framework aimed  1974).  cognitive  could  abilities.  between b i o l o g i c a l (Kimmel,  were  period,  g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e d i f f e r e n c e s were  psychological of older  decline  within  establishing  to  brain  r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i o l o g i c a l  and  interpreted  aging  During  given  limited  psychological  t o h y p o t h e s i z e ways i n w h i c h an  produce performance d e f i c i t s .  later  h a v e had  ( J a r v i k ^ 1-975) .  theories  of  aging  weight  researchers  arguing  lead  based  to a The  that decreased plethora  were u s e d  to  of  17  support  the p o s i t i o n  that b i o l o g i c a l  o f a l l age d i f f e r e n c e s . that  sensory system  received  1977;  losses  information  cognitive  performance  Corso,  A variant  and i n d i r e c t l y  decline.  In the e a r l y  to enter a period  losses, u n t i l  on b i o l o g i c a l  causation,  o f growth,  years,  growth  At maturity, of s t a b i l i t y  stability  and e x p a n s i o n t h e o r g a n i s m was  of function w i t h some  t h e o r g a n i s m began t o d e c l i n e .  characterizations  that  slight  Adherence  o f the performance o f  adults. One m a n i f e s t a t i o n  sentiment a return  that  age group  of this  p o s i t i o n was a  performance  to developmentally primitive  Specifically, child  reduced  v i e w p o i n t l e d t o some i n t e r e s t i n g and  controversial older  produced  be m a i n t a i n e d , a l t h o u g h p e r h a p s  to t h i s  t h e amount o f  many a c c o u n t s o f a g i n g ,  as a s e q u e n c e  were s e e n as p r e - e m i n e n t .  would  theme was  ( B o t w i n i c k , 1978; F o z a r d e t a l . ,  model u n d e r l y i n g  development  thought  of this  restricted  i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e emphasis  and  was t h e c a u s e  1977).  The  viewed  loss  function  of the e l d e r l y  differences function.  some r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e s o u g h t i n the supposedly regressed (Hooper,  Rubin e t a l , 1973).  marked  parallels to performance  F i t z g e r a l d , , and P a p a l i a , 1971,;..  A consequence  of this  v i e w was t h e  18  perceived  j u s t i f i c a t i o n for applying  l a b e l s as regressed, patterns  c h i l d l i k e and  of a d u l t behaviour.  t h i s b e l i e f was  such p e j o r a t i v e  incompetent to  A second m a n i f e s t a t i o n  the o c c a s i o n a l  speculation that  of  the  performance of the e l d e r l y i s analogous to t h a t of such deviant  groups as s c h i z o p h r e n i c s  individuals  may  be  of d i v i d i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l  functions  into  a g e - i n s e n s i t i v e f u n c t i o n s , with the  (Botwinick,  retarded  1977,,1978).  leads to a regressed  A  seen i n the common s t r a t e g y  r e f l e c t i n g the expected p a t t e r n s  may  mentally  (Kirby et a l , 1978-1979; Sacuzzo, 1977).  t h i r d manifestation  and  and  The  age-sensitive former  of a g e - r e l a t e d  i m p l i c a t i o n that  decline aging  or p a t h o l o g i c a l l y d i s t u r b e d  not have been s u b s c r i b e d  state  to by a l l r e s e a r c h e r s ,  but  i t appeared o f t e n enough to i n d i c a t e a widespread w i l l i n g n e s s to c o n s i d e r  late l i f e  f u n c t i o n as  i n f e r i o r to f u n c t i o n at other p o i n t s  i n the  being  life  span.  A f i n a l consequence of using a b i o l o g i c a l metaphor when d i s c u s s i n g p r o g r e s s i v e leaves  no m o t i v a t i o n  adulthood.  change i s t h a t i t  f o r development during  Since b i o l o g i c a l development was  middle believed  cease a f t e r puberty, p s y c h o l o g i c a l development thought to stop -as w e l l .  to  was  (Actually, theorists usually  spoke of the c h i l d a c h i e v i n g  a mature l e v e l of  function  19  (Muhs, Hooper and P a p a l i a - F i n l a y , 1979-1980).)  Most  t h e o r i s t s then a t t r i b u t e d changes i n a d u l t f u n c t i o n t o the e f f e c t o f e x p e r i e n t i a l f a c t o r s and concluded  that  such performance v a r i a t i o n s c o u l d not l e g i t i m a t e l y be c a l l e d development  (Bower, 1979; F l a v e l l ,  1970).  Consequently, much o f adulthood was excluded from serious considerations  o f human development.  Conceptions o f P o s i t i v e Development i n Adulthood  Such negative mainstream r e s e a r c h  conclusions,  w h i l e t y p i f y i n g the  t r a d i t i o n , do not r e f l e c t the  findings of a l l studies of l a t e r l i f e body o f research  reported  even p r o g r e s s i v e  change, d u r i n g  particular,  instances  function.  A small  o f s t a b i l i t y , or  adulthood.  In  a number o f l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s  found that  s t a b i l i t y o r p o s i t i v e change c h a r a c t e r i z e d much of the life  span (Bayley  and Oden, 1955).  The d i f f e r e n c e  between these r e s u l t s and those obtained  in traditional  s t u d i e s was most s t r i k i n g when r e s e a r c h e r s intellectual  f u n c t i o n i n g and found  d i f f e r e n t performance p a t t e r n s 1973). little  The p r e s e n t a t i o n  examined  dramatically  (Bayley,  1955; Owens,  o f t h i s c o n f l i c t i n g data had  impact on the f i e l d .  Although the l o n g i t u d i n a l  20  method was r e g a r d e d change t h a n results in  o t h e r methods,  as anomalous.  which people  reflected  As I w i l l  of adult  regarded the  argue  later,  t h e manner  information  pessimistic  function. orientation  pages was most a p p a r e n t  the development o f such  as  learning,  In  other areas,  personality trend  developmental  the influence of non-empirical considerations  The preceding  reseachers  disregarded c o n f l i c t i n g  about the nature  with  as a p u r e r measure o f  interesting  solving,  and most n o t a b l y  towards v i e w i n g  i n studies  i n the concerned  basic psychological s k i l l s  memory, p r o b l e m  psychology,  outlined  and i n t e l l i g e n c e .  i n the f i e l d of  t h e r e was some i n d i c a t i o n  later  and p o t e n t i a l l y  life  as a t i m e o f  positive  change.  One example o f t h i s work i s s e e n writing  o f Buhler  phases,  o f human d e v e l o p m e n t ,  posited  t o occur  of a  (1968) who i d e n t i f i e d  i n the  five  stages, or  t h r e e o f w h i c h were  during adulthood.  She s u g g e s t e d  that  t h e m o t i v a t i o n f o r change was p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n n a t u r e and  concerned  life.  resolving  t h e c h a l l e n g e s posed by  She f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d  challenges •formulating through  with  i n the stages  of l i f e  s o l v a b l e problems  each phase.  Buhler's  that people by s e t t i n g  that serve phases  respond  to  g o a l s and  to guide  correspond  them. „  loosely  21  to  what she  life.  the b i o l o g i c a l theorists,  change as  a number o f  definition during  as  Unlike other  biological of  saw  each  championed  features that contributed to  the  stage  was  s e e n as b e i n g  need t o a t t a i n  the  sequential  theory,  groups  three  with  He  proposed  people  by  a  to  relationships, developing -  societal The  the  challenges  establishing of  the  Erikson-also-emphasized factors  His on  his  cultural  role  of  of Erikson's  t o grow.  theory  that  intimate  c o n t i n u i t y and  life  one  In  include developing social  with  structures in  stages  i s to continue  understanding  determining  expand  work and  representing indigenous  development.  these  1959)  multi-stage  c o n s t r u c t e d around p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a l l e n g e s  adulthood,  a  (1950,  o c c u r r i n g i n adulthood.  S t a t e s , emphasized  one  activity  ( p e r s o n a l i t y ) development  s e q u e n c e s and  must r e s o l v e i f one  as  see  mastery.  continued  b a s e d on h i s c l i n i c a l  i n the U n i t e d  personality  Erikson  self  life.  stages  w h i c h was  maturational  are  i d e a t h a t the  model o f ego  encounters  Buhler,  The  motivated  g r o w t h and  of  d i d not but  change t h r o u g h o u t  final  she  flows  a deterministic force,  Even more t h a n  the  however,  o f problems w i t h i n each s t a g e .  psychological  and  ebbs and  cycle.  the m u l t i p l e  i n p e r s o n a l i t y development.  In  22  early  life,  ego  maturational life,  development  schedule  Erikson  paid  closely parallels  suggested  little  by  Freud.  attention  f a c t o r s , p l a c i n g more emphasis  stimulates  patterns  saw  life  the s e l f  as a c o n t i n u a l and  reflecting  work o f Lehman  on how  change.  function during  to i d e n t i f y  important  t h e age  contributions.  fields  i n d i v i d u a l s made p r i m e  middle  a d u l t h o o d , whereas  peak i n m i d d l e  Erikson  issues  and  late  addresses  adulthood.  He  a t w h i c h t h e y made He  found  that  contributions  This  research  their  in early  interpreted  i n the c o n t e x t o f dominant views  their  f i n d i n g s were o f human  A l t h o u g h Lehman's s t u d y d e m o n s t r a t e d  that  many p e o p l e make c r e a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s  i n middle  and  to i n d i c a t e  adulthood,  creativity  declined In  minority  short,  i t was with  often  or  i s an  example o f how  later  and  i n some  i n others they reached  adulthood.  the  o f many a r t i s t s  interesting  function.  society  developmental  (1953) a l s o  the c r e a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s  scientists most  of  t h e needs o f b o t h .  o f improved  examined  later  p r o c e s s o f r e d e f i n i t i o n between  society, with specific  The issue  In  to the r o l e  biological  of intrapersonal  the  taken  age that  age.  despite  v i e w p o i n t emerged  the emphasis i n which l a t e r  on d e c l i n e , life  a  function  23  was  viewed  as  progressive  either being  change.  investigations, claims  about  relatively  given  the  nature of  adult  impact  the  attention  these reports unilaterally  on  field. long  suggested  that  view adulthood  designed  catalogue  the  The  a  Reports  by  Although  questionable  to  l e d to  positions.  ways t h a t  the  contradictions  serious  attempts  to  These e f f o r t s took the  critiques  of research  critiques  started  similar  forces  two  In  and  theory.  i n the  of  age  the  about  the  following  major c r i t i q u e s .  span  competing  form o f a s e r i e s Although  necessity pages I The  Theory  life  reconcile  at v e r y d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s ,  conclusions  decline.  most  investigations  C r i t i q u e o f D e v e l o p m e n t a l M e t h o d o l o g y and  d a t a base  points  of  in  mid-1960s, i s concerned w i t h the  the  had  people.  Eventually,  and  standing  a time of d e c l i n e ,  t o embark on  time defeat  long  d e v e l o p m e n t were  i t was as  of  longitudinal  i n other quarters.  continued  and  in  state  function,  researchers to  in a  data gathered  theorists,of life  little  or  although contradicting  small  personality  The  stable  these they  lead  for equating sketch  first,  of  the  to age  main  w h i c h emerged  methodological  24  difficulties  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a s s e s s i n g time-bound  c h a n g e s i n human a b i l i t i e s . the e a r l y  1970s, i s c o n c e r n e d  non-empirical, influenced  The  problems  c o n t r a d i c t o r y bodies publication  designs these  the  theory.  Methods  stemming  of data  from  the e x i s t e n c e  came t o a head w i t h  appropriateness  presented  by  of l o n g i t u d i n a l  developmental  studies.  (1968) and  critiques  Schaie and  The  first  cross-sectional  starting  extended point of  t h a t i t was  logically  developmental  change from  o b s e r v a t i o n s o f age  differences,  age  with  as  i n such  individual  possibilities in  the  and  differed  s t u d i e s one  change. concluded  invalid  cannot  They t h e n  to  For  designs by these  infer group  explored  that individuals  performance.  the  directly  i n o t h e r ways, some o f w h i c h  experimental  of  (1965) examined  T h i s work was  others.  The  was  observe  of  of conventional research  f o r s t u d y i n g human d e v e l o p m e n t .  critiques,  Baltes  t h a t have  i n t h e mid-1960s o f a number o f r e p o r t s  implications in  w h i c h began i n  identifying  beliefs  span r e s e a r c h and  of Research  The  second,  with  pre-theoretical  life  Critique  discussing  The  other  differing correlated  example, i n c r e a s e s  25  in  educational  that people  level  during  who d i f f e r  solely  differential education  experiences.  development, h i s t o r i c a l  effects  effects  as  life  would,  however, d o e s n o t p e r m i t assessed  and t h e those o f  critics  suggested  c o u l d o n l y be i n t e r p r e t e d  generational differences. critique  span d a t a .  aware o f p r o b l e m s data,  and t h e i n t e r a c t i o n  Because o f t h i s ,  cross-sectional results  This of  factors,  t o be i n d e p e n d e n t l y  demonstrating  point  measure t h e e f f e c t s o f  This design,  factors.  i t easy  The m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  o f development a r e confounded w i t h  historical that  The e f f e c t o f  i s masked b y t h e age v a r i a b l e , making  t h a t age g r o u p d e s i g n s  these  differ in  as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e g r o u p s '  educational  between t h e two.  means  age g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s  to m i s i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s . is  years  If a variable i s correlated  e d u c a t i o n a l achievement,  would o c c u r  fifty  i n age p r o b a b l y  e d u c a t i o n a l achievement. with  the past  upset  Although  a carefully researchers  arranged had long  body been  i n over-interpretingcross-sectional  most h a d assumed t h a t c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l s t u d i e s a t the worst,  development.  exaggerate the true course o f  Many r e s e a r c h e r s  cross-sectional  research  could  d e v e l o p m e n t a l change and t h a t  believed  that  identify  general  longitudinal  forms o f  research  26  should e x h i b i t Once t h a t argue  p o s i t i o n was  that  challenged  the  necessity  decline  are  (Schaie  Strdther,  and  systematically  clearly  that  sets,  test  buttressed  by  intervention eliminate,  empirical  skills,  and  group  cohort  and  factors  with  accounted  Baltes,  These  1973;  findings  were  minimal  markedly decrease,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c age  soon  including  styles  i n d i c a t i n g that could  effects  researchers  experience  response  (Fury  as  Researchers  factors,  Gonda, 1 9 7 6 ) .  procedures  group  or  differences  a l . , 1978-79). The  confounding  possible  some age  non-age-related  taking  reports  the  the  Subsequently,  a number o f  group d i f f e r e n c e s  (Hoyer e t  that  a t t r i b u t a b l e to  examined how  L a b o u v i e - V i e f and  designs.  re-evaluating  1968).  experimental procedures age  of  experimental performance.  demonstrated  for  to  demonstrated  p o s i t i o n became more a p p a r e n t  differences  response  i t became d i f f i c u l t  studies  began to demonstrate  influenced  patterns.  changes.  The  research  l e s s exaggerated  cross-sectional  age-related  base of  s i m i l a r but  second  factors  i s s u e was associated  R e s e a r c h e r s had  the  identification  with  longitudinal  maintained  that  it  was  t o measure d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h  this  design  of  even  27  since  i t followed  individuals  m a i n t a i n e d hope t h a t  over time.  longitudinal  Researchers  studies  could  a v a l i d means o f s t u d y i n g human d e v e l o p m e n t . position  was q u e s t i o n e d  criticism  i s that  historical, 1965).  longitudinal  as w e l l  That  on two p o i n t s . studies  as d e v e l o p m e n t a l ,  t h i s occurs within  historical  factors  Intra-individual of  either  measure effects  designs,  effects.  Consequently,  cohort  forces.  experiences  Riegel  less  to separate  studies  selective  these  a r e due t o  i s i t j u s t i f i a b l e to  t o o t h e r age c o h o r t s  developmental  as e a c h and may  outcomes.  l i n e o f c r i t i c i s m ( B o t w i n i c k , 1978; stressed  have a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d  particular,  influence  i t i s not j u s t i f i a b l e to i n f e r  Neither  e t a l , 1967) a l s o  studies  and  second  As  As i n c r o s s  different h i s t o r i c a l effects  demonstrate d i f f e r e n t  than  influences.  i n longitudinal  such r e s u l t s  The  serious.  interaction.  i t i s impossible  changes o b s e r v e d  generalize  rather  c h a n g e , t h e n , may r e f l e c t t h e  component o r t h e i r  developmental  (Schaie,  the e f f e c t s of  and d e v e l o p m e n t a l  sectional  that  first  individuals  experience  This  The  b e t w e e n g r o u p s makes t h e p r o b l e m no l e s s they age, i n d i v i d u a l s  provide  that  longitudinal  o f sampling b i a s .  attrition  f i t s u b j e c t s may r e s u l t  o f the less  In  motivated  i n a non-representative  28  sample by t h e end o f t h e s t u d y that  longitudinal  results  period.  those  who  particular,  h a v e b e e n on downward may have s t a y e d  justification  dropped out o f the study  may  relatively  remained  T h i s argument  was  to provide  for decline positions. summary,  the f i r s t  conclusions  developmental  about  inappropriately  gathered  flawed.  This  result  that  data  of this  critique  traditional  change were b a s e d on and,  consequently,  challenged  the consensus  opinion  t h e r e a r e normal a g e - r e l a t e d decrements i n  function.  The s e c o n d  result  that  i s no e a s y  way  there  age-related  changes.  was  a growing  to comparatively  In l i g h t  o f these  interpretation  of existing  difficult  proponents o f d i f f e r e n t  techniques being  who  and r e s e a r c h e r s  realization  that  those  stable.  was a d i s q u i e t i n g  logically  o f development In  trends while  who  as  remained.  sometimes u s e d by t h e o r i s t s  In  patterns  d r o p p e d o u t and t h o s e  s u b j e c t s who  argued  may be o v e r l y o p t i m i s t i c  t h e r e may h a v e b e e n d i f f e r e n t i a l for  Critics  with  often placed  able to c r i t i c i z e  acknowledging  the flaws  d a t a became  awareness evaluate  problems, the increasingly methodological  i n the uncomfortable other  techniques  in their  own  position of  without  designs.  29  The  C r i t i q u e o f Developmental  The clearly  methodological  demonstrated  development based longitudinal suspect,  designs  inferences  researchers  were a b l e  there  Donaldson,  o u t l i n e d above  about  human  s e c t i o n a l and  were l o g i c a l l y  and t h e r e was no c o m p e l l i n g losses  the  critiques  on b o t h c r o s s  age-related  that  that  Theory  i n capacity.  and e m p i r i c a l l y reason  Although  to s t r o n g l y defend  for positing  some the p o s i t i o n  i s a decline i n certain a b i l i t i e s 1 9 7 6 ) , e v e n t h e most s t r i d e n t  r e g r e s s i o n p o s i t i o n o f aging  that widespread, normative  defenders o f  moderated  losses occur  (Horn and  the claim  during  adulthood. Since  critics  so e a s i l y  challenged the  decline position, i t i s interesting these for  i s s u e s were n o t c l a r i f i e d  i n s t a n c e , was n o t t h e f i r s t  sectional pointed and  strategies.  out shortcomings  suggested  that  prolonged  people b e l i e v e d  Schaie  to c r i t i c i z e  (1965),  cross  t h e 1 9 3 0 s , t h e o r i s t s have  i n standard  A reasonable  r e s i s t a n c e t o these i n cross  earlier.  why  research practices,  d e c l i n e was n o t an i n e v i t a b l e  consequence o f aging.  obtained  Since  to speculate  explanation  arguments  i s that  s e c t i o n a l s t u d i e s demonstrated  f o r the results what  - t h a t p e o p l e d e c l i n e as t h e y a g e .  30  Commentators on t h i s traditional  models  of humanity  that  possibility  of later  following  i s s u e have  o f development  a r e opposed life  to this  The  C r i t i q u e of Theories  most  a r e b a s e d upon v i e w s  or i n d i f f e r e n t to the  progresive  s e c t i o n I summarize  led  In  concluded that  change.  In the  t h e arguments  which  conclusion.  t h e e a r l y 1970s,  o f Human  Development  t h e o r i s t s began  t o examine  the  assumptions u n d e r l y i n g  developmental theories  Overton, 1970).  c r i t i q u e s were e x t e n s i o n s  Their  philosophy  of science  endeavours  are i n f l u e n c e d  realilty  p o s i t i o n that  (Pepper, 1942).  are  thought to r e f l e c t  the  basic  called  structure  paradigms  or world hypotheses described  (Reese  and  of the  views  endeavours  beliefs  are  of  about  sometimes  (Kuhn,  1970).  as m e t a p h o r s  or  the world i n f a m i l i a r terms.  attempts to understand the world are thought  to d e t e r m i n i s t i c a l l y r e f l e c t attempts  defined  o f the world that  which e x p l a i n  Scientific  by p r e - s c i e n t i f i c  the w e l l  root  scientific  That i s , s c i e n t i f i c  These world views are best analogies  have  the metaphor.  a r e s u c c e s s f u l , t h e metaphor  increasingly  greater  influence  will  I f such exert  on s c i e n t i f i c  activity.  31  Pepper hypotheses  the mechanistic  influenced  developmental  c o n t e x t u a l view, field  i s beginning  conceptions  and m e c h a n i s t i c  child-centric effectively  hypotheses  have l e d t o The  m o d e l s , however, have l e d t o o f development as a t i m e  model  that of important  i s based  on t h e metaphor  action  together  pieces  These e n t i t i e s a r e of specific  sequences.  t o be composed  i n complex ways.  w i t h i n the mechanistic world  identifying  external  The u n i v e r s e , of individual Describing  involves  the p a r t s , d e s c r i b i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s  between them and f i n d i n g set  The models  complex e n t i t i e s .  a machine, i s seen  entities  clearly  t o e x e r t some i n f l u e n c e i n  as a m a c h i n e where e l e m e n t a r y  f o r c e s which motivate  joined  Two  The t h i r d , t h e  i n t o motion by t h e a p p l i c a t i o n  parts  have  o f human d e v e l o p m e n t .  adulthood  mechanistic  combine t o form  like  thought.  change.  The the world  conceptions  exclude  developmental  set  theory.  t o t h e above w o r l d  different  organismic  of  world  and o r g a n i s m i c ,  o f a d u l t development.  corresponding very  three  which have i n f l u e n c e d western  of these,  the  (1970) i d e n t i f i e d  the e n t i t i e s  into  the sources  operation.  of motivation  that  32  Development w i t h i n thought  t o be  akin  to  the  w i t h component a b i l i t i e s complex e n t i t i e s .  the  process  j o i n i n g together  operation  of  w i t h peak p e r f o r m a n c e o c c u r r i n g reduces e f f i c i e n c y .  use,  parts  and  the  At  breakdown o f  and  an  entity pattern  wear and  the  machine, tear  development o c c u r s e f f e c t s of  i t s c a p a b i l i t y to t h i s leads  intrinsic consists  containing  level  of  structured  Understanding  operate  to a  complete  activity.  universe  inherent The  to  the  the  structure  co-existing  must  and  determining and  activity. The  o r g a n i s m i c model has  theories  inspired  o f human d e v e l o p m e n t ,  a  the  then,  i d e n t i f y i n g component p a r t s  in  structured  d e f i n i t i o n of  organism,  as  organized  r u l e s which govern i t s i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e  influential  as  prolonged  i n t e r a c t i o n s , w i t h the  organism.  both  b o t h an  o f a number o f p a r t s  contributing  the  until  o r g a n i s m i c model v i e w s t h e  activities  involve  assembled  life  some p o i n t  organism,  of  i s s i m i l a r to  more  function.  The living  to y i e l d  the  b r e a k down from t h e e n t i t y loses  efficiently.  a  Later  is  of b u i l d i n g a machine,  M i d l i f e function  maximally e f f i c i e n t  various  m e c h a n i s t i c model  several including  33  Piaget's  theory  theories,  of c o g n i t i v e  psychological  activity  progressively unfolding in  o f mature f u n c t i o n .  dictated  by  the  during  later  such organismic  however,  is often  life  the  leading  contextual being  this  their  with  third  or  the  model, the  dynamic and other  final  examining the entity.  This  practice  individual  course  some  is  of  specified  systematic  function.  models, construes change o r  entities  are  on  the  world  ceaseless  as flux.  i n terms  changing i n t e r a c t i o n s Studying  framework that  identity  marks a r a d i c a l  involves  serve as  a  to  define  function  departure  e n t i t y i n terms o f  characteristics.  by  described  world.  influences  emphasis  o f d e f i n i n g an  a  form i s  clearly  mode o f  a contextual  ongoing dialogue  The  that  continuously  multiple  to  results in deterioration  elements o f the  phenomenon w i t h i n  which lead  world view, e x e m p l i f i e d  dialectic  occurs  s t r u c t u r e , there  i s not  i n a state of continuous  Within  an  this  This  a  I m p l i c i t i n such views,  to a l e s s e f f f i c i e n t The  any  stages  assumption  breakdown i n o r g a n i z a t i o n  of  or  internal  models.  to r e f l e c t  organization.  Since  organism's  such  i s thought  p o t e n t i a l f o r f u r t h e r development.  development in  inner  a s e r i e s of d i s c r e t e steps  level  no  f u n c t i o n . In  from  of  the  its static  34  The active  superficially  the a c t i v e the  activity  development. simple  structure.  outcomes i n a c c o r d a n c e  based  with  the organism the past  and t o w a r d a v a r i e t y o f  the unique  ten years  movement t o f o r m u l a t e  T h i s has taken  Instead i t  set of  experiences.  t h e form  e s t a b l i s h multi-determined,  t h e r e h a s b e e n an  a life  span  o f continuous  o f attempts  multi-endpoint  psychology  to conceptions  development which emphasize t h e d e t e r m i n i n g  biological, factors. occur and  pathway.  on t h e c o n t e x t u a l model's p r i n c i p l e  change.  of  and s t r u c t u r e a r e n o t a  o r g a n i z a t i o n , development i s  i n varying directions  increasing  a function of  f o r the c o n t e x t u a l n o t i o n o f  Because a c t i v i t y  During  f e a t u r e o f the  r a t h e r than  constrained to follow a single  interactions  environmental,  These attempts  throughout  of  T h i s p o i n t o f d i f f e r e n c e has  function of internal  may f l o w  concept  However, i n t h e c o n t e x t u a l m o d e l ,  between e l e m e n t s ,  consequences  as i n h e r e n t l y  the organismic  i s a b a s i c and i n h e r e n t  some i n t e r n a l dramatic  resembles  organism.  relationship  not  c o n s t r u a l o f the organism  the l i f e  roles of  i n t e r p e r s o n a l and h i s t o r i c a l  suggest  t h a t development  s p a n , and t h a t b o t h  p a t t e r n o f development w i l l  vary  among  may  t h e form  individuals.  35  In  the f o l l o w i n g pages,  embody c o n t e x t u a l development.  provide point  because  of l a t e r  The dialectical  predicated  discussion  life  recognized  as  valuable  function.  a l t e r n a t i v e approach  i s the  (1973,  to t r a n s l a t e the of  1975,  dialectical  development  the environment, w i t h b i o l o g i c a l , and h i s t o r i c a l  seen i n h i s c r i t i c i s m (equilibrium)  development. tantamount  this  any  on a s e r i e s o f c h a n g i n g i n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n  p e r s o n and  stability  i s to  I have i n c l u d e d  forces  providing  f l u c t u a t i n g d e v e l o p m e n t a l pathway.  best  life  at  are o f t e n  attempted  as  a c c o u n t s f o r changes  o f change i n t o a t h e o r y  intrapersonal a  first  to  o f human  identified  psychology of Klaus Riegel  Riegel  principle  the  span.  those theories  attempts  s e l f - d e s c r i b e d purpose  an a p p r o a c h t h a t  descriptions  1976).  e f f o r t s are o f t e n  as t h e i r  i n the l i f e  several  principles i n theories  These  span t h e o r i e s ,  I summarize  of Piaget  view,  t o d e a t h as o n l y  ideas  on are  for positing goal  equilibrium  by d y i n g  impetus  Riegel's  as t h e u l t i m a t e  In R i e g e l ' s  social,  could  of was  an  "escape" the sequence  of d i a l e c t i c  defined  an a l t e r n a t i v e , R i e g e l  suggested  f u n c t i o n was  the use  that  its life.  As  mature c o g n i t i v e  activities  organism  marked by  that  of  36  dialectic  logic,  which  kept  the person  i n a state  of  disequilibrium. Riegel continuous  change.  transactions cultural, along  c o n s t r u e d a d u l t h o o d as a t i m e I n a d u l t h o o d , as  between t h e b i o l o g i c a l ,  and h i s t o r i c a l  years.  his  i t was  writings  adulthood rather  that  i n terms  flexibility Riegel  people  that  His p o s i t i o n  i n human  emphasized  features  that  multi-directionality  variability  p o s i t i o n was  development  a r e 1)  insists  believed  on  or  rigidly  provided a preliminary  model  e x p l i c i t l y recognized  o f development,  multiple  extensive i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l  k Willis, that  i s , he  and  performance.  o f f u n c t i o n and (Baltes  older  s p e c i a l competencies  i f one  and W i l l i s  development  trajectories  That  be marked by  or narrowly d e f i n i n g a d u l t  of adult  function  throughout  of i t s special defining  are obscured  Baltes  person  e s s e n t i a l to t r y to understand  ( R i e g e l , 1977).  a d u l t h o o d may  features  Their  the  than through a p r o c e s s o f comparing  younger  years,  intrapersonal,  spheres p r o p e l l e d  for considerable  through the a d u l t  that  in earlier  a f l u c t u a t i n g p a t h o f development.  allowed  of  1977;  the b a s i c  biological  Baltes  e t a l , 1980).  determinants  e v e n t s , 2)  of  environmental  37  events, events  and  3)  c r e a t e d by  suggested  course  interaction  of developmental first  differential span.  maturation  (entering  school at age.6).  events,  such  postulated  are  as  factors)  the  fewer  and  determinants  normative  the changes. and  those  economic  environmental  events  were  apparently orderly  i n cross  sectional  and  events  age  studies. played  a  produced  variability.  forces account  most  environmental  that non-normative  interindividual  in  events  change and  i n adulthood  the  environmental  age-related  normative  cause of the  observed  role  these hypothesized  nature  or normative  normative  largely  suggested  substantial  each  biological  This results  Such normative  t o be  more i m p o r t a n t  normative  technological  differences  They a l s o  either  there are  fluctuations.  group  are  of orderly,  occur  the  of  that during childhood  (physical  do  They  i n f l u e n c e s at v a r i o u s points i n  events  In adulthood  2.  contribution  p o s t u l a t e d that the  important  which  o f 1 and  are  change.  They proposed  appearance  the  events, which  could l e a d to knowledge of  They  life  the  that understanding  determinant  exert  bio-environmental  f o r the  Taken  together,  orderliness  of  38  childhood, diversity  the  appearance of cohort  o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l pathways Labouvie-Vief  produce a s i m i l a r psychology  by  contextually with  the  adults  (1977) t h e y ideas  argued  such " i d e a l "  c o u l d be  evaluated  They d e v e l o p m e n t was to  childhood  to  s o l u t i o n was  complicated  by  psychology types  t o a new  various  that  position  older often  Riegel  in early  standards. the  study  of  adult  propensities models when  regularities  of adulthood.  of  Their  developmental could  accept  r e m a i n open t o t h e  d e v e l o p m e n t a l outcomes.  life  behaviours  mechanistic  that  in  development.  on  theorists'  the  adult  appropriate  form o f  only  the base of  o f phenomenon and  more  Following  those  and  f o r both  the v a r i a b i l i t y to s h i f t  to view  inherent biases  focus  against  and  They b e g a n  f u n c t i o n occurs  f u r t h e r suggested  to account and  are ideal  s w i t c h between o r g a n i s m i c  attempting  of  that there  have l e d r e s e a r c h e r s  that  competence.  to  of  because r e s e a r c h e r s  o f what c o n s t i t u t e s an  Assuming t h a t may  the u s e f u l n e s s  i n terms o f s t a n d a r d s  assessing childhood  life.  between c h i l d  t h a t the p r o p e n s i t y occurs  the  (1978) s o u g h t  b a s e d models o f d e v e l o p m e n t .  deficient  and  in later  Chandler  reconciliation  suggestion  as  and  demonstrating  judge adulthood for  effects  both  possibility  They endorsed  the  39  contextual for  viewpoint  a multiplicity  outcomes, w h i l e types  as  an  of developmental  p r o v i d i n g an  o f change d u r i n g  a more f l e x i b l e study  and  contextual  of adulthood  by  u n i q u e a d u l t phenomena. certain  inherent  models, a f t e r weighing problematic suggested  situation  that  restrictive adopting  i n the  gains  formulations assumptions  the  The  the  they  do  the  they  less  that  of  This  conventional  untested  results  of  critique  so many r e s e a r c h e r s contradicted  inevitability  critiques  the  inconvenience  suggest  acceptance of the  metatheoretical  such  views.  findings that  regarding  up  for  span l i t e r a t u r e a  that  out  against  associated with  e a s i e r t o u n d e r s t a n d why  decline.  life  n e u t r a l experiments.  u n p e r t u r b e d by  t o open  a search  o f human d e v e l o p m e n t r e f l e c t  theoretically  beliefs  serve  did point  concerns  critiques  as much as  various  i n working with  approach j u s t i f i e d  preceding  for  and  f u r t h e r argued  legitimizing  those  account  periods.  model w o u l d  While they  such c o n t e x t u a l  The  it  the  life  Chandler  difficulties  could  trajectories  explanation  different  Labouvie-Vief  the  approach that  marked  of  seemed  prevailing  age-related  l e g i t i m a c y of the  makes  end  of  these  the  40  unchallenged  domination  of the f i e l d  by d e c l i n e  oriented  positions. This  challenge  to t r a d i t i o n a l  was a c c o m p a n i e d b y an i n c r e a s e d new a p p r o a c h e s  t o the study  willingness  fill of  traditional  span  vacuum stemming  theories  that  researchers  time  i t served  interested  human d e v e l o p m e n t .  The  from t h e c r i t i q u e s Although the l i f e  t h e 1960s and 1970s,  as a r a l l y i n g  point f o r  i n f i n d i n g new ways o f  studying  One o f t h e c e n t r a l f e a t u r e s  of the  span movement was i t s f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h  contextual the  consider  psychology  and methods.  span p s y c h o l o g y movement a n t e d a t e s  new l i f e  to  i s perhaps the c l e a r e s t s i g n o f attempts to  the conceptual  during  models  o f human d e v e l o p m e n t .  emergence o f a s e l f - d e f i n e d l i f e movement  decline  models.  contextual  Over a v e r y  v i e w emerged  become r e c o g n i z e d conceptualizing  short  period  from r e l a t i v e  o f time,  obscurity to  as a p r e - e m i n e n t way o f  human d e v e l o p m e n t  (Hultsch  & Deutsch,  1981). The reflects the  acclaim  given  the perceived  need  study o f adulthood.  models b e t t e r  suit  contextual  viewpoints  for a flexible  The c l a i m  that  approach t o  contextual  t h e needs o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l  researchers  than to t r a d i t i o n a l  premature.  As P e p p e r  models i s p r o b a b l y  (1970) s t a t e d ,  the t e s t o f a  41  world  view i s i t s a b i l i t y  compelling  explanations.  contextual  model has  it  has  been  existing it  can  information,  reliably  topics. should on  The not  this  serve  t o be  be  interesting  respect,  fully  i t has  not  yet  to generate  judged u n t i l  there  demonstrated  that  research  model,  is further  then,  information  elaborated  contextual  i n a program  research.  contextual  research  variety  issues, including instances  of  change.  As  I noted  the  p o s i t i v e maxim t h a t  and  t i m e " , we  questions  could  S u c h an  approach  of  and  contextual  i f we  about p o s i t i v e l a t e r  o f a more b a l a n c e d  could  life  of  explicitly the  a  o r i e n t to  forces of  age  interesting  function.  psychology of  Embodying  serve  multi-pathway  such  as  the  adulthood.  to the v a l i d a t i o n  approach which u n d e r l i e s  of  a  progressive  agendas c o u l d  i s consistent with contribute  only  of  comprised  to generate  orientation i n research  beginning  be  "People defeat  begin  are  s u g g e s t , however, t h a t  agenda s h o u l d  earlier,  which  theories, provide  included They do  earlier,  continuing  models.  critiquing  interesting  approaches d e s c r i b e d  a t what m i g h t be  life  Although  issue.  the b e s t  that  for  contextual  and  the  tested.  a u s e f u l guide  adequacy o f the  The  hints  In t h i s  yet  shown t o be  to generate  of  models the  multi-option  42  It areas  is consistent  i n which adults  example, S c h a i e analysis  of  increased  are  with this  ability  development, c e n t e r i n g of middle-aged complex  adults  handle  their  when f a c i n g p r o b l e m s .  p e o p l e use  qualitatively  strategies  (Boswell,  in  some s t u d i e s  that  the  often  within  I attempted  a robust  embodied  adults  to  words  s o u g h t new  important  reading  'wise' and  particularly  solving  o f wisdom e m p h a s i z e d  suggested  competencies a t t r i b u t e d to  found  is  My  that  adults  some  them. I found  o f t e n used  that  that  search,  sources,  are  of  p o s i t i v e change  ways o f d e s c r i b i n g  a d u l t s , but  the  visible  r a t i o n a l than that  framework.  of various  I further  older  In k e e p i n g w i t h  'wisdom' a r e  competent  younger people.  that  also  i n d e c i s i o n tasks  conceptualize  investigatory  the  I n my  T h e r e has  s i m i l a r theme i s  ( H o l l i d a y , 1978).  p e o p l e have d i f f e r e n t i a l l y  the  A  coordinate  o f d e c i s i o n making w h i c h have  however, e x p l i c i t l y that  1979).  the accept  suggesting  more d e l i b e r a t e , c a r e f u l and  literature,  to  d i f f e r e n t problem  behaviour of older  younger people  on  s i t u a t i o n s and  b e e n some e x p e r i m e n t a l e v i d e n c e  For  a theoretical  responsibility, abilities  seek  e s p e c i a l l y competent.  (1977-1978) p r o v i d e d  adult  approach to  that  to r e f e r  to  seldom a p p l i e d  to  some  j u d g e m e n t a l and  discussions  competency  43  features  that  of  behaviour.  adult  are o c c a s i o n a l l y mentioned  historically,  Wisdom, as  i t has  in discussions  been  used  seems t o i n c o r p o r a t e p a t t e r n s o f  behaviour  that  adulthood  b u t w h i c h have r e c e i v e d l i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n  in  the  life  t h e n , may  with  some c o n c e p t i o n s  span r e s e a r c h t r a d i t i o n .  be  examination  are c o n s i s t e n t  competent  Studying  of  wisdom,  a launching point for a systematic of g e n e r a l i z e d patterns of adult  specific  competency.  The  Wisdom  A trace  Tradition  first  i t s meaning  analysis  may  both  step  i n understanding  i n our clarify  wisdom i n W e s t e r n t h o u g h t psychologically following  based  reviews  culture. different and  conceptions  t h e o r y o f wisdom.  I present  archival  provide a context  conceptions  have a p p e a r e d  i n several bodies  reviews  the development  trace  This  wisdom i s t o  In  for a  the  o f wisdom  of l i t e r a t u r e .  of pragmatic  that  These  and  intellectual  conceptions  relate  i d e a s to our knowledge o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l  these  functioning.  o f wisdom and,  of  when  possible,  44  Definitional  The  Meanings  Oxford  aspects  of wisdom  rightly  i n matters  2)  knowledge,  relation  or  and  proper  false,  of  and  that  1  the word  'wise'  There are ancient (both  low  and  across  2)  c e n t u r i e s and  of  and  to  in  discernment  of  i n the  the word  to  Old  see  'wise' Old  Saxon.  remained  languages.  reports  of:  stemmming  old English, and  etymology  etymology  prudent,  seemingly  over  i s true  been used  meanings  'wede' m e a n i n g  Old Norse  meaning o f the word has  as  situations  reflected  the primary  including  high),  wise  i s defined  and  has  e q u i v a l e n t forms  in  i d e a t h a t wisdom i n v o l v e s  l e a r n e d ; and  languages,  3)  Wisdom has  dictionary  Indo-European word  judge  especially  c o n c e r n i n g what  The  the  to  three  conduct;  discrimination  i s also  knowing  or  and  in turn,  of persons  The  1)  recognizes  ability  s c i e n c e ; and  improper.  w i t h unusual  'wise .  the life  judging soundly  understanding  the word  to  Wise,  d e a l i n g w i t h them.  special  1)  or e r u d i t i o n ,  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  combination in  relating  sayings.  and  dictionary  including:  learning  discerning  Wisdom  English  to philosophy or  discourse  denote  of  or  to  from know.  i n most German The  constant  Today,  i t is  still  45  used i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the ancient meanings of seeing  and  knowing. The  f a c e t s of wisdom i d e n t i f i e d  i n the Oxford  D i c t i o n a r y correspond w i t h s e v e r a l bodies of The  second d e f i n i t i o n ,  f o c u s i n g on l e a r n i n g  literature. and  e r u d i t i o n , r e f l e c t s the manner i n which wisdom has been used i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . definition, references and  f o c u s i n g on wise sayings  and  The  often  third  discourse,  a small body of ancient wisdom w r i t i n g s  the i n f o r m a l  f o l k t r a d i t i o n s of most c u l t u r e s .  The  primary d e f i n i t i o n , with i t s emphasis on human f u n c t i o n , references  a small number of p s y c h o l o g i c a l  Each of those t r a d i t i o n s contains help  analyses.  information  to c l a r i f y the nature of wisdom.  that  can  It i s useful,  then, to examine each t r a d i t i o n , i d e n t i f y dominant themes and and  attempt to gain some i n s i g h t i n t o the  nature  f u n c t i o n of wise people.  The  S e c u l a r Wisdom T r a d i t i o n  Since  the e a r l i e s t  been used to r e f e r e n c e t h i s has  times, wisdom seems to have  mastery of l i f e .  taken the form of a body of  containing  Occasionally,  literature  a c u l t u r e ' s p r e s c r i p t i o n s f o r conducting  46  (Wood, 1967).  life  civilizations and  short  living,  no  that epitomize  about  their  doubt, rooted  living  lives,  principles  society.  i n an  simply  T h e s e wisdom w r i t i n g s  information the  tradition  that  mysteries  surviving.  The  aided of  stories  which  constructed The  principles  to simultaneously  wisdom t r a d i t i o n ,  pragmatic,  transferring  rules of  living  later  as  entrusted  to  man's e x i s t e n c e . example, t h e  basis  f o r the  oral  s c r i b e s , the  to concerns with  for  this  instruct.  between g e n e r a t i o n s .  tradition emphasis  was  to  the  of r e l i g i o u s  In  of  Hebrews,  have s e r v e d and  and  shifted  nature  G r e e k s and  may  and  w r i t t e n down  seems t o have  case of the  wisdom t r a d i t i o n  development  are  aimed a t d i s t i l l i n g  a b s t r a c t problems about In the  through  e a r l y forms, appears  h a v e b e e n mundane and  times,  them  their  been  e n t e r t a i n and  i n these  in  prevailing has  general  correct  contain  means f o r t r a n s m i t t i n g s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n illustrating  East proverbs  of  even o l d e r o r a l  w e l l , understanding  or perhaps  near  parables,  embody m o r a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t s and  which i n d i v i d u a l s exchanged in  ancient  seem t o have c o l l e c t e d  stories  information are,  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  as  the  philosophical  perspectives. The  o l d e s t known W e s t e r n wisdom  came f r o m E g y p t  literature  i n w r i t i n g s which date b e f o r e  2500  B.C.  47  These in  writings  both  extend over s e v e r a l  f o r m and  emphasis.  dynasties,  Several  of the  and  surviving  documents a r e b o o k s o f i n s t r u c t i o n  emphasizing  deportment,  duties.  in  morality  t h e f o r m o f songs  decrying the  the e v i l  latter  and  religious  or s t o r i e s  w r i t i n g s was  life  (Bryce,  the d i f f i c u l t y  group  i n maintaining  groups,  from the Sumerian  including  p e o p l e s , had  and  illustrate existing  other ancient  e x t e n s i v e wisdom l i t e r a t u r e s , today.  a l s o used p a r a b l e s , principles  fragments  suggests that  The  paradoxes  often  fables  literature  unjust  one  suffering  and  segments a r e more p r a c t i c a l  such v i r t u e s  and  as p a t i e n c e ,  mid-Eastern Phonecian although and  anecdotes  the  o f good p e o p l e . to help  injustices  of  i n n a t u r e and  cheerfulness  to  Many  deal with  o f i t s p u r p o s e s was  face the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s  cultures.  Sumerians  for conducting l i f e .  of that  dilemma o f d e a t h and  Other  Babylonian  t h e C a a n a n i t e , Edoman and  o r none s u r v i v e s  Babylonians  people  and  o f wisdom w r i t i n g s ,  S c h o l a r s have s u g g e s t e d t h a t  This  and  t h e M e s o p o t a m i a n wisdom l i t e r a t u r e , c o n t a i n s  fragments  little  t h e good  1979).  A second called  are  A common theme i n  f a i t h when c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e i n j u s t i c e s of  Others  describing  aspects of l i f e .  vary  and  life. extol  restraint,  48  while emphasizing  such q u a l i t i e s as  h o s p i t a l i t y and graciousness  friendship,  (Wood, 1967).  Perhaps the b e s t documented of the a n c i e n t wisdom l i t e r a t u r e s i s the body of J u d e a i c wisdom writings. actively  T h i s t r a d i t i o n i s the o n l y one which has carried  have evolved  i n t o the p r e s e n t .  been  I t a l s o seems to  from a c o l l e c t i o n of sayings f o c u s i n g on  the proper manner of conducting  life.  of the B i b l e ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  are thought  The Job  o l d e s t books  and  to be a l i n k to t h i s a n c i e n t  t r a d i t i o n , as are the books of the Wisdom of Ben S i d r a and Solomon. expressed  W i t h i n these books the unknown authors  t h e i r thoughts  p a r a b l e s and  on the nature of l i f e  short s t o r i e s  using  to i l l u s t r a t e t h e i r p o i n t s  (Crenshaw, 1976). Today, with the e x c e p t i o n of the J u d e a i c t r a d i t i o n , wisdom l i t e r a t u r e e x i s t s  i n the West o n l y i n  the w r i t i n g s of a few d e d i c a t e d s c h o l a r s .  T h i s does not  imply, however, t h a t the wisdom t r a d i t i o n i s no longer a p a r t of modern l i f e .  Modern c u l t u r e s a l s o maintain a  k i n d of "cracker b a r r e l " wisdom t h a t takes the form o f proverbs,  f o l k t a l e s and myths.  (1981) noted  Meider and Dundes  t h a t not only i s f o l k l o r e apparent  c u l t u r e s , but t h a t s i m i l a r  items o f t e n appear i n  in a l l  49  different cultures.  This i n f o r m a l f o l k t r a d i t i o n  o f t e n been s t u d i e d d e s c r i p t i v e l y , but has ever, been examined by r e s e a r c h e r s r e l a t i o n s h i p between f o l k l o r e and  has  seldom, i f  i n t e r e s t e d i n the psychological  function. The  e a r t h i n e s s of modern f o l k wisdom i s  s i m i l a r to t h a t of the more a n c i e n t wisdom t r a d i t i o n . Folk wisdom contains  information  about human  e f f e c t i v e modes of behaviour, proper ways of problems and  The  o f being  i s concerned l a r g e l y with  wise person, by extension,  well in l i f e ,  not  i s one  Wisdom, social who  j u s t i n a m a t e r i a l sense, but  does i n terms  able to embody p r i n c i p l e s of c o r r e c t  deportment.  Goodwin and Wentzel (1981) present  argument t h a t proverbs, serve  construing  strategies for effective l i v i n g .  in this tradition, life.  nature,  such s o c i a l and  a pervasive  an  form of f o l k wisdom,  psychological functions  as  p r o v i d i n g r u l e s f o r s o c i a l exchange, s e t t i n g p a t t e r n s for  arguments, d e f i n i n g ambiguous s i t u a t i o n s ,  moderating human impulses and  a c t i n g as a simple  of communicating complex i d e a s . t h a t proverbs p r o v i d e s o c i a l discourse scientific  They a l s o suggested  the k i n d of s y s t e m a t i z a t i o n  t h a t formal*- l o g i c  arguments.  means  provides--for  for  50  In suggests nature,  summary, t h e  that and  special  and  and  behaviour.  of  this  f i r m l y embedded  in  tales.  Philosophical Tradition  Wisdom has  l o n g been a c o n c e r n  philosophical  tradition.  dominated  philosophical literature  from the  the  ancient  philosophers  The  secular  remained  theories  traditions.  interested  more c o n c e r n e d w i t h  into  structure  the  formal  instances secular  where p h i l o s o p h e r s  manifestations  p e o p l e was coherent  investigatory shift  wisdom t r a d i t i o n movement  may,  from an  records.  As  the  o f wisdom often  their  that  departed  Although conduct,  achieving  world.  retained  Even  an  o f wisdom, t h e i r  secondary to  The  written  of  i n Western  in virtuous  t h e y were o f t e n  the  in  exemplary  Descriptions  competency a r e  folk  literature  interpersonal  wise people e x h i b i t  and  type of  proverbs  The  wisdom i s s o c i a l  that  understanding  s e c u l a r wisdom  insights in  interest in i n t e r e s t i n wise  concern with  developing  systems.  from a p r a g m a t i c at  l e a s t i n p a r t , h a v e b e e n due  oral culture this  to a t h e o r e t i c a l  t o one  occurred,  there  to  employing may  have b e e n  51  an i n c r e a s e d o p p o r t u n i t y  to study wisdom w r i t i n g s  independently of t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n  in social  exchange.  Perhaps as attempts to e x p l i c a t e the meaning of  the  w r i t t e n t e x t s became more complex, they served  as  b a s i s f o r the emergence of the  of  formal  theories  the  wisdom.  The  Greek Conception of Wisdom  The  term 'wisdom* f i r s t  appears i n the  w r i t i n g s of the p r e - S o c r a t i c p h i l o s o p h e r s  who  were  concerned w i t h wisdom as a form of c o r r e c t l i v i n g & Raven, 1960). man's l i f e was context  H e r a c l i t u s , f o r example, b e l i e v e d i n t i m a t e l y bound up w i t h the  o f h i s world, and  should  Since people  understanding how  l i v e i s an e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e of wisdom.  then, was but  the  their  i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s c o n s t i t u t e d wisdom. a c e n t r a l p a r t of t h a t context,  seen as a k i n d of t r a n s c e n d e n t a l  a type of knowledge t h a t had  person's d a i l y The  that  total  t h a t understanding  elements of t h a t arrangement and  (Kirk  to be  are  one  Wisdom,  knowledge,  expressed i n the  life. pre-Socratics  maintained t h a t people- could  never achieve the complete s t a t e of understanding  that  52  would c o n s t i t u t e wisdom as they r e s e r v e d t h i s f o r the Gods.  But d e s p i t e the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of a t t a i n i n g  complete knowledge, the p r e - S o c r a t i c s f i r m l y t h a t i t was both necessary  maintained  and b e n e f i c i a l t o pursue  wisdom as i t a s s i s t e d i n developing a more complete understanding  and a b e t t e r way of l i f e .  The C l a s s i c a l Greek P h i l o s o p h e r s  During the Greek r e n a i s s a n c e Socrates t r e a t e d wisdom as an e n l i g h t e n e d , m o r a l l y based  understanding  t h a t was n e c e s s a r i l y embodied i n c o r r e c t l i v i n g . Wisdom, f o r Socrates, l a y not i n s t u d y i n g and a c q u i r i n g knowledge o f the world,  but i n the attempt t o make one's  l i f e as moral as p o s s i b l e . an incomplete  T h i s c o u l d be a t t a i n e d , i n  s t a t e , by s t r i v i n g f o r a comprehensive  self-knowledge.  Although  Socrates b e l i e v e d t h a t i t was  presumptuous to c l a i m t h a t one was wise, he f e l t t h a t a l l people  should s t r i v e f o r and love wisdom.  The wise  man, f o r S o c r a t e s , u n i t e d the q u a l i t i e s of v i r t u e and knowledge i n the p r a c t i c e o f a moral and self-examined life. F o l l o w i n g Socrates, P l a t o made wisdom the. "crowning jewel" i n h i s system o f e t h i c s .  For P l a t o ,  wisdom, which c a r r i e d a meaning s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f r a t i o n a l i t y , was the governing practice.  force of e t h i c a l  He sought t o u n i t e r a t i o n a l and e t h i c a l  p r a c t i c e s under the auspices o f wisdom by showing t h a t t h a t r a t i o n a l thought would l e a d t o c o r r e c t a c t i o n . Although of  P l a t o sought t o m a i n t a i n the e t h i c a l  foundation  wisdom, h i s work, which was weighted h e a v i l y i n  favour o f the c o g n i t i v e f e a t u r e s of wisdom,  contained  the seeds f o r the d i s s e c t i o n s o f wisdom i n t o mundane and intellectual  aspects.  A r i s t o t l e i n t r o d u c e d an i n f l u e n t i a l r e g a r d i n g the nature o f wisdom (Ross,  1980).  position Like h i s  p r e d e c e s s o r s , he i d e n t i f i e d a mundane wisdom t h a t could be seen i n the d e a l i n g s o f r a t i o n a l and v i r t u o u s people. However, he f o r m a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d between t h i s p r a c t i c a l wisdom and a second q u a l i t y which he c a l l e d s p e c u l a t i v e wisdom. Aristotle, concerned and  T h i s second type o f wisdom was, f o r  the h i g h e s t i n t e l l e c t u a l v i r t u e , as i t was o n l y with understanding  issues of l i f e .  the primary  In h i s system, only  philosophy  could hope t o s o l v e the q u e s t i o n s o f the f i r s t life.  Speculative philosophy,  the search f o r wisdom.  questions  causes o f  then, became equated w i t h  S i n c e one c o u l d become  • -. .-.  p r o f i c i e n t i n p h i l o s o p h y o n l y i f p r o p e r l y t r a i n e d , one  54  could  c o n s e q u e n t l y become w i s e o n l y  training  regime of  the  Aristotle's of  the  things  discussion  In h i s v i e w , t h e  to  the  difficult  extent  things  and  be  a l s o be  acutely  be  aware o f  the  life,  understanding,  matters to  the  the  knowledge o f  the  highest  (Long,  For  the  truth of possess side  the  The  that  the  this  person  p e r s o n who  and  would  has  l e a r n i n g are  mastered  to the  writings  served  t h a t had  things  of  to carry  the  simple  meaning  of  philosophical the  on  Skeptic  the  i n the  i n a manner t h a t  a l l virtues.  could  a l s o made  pragmatic  not  ability allowed  S t o i c a l wisdom had  be  way  of  tradition  and  b e e n l a r g e l y e c l i p s e d by  S t o i c s , wisdom l a y  that  teaching  philosphers  i n t h a t wisdom l e d t o - a  o f mind  learn a l l  univeral p r i n c i p l e s of  has  Hellenistic  1974).  tradition  to  l i m i t a t i o n s o f h i s wisdom.  teaching  p e r s o n who  contributions  philosophers  western  forms.  The important  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  able  addition,  These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e s c r i b e  as  the  w i s e p e r s o n w o u l d know a l l  capable of  In  attained  of  influenced  possible,  knowledge t o o t h e r s .  following  philosophers.  wise person profoundly  thought.  by  life  a f f e c t e d by  Stoic wisdom  Aristotle.  to grasp the a  the  person  to  practical  and  changes  an of  attitude  55  fortune.  The S t o i c s a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t p e o p l e  wise only  i f they  physical  and  were a b l e  logical  maintained  belief  wisdom was  embodied  concerned with  to integrate  knowledge  system.  could  ethical,  in a resolutely  The S k e p t i c s  also held  i n c o r r e c t judgement.  As  s u s p e n d judgement  o f mind  that  allowed  under c o n d i t i o n s  the person t o  of uncertainty.  s e e n as t h e a b i l i t y  recognize  knowledge.  o f one's  were  saw  Wisdom, f o r t h e S k e p t i c s , was the l i m i t s  that  they  the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t r u t h , they  wisdom as t h e h a b i t  be  to  The E a r l y C h r i s t i a n T r a d i t i o n o f Wisdom  The wisdom t r a d i t i o n s preceding  pages were c a r r i e d  Christian  theologians,  philosophy/theology Christian  t h e o l o g i c a l concerns while  Christian belief  the  to develop  t h a t would r e c o g n i z e  classical  Hyman and W a l s h , 1 9 7 4 ) .  different  i n t o t h e M i d d l e Ages by t h e  whose g o a l was  degree o f c o n t i n u i t y w i t h 1978;  o u t l i n e d i n the  the primacy  maintaining thought  The b l e n d i n g  on b o t h t h e n a t u r e  manner i n w h i c h p e o p l e become w i s e .  of  some  (Meaghre, o f G r e e k and  s y s t e m s l e d t o t h e emergence  perspective  a  of a  very  o f wisdom and  56  The systematic  writings  treatment  Middle Ages.  of Augustine  o f wisdom t o emerge d u r i n g t h e  Augustine's  C h r i s t i a n p e r s p e c t i v e l e d him  to  r e f o r m u l a t e the Greek b e l i e f  by  studying the world.  w o r l d was  Augustine  the i n t e l l e c t  Scientia,  into  could not  c o u l d be f o u n d  dealt with  Sapientia,  o r knowledge o f the w o r l d .  cultivated  t r a d i t i o n the  and c o n s e q u e n t l y  Wisdom, i n s t e a d ,  t h e C h r i s t i a n God. dividing  t h a t one a c h i e v e s wisdom  In the C h r i s t i a n  s e e n as s i n f u l ,  i n s p i r e wisdom.  r e p r e s e n t t h e most  this  The f o r m e r , i f people  t h e t i m e l e s s wisdom o f t h e C h r i s t i a n God.  By  splitting  for  with the m a t e r i a l i s t i c the i n t e l l e c t ,  a wisdom t h a t was  human  in  like  latter  features of  A u g u s t i n e was  life.  a b l e t o argue  o f the base a s p e c t s o f the  earlier  philosophers, believed  t r u e wisdom was u n a t t a i n a b l e .  w h i c h he i n t e r p r e t e d  from p r e v i o u s n o t i o n s . had  The  toward  condition. Augustine,  that  free  by  o r wisdom, and  and u s e d p r o p e r l y , c o u l d o r i e n t  was c o n c e r n e d  only i n  been  prevented  He m a i n t a i n e d ,  been p u t i n t o  the world  idea d i f f e r e d  I n h i s view,  f l a w e d when t h e y  imperfection wisdom.  this  However,  fell  natures  this  ever a c h i e v i n g p e r f e c t  however, t h a t t o earn  substantially  people's  f r o m God and  them from  t h e manner  s i n c e p e o p l e had  salvation,  they had a  57  duty to s t r i v e  toward  the goal  o f wisdom and p e r f e c t  t h e m s e l v e s as much as p o s s i b l e . In conceptions  summary, C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g i s t s p r o d u c e d  o f wisdom i n w h i c h t h e r e s t l e s s s e a r c h f o r  understanding replaced and on  that  characterized  The G r e e k n o t i o n  man's e x p e r i e n c e  world.  should  was  e t h i c b a s e d on  also replaced  with  was  prayer  t h a t wisdom was  i n s u l a t e the person  based  the idea  that  from t h e m a t e r i a l  The C h r i s t i a n p o s i t i o n a l s o r e q u i r e d t h e  abandonment o f a t t e m p t s Such a wisdom, world,  the Greek t r a d i t i o n  by a demanding r e l i g i o u s  sacrifice.  wisdom  new  was  rooted  to formulate  a practical  as i t must be i n a f l a w e d  unacceptable within  wisdom. and  evil  the C h r i s t i a n  perspective.  R e n a i s s a n c e C o n c e p t i o n s o f Wisdom  The  idea  t h a t wisdom i n v o l v e s  a  religiously  based  transcendental  knowledge dominated western  until  t h e R e n a i s s a n c e when t h e r e - e m e r g e n c e o f t h e  Greek t r a d i t i o n s o f S t o i c i s m shift  i n ideas  these  r e f o r m u l i z a t i o n s was  classical  ideas  a b o u t wisdom  and S k e p t i c i s m (Rice,  1958).  led to a The g o a l o f  to blend--Ghristian  i n a p o s i t i o n that  thought  and  admitted the  58  possibility postulated  o f a w o r l d l y b a s e d wisdom. t h e need  f o r both a pragmatic  oriented  toward  divinely  i n s p i r e d wisdom o r i e n t e d  and by  the person  living  e t e r n a l wisdom o f God. arguing that  varying serve  to guide  sought that  man  degrees  to find  this  The  and t h a t  moral  wisdom  i n t h e w o r l d and a toward  t h e goodness  They d e f e n d e d  participates  Stoics  this  position  i n d i v i n e wisdom i n  a p r a g m a t i c wisdom s h o u l d  t h e s t e p s o f a good p e r s o n as h e / s h e God i n d a i l y  essentially  activities.  By s u g g e s t i n g  m o r a l wisdom f l o w e d  from a h i g h e r ,  divinely  i n s p i r e d wisdom, and t h u s s e r v e d t h e C h r i s t i a n  purpose,  the S t o i c s  the C h r i s t i a n The  belief  divine  wisdom.  perfection,  Thus,  a p r a g m a t i c wisdom w i t h  t h e w o r l d was Skeptics'  The l a t t e r  several  solution  the former  signified  was  based  terminal  a kind of  the development  of habits  s e r v e d as i n t e r m e d i a t e s t e p s i n a t t a i n i n g f o r the Skeptics,  seen as b e i n g a n e c e s s a r y p a r t divine  flawed.  b e t w e e n t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l and  o f wisdom.  o f mind w h i c h  that  Renaissance  on a d i s t i n c t i o n aspects  reconciled  enlightenment. varieties  worldly perfection  o f t h e movement  towards  The S k e p t i c p o s i t i o n i n t r o d u c e d  o f wisdom r a n g i n g f r o m  wisdom o f s p e c i a l i s t s  was  (doctors,  lawyers,  the l i m i t e d e t c . ) to the  i n f o r m a l wisdom m a n i f e s t e d i n t h e b e h a v i o u r o f a good  59  person with a r e f l e c t i v e  mind, t o a m o r a l wisdom u s e d t o  guide  t o a d i v i n e l y i n s p i r e d wisdom  life,  t h a t was  and f i n a l l y ,  the s p e c i a l province The  a  Renaissance conceptions  reformulation  of e a r l i e r  a l s o marked a r e t u r n wisdom was life life. still  best  considered  to virtuous  classical  f o r the t r u t h s o f  actions  philosophers  i n everyday of this  time  t h e C h r i s t i a n p o s i t i o n t h a t wisdom must  p o s i t i o n was  f a r from complete.  success  then,  may  i n r e s t o r i n g to the concept of  wisdom a b a l a n c e o f t h e w o r l d l y while maintaining  to the  The main  of the Renaissance philosophers,  have been t h e i r  work  that  come f r o m God, however, s o t h e r e t u r n  contribution  Cartesian  involved  That  Greek idea  as a s e a r c h  The S t o i c a n d S k e p t i c maintained  o f wisdom  C h r i s t i a n ideas.  t o the e a r l i e r  t h a t would l e a d  ultimately  o f God.  and t h e d i v i n e  an e s s e n t i a l l y C h r i s t i a n  forces  perspective.  and Modern C o n c e p t i o n s o f Wisdom  Descartes  i s the f i n a l  t o be  of theories  o f wisdom  discussed  i n this  brief  (Collins,  1962).  As he s o u g h t t o r e - d e f i n e  he a t t e m p t e d philosophical  sampling  philosopher  to describe system.  wisdom  philosophy,  i n terms "of h i s e v o l v i n g  In h i s e a r l y w r i t i n g s ,  Descartes  60  suggested  t h a t wisdom  scientific with  knowledge.  accumulating  organizing  served  Whereas  facts,  wisdom s e r v e d  wisdom was  this  idea,  the b e l i e f  f r o m God.  argue that  that  there  although  t h e e a r t h l y wisdom emphasis.  a God g i v e n  p o t e n t i a l would the  critical  a l l wisdom was u l t i m a t e l y  in his writings,  seems  o n l y be r e a l i z e d  t o have r e c e i v e d  a  are born  i f i t were g u i d e d  o f t h e new  attain  philosophy.  through  four  i n s p i r e d wisdom  o f human t h o u g h t .  one c o u l d  by  from t h e u n n u r t u r e d  sense t o a c r i t i c a l l y  marked a c u l m i n a t i o n  Cartesian  that people passed  d e g r e e s o f human wisdom, r a n g i n g  gift  p r o b l e m was t o  p o t e n t i a l t o become w i s e b u t t h i s  He went on t o s u g g e s t  however, t h a t  a l l other  DesCartes  He b e l i e v e d t h a t a l l men  techniques  s e e d s o f good  that  a r e b o t h e a r t h l y and d i v i n e forms o f  E a c h form i s d i s c u s s e d  with  with  In h i s l a t e r  suggesting  His s o l u t i o n to t h i s  wisdom.  greater  concerned  as a framework f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g  with  to  concerned  L i k e most C h r i s t i a n p h i l o s o p h e r s ,  struggled a gift  s c i e n c e was  and i n t e r p r e t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n .  w r i t i n g s , he e l a b o r a t e d  fields.  as a c o u n t e r p o i n t  He  that  considered,  d i v i n e wisdom o n l y  as a  f r o m God. Since  DesCartes,  few s e r i o u s  attempts have  b e e n made t o p l a c e wisdom a t t h e c e n t r e encompassing p h i l o s o p h i c a l system.  That  o f an i s not to say  61  that philosophers surround  the  intensely  notion  the  features  traditions. separately  o f wisdom.  u n d e r s u c h h e a d i n g s as  have s e t the  meaning  i n a seemingly  task  investigation.  issue  As  elaborated  explicitly effort for  ideas  type of  existential  as  lineage  personal central with  i s seldom  o f wisdom  in their  t h o u g h t s on  as  and  more o r  less  works.  they are  wisdom.  Such  seldom an  a c a r e f u l s c r u t i n y o f p a r t i c u l a r works stem f r o m t h e  I believe  older  i s f a r beyond that  f o r now  traditions. the  scope of  i t may  i n modern t i m e s wisdom i s , a t b e s t ,  concern of  for  their  have i n c o r p o r a t e d  themes i s d i f f i c u l t  undertaking  project. that  that  logic.  C o l l i n s (1962) n o t e d , many modern  l a b e l l e d as  involves  examined  i s somewhat c o n t i n u o u s  the  and  wisdom  often  o f man's s e a r c h  This  notions  these  older  are  a r b i t r a r y world  contemporary p h i l o s o p h e r s  Identifying  the  judgement,  behaviour  e t h i c s and  particularly  t r a d i t i o n s , although  acknowledged.  well  virtuous  that  remain  correct  T h e s e c o n c e r n s , however,  writers,  older  life,  of  w h i c h were c e n t r a l t o  and  issues  Many w r i t e r s  issues  nature of  Other philosophers,  of  i n t e r e s t i n the  i n t e r e s t e d i n the  understanding other  have l o s t  philosophy.-  suffice a  That this to  note  peripheral  62  The there  findings of this  are several d i s t i n c t  b e e n t h a t wisdom i s b e s t  transcendental Philosophers  survey  considered  theme  as a  understanding o f the nature o f the world.  have h e l d  numerous o p i n i o n s  attainable.  on what i s  understanding, b u t have  g e n e r a l l y b e e n i n a g r e e m e n t on t h e f a c t  theories,  that  and  The most d i s t i n c t  i m p l i e d by s u c h a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l  easily  suggest  themes i n a n c i e n t  non-contemporary p h i l o s o p h y . has  brief  that  i t i s not  I n t h e more s e c u l a r l y o r i e n t e d  i t has been argued  that  a n o v i t i a t e must  master p a r t i c u l a r types o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n s become w i s e .  In t h e C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n s ,  viewed prayer, achieving  sacrifice  t h e communion  a t t a i n m e n t o f wisdom. tradition  centres  pragmatic  features  define  closer,  this  with  God t h a t  A s e c o n d theme  on d i s c u s s i o n s o f wisdom.  i n many r e s p e c t s ,  leads  to the  i n t h e wisdom  o f t h e m o r a l and  This  includes  attempts t o  b e h a v i o u r and e n d e a v o u r s t o  t y p e s o f e a r t h l y wisdom.  wisdom t r a d i t i o n s .  theorists  and p r i v a t i o n as t h e means o f  wisdom as v i r t u o u s  elaborate  to  This  to the ancient  The c o n c e p t i o n s  theme i s pragmatic  o f wisdom embodying  s e c o n d theme a r e s o f i r m l y j o i n e d t o b r o a d e r  metaphysical  issues  that i t i s d i f f i c u l t  t o speak o f t h e  63  value  of the notion  o f wisdom i n d e p e n d e n t l y  adequacy o f t h e e n t i r e The interesting wisdom.  of the  system.  p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n s , then, y i e l d  thoughts about  t h e n a t u r e and meaning o f  In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e i r  discussions  o f the s p e c i a l  c o m p e t e n c i e s o f w i s e p e o p l e and t h e n e c e s s i t y living  provide  wise.  The s p e c i f i c  say be  little  some i n s i g h t i n t o what  about  theories  the p s y c h o l o g i c a l  literature  better  of correct  i t e n t a i l s t o be  o f wisdom,  unfortunately,  patterns  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f wise people.  philosophical  some  that  would  In consequence, the  serves  as a b a c k g r o u n d  t h a n as an i n v e s t i g a t o r y framework f o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l research.  The  Psychological  Tradition  Although there in  psychology,  several  i s no c o h e r e n t  tradition,  Erikson  (1950) d i s c u s s e d  aspects  o f wisdom.  Brent  and Watson  Thorngate adult  tradition  t h e o r i s t s have attempted t o  r e l a t e wisdom t o p s y c h o l o g i c a l psychodynamic  wisdom  Jung  theory.  the  (Reed e t a l , 1978) and  the s o c i a l  Within  Within  and i n t e r p e r s o n a l  modern r e s e a r c h  (1980), C l a y t o n  psychology,  (1978, 1980) and  (1981) h a v e p r o p o s e d wisdom as a marker o f  competency.  The a c c o u n t s p r e s e n t e d b y J u n g and  64  Erikson  d i s c u s s e d wisdom as  interpersonal/historical social  and  accounts Clayton  p r e s e n t e d by (1978, 1980) based  operationally preferences  and  consideration  accompanying  first  Jung  suggested  that  their  As  o f Wisdom  that  age  and  during  came t o f u n c t i o n  as t h e g u i d e s  an  (Reed  the over  pre-literate important  The  special  status  significance  important  special and  before  of society  the p r a c t i c a l  members o f t h i s  from h i s  elaborate oral  tradition.  t h e i r k n o w l e d g e d e f i n e d them as subgroup.  r e s e a r c h programs.  e l d e r s were p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the o r a l  position  o f t h e human mind  through  (1981)  subsequent  o f each  continuity  maintained  a  people's  o f wisdom a r o s e  p o i n t e d out  of w r i t i n g ,  g e n e r a t i o n s was  participants  overviews  The  and  Thorngate  In  the  people.  (1980)  Finally,  processes.  discussion  He  use  tribal  of wise  Watson  of the archetypes  a l , 1978).  traditions.  f o c u s e d on b o t h  E r i k s o n i a n Conceptions  Jung's  a f f o r d e d by  competency.  of their  social/  c h a r a c t e r i z e wisdom as  provide b r i e f  summaries  times,  each  for heuristic  I will  widespread  B r e n t and  within a  d e f i n e d wisdom i n terms o f  J u n g i a n and  et  m a t r i x and  dynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  cognitively  pages,  i t exists  group,  "cultural  of  and  unique  the  elders  65  storehouses" the  o f the s o c i e t y , maintaining  i m p o r t a n t knowledge n e c e s s a r y  continuity  o f the group.  circumstances the  Jung  f o r assuring the  suggested  that  these  "wise man" w i t h i n human c u l t u r e .  increasing material  literacy  Jung  suggested  need  fororally  S i m i l a r l y , increased  the disappearance of r u r a l  although  the conditions  have d i s a p p e a r e d , lingers  He a l s o  that  the ancient  e l d e r s was s u c h a d i s t i n c t  part  o f t h e human  collective  absorbed  stylized person,  time role of experience  i n t o what J u n g  Jung proposed  memory was o f t e n m a n i f e s t e d ,  form,  elders  called  unconscious.  I n modern t i m e s , archetypal  suggested  which produced wise  o u r "memory" o f t h a t o l d e r  i t was e v e n t u a l l y  resulted  pre-literate societies  He p o s t u l a t e d  that  on.  transmitted  urbanization  w h i c h f o s t e r e d t h e wisdom t r a d i t i o n . that  that  and t h e abundance o f p r i n t e d  l e d t o a reduced  information.  our  on  l e d t o t h e emergence o f t h e t r a d i t i o n o f  I n modern t i m e s ,  in  and p a s s i n g  i n fairy  typically  t a l e s and f o l k  a tall,  that the albeit i n  lore.  o l d e r man o f t e n w i t h  The w i s e a  flowing  b e a r d and w h i t e h a i r , a p p e a r e d when p e o p l e were i n desperate' s t r a i t s  o r were f a c e d  insurmountable problems.  with  seemingly  By v i r t u e o f h i s e x c e p t i o n a l  66  powers o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,  t h e w i s e p e r s o n would  provide  the s o l u t i o n to the problem or help  to  the s o l u t i o n s  find  to Jung, out  f o r themselves.  i s a ritualized  re-enactment  on i n n u m e r a b l e o c c a s i o n s  human  during  either  the people  This,  according  o f a drama  played  the e v o l u t i o n o f  society. As  i s often  the case w i t h Jung, h i s ideas a r e  compelling  but d i f f i c u l t  the  o f t h e a r c h e t y p e o f t h e w i s e o l d man i s  origin  certainly studies  of primitive tribes.  people  of respect other  is  elders  i s valued  is  s o c i e t i e s where often hold  out that  secular  traditions.  u l t i m a t e l y based  in social  and i n s i g h t ,  i n negative  o f Jung's c l a i m  remains  On t h e  in societies  above e x p e r i e n c e  society provides  positions  status.  and u n i v e r s a l , h i s d i s c u s s i o n  i n guiding  selected  (1968) and Simmons  considerable  portrayed  o f the v a l i d i t y  p r a g m a t i c wisdom t h a t ancient  they  (1981) p o i n t e d  people are often  timeless  in rural  and a r e a c c o r d e d  hand, S h a r p  Regardless  that  Streib  control resources  where competency older  H i s account o f  p l a u s i b l e and i s i n k e e p i n g w i t h  (1945) h a v e s u g g e s t e d older  to evaluate.  terms.  that  wisdom  o f the r o l e o f  an a c c o u n t o f  consistent  with the  Jung's b e l i e f dialogue  also  that  wisdom  provides  an  67  interesting wisdom. any  i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimension t o the a n a l y s i s o f  Unfortunately,  he d i d n o t p u r s u e t h i s  detail. The  work o f E r i k E r i k s o n  neo-Freudian psychologist, counterpoint  t o Jung's a r c h e t y p a l  s u r r o u n d wisdom, E r i k s o n social  forces  eight  cycle, that  suggested  stages  eighth  with  each  recognizing  in  the c y c l e of l i f e .  stage  three  stages  would  defined  by a  encompassing  and a c c e p t i n g  life issues  The i s s u e o f c o n c e r n i n  the necessary  Erikson  suggested  i n d i v i d u a l s who h a d b e e n s u c c e s s f u l  centres  r o l e of death  that  i n resolving  earlier  i s s u e s w o u l d be i n a p o s i t i o n t o a c h i e v e  i n s i g h t i n t o t h e meaning o f t h e i r  existence  o f wisdom.  'Ego I n t e g r i t y v s . D e s p a i r ' ,  on  special  of personal  T h e y s p a n t h e human  adulthood.  stage,  psychosocial  that  t h e i n t r a p s y c h i c and  i n the attainment  issue.  the f i n a l  arise during  forms  t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y development occurs i n  psychosocial with  o f wisdom.  the s o c i a l  that motivate the process  sequential  salient  an i n t e r e s t i n g  theory  emphasized  g r o w t h w h i c h may c u l m i n a t e Erikson  (1950, 1959), a  provides  Where J u n g was c o n c e r n e d w i t h  the  theme i n  i n general.  He f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d  l e a d t o an i n c r e a s e d  o f human e x p e r i e n c e  l i v e s and  awareness o f the c o n t i n u i t y  and an emergence o f a  equanimity which allowed  this  the person  personal  to calmly  face  a  68  death. leads  The a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h i s t o a broad  world,  the  the  In o t h e r  external  underlying  sources,  of Eriksonian  Erikson's  features  the primary  manifestations  wise people.  claims  emphasis  considered  In the p a s t ,  o f the wise  a progressive writers  Eriksonian attempt  theory  personality  developmental  have t y p i c a l l y  viewed  from a s t r u g g l e  to trace  marks t h e f i r s t  consistent with ancient  Finally,  secular  h i s suggestion encounters traditions  a mechanism f o r e x p l a i n i n g o f wisdom.  well  the developmental  wisdom emerges f r o m p s y c h o s o c i a l  attainment  person  a t t i t u d e s o f mind o r t y p e s o f  a n t e c e d e n t s o f wisdom.  providing  i s on  A s e c o n d c o n t r i b u t i o n was h i s s u c c e s s i n  particular  knowledge.  of wise  about the nature o f  a t t a i n m e n t o f wisdom as r e s u l t i n g  attain  theory i s  are matters of  representation  l o c a t i n g wisdom w i t h i n sequence.  i n the  o f wisdom, and t h e  features  substance to e a r l i e r  which  as wisdom.  h a v i n g a w e l l b a l a n c e d and i n t e g r a t e d  lends  the  aspect  of intrapsychic  psychological  inference. as  characterizes  interesting  identification  people.  insight,  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f man's p o s i t i o n  i s what E r i k s o n One  special  •••«•-  that  remains while  the d i f f e r e n t i a l ~~  .....  to  69  There are, associated is  his  by  the  only  with Eriksonian  suggestion  motivates  the  that  final  realization  This  wisdom may life  be  span.  emphasis  A  on  social  certain  theory.  the  difficulties  The  psychosocial  most  o f one's n e a r n e s s  claim  crisis  which  to death.  deemed c a p a b l e o f  varies with  attainable at second p o i n t  intrapersonal features  earlier  earlier of  function  o f wisdom.  tends to  says  about  the  that  adult  Erikson's  overshadow  A l t h o u g h he  e x c h a n g e s , he  translate their  i n the  i s that  have s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n little  attaining  points  concern  Thus,  suggestions  wisdom s h o u l d  wise people  problematic  movement t o w a r d s wisdom i s t r i g g e r e d  e l d e r l y people are  wisdom.  the  however,  implied  that  social  manner i n w h i c h  insights into  social  action. The date,  the  only  psychological this  theoretically  that  account review  conception  submitted  (Clayton,  of the  adult  Clayton  compelling,  but  experience.  difficulties  responding  argued  t o o l d age  to  critical  that  that  In  the  opinion  analysis  Eriksonian  Specifically, life  developing  she  result  of  was ideas  were a t odds w i t h  o f modern by  o f wisdom i s , t o  1975).  r e v i e w e r , however, much o f  unproductive.  facts  Eriksonian  were  certain  suggested  i n people  regressive,  rather  70  than expansive,  personality  t h a t most p e o p l e and,  to resolve  c o n s e q u e n t l y , w o u l d be  psychosocial  issues.  wise people are than the  i n an  concluded,  m o t i v a t e d by  wisdom d i d n o t  the  provide  the  to  conflicts  later that  live,  in l i f e .  a compelling  most  rather  accordingly,  Eriksonian  argued  wisdom i s She  conception  explanation  of  of  later  have  function. The  third  point  critique  may  the  theme i n  older  as  traditions  t h a t wisdom i s m a n i f e s t e d  living.  The  i t reflects  i n Clayton's  some m e r i t  first  two  nor  consistent  findings.  For  example, t h e r e  evidence  showing t h a t  functions  Although  sick  psychological widespread  i n the  supporting resolve  childhood  successful  established i s no  people  p e o p l e may there  unequivocal exhibit  regressive  development.  demonstrate  is little  there  contention  personality  neither  research  evidence  p e r s o n a l i t y changes d u r i n g  Likewise,  Clayton's  with  older  deficits,  (Thomae, 1 9 8 0 ) .  in  normal course o f  elderly  negative  apparent  a r g u m e n t s , however, a r e  compelling  ego  ego  suggested  will  a c t i v e involvement that  further  childhood  she  d e a t h and,  therefore,  She  unable to solve  Finally,  awareness of  expressed  life  fail  styles.  is l i t t l e that  crises.  of  old  age  evidence  most p e o p l e Erikson's  fail  to  theory  71  has  inspired l i t t l e  appear  i n the  research  literature  issue of progression 1972).  This  and  the  present  that  stages  d e r a i l e d from normative  pathways d u r i n g  childhood.  type  c a n n o t be  o f wisdom a r e  data  that on  the  (Constantinople,  i t i s premature to s t a t e  most p e o p l e a r e  that people  reports  equivocal  through the  suggests  few  developmental  O v e r a l l , Clayton's  expected  to achieve  tentative at  that  an  arguments  Eriksonian  best.  Modern P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o n c e p t i o n s o f Wisdom  Finally, p o r t r a y wisdom as competency and  Thorngate,  form,  1981).  to  *  and  information  Brent  psychological  and  Watson,  (1980) p r o p o s e d similar  that  1980  that  i n kind,  suggested  b a s e d on  logic  but  not  both  They  that differed,  d o m a i n s o f a p p l i c a t i o n and  structures.  Intelligence, according  and  abilities  acquisition.  i n terms o f t h e i r  people to think problems,  She  of adult  to  i n t e l l i g e n c e were k n o w l e d g e r e l a t e d , u s e f u l  facilitated  underlying  1980;  Clayton  intelligence.  for adaptation,  however,  1978,  area  a cognitive ability  wisdom and aids  a special  (Clayton,  wisdom was in  t h e r e have been s e v e r a l attempts  logically,  abstract  form  to Clayton,  conceptualize from c o n t e n t .  and It  allows solve reaches  72  its  zenith  in scientific  thought  and  mathematical  i n which the world o f c o n c r e t e events symbolic  representational  h a v e P i a g e t and propositional for  systems.  others, that  logic  system  that  t h e use  form  i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f c o n t e n t and  without  of this  system  rules  symbols.  on  a  both  form  She  permitted people  r e g a r d f o r the s o c i a l  as  i s based  i n symbolic  f o r manipulating those  to  C l a y t o n argued,  specifies  r e p r e s e n t i n g concrete events  procedures  i s reduced  intelligence  which  logic  and  argued  to evaluate  c o n s i d e r problems  implications  of  particular  solutions. C l a y t o n d e f i n e d wisdom as understand  and  accept paradoxes  and  the a b i l i t y  contradictions  mark c o n c r e t e s o c i a l  situations.  She  t h a t wisdom i n v o l v e d  f i n d i n g meaningful  human c o n c e r n s .  For these reasons,  wisdom was  on a d i a l e c t i c a l  based  embodied p r i n c i p l e s could  specify  events.  that  system  on an  o n l y i n terms o f t h e i r  entities.  Presumably,  suggested  solutions  that  logic  system  that  and  change and  which  between c o n t e n t fully  laden  d e s c r i b e what  her w r i t i n g s  principle  a system  suggest  which d e f i n e s /  relationships with  such  to  argued  entails,  identity  also  that  she  C l a y t o n does n o t  logic  i t i s based  objects other  the r e l a t i o n s h i p s  Although  a dialectical  o f paradox  to  all™,  is better  73  suited are is  for understanding  specifically the  basis  defined  by  propositional logic  developmental method their  form  than the  further  suggested  t h a t wisdom s e r v e s  f u n c t i o n by  providing  a motivation  for weighing e f f e c t s on  evaluative  subtle  and  events.  on  which  unique content,  s y s t e m deemed t o  consequences of  the  self  activity  and  an  l e d t o an  others,  standing  enlightened  social  the  social  long on  then,  and  suggested  developed  and  form of  that  sensitivity  that a  recognized  she  maintained  level  i t l e d to  term e f f e c t s  that  influence a  of  human w e l f a r e .  The  leads  complex  t o a more  societal  e f f e c t i v e i n d i v i d u a l dynamics.  Brent age-related  of  r e l a t i o n s h i p s among  c o g n i t i o n which promotes e f f i c i e n t  function  felt  a  a  i n terms  c o n c e r n w i t h one's  decisions  movement t o w a r d s wisdom,  She  and  achievement of  level,  at a s o c i e t a l  concern with  collective  of  interpersonal  while  others.  c o g n i t i o n which  complex p a t t e r n s  At  actions  marked t h e  more s o p h i s t i c a t e d t y p e o f  this  their  events,  of i n t e l l i g e n c e . Clayton  this  dynamic s o c i a l  Watson  (1980) c o n s t r u e d  adaptive  intelligence.  s p e c i a l communicative  to verbal  senses of  and  non-verbal  compassion  and  skills cues,  wisdom as  an  They heightened and  well  humour were e s s e n t i a l  74  psychological  components o f wisdom.  a developmental motivation incorporated  the  idea  essential  r o l e i n the  suggested  that  turmoil,  They a l s o  f o r becoming wise  that personal  s u f f e r i n g played  a d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n of  existing cognitive  opportunity  of  either achieving  equilibrium  or  d e t e r i o r a t i n g to a regressed  They argued  flexibility  that  the  served  suited  superior  environments.  transmit  across  level  of  refers  a dynamic  social  Thorngate  state.  were  for establishing They  further  suggested  skills  of wise  people  Like force  life  Clayton,  leading  to  they a  competency.  (1981) p r o p o s e d  to a preference  finding  maximum  phenomenological  generations.  wisdom as  complex  special abilities  for providing  s p e c i a l communicative  experiences  more  interpersonal situations.  i n human s y s t e m s and  to b e t t e r  perceived  and  t h a t wise people's  harmonious s o c i a l  and  the  Watson a l s o v i e w e d wisdom as  in social  particularly well  result in  s i t u a t i o n s permitted a new  stress.  structures.  that  and  these  could  They s u g g e s t e d  Brent  produced  a s t a t e of p s y c h o l o g i c a l  such c i r c u m s t a n c e s  an  They  exposure to a r b i t r a r y i n j u s t i c e  s u f f e r i n g , and  expression  which  a t t a i n m e n t o f wisdom.  Prolonged exposure to  its  described  for specific  t h a t wisdom  simply  information  and  75  particular heuristic assumption  strategies.  the  a body  of  k n o w l e d g e c o n s i s t i n g o f a s e t o f t r u t h s , he  argued  that  should  be  manifested  the  r e c o g n i t i o n of those  not  specifically  o f wisdom, s u c h writings.  He  age-related discover  features  suggested  behavioural  implicitly  said  aspects  be  more o p p o r t u n i t y  little  was  in his  to  should  convergence o f agreement.  o f Wisdom  Several  of  their  systematic  theoretical  the  about  above m e n t i o n e d  theoretical  Although  research  discussing  developmental  consequently,  Thorngate  over  Although Thorngate  t h a t wisdom seemed t o  Studies  research.  agreement  Unlike the  i m p l i c a t i o n s o f wisdom.  supplemented  a  exist  t r u t h s and,  theorists,  present  truths.  b e c a u s e o l d e r p e o p l e had  life  Empirical  increased  i n t e r e s t e d i n the  demonstrate g r e a t e r other  i n an  construed  with  as  it  t h a t wisdom i s b e s t  Beginning  and  i t may  p o s i t i o n s with  seem c o n t r i v e d t o  theory,  presentation  of  I h a v e done t h i s the  major  p o s i t i o n unencumbered by methodological  accompanying  research.  authors  and I will  ideas  the  analytical now  have  empirical separately to  permit  i n each  necessity  of  problems of  briefly  summarize  the  76  that  s u p p o r t i n g e m p i r i c a l work, as w e l l  s t u d y by H o l l i d a y  as r e s u l t s  (1981) w h i c h  i s u n r e l a t e d to  (1976, 1978)  used  of a  those  theories. Clayton s c a l i n g procedure  to i d e n t i f y  common p e r c e p t i o n s o f wisdom. representing  t h r e e age  w i t h each  'aged', and  clusters those  o t h e r , and  'myself.'  ratings with  The  t h e word  reflective  indexed  dimensions Brent  and  generate  a s e t o f such  identify  and  clusters  practical-experiential,  abilities  of wise In  different  'wise', similarity  affective  f e a t u r e s , they person. they  (Clayton,  distinct  suggested  that  and  of wise  f e a t u r e s o f wise  of attributes  study  three  (1980) a l s o  descriptions,  thought  authors  subjects  fifteen  o f the  indicated  cognitive,  d e s c r i b e a wise  those  which they  analysis  The  Watson  the d e f i n i n g  study,  in a pilot  characteristic  identify  analyzing  In the  underlying  w i t h t h e words  'wise'  of a t t r i b u t e s .  clusters  dimensions  g r o u p s compared  d e s c r i p t i v e words, g e n e r a t e d 1975)  a multi-dimensional  people.  attempted people.  to To  asked  subjects to  After  rating  identified  four  labelled personal-cognitive, interpersonal  reflected  the  and  moral-ethical,  special psychological  people.  a third  procedure  and  study, H o l l i d a y to determine  the  (1981) u s e d  a  distinguishing  77  characteristics college  age  of wise  subjects  individuals.  described  p e o p l e , w i s e p e o p l e and  three  intelligent  common l a n g u a g e Q - s o r t i t e m s . were r a t e d h i g h l y  on terms  In t h a t  He  targets  found t h a t wise  reflecting  Intelligent  and o l d p e o p l e were h i g h l y  and  u n d e r s t a n d i n g and  representing  compassion. rated,  personal  competency  likeability. Several  for  features  the p s y c h o l o g i c a l  First,  of these three  reality  individuals  This  finding  fact  that  study.  different  This  that people  i n a consistent  is particularly  p r o v i d e s a multi-method  that wise people are e a s i l y  other  individuals.  cross  situational  example, study.  competency  factor  enough r e s e m b l a n c e  considerable  consensus  dimensions  regarding  appeared  a r e not  to suggest that  from  demonstrated  of wise people.  Although a l l dimensions  of the  distinguishable  i n the  the c h a r a c t e r s t i c s  i n each  validation  these studies  consistency  a personal  fashion.  i m p r e s s i v e i n view o f the  m e t h o d o l o g i e s were u s e d  Second,  argue  characterize  interpretable  claim  summarizing  studies  o f t h e c o n c e p t o f wisdom.  a l l authors demonstrated  wise  is  people  personal  social  on terms  - old  people - using  competency,  respectively,  study,  For i n each  identical,  there i s  the nature of wise  there  78  people.  This evidence  embodied  i n the a c t i o n s o f wise  meaningful  competency  indicates  t h a t wisdom, people,  as  i s used  as  descriptor.  Thorngate  (1981) e x a m i n e d  the h y p o t h e s i s  wisdom i s r e f l e c t e d  i n a g r e e m e n t on  the t r u t h  certain  information.  evidenced he  teens  232  through  quotations asked  To  test  i n convergence  presented  the  ranging  s e v e n t i e s , w i t h one different  t h e s u b j e c t s t o r a t e how  older people  the  demonstrated  (1978),  Brent  particularly studies  was,  and  Watson  germane t o t h i s  attempted  distinguishing  He  people  of  that  convergence orderly  Holliday  other  Birren (1981) a r e  Each o f  those  strategy for  individuals.  Demonstrating  t h a t wise  identifiable,  non-arbitrarily  d e f i n e d g r o u p i s an  important  necessary  step i n a systematic'  and  investigation  people  first  of the nature  constitute  and  He  of opinion.  project.  from  fifty  found  however, no  t o p r o v i d e an e m p i r i c a l  wise  the  life.  C l a y t o n and  (1980) and  age,  they  items.  s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d by  from  h u n d r e d and  a h i g h e r degree There  of  as  aspects of  i n c r e a s e i n convergence  The  i n age  strongly  s e t of  than d i d younger people. age-related  values  w h e t h e r wisdom,  individuals,  over  that  of opinion, increased with  commenting on  agreed/disagreed  a  function  an  easily  o f wisdom.  — As  79  T h o r n g a t e ' s work d e m o n s t r a t e s , in  a very  n a r r o w manner l e a d s  conclusions of  a well  research pay  t o few i n t e r e s t i n g  a b o u t wisdom o r w i s e p e o p l e .  established attempts,  i t seems p a r t i c u l a r l y  special attention to clearly and t h e p r e v i o u s l y  important  step  Clayton subjects  describe  and B i r r e n  each case,  a r e an  that  success o f these they  (1978) a n d H o l l i d a y  In the  (1981)  and B i r r e n ,  applicability  studies,  f a i l to  t h e domain o f wisdom.  (15 f o r C l a y t o n  terms o f t h e i r  small  studies, setof  70 f o r H o l l i d a y )  t o a wise person.  In  t h e words were c h o s e n on some a r b i t r a r y b a s i s  i tis difficult  all,  studies  were a s k e d t o r a t e a r e l a t i v e l y  descriptors  and  important t o  d e l i n e a t i n g the area o f  described  the apparent  i s reason t o b e l i e v e  exhaustively  to guide  i n that d i r e c t i o n .  Despite there  In the absence  theoretical tradition  interest,  in  o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g wisdom  t o conclude  o r even a m a j o r i t y ,  that  they  encompassed  of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of wise  people. B r e n t and Watson using the This  a restricted  item  (1980) a v o i d e d  s e t by a s k i n g  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a wise person approach permitted  a broader,  examination of the features  the problem o f  people to describe that  less  o f wisdom.  t h e y knew.  constrained The a u t h o r s ,  80  however,  lacked  adequacy, or  This  exhaustively the  clear  characterize  those  more r i g o r o u s wise  restricted  shortcomings that  approach  representativeness,  descriptors.  of  a consistent  of  the  these  efforts  analysis  ability  to  wisdom.  studies,  be  the  individual  domain of three  the  the  their  should  of  of  for evaluating  In  view  i t seems  s u p p l e m e n t e d by  terms used  to  a  describe  people.  Categorization  Theory  Previous success  analyses  in identifying  perceived  as  and  being  the  wise.  category  analyses  defining  features  of  Counterpart  efforts  theories  of  intelligence  analysis  can  be  of  intelligence  is  potentially  wisdom, a tradition, foundation.  In  which  identify  that  t r y to of  and  for  establish  wise  a l , 1981).  i s marked by  a  the  informal that  lacks  a coherent  this  case,  people's  category  the  features  Such  an  approach  features  strong  which  the  people.  analyze  identifying  people  constitute  i n understanding et  some  of  have demonstrated  (Sternberg useful  characteristics  category  valuable  domain but  to  o f wisdom have had  Those attempts  informal  the  Research  of  informal  psychological  informal  conceptions  81  o f wisdom may information theory  be a p a r t i c u l a r l y  f o r developing  o f wisdom.  This  important  source o f  a comprehensive  psychological  type of i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i f i t i s  t o be s u c c e s s f u l , must be b a s e d on a c o g e n t categorization.  Previous  attempts  somewhat l i m i t e d by t h e i r categorization compensate  theory.  f o r that  Categorization  Rosch  organizing groups.  psychology  1978) s u g g e s t e d processing  two b r o a d p r i n c i p l e s .  obtain  structure, reflect  provides  that  that  such a  The f i r s t ,  suggests  the perceived  aids  i n t o manageable i s g o v e r n e d by  cognitive  economy,  rules help  i n d i v i d u a l s to  with minimal  expenditure of  The s e c o n d p r i n c i p l e , that  task.  a means f o r  categorization  categorization  effort.  the necesary  categorization  by p r o v i d i n g  maximal i n f o r m a t i o n  cognitive  attempts t o  i n f i n i t e l y variable objects  that  of  oversight.  She p r o p o s e d  suggests  study  framework f o r u n d e r t a k i n g  (1975,  information  t o s t u d y wisdom were  lack of consideration  This  of  Theory  Cognitive theoretical  theory  psychological  structure  world categories  of the world,  as  82  category  members  possess  clusters  of  correlated  attributes. Rosen in  both  dimension,  increasing basic  broad). lower  that categories are organized  v e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a l  vertical  to  suggested  categories are arranged  generality (moderately Categories  ones  resulting  arrangement.  dimensions.  ranging broad),  from  In the i n terms of  subordinate  to superordinate  at higher  levels  i n a ranked  (narrow), (very  subsume t h o s e  at  hierarchical  A n e x a m p l e o f a common o b j e c t h i e r a r c h y  would be:  FURNITURE  KITCHEN  LAWN  CHAIRS  CHAIRS  Categories of  their  scope  a t each  and d e t a i l .  level  COFFEE  DINING  TABLE  TABLE  d i f f e r both  The s u b o r d i n a t e  i n -terras  categories  83  are  rich  Higher  in detail  level  detailed. are  The relatedness  s c o p e and  are  of  categories  resemblance.  similarity  same l e v e l categories,  as  at the  the  degree  same  level  chairs  categories.  should  subsumed  of  and Rosch  within  demonstrate  some  references  phenomena, t h e r e s e m b l a n c e  Mervis  idea of  (1975) u s e d  should  be  between c a t e g o r i e s which  like  The  f e a t u r e s . The  i n the  same way  each o t h e r  in slightly  to recognize  share  shared that  different  to  exist  underlying  f a m i l y members,  categories  the  f a m i l y resemblances  of g e n e r a l i t y .  familial  overlap  they  complete.  Wittgensteinian  all,  indexes  However, s i n c e e a c h c a t e g o r y  R o s c h and  the  they  categories  as  above diagram,  such r e l a t e d  category,  somewhat d i s t i n c t than  level  less  aids.  existing  In t h e  but  to serve  t h a t when c a t e g o r i e s a r e  a superordinate  less  processing  examples o f  hypothesized  detail  h o r i z o n t a l dimension  within a hierarchy. tables  that basic  psychological relevance  information  inclusion.  a r e more i n c l u s i v e ,  Rosch s u g g e s t e d  sufficient  effective  narrow i n range o f  categories  of p a r t i c u l a r  possess  but  idea  There  being  the  i s that  vary  f a m i l y members  a l l members as  at  some, b u t  features  ways.  discuss  not between  resemble is.enough  related,  but  84  also  sufficient  individuals. examine t h e elements the  d i f f e r e n c e to r e c o g n i z e  Rosch suggested  common t o b o t h c a t e g o r i e s  of prototypes, internal  emerged  membership governing  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n theory i n terms o f  the  clearest  has  instance defined  to  the  defined  each. notion  category.  of the  an  object  to  would  be  have  features.  a l l o r none a f f a i r .  that while  category,  people  constituted  about  the  t h o s e more p e r i p h e r a l o b j e c t s . traditional  In  typically  when o b j e c t s  they o f t e n disagreed  i s inconsistent with  category  In o r d e r  of c r i t e r i a l an  the  conditions  w h i c h members o f c a t e g o r i e s  membership o f finding  the  membership  s t u d i e s , Rosch found on  with  categories.  necessary  complement  made c a t e g o r y  clearly  interest,  a member o f a c a t e g o r y ,  to possess a f u l l  the  from Rosch's e x a m i n a t i o n o f  inclusion within  considered  agreed  of  are unique  structure of natural object  Traditional  This  considering  to  in conjunction  p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that additional feature  as  i t is possible  d e g r e e o f r e s e m b l a n c e by  An  her  that  them  the  were  less  class Such  theories  a of  categorization. In view of that being  psychological organized  prototype  of  the  this  discrepancy,  categories  around  the  category.  Rosch  were b e t t e r  thought  clearest instance According  suggested of  as  or  to Rosch,  people  35  determined  c a t e g o r y membership b y c o m p a r i n g  member w i t h t h e p r o t o t y p e . degree  o f resemblance  more c o n f i d e n t l y than o t h e r s . perspective,  S i n c e members v a r y i n t h e i r  t o t h e p r o t o t y p e , some w i l l  be  s e e n a s b e i n g members o f t h e c a t e g o r y  C a t e g o r y membership,  from  i s a q u e s t i o n o f degree.  Rosch's c a t e g o r i e s a r e l i k e boundaries  a potential  are i n d i s t i n c t  fuzzy sets  and t e n d  this In t h i s respect, i n which the  t o fade  into  each  other. Prototypes, in  any m a t e r i a l  as c o n s e n s u a l  sense.  Empirically,  Rather,  judgements t h a t  attributes within correlational  a s d e f i n e d b y R o s c h , do n o t e x i s t t h e y may be t h o u g h t o f  maximize c l u s t e r s o f  c a t e g o r i e s and c l a r i f y t h e  structure  of the p e r c e i v e d world.  prototypes are r e f l e c t e d  i n group  judgements o f t h e g o o d n e s s o f f i t o f membership w i t h i n a particular person  category.  P r o t o t y p e s a r e something  l i k e the  o f o n e ' s dreams who h a s a l l t h e f e a t u r e s o f an  i d e a l person  and s e r v e s a s a t e m p l a t e  f o r evaluating  o t h e r p e o p l e , b u t does n o t r e p r e s e n t a s p e c i f i c Rosch i n d i c a t e d represent  ideal  t h a t p r o t o t y p e s , because  c a t e g o r y members, may be r i c h  i n f o r m a t i o n about  person.  the a t t r i b u t e  structure  they  sources of  of a category.  One c a n t h e r e f o r e s t u d y c a t e g o r i e s by e x a m i n i n g  their  86  prototypes.  Describing a prototype  cataloguing activity, but  attributes.  however,  to c l a r i f y  first  centrality category  The p u r p o s e o f s u c h  i s not t o i d e n t i f y  the a t t r i b u t e  T h i s may be c a r r i e d people  i s somewhat an  category  members,  s t r u c t u r e o f the category.  out i n a two-step process  generate,  like  and t h e n  i n which  r a t e the importance  o f , a t t r i b u t e s w h i c h d e s c r i b e an  or  ideal  member. Rosch a l s o  attributes  found  t h a t i d e n t i f y i n g the  associated with  of demonstrating  a prototype  t h e impact  p r o v i d e d a means  of categorization  on  information processing.  F o r example,  that  membership a r e a f u n c t i o n o f  the  ratings  of category  number o f p r o t o t y p i c a l  the p o t e n t i a l positively with  category  related  the prototype  of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s closer  member.  P e r c e i v e d membership i s  and n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d shared  with other  as a c a t e g o r y  and P r o t o t y p e  Extensions  shared  t o t h e number  categories.  the prototype,  i t is identified  Categorization  associated with  t o t h e number o f a t t r i b u t e s  an o b j e c t resembles  confidently  attributes  she d e m o n s t r a t e d  The  t h e more member.  Research  o f R o s c h ' s work have  demonstrated  37  that people  categorize other i n d i v i d u a l s  manner t h a t  t h e y do  have been used  common o b j e c t s .  successfully  personality  traits,  formation.  The  appropriate dimensions pages,  technique  review  those d i f f e r e n t and  f o c u s e s on  representative  judgements and  be  a  stereotype  fields. studies  the  o f wisdom.  t h e use  or relevant  psychological  In t h e  following  of prototype procedures  The that  suggests  particularly  for clarifying  o f the concept  I will  intelligence,  success achieved i n these areas  t h a t p r o t o t y p e a n a l y s i s may  same  Prototype analyses  to study  clinical  i n the  review  i s not  are e i t h e r t o the  in  exhaustive  particularly  research reported  here.  Prototypes  and  Cantor categorization perception. that  i t was  hierarchies  and  Mischel  theory into  In t h e i r possible  (1979) i n t r o d u c e d  t h e domain o f  initial  F o c u s i n g on as  'introverted , 1  work, t h e y  person demonstrated  to construct p e r s o n a l i t y  t h a t were s i m i l a r  hierarchies. descriptors  Person P e r c e p t i o n  such  i n form  to natural object  commonly u s e d  personality  ' a g g r e s s i v e , ' e x t r o v e r t e d ' , and 1  they a l s o  found  that  personality  88  categories Their  exhibited  well  r e s u l t s suggested that  important  role in social  suggest that  personality  •use o f p r o t o t y p e o r Buss and  traits  and  overt  generation centrally  cognition. theory  Craik the  scales  and  self  of  They  reports  be  enriched  a  Their  lists  used of  personality prototype  behaviours  that  the  could  were u s e d t o cross  be  current  clarified  identify  Broughton  use  used  d i s p o s i t i o n measures.  confusion traits  that  regarding  and  are  the  overt  procedures likely  to  consistency.  rating scales  scales  that  behaviours  strategy  to  w h i c h were  i n a comparative v a l i d i t y  prototype  on  of  (1981) u s e d a p r o t o t y p e  personality  subsequently  themselves  i f prototype  behaviours  situational  traits.  r e s u l t s demonstrated  with personality  the  prototype  first  indicate their  by  analyses.  engagement i n p r o t o t y p i c a l  highly  indicated  that  to  to both rate  r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r s o n a l i t y  found  They went on  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  subjects  actions.  construct  an  could  (1981) u s e d  behaviour.  prototypical  exhibit  plays  characterizing different personality  personality  behaviour  structures.  categorization  procedures to develop  They n e x t a s k e d  correlated  prototype  other categorization  approach to c l a r i f y  This  defined  constructed  by  study. naive  He.  89  subjects  yielded better  than s c a l e s  g e n e r a t e d by  p s y c h o m e t r i c methods. socially  defined  perceptions  of  "enlightened"  Prototypes  and  the  professionals or  apply  Cantor the  His  rational  r e s u l t s suggested naive  may  be  speculation  of  experts.  studies  as  valid  as  the  have used p r o t o t y p e  manner i n w h i c h m e n t a l  knowledge i n the  analyses  health  diagnostic  problems  process.  e t a l . (1980) u s e d a p r o t o t y p e p r o c e d u r e  They  found  that  use  types  involutional  ranging  clinical  judgement, w h i c h has idiosyncratic  and  They a l s o  found  o f t e n been d e p i c t e d  u n r e l i a b l e , was  from a p r o t o t y p e  framework.  of  quite The  held  various  to that  clinical  as o r d e r l y when reliability  judgements was  shown t o be  a positive function  resemblance of  the  to the  patient  study  psychologists  from s c h i z o p h r e n i a  melancholia.  to  diagnostic  formed p r o t o t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s  diagnostic  for  Research  manner i n w h i c h c l i n i c i a n s  viewed  that  individuals'  categories  Clinical  and  e i t h e r conceive of mental h e a l t h  their  categories. well  traditional  categories,  Several to c l a r i f y  psychometric c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  diagnostic  of  of the—  prototype.  90  Horowitz analysis  strategy to i d e n t i f y  interpersonal of  prototypes prototype category  c o u l d use  identifying  individuals  interpersonal  Prototypes  and  'elderly  T h e y went on  and  the  that  and  c o u l d be  deal with  a  that used  to  their  Research  elderly.  was  used  They  as  the Grandmotherly  a rich  a  prototype  t h e manner i n w h i c h p e o p l e  Senior C i t i z e n .  exhibited  larger  d e s c r i p t i o n s as  the p r o t o t y p e s  found  the E l d e r  structure,  Elderly  term  category  subcategories  Each of those  attribute  superordinate category,  type,  form  t h a t the  a superordinate  w h i c h subsumed a number o f d i s t i n c t  and  the  to suggest  e t a l . (1981) e m p l o y e d  of the  people'  including  that  i n t e r p e r s o n a l problems,  Other  to study  stereotypes  found  l o c a t e d w i t h i n the  identify  meaning  difficulties.  Bever analysis  i n the  identified  these prototype  symptoms c o m p r i s i n g the  prototype  characteristic  They and  f o r l o n e l i n e s s was of depression.  means o f  help  loneliness.  f o r each c a t e g o r y  clinicians  the  a  f e a t u r e s t h a t a r e embedded  d e p r e s s i o n and  the  e t a l . (1981) u s e d  Statesman  subcategories while  People,  was  the associated  91  with  few a t t r i b u t e s .  The r e s e a r c h e r s  information  inconsistent with  categories,  s u c h as t h e S e n i o r  less well  than  superordinate suggest the  that  basic  information  also  the basic Citizen,  was remembered  i n c o n s i s t e n t with the  most s t e r e o t y p i n g  superordinate  level,  level  that  level  category E l d e r l y People.  category  found  This  l e d them t o  o f i n d i v i d u a l s occurs at  rather  than at the  as some s t e r e o t y p e  literature  suggests. Fehr analysis  the of  a Roschian  t o examine t h e s t r u c t u r e  emotions. arranged  (1982) u s e d  She d i s c o v e r e d  that  o f t h e domain o f  emotional  i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l strucure  type o f h i e r a r c h i e s common o b j e c t s .  emotional functioned  reported  She a l s o  descriptors as b a s i c  that  level  categorization  that  terms were c l o s e l y resembled  by Rosch i n h e r s t u d i e s  found  t h a t many o f t h e  people use i n everyday  language  concepts w i t h i n the  hierarchies.  Prototypes  and  Several  Cognition  studies  i n the area  intelligence  are p a r t i c u l a r l y  In  psychologists  the past,  relevant  o f human to this  have debated w i t h  project.  great  92  intensity  t h e meaning o f t h e t e r m  coming t o e i t h e r intelligence intelligent situation  and  little  concept. of  a c o n s e n s u a l a g r e e m e n t on  o r any people  function  attempts  This  theories  to c l a r i f y  s e r v e as g u i d e s  for  of  how  of  o f wisdom  o f t h e common u s a g e o f  Thus, p a r a l l e l may  of  to the s i t u a t i o n  have p o o r l y developed  understanding  intelligence  i n the world.  analogous  without  the nature  systematic understanding  is directly  wisdom where we  'intelligent'  the  the  meaning  examining  wisdom. Neisser concept  (1979) examined t h e meaning o f  of i n t e l l i g e n c e  procedure. regarding eliminated  using a Roschian  H i s r a t i o n a l e was  to understand  i n t e l l i g e n c e were l i n k e d general.  The  central  c e r t a i n words,  such  thought  intelligent,  Intelligence,  o f as a c o n c e p t  correlated  behaviours  to propose  that  be  the nature  of h i s p o s i t i o n  language because they h e l p people individuals.  might  of  t o our knowledge o f c o n c e p t s  point  as  analytic  t h a t much o f t h e c o n f u s i o n  t h e meaning o f i n t e l l i g e n c e i f attempts  type  the  i n that  be more c o m p l e t e l y u n d e r s t o o d  like  in natural  framework, a number  attributes.  intelligence,  that  to categorize other  referencing  and  exist  was  in  could  be  of  This led Neisser  common- o b j e c t s ,  i f analyzed within  a  could  93  Roschian  framework o f p r o t o t y p i c a l l y  organized  concepts. His analysis psychometric in  suggested  conceptions  that  traditional  o f i n t e l l i g e n c e were  a more g e n e r a l common l a n g u a g e i d e a o f  The  category  context,  of  intelligence,  as  called  i t exists  highly with  academic s u c c e s s ,  a person's  that person's intelligent  resemblance  person.  and  Roschian-like  series  intelligence  correlate that in  i n terms  of  complex c o g n i t i v e  strategies.  e t a l (1981) a l s o i n a study  people's  of s t u d i e s , they  b e t w e e n laymen and  in  prototypically  i n general;  b)  authors  theories suggested  s h o u l d h a v e some  informal conceptions.  examined  e x p e r t s on  incorporated a  of i m p l i c i t  L i k e N e i s s e r , the  with  that  i s judged  theories of i n t e l l i g e n c e  correspondence  of  T h i s work i m p l i e s t h a t i t i s b o t h  analysis  intelligence. formal  to a  d e s i r a b l e to analyze  Sternberg  one  While  N e i s s e r suggested  intelligence  phenomena u s i n g p r o t o t y p e  that  social  t o measure i n t e l l i g e n c e  t e r m s o f p o s s e s s i n g a number o f a b i l i t i e s  of  in a  academic smartness.  p s y c h o l o g i s t s have attempted  possible  intelligence.  i n c l u d e s a l a r g e number o f d i m e n s i o n s ,  w h i c h m i g h t be  the world  subsumed  the  the  degree of  nature  academic  In  a  consensus  of,, a)  intelligence;  and  94  c)  everyday  intelligence.  participants' of  subjects  informal  generate that  In a s u b s e q u e n t  study,  rated of  three  target  the  words  conceptions  indicated of  people d i f f e r  indicated  their  that  problem s o l v i n g  emerged, b u t  g r o u p s nor  however, v a r i e d raters.  descriptions  suggesting  authors  that  importance of of  Nevertheless,  the  and  social  a l l descriptions. neither  of both  each the  i t did  factor,  target  implicit,  or  in  argued  informal,  that  the  lay  ratings.  results  i n s c o p e t h a n most  and  factor  i n experts' these  Other  across  s o c i a l competency  they  lay  ratings  abilities  interpreted  broader  formed  different  percentage of variance  than  people's  i n t e l l i g e n c e are  theories.  function  for a greater  The  of  a  the  e x p e r t s and  importance of  In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e  accounted people's  as  The  people  characteristicness  that  were c o n s i s t e n t  targets.  lay  characteristicness  the  analyses  competency d i m e n s i o n s u n d e r l a y factors  and  groups.  people maintain well  somewhat i n t h e Factor  groups  three  Examination of  i n t e l l i g e n c e , and  characteristics.  the  experts  g r o u p s on that  a u t h o r s had  each o f  groups of  groups.  the  the  behavioural  typified  c o n c o r d a n c e between t h e of  of  t h o s e words i n t e r m s o f  the  describe  theories,  lists  characteristics  To  as theories formal  high  d e g r e e o f r e s e m b l a n c e between l a y p e o p l e ' s and ratings  indicated that  subscribe  experts'  i n d i v i d u a l s o f a l l backgrounds  to similar, well  formed,  theories of  intelligence.  A Prototype Analysis  The indicate  studies  that  o f Wisdom  reviewed  i n the preceding  pages  category a n a l y s i s procedures provide  a  p o w e r f u l means o f e x a m i n i n g c e r t a i n t y p e s o f psychological that  scales  constructs.  Broughton's  b a s e d on p e r s o n a l i t y p r o t o t y p e s  higher  validity  formed  scales  c o e f f i c i e n t s than  and S t e r n b e r g  common l a n g u a g e p r o t o t y p e s intelligence clearly  suggest  categories  psychological nature,  et al's resemble  c a n be a s i g n i f i c a n t Wisdom,  and c o g n i t i v e  recognizing  someone as b e i n g  theories of These  findings  of the instances  of  although d i f f e r e n t i n  competency wise  that  component i n  i s s i m i l a r i n form t o p e r s o n a l i t y  descriptors  person  formal  of representative  theories.  demonstrate  (1981) f i n d i n g  that people's perceptions features  report  psychometrically  are of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t .  distinguishing social  (1981)  trait  terms.  The a c t o f  s u g g e s t s .that t h e  e x h i b i t s a s e t of a t t r i b u t e s or behaviours  96  that  s e r v e s as a b a s i s f o r i n c l u d i n g  category o f wise  people.  I f i t i s i n fact  t h i n k o f wisdom a s a s o c i a l l y the r e s u l t s then  It earlier  i s e v i d e n t from  although  utility  l a y people  the reviews  specific  and t h e o r i s t s  sometimes d i v e r s e ,  much o f t h a t  accounts,  metaphysical  unbiased  considerable  literature  o f wise  people.  i s of limited The  f o r example, a r e t i e d t o  assumptions  and c a n n o t  I n t h e wisdom l i t e r a t u r e ,  be  regarded  o f wise  there i s  comment on t h e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f wisdom,  but  little  The  few p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s t o a p p e a r  literature  hold  o p i n i o n s about the  representations of the nature  individuals.  indication  of the composition  have i d e n t i f i e d  c h a r a c t e r i z e wise In s h o r t , a l t h o u g h people  presented  i n psychological investigations.  philosophical  as  the prototype  o f wisdom and t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  Unfortunately,  suggest,  the category.  that both  definite,  c a t e g o r y , as  and a p p r o p r i a t e t o s t u d y t h e  o f wisdom b y i n v e s t i g a t i n g  associated with  nature  meaningful  i n the  correct to  o f the preceding e x t e n s i v e review  i t i s both p o s s i b l e  nature  the person  people,  some p o s s i b l e b u t t h a t work  the l i t e r a t u r e  a r e marked b y c e r t a i n  o f wise i n the  features that i s incomplete.  suggests  distinctive  people.  that  wise  97  characteristics, rendered  into  these  important  a coherent  f e a t u r e s have not  account  been  of the p s y c h o l o g i c a l  meaning o f wisdom. The thesis,  e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s undertaken  t h e r e f o r e , were d e s i g n e d  prototype  associated with  the  category  of wise  i n v o l v e d g e n e r a t i n g the prototype,  that  i t possessed  other  properties similar  investigations,  and  the people.  demonstrating  to prototypes  a s s e s s i n g i t s impact  information processing strategies competent  this  to illuminate  This  in  in  used  when  on  the  classifying  individuals. Specifically,  undertaken.  The  first  t h r e e p h a s e s o f work were phase i n v o l v e d c o l l e c t i n g  analyzing  d e s c r i p t i o n s of wise people.  The  concerned  with  typifying  category  found  g e n e r a t i n g the p r o t o t y p e  of wise people.  demonstrating processed  The  third  second  involved  was the  empirically  t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n about wise people  i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h  and  was  categorization  theory. Within to  address  wisdom. construed  this  a series  The as  a n s w e r e d by  first  t h r e e phase  of questions q u e s t i o n was  a prototype examining  framework, about the  I was  nature  w h e t h e r wisdom was  organized  concept.  the p r o p e r t i e s of  the  This  able of best was  prototype  98  desciptors studies.  f o r resemblance  to prototypes  The s e c o n d q u e s t i o n  f o r w i s e w o u l d be c o n s i s t e n t p r o b l e m was and  cross  ratings.  The t h i r d  different  i n kind  cohort  consistency  techniques  the prototype d e s c r i p t o r s .  subjects' priming  strategies.  This  By a d d r e s s i n g  with prototype  each o f these  converging pattern  consistent  issues,  competency  be  multivariate  query  information  a n s w e r e d by  examining  following  a  information.  I developed  of evidence arguing  o f wisdom as an a d u l t  was  fourth  The f i n a l  r e c o g n i t i o n memory p e r f o r m a n c e s  exercise  concern  the dimensions  influenced  was  was  f o r wise could  using  to identify  was w h e t h e r t h e w i s e p r o t o t y p e  cohorts  psychological  data  processing  The  whether t h e p r o t o t y p e  The s o l u t i o n i n v o l v e d  reduction  age  f o r wise with a  for intelligence.  i n terms o f u n d e r l y i n g  This  i n the prototype  This  the prototype  competencies.  underlying  age g r o u p s .  than i n t e l l i g e n c e .  generated  problem involved described  across  c o n c e r n was w h e t h e r wisdom  a d d r e s s e d by c o m p a r i n g  i n other  was w h e t h e r t h e p r o t o t y p e  d e a l t w i t h by i n c l u d i n g s e v e r a l  examining  prototype  found  a  f o r the v a l i d i t y  descriptor.  99  METHOD  The first The  r e s e a r c h c o n s i s t e d of three p r o j e c t s .  The  i n v o l v e d c o l l e c t i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s of wise people.  second was  concerned with g e n e r a t i n g  d e s c r i p t i o n of the category  a  prototype  of wise people.  examined the i n f l u e n c e of the wise prototype information processing  strategies.  The  presentation.  representing  the age  aged a d u l t s and  In t o t a l , 458  cohorts  third  on people's  methodologies  employed i n each p r o j e c t are d i s t i n c t and separate  The  warrant  subjects,  of young a d u l t s , middle  elderly adults, participated in  d i f f e r e n t phases of the r e s e a r c h .  The  following  s e c t i o n s d e t a i l s e q u e n t i a l l y the methods used i n each project.  P r o j e c t s one  are presented distinct  and  together,  i s s u e , and  two  while  form an i n t e g r a l u n i t  and  study I I I addresses a  i s described  separately.  Method S e c t i o n - Study I  SUBJECTS:  Subjects  individuals representing middle aged a d u l t s and  i n t h i s study were  three cohorts  senior c i t i z e n s .  150  - young a d u l t s , The  f i f t y young  a d u l t s were r e c r u i t e d from undergraduate psychology  100  courses fifty of  a t the U n i v e r s i t y  middle  British  of B r i t i s h  Columbia.  aged a d u l t s were r e c r u i t e d  Columbia  evening  courses  The  o l d e r a d u l t s were r e c r u i t e d  citizens' area.  recreation  Approximately  a t Langara  adult  Community C o l l e g e . from s e n i o r  centres i n the Greater e q u a l numbers  University  and from  education fifty  offered  courses  from  The  Vancouver  o f m a l e s and  were i n c l u d e d i n each  cohort.  restrict  i n terms o f e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l o r  any  participants  other variable.  complete  There  was  females  A l l s u b j e c t s who  the experimental  no a t t e m p t  to  were a b l e t o  t a s k s were i n c l u d e d i n t h e  s t u d y . The s e x , age and e d u c a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f each  cohort are displayed i n Tables  (Insert Tables  PROCEDURE; generate  lists  people, people of  The s u b j e c t s were a s k e d  and F o o l i s h p e o p l e .  represent  interest.  c o n t r a s t w i t h Wise.  Wise p e o p l e ,  Intelligent  people,  that Shrewd Spiritual  The t a r g e t W i s e p e o p l e  The o t h e r  categories that  to  or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of s i x targets:  P e r c e p t i v e people,  primary  I and I I h e r e )  of attributes  were d e s c r i p t i v e  I and I I .  t a r g e t s were c h o s e n  m i g h t be s i m i l a r  F o o l i s h was  was to  to or  i n c l u d e d as a  direct  TABLE I  AGE CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY I SUBJECTS  -  MEAN  YOUNG  RANGE  STANDARD DEVIATION  MALES (N= 25)  22.20  20 - 28  2.10  FEMALES (N= 25)  22 . 00  20 - 28  2 .20  MALES (N= 25)  43.24  33 - 58  7.83  FEMALES (N= 25)  42.72  33 - 59  8. 55  MALES (N= 18)  69.88  61 - 77  4. 69  FEMALES (N= 32)  69.69  61 - 86  5.08  ADULTS  MIDDLE AGED  ELDERLY  ADULTS  ADULTS  TABLE I I E D U C A T I O N A L L E V E L - STUDY I S U B J E C T S  £ 8 YRS  SOME HIGH SCHOOL  HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA  SOME COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY  COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY DEGREE  ADVANCED DEGREE  DID NOT REPLY  MALE  19  1  5  FEMALE  17  3  5  YOUNG ADULTS  MIDDLE AGED ADULTS  ELDERLY 1  MALE  3  4  8  FEMALE  2  5  4  16  6  2  4  3  9  5  4  9  MALE  3  FEMALE  1  1  9  ADULTS 4  i— o  1  103  contrast.  Intelligent,  because of  i t s similarity  Shrewd was  t h o u g h t t o mark a c o m p e t e n t mode o f f u n c t i o n ,  while  was is  P e r c e p t i v e was i n s i g h t might  thought  other  task,  examining the  types  booklet  a set of  questions.  containing  s i x sheets  of the  targets.  t a r g e t s was were a s k e d  to generate  but  spend more t h a n  t o spend  few  f r o m Buss  subjects.  a means o f  introduced and  of paper,  to  given  T h e y were t h e n  the an  given  each headed  of p r e s e n t a t i o n of subjects.  The  as much t i m e as  t h a t they  m i n u t e s on  INSTRUCTIONS. adapted  these  a by  the  subjects  d e s c r i p t o r s f o r each t a r g e t .  were t o l d a  that  function.  order  randomized across  They were p e r m i t t e d necessary,  The  quality  r e s e m b l a n c e between wisdom  instructions  t o ask  Spiritual  Including  provided  s u b j e c t s were f i r s t  provided  opportunity  o f competent  with  i t s association  Finally,  wisdom.  1980).  associated  a transcendental  d e s c r i p t o r s , then,  The  one  connotations  resemble Wise.  chosen  (Clayton,  i n c l u d e d because  to reference  systematically  o t h e r hand, was  t o wisdom  sometimes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  additional  and  the  l a c k i n g the p o s i t i v e  Wise. with  on  & Craik  The  should  each  following  was  t r y not  to  target. instructions,  ( 1 9 8 1 ) , were p r e s e n t e d  to  the  104  T h i s i s a very simple study to f i n d out the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t r i b u t e s t h a t p e o p l e f e e l a r e common t o d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f p e r s o n s . At the top of t h e next pages a r e l i s t e d d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f persons. F o r each page, you w i l l t a k e 2 o r 3 m i n u t e s and w r i t e down a l l o f t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f t h a t k i n d o f person t h a t you can t h i n k o f . F i r s t , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e y o u r s e x and age on t h e c o v e r s h e e t . Then t u r n t o t h e n e x t page, r e a d t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n and w r i t e down t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t r i b u t e s o f t h a t k i n d o f person. T r y not t o free a s s o c i a t e . F o r example, i f t h e t e r m " i n t e l l i g e n t p e r s o n " r e m i n d s you o f a p a r t i c u l a r f r i e n d , do n o t w r i t e down t h e word f r i e n d , o r t h e f r i e n d ' s name. I am n o t a s k i n g y o u t o name s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l s , b u t t o l i s t t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c e r t a i n kinds of people A f t e r y o u c o m p l e t e e a c h page, c o n t i n u e on t o t h e n e x t one. P l e a s e do n o t l o o k b a c k a t c o m p l e t e d d e s c r i p t i o n s when y o u a r e l i s t i n g t h e characteristics of different targets. Simply d e s c r i b e e a c h t a r g e t u s i n g words t h a t come t o mind. I would a l s o ask you n o t t o r e f e r t o books, d i c t i o n a r i e s o r any o u t s i d e s o u r c e s . I am o n l y i n t e r e s t e d i n your p e r c e p t i o n s o f d i f f e r e n t kinds of people. P l e a s e remember t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y i s v o l u n t a r y and t h a t y o u a r e f r e e t o w i t h d r a w a t any time. You a r e a l s o f r e e t o r e f u s e t o answer any questions without fear of p r e j u d i c i a l action or repercussions. I f you complete t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I w i l l assume t h a t y o u h a v e g i v e n y o u r c o n s e n t t o p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study. Thank y o u f o r y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n . General Procedures Responses  The  for Transcribing  responses  t o each  target  and J u d g i n g  were t h e n  formed  105  i n t o non-redundant c a t e g o r y d e s c r i p t o r stage process combining and to  of transcribing  ensure  that  idiosyncratic t h i s was  a p o o l o f judges  step.  The j u d g e s  pre-established  rules  t o determine  the  o r d e l e t e d from  transcription  In o r d e r  as p o s s i b l e ,  i n t h e d e c i s i o n making  a t each  included  descriptors  characteristics.  done as o b j e c t i v e l y  participated  i n a three  s u b j e c t s ' responses,  synonymous o r t h e m a t i c a l l y r e l a t e d  eliminating  process  lists  the f i n a l  used  sets of  w h i c h words s h o u l d be list.  and judgement p r o c e s s  The d e t a i l s  of  are described  below.  Transcribing  Responses  The  experimenter  d e s c r i p t i v e phrases protocols.  t h a t were  The r e s p o n s e s  possible,  or with  to  the d e s c r i p t o r  render  then  divided  descriptive each  into  transcribed  i n the experimental  were r e c o r d e d v e r b a t i m , i f  such minimal  c h a n g e s as were  coherent.  two s e p a r a t e  phrases.  listed  a l l words and  The r e s p o n s e s  lists:  This procedure  necessary were  s i n g l e words and was  followed for  target. Across  generated  the t h r e e c o h o r t s , the s u b j e c t s  approximately  878 d e c r i p t o r s  or d e s c r i p t i v e  106  p h r a s e s . The m i d d l e aged c o h o r t number o f d e s c r i p t o r s (300)  cohort  (399), f o l l o w e d  (179).  e l d e r l y cohort  m i d d l e aged g r o u p , 6 p e r  g r o u p and 3.6 p e r  subject  subject  f o r the  the  by the  approximately 8 descriptors  represents the  and the  generated  subject  f o r the  excluded,  generated by each cohort subjects, older  214 f o r t h e  subjects.  descriptors  This  generated  Producing a L i s t  The  the  When  middle  o f 784  yields a total  t a r g e t Wise  t r a n s c r i p t i o n y i e l d e d a large pool o f  or idiosyncratic.  eliminate  both o f these types o f responses  The most b a s i c  i n the  list.  meet t h i s  The n e x t  rule in this  responses r e c e i v i n g m u l t i p l e  simply,  the  of Descriptors  redundant  items could  aged  people.  f o r e a c h c a t e g o r y , many o f w h i c h were  included  terms  distinct  responses  list.  such  and 155 f o r  c o l l e g e age s u b j e c t s  f o r the  Many o f  number o f d i s t i n c t  was 230 f o r t h e  for  c o l l e g e age  group.  t h o s e d e s c r i p t o r s , however, were i d e n t i c a l . redundancies are  c o l l e g e age This  per  older  largest  t a s k was t o from  the  p r o c e s s was t h a t  only  e n d o r s e m e n t s would be  T h e r e were s e v e r a l ways i n w h i c h requirement.  i f a word was l i s t e d  First,  and  most  b y more t h a n one s u b j e c t  it  107  would  automatically  descriptor  was  descriptor, list.  be  Third,  two  Second,  if a  synonymous w i t h  were c o m b i n e d  and  r e l a t e d to other and  above i n s t a n c e s , i n the  included except  list  amongst a p o o l  of  phrases,  i n the  the  reflected  the  the be  theme w o u l d  In a l l o f  decisions  a majority  in  judged to  list.  first,  another  included  i f a d e s c r i p t i v e p h r a s e was  identified  a word  included.  j u d g e d t o be  the  thematically  be  to  the  include  consensus  judges.  Judges  Four psychology the  experimenter,  the  t a r g e t Wise p e o p l e .  two  judges,  the  lists  the  of  previously  judged  before  the  lists  For  the  a u t h o r and  responses.  an  A l l of  agreement  accepting  For  (three  any  decision  descriptors.  For  the  a g r e e m e n t was  required  judgement d e c i s i o n s .  the  I f the  descriptors  remaining  the  including  four  targets,  judge,  examined  judges  had for  j u d g e s ) was  regarding  the  categories,  basis  for  judges c o u l d  for  five  judging  t a r g e t Wise p e o p l e ,  remaining as  of  procedures  the of  students,  additional  been t r a i n e d i n the  category descriptors. majority  graduate  a  required lists  of  unanimous  accepting not  meet  the  108  criterion,  t h e i t e m under c o n s i d e r a t i o n  from the l i s t  judgement p r o c e s s was  of steps.  d e s c r i p t o r s was thematically list  had  First,  the l i s t  o f s i n g l e word  r e l a t e d words were c o m b i n e d .  In the t h i r d  received  c a r r i e d out i n a  s c r u t i n i z e d and a l l synonyms and  o f d e s c r i p t i v e p h r a s e s was  scrutiny.  eliminated  of descriptors.  The series  was  neither  step,  multiple  rated  as b e i n g  final  s c r u t i n y and e i t h e r  submitted  Next, t h e t o t h e same  words and p h r a s e s  which  endorsements nor been  r e l a t e d t o other words/phrases  received  a  joined with others or  discarded.  Judging  the S i m i l a r i t y  of Single  W e b s t e r ' s New  Word  Desriptors  Collegiate Dictionary  R o g e t s T h e s a u r u s were u s e d as r e f e r e n c e 1  task.  Each  name o f t h e most f r e q u e n t l y identified  cited  words t h a t  I f the d e c i s i o n  descriptor. they  and  judge's  t h e words were c o m b i n e d and i d e n t i f i e d  judge then  f o r the  The g r o u p o f  t h e n d e c i d e d w h e t h e r t h e words i n e a c h  g r o u p i n g s were a c t u a l l y synonymous. upheld,  guides  j u d g e examined t h e g r o u p o f d e s c r i p t o r s  i n d i c a t e d w h i c h words were synonymous. judges  and  felt  were  by t h e Each  was  109  thematically If  similar,  t h e g r o u p i n g was  u p h e l d by  words were j o i n e d by (For  example,  words, which subject  had  for further  included  i n the The  as r e l a t e d  Knowledge  of Phrases  making g r o u p i n g s and  to express that  least  two  aside  Learned  theme  phrases,  t h e n , as  Phrases  subjects  nor  for further  (i.e.,  a  each  a particular  Learned  be  labelled  t h a t were n e i t h e r  group  be  from  a L o t f r o m E x p e r i e n c e and  from E x p e r i e n c e m i g h t 1  one  analysis.  I f the judges decided that  Experience. ).  list.  t o o t h e r words,  d e c i d i n g upon t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f  E x p e r i e n c e , Has  the  remaining  p h r a s e s c a p t u r e d a theme, t h e c a t e g o r y w o u l d  labelled  set  decision,  j u d g e s examined t h e d e s c r i p t i v e  individually  grouping.  synonymous.  n e i t h e r b e e n e n d o r s e d by more t h a n  the S i m i l a r i t y  committee  of  a h y p h e n and  nor been i d e n t i f i e d  The first  a majority  contemplative-reflective.)  were s e t a s i d e  Judging  but not n e c e s s a r i l y  Gains  'Learns  listed  by  from at  l i n k e d w i t h o t h e r p h r a s e s were analysis.  110  Judging  t h e R e m a i n i n g Words  The  judges  words and p h r a s e s the  list  with  that  this  category.  final  attempt  the d e f i n i t i o n  Words t h a t  and were d i s c a r d e d .  approximately  23% o f t h e d i s t i n c t  college  lists  c o h o r t s were t h e n characterizing words a p p e a r  included i n  were d i s c a r d e d . t o be  This represents descriptors.  by t h e m i d d l e  aged  thus  generated  by e a c h  combined, p r o d u c i n g  people's  i n the l e f t  conceptions  cohort.  o f the three  79 w o r d s / p h r a s e s  o f wisdom.  These  column o f t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n o f  Table I I I .  (Insert  65 o f  c o h o r t , 63 by  age c o h o r t and 54 b y t h e e l d e r l y  The  seemed  c o u l d n o t be p l a c e d  o f 182 words were j u d g e d  t h e s e were g e n e r a t e d  t o be  i f a word  theme, i t was  idiosyncratic  the  seemed  o f a p a r t i c u l a r word, i t  judgement p r o c e d u r e  A total  t o i n c l u d e them i n  Similarly,  with a p a r t i c u l a r  thematic  t o examine t h e r e m a i n i n g  I f a phrase  i n c l u d e d i n the l i s t .  consistent  in  in a final  of attributes.  consistent was  proceeded  Table I I I here)  1  TABLE I I I DESCRIPTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TARGET WISE OTHER TARGET CATEGORIES AND VARIOUS SOURCES DESCRIPTORS ASSOCIATED WITH WISE PEOPLE  College Cohort TOLERANT 5.74 MATURE 5.84 UNDERSTANDS LIFE 5.48 MORAL 5.22 CIRCUMSPECT/DISCREET 4.82 MAY BE ANY AGE 4.08 CAN SEE AND CONSIDER ALL POINTS OF VIEW 5.80 SAYS THINGS THAT ARE WORTH LISTENING TO 5.80 POISED 4.38 HUMBLE/MODEST 4.32 LIKEABLE/FRIENDLY 4.64 RELAXED 4.68 ARTICULATE 5.26 INTERESTING TO TALK WITH 5.84 UNCONDESCENDING 4.34 CONSIDERS ALL OPTIONS IN A SITUATION 5.70 AWARE 5.90 ALERT 5.02 CONTEMPLATIVE 5.86 KIND 4.78 SOCIABLE 4.36 ABLE TO PREDICT HOW THINGS TURN OUT 4.72 NON-JUDGEMENTAL 4.62 WELL READ 5.60 OPEN MINDED 5.66 THINKS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING DECISION 5.82 QUIET 3.94 LOGICAL/RATIONAL 6.00 continued.  MEAN VALUES Middle Aged Elderly Cohort Cohort 5.68 6.12 6.02 4.96 4.96 4.30 6.00 5.96 4.64 4.30 4.16 4.40 4.92 5.88 4.95 5.94 6.04 5.28 6.00 4.64 3.88 4.66 4.88 5.26 6.12 5.96 3.98 5.66  5.62 5.90 5.60 4.81 5.16 4.73 5.42 5.52 4.63 4.62 4.73 4.32 5.24 5.62 4.48 5.58 5.67 5.14 5.27 4. 78 4.60 4.04 4.79 5.61 5. 74 5.52 4.26 5.43  All Subjects 5.68 5.95 5.70 5.00 4.99 4.36 5.74 5.76 4.55 4.41 4.51 4.47 5.14 5. 78 4.59 5.74 5.87 5.15 5.72 4.73 4.28 4.47 4. 76 5.49 5.84 5. 77 4.06 5. 70  TABLE I I I (Continued)  HAPPY COMPREHENDING/UNDERSTANDING FORESIGHTFUL/FAR SEEING OBSERVANT/PERCEPTIVE HAVE LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE A SOURCE OF GOOD ADVICE PLANS THINGS CAREFULLY ASTUTE/DISCERNING KNOWS WHEN TO GIVE AND WITHHOLD ADVICE INTUITIVE COMPASSIONATE/CARING PHILOSOPHICAL AN ADVISOR OR MENTOR OLDER DIPLOMATIC COMPLEX CALM/PEACEFUL SEES THE ESSENCE OF SITUATIONS FAIR NOT NECESSARILY FORMALLY EDUCATED EMPATHIC METHODICAL GOOD LISTENER FLEXIBLE CURIOUS UNSELFISH EVEN TEMPERED NOT NECESSARILY INTELLIGENT UNDERSTANDS OTHER PEOPLE THOUGHTFUL/THINKS A GREAT DEAL RELIABLE  112  MEAN VALUES Middle College Aged Cohort Cohort  Elderly A l l Cohort Subjects  4.46 5 .72 5 .58 6.02 6.30 5 .98 5 .38 5 .28  4.18 6.16 5 .60 6.18 6.12 5 .78 5 .28 5 .73  4.33 5 .61 5 .04 5 .70 6.04 5 .92 5 .54 5 .12  4.32 5 .83 5 .41 5 .97 6.15 5 .89 5 .40 5 .38  5 .28 5 .42 4.72 5 16 5 04 4 42 4 58 5 02 4 90 5 44  5 .78 5 .52 4.60 5 68 4 90 4 62 4 92 4 85 4 82 5 94  5 .72 5 .20 5 .24 5 .43 4.59 4 47 4 32 4 32 4 56 5 47  5 .59 5 .38 4.85 5 43 4 85 4 50 4 61 4 74 4 76 5 61  5. 32 4. 32 4. 50 4. 40 5. 12 4. 84 5.64 4. 66 4. 78 3. 16 5.48 5.90 4. 92  5.38 4. 02 4. 49 4. 40 5. 36 4. 90 5.54 4. 56 4. 70 3.28 5.62 5. 76 4. 94  5 52 4 35 4. 53 4. 73 5.46  5 41 4. 23 4. 51 4. 51 5.31 4. 83 5.67 4. 70 4. 68 3. 30 5.48 s 78 J. 5. 11  continued.. . .  4. 75 5.84 4. 88 4. 56 3.48 5.35 5. 68 5.46  TABLE I I I (Continued)  SENSITIVE PATIENT SELF ACTUALIZED THINKS FOR HIS/HER SELF WEIGHS THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS USES COMMON SENSE SERIOUS EVALUATES AND UNDERSTANDS INFORMATION EXPERIENCED EDUCATED SUCCESSFUL RESPECTED UNDERSTANDS SELF/SELF AWARE INTELLIGENT NON-IMPULSIVE SPIRITUAL CONSERVATIVE KNOWLEDGEABLE CREATIVE/INVENTIVE SEES THINGS IN A LARGER CONTEXT  113  MEAN VALUES Middle College Aged Cohort Cohort  Elderly Cohort  All Subi ects  4.94 4.98 5.18 5.38 5.49 5.88 4.48  5.02 4.88 5.21 6.32 5.72 6.04 4.32  5.42 4.88 4.71 6.18 5.10 6.18 4.71  5.13 4.91 5.04 5.96 5.49 6.03 4.50  5.62 5.50 4.38 4.22 5.46 5.62 5.26 4.60 3.86 3.57 5.80 5.00 5.94  5.72 5.53 4.16 4.06 5.26 5.90 5.50 4.94 3.98 3.61 5.75 4.75 6.37  5.66 5.20 4.22 4.04 5.00 5.86 5.72 4.77 4.08 3.94 5. 62 4.48 5.92  5.67 5.41 4.25 4.11 5.24 5.79 5.49 4.77 3.97 3. 71 5.72 4.74 6.07  5.50  5.90  5.65  5.14  5.60  5.37  DESCRIPTORS ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER THEORIES OF WISDOM ( I d e n t i f i e d by Source) ERIKSON CA  PART 0F LIFE C  T  WELL ADJUSTED  N E C E S S I T Y  0 F  D E A T H  A S  5  -54 5.36  continued.  TABLE I I I (Continued) MEAN VALUES Middle College Aged Cohort Cohort  Elderly Cohort  All Subi ects  CLAYTON & BIRREN COMMITTED 4.46 HAS A TRANSCENDENT VIEW OF LIFE 4.75 CAN COMMUNICATE WITH NON-VERBAL MEANS 4.36 COMPETENT 5.40  4.37 5.16 4.46 5.12  4.65 4.65 4.65 5.29  4.50 4.84 4.49 5.27  4.92 4.46 4.02 3.73 3.44  4.80 3.98 3.53 3.60 3.34  5.10 4.12 3.21 3. 70 3.76  4.94 4.19 3.59 3.68 3.51  4.64 4.24 4.46 4.70 4.40 4.94 5.38  4.98 4.26 4.88 5.14 4.82 5.34 5.24  5.08 4.39 5.16 5.32 4.79 5.62 4.92  4.90 4.30 4.83 5.05 4.67 5.30 5.18  4.58 3.52 5.20 5.08  3.40 2.88 5. 77 5.69  3.54 3.23 4.82 5.52  3.84 3.21 5.26 5.43  BRENT & WATSON HAS A GOOD MEMORY METAPHORICAL A SEER RELIGIOUS HAS ENDURED MUCH SUFFERING HOLLIDAY DOES NOT ENGAGE IN SELF PITY FRANK NOT HOSTILE TO OTHERS NOT JEALOUS OF OTHERS NOT RESENTFUL OF OTHERS SINCERE CONFIDENT VARIOUS PHILOSOPHERS ABLE TO LEARN ALL THINGS DIVINELY INSPIRED UNDERSTANDS THE WORLD ENLIGHTENED  continued....  115  TABLE I I I (Continued) MEAN VALUES Middle College Aged Cohort Cohort  Elderly Cohort  All Subi ects  DESCRIPTORS ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER TARGET CATEGORIES ( I d e n t i f i e d by Target) INTELLIGENT QUICK WITTED LEARNS EASILY GOOD CONVERSATIONALIST QUICK LEARNER  4.64 5.14 4.94 5.00  4.40 4.96 4.16 4 62  4.35 4.86 4.26 4.70  4.48 4.99 4.45 4 77  5 5 4 3  5 5 4 3  5 5 4 3  PERCEPTIVE ABLE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES 5.30 TALKS/REMAINS SILENT AS IS APPROPRIATE 5.70 WARM 4.08 PERFECTIONIST 3.48  64 68 22 10  40 88 60 67  45 75 30 42  SHREWD MANIPULATIVE INSENSITIVE CALCULATING UNHAPPY  2.88 2.34 3.92 2.60  2 44 1 84 3.02 2.36  2 51 1 98 3.54 2.52  2 61 2 05 3.50 2.49  1.86 2.06 1.94 2.68  1. 61 1. 80 1. 72 2.30  1. 98 1. 80 1. 77 2.30  1. 82 1. 89 1. 81 2.43  FOOLISH GULLIBLE RECKLESS IRREPONSIBLE OVERLY TALKATIVE  continued.  TABLE I I I (Continued) MEAN VALUES Middle College Aged Cohort Cohort  116  Elderly Cohort  All Subj ects  4.65 4.17 2.41 5.42  4.69 4.03 1.88 5.09  SPIRITUAL VALUES SPIRITUAL ABOVE MATERIAL THINGS 4.55 4.22 A BELIEVER CLOSED MINDED 1.72 HELPFUL 4.94  4.87 3.67 1.53 4.90  117  Forming the F i n a l A t t r i b u t e L i s t  The taken  from  list  was  wisdom l i t e r a t u r e s .  t e s t whether people  would endorse  chosen to r e f l e c t  i n an  account  plausible  Brent  Watson's  and  Four  were s e l e c t e d  (1981),  two  d e s c r i p t o r s were  o f ego  integrity.  also  appear i n T a b l e I I I . Finally,  E a c h c a t e g o r y was  c a t e g o r y , but people. of  from  The  as b e i n g not  other  characteristics  those  used  by  to the p r o t o t y p e  by  associated with a limited  c a t e g o r i e s by  the  test  of the category  o f the  examining  associated with other  seven  (1950)  source,  other  list.  f o u r words t h a t  characteristic  from  Holliday  words, i d e n t i f i e d  r e p r e s e n t e d by  This allowed  Wise f r o m  f i v e were drawn  t w e n t y words a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  c a t e g o r i e s were added  been nominated  four represent  were c h o s e n t o r e p r e s e n t E r i k s o n ' s  idea  target  o f wisdom,  theme  (1980) d i s c u s s i o n o f w i s e p e o p l e ,  descriptors and  procedure.  some d o m i n a n t  c h o s e n t o r e p r e s e n t themes i n p h i l o s o p h y , (1980) a n a l y s i s  alternatives  generation  o f wisdom.  Clayton's  and  T h e s e were i n c l u d e d t o  outside of a prototype  E a c h word was appearing  s u p p l e m e n t e d w i t h 24 d e s c r i p t o r s  the p s y c h o l o g i c a l , p h i l o s o p h i c a l  historical  generated  f o r Wisdom  had  particular o f Wise  independence whether  c a t e g o r i e s would  118  elicit set  high  prototype  of true  r a t i n g s when h i d d e n w i t h i n t h e  descriptors.  These words  also  appear i n  Table I I I .  Method  Section  - Study I I  SUBJECTS:  Subjects  i n this  were 150 i n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e s e n t i n g adults, fifty  middle  young a d u l t s  University subjects the  Columbia.  Vancouver i n study  the task  characteristics  area.  senior  courses  The at the  middle  education  courses at  The f i f t y  citizens'  aged  older  centres subjects  i n had  I of the project. a n d women w e r e  As i n s t u d y were  included  of the subjects  Tables  included  I , a l l subjects i n the study. are displayed  a n d V.  (Insert  young  citizens.  None o f t h e s e  n u m b e r s o f men  each age group.  completed  adult  of the study  cohorts:  The f i f t y  Columbia.  were r e c r u i t e d from  Equal  IV  and s e n i o r  were r e c r u i t e d from  Greater  three  were r e c r u i t e d from  of British  participated  for  adults  University of British  adults the  aged  phase  IV and V  here)  who The  i n Tables  TABLE IV AGE CHARACTERISTICS  YOUNG  ADULTS  MIDDLE AGED ADULTS  ELDERLY  ADULTS  OF STUDY I I SUBJECTS  MEAN.  RANGE  MALES (N= 25)  21. 82  20 - 24  1.72  FEMALES (N= 25)  21.56  19 - 29  2.0  MALES (N= 25)  41. 81  32 - 57  7.16  FEMALES (N= 25)  42.64  32-58  7.20  MALES (N= 25)  71.64  61 - 92  7.15  FEMALES (N= 25)  69.48  61-82  5.47  STANDARD DEVIATION  TABLE V EDUCATIONAL  is  YRS  L E V E L - STUDY I I S U B J E C T S  SOME HIGH SCHOOL  HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA  SOME COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY  COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY DEGREE  ADVANCED DEGREE  DID NOT REPLY  -  MALE  24  FEMALE  22  3  1  YOUNG ADULTS  MIDDLE AGED ADULTS  ELDERLY ADULTS  MALE  1  2  10  12  FEMALE  4  9  10  2  1  MALE  3  1  2  2  7  FEMALE  1  4  11  5  2  9 2  121  PROCEDURE: the  list  of attributes  characteristicness randomly  generated  A copy  The s u b j e c t s  descriptors  of this  point  ranged  from  Wise People, t o 7 - Almost The provided  with  opportunity told the  on t h e t a s k  wise  provided  with  to mail  Always  True  introduced  at their  INSTRUCTIONS: from Broughton  form  Never  o f Wise  a  seven  True o f People.  to the task, and g i v e n an  own p a c e  They  were  and t o r e t u r n  completed. a t home  were  envelope and  to the experimenter.  The f o l l o w i n g (1981)  their  the task.  self-addressed  the completed  of the  1 - Almost  t o work on t h e t a s k  a stamped,  i n Appendix  person, using  t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r when i t was who w i s h e d  adapted  each  the experimental materials  Subjects  asked  were  appears  i tmatched  t o ask q u e s t i o n s about  t o work form  subjects  were  an e x p e r i m e n t a l  o f how w e l l  of a truly  which  The a t t r i b u t e s  to rate  conceptualizations  to rate  i n study I f o r  protocol  were asked  i n terms  scale,  were asked  of wise people.  o r d e r e d and typed i n t o  protocol. A.  A l l subjects  were  instructions,  presented to the  subjects.  This study has t o do-with people's everyday ideas about c a t e g o r i e s . A category i s like a c o n c e p t , a n d i n c l u d e s many i n s t a n c e s o f s i m i l a r  122  t h i n g s , a l l o f w h i c h s h a r e t h e same n a m e , o r l a b e l . F o r e x a m p l e , t h i n k o f t h e c a t e g o r y DOG. We can i m a g i n e many d i f f e r e n t d o g s - p o o d l e s , terriers, G e r m a n s h e p h e r d s and so on. A l t h o u g h they are a l l d i f f e r e n t , t h e y a r e m e m b e r s o f t h e same c a t e g o r y dogs. We a l s o s e e m t o f e e l t h a t some m e m b e r s o f c a t e g o r i e s a r e more t y p i c a l , o r b e t t e r e x a m p l e s than others. For example, take the category red. Imagine a true red. Now i m a g i n e an o r a n g e i s h red. Imagine a p u r p l i s h red. A l t h o u g h you might c a l l t h e o r a n g e i s h r e d o r t h e p u r p l i s h r e d b y t h e name RED, t h e y w o u l d n o t be as good e x a m p l e s o f t h e c a t e g o r y RED as t h e t r u e r e d . I n s h o r t , some r e d s are redder than others. I n t h i s s t u d y , we w o u l d l i k e y o u t o d e c i d e how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a category v a r i o u s words are. The c a t e g o r y i s w i s d o m as e x e m p l i f i e d by w i s e people. We w o u l d l i k e y o u t o r a t e how g o o d e a c h d e s c r i p t o r i s for describing this category using a r a t i n g s c a l e t h a t g o e s f r o m 1 t o 7. A 1 means t h a t the d e s c r i p t i v e term i s almost never true of wise people. A 7 means t h a t t h e t e r m i s a l m o s t a l w a y s true of wise people. A 4 means t h a t t h e t e r m i s often true of wise people. The r e m a i n i n g terms ( 2 , 3, 5, 6 ) a r e f o r e x p r e s s i n g intermediate judgements. P l e a s e remember t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y i s v o l u n t a r y , and t h a t you a r e f r e e t o w i t h d r a w a t any time. You are a l s o f r e e t o choose not t o answer any q u e s t i o n s . I f you complete the questionnaire, I w i l l assume t h a t you have g i v e n y o u r c o n s e n t t o p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the p r o j e c t . Thank You  Generating Categories  for your  help.  Prototypicality  An  Ratings  a d d i t i o n a l group  of  for  Other  subjects  rated  the  123  attributes  associated with  Shrewd, P e r c e p t i v e , for  generating  raters,  and  stimuli  the  categories  Spiritual. f o r use  fifty  Intelligent  undergraduates  Perceptive. equal  and  numbers o f m a l e s and  the  procedures used  the  rating  of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  words I n t e l l i g e n t , substituted  typed  presentation seven p o i n t top  Subjects  to those  f o r the  f o r t h e word W i s e as was  and  group  Shrewd  and  the  rating  task.  employed  Spiritual  t h e words were with  scale described  questionnaire  t o work at when t h e y  the  As  The were  in  randomly order  p r e v i o u s l y was  own  of  The placed  (see A p p e n d i x  their had  in  Wise.  required.  o f e a c h page i n t h e b o o k l e t  return  of  t a r g e t s randomly determined.  were e n c o u r a g e d  and  including  category  into test booklets,  o f the rating  task,  Shrewd, P e r c e p t i v e  c a s e o f t h e Wise c a t e g o r y ,  the  second  categories  in this  i n s t r u c t i o n s , were i d e n t i c a l  at  A  the  females.  the  ordered  British  B o t h g r o u p s o f r a t e r s were composed  The  the  Fifty  classes, rated  Spiritual.  rated  necessary  III.  r e c r u i t e d from t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f  cagtegories of  T h i s was  i n study  Columbia undergraduate psychology  Intelligent,  B).  p a c e and  completed  the  to  124  RESULTS - STUDIES I AND  The  analyses  were c a r r i e d o u t first the  step  in a  involved  W i s e , and  college  cohort  the  five  prototype  step  determining  prototype ratings  target  of  b)  f o r the  demonstrating within  the  ratings  remaining  cohort  the  cohort  agreement.  cohort's  r e s p o n s e s and  multivariate  analysis.  a n a l y s i s was  used  the  prototype  conducted other  to  to  g e n e r a t e d by target  ratings.  of  f o r the  first the  to  a basis  assess for  pooling  e n t i r e data base  underlying  analyses  b e t w e e n wisdom  were and  Intelligence.  involved  prototype ratings  establishing a)  o f W i s e p e o p l e ; b)  in a  components  Analyses  analysis  ratings  the  target  several  s u c h as  the  f o r the  dimensions  similarity  competency c a t e g o r i e s  reliability cohort  Finally,  examine t h e  The  the  for  a)  After  Next, a p r i n c i p a l the  of  The  terms.  conducted  provided  using  identify  Inter-rater Reliability  reliability  reliability  This  process.  each cohort  W i s e p e o p l e , a s e c o n d a n a l y s i s was cross  descriptions  sequential  g e n e r a t e d by the  II  within  the  each  between  125  cohorts raters  f o r the r a t i n g f o r the contrast  Perceptive ( I C C ) was ratings the  and  within  Table  target  age  The  cohort.  Fleiss,  computed  the contrast of raters  1979).  f o r the  of For  raters  categories,  judging  may  (Insert  Table VI  be  i n Table VI, there  seen  t a r g e t Wise  p e o p l e and  contrast  ICC  agreement  attributes  and  ratings  within  each  here)  each  was  cohort f o r the  group  f o r the  each  with  response  value.  i s i n keeping with  on  the concept  c o h o r t was  the average  the r a t i n g  then used  c o h o r t agreement  associated  analysis,  as  within  t e c h n i q u e was  extent of cross  ICCs  each  four  categories. The  used  reliability  VI.  rater  judge  correlation  of these analyses are presented i n  substantial  this  For  f o r the groups results  As  the  were  between  Intelligent,  intra-class  ( S h r o u t and  o f Wisdom, ICCs  computed  target.  The  c)  Shrewd,  to assess the inter-judge  f o r each  each  P e o p l e ; and  categories  Spiritual.  used  concept  were  o f Wise  The  to estimate  the r a t i n g o f wisdom.  considered  as  a  In  single  f o r each  descriptor  decision  to use  categorization  of  mean  theory i n  was  TABLE V I INTRACLASS  CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS A L L TARGETS  TARGET  RATERS  VALUE  wist;  YOUNG ADULTS  .94  WISE  MIDDLE AGED ADULTS  .94  WISE  ELDERLY ADULTS  .88  INTELLIGENT  YOUNG ADULTS  .96  PERCEPTIVE  YOUNG ADULTS  • .97  SPIRITUAL  YOUNG ADULTS  SHREWD  YOUNG ADULTS  '  .96 .93  L h-  1  ON  which prototypes judgements. the  cross  well the  are explicitly  This  cohort  as  a n a l y s i s c a n be r e g a r d e d  consensual  as a t e s t  generational consistency of the prototype  as a between judge three  described  cohorts  agreement  was  comparison.  as  The ICC computed f o r  .96, i n d i c a t i n g  on t h e r a t i n g  of  substantial  between  of the prototype  descriptors. Since substantial data  sets  people  f o r the three  and f i f t y  the category  sections  reported calculated  were  then  were ranked  pooled  pool  Wise o f one  of the ratings  i n subsequent  responses.  Characteristics  analyses  examined  whether the  exhibited characteristics  i n other  formed  a single  reported  on these  responses  were  of  Wise people  next  on t h e t a r g e t  The a n a l y s e s  the Prototype  The  those  cohorts  raters.  a r e based  Describing  prototype  indicated  agreement w i t h i n and between c o h o r t s , t h e  were combined, y i e l d i n g  hundred for  the r e l i a b i l i t y analyses  studies.  First,  similar  t h e mean  to  values  f o r e a c h d e s c r i p t o r . T h e s e mean r a t i n g s into  i n terms  a list of their  t h e i d e a o f wisdom.  This  of rated  attributes  centrality list  was  to  then  that  conceptions  divided  into  128  groups  with the groupings  items. point  Each  grouping  r a t i n g system.  attributes  appears  values  The r a n k  Necessarily Learned  list  3.3 f o r t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "Not f o r the d e s c r i p t o r  between 4.5 and 6.2, i n d i c a t i n g  as b e i n g a t l e a s t u s u a l l y  people.  were 26 i t e m s  rated  items  highly ratings  i n t h e group  ( r a n g e 5.51 - 6 . 2 ) ; 19 i t e m s  rated  category  true  o f most  being  ( r a n g e 5.00 - 5.49); 21 i t e m s  I n sum, 45/79 i t e m s were s e e n  descriptors  as b e i n g  with  ratings below  reasonably  The r e m a i n i n g 34 i t e m s were s e e n as  somewhat t o m o d e r a t e l y The  highly  i n the next  b e t w e e n 4.50 and 4.99; 10 i t e m s w i t h  good d e s c r i p t o r s .  that  o f wise  b e t w e e n 4.00 and 4.49 and 3 i t e m s w i t h r a t i n g s 4.0.  "Has  The m a j o r i t y o f i t e m s  t h e y were s e e n There  of  i n Table V I I , the d e s c r i p t o r  Experience."  ratings  ordered  Table VII here)  I n t e l l i g e n t " t o 6.2  from  received  from  .5 o f a s t e p i n t h e 7  i n Table V I I .  may be s e e n  ranged  on t h e v a l u e s o f t h e  encompassed  (Insert  As  based  good  descriptors.  mean v a l u e o f t h e Wise p r o t o t y p e  were t h e n compared w i t h t h e mean v a l u e s o f  the d e s c r i p t o r s  associated  with other categories  and  129 TABLE V I I DESCRIPTORS FOR THE CATEGORY WISE PEOPLE GROUPED BY RATING VALUES > 5.49 HAVE LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE ( 6 . 1 5 ) SEES THINGS WITHIN A LARGER CONTEXT  (6.07)  USES COMMON SENSE ( 6 . 0 3 ) THINKS FOR HIS/HER SELF  (5.96)  MATURE ( 5 . 9 5 ) A SOURCE OF GOOD ADVICE ( 5 . 8 9 ) AWARE ( 5 . 8 7 ) OPEN MINDED  (5.84)  COMPREHENDING/UNDERSTANDING UNDERSTANDS  (5.83)  HIS/HER SELF  (5.79)  INTERESTING TO TALK WITH  (5.78)  THOUGHTFUL/THINKS A GREAT DEAL  (5.78)  THINKS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING DECISIONS (5 .77) SAYS THINGS THAT ARE WORTH L I S T E N I N G TO ( 5 76) . CONSIDERS A L L OPTIONS I N A SITUATION  (5.74)  CAN SEE/CONSIDER A L L POINTS OF VIEW  (5.74)  KNOWLEDGEABLE  (5.72)  COMTEMPLATIVE/REFLECTIVE LOGICAL  (5.70)  UNDERSTANDS TOLERANT CURIOUS  (5.72)  LIFE  (5.70)  (5.68) (5.67)  UNDERSTANDS/EVALUATES INFORMATION  (5.67)  SEES THE ESSENCE OF SITUATIONS ( 5 . 6 1 ) KNOWS WHEN TO GIVE/WITHHOLD ADVICE ( 5 - 5 9 ) OBSERVANT/PERCEPTIVE ( 5 . 9 7 )  continued.  130 TABLE  VII(Continued)  5,00 - 5.49 WELL READ  (5.49)  INTELLIGENT  (5.49)  WEIGHS THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS UNDERSTANDS OTHER PEOPLE PHILOSOPHICAL FAIR  (5.43)  (5.41)  EXPERIENCED  (5.41)  FORESIGHTFUL/FAR  SEEING  PLANS THINGS CAREFULLY INTUITIVE  RESPECTED  (5.24)  (5.15)  ARTICULATE RELIABLE  (5.40)  (5.38)  GOOD LISTERNER ( 5 . 3 1 ) \  SENSITIVE  (5.41)  (5.38)  ASTUTE/DISCERNING  ALERT  (5.48)  (5.14) (5.13)  (5.11)  S E L F ACTUALIZED MORAL ( 5 . 0 0 )  (5.04)  (5.49)  131 TABLE  VII(Continued)  4.50 - 4.99 CIRCUMSPECT/DISCREET PATIENT  (4.99)  (4.91)  AN ADVISOR OR MENTOR (4.85) COMPASSIONATE FLEXIBLE  (4.85)  (4.83)  NON-IMPULSIVE (4.77) NON-JUDGEMENTAL OF OTHERS (4.76) CALM (4.76) COMPLEX (4.74) CREATIVE  (4.74)  KIND (4.73) UNSELFISH  (4.70)  EVEN TEMPERED (4.68) DIPLOMATIC  (4.61)  UNCONDESCENDING  (4.59)  POISED (4.55) METHODICAL (4.51) LIKEABLE/FRIENDLY  (4.51)  EMPATHIC (4.51) OLDER (4.50) SERIOUS  (4.50)  continued.  132 TABLE V I I( C o n t i n u e d ) 4.00 - 4.49 RELAXED  (4.47)  ABLE TO PREDICT HOW  THINGS WILL TURN OUT  MODEST/HUMBLE ( 4 . 4 1 ) MAY BE ANY AGE HAPPY  (4.36)  (4.32)  SOCIABLE  (4.28)  EDUCATED  (4.25)  NOT NECESSARILY EDUCATED SUCCESSFUL QUIET  (4.23)  (4.11)  (4.06)  <4.00 SPIRITUAL  (3.97)  CONSERVATIVE  (3.71)  MAY/MAY NOT BE I N T E L L I G E N T ( 3 . 3 0 )  (4.47)  133  other  conceptions  various  sets  o f wisdom.  of descriptors  (Insert  The mean v a l u e s appear  Table VIII  i n Table  f o r the  VIII.  here)  >  As f o r words lower  may b e s e e n  representing  than  the value  characteristics. philosophical received using was  the five  lower  associated  with  The d e s c r i p t o r s  ratings  than  procedures.  prototype  Wise  either  o f wisdom  d i d t h e words  also  generated  The e x c e p t i o n  to this  Eriksonian  rule  personality  mean r a t i n g t h a n  additional analysis  i fthe magnitude descriptors  frequency with phase I .  were  d i d the  descriptors. An  determine  categories  the prototype  analyses  a higher  ratings  representing  f o r t h e two words r e p r e s e n t i n g which received  t h e mean  contrast  and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  prototype  theory,  the  i n Table V I I I ,  which  the descriptors  a low frequency A point  of the prototype  ratings f o r  i n p h a s e I I was a f u n c t i o n  The d e s c r i p t o r s  endorsement.  was c o n d u c t e d t o  were  first  ( < 5) o r h i g h biserial  of the  were endorsed i n rated  as h a v i n g  frequency  c o r r e l a t i o n was  (^5) of then  TABLE V I I I AVERAGE RATING VALUES FOR PROTOTYPE AND NON-PROTOTYPE DESCRIPTORS  TARGET/SOURCE  N  RANGE  MEAN  79  3. 4 - 6. 2  5.1  PHILOSOPHERS  4  3. 2 - 5. 2  4.4  CLAYTON & BIRREN  4  4. 5 - 5. 3  4.8  BRENT & WATSON  7  3. 6 - 4. 9  4.0  HOLLIDAY  5  4 2 - 5. 3  4.9  ERIKSON  2  5 4 - 5 5  5.5  INTELLIGENT  4  4 5 - 5 0  4.7  PERCEPTIVE  4  3 4 - 5 7  4.7  SPIRITUAL  4  1 .9 - 5 .0  3.9  SHREWD  4  2 .0 - 3 .5  2.6  FOOLISH  4  1 .8 - 2 .4  2.0  WISE  1— 1  135  computed b e t w e e n f r e q u e n c y  and  The  results  moderately  indicated  that  prototypicality  correlated  with  frequency  Identifying  In analysis A  five  prototypicality  Underlying  the next  was  factor  solution  on  was  ( r = .37;  p<..001).  Dimensions  step a p r i n c i p a l  conducted  components  the p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y  accounting  f o r 41%  of  ratings. the  v a r i a n c e p r o v i d e d an  adequate f i t to the data.  resulting  then r o t a t e d  m a t r i x was  criterion. pattern that  The  matrix  solution  c o r r e l a t i o n matrix appear  In considered  a r e summarized  which v a r i a b l e s moderately  load  or not  maximal c l a r i t y current  T a b l e IX  a t a l l on  and  exploratory  the The  analysis,  of  i t is  structure factor  factors.  d i s t i n c t i o n between analysisthe  results  here)  on a s i n g l e other  factor  IX.  to achieve a simple highly  The  varimax  and  i n Table  t r a d i t i o n a l component  desirable  to a  i n A p p e n d i x C.  (Insert  ratings.  and  This  factors.  d e f i n i t i o n of  in  assures In  the  factors  TABLE IX VARIABLES DEFINING THE FIVE FACTORS IDENTIFIED IN THE PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS $1 EXCEPTIONAL UNDERSTANDING #11 JUDGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS AWARE USES COMMON SENSE IS A SOURCE OF GOOD ADVICE HAS LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE COMPREHENDING SEES THINGS WITHIN A LARGER CONTEXT UNDERSTANDS LIFE OBSERVANT/PERCEPTIVE WORTH LISTENING TO UNDERSTANDS HIS/HER SELF CONSIDERS ALL OPTIONS IN A SITUATION SEES THE ESSENCE OF SITUATIONS REFLECTIVE INTUITIVE THINKS CAREFULLY BEFORE PHILOSOPHICAL DECIDING EMPATHIC FORESIGHTFUL/FAR SEEING NOT NECESSARILY FORMALLY WEIGHS THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS EDUCATED SEES AND CONSIDERS ALL POINTS OF OPEN MINDED VIEW FLEXIBLE UNCONDESCENDING UNDERSTANDS PEOPLE CONSERVATIVE THINKS FOR HIS/HER SELF ASTUTE KNOWS WHEN TO GIVE/NOT GIVE ADVICE  #111 GENERAL COMPETENCIES CURIOUS THOUGHTFUL/THINKS A GREAT DEAL UNDERSTANDS/EVALUATES INFORMATION WELL READ INTELLIGENT ARTICULATE ALERT RESPECTED SELF-ACTUALIZED AN ADVISOR OR MENTOR COMPLEX CREATIVE OLDER ABLE TO PREDICT HOW THINGS WILL TURN OUT EDUCATED SUCCESSFUL METHODICAL EXPERIENCED KNOWLEDGEABLE  continued. u>  TABLE IX (Continued) #IV  INTERPERSONAL SKILLS  FAIR SENSITIVE RELIABLE A GOOD LISTENER EVEN TEMPERED POISED LIKEABLE RELAXED MODEST/HUMBLE SOCIABLE MORAL PATIENT UNSELFISH KIND SPIRITUAL HAPPY MATURE COMPASSIONATE  §V  SOCIAL UNOBTRUSIVENESS  DISCREET NON-JUDGEMENTAL NON-IMPULSIVE QUIET PLANS CAREFULLY  138  in  terms  than  of prototype  a simple  criteria  was  descriptors  structure. used  on f a c t o r s .  variables  were c o n s i d e r e d  factor.  loading  There were  of at least  .3 o n o n e  factor  factor.  factor  loadings,  to  a paricular  variables  factor  factors.  associating  variables  associated The  f o r was  accounted  few  only  study  than  prototypical  significance  than  less to  patterns  as  belonging  was  than  at  least  that  as g u i d e l i n e s  on  for  variables  of ordering  of variance  the  that  each  t o as t h e v a r i a n c e  factor  the factors.  highly  practice  not adhered  of  factor.  of the percent  f o r by each  present  one  loading  71 o f 7 9  with  factor  clear  .1 l e s s  rules  factors,  conventional  i n terms  accounts  defining  with  with  less  a  to belong  considered  factor  these  a  and l o a d i n g s  and a t l e a s t  Using  of  primarily  considered  were  i f their  .3 f o r t h e home f a c t o r other  were  stringent  i n which  exhibited  S e c o n d , when t h e r e w e r e  of  the  two ways  t o be a s s o c i a t e d  factors  importance  the location  which  that  factors  a less  variables  .3 o n a l l o t h e r  were  Accordingly,  First,  than  all  o f more  f o r determining  variables  one  was  i s of less  importance i n  the prototype values  of the  That  defined  i s , a dimension  items  a dimension  i s of greater defined  items by  a  conceptual  by a l a r g e r  number  139  of l e s s p r o t o t y p i c a l items. dimensions defining  to r e f l e c t  labelled  1,  This  functioning  aspects  on.  p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y of  which i s d e f i n e d  Exceptional  experience.  i n a Larger  Factor  2,  Judgement and  Understanding  appears to  "Has  by  15  Communication  i n matters of d a i l y this  ability  factor include  W o r t h L i s t e n i n g To",  is labelled  on  this  Articulate, The  fourth  labelled factor  defined  by  on  ordinary  superior  is  Self",  Factor  3,  Intelligent,  the  Skills.  E v e n Tempered  and  items  on  and  indexes  this judge  "Is  "Is  a  which i s defined  18  and  Curious,  Educated.  items,  Items d e f i n i n g Fair,  by  Items  descriptors  The  so  Descriptors  Creative  Kind.  "Sees  labelled  The  by  on  and  "Understands L i f e " ,  s u c h d e s c r i p t o r s as  5 items,  the  General Competencies.  Interpersonal  Sociable,  based  living.  f a c t o r , which i s d e f i n e d  include  variables, is  to understand  factor include  Alert,  14  "Weighs C o n s e q u e n c e s " and  S o u r c e o f Good A d v i c e . " items,  as  Skills.  correctly  loading  their  from E x p e r i e n c e " ,  items,  focus  defining  the  by  "Understands  dimension  19  the  Items l o a d i n g h i g h l y  Learned  Context",  defined  on  index  o f wisdom.  factor include  Things  reordered  members. Factor  this  the  I therefore  is  this  Sensitive,  final  a dimension best  factor, labelled  140  Social  Unobtrusiveness.  include  Discreet,  Items d e f i n i n g  defining  high prototypicality  ratings,  factor  associated  Variables  factors  and  structure,  1 tended  with  ratings  the c o r r e l a t i o n s  between  To  ( r = .18; p ^ .06) was s l i g h t l y  loadings  factor.  s i g n i f i c a n t . For factor  For factor  For  p=.07) i t was s l i g h t l y  4, t h e c o r r e l a t i o n  negative  Analysis of the Relationship Categories  The a n a l y s e s ascertain  the extent  the targets  3 the  p o s i t i v e , but  <.003) was m o d e r a t e l y n e g a t i v e and f o r f a c t o r  and  and t h e  1 ( r = .43; p < . 0 0 1 ) and 2 ( r = .73; p < . 0 0 1 ) , t h e  correlation  to  further  factor  each  was h i g h and p o s i t i v e .  Other  those  between p r o t o t y p e v a l u e s  correlation  not  3 had  while  p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y were computed w i t h i n  factors  t o have  defining  factor  4 and 5 h a d l o w e r v a l u e s .  examine t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p factor  factor  as d i d t h o s e  moderately high p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y defining  factor  N o n - j u d g e m e n t a l , and Q u i e t .  The v a r i a b l e s  2.  this  reported  and  (r= -.31; p 5 ( r = -.16;  non-significant.  Between Wisdom and  i n this  section  attempt  o f t h e r e s e m b l a n c e between W i s e  I n t e l l i g e n t , Shrewd, P e r c e p t i v e and  141  Wise and t h e t a r g e t s Spiritual. included  I n t e l l i g e n t , Shrewd, P e r c e p t i v e  In general,  i n these analyses  b e t w e e n i t and W i s e . direct  contrast  associated  F o o l i s h has n o t been  as t h e r e  was no  overlap  F o o l i s h seemed t o s e r v e  as a  i n w h i c h many o f t h e competency  w i t h Wise a p p e a r e d  view o f t h e complete further  the target  analyses  and  i n a negated  terms  form.  In  independence o f the c a t e g o r i e s ,  were n o t deemed  necessary.  T h e r e a r e many ways o f e x a m i n i n g t h e relationships (1975), items  between c o n c e p t s / c a t e g o r i e s .  f o r example, a s k e d  categories. procedure  the "family  h a v e made s u c h a t a s k  similarity  and c a t e g o r i e s  (6) w o u l d  an a l t e r n a t e way o f e x a m i n i n g t h e d e g r e e o f  This  index  an i n d e x o f o v e r l a p  i s based  words i n a c a t e g o r y o v e r l a p p i n g As  type o f  prohibitively difficult.  between c a t e g o r i e s ,  constructed.  t o use that  s t u d y as t h e l a r g e number o f a t t r i b u t e s  300 f o r a l l c a t e g o r i e s )  As  that  resemblance" of  I t was n o t p o s s i b l e  i n this  categories,  f o r e a c h c a t e g o r y , and u s e d  number t o r e f e r e n c e  (over  i n d i v i d u a l s to rate a pool o f  f o r i n c l u s i o n i n a number o f d i f f e r e n t  summed t h e r a t i n g s  Rosch  t h e number o f o v e r l a p p i n g  on t h e p e r c e n t  with another  was  of  category.  words a p p r o a c h e s t h e t o t a l  142  number o f words  i n the  category,  approaches  100%.  As  approaches  zero,  the  procedure,  i t i s possible to  estimates  of  Category  B,  to  C a t e g o r y A. category  analysis  and  the  (Insert  overlaps  categories. Wise  and  of  Table X  range  showed  The  associated converse  fact  with  i s not  richer  to  the  The  only  Wise overlap true,  this  separate with  B with  identical results  regard regard only  of  i f  that  here)  the  each of was  f o r Wise  highest  words  X.  overlap  .17  that  be  i n T a b l e X,  of  index  .37  of  the from  and  degree  category  of  with  Wise  other .37  for  Spiritual. overlap,  with  those  Wise  of  descriptors  with Perceptive,  i n d i c a t e s that Wise  is a  while  the  broader  category. A  the  same.  moderately with The  two  for Category  i n Table  seen  Using  for Category A  i t s descriptors overlapping  people.  and  be  Perceptive  Perceptive 54%  may  only  0%.  develop  - one  the  presented  As  reaches  other  are  similarity  overlapping  These numbers would  sizes  are  number o f  index  similarity  to  the  the  the  pairs of  second  index  categories  of was  the  independence/overlap  c a l c u l a t e d to  assess  the  of  TABLE X PERCENT OF ITEMS IN A PARTICULAR CATEGORY OVERLAPPING WITH OTHER CATEGORIES  WISE WITH  PERCEPTIVE  37  INTELLIGENT WITH WISE  WISE WITH  INTELLIGENT  37  28  WISE WITH SHREWD  INTELLIGENT WITH  PERCEPTIVE  38  23  INTELLIGENT WITH  SPIRITUAL  WISE WITH  15  17  INTELLIGENT WITH SHREWD  10  PERCEPTIVE WITH WISE  54  SHREWD WITH WISE  PERCEPTIVE WITH  31  37  SHREWD WITH INTELLIGENT  28  31  SHREWD WITH PERCEPTIVE  PERCEPTIVE WITH SHREWD  15  30  SHREWD WITH SPIRITUAL  07  SPIRITUAL WITH WISE  26  SPIRITUAL WITH  INTELLIGENT  13  SPIRITUAL WITH  PERCEPTIVE  24  PERCEPTIVE  SPIRITUAL  INTELLIGENT  WITH SPIRITUAL  SPIRITUAL WITH SHREWD  06  144  number o f u n i q u e category. words any  This  descriptors  figure i s expressed  i n a particular  other  analysis  contrast  category  values  theory  that  categories  than  focusing  when  categories should  at the centre.  be more o v e r l a p  That  other  categories the  descriptors.  i n this  study  evidenced  p r o t o t y p i c a l groups  between wise results  and o t h e r  of that  less  to determine that  type  i fthe  of pattern,  into h i g h l y , moderately and t h e p e r c e n t  categories  a n a l y s i s appear  (Insert  t o show  low or moderately  In order  d e s c r i p t o r s were d i v i d e d  slightly  than  at the  i s , highly  overlap  categories  Prototype  a r e a t t h e same  d e s c r i p t o r s might be e x p e c t e d  prototypical  this  on t h e  items.  prototypical with  with  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  of overlapping  of abstraction there  periphery  The r e s u l t s o f  a n a l y s i s examined  prototypicality  level  d i d not overlap  of  Table X I here)  between wisdom and o t h e r  suggests  each  i n Table X I .  (Insert  next  with  as t h e p e r c e n t a g e  that  categories.  are presented  The  associated  was  of  computed.  i n Table X I I .  Table X I I here)  and  overlap The  TABLE X I PERCENT OF ITEMS WITHIN EACH CATEGORY THAT DO NOT OVERLAP WITH OTHER CATEGORIES  SPIRITUAL  67  SHREWD  55  INTELLIGENT  43  WISE  39  PERCEPTIVE  20  TABLE X I I PERCENT }  O V E R L A P BETWEEN W I S E AND OTHER C A T E G O R I E S AS A OF C H A R A C T E R I S T I C N E S S OF I T E M S  RATING CONTRAST CATEGORY  INTELLIGENT  HIGH(>5.45^  FUNCTION  VALUES  M O D E R A T E ( 4 . 5-5 45) LOW f< 4. 5 )  10/26 38%  10/40 25%  2/13 15%  PERCEPTIVE  9/26 35%  16/40 40%  4/13 31%  SPIRITUAL  1/26 4%  7/40 12%  SHREWD  7/25 27%  : 9/40  22%.  3/13 23%  2/13 15%  h-  1  147  The unexpected. overlap the  Contrary  valued  overlap  ones.  The c a t e g o r y  consideration.  percentage  that  category  overlap  identified  d e f i n i n g each  indication  associated overlapping  other  when  The  next  the smallest  i s a simple  function  descriptors. of overlapping  a n a l y s i s was  conducted  i n the principal of comparison.  attributes  categories.  The along  with  were  The number o f words  on each dimension were then  comparison and c o n t r a s t  under  support f o r  f a c t o r were recorded  o f whether those  with  among  overlap  of item  the patterns  among c a t e g o r i e s , a f i n a l  attributes  less  were  do n o t p r o v i d e  of the category  further clarify  the dimensions  showed  o f the type  components a n a l y s i s as a b a s i s  each  than  considered.  Spiritual  regardless  the prototypicality To  an  was  between t h e c a t e g o r i e s Wise and  These r e s u l t s  hypothesis  using  there  p r o t o t y p i c a l items  The h i g h e s t  occurred  degree o f overlap  meaning  theory  when h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l w o r d s  considered.  of  to category  p r o t o t y p i c a l words were  Intelligent  the  a n a l y s i s were somewhat  between t h e c a t e g o r i e s Wise and P e r c e p t i v e  moderately highest  of this  among t h e s l i g h t l y  higher  occurred  results  category.  computed f o r This  permitted  a  148  descriptive  examination  The  of that analysis  results  (Insert  The dimension defined total  by  the  or  45%  nineteen moderately  overlapped  second  this  prototypical this  37%  with  interesting  was  d e f i n e d by  prototypical  items.  dimension, while  with the  o r no  items  the o t h e r  i s on  the  This rather slightly  In  this  approximately  c a t e g o r i e s demonstrate  third  p o i n t o f comparison  i s on  E x c e p t i o n a l Understanding  a number o f h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l  overlap with  5%  overlap.  labelled  case,  Only  Spiritual.  t h a t were  o v e r l a p s on  the  42%  category  comparison  Of  55%  Shrewd.  of wise people.  Spiritual  o f the words, w h i l e  d e f i n e d by  of interest  referencing interpersonal s k i l l s .  The  In  defining  w i t h P e r c e p t i v e and  the c a t e g o r y  dimension  here)  overlap with I n t e l l i g e n t ,  dimension  little  Table XIII  was  moderately  case,  shown i n T a b l e X I I I .  r e f e r e n c i n g g e n e r a l competencies which  The  large  resemblances.  the  attributes  dimension  are  comparison  number o f i t e m s  overlapped  category  i s on  demonstrated  of  first  of the  t h e r e was the  a low  the which  descriptors.  t o moderate degree  categories Intelligent,  was  Shrewd  of and  TABLE X I I I OVERLAP BETWEEN PAIRS OF CATEGORIES USING ANALYTICALLY DERIVED DIMENSIONS #1  EXCEPTIONAL UNDERSTANDING  INTELLIGENT  PERCEPTIVE X  UNDERSTANDS PEOPLE HAS LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE USES COMMON SENSE SEES THINGS WITHIN A LARGER CONTEXT OBSERVANT THINKS FOR HIS/HER SELF UNDERSTANDS SELF SEES THE ESSENCE OF SITUATIONS FLEXIBLE INTUITIVE PHILOSOPHICAL OPEN MINDED EMPATHIC NOT NECESSARILY FORMALLY EDUCATED  SPIRITUAL X  SHREWD . X  X X X X  X  X  X X X  X  TOTAL  X  X X  4  7  1  4  (Continued) •p-  TABLE XIII (Continued)  #11 JUDGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS  INTELLIGENT  PERCEPTIVE  X  X  AWARE A SOURCE OF GOOD ADVICE COMPREHENDING/UNDERSTANDING UNDERSTANDS LIFE SAYTS THINGS THAT ARE WORTH LISTENING TO CONSIDERS ALL OPTIONS IN A SITUATION REFLECTIVE THINGS CAREFULLY BEFORE DECIDING FORESIGHTFUL/FAR SEEING WEIGHS THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS SEE AND CONSIDERS ALL POINTS OF VIEW UNCONDESCENDING CONSERVATIVE ASTUTE KNOWS WHEN TO GIVE/WITHHOLD ADVICE  SPIRITUAL  X  X X  X X  SHREWD  X  X  TOTAL  3  (Continued)  3  0  3  TABLE XIIT  #111  (Continued)  BASIC COMPETENCIES  CURIOUS  INTELLIGENT  PERCEPTIVE  X  X  THOUGHTFUL/THINKS A GREAT DEAL X  KNOWLEDGEABLE UNDERSTANDS/EVALUATES  SPIRITUAL  SHREWD v  X  A  X  A  v  INFORMATION X  WELL READ  X  INTELLIGENT ARTICULATE  X  RESPECTED  X  ALERT  X  X  V  A  X  X  SELF ACTUALIZED AN ADVISOR OR MENTOR COMPLEX X  CREATIVE OLDER  X  ABLE TO PREDICT HOW THINGS WILL TURN OUT X  EDUCATED  X V  A  SUCCESSFUL  X  METHODICAL  X  EXPERIENCED  X  X  10  8  TOTAL  (continued...)  1  7  TABLE XIII  fIV  INTERPERSONAL SKILLS  (Continued)  INTELLIGENT  PERCEPTIVE  V  X  X  X  X  COMPASSIONATE FAIR SENSITIVE RELIABLE A GOOD LISTENER EVEN TEMPERED POISED LIKEABLE RELAXED MODEST HAPPY SOCIABLE MORAL PATIENT UNSELFISH KIND SPIRITUAL MATURE  SPIRITUAL  SHREWD  X  X  X X  TOTAL continued...  3  X X  X X  X  X X  5  8  0  TABLE X I I I  #V  SOCIAL UNOBTRUSIVENESS  (Continued)  INTELLIGENT  DISCREET NON-JUDGEMENTAL NON-IMPULSIVE QUIET PLANS CAREFULLY  PERCEPTIVE  <5PTRTTIIAT yJ f J. tvX 1 U/\Lj  X X  X  X X  1  1  2  X  TOTAL  2  onKcwU  I  I  154  Spiritual. higher  The c a t e g o r y  Perceptive  demonstrated  a  degree o f o v e r l a p . The  fourth point  o f comparison  i s on t h e  d i m e n s i o n r e f e r e n c i n g Judgement and C o m m u n i c a t i o n w h i c h was d e f i n e d by a number o f m o d e r a t e l y prototypical categories  Intelligent,  demonstrated Spiritual  descriptors.  a small  evidenced  Perceptive  no o v e r l a p fifth  there  to h i g h l y  dimension the and Shrewd  degree o f o v e r l a p .  On t h e s m a l l Unobtrusiveness,  On t h i s  Skills  on t h i s  dimension  was some o v e r l a p  The  category  dimension. labelled with  Social  each  category. In suggest resemble those  that  general,  the categories  each other  along  that,  of this  examined  specific  common d i m e n s i o n s v a r y  a l s o worth noting by  the r e s u l t s  i n this  slightly  dimensions  with  composed  p r o t o t y p i c a l items.  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n theory  wisdom i s a d i s t i n c t ,  \  and t h a t  between c a t e g o r i e s .  i n general,  than d i d dimensions  study  dimensions  h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l items demonstrated  overlap  analysis  This  defined  somewhat  less  o f m o d e r a t e l y and  result  and s u p p o r t s  non-redundant  It i s  i s i n keeping  the idea  competency  that  term.  155  Study  III -  Validating  The if  goal of the third  the prototype  influenced The  asked  study  f o r the category  people's  prototype  cognitive  the Prototype  was  to  o f wise  people  information processing  literature  consequences  indicates  that  are observed  to categorize objects.  (1975),  prototypical  m e m b e r s o f common o b j e c t c a t e g o r i e s t h a n i t  interpreted as  this  prototypical  an i n d i c a t i n g  an a i d t o more e f f e c t i v e  germane t o t h i s a  less  project,  r e c o g n i t i o n memory  actively  presented  phase  with  fictitious personality Subjects  prototypes  were  later  study,  (1977)  more used  i f prototypes  In the  subjects  were  describing four  characters  and two s e r v e d  asked  served  I n a study  t o determine  performance.  Two  highly  She  and M i s c h e l  o f sentences  characters.  ones.  processing.  paradigm  of their  lists  to recognize  that the prototype  Cantor  i n f l u e n c e memory  acquisition  time  f o r example,  that  to identify  less  subjects are  demonstrated  took  i t took  strategies.  certain  when  Rosch  determine  t o examine  represented as  controls.  a list  of  descriptors  composed o f a s u b s e t  descriptors  t o g e t h e r w i t h a number o f n o v e l d e s c r i p t o r s  which  varied  i n degree  of the original  of prototypicality  to the  156  categories terms  o f how c o n f i d e n t  had/had  n o t seen  Although to  of interest.  recognize  i tduring  novel  that  subjects  descriptors. actively  providing  a backdrop The  attempted the  the  which  also that  they  descriptors  than  concluded  on s u b j e c t s ' with  subjects  of characters  paradigm,  that  were presented  representing  the  items  from a l a r g e r s e t o f items,  actually  I argued  with  In the  acquisition  and M i s c h e l ,  with  together  asked  the category  In  category  the subjects  with  were  to  category.  task,  Cantor  on t h e  abilities  o f two c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r s .  consistent  by  i s modelled  recognition  Following  that  information.  f o r Wise and Shrewd p e o p l e ,  w h i c h were  able  the e f f e c t of the prototype f o r  associated  a c q u i s i t i o n phase,  descriptions  they  ( 1 9 7 7 ) r e c o g n i t i o n memory  information  prototypes  The a u t h o r s  study,  Wise people  descriptions  were  w e r e more c o n f i d e n t  f o revaluating  to demonstrate  category  process  subjects  i n f l u e n c e memory p r o c e s s i n g  present  and M i s c h e l  they  the a c q u i s i t i o n task.  p r o t o t y p i c a l , but novel  prototypes  Cantor  were t h a t  a c q u i s i t i o n set sentences,  seen h i g h l y  other  the subjects  the r e s u l t s indicated that  demonstrated had  E a c h s e n t e n c e was r a t e d i n  to select the some o f  prototypes. that  i f wisdom  e x i s t s as a p r o t o t y p i c a l l y organized  category,  157  subjects  w o u l d e v i d e n c e a memory b i a s  falsely the  recognizing  category  Method  information  that  i n favour was  consistent  - Study I I I  Subjects  i n t h e s t u d y were 38  u n d e r g r a d u a t e s r e c r u i t e d from a p e r s o n a l i t y at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h ACQUISITION MATERIALS: materials  consisted  described  by t e n s e n t e n c e s .  designed and  designed  to serve  characters.  in  of four  to represent  Shrewd p e o p l e .  chosen  The  acquisition  f i c t i t i o u s characters,  The o t h e r as c o n t r o l s  The d e s c r i p t o r s  psychology  Columbia.  Two  of the characters  the prototype  from t h e l i s t s  studies  categories  two c h a r a c t e r s  the  lists  o f Wise  f o r t h e Wise and Shrewd f o r a l l characters  o f category  t h e two e x p e r i m e n t a l  of descriptors four  were  were  descriptors  were  developed  characters, s i x  m o d e r a t e l y p r o t o t y p i c a l d e s c r i p t o r s were t a k e n  and  each  I and I I . For  list  with  prototype.  SUBJECTS:  class  of  f o r the categories  non-prototypical  Wise and Shrewd,  d e s c r i p t o r s were c h o s e n  of attributes associated  categories.  from t h e  with  from  other  F o r W i s e , d e s c r i p t o r s were c o n s i d e r e d  t o be  158  moderately b e l o w 5.0 highly  prototypical on  the prototype  prototypical  F o r Shrewd,  moderately  prototypical  and h i g h l y  t h a n 4.85. ranges Those  descriptors  other  descriptor  was  that  added  people.  This  presented  courageous). into  them  greater  the d i f f e r e n t  descriptors. categories  resulted  were with  final experimental  o r Shrewd. contained  neither  in a total  characters.  Wise  of  Those  The ten  nor  42 descriptors  XIV.  the structure l a b e l s Wise  sentences.  A  f o r each  with  were  descriptors  character  of the descriptors  The  were  than  control  as e i t h e r W i s e  associated  i n Table  sentence with  formed  For the  to the l i s t  f o r the four  Each a  other  t o be  less  of attributes associated  f o r each c o n t r o l  had been  descriptors are  with  than Wise and Shrewd.  labelling  descriptions  Shrewd  associated  greater  were  reflect  the ten non-prototypical  categories  words  values  I I and  considered  f o r the groups o f  from the l i s t s  character  ratings  i f the values  as n o n - p r o t o t y p i c a l .  characters, chosen  i f their  ratings  of study  were  different criteria  i n the ratings  defined  received  descriptors  prototypical  The  received  r a t i n g task  i f they  t h a n 5.0.  4.8  i f they had  'X'  was  incorporated  i s 'Y',  and Shrewd  E a c h s e n t e n c e was  (i.e., were then  into J is  also typed  159  onto  5" x 8"  individual were k e p t ordered,  index  cards,  slides.  The  together, a s was  photographed,  slides  their  d e s c r i b i n g each  sequence being  the order  (Insert  of  were set  presented o f new  Wise  Table XIV  included  character  recognition  character rated  was  included  as h i g h l y  The  constructed items  r e c o g n i t i o n items new  items  that  three  The  with  four  new  had  been three  new with  i n t h e same  descriptors  four  items f o r the  manner.  that  had  been  p r o t o t y p i c a l o f Wise p e o p l e ,  and  four  p r o t o t y p i c a l and  c o n t r o l f o r t h e Shrewd i n t h e same m a n n e r .  are presented  i n Table  XIV.  non-prototypical character  The  a  f o r the  recognition list  constructed  that  s e t f o r the c o n t r o l o f the Wise  each of moderately items.  together  descriptors, together  the a c q u i s i t i o n set.  Shrewd  recognition  of the descriptors  p r o t o t y p i c a l and  non-prototypical  The  five  randomly  t o be h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l o f W i s e p e o p l e ,  moderately  from  The  i n the a c q u i s i t i o n task, The  character  here)  of a subset  descriptors.  character  judged new  consisted  into  presentation.  RECOGNITION MATERIALS: materials  a n d made  62  was  recognition  TABLE X I V SUMMARY OF ITEMS USED TO D E S C R I B E T H E E X P E R I M E N T A L AND CONTROL C H A R A C T E R S WISE ACQUISITION ITEMS  RECOGNITION ITEMS  T.  IS  SERIOUS  (M)  (4.48)  T.  IS  EVEN TEMPERED (M) ( 4 . 7 3 )  T.  IS  PATIENT  (M)  (4.98)  T.  IS  FRUSTRATED (U)  T.  IS EVEN TEMPERED (M) ( 4 . 7 8 )  T.  IS EMPATHIC TOWARDS OTHERS  T.  IS  T.  IS NON-JUDGEMENTAL OF OTHERS (M)  T.  IS  I.  T.' IS NON-JUDGEMENTAL OF OTHERS (M) (45 0 )  T.  HAS MANY INTERESTS (U)  T.  IS NEAT AND CLEAN (U)  T.  IS  INSECURE (U)  T.  IS  OPEN MINDED  IS ABLE TO CONNECTS FACTS (U)  T.  IS WELL READ  I.  HAS MANY INTERESTS (U)  T.  IS  T.  IS ATTENTIVE (U)  T.  IS TOLERANT OF OTHERS  T.  IS CURIOUS  T.  IS  T.  UNDERSTANDS L I F E  (H) ( 5 . 4 8 )  T.  IS  RELIABLE  (M)  (4.92)  "T.  IS  SOCIABLE  (M)  (4.36)  FRUSTRATED (U)  DISCREET (M)  "The s t u d y I I r a t i n g s a p p e a r next t o the prototypical descriptors.  (4.52)  (M) ( 4 . 5 2 )  (H) ( 5 . 6 6 )  (H) ( 5 . 6 2 )  HUMOUROUS  UNSELFISH  (M) ( 4 . 6 6 )  ** U = Unprototypical M = Moderately prototypical H = Highly prototypical  M  o continued...  TABLE X I V ( C o n t i n u e d )  WISE  ACQUISITION  CONTROL  RECOGNITION  ITEMS M.  IS  VAIN  M.  IS  GIGGLY  M.  IS  A  M.  IS  IMPATIENT  M.  IS  CONTEMPLATIVE  EFFICIENT  M.  PLANS  IS  A  M.  IS  M.  IS  DREAMY  M.  THINKS  M.  IS  IMPATIENT  M.  IS  RELAXED  M.  ASKS  M.  IS  POISED  M.  IS  AN  M.  IS  NOT  M.  IS  A  GOOD  M.  IS  A  PLEAS/^NT  M.  IS  NAIVE  M.  IS  CLEVER  M.  IS  ANNOYING  M.  IS  VAIN  M.  IS  AMUSING  M.  IS  GIGGLY  M.  IS  CLOSE  M.  IS  M.  WARM  MANY  TO  TO  OTHERS  BE  WITH  MINDED  PERSON  QUESTIONS  WARM  PERSON  THINGS  MATURE  continued.  A  ITEMS  (H)  (5.86)  CAREFULLY  (H)  (5.34)  GREAT  DEAL  (M) (M)  OLDER  (H)  (H)  (5.38)  (5.90)  (4.68) (4.38)  PERSON  (M.)  CONDESCENDING  (4.42)  (M)  (4.34)  CONVERSATIONALIST  (U) (U)  PERSON  (U)  (U)  TABLE X I V  ACQUISITION  ITEMS  R.  I S E G O T I S T I C A L (M)  R.  I S SNEAKY  R.  I S RUTHLESS  R.  I S STROMG  R.  I S STUDIOUS  R.  I S DOMINEERING  R.  I S THRIFTY  R.  I S A C A R E F U L PERSON  R.  I S A GOOD REASONER  R.  I S I N T E R E S T I N G (U)  ;  (M) (M)  (Continued)  RECOGNITION  (A. 14)  (4.36) (4.06)  (U) (U)  (M)  (M)(4.56) (M)  R.  I S STUDIOUS  R.  I S DOMINEERING  R.  I S THRIFTY  R.  I S I N T E R E S T I N G (U)  R.  I S HARD WORKING  R. DOES NOT  (4.10)  R. (4.74)  ITEMS  (U) (M, ( 4 : 5 6 )  (M) ( 4 . 1 0 )  USE KNOWLEDGE  I S INSECURE  continued.  (U)  (U)  R. HAS A K E E N MIND  (U)  (U)  (H) - ( 5 . 2 0 )  R.  I S D E C E P T I V E I N MANNER  R.  I S BLUNT  R.  I S AMBITIOUS  R.  IS OPPORTUNISTIC  R.  I S NOT  R.  IS MATERIALISTIC  R.  I S CUNNING  (M)  (M)  (4.20) (H)  GULLIBLE (H)  (5.12) (H)  (5.28)  (H)(5.48) (M)  (4.46)  (5.16)  (4.42)  TABLE XIV ( C o n t i n u e d )  !  SHREWD CONTROL  .  ACQUISITION  ITEMS '  RECOGNITION ITEMS  J.  IS A GOSSIP  J.  IS  J.  IS  J.  IS A CULTURED  J.  IS RESPONSIVE TO OTHERS  J.  IS SELF AWARE  J.  IS  J.  IS CONCEITED  J.  IS A CULTURED PERSON  J.  IS SCHEMING  J.  IS A GOOD PERSON  J.  IS  J.  IS SELF AWARE  J.  HAS A LARGE  J.  HOLDS STRONG  J.  IS NOT EASILY DISTRACTED  J.  IS  J.  SETS A GOOD EXAMPLE  J.  IS CONCEITED  UNREALISTIC  UNORGANIZED.  STUBBORN  BELIEFS  UNORGANIZED PERSON  (H) ( 5 . 0 8 )  EMOTIONAL VOCABULARY  J . IS MANIPULATIVE  (H) ( 4 . 9 0 )  J.  IS CONFIDENT  (5.10)  J.  IS AGGRESSIVE TO OTHERS (H) ( 4 . 9 0 )  J.  WORKS STEADILY  (H)  J . IS QUICK WITTED  (M)  J.  IS CAUTIOUS  J.  IS BUSINESS ORIENTED  continued.  (M)  (M) ( 4 . 4 6 ) (4.60)  (4.22) (M) (4 . 6 4 )  164  The sentences,  randomly  recognition point  - Very  booklet.  Acquisition  List,  and e n t e r e d  sentence. That  t h e S e n t e n c e Was  t o 4 - Very  Confident  the  booklet,  exemplified  Intelligent  Spiritual rating  subjects  people.  task  A Very Poor  ranged  The f o u r  the four  ranged  from  i nthe That  the Item  On t h e f i n a l  page o f  t o r a t e how w e l l  the categories  people,  Wise people,  Perceptive point  from 1 - A Very  each Shrewd  people and  scale used  f o r the  Good E x a m p l e , t o 4 -  Example.  PROCEDURE: experimental  were asked  page  confidence  The s c a l e  Not i n the A c q u i s i t i o n L i s t .  people,  into  into a four  f o r expressing  Was  character  formed  E a c h p a g e was h e a d e d w i t h  f o r each  Confident  items were  ordered  r a t i n g s c a l e used  judgements 1  recognition  session,  At the beginning the subjects  of the  were read  the  following instructions:  T h i s i s a v e r y s i m p l e s t u d y t o e x a m i n e how w e l l p e o p l e remember t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f o t h e r individuals. I n t h e study I w i l l be showing y o u a series of slides. E a c h s l i d e d e s c r i b e s some aspects o f a f i c t i o n a l person. For instance, a s l i d e mgith say Jane i s c o n s c i e n t i o u s . The s l i d e s i n the experimenet w i l l describe four f i c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r s and each p e r s o n w i l l be d e s c r i b e d by a separate s e r i e s o f s l i d e s i n a sequence. I would l i k e you t o s i m p l y v i e w t h e s e s l i d e s and t r yt o remember t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e four characters. A f t e r you view the s l i d e s , I w i l l a s k y o u t o r e c a l l some o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s a n d t o a n s w e r some q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e f o u r c h a r a c t e r s .  165  P l e a s e remember t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y i s v o l u n t a r y and t h a t y o u a r e f r e e t o w i t h d r a w a t any time without fear of repercussions. I f you c o m p l e t e t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e I w i l l assume t h a t you have given your consent to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. Thank you  The on  a  for  42  standard  with  an  one-half  second  turn  work at ten  Results  over  and  slides  to  5,486.  and  between  test  fifteen  projected  projector  was  presented  counting  booklets  a  two  Following  were g i v e n  subjects  and  slide  slides.  tasks.  speed  then  seconds, with  subjects  The  rating  own  Each  one-half  the  were  a Kodak Carousel  c o n s i s t i n g of  their  their  were  and  a  and  the  two  minute  backwards,  in  then i n s t r u c t e d  complete  the  They were encouraged  g e n e r a l l y completed  the  to task  minutes.  - Study I I I  character  The  first  was  perceived  Wise people. to  using  delay  task  from  recognition  used  two  presentation,  writing,  in  acquisition  screen  of  interference  to  cooperation.  external timing unit.  a period  slide  for your  To  examine  analyses  test the  as  this,  assessed  a good Chi  distribution  whether  example  of  each Shrewd  Square procedures of  ratings  across  and  were  166  categories analyses  f o r each t a r g e t .  are presented  (Insert  As of  ratings  may  across  be  that  T a b l e XV  character mediocre for  of subjects  a good  expectations  t h e Shrewd  character  statistical  character  These  and  that  indicated  the Wise  people.  The  also  The  failed  ratings  quite  good  The  to deviate  ratings  ratings from  achieved Inspection  many s u b j e c t s example  of a  rated  the fact that  of that  Shrewd  a mediocre o r poor example o f a Wise  was - g e n e r a l l y p e r c e i v e d  from  f o r the c o n t r o l  unexpectedly  indicated that  confirmed  a  f o r Wise d i d not d i f f e r  on e i t h e r r a t i n g t a s k .  as a m o d e r a t e l y  analyses  character  character.  s i g n i f i c a n c e on e a c h t a r g e t .  distribution  person  felt  differed  example o f Wise p e o p l e and  character  f o r Shrewd  options  of responses  o r p o o r example o f Shrewd  chance e x p e c t a t i o n s .  the  response  the d i s t r i b u t i o n s  f o r the Wise  the c o n t r o l character  chance for  was  XV.  s e e n i n T a b l e XV,  the four  those  here)  of the d i s t r i b u t i o n  the majority  results of  i n Table  from chance e x p e c t a t i o n s Inspection  The  person.  the Wise  as a good  example  of  TABLE XV RATINGS OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL CHARACTERS FOR MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES OF WISE PEOPLE AND SHREWD PEOPLE  HARACTER  CATEGORY  1 Not^ a Good Example  2  3 Very  WISE  15  IN THE  4 Good 11  Example  Chi-Square Value 14.27**  WISE SHREWD  10  7.32  N.S  4.74  N.S  13  4.70  N.S ,  10  2.76 N . S .  12  SHREWD  12  SHREWD WISE  WISE  11  SHREWD  10  WISE CONTROL 1.12 N . S .  SHREWD  11  WISE  15  15  8.74*  SHREWD CONTROL 8 ** p <.005 * p < .05  8.33*  168  Wise people. was  The Shrewd  n o t seen  as a good  The recognition subjects items  ratings  items  within  analysis, f o r each  comparison  As  may b e s e e n  a n a l y s e s were  characters.  Table  appear  XVI  aquisition novel The  ratings  as t h e analyses  of variance  i n Appendix  D.)  XVI, the results  f o r each  of  of the four indicated  c o n f i d e n t t h a t they had  and f a i r l y  c o n f i d e n t that they had  items. third  analysis  of novel recognition  character,  item type  I n s p e c t i o n o f t h e mean v a l u e s  seen  seen  measures  here)  i n Table  t h e s u b j e c t s were h i g h l y  first  and n o n - a c q u i s i t i o n  (The a n a l y s i s  that  not  with  significant  items  whether  acquisition  A summary o f t h o s e  i n Table XVI.  (Insert  these  between  analyzed using a repeated  f o r each  on t h e  T h e mean v a l u e s w e r e  o f variance procedure  presented  hand,  people.  character assessed  descriptors.  subject variable.  tables  performed  f o rthe sets of acquisition  and then  analysis  example o f Shrewd  accurately distinguished  and n o v e l  computed  is  second  c h a r a c t e r , on t h e o t h e r  t h e mean r a t i n g s  examined  the confidence  s e t items. f o r the three  F o r each, types  of novel  TABLE X V I MEAN V A L U E S  ACQUISITION VS. NOVEL  OF.ITEM  TYPES  HIGHLY PROTOTYPICAL  MODERATELY PROTOTYPICAL  NONPROTOTYPICAL  PROTONONTYPICAEi-VS... PROTOTYPICAL  WISE  1.83  2.81*  2.80  2.53  3.12*  2.70  3.12*  CONTROL FOR WISE  1.71  3.24*  3.13  3.50  3.2 0  3.31  3.20  SHREWD  1.96  3.32*  3.34  3.52  3.08*  3.40  3.08**  CONTROL FOR SHREWD  1.91  3.16*  2.86  3.15  3.46^  3.01  3.46*  *Anova r e s u l t s  significant  a t ^-.001  **Anova r e s u l t s  significant  a t <.004  i-  1  170  items not  (highy p r o t o t y p i c a l ,  a t a l l p r o t o t y p i c a l ) were  using type  moderately  a repeated  computed  measures a n a l y s i s  of those  analyses  and t h e n  and  analyzed  of variance with  as t h e w i t h i n s u b j e c t s f a c t o r  The r e s u l t s  prototypical  item  (see Appendix D).  are also presented i n  Table XVI. As may significant  effect  characters. increased obtained  be s e e n  confidence  character  confidence  type  f o r Shrewd.  ratings  prototypicality  than  items  confidence  no i n t e r p r e t a b l e and c o n f i d e n c e  than  those  received higher  relationship  ratings  t h e r e was  ratings  p a t t e r n was  character  between  f o r e i t h e r the  c h a r a c t e r f o r Wise.  found  i n the study  reported i n Cantor a smooth, l i n e a r  was  and M i s c h e l  increase i n  as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y  of the r e c o g n i t i o n items. linear  was  d i d the h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l  The p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s  (1977) where  items  f o r the Wise c h a r a c t e r ,  c h a r a c t e r or f o r the c o n t r o l  orderly  pattern of  for prototypical  However,  prototypical  i t e m s . T h e r e was  less  f o r each o f the  the hypothesized ratings  a  f o r t h e W i s e c h a r a c t e r and f o r t h e c o n t r o l  the moderately  Shrewd  f o r item  However,  only  i n T a b l e X V I , t h e r e was  observed  f o r Shrewd.  In the present only  study,  that  f o r the c o n t r o l  F o r the Wise c h a r a c t e r , the  171  confidence r a t i n g f o r items at both l e v e l s o f p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y exceeded the r a t i n g s f o r non-prototypical  items, but d i d not demonstrate the  expected order e f f e c t .  In order to more c l e a r l y  demonstrate the e f f e c t o f the p r o t o t y p e , a second a n a l y s i s was conducted i n which the r a t i n g s  for highly  and  moderately p r o t o t y p i c a l d e s c r i p t o r s were averaged  and  contrasted  descriptors  with the r a t i n g s  (see Appendix D).  for non-prototypical The r e s u l t s o f those  a n a l y s e s are a l s o presented i n Table XVI.  The e f f e c t  f o r item type remained s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the four characters. that  subjects  However, i n s p e c t i o n o f the means i n d i c a t e d exhibited  a higher l e v e l of f a l s e  c o n f i d e n c e when r a t i n g novel,  but p r o t o t y p i c a l , Wise  items than they d i d when r a t i n g other n o v e l descriptors.  172  DISCUSSION  The  twin goals  demonstrate that  o f t h i s study were to  'wise' and 'wisdom'  reference  p s y c h o l o g i c a l meaningful a t t r i b u t e s and behaviours and to provide  a cogent r a t i o n a l e f o r viewing wisdom as a  marker o f p r o g r e s s i v e  psychological  adulthood.  section of t h i s  considers i s best  The f i r s t  change during discussion  whether the data support the c l a i m that wisdom  thought o f as a w e l l d e f i n e d human competency.  In the course o f the d i s c u s s i o n I w i l l there  i s ample reason f o r r e g a r d i n g  meaningful d e s c r i p t o r rooted psychological a b i l i t i e s .  perspective  wisdom as a r i c h and  i n a set of s p e c i a l  The second s e c t i o n  p o s s i b l e developmental motivations It also considers  demonstrate that  discusses  f o r becoming wise.  the requirements o f a t h e o r e t i c a l  compatible w i t h the idea o f wisdom.  The  d i s c u s s i o n concludes by c o n s i d e r i n g a number o f f u t u r e research  t o p i c s that flow The  from t h i s  research.  e m p i r i c a l phase o f the study used a  p r o t o t y p e i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o provide  a p i c t u r e of the  a t t r i b u t e s t r u c t u r e o f the category Wise people. O v e r a l l , the a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d s i x converging p i e c e s o f evidence arguing  that wisdom i s best  thought o f as a  173  well  defined prototypically  descriptor.  These  inter-rater associated  i n c l u d e 1)  agreement;  2)  3)  descriptor  list;  wisdom and  various  of  p a t t e r n of r a t i n g s non-prototypic the  4)  the  of  patterns  prototype overlap  c o n t r a s t c a t e g o r i e s ; 5)  and  certain  of  6)  the  aspects  demonstration  prototypical the wisdom  of  between  the  p o r t r a y a l of  literature;  the  effect  of  the  evidence  i s the  high  wisdom  and  prototype  on  performance. The  first  consensus  i n people's  important  characteristics  interjudge  agreement  consistent  conception  possible  judgements  nature  attributes  and  o f what  world,  of  of at  people  behaviours.  suggestion  structure  of wise  the  and  a  people.  results shared  their  This  that people's  The  as  people  high  hold  a  wise.  One  i s that  consensus  about  distinguishing  i s consistent with ideas  c a t e g o r i e s seem t o r e f l e c t least  of  centrally  i t means t o be  these  of wisdom r e f l e c t of wise  of  degree  i n d i c a t e s that people  interpretation  conceptions  the  patterns  s t r u c t u r e of  the  Rosch's  the  competency  the  resemblance between  the  the  w i t h p r o t o t y p i c and  descriptors;  memory  organized  perceive  about the it,  the s t r u c t u r e of  and  parallels  174  the  findings of  Sternberg  et  al's  (1981) study  of  intelligence. The the  finding  attributes  of wise  surprise.  Although  predicated  on  agreement,  the  research  the  the  elderly  responses,  but  similar  those  was  to  magnitude the  of  to  i n our  richness  and  concept.  To  that  a  they by  that  other  there noted  produced were other the  age  would  be  earlier, of generally  groups.  constellation  There of  In retrospect,  of wisdom  Now,  after  of b e l i e f the  wisdom permeates  our  literature  a period of  extent  culture,  the  and  more  after  talking the  associated with to which  least  that  on  firmly  struck with  consider at  i s so  reading  literature,  a b o u t w i s d o m , I am  appreciate  As  in  cohort  might have been a n t i c i p a t d  concept  culture.  extent  s m a l l e r number  people.  finding  consistency  spans  effects  differences.  i n the wisdom  many p e o p l e  some  on  a  moderate between  suspect  a g r e e m e n t on  the  of  cohort  generated  this that  extensively with  to  defining wise  grounds  embedded  was  generated  those  also general  attributes  study  expectation  cohort  agreement  somewhat o f  the  group  cohort  was  l e d me  age  cross  people  u b i q u i t y of  reports  considerable  of high  the  this  idea  of  wisdom  5,000 y e a r s .  This  175  years.  This  carried  forward  through  a variety  endured  t h e Dark and the Middle  forms into  wisdom  during  social  the Renaissance  adeptness  western  In i t s less behaviour,  wise  I t i n new  philosophers  g u i s e , one w h i c h understanding,  and e x c e p t i o n a l d e c i s i o n making  culture.  a vibrant part of  I n the context  history,  demonstrate  formal  superior  r  generations,  spanning agreement  of this  i ti s not surprising a t o t a l o f perhaps  l e n g t h y and that  three  70 y e a r s ,  on t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  associated  people. The  associated  second  with  competency  receive  and concerned  and  r e g i o n s and  Ages, emerged  i t h a s l ong r e m a i n e d  interesting  geographic  of intellectual traditions.  proper  abilities,  other  i n many d i f f e r e n t  modern t i m e s .  emphasizes  with  t r a d i t i o n has been maintained  as h i g h  piece  competing  o f evidence conceptions  categories d i dnot, r a t i n g s as d i d the  was t h a t  words  o f wisdom and on t h e a v e r a g e ,  prototypical  attributes. I conceptions accounts '""As  that  o f wisdom would  o f wisdom  I argued  these  had suspected  overlap  that appear  e a r l i e r , there  varied traditions,  common  language  somewhat  i n western  with  literature.  i s some common g r o u n d  particularly  between  i n the recurrence  176  of  t h e themes o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,  proper  behaviour.  philosophical daily the  latter  t r a d i t i o n has been l e s s  has been concerned  has f o c u s e d  collected  people their  G e n e r a l l y speaking,  with  i n this  study  concerns.  reflect  Since the  t h e manner  p e r c e p t i o n s a r e presumably based with people  difference  on t h e i r  the f a c t  t h a t words  f e a t u r e s o f wisdom r e c e i v e d l o w e r  responses  the p h i l o s o p h i c a l  neither reflected literature  of the p l a u s i b i l i t y tradition.  People  discrimination descriptors, conceptions with other  rather  I n view o f t h i s  d i d common l a n g u a g e d e s c r i p t o r s a r g u e s  people's  and s i n c e  i n a pragmatic,  context.  i n orientation,  to e s o t e r i c  i n which  who a c t w i s e l y , t h e common  i s rooted  an i n t e l l e c t u a l ,  Where  with abstract a f f a i r s , the  on p r a g m a t i c  language c o n c e p t i o n  than  concerned  p e r c e i v e and c a t e g o r i z e w i s e p e o p l e ,  experience  than  however, t h e  e x i s t e n c e than has t h e s e c u l a r t r a d i t i o n .  former  data  good judgement and  referring ratings  that  ideas contained i n  n o r were a s i m p l e  of descriptors rooted  function  i n that  showed a h i g h d e g r e e o f  i n assigning ratings  indicating were r o b u s t  to the l i s t of  t h a t t h e common  language  and t o some e x t e n t  non-redundant  t h e o r i e s o f wisdom. Similarly,  descriptors  the f i n d i n g  that  r e c e i v e d h i g h e r average  prototype  ratings  than d i d  177  descriptors the  associated  distinction  instance, and  words  categories people  associated  terms that  higher  should  share  that  associated  ratings.  ratings.  with the  and P e r c e p t i v e  This  pattern  expectations  of results  that  terms s e l e c t i v e l y .  wisdom  i s perceived  For o f Shrewd  competency  some common f e a t u r e s , w h i l e  people use such  indicates  terms.  low prototype  Spiritual  t o common s e n s e  argues f o r  the categories  very  hand, d e s c r i p t o r s  received  categories  and other  with  received  of Intelligent,  corresponds  other  between wisdom  F o o l i s h people  On t h e o t h e r  with  This,  as unique  arguing i n turn,  competency  term. The pattern Both of  of overlap  the estimate  common m e a n i n g  dimensions unique the  third,  suggest  term.  numerical  and r e l a t e d ,  between wisdom of numerical along  categories  other,  and o f t h e category  analysis  indicated that  associated categories,  with  relatively  although  occurred  i s a  point,  each o f  the different  independent  o f Wise people.  Wise people were  the overlap  that  derived  wisdom  to the f i r s t  suggest  target  that  categories.  and t h e p a t t e r n s  factor analytically  With reference  were  i s the  and other  overlap  the hypothesis  estimates  evidence  o f each  The second  many o f t h e d e s c r i p t o r s associated  with  other  i n a very  systematic  178  fashion. is  Before  necesary  factors. to  reviewing  to provide  Following  a consideration  that  information,  some d i s c u s s i o n  that  of  specific  discussion, I will  of the patterns  however, i t  then  of overlap  return  between  categories. The components  most  a n a l y s i s was  construe  wisdom  specific  dimensions  Understanding, Competencies,  The  by  fact  is  are also  first  the in  items  Skills  or  common s e n s e  inclusion  points  suggests  experience  i s analyzed  insights  associated  with  wisdom.  values.  that  wisdom  and management  of items  to yield  i s  and  of  demonstrating  contexts  o u t t h e manner  everyday  skills.  experience,  prototypicality  of l i f e  of  Exceptional  t o see essences, understand the s e l f  General  Social  abilities  dimension  i n the conduct  touch with  The  Skills,  from o r d i n a r y  reflecting  The  people  manner.  and  labelled  high  on t h i s  affairs.  ability  that  i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n terms  factor, stems  principal  Exceptional  of psychological  load  reflected  everyday  identified,  items having  that  experience  a confirmation  Interpersonal  Understanding which defined  of the  Judgement/Communication  types The  results  i n a multi-dimensional  Unobtrusiveness, specific  important  the  and  be  i n which penetrating  In addition,  such  179  characteristics strongly social  as  intuitive,  emphasize the  and  interpersonal The  second  prototypicality  loading Astute  on  this  and  vigilant  that  i s also values.  The  the  Considers  Options  the  world.  operation  i n judging  set, which  reflects  includes  items set  having  of  items  descriptors  The  next  Points  and  the  by  set  of View  and  efficiency  descriptors  Is  a  ability  the  propensity  person  this  factor i s that  analyzing  communicating  The  third  descriptors of  Thinks  the  by  represent mind.  Curious,  a Great  wise  others.  information  factor, labelled  i s defined  that  Intelligent, and  the  i s expressed  and  Competencies,  qualities  wisdom  The in  The  the  to  share  theme  of  observing,  about  life.  General  moderately p r o t o t y p i c a l basic  These  orientations  include  Creative,  Deal.  of  Source  reflects  r e s u l t s of h i s decision with  items,  r e s o l v i n g problems.  I s W o r t h L i s t e n i n g To,  the  a  and  and  of  Aware,  of  Good A d v i c e and  a  and  which r e f l e c t s  breadth  issues  Judgement  first  Comprehending, each of to  empathic  i n s i g h t s have  defined  factor includes  approach  and  basis.  Weighs Consequences, Considers  third  such  factor, labelled  Communication S k i l l s , high  idea  diplomatic  the  Evaluates  Corresponding  or  words  Alert,  Information to  those  items  of  180  is  a  second  manner  group  i n which  including  the  doubt,  a  The  people  rooted The  which  people. as  Kind  aspects factor be  of  competency  wisdom must r e s t  superior  abilities level  of  factor, labelled  by  a  large  defining  the  in  life,  of  factor i s , on  factor  earlier  The  sound  skill.  items,  include the  most of  such  that  transactions  of  wise terms  positive  emergence of  argument  in interpersonal  a  wise  salient descriptors  this  and  Interpersonal  number o f  human i n t e r a c t i o n .  this  wisdom which  may  lead  to  outcomes. The  defined  by  final 5  prototypicality by  the  wisdom  dimension,  items  The  descriptors These  i s expressed  rather  than  Social  which received  ratings.  Non-Judgemental.  subtle  a  U n s e l f i s h , which reference  expressed  that  that  i n a necessary  emphasizes  expressed  expressed  the  Read, A r t i c u l a t e , Educated  particularly  Items and  the  fourth  not  beneficial  is  that  i s defined  are  are  emergence of  recognition and  Skills,  qualities  words Well  foundation are  characteristics referencing  these  Knowledgeable. no  of  items  Unobtrusiveness, moderately  theme o f Quiet,  dimension  Unobtrusive  reflect  q u i e t l y and  dramatic-ways.  this  the  is  and  perception  manifested  This  high  in  dimension--has  no  181  parallel themes  i n previous  found  i n the  ancient  Returning b e t w e e n w i s d o m and the  patterns  categories different  of  psychological  to  other  overlap  overlapped functions.  General  Competencies.  dimension,  the  The  overlap.  is  of  descriptors  core  with  competency  These  include verbal  cognitive  abilities  like  the  other  high  level  attributes do are  well. not  and  that  with  other  overlap,  of  their  to  there  basic  labels a shares  labels.  Wisdom, state  that  of  those  describing people  Spiritual,  i n d i c a t i n g that  that  abilities.  demonstrate  this  associated  with  categories,  on  demonstrated  t o be  together  categories  of  labelled  suggests  regardless  indiscriminately applied categories.  degree  Intelligent,  Spiritual  consequently  results also  along  dimension  tends  of  comparison  greatest  perceptual  competency  examination  category  pattern  skills,  f u n c t i o n and  The  desirable little  This  categories  the  resemblance  substantial overlap  category  no  an  that  wise  the  categories  showed  virtually a  the  f a c t o r 3,  Perceptive while  of  categories, revealed  reflects  traditions.  O v e r a l l , the  occurred  and  on  wisdom question  with  overlap  Shrewd  the  accounts but  who  descriptors  a l l socially  f o r example,  showed  i n some s o c i a l l y  valued  182  categories  basic  competencies  are  secondary  to  other  features. T h e r e was on  factor  o v e r l a p between  I , Exceptional Understanding,  Judgement  and  surprising t h e most  less  Communication  as  these  salient  dimensions  of  category than  the  other  attributes  referencing  This  they  people  core  serve and  overlap.  a different  suggests  fourth  Less  to  the  than  overlapped  their  an  Intelligent  the  wise  with  little  category S p i r i t u a l , Competencies  serve of  from  as  Wise, other  abilities.  labelled Interpersonal pattern  of  d i d not  category  evidenced  c a t e g o r y on  o v e r l a p on  dimension,  skills  concept  Shrewd, which  which  each  of  people  unique  o v e r l a p w i t h the Wise very  40%  dimensions  f o r the  interesting  and  subset  pragmatic  dimension,  demonstrated  Competency had  General  that  of meaning  to highlight  considerable  The  on  by  and,  more c e n t r a l  dimensions  to d i f f e r e n t i a t e  The Skills,  t o be  u n d e r s t a n d i n g and  distinctive  as  these  2,  i s not  U n l i k e the previous comparison,  overlapped  descriptors.  a  on  factor  were d e f i n e d l a r g e l y  to other categories.  categories.  category  and  This  prototype descriptors  c o n s e q u e n t l y , were expected Wise  Skills.  the c a t e g o r i e s  this  General  dimension.  o v e r l a p on  the  showed a c o n s i d e r a b l e  183  degree o f shared  meaning  This  p e o p l e make c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n s  argues  categories  that  referencing  interpersonal categories basic  on t h i s  interpersonal  between  c o g n i t i v e competence, where  factors are r e l a t i v e l y  referencing  factor.  unimportant,  interpersonal skills,  c o g n i t i v e competencies  and  where  are relatively  unimportant. These r e s u l t s suggest social  categories  The c a t e g o r i e s respect  emphasize  requirement function.  be r e l a t i v e l y  homogeneous  with  o f f u n c t i o n r e f e r r e d by the sets such as I n t e l l i g e n t  features.  f o r categories cases,  collection  i s defined  interpersonal considered  There  i n terms  t o be  to reference categories  of competencies.  interpersonally  that  an e x p e r i e n t i a l framework w h i c h  a  of  more  To  cognitive, be and  and have judgemental are exercised  types  Wisdom, f o r  one must b o t h be competent  skills  of  reflect  by c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from  skilled,  such  no  several  may  and e x p e r i e n t i a l domains.  wise,  communication  seems  of  seem t o  categories  a r e more h e a v i l y w e i g h t e d  In other  homogeneous  of  criteria.  competency a t t r i b u t e s , w h i l e  interpersonal  organize  to specific  Categories  Spiritual  example,  may  people  reference  to the types  attributes.  as  with  that  i n the  includes  and context  substantial  184  knowledge other have  o f human s o c i a l  categories,  i s complex  demonstrated  skills  within  a socially  may a l s o  structure.  Shrewd,  behaviour. in  which  basic  social  facilitating The of  prototype  terms by  This  pattern  psychological Other  p e o p l e who  and knowledge  have  o f human  o f evidence  exhibited  i n other  of highly  are organized  forming  was m e a n i n g l e s s some w a y  with  i s that  some o f t h e As i n  p r o t o t y p e was d e f i n e d  d e s c r i p t i v e terms,  Rosch's  with  highly  of the category  edges.  terms.  (1978) r e p o r t salient  and l e s s  What w o u l d  most  this  likely  salient  I f the category  ordering-would not happen  that  features  or a r b i t r a r y , or i fthe descriptors  inappropriate,  i n  surrounded  descriptive,  with  the outer  the l i s t  investigations.  the category  corresponds o  i n a  function.  piece  found  are expressed  and a r e concerned  descriptors  the centre  descriptors  occur.  who  competency  labels  of salient, albeit less  categories  in  competencies  fourth  o f a core  forming  f o r example competencies  people  framework.  show a m u l t i p l e  context  studies,  groups  defined  human s o c i a l  characteristics previous  and r e f e r e n c e s  W i s d o m , h o w e v e r , may b e o n e o f t h e f e w t e r m s  multiple  positive  Wisdom, u n l i k e  an i n t e g r a t i o n o f b a s i c  categories  demonstrated  concerns.  i s that  people  were  185  would  r a t e a l l words  Similarly, contained would was  i f the  list  tend  ratings,  t o be  between  suggesting  betwen  prototypicality prototypes.  the  should  fairly  this and  but  ratings case,  there  lowest a  of  be  high.  positive  endorsement  with  central  The  although  high  ideas  and  about  to  the  category  prototypicality results  the  are  as of  ratings  consistent with  correlation  i s not  as  high  expected.  The prototypical  fifth  piece  conception  demonstrates  psychological,  of  evidence  selective  continuity  philosophical finding  and  This  Sternberg  a l ' s (1981) r e p o r t  et  i n f o r m a l and that the  i s that  of wisdom developed  traditions.  argues  the  frequently listed  corresponding  suggestion,  m i g h t be  moderately  items  should  the  and  In  domain,  organization reflects  i s i n keeping  interest,  between  words,  the h i g h e s t  frequency  Because  characteristic  be  the  category.  correlation  study  exhaust  high.  that the  Similarly,  as  poor d e s c r i p t o r s .  d i d not  unanimously  spread  formed  this  being  only highly descriptive  a good  well  as  of  in kind  some  theories of  prototype  in  this  the  s e c u l a r wisdom  is similar  formal  with  the  conception  to  similarity intelligence, can  be  used  to  186  supplement will  other  briefly  theories.  d e l i n e a t e the  b e t w e e n wisdom as conceptions  psychological  mark b o t h  in different  of  the  dimensions  studies.  on  The  on  five  found  factors  i n one  or  Exceptional Understanding  Clayton  Birren  (1978) and  the  and  found  consistency  by  Brent  across  to  the  particularly The  the  themes  which  rooted  (1978) and  identified  with  identified  emergence of  fact  factor,  that  indicate  This  feature of wise  and  The  the  experience,  Competencies  Brent  by  lends  that exceptional  in life  distinctive General  factor  (1980).  define this  suggestion  study  previous  f e a t u r e o f wisdom.  c o g n i t i v e dimensions  the  annd Watson  items  central  understanding,  projects,  of  Practical-Experiential  studies, together  prototypical  i t is a  Birren  of  more  dimension  the  other  other  in this  Reflective  credence  For  a comparison  the  that  and  with  studies.  to  highly  I  differences  comparisons  corresponds  dimension  and  study  comparison  pages,  literatures. Three  resemble  The  i t i s based  following  in this  t h e o r i e s i s based  found  traditions,  the  similarities  described  o f wisdom.  dimensions  In  factor by  is  people. also  Clayton  Watson • (1980). that  factor  a  was  In seen  parallels and those, to  be  187  consistent of  with  as a t y p e  study  study, only  of cognition.  suggest  cognitive  the argument t h a t  a more modest  factors  items  wise the  to the fact  o f wisdom  indicates  that  as The  is  that  basic  cognitive  Interpersonal  and B i r r e n  (1980).  In those  In  this  studies,  analysis  with  descriptors  that  words d e f i n i n g  salient  Skills  In to  wisdom.  purely to distinguish  skills  factor  Instead, represent  f o r being  this  i n this  dimensions and  social  on t h i s  by  Watson  aspects  interpreted o f wisdom.  ratings  factor  study  identified  d i m e n s i o n was  of prototype  loading  descriptors  different  than  conditions  (1978) and by B r e n t  f o r the uniquely  study,  being  wise.  Clayton  evidence  as  this  people.  competent people.  s i m i l a r to the interpersonal  as  the  In  appeared  other  do n o t s e r v e  necessary, but not s u f f i c i e n t , recognized  of wise  a variety of categories  aspects  seen  competency dimension  i n d i v i d u a l s from other data  i n this  role for  f a c t o r were  salient descriptors  These r e s u l t s p o i n t cognitive  thought  r e s u l t s obtained  or reduced  on t h i s  the general  characterize  i s best  i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f wisdom.  loading  moderately  addition,  The  wisdom  again  associated indicated  the f a c t o r were not p a r t i c u l a r l y and were a s s o c i a t e d  categories.  This  suggests  with  that  several  interpersonal  188  skills,  while being a conspicuous  people,  do n o t i n t h e m s e l v e s  from  other interpersonally  results social  argue and  reported  interpersonal  here  strongly  distinguishing social  skills  situations.  distinguish  facile  for a careful  means  of wise wise  of wise  Their  The  t h e argument people  These  between the  a s p e c t s o f wisdom.  support  people  individuals.  distinction  results  that  the  are expressed i n  interpersonal  do n o t seem t o be d i s t i n c t i v e sufficient  feature  styles,  however,  enough t o s e r v e as  for distinguishing  them  from  a  other  individuals. The Judgement had is  no  and C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s  counterpart i n previously  surprising  prototypical studies  may  this  factor  was  items.  One  reason  for differences  that  were not s e l e c t e d content.  reported studies,  since  be  the descriptors  i n ways t h a t  Consequently,  from  earlier  studies  than  t h e one  developed  comprised  i n this  possibility  i s that  t h e two  Exceptional  Understanding  of  which  highly across  i n previous analyses  exhausted  the pictures  are l i k e l y  factor  t o be  the domain o f  o f wisdom less  project.  fine  A  separate factors  and Judgement  and  to  grained  second of  emerge  189  Communication studies  as a s i n g l e The  Social  fifth  may  Again,  a l l previous  people's  have appeared  i n previous  factor. factor  Unobtrusiveness,  studies. not  Skills  this  identified  i n this  study,  h a s no c o u n t e r p a r t i n p r e v i o u s  probably  reflects  s t u d i e s based  their  the fact  analyses  perceptions of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  that  on  o f Wise  people. The comparisons in  this  those in  g e n e r a l p o i n t t o emerge  i s that the description  study  i s both broader  previously  this  study  reported.  completely  (1978),  factors  identified  by Brent  both  of the s t u d i e s used  procedures, procedures analysis present  this  result  i n this  five  subsume  and B i r r e n  and  o f wisdom  factors  than  r e p o r t e d by  include three of the four  incomplete  (1980).  category  i s not s u r p r i s i n g .  of the structure  presented  identified  the factors  and Watson  study were  these  and more d e t a i l e d  The  Clayton  from  designed  Since  analysis The  to permit  of categories.  a  In short, the  results  present  a more c o m p l e t e p o r t r a y a l  characteristics  of wise  people.  The  factors  i n this  c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h themes o f wisdom.  study  appearing  also  full  showed  i n other  In the ancient secular t r a d i t i o n ,  of the  some  accounts wisdom i s  190  viewed  primarily  represented  as  the a r t of  in qualities  practical  virtues  A  theme a p p e a r s  similar  that  of  descriptors  that  accounts,  wisdom  one  life,  in  As  in traditional  g u i d e d by  conception  i s also  pragmatic,  context-delineated  that  wisdom  effective wisest  communication.  crucial  idea  wise  judgemental conception  to  wisdom  secular  i n sound  people  skills  express  to the  tradition.  traditional  and  ordinary  reflective current  the  mundane,  life. tradition  judgement  is  and  In the ancient t r a d i t i o n , and  a r e marked by  also  figured  use  complex  role  the  entrusted with  their  of proverbs thoughts  of communicative  in  old  man.  and  folk  also  The  special  significantly  of the archetype of the wise  verbally  of  in  with  aspects of  the  to the w e l f a r e o f the community.  the widespread  testimony  as  sense  concerns  life.  experiential  accounts, the  w e r e made j u d g e s  decisions that  good  theme i n t h e  i s expressed  people  « Finally,  marked by  second  adapted  as b e i n g r o o t e d i n t h e  of  A  with  i s comprised  dimension,  experiences nature.  is  s t u d y where  the p r a c t i c a l ,  In that  and  together  to a well  factor  highlight  i s seen  well,  i n the present  Understanding  o f wisdom.  the mind  lead  Exceptional  aspects  living  stands  skills  Jung's  tales as  in,the  191  In  this  Communicative The  study the Judgemental  Skills  factor  highly prototypical  items  emphasize the importance skills  organized  longer practice  and  their  wise  judges  and  j u d g e m e n t s and  wise  function.  considerable with people  wise  that  longer  p e o p l e may  t h e y may  no  continue to  skills  and  friends.  i n the s e c u l a r a r e an  traditions  important  feature of there i s  d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r manner o f and  factor  centrally  communication  I n t h e a n c i e n t wisdom w r i t i n g s  evidence o f a strong concern  along with others. Skills  dimension  o p i n i o n s i n a more i n f o r m a l  theme f o u n d  interpersonal  and  s y s t e m s a r e no  i n t i m a t e manner t o f a m i l y  that  this  ideas.  T h i s suggests  i n the marketplace,  A third is  o f judgement  formal s o c i e t a l  around  t h e above  defining  i n c o n c e p t i o n s o f wisdom.  a l t h o u g h our  express  embodies  and  In t h i s  study,  emerged as a w e l l  important,  dimension  from  other individuals,  for getting  the I n t e r p e r s o n a l  defined, albeit  f e a t u r e o f wise  this  dealing  people.  not  Although  does not s e r v e t o d i s t i n g u i s h wise  a g a i n emphasizes  the r e c u r r e n c e of t h i s  the c o n t i n u i t y between the  mundane wisdom t r a d i t i o n s  and  theme  older,  t h e modern v i e w  p e o p l e . D e s p i t e t h e h e a v y e m p h a s i s on  people  of  achievement  wise i n our  192  society,  interpersonal features are s t i l l  important  aspect In t h i s  factor  dimension critical  The  the General  implicitly  data  seen as b e i n g  recognized  The  S o c i a l Unobtrusiveness  a  fine  direct  o f wisdom.  does n o t  literature,  points of t h a t wisdom i s  r a t h e r than  wise people  commands.  seemed t o p o s s e s s  s e n s e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e need f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n i n the a f f a i r s  some e x t e n t  policy  aspects  i s the sentiment  traditions,  In a d d i t i o n , t h e r o l e to  competencies a r e  factor  there are several p o t e n t i a l  In the a n c i e n t  understanding.  i n the ancient  i n a form o f guidance  and l a t e r  a premium on l e a r n i n g  but not c r i t i c a l ,  The f i r s t  the c o g n i t i v e  by A r i s t o t l e  that general  h a v e an i m m e d i a t e p a r a l l e l  similarity.  i n the ancient  a b s t r a c t modes o f  indicate  real,  aspect o f  recognition of decontextualized  p h i l o s o p h e r s who p l a c e d  present  expressed  important  I t d o e s , however, r e s e m b l e  and m a s t e r i n g  although  Competencies  does n o t h a v e a c o u n t e r p a r t  literature.  skills  study  This e x p l i c i t  competency  as an  o f mature a d u l t f u n c t i o n .  emerged as a m o d e r a t e l y  wisdom.  valued  of other  o f t h e e l d e r as g u i d e ,  individuals. described  i n Jung's w r i t i n g s , a l s o r e f l e c t s  of non-interference.  So w h i l e  this  i t is difficult  to  193  demonstrate a d i r e c t  c o n n e c t i o n , i t appears  factor  with other accounts  i s consistent The  prototype  ideas  found  i n this  o f wisdom a r e v e r y s i m i l a r People  today  with the correct  o f human a f f a i r s ,  situations  and p r e d i c a t e d on c e r t a i n  expressed  T h i s i s not t o suggest  i n interpersonal  levels that  of concern accounts  i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l  often  obtained that  t o those d e s c r i b e d here.  emphasize m e t a p h y s i c a l  be removed f r o m  issues  sixth  line  o f evidence  i s that  areas  Their and seem t o  processing strategies.  C h i Square a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d  that  results  with the hypothesis  t h e p r o t o t y p e f o r wisdom a c t i v e l y  was s e e n  concerned  literature.  i n study I I I are c o n s i s t e n t  information  literature.  the concrete patterns o f behaviour  i n the secular The  themes  t y p e s o f wisdom and h a v e i d e n t i f i e d  similar  identified  o f human  these  On t h e c o n t r a r y , many p h i l o s o p h e r s h a v e b e e n with pragmatic  modern  t o t h e a n c i e n t wisdom  evaluation  are u n r e l a t e d to those  that  s e e wisdom as b e i n g r o o t e d i n  mundane e x p e r i e n c e , c o n c e r n e d  competency.  o f wisdom.  s t u d y and  c o n c e p t i o n s o f wisdom s u g g e s t  traditions.  this  p a t t e r n o f resemblance between t h e  descriptors  traditional  that  influences  The r e s u l t s  of the  t h e Wise c h a r a c t e r  a s a good example o f w i s e p e o p l e  and t h e  194  analysis  o f confidence  subjects'  ratings indicated that the  memory p r o c e s s i n g  direction.  While  was b i a s e d  s u b j e c t s were a b l e  d i s t i n g u i s h between a c q u i s i t i o n also  demonstrated  being novel,  to accurately  and n o v e l  a consistent bias  more c o n f i d e n t  i n the expected  items,  they  i n the d i r e c t i o n o f  that h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l , but  items had been presented  during  the a c q u i s i t i o n  task. This  pattern of results  C a n t o r and M i s c h e l ' s performance  One  (1979) c l a i m t h a t  These r e s u l t s  a real,  but minor, r o l e  possible explanation  probability  their  i n memory  i s that  o f having  that  prototypes  processing.  s u b j e c t s , when information,  s e e n an i t e m  forced evaluate  b o t h i n terms o f  memory o f t h e a c q u i s t i o n i t e m s and t h e i r  prototypical  conceptions  interpretation  cognitive  with  fits  This  modest  t h e d a t a and  the general  themes i n t h e  literature. The  finding  the category  pattern  o f wisdom.  simultaneously  demonstrates c o n s i s t e n c y  for  memory  a l s o suggest  t o make a d e c i s i o n a b o u t ambiguous the  with  i s i n f l u e n c e d , b u t n o t dominated, by  prototypes. played  i s consistent  that  the experimental  Shrewd d i d n o t p r o d u c e t h e  of results  while  character expected  i t s c o n t r o l d i d so was  195  unexpected. impact  on  to understand  of this  this  t h e r e s u l t s were  examination  i n d i c a t e s they  control  r a t i n g task  character  people.  Taken  experimental Shrewd  no d i r e c t  study.  Nevetheless,  unanticipated theory  clearly  The  result  seems  unexpected,  are not t o t a l l y  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n theory.  character  a  problem had  the framework o f prototype  Although  with  this  the major purpose  an a t t e m p t within  Fortunately,  required. close  inconsistent  r e s u l t s of the  indicated that  subjects  viewed  as a f a i r l y  good  example o f  i n conjunction  with  the fact that  character  person,  there  was  not judged  i s no r e a s o n  The  a good  Shrewd the  example  to expect  of  the  predicted  results.  indicated  that  descriptors associated  character  were  processed  prototype  suggests  activated  during  triggered  by  the c o n t r o l rather  In  summary, t h e r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t  that  the  recognition analysis, which with  the control  i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t t h e Shrewd  prototype  the a c q u i s i t i o n phase, but than  the  with  the  was was  experimental  character.  other of  reports  prototypes  Wise  character  people  and  i n the prototype  literature  on c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s . as a good  their  with  of the e f f e c t s  People viewed  example o f the category  memory s t r a t e g i e s w e r e b i a s e d  in  the  of Wise  196  accordance  with  with e a r l i e r features  this  fact.  r e p o r t s i n the l i t e r a t u r e  of prototypes  processing  This i s e n t i r e l y consistent  i s they  seem t o b i a s i n f o r m a t i o n  i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ways.  further validate references  t h a t one o f t h e  These  t h e i d e a t h a t t h e word  a w e l l formed and p r o t o t y p e  results  "wise  1  organized  concept. These s i x l i n e s pattern 'wise'  o f support and  of evidence  'wisdom' r e f e r e n c e s p e c i f i c  Identifying category,  organized  o f wise  and d e s c r i b i n g t h e p r o t o t y p e  f o r the  as w e l l as d e m o n s t r a t i n g  the attempt  process  i t seffect  Establishing  the prototype  strengthened is a reliable  theory.  o f the prototype  across  age  the contention that studying way o f i d e n t i f y i n g t h e  f e a t u r e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h wisdom.  demonstration  others,  t o s t u d y wisdom w i t h i n t h e  the r e l i a b i l i t y  further  people.  on t h e  i n f o r m a t i o n about  framework p r o v i d e d b y c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  special  as b e i n g e m b o d i e d  category  i n which people  justified  groups  types o f  In general, the r e s u l t s  t h a t wisdom may be v i e w e d  the p r o t o t y p i c a l l y  manner  converging  i n s t u d i e s I I and I I I a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e  hypothesis in  a  f o r t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e words  competent a d u l t f u n c t i o n . obtained  form  that prototypical  attributes  The  subsequent  c o u l d be  197  summarized b y p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y m e a n i n g f u l completed  t h e argument t h a t wisdom c a n be l o c a t e d  a psychological of and  dimensions  framework.  Finally,  the demonstration  c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n t h e modern c o n c e p t i o n o f wisdom various  b o d i e s o f wisdom l i t e r a t u r e  provided  c o n s e n s u a l v a l i d a t i o n f o r t h e p i c t u r e o f wisdom in  within  this  study. In  this  psychological examination be w i s e . during results  painted  study,  the attempt  t h e o r y o f wisdom  to develop  i s based  a  on t h e e m p i r i c a l  o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of people  thought  to  The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e emergence o f wisdom  adulthhood,  therefore,  strongly  reflects  the  o f t h e p r o t o t y p e a n a l y s i s and a c c o m p a n y i n g  examinations  o f the s t r u c t u r e  p e o p l e , as d e s c r i b e d  o f the prototype.  Wise  i n the p r o t o t y p e a n a l y s i s , are  marked b y t h e c o - o c c u r r e n c e o f a v a r i e t y o f c o g n i t i v e , interpersonal not  and e x p e r i e n t i a l c o m p e t e n c i e s .  t h e norm i n p r o t o t y p e s t u d i e s  S t e r n b e r g e t a l (1981), intelligence cognitive  was  competencies. and  There  interpersonal  conceptions  f o r example, found  characterized  competencies  of social  no e v i d e n c e  features  by  that  were i m p o r t a n t  of intelligence.  categories. that  p r i m a r i l y by a s e t o f  and s e c o n d a r i l y  was  This i s  social experiential parts  S i m i l a r l y , Cantor  of and  198  Mischel's  prototypes  individuals  d i d not  dimensions.  I t can  competency than the  i n t r o v e r t e d and  contain be  structure  competency o r e x p e r i e n t i a l  argued, then,  competencies  should  be  One  p e o p l e have developed  situation Werner's  competencies could  be  integration.  could  adult  This  understood theory  than other  i n t e r p r e t e d as  i n t e g r a t i o n as  being  two  the of  several wise  balanced Such  a  consistent according  with to  complementary  and h i e r a r c h i c a l specifically  i t might apply  d e v e l o p m e n t , one  to  such p o s s i b l e  of adaptation  otherwise  autonomous c o m p e t e n c i e s become  under the  auspices  o f what  or  people.  principle,  i s g o v e r n e d by  of  type in  by  diverse  i s that  a more i n t e g r a t e d  l i e i n a hypothesis  wisdom.  rather  o f a number o f  W h i l e Werner does n o t  meaning o f of  be  possible  processes of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  period  exception  adulthood.  (1957) o r t h o g e n e t i c  which development  the  multiple  c e n t r a l to a d i s c u s s i o n  r e l a t i o n s h i p could  a l t e r n a t i v e ways.  of  the  f i n d i n g t h a t wisdom i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d  emergence o f wisdom d u r i n g  roster  that  o f wisdom i s t h e  simultaneous representation  patterned  aggressive  rule. The  the  of  discuss the  meaning  i n which coordinated  i s here r e f e r r e d to  as  199  The are  characterized  control it  argument t h a t  by a g r e a t e r  i s , o f course, h i g h l y  based d i s c u s s i o n s  common v i e w r e g a r d i n g  degree o f i n t e g r a t i v e speculative.  one becomes b e t t e r  the  full  this  of adult  adulthood  age  able  spectrum o f l i f e  Nevertheless,  function.  i s that  with  t o understand  events.  n o t on s p e c i f i c  an i n c r e a s e d  ability  t o cope i n g e n e r a l .  psychological  In the area  t o move b e y o n d g i v e n  information  questions  and t o d e f i n e  ( R i e g e l , 1974; A r l i n ,  cope w i t h  s i t u a t i o n s have emphasized  integrative  competence.  speculation  that  Schaie's  ability"to  this  adults presumed  (1978-1979) adult  take r e s p o n s i b l e  i n c r e a s i n g l y complex p r o j e c t s  new and  1975).  t h e manner i n w h i c h  the hallmark o f superior  i n an i m p r o v e d  additional  by t h e a b i l i t y  to describe  lies  development,  to find  Other attempts life  as t h e  of cognitive  o f development which a r e d e f i n e d  interesting  This  to identify  h a s t a k e n t h e f o r m o f an a t t e m p t  stages  that  change i n e a r l y and m i d - a d u l t h o o d  (Meacham, 1 9 8 2 ) . this  attempts  with  c a p a c i t i e s , but  o f a d u l t h o o d has served  cornerstone o f several  increased  I t i s noteworthy  focuses  aspect  One  and d e a l  contention  particular  of  o f development  i s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h c e r t a i n t h e o r e t i c a l and  empirically  on  some p a t t e r n s  function control  i s representative  of  200  this  t h e o r e t i c a l viewpoint.  His  need  for  competencies  effort  integrating various  undertaken i n the  person's also  larger  receives  continued, cognitive Boswell,  or  store  domain  of  of  integration  Despite  of  of  fact  accounts of adulthood  integration  hypothesis  s h o u l d be  an  important  contribution  of  the  to  who  first  may  to  empirically  t y p i f y s u c h an  is  any  integration  study  pursued.  social  cognitive and  further becoming  is  shrewd a r e  two  the and  that  the  This  study i t is  toward  that  there  i n becoming wise.  Adults  o f w h i c h i s t o become w i s e . as  examples o f  valued  Becoming w i s e the  In  combining  w h i c h were e x e r c i s e d  interests.  one  adults  a movement  however, i m p l y  skills  is  movement.  competencies w i t h n e g a t i v e l y  self  little  i d e n t i f y a group o f  does n o t ,  interpersonal  t h e i r own  1980;  t r a d i t i o n as  I I , Shrewd p e o p l e were p i c t u r e d  general  there  of  the  descriptive  integrative  one  in  such c l a i m s ,  that  normative i n e v i t a b i l i t y  become many t h i n g s ,  aged  hypothesis  Lipsitt,  V i e w i n g wisdom i n t e r m s o f greater  middle  suggests  the  concerted  from r e p o r t s  that  t h e s e themes i n t h e  theoretical  in a  abilities  R e e s e and the  emphasized  This  suppport  evidence substantiating  recurrence  the  experience.  (Baltes,  1979).  empirical  context  some c o l l a t e r a l new,  analysis  and  integrative  to  201  possibilities other  a v a i l a b l e to a d u l t s .  pathways t h a t  balanced  excel  other  with  life.  competency  regressive The  consistent  Foolish  their I t may  be  multi-option,  1978).  does n o t  u s e f u l to  look  various Wisdom as  unknown number o f p e o p l e .  however, t h a t  we  may  the  cannot  in this  study  i t seems t o r e f e r e n c e  This  identify  is available  does n o t  systematic  s t u d y wisdom i n a  i t suggests  that  we  nature of developmental  p r o p o s e new  research  should  imply, effects  that  does i t  carefully  influences  these  a  to  systematic  strategies.  f o l l o w i n g p a g e s I examine e a c h o f detail.  and  d e v e l o p m e n t o f wisdom, n o r  cannot  Rather,  creatively  of  (Chandler  described  t r a j e c t o r y that  the  models  mark a u n i v e r s a l l y a v a i l a b l e  progressive  t h a t we  i s most  theorists  particular  consider  for  either positive  contextual  Instead,  fashion.  competence  deal  developmental option.  suggest  such  to  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f e r e d here  w i t h the  influence  doubt,  d e v e l o p m e n t a l movements.  Labouvie-Vief,  an  by  no  people,  abilities  terms w h i c h r e f e r e n c e  d e v e l o p m e n t p r o p o s e d by  clearly  characterized  i n p a r t i c u l a r areas of  manage t o c o o r d i n a t e  effectively  or  not  i n t e g r a t i v e movements.  perhaps, n e i t h e r nor  are  There are,  In  issues  and the i n some  0  202  This influences wisdom.  next  that  The  observation  pertain  first that  people  two  children.  applied  to  adolescents  are  developmental  the  general,  children differ  areas  that  to  adults. are  see  and  typically  less able  In  important  t h i s c a s e , as  rely  on  accurate  significantly Some o f  is  seldom never  I believe  that  recognition  that  the  possibility  as  being  function.  competently  For  example,  Children,  i n the  in  c e n t r a l l y important  to appreciate  in  the is  however,  S i m i l a r l y , judgemental  previously,  are  a l l perspectives  than a d u l t s  role  from  suggesting  these d i f f e r e n c e s  o f wisdom.  t h a n t h e i r own. an  descriptor  i s ample e v i d e n c e  understand  feature  play  the  word The  i t i s almost  l i m i t a t i o n s on  perceived  important  other  the  young a d u l t s .  there  d e f i n i t i o n of wise  ability  the  the  wise.  In  functioning  attaining  function.  i s that  Likewise,  usage r e f l e c t s  o f becoming  that  s p o n t a n e o u s l y use  and  of  f o r t h i s s t u d y was  i n t e r e s t i n g exceptions,  to  biased  some d e v e l o p m e n t a l  possibility  competent a d u l t  applied  there  the  t h i s observation  'wise', w i t h  this  to  considers  motivation  'wise' t o d e s c r i b e converse of  section  an are  viewpoints skills  behaviour of wise  people.  c h i l d r e n h a v e b e e n .shown t o _  l e s s complex c o g n i t i v e  strategies  than  do  203  adults. in  T h e s e two  areas are  which childhood  than a d u l t  examples o f  competencies  abilities.  The  many ways  less well  limited ability  of  children  the  with  t h a t wisdom f i n d s i t s m e a n i n g i n  fact  complexity are  not  of  social  n o r m a l l y be  The  children  first  interchanges, expected  There are rule.  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  developed  to appreciate the  full  are  the  two  t o be  causes.  tradition  and  the  epitomize  the  wise c h i l d .  of h i s t o r i c a l  The  child  The  by  h a v e an  apparent p r o f u n d i t y .  of c h i l d i s h  consideration. intervention regard  to  properly child's things  the  of  In  c a n n o t be  located  i n a way  that  i n the  eastern  this of  of Christian  tradition  second e x c e p t i o n  The  saying  captures  is  "out  the  first  case, claims  examined by  mind o f  That  of  the  essence  of  wisdom.  instance,  i n the  utterances.  accounts  these cases warrants  the  second  to  i n which a c h i l d ' s pronouncements  mouths o f b a b e s " p e r h a p s b e s t  Neither  children  a result  Jesus  D h a l i Lama i n t h e  defined  conception  the  wise.  e x h i b i t i n g w i s e b e h a v i o u r as  extra-natural  this  means t h a t  together  i n t e r e s t i n g exceptions  consists  instances  events,  the the  serious of  divine  psychologists.  With  "wisdom" i s more adult  than  in  the  i s , children occasionally  adults  do  not.  In  some c a s e s  see this  204  can  serve  called  to  the  wise.  contributes  adults'  a d v a n t a g e s , and  Most o f t e n , however, the little  or nothing  and  the  child  childish  i s dismissed  is  insight as  "childish." Adolescents considered  t o be  people are  generally  basic  state  of  are  often  s t r e s s and  groups, despite be  wise.  competencies,  w i s e , but  w i s e may  shed  based  this  on  the  young a d u l t s  Despite  regarded they are  suggestion  that  abilities  in a well  for  the  e x a m p l e , has  formal often  discussed  operational thrust  ability  this  the  being  not  o f the  be  able  the  t o see  adolescent  constant age  thought  to  could  attainment multiple  for  no such (1975) , of  the  perspectives  r e l a t i v i s m from  face v a l i d  is a difficulty  is  capacity  Chandler  they wish to endorse. problem  of  being  these  to use  i n d i v i d u a l s i n t o a chaos o f  one  in a  function carries  fashion. how  s e e n as  most c o m p e l l i n g  a t t a i n i n g the  of  quota  d y n a m i c s o f wisdom.  w h i c h t h e y must c h o o s e , f r o m m y r i a d courses,  not  are  the  these  a full  E x a m i n i n g why  person w i l l ordered  as  seldom  that  arguments w h i c h  One  that  typically  on  situation.  a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d l e v e l  fact  skills,  several  are  as h a v i n g  turmoil.  some l i g h t  guarantee  the  characterized  their basic  There are explain  and  At  the  life core  i n coming  to  of  205  terms w i t h  the  perspectives  newly a c q u i r e d  are  p o s s i b l e , yet  C h o o s i n g one's p e r s o n a l subjectivity is for  not  of  easily  realization  life  only  one  can  be  followed.  p o s i t i o n i n face of the  is a difficult  solved without  task,  a great  deal  inherent  and  one  which  of  experience  guidance. This  includes  the  different outlook others.  example  ability  to a p p r e c i a t e  perspectives  while  i s relevant  and  remaining  Turner  to act  i n that the on  Recentering,  a form o f p o s t - a d o l e s c e n t  individuals, decentering nature  in this  at  achieve  view, r e f e r s i n which  cognitive  l e d them t o a p p r e c i a t e  simply  the the  subjective insight  because  i t i s subjective, is  n e c e s s a r i l y without  merit.  I f people are  themselves  ambivalence  from  relativism,  Turner  understanding merit  that  of being  recognition  the  their  personal  serves  own and  to  i m p l i e d by  f u r t h e r argued,  they  not  free  must a c q u i r e  t o them.  to r e c o n t e x t u a l i z e  that  radical  p e r s p e c t i v e has unique  of  labelled  people  o f k n o w l e d g e , manage t o a c h i e v e  a viewpoint,  o f many  chosen  a process  development  whose a c t i v e e f f o r t s have  existence  r e s p e c t f u l o f the v i e w p o i n t s  (1973) i d e n t i f i e d  such a p e r s p e c t i v e .  wisdom  one's  " r e c e n t e r i n g " w h i c h m i g h t e x p l a i n how  to  t h a t many  various  the Such  an  special a  206  perspectives action  and  contexts.  comes a b o u t , is  situate  the  How  and  them i n t h e i r  and  why  the nature  this  A  course  further  of adult  reason  wisdom i n a d o l e s c e n t s and neither  Although  exciting  correspond h a v e no judge  and  the judgemental  n e i t h e r o f these  somewhat w i t h age.  situations,  experienced  just  as j u s t i c e  s h o u l d be  i t is less  likely  and  t o be  this  to  are  becoming  seems t o people  skills  they w i l l  In the c o n t e x t o f  tempered w i t h mercy,  younger people  have  to have  a b l e t o make s u p e r i o r life,  logic  to produce  wise  o f t e n l a c k the a b i l i t y  w e i g h t h e components o f s i t u a t i o n s achieve  factors  logical  tempered w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g  decisions,  they  younger  that  of  abilities  judicious  Although  i t s problems. must be  into  lack  or o f the wise,  the r e q u i s i t e  enough o f l i f e  judgements about  enquiry  f o r the apparent  thoughtfully  doubt mastered  process  development.  t h e e x c l u s i v e domain o f a d u l t s , more e x p e r i e n c e d  and  t o wisdom,  young a d u l t s i s t h a t  the e x p e r i e n c e nor  behave w i s e l y .  social  development  of i t s r e l a t i o n  subject of a p o t e n t i a l l y  t h e n a t u r e and  proper  sufficiently  well  end.  The  preceding discussion  argues  that  most l i k e l y  s e t a s i d e t h e p e r i o d s of. c h i l d h o o d ,  adolescence  and  young a d u l t h o o d  and  locate  we  wisdom  can  to to  207  somewhere w i t h i n t h e a d u l t  years.  h o w e v e r , i t may be p o s s i b l e middle It  to identify  adulthood,  features of  and o l d age w h i c h h a v e some b e a r i n g on wisdom.  i s important  t o keep  i n mind t h a t  f o c u s on a r e n o t u n i v e r s a l they  Within  or normative  seem t o be i s s u e s t h a t  during  specific  discussion  t h e themes I w i l l  are p a r t i c u l a r l y  periods of adulthood.  i s designed  events.  Rather,  important  The f o l l o w i n g  t o p r o v i d e some c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f  t h e manner i n w h i c h l i f e  i s s u e s and e v e n t s  may r e l a t e t o  wisdom. By the b a s i c  middle  a g e , most p e o p l e  prerequisite  competencies  usually  chosen  people,  choosing  ability  to see the p o t e n t i a l value  People  a particular their  situation  t o be w i s e ,  course.  option results  who a r e so e n t r e n c h e d  are unable  their  ability  This,  i n turn,  in a  decreaesd  own p e r s p e c t i v e  advice to others.  f e a t u r e s o f wise  t o a c t as i m p a r t i a l suggests  that  age may be t o b a l a n c e  judges  o f wisdom  people i s  issue i n  the importance worth-of  This  and g u i d e s .  an i m p o r t a n t  perspective--with—the p o t e n t i a l  and h a v e  F o r some  i s incompatible with the attainment  one o f t h e i m p o r t a n t  possess  i n other choices.  i n their  to provide impartial  since  middle  life  undoubtedly  o f one's  own  other options.  208  The  manner i n w h i c h p e o p l e  implications  for their  The (Gould, also  available studies  re-evalute  that  their  this  may h a v e  p o t e n t i a l f o r becoming  1974; Levinson,  suggest  resolve  of mid-life  1978; Brim,  during  this  priorities  some  wise.  change  1976; Sheehy, 1976)  time,  many  and l i f e  people  choices.  Such  a  re-evaluation  may b e made p o s s i b l e  by the accumulation  of  sufficient  experience  a reasoned  of  the appropriateness  to  a reaffirmation of their  decision of  to permit  of their  choices.  present  t o e s t a b l i s h new g o a l s  evaluating  experience  postulate  that  this  type  may  lead  t o the broad  perspective  which  The  adult  m a r k e d b y a movement t o w a r d (Schaie,  1978-1979).  indicate  that  of  lives  making  This skills,  during  middle  and  could  enlightened  are also  increased  thought  earlier,  able  many  people control  to coordinate  results i n better interpersonal  t o be  competency  age t h e y h a v e more  and a r e b e t t e r  increased  One  i s  wisdom.  years  As noted  reportedly  process  of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n ,i f  characterizes  middle  or a  The  and a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d p e r s p e c t i v e  continued,  lead  of accumulated  o f a movement t o w a r d s wisdom.  skills.  may  course  and i d e a l s .  evocative  their  This  life  b e l i e f s i n the context  analysis  their  decision  competence  and an  209  increased This  capacity  f o r coping  with  t y p e o f movement i s q u i t e  o f wisdom p r e s e n t e d communicative important  earlier  compatible w i t h the idea  i n which  and i n t e r p e r s o n a l  features  o f wise  responsibilities.  judgemental,  skills  function.  were s e e n as The m i d - l i f e  period,  t h e n , may encompass p r o g r e s s i v e  provide  the p o s s i b i l i t y During  individual  later  possibility  can  be most c l e a r l y  people In  f o r the development life,  and s o c i e t a l  the  there  forces  s u c h s o c i e t i e s , when o l d e r and r e s o u r c e s ,  I n most p l a c e s ,  and  structures  essential. dispersed  The s o c i a l  t o be  however, c h a n g i n g  h a v e made o l d e r p e o p l e  influences  people being  A l t h o u g h some s o c i a l  competencies  less  In short,  may e i t h e r p r o m o t e o r h i n d e r t h e  of older  special  cultural  n e t w o r k s weakened, t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  cultural  older  associated  f a m i l i e s have  r o l e o f t h e e l d e r has d e t e r i o r a t e d .  against  by o l d e r  people maintain c o n t r o l o f  familial  possibility  forces  s o c i e t i e s ( S t r e i b , 1968).  S i m i l a r l y , as e x t e n d e d and k i n s h i p  o f wisdom.  seem t o r e l a t e t o  wisdom t e n d s  w i t h age. social  that  seen i n the r o l e p l a y e d agrarian  that  are c e r t a i n  o f a t t a i n i n g wisdom.  i n some r u r a l  expertise  changes  people,  recognized  pressures  may m i l i t a t e  t h e y may be - r e c o g n i z e d i n c e r t a i n areas.  as w i s e .  as h a v i n g  Some o f t h e s e  210  competencies  may be r e l a t e d  have encountered  t o wisdom.  and s t r u g g l e d  Older people  with the r e c u r r i n g  who  themes  o f human e x i s t e n c e may h a v e a c h i e v e d some u n d e r s t a n d i n g of those  issues  addition, these  that  perhaps  issues  c a n be u s e d  on t h e i r  people's  people roles  involvement  i n these  possess  T h i s may p l a c e  i n a p o s i t i o n where i t i s e a s i e r judge  matters,  subjects could  of objectivity.  of impartial  with  own b e h a l f and t h e r e f o r e no l o n g e r  o p i n i o n s on t h e s e  a v a l u a b l e sense  In  because they have a l r e a d y d e a l t  h a v e t h e same e g o t i s t i c a l older  to help others.  and g u i d e  elderly  to f u l f i l l the  that  are central to  t h e n o t i o n o f wisdom. Gutman professional encouraged  groups,  such  p e o p l e may be a f f o r d e d  the r u l e s  derives for  equipped  the f a c t  professional  e v a l u a t e what  that  status  i s best  revered  on m a t t e r s  of the p r o f e s s i o n a l  some o f t h e l e g i t i m a c y from  status.  l i n k w i t h t h e p a s t and a r e  to a r b i t r a t e  and t r a d i t i o n s  tradition in  special  c a s e s , o l d e r members a r e e s p e c i a l l y  thus b e t t e r  least  i n certain  s u c h as l a w y e r s , where members a r e  because they p r o v i d e a d i r e c t  At  that  t o embody a c o n s c i o u s h i s t o r i c a l  t h e i r work, o l d e r In  (1981) s u g g e s t e d  concerning society.  o f these o l d e r  t h e y a r e no l o n g e r  a n d ~ a r e a b l e t o more  f o r the group.  members competing  objectively  211  The played  marking  identified  similar  they  with  idea  elderly,  receives  interviews  i n which  I asked  thought  positively  middle  that  lives.  to identify  late  tended  middle  this  wise  time.  were o l d e r  to  informal  support  t o name  someone  people  person  responded  p l a y e d an  a tendency  people  person.  may b e o l d e r , b u t  some  important  across  as b e i n g e i t h e r  age o r e l d e r l y  tended  people.  than  i n middle  people  themselves.  or late  nominated  Without  i n late  to Older  t o name s o m e o n e t h e y h a d k n o w n w h e n  M i d d l e aged  then,  contribute  of wise  Younger people  w e r e y o u n g e r , b u t who w a s  a  where t h e r e i s  Most people  T h e r e was  age o r o l d age.  nominate people  was w i s e .  and s a i d  i n their  subjects  that  people  necessarily  whom t h e y  groups,  o f these groups, are  the role  that wise  Although not  Older people,  i n a position  to the function  and t h e  p e o p l e who a r e  the past.  able to f u l f i l l The  role  f o r older  that  to those  of professional  or organizations  are often  insights  especially  from  link  are similar  o f wisdom.  a r e members  i n families  defined  because  not  discussion  people  to  i n ancient traditions,  t h e s e new e l d e r s  d y n a m i c may h o l d  involved  unique  elders  i n this  elderly  a well  Gutman d e s c r i b e s i s s i m i l a r  by the wise  qualities  all  role  they  adulthood at  individuals  wanting  who  to unduly  212  emphasize this  these  informal  i s another  correlated  become w i s e ,  on  I do  mean t o  both a necessary state.  age,  i t appears  experience, ability the  not and  the  imply  back to  the  to r e s p o n s i b l y  t o be  struggled  perceived  p e o p l e , m i d d l e and progressive others,  as  later  there  may  be  no  with  being  movement l e a d i n g  These a n a l y s e s ,  wise.  of may  describe life. serve  a compelling  I f so, to  the  systematically  explore  enter issues  That  of the  later are  more  i s , f o r some  marked by  taken together,  a for  later  suggest  adulthood,  dimension unique f i n d i n g s of  ability  this  middle  progression.  empirical  advance the  be  is  s i t u a t i o n s mark  t o wisdom, w h i l e  wisdom i s most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f may  life  these  may  such  of  c o m p e t e n c i e s and  P e o p l e who  life  old  re-evaluation  complex  to  for attaining  discussion  continual  face  that being  condition the  integration of  a f t e r having  likely  that  people's p o t e n t i a l  sufficient  Referring that  older  movement t o w a r d s wisdom.  life  suggest  age.  focusing  that  I would  i n d i c a t i o n t h a t wisdom i s m o d e r a t e l y  with In  reports,  of  social  p o s i t i v e aspect  to  this  this  that and time  thesis  scientists of  aging.  to  213  D I R E C T I O N S FOR  The identifies and  several  function  results  final  treating  the of  function.  While  future  this  this  study  finding  lines  of  meaningful  concludes  following  of  efficacy  successful  o p e n s up  nature  patterns  p o i n t to the a  the  the  adult present  possibilities pages  for  I present  of research that could  the  extend  work. The  efforts  first  line  validated  taxonomy o f  r e s e a r c h would  prototypical individuals.  by  producing  competency  The  third  and  concerned  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e wise  an  terms.  examine t h e manner  characteristics  r e s e a r c h w o u l d be studying  of r e s e a r c h would  t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n w i s d o m and  competency d e s c r i p t o r s  of  converging  patterns of  In the  discussion  of research into  The  i t also  for three  this  o f w i s d o m as  special  studies.  of  areas  in this  efforts,  outlines  new  concept  descriptor  research  section  o f wisdom.  presented  FUTURE RESEARCH  systematize other  empirically The  i n which  to d i s t i n g u i s h most a m b i t i o u s  people  between line  with identifying people.  second  and  of  line use  214  Area  1  - A  Hierarchy  of  Competency  Categorization are  typically  (Rosch, to  organized  1978).  In  was  no  hierarchy validating clarify  study, while  from other  concerted  which  attempt  includes  to  wisdom.  such a h i e r a r c h y  the  suggests  could  serve  for studying  adult  competency by  areas  i n which people  explicitly can  similar  d e m o n s t r a t i o n was  Mischel  ( 1 9 7 9 ) who formed  'extroverted'  method a  be  wisdom  and  that  further  arranged of  other  could  also  i n which  of  I and  competency  examine  descriptors.  the At  A  and  descriptors  such  terms  as  categories. that  competency  II, I briefly terms which distinction the  of  different  Cantor  personality  to b e l i e v e  serve  d i f f e r e n t types  into similar hierarchies.  studies  used•to  other  recognizing  superordinate  i s reason  hierarchy  subsequently  as  effort  u n d e r t a k e n by  found  served  sections  partial  to  and  show s p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s .  into hierarchies  There t e r m s may  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n w i s d o m and  some g u i d a n c e  made  descriptors,  Constructing  to  be  taxonomies  establish  S u c h an  can  or  categories  e f f o r t s were  select  competency d e s c r i p t o r s . provide  that  into hierarchies  this  d i s t i n g u i s h wisdom  there  theory  Terms  time,  In  the  described I  between I  assumed  215  t h a t wisdom, and  foolishness  category of  intelligence,  were s u b o r d i n a t e s o f  o f human c o m p e t e n c i e s .  basic  that  level  determine  interesting a hierarchy  i f the  the e m p i r i c a l Forming  such  although hierarchy  features  There  Mischel  found by i s not  level  other  and  as  to form  a  i f t h e manner with  the groupings  several  face v a l i d i n which  procedure,  superordinates. pile  into  existed.  of the  test  as  The  and  group  the  hierarchy. with  the  of i t s v a l i d i t y . Cantor  task i n which  t o p l a c e l o w e r and  It i s ,  people  ways o f d o i n g t h i s .  a card sorting  i f a  hierarchy  f o r correspondence  p r o v i d e s a good  then  investigators.  a difficult  the concept  be  demonstrate  perceptions.  under  thought  at each  terms  people's  people  each  o f competency  reflects  used  and  work would  t o know a p r i o r i  asked  sort  this  possible  hierarchy  are  results  functioned  i t i s not  i s consistent  original  extension of  a hierarchy  then determine  Examining  the  these assumptions  the o t h e r terms  categories  however, p o s s i b l e  terms  the general  categories.  An generate  wisdom and  perceptiveness  In general,  the v a r i o u s analyses supported  suggested  to  shrewdness,  they  and first  intermediate categories  They then  asked  many s m a l l e r resemblance  the  groups  subjects as  of groupings  to  they to  the  216  hypothetical cluster people level is  to  to  generate  i n the  of  will  The variant  of  based both and  be  study  and  then  as  my  view  examined  to  involves  competency  The  first of  the  input  step  the  subjects The  confirm  would  I would  The from  and  placement  then  adding  final  that  Mischel's  of  the  asked terms  look of  to  a  ask  competent  order  the  additional  hierarchy  subjects  t h e n be  whether  w o u l d be  categories  competency h i e r a r c h y Cantor  the  I  terms,  nature  about  a  i n which  questions  examples  Following  to  propose  complete hierarchy  both  hierarchy.  subordinate  should  individuals. a  a  richness  o f what a h i e r a r c h y  seemed a p p r o p r i a t e .  additional the  I would  of  of  ask  each  in  from  hierarchy  into  conception  moves  to  arrangement  decreases  rational  on  reflect  wisdom.  one  Is at  hierarchical  procedure,  incompetent  terms  categories  Mischel's  generate  responses  as  using  method  and  responses  to  second  systematic  that  competency h i e r a r c h y . people  A  by  categories.  Cantor  form a  ascertained  I f the  description  superordinate  like  then  descriptors of  hierarchy.  there  detail  would  was  analysis procedures.  valid,  and  hierarchy  and  my  would own  includes  procedure, to  reconstruct  could  hierarchy  then  be  i s va4id.  217  This addresses also  of research,  the specific  speaks  changes  line  t o t h e more g e n e r a l  i n adulthood.  possible  question  which  of the status  could  alternate  Area  serve  growing  evidence people  that  of  reported  a  category  the prototype  prototypes the  the cognitive  cognitive  which  prototype.  III  processing  by Rosch s 1  subjects  of  procedure  which people  of wise  (1978)  finding objects  resemblance to (1979)  the v a l i d i t y  judged  An  consequences  and M i s c h e l  to test  a  strategies.  of the targets' Cantor  with  provided  categorized  f o rpersonality categories.  certainty with  clues,  implications  f o r the category  i s suggested  of this  as a  studies  are consistent  The r e s u l t s o f s t u d y  t h e speed w i t h  variant  here  examining  was a p o s i t i v e f u n c t i o n the  Such  be  Strategies  means o f t e s t i n g t h e c o g n i t i v e  prototypes  that  data  influences  alternative  options.  f o r further  Categorization  literature  prototypes.  i t may  i n adulthood.  2 - Examining  The  of  as t h e impetus  pathways  earlier,  i n a competency h i e r a r c h y  means o f i d e n t i f y i n g d e v e l o p m e n t a l then,  o f wisdom,  topic of developmental  As I suggested  t o use t h e terms  primarily  They  used  of  found  that  i n d i v i d u a l s as  218  being  examples  function in  of  of  the  number o f  descriptions  of  These w o u l d be others  used  personality  the  suggest  further  i n a manner t h a t  categorization procedure,  descriptions prototypes general  Cantor  vary  i s best  that  and  suited  to  this  involve  fictitious  containing  s p e c i f i e d number o f Subjects  membership.  decrease  and  increase  as  description  function  to  The  the  rate  with  this  descriptors  associated factors  with  of  of  category The short each  prototypical asked  to  recognition  category the  to  judge  should  membership  similarity  of  should  the  prototype.  other  categories  p r o c e d u r e by characters  several  which might  character  members  t h e n be of  rate  (1979)  situation.  more i n t e r e s t i n g i s s u e  b e t w e e n w i s d o m and addressed  Speed  procedure  with  Mischel's  category  would  c e r t a i n t y of a  included  people  developing  of  category  that  developing  descriptions  descriptors.  positive  similar  i n resemblance  procedure would  a  a  demonstrate  involves  that  a  descriptors  is consistent  theory.  which  prototpye  also  character.  studies  to  t y p e s was  may  the  containing  the  resemblance  also  examining  categories.  influence  of  There  be  how''people attributes are  several  confidence with  which  219  the  descriptions  The  first  are allocated  i s the extent  categories.  containing divergent  categories  uncertainty,  Decisions  should  as s u b j e c t s  category  produce  might  prototypical  descriptors  made q u i c k l y  subjects  rate  little  resemblance the  t h e speed  decriptions  to a single  speed  will  represents. highly  mpderately category  two  of  prototypicality  of those  which  a r e homogeneous  with  covary with  the  to the prototype;  which  be a j o i n t  attributes representing  should  broad  subjects  function  each category descriptors.  2)  rate  attributes associated  of  confused  uncertainty.  should  of the description  t h a n one c a t e g o r y  and  suggest  that  category  containing  degree o f  and c e r t a i n t y w i t h  and c e r t a i n t y w i t h  descriptions  maximally  containing  from a r e l a t e d  and w i t h  1)  from  themselves  from one c a t e g o r y  These c o n s i d e r a t i o n s hypotheses:  Descriptions  a high  find  involving descriptions items  respect  items  of the  the d e s c r i p t i o n best  prototypical  be  prototypes.  prototypical  categories.  between the  i s the resemblance  to the category highly  over which  of similarity  The s e c o n d  descriptors  to different  with  more  o f t h e number  and t h e degree  220  Area  3 - Identifying  The  and S t u d y i n g Wise  third,  and most  People  ambitious, line  r e s e a r c h would  involve  representative  members o f t h e c a t e g o r y o f w i s e  In  this  identifying  study I demonstrated  discussed  i n a consistent,  manner.  On t h e b a s i s  to  with  argue  some d e g r e e  and f e a s i b l e  study wise  people.  peer for  nomination procedure  individuals category. simple. from  then rate  their  identified  identify  a method  be asked  acquaintances.  to use a  wise  typify the  i s relatively  t o nominate wise The n o m i n a t o r s  to reflect  scale  assessment  the dimensions  would  o f how Subjects  the nomination process would  examined u s i n g a broad  people  of prototype  t h e p e r s o n was o f t h e c a t e g o r y .  through  and  the prototype  they  t o p r o v i d e some i n d i c a t i o n  representative  designed  such  i t i s both  identify  how w e l l  t h e nominee u s i n g t h e l i s t  descriptors  that  i n tandem w i t h to both  meaningful  i ti s possible  i t may b e p o s s i b l e  people  Procedurally,  among  of certainty  people.  can be  psychologically  and c h a r a c t e r i z e  People would  wisdom  to objectively  particular,  the category wise  and s t u d y i n g  o f these r e s u l t s ,  reasonable  In  that  of  then  procedure  identified  i n the  be  221  prototype  study.  summarized  such an assessment The  several would  assessment  different  pages  around both s u b j e c t i v e  about  the subject's  function,  and would  and o b j e c t i v e area would  experiential  a s p e c t o f wisdom and would  life  e x p e r i e n c e s and p e r s o n a l  together  with  such v a r i a b l e s  judgemental would and  be o r g a n i z e d  examine would  formal  solving  rigourous  skills.  be o r g a n i z e d life  development, learning  tests  skills  area would  complexity The f o u r t h  of general  of cognitive  o f such  of discourse area would  competency.  This  ascertaining the  competencies,  and assessment  I t  made i n t h e i r  measures  questions  examine  examining the type  accomplishments, supplemented  assessment  intelligence  around  collection  a s p e c t s o f wisdom.  questions  the person's l e v e l  person's  The t h i r d  as m o r a l r e a s o n i n g ,  problem  organized  f o c u s on t h e  t h e s e people have  and e x p e r i m e n t a l l y  abilities and  around  nature of decisions  lives  as t h e i r  and communicative  on  encompass t h e  person's  styles.  area  centre  be  data  into  life  would  The s e c o n d  interpretative  be d i v i d e d  The f o c u s i n t h e f i r s t  strategies.  and  briefly  program.  The r e m a i n i n g s e c t i o n s  of psychological  I have  procedure would  areas.  be on i n f o r m a t i o n  circumstances. areas  In the following  o f memory.  b y a more including The  fifth  222  area would  be based  interpersonal  on q u e s t i o n s about  relationships  ways o f i n t e r a c t i n g be  supplemented  of  interpersonal This  objectifying identified, direct  with  and p e r c e p t i o n s o f e f f e c t i v e  others.  personality  These q u e s t i o n s would tests  procedure, with  could  i t s emphasis  serve to provide the f i r s t  our knowledge about  be t h e next  As s u c h ,  wise people  t h e few h y p o t h e s e s  i n the psychological  fascinating  assessments  on  t h e w a y i n w h i c h w i s e p e o p l e may b e  means o f e x a m i n i n g appear  and  skills.  examination of wise people.  clarify  could  with  the person's  base,  i t could  and s e r v e as a  about  literature.  wisdom  that  In short, i t  step i n the explication  d o m a i n o f human  broad  of a  function.  C O N C L U D I N G COMMENTS  This viewing which  wisdom  presents a series  as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  references particular  competent because unique  thesis  adult  function.  i t , unlike meaning  such  meaningful  patterns I chose  terms  o f arguments f o r  of especially  to study  wisdom  as i n t e l l i g e n c e ,  i n t h e way i n w h i c h  term  adults  finds i t s  u n d e r s t a n d and  223  order  their lives.  area of  adult  affairs  in life  the  events  need adult  for  My  competence  of  the  past  competency.  adult  following  a v a r i e t y of  'wisdom' t o  the  psychological  systematized established that  and  wise people are  shown t o  and  adults  e a c h o f w h i c h was  by  substantial  use  of  as  researchers  of  path of  the  words  adults  progresive,  have  o f wisdom  v i r t u e of  This  procedures  attributes. several  interpretable  by  t h e i r unique  t h o s e e f f o r t s by  characterized  attempted  be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  competencies.  analysis  reference  study  thought  psychologists  conception  extended  category  characteristics then  widespread  w i s e p e o p l e may  pattern  of  and  function.  several  competent  of  professed  l a b e l c e r t a i n competent  from o t h e r  state  in identifying specific The  secular  that  a  been  i s best  t h e y m i g h t mark one  Recently,  demonstrating  has  unique  i n which  a l t e r n a t i v e pathways,  change i n a d u l t  to v a l i d a t e  there  development  developmental options.  positive  current  d e c a d e s have l e d t o  l i m i t e d success  that  f o r such a  stems from the  Although  that  suggested  look  ways t o c o n c e p t u a l i z e  agreement  'wise' and  to  span d e v e l o p m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g y  f i n d i n g new  h a v e had  choice  by  to  rich  thesis  using  well  demonstrate and  varied  Those d e s c r i p t o r s competency i n terms  of  were  dimensions,  224  psychological evidence  f o r the  including  that  biases  from  thesis also  of  the  that  when u s i n g  o f wisdom a r e  consistent  with  a specific  conception  the  i s somewhat s i m i l a r t o but  goes b e y o n d  of patterns  of psychological  of  the  is  a p o t e n t i a l for increased function during  trajectory  that  integrative,  adulthood.  progressive  and  from  secular  identification The  suggesting  integration  a specific  i s marked by  emerges  competencies. as  adult  ancient  them i n i t s  interpreted  wisdom r e f e r e n c e s  the  results  that  there  of This  suggests  developmental  a p a r t i c u l a r type positive  of  that  competent  o f wisdom t h a t  traditions,  are  hypothesis  type of  this  that  i n t e l l i g e n c e and  i n d i f f e r e n t stages  The  psychological  information  substantially  with  function.  research  wisdom,  categories.  wisdom r e f e r e n c e s  study  of  prototypical descriptors,  r e s u l t s obtained  t h e s i s are  concept  presents  people e x h i b i t  those a s s o c i a t e d  competency The  the  validity  conceptions  different other  The  demonstrations  processing and  function.  change.  of  225  REFERENCES  A p p e l , F . W . and A p p e l , E . M . I n t r a c r a n i a l v a r i a t i o n i n t h e w e i g h t o f t h e human b r a i n . Human B i o l o g y , 1942 14, 46-68. Arenberg, D. adults.  Concept Journal  problem s o l v i n g of Gerontology,  i n young and o l d 1968, 23, 279-282.  Aristotle. The Works o f A r i s t o t l e T r a n s l a t e d i n t o Vol. 8 Metaphysica. W.D. Ross (Ed.) Oxford: University Press, 1908. Arlin, P.K. stage?  English.  C o g n i t i v e development i n adulthood: a fifth D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, 11_, 602-606.  Baltes, P.B. L o n g i t u d i n a l and c r o s s s e c t i o n a l sequences i n t h e s t u d y o f age and g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t s . Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1968, 11, 145-171. B a l t e s , P . B . , R e e s e , H.W. and L i p s i t t , L . P . L i f e span developmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 1980, 31, 65-100. B a l t e s , P . B . Sc W i l l i s , S . Toward p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s o f a g i n g and d e v e l o p m e n t . I n J . B i r r e n and K . W . Schaie ( E d s . ) Handbook o f the P s y c h o l o g y o f A g i n g . New Y o r k : V a n N o s t r a n d R e i n h o l d , 197 7. Bayley, N. On t h e Psychologist,  growth of i n t e l l i g e n c e . 1955, 10, 805-818.  American  B a y l e y , N . Sc O d e n , M . T h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f a b i l i t i e s i n g i f t e d adults. J o u r n a l o f G e r o n t o l o g y , 1955, 10, 91-107. B e v e r , M . D . , D u l l , V . and L u i , L . Perceptions o f the elderly: s t e r e o t y p e s as p r o t o t y p e s . Journal of . P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1981, 4T^ 656-670.  226 B i r r e n , J . Metaphors on aging. I n J . Thornton (Ed.) Metaphors on Aging: P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e U.B.C. Conference^ Vancouver: University of British Columbia, D e p a r t m e n t o f A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , 1982. B o n d a r o f f , W. The n e u r a l b a s i s o f a g i n g . I nJ . B i r r e n and K.W. S c h a i e ( E d s . ) Handbook o f t h e P s y c h o l o g y o f A g i n g . New Y o r k : V a n N o s t r a n d R e i n h o l d , 1977. B o s w e l l , D. M e t a p h o r i c p r o c e s s i n g i n t h e m a t u r e Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 9 , 2 2 , 3 7 3 - 3 8 4 .  years.  Botwinick, J . Intelligence. I n J . B i r r e n a n d K.W. S c h a i e (Eds.) Handbook o f t h e P s y c h o l o g y o f A g i n g . New Y o r k : V a n N o s t r a n d R e i n h o l d , 1977. B o t w i n i c k , J . Aging andBehaviour (Second S p r i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1978. B o w e r , T.G.R. Human D e v e l o p m e n t . F r e e m a n C o m p a n y , 1979.  ed.).  SanFrancisco:  New Y o r k :  W.H.  B r e n t , S . B . Sc W a t s o n , D. A g i n g a n d w i s d o m : i n d i v i d u a l and collective aspects. Paper presented a t t h e meeting o f the American G e r o n t o l o g i c a l Society. San Franscisco, 1980. Brim,  O.G. T h e o r i e s o f m a l e m i d l i f e P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, 6, 2 - 9 .  crisis.  Counselling  B r o a d b e n t , D.E. a n d G r e g o r y , M. Some c o n f i r m a t o r y r e s u l t s o n age d i f f e r e n c e s i n memory f o r s i m u l t a n e o u s s t i m u l a t i o n . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1965, 56, 77-80. B r o m l e y , D.B. Some e f f e c t s o f a g e o n s h o r t t e r m remembering. J o u r n a l o f G e r o n t o l o g y , 1958, 396-406.  learning and 13,  B r o u g h t o n , R.H. C o m p a r a t i v e v a l i d i t y o f a p r o t o t y p e s c a l e construction strategy. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1981.  B u h l e r , C. The c o u r s e o f l i f e as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l problem. Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 6 8 , U , 1 8 4 - 2 0 0 . Buss,  D., St C r a i k , K. The a c t f r e q u e n c y a n a l y s i s o f p e r s o n a l dispositions: a l o o f n e s s , g r e g a r i o u s n e s s , dominance and submission. Paper i n p r e s s , 1981.  C a n t o r , N. D e S a l e s - F r e n c h , R., S m i t h , E . , a n d M e z z i c h , J . P s y c h i a t r i c d i a g n o s i s as p r o t o t y p e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 8 0 , 2^, 1 8 1 - 1 9 3 .  C a n t o r , N . a n d M i s c h e l , W. T r a i t s as p r o t o t y p e s : e f f e c t s on r e c o g n i t i o n memory. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1977, 35, 38-48. C a n t o r , N . a n d M i s c h e l , W. Prototypes i n person perception. In L. B e r k o w i t z ( E d . ) Advances i n E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l Psychology. New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1979. C h a n d l e r , M.J. R e l a t i v i s m and t h e problem o f e p i s t o m o l o g i c a l loneliness. Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 5 , 1 5 . C l a y t o n , V. E r i k s o n s t h e o r y o f human d e v e l o p m e n t a p p l i e s t o t h e aged: wisdom as c o n t r a d i c t i v e Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 5 , 1 8 , 1 1 9 - 1 2 8 . 1  asi t cognition.  C l a y t o n , V. A multi-dimensional scaling analysis of the concept o f wisdom. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a , 1 9 7 6 . C l a y t o n , V. Wisdom and i n t e l l i g e n c e : t h e n a t u r e and f u n c t i o n o f knowledge i n t h e l a t e r y e a r s . Paper presented a t the American G e r o n t o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y Convention. San F r a n c i s c o , 1980. C l a y t o n , V. a n d B i r r e n , J . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f w i s d o m a c r o s s the l i f e span: a r e - e x a m i n a t i o n o f an a n c i e n t t o p i c . I n P . B . B a l t e s Sc O.G. B r i m ( E d s . ) L i f e S p a n D e v e l o p m e n t and B e h a v i o u r . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1978.  C o l l i n s , J.D. The L u r e o f Wisdom. U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1962. C o m f o r t , A. Biological thories 1970, 1 3 , 127-139.  Milwaukee:  of aging.  Human  Marquette  Development,  228  C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , A. An E r i k s o n i a n measure o f p e r s o n a l i t y development i n c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . Developmental P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 9 , 4, 3 5 7 - 3 7 2 . C o r s o , J . F . A u d i t o r y p e r c e p t i o n and communication. In J. B i r r e n a n d K.W. S c h a i e ( E d s . ) Handbook o f t h e Psychology of Aging. New Y o r k : Van Nostrand R e i n h o l d ,  1977:  Crenshaw, J . S t u d i e s i n A n c i e n t I s r a e l i K l a v e P u b l i s h i n g House, 1976.  Wisdom.  New  York:  C u m m i n g , E . a n d H e n r y , W. G r o w i n g O l d : The P r o c e s s o f Disengagement. New Y o r k : B a s i c Books, 1961. D a v i s o n , G.C. a n d N e a l e , J . M . Abnormal Psychology. York: J o h n W i l e y and Sons I n c . , 1978.  New  D e l V e n t o B i e l b y , D. a n d P a p a l i a , D.E. M o r a l development and perceptual role taking egocentrism: their development and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p a c r o s s t h e l i f e span. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f A g i n g a n d Human Development, 1 9 7 5 , 6, 2 9 3 - 3 0 8 . E r i k s o n , E. C h i l d h o o d a n d S o c i e t y . Company, 1 9 5 0 . E r i k s o n , E. Issues. T959: Fehr,  New  York:  W.W.  Norton  Identity i n the L i f e Cycle: Psychological New Y o r k : International Universities Press,  B. Emotions as p r o t o t y p e s . U n p u b l i s h e d m a s t e r ' s thesis. The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1982.  Flavell, New  J.H. York:  The D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y o f J e a n V a n N o s t r a n d Company, 1 9 6 3 .  Piaget.  F l a v e l l , J.H. C o g n i t i v e changes i n a d u l t h o o d . I n L.R. G o u l e t St P.B. B a l t e s ( E d s . ) L i f e S p a n D e v e l o p m e n t a l Psychology: Theory and R e s e a r c h . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1970.  229  Foza'fd'^-J"'.et al.V i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n and communication. In J . B i r r e n a n d K.W. S c h a i e ( E d s . ) H a n d b o o k o f t h e Psychology o fAging. New Y o r k : VanNostrand Reinhold,  TWT.  Fury,  C.A. a n d B a l t e s , P . B . T h e e f f e c t s o f a g e d i f f e r e n c e s i n a b i l i t y - extraneous performance v a r i a b l e s on the assessment o f i n t e l l i g e n c e i n c h i l d r e n , a d u l t s andthe elderly. J o u r n a l o f G e r o n t o l o g y , 1973, 28, 73-80.  G i l b e r t , J.G. Memory l o s s i n s e n e s c e n c e . Journalof A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1941, 36, 73-86. G o o d w i n , P.D. a n d W e n t z e l , J.W. P r o v e r b s a n d p r a c t i c a l reasoning: a study i n s o c i a l l o g i c . I n W. M e i d e r a n d A. D u n d e s ( E d s . ) The Wisdom o f Many: Essays on the Proverb. New Y o r k ! G r a l a n d P r e s s , 1981.  G o u l d , R. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s : Growth a n d Change New Y o r k : S i m o n a n d S c h u s t e r , 1978.  i n Adult  Life.  G u t m a n , D. C r o s s c u l t u r a l p e r s p e c t i v e s o n m e n t a l h e a l t h a n d aging. I n J . B i r r e n a n d R. S l o a n e ( E d s . ) H a n d b o o k o f Mental Health and Aging. I n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l I n c . , 1980. H o l l i d a y , S.G. C a u t i o u s n e s s i n a d u l t h o o d a n d o l d a g e . Unpublished master's t h e s i s , the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1978. H o l l i d a y , S.G. A c o m p a r i s o n o f w i s e , i n t e l l i g e n t individuals. U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , 1981.  and o l d  H o o p e r , F . H . , F i t z g e r a l d , J . Sc P a p a l i a , D. P i a g e t t i a n t h e o r y and t h e a g i n g p r o c e s s : extensions and speculations. A g i n g a n d Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 1 , 2_, 3 - 2 0 .  H o r n , J . L . a n d D o n a l d s o n , G. On t h e m y t h o f i n t e l l e c t u a l decline i n adulthood. A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1976, 701-719.— -  230  K u h n , T. " T h e S t r u c t u r e o f S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n s . U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1970. ;  Chicago:  J  L a B o u v i e - V i e f , G. Sc G o n d a , J . Cognitive and i n t e l l e c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e i n t h e Gerontology, 1976, 3 1 ^ 327-332.  strategy elderly.  training Journal  of  L a B o u v i e - V i e f , G. Sc C h a n d l e r , M . J . C o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t and l i f e span developmental t h e o r i e s : organismic versus c o n t e x t u a l models. I n P.B. B a l t e s ( E d . ) , L i f e Span D e v e l o p m e n t and B e h a v i o u r . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s ,  1978.  :  L e h m a n , H.C. Age and A c h i e v e m e n t . University Press, 1953. L e v i n s o n , D. The S e a s o n s o f P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1978.  Princeton:  a Man's L i f e .  L o n g , A. H e l l i n i s t i c Philosophy. S c r i b n e r ' s Sons, 1974.  New  New  York:  Princeton  York:  Knopf  Charles  L o o f t , W.R. Sc C h a r l e s , D.C. Egocentrism and social interaction i n y o u n g and o l d a d u l t s . A g i n g and D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 1 , 2, 2 1 - 2 8 .  Human  Meacham, J.A. Wisdom and t h e c o n t e x t o f k n o w l e d g e : knowing w h a t one d o e s n ' t know. I n D. K u h n a n d J . M e a c h a m ( E d s . ) On t h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y . Basel: Karger, i n press. M e a g h r e , R.E. Philosophy N.Y.U. P r e s s , 1978.  of  the  Middle  Ages.  New  York:  M e i d e r , W. Sc D u n d e s , A. T h e W i s d o m o f M a n y : E s s a y s on t h e Proverb. New Y o r k : Garland P u b l i s h i n g Inc., 1981. M o r r o w , J . and G a r n e r , the mechanisms of 25, 136-144.  C. An aging.  e v a l u a t i o n o f some t h e o r i e s o f Journal of Gerontology, 1979,  231 Muhs, P . J . , Ho*Ope"r-;-*F'.H. and P a p a l i a - F i n l a y . A cross s e c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g across the l i f e span. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f A g i n g and Human Development, 1 9 7 9 - 1 9 8 0 , 1 0 , 3 1 1 - 3 3 3 . N e i s s e r , U. The concept 1979, 3, 2 1 7 - 2 2 7 .  of intelligence.  Intelligence,  O w e n s , W.A. Age and mental a b i l i t i e s : a l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d y , i n D. C h a r l e s a n d W.R. L o o f t ( e d s . ) R e a d i n g s i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l Development Throughout L i f e . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston I n c . , 1973. P a p a l i a , D. The s t a t u s o f s e v e r a l c o n s e r v a t i o n a b i l i t i e s a c r o s s t h e l i f e span. Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1972,15, 229-243. P e p p e r , S.C. W o r l d H y p o t h e s e s University of California Plennons, J.K., W i l l i s , fluid intelligence t r a i n i n g approach. 224-231.  (2nd ed.) L o s Angeles: P r e s s , 1970.  The  S. a n d B a l t e s , P . B . M o d i f i a b i l i t y o f i n aging: a short term l o n g i t u d i n a l r J o u r n a l o f Gerontology, 1978,33,  R a b b i t t , P. Changes i n problem s o l v i n g a b i l i t y i n o l d age. i n J . B i r r e n a n d K.W. S c h a i e ( E d s . ) H a n d b o o k o f t h e P s y c h o l o g y o f A g i n g . New Y o r k : V a n N o s t r a n d R e i n h o l d , 1977. R e e s e , H.W. a n d O v e r t o n , W. Models o f Development and T h e o r i e s o f Development. I n L.R. G o u l e t a n d P.B. B a l t e s (Eds.) L i f e Span Developmental P s y c h o l o g y : R e s e a r c h and Theory. New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1970. Rice,  E.F. The R e n a i s s a n c e I d e a o f Wisdom. Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1958.  Cambridge:  R i e g e l , K.F. I n f l u e n c e s o f economic and p o l i t i c a l i d e o l o g i e s on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l - B u l l e t i n , 1972, 7j8, 129-141. R i e g e l , K.F. D i a l e c t i c a l o p e r a t i o n s : the f i n a l stage o f c o g n i t i v e development. Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 3 , 1 6 , 346-370.  232 R i e g e l , K.F. o f human (Eds.) L i Crises.  A d u l t l i f e c r i s e s : toward a d i a l e c t i c a l theory development. I n N. Datum a n d L. G i n s b u r g f e Span Developmental P s y c h o l o g y : Normative New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1975.  R i e g e l , K.F. The d i a l e c t i c s P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1976, 31,  o f human d e v e l o p m e n t . 689-700.  American  R i e g e l , K.F. The h i s t o r y o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l g e r o n t o l o g y . I n J . B i r r e n a n d K.W. S c h a i e ( E d s . ) H a n d b o o k o f t h e Psychology of Aging. New Y o r k : Van Nostrand R e i n h o l d Inc, 1977. R i e g e l , K . F . , R i e g e l , R. a n d M e y e r , G. A s t u d y o f t h e dropout r a t e s i n l o n g i t u d i n a l r e s e a r c h o n a g i n g and t h e p r e d i c t i o n of death. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 7 , 5 , 342-348. Rosch, E. C o g n i t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o fsemantic c a t e g o r i e s . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : G e n e r a l , 1975, 104,  192-233.  Rosch, E. P r i n c i p l e s o f c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . I n E . R o s c h a n d B. L l o y d (Eds.) C o g n i t i o n and C a t e g o r i z a t i o n . Hillsdale, New J e r s e y : Erlbaum Co., 1978. R o s c h , E . a n d M e r v i s , C.B. Family resemblances: studies i n the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e s o f c a t e g o r i e s . C o g n i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 5 , 7, 7 5 3 - 6 0 5 . Roget's T h e s a u r u s i n D i c t i o n a r y Form ( 5 t hed.) N. L e w i s ( E d . ) New Y o r k : B e r k l e y P u b . C o . , 1 9 7 8 . R o w e , E . a n d S c h n o r r e , M. I t e m c o n c r e t e n e s s a n d r e p o r t e d strategies i n paired associate learning asa function o f age. J o u r n a l o f Gerontology, 1971, 26, 470-475. R u b i n , K., A t t e w e l l , P., T i e r n e y , M. a n d T u m o l o , P. Development o f s p a t i a l e g o c e n t r i s m and c o n s e r v a t i s m a c r o s s t h e l i f e span.- Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 4 3 2 . Ryff,  C. S u c c e s s f u l a g i n g : a developmental G e r o n t o l o g i s t , 1982, 22, 209-214.  approach.  The  233 S a c c u z z o , D.P. B r i d g e s between s c h i z o p h r e n i a and gerontology: generalized or s p e c i f i c d e f i c i t s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1977, 84, 595-600. S a n d e r s , S., L a u r e n d a u , G. and B e r g e r o n , K. A g i n g and t h e conservation of surfaces. J o u r n a l o f G e r o n t o l o g y , 1966, 21, 281-286. S c h a i e , K.W. A g e n e r a l model f o r t h e s t u d y o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l problems. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1965, 64, 92-107. S c h a i e , K.W. Toward a s t a g e t h e o r y o f a d u l t c o g n i t i v e development. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f A g i n g and Human Development, 1977-1978, 8, 128-138. S c h a i e , K.W. and G r i b b i n , K. A d u l t d e v e l o p m e n t and a g i n g . A n n u a l R e v i e w o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 5 , 2_6, 6 5 - 9 6 . S c h a i e , K.W. and L a b o u v i e - V i e f , G. G e n e r a t i o n a l v e r s u s o n t o g e n e t i c components o f change i n a d u l t c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o u r : a 14 y e a r c r o s s - s e q u e n t i a l s t u d y . D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1974, 1 0 , 3 0 4 - 3 2 0 . S c h a i e , K.W. Sc S t r o t h e r , C.R. A c r o s s - s e q u e n t i a l s t u d y o f age changes i n c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o u r . Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1968, 70, 671-680. S h a r p , H.S. O l d age among t h e c h i p e w y a n . I n P.T. Amoss and S. H a r r e l l ( E d s . ) O t h e r Ways o f G r o w i n g O l d . Anthropological Perspective. Stanford / C a l i f o r n i a : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981. S h e e h y , G.  Passages.  New Y o r k :  E.P D u t t o n ,  1976.  Shock, N. B i o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s o f a g i n g . I n J . B i r r e n and K.W. S c h a i e ( E d s . ) Handbook o f t h e P s y c h o l o g y o f A g i n g . New Y o r k : Van N o s t r a n d R e i n h o l d , 1977. S h r o u t , P.E and F l e i s s , J . L . I n t r a c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n s : u s e s i n assessing rater r e l i a b i l i t y . Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86, 420-428.  Simmons, L . T h e R o l e o f A g i n g i n P r i m i t i v e S o c i e t i e s . Haven, C o n n e c t i c u t : Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1945.  New  234  S t e r n b e r g , R . J . , Conway, B.E., K e t r o n , J . L . and B e r n s t e i n , People's conceptions of i n t e l l i g e n c e . Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 8 1 , 41~j 3 7 - 5 5 . S t r e i b , G.F. aspects.  Old The  age i n I r e l a n d : d e m o g r a p h i c and G e r o n t o l o g i s t , 1 9 6 8 , 8, 2 2 7 - 2 3 5 .  M.  social  S t o r c k , P., L o o f t , W.R. a n d H o o p e r , F.H. Interrelationships among P i a g e t t i a n t a s k s and t r a d i t i o n a l m e a s u r e s o f c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s i n m a t u r e and aged a d u l t s . Journal o f G e r o n t o l o g y , 1972, 27, 461-465. T h o m a e , H. P e r s o n a l i t y and a d j u s t m e n t i n a g i n g . In J . B i r r e n a n d R.B. S l o a n e ( E d s . ) The Handbook o f M e n t a l H e a l t h and A g i n g . I n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l I n c . , 1980. T h o r n g a t e , W. The e x p e r i e n c e o f w i s d o m . (Report submitted t o t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s and H u m a n i t i e s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l ) . Ottawa, O n t a r i o , 1981. T u r n e r , T. 1973,  Piaget's structuralism. 75, 351-373.  American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t ,  W e b s t e r ' s New C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y . Springfield, Massachusetts: G. a n d C. M e r r i a n C o . , 1974. W e c h s l e r , D. The M e a s u r e m e n t and A p p r a i s a l o f A d u l t Intelligence . Baltimore, Maryland: W i l l i a m s and Wilkins, 1958. W e r n e r , H. The c o n c e p t o f d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m a c o m p a r a t i v e and organismic p o i n t of view. I n D. H a r r i s ( E d . ) The Concept of Development. Minneapolis, Minnesota: The U n i v e r s i t y o f M i n n e s o t a P r e s s , 1957. Wood, J . Wisdom L i t e r a t u r e : Duckworth, 1967.  An  Introduction.  London:  APPENDIX A  PROTOTYPE QUESTIONNAIRE  APPENDIX A  236  INSTRUCTIONS  T h i s s t u d y has t o do w i t h p e o p l e ' s everyday A c a t e g o r y i s l i k e a c o n c e p t , and i n c l u d e s many  i d e a s about  instances of similar  t h i n g s , a l l o f which share the same l a b e l , o r name. o f t h e c a t e g o r y DOG.  We c a n imagine many  t e r r i e r s , German shepherds  and so o n .  categories.  F o r example, t h i n k  d i f f e r e n t dogs - p o o d l e s ,  A l t h o u g h they a r e a l l d i f f e r e n t ,  they a r e members o f the same c a t e g o r y - DOGS.  We a l s o seem t o f e e l  t h a t some members o f c a t e g o r i e s a r e more t y p i c a l , o r b e t t e r examples, than o t h e r s . Now imagine might  call  F o r example, take the c a t e g o r y RED.  an o r a n g e i s h r e d ,  Imagine a p u r p l i s h  t h e o r a n g e i s h r e d o r the p u r p l i s h  Imagine a t r u e r e d . red.  Although you  r e d by the name RED,  they would n o t be as good examples o f the c a t e g o r y RED as the t r u e red.  In s h o r t , some reds a r e r e d d e r than o t h e r s . In t h i s s t u d y , we would l i k e you t o d e c i d e how  of a category various d e s c r i p t i v e as e x e m p l i f i e d by wise p e o p l e .  terms a r e .  We would  various d e s c r i p t o r s are f o r d e s c r i b i n g scale  t h a t goes from  a l m o s t never always of  true o f  true of  wise people-.  intermediate  1 t o 7.  are free  l i k e you t o - r a t e how good  t h i s category using a r a t i n g  A 7 means t h a t the term i s almost  A 4 means t h a t t h e term i s o f t e n t r u e  The r e m a i n i n g terms  (2,3,5,6) a r e f o r e x p r e s s i n g  judgements.  P l e a s e remember t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n You  The c a t e g o r y i s wisdom,  A 1 means t h a t t h e d e s c r i p t i v e term i s  wise p e o p l e .  wise p e o p l e ,  characteristic  t o withdraw a t any time.  i n t h i s study i s v o l u n t a r y . You a r e a l s o f r e e t o choose  n o t t o answer any q u e s t i o n s . ' I f you complete  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I w i l l  assume t h a t you have g i v e n your c o n s e n t t o p a r t i c i p a t i n g Thank you v e r y much f o r your h e l p .  SEX AGE EDUCATIONAL LEVEL,  i n the study.  MOST OFTEN TRUE  TOLERANT  ABLE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES/FIN^ HIDDEN MEANING  REFLECTIVE  UNDERSTAND  THE WORLD  ALERT  ABLE TO LEARN ALL THINGS HO NOT ENGAGE  IN SELF PITY  MATURE UNDERSTAND  ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE  LIFE  HAVE A GOOD MEMORY  ENLIGHTENED  HUMBLE/MODEST  CAN COMMUNICATE USING NON-VERBAL MEANS  TRANSCENDENT/ HAVE A TRANSCENDENT VIEW OF L I F E  CONTEMPLATIVE/REFLECTIVE KIND  MORAL  LIKEABLE/FRIENDLY  CIRCUMSPECT/DISCREET  RELAXED  MAY BE ANY AGE/ MAY BE OLD OR YOUNG  ARTICULATE  ABLE TO PREDICT HOW THINGS WILL TURN OUT  CAN SEE AND CONSIDER ALL POINTS OF VIEW  INTERESTING TO TALK WITH  METAPHORICAL  GOOD PROBLEM SOLVER  TALK OR REMAIN SILENT AS IS APPROPRIATE  NON-JUDGEMENTAL  SAY THINGS THAT ARE WORTH LISTENING TO SELFISH COMMITTED IGNORANT FRANK POISED  i  DIVINELY INSPIRED UNCONDESCENDING CONSIDERS ALL OPTIONS IN A SITUATION AWARE  SOCIABLE  COMPETENT WELL READ QUICK WITTED VALUE SPIRITUAL ABOVE MATERIAL THINGS OPEN MINDED  W  MOST OFTEN TRUE  GULLIBLE  WARM  «l  ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE  FAIR  THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING DECISIONS  NOT "HOSTILE TO OTHERS  A BELIEVER  KNOW WHEN TO GIVE AND WHEN TO WITHHOLD ADVICE  EMPATHIC  INTUITIVE  METHODICAL  COMPASSIONATE/CARING  SINCERE  A SEER QUIET LOGICAL/RATIONAL HAPPY COMPREHENDING/UNDERSTANDING LEARN  EASILY  OBSERVANT/PERCEPTIVE FROM EXPERIENCE  CONFIDENT  AN ADVISOR OR MENTOR  CAN ACCEPT THE NECESSITY OF DEATH AS A PART OF L I F E  DIPLOMATIC MANIPULATIVE NOT RESEXTFUL OF OTHERS  A SOURCE OF GOOD ADVICE  COMPLEX  PLAN  CALM/PEACEFUL  THINGS CAREFULLY  GOOD CONVERSATIONALIST ASTUTE/DISCERNING  GOOD LISTENER  PHILOSOPHICAL  OLDER  FORESIGHTFUL/FAR SEEING  HAVE LEARNED  HOT JEALOUS OF OTHERS  IS NOT NECESSARILY FORMALLY EDUCATED  SEE THE ESSENCE OF SITUATIONS INSENSITIVE  RECKLESS FLEXIBLE CURIOUS UNSELFISH EVEN TEMPERED MAY OK M»\Y NOT BK INTELLIGENT IRRESPONSIBLE PERFECTIONIST  to  00  CO  WISE PEOPLE 1 ALMOST  2 NEVER  RARELY  TRUE  TRUE  3  i  SOMETIMES  OFTEN TRUE  TRUE  1 •  UNDERSTAND  z —  —  — — —  OTHER  THOUGHTFUL/THINKS  PEOPLE A  TRUE  OFTEN  TRUE  ALMOST  DEAL  °  •  HAVE  MUCH  ENDURED  CLOSE SENSITIVE  SUFFERING  MINDED  EDUCATED  PATIENT SUCCESSFUL SELF-ACTUALIZED THINKS WELL  FOR  HIM/HER  RESPECTED SELF  QUICK  LEARNER  ADJUSTED UNDERSTAND  CALCULATING  COMMON  NON-IMPULSIVE SPIRITUAL  SENSE  CONSERVATIVE HELPFUL  SERIOUS LEARNED  OVERLY  AWARE  INTELLIGENT OF  RELIGIOUS  HAVE  SELF/SELF  FROM  EXPERIENCE  TALKATIVE  EVALUATE  AND  INFORMATION  UNDERSTAND  UNHAPPY KNOWLEDGEABLE CREATIVE/INVENTIVE SEE  THINGS  WITHIN  A  ALWAYS  TRUE  RELIABLE  USE  —  7  MOST  EXPERIENCED  GREAT  WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES HIS/HER ACTIONS  —  £  USUALLY  LARGER  CONTEXT  APPENDIX B  PROTOTYPE RATINGS FOR STUDY I I CONTRAST CATEGORIES  APPENDIX B MASTER L I S T S -  -  ^  4 ±  P E R C E P T I V E AND SHREWD INSTRUCTIONS  T h i s stucry has to do w i t h p e o p l e ' s everyday i d e a s about cat«gori<fi6.  A  c a t e g o r y i e l i k e a c o n c e p t , and i n c l u d e s many i n s t a n c e s o f s i m i l a r t h i n g s , a l l of w h i c h s h a r e the same name, o r L a b e l . DOG.  F o r example, t h i n k o f the c a t e g o r y  We can imagine many d i f f e r e n t dogs - p o o d l e s , t e r r i e r s » German shepherds  ••vcid so o n .  A l t h o u g h they a r e a l l d i f f e r e n t ,  c a t e g o r y - DOGS.  they a r e members o f the same  We a l s o seem t o f e e l t h a t soma members o f c a t e g o r i e s  uore t y p i c a l , o r b e t t e r examples, than o t h e r s . c a t e g o r y RED. Imagine a t r u e r e d . purplish red.  are  F o r example, take t h e  Now imagine cr« orar.^eirh i \ i d .  Iwagine a  A l t h o u g h you n i g h t c a l l the o r a n g e i s h r e d o r the p u r p l i s h ,  r e d by t h e name RED, they would n o t be as good examples o f the c a t e g o r y RED as the t r u e r e d .  I n s h o r t , some r e d s a r e r e d d e r thou o t h e r s .  I n t h i s s t u d y , we woujjLd l i k e y o u t o d e c i d e how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s v a r i o u s d e s c r i p t i v e terms a r e . Each I s I d e n t i f i e d a t t h e top o f t h e f o l l o w i n g peges.  There a r e two c a t e g o r i e s . F o r each c a t e g o r y , we  would l i k e you to r a t e how good che v a r i o u s d e s c r i p t o r s are f o r d e s c r i b i n g t h e c a t e g o r y u s i n g a r a t i n g s c a l e t h a t goes from 1 to 7.  A 1 means t h a t  d e s c r i p t i v e term i s a l m o s t n e v e r t r u e o f c a t e g o r y members. term i s a l m o s t always t r u e o f c a t e g o r y members. o f t e n t r u e o f c a t e g o r y members. expressing Intermediate  A 7 means t h a t  the  A 4 means t h a t the term I s  The r e m a i n i n g terms (2,3,5,6) a r e  for  judgements.  P l e a s e remember t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y i s v o l u n t a r y . to w i t h d r a w a t any t i n e .  the  You a r e  You are a l s o f r e e t o choose n o t t o answer any q u e s t i o n s .  I f you complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I w i l l assume you have g i v e n y o u r c o n s e n t to p a r t i c i p a t i n g In the s t u d y . AGE  SEX  free  EDUCATIONAL LEVEL  242 PERCEPTIVE PEOPLE  2  1  ALMOST  TRUE  WARM S~. ^ 7 J-1  3  "JX* TRUE  4  5  0 F T E N  TRUE  TRUE  C'Z  GOOD PROBLEM SOLVERS  vs".^  UNDERSTAND OTHERS  V. V  _1LC_  J-f  FORES IGHTFUL FAIR TALK/REMAIN SILENT AS IS APPROPRIATE " EMPATHIC  J-£  CALM/PEACEFUL •  #6?  HELPFUL  4^  EXPERIENCED .  </-^  QUIET  V- 7  ,  NOT- NECESSARILY INTELLIGENT  /'«^  CARING/COMPASSIONATE INTERESTING  AWARE  INTERESTING  RESPONSIVE  KIND ABLE  TO READ BETWEEN  FIND  HIDDEN  CONSIDERS  ^•t/  ALERT  7-?  SOCIABLE  40  THE LINES/  MEANING A L L POINTS  OF  VIEW  EDUCATED FLEXIBLE 7  SENSITIVE  S'O  NOT  GULLIBLE  -?-7  UNSELFISH  ^•3  OPEN  j'J  CURIOUS  u  SEES  SHREWD/CUNNING QUICK' WITTED  REFLECTIVE  INTELLIGENT  NOT EASILY DISTRACTED •  J«£  S~< 7  GOOD MEMORY  h]_  ' SEE THE ESSENCE OF SITUATIONS  ATTENTIVE  S.%_ UNDERSTAND THINGS  ft 7  £TRUE SS  i  WISE  /  7 7  °TRUE ™  U S U A L L Y  TRUE  OUTGOtNG/EXTROVERTED  V'S'  6 °  MINDED  THINGS  "  IN A  <3'8  A B L E TO CONNECT  yf-0  KNOWLEDGEABLE  0 ^ */  THOUGHTFUL  LARGER  CONTEXT  FACTS  (THINKS A  GREAT  DEAL)  PERCEPTIVE  2  1  3  4  PEOPLE  5  6  7  USUALLY  MOST OFTEN  ALMOST ALWAYS  TRUE  TRUE  ALMOST NEVER TRUE  y.O S'O  TRUE  CONSIDERATE GOOD L I S T E N E R S TERRIFYING  j f *t  '  CONFIDENT  j£jC  METHODICAL  S_3  LOGICAL/RATIONAL  2J2  HUMOUROUS INTUITIVE  3-% 2lZ-  RARELY  PERFECTIONIST SHY/INTRAVE RTED  SOMETIMES TRUE  OFTEN TRUE  2  TRUE  4  3  244  CONTINUE OH TO THE NEXT CATEGORY  245 SjIRl.WU PEOPjLi:  i ALMOST NEVER TRUE  2  -  RARLLY TRUE  3 SOMETIMES TRUi:  k  5  OFTEN TRUF<  USUALLY TRUE  J&j£  RUTHLESS BUSINESS  ORIENTED  qprc:  ZlA  DIPLOMATIC I  A  V  A SEl.'SE O F  E  HUMOR  TiiE K S S I ^ C T :  J.S  SELFISH JL?Z  PERFECTIONISTS  EGOTISTICAL  */. 7  BLUNT DISHONEST  *  J-g"  F O R E S IGI1TFUL THINK  • _&o  AMBITIOUS QUIET  DECEPTIVE  LOGICAL/RATIONAL  Jjj'  NOT  j£6_  HAPPY  ABSTRACTLY  CONFIDENT  ' :  ;  O  T  GULLIBLE  SUCCESSFUL  CALCULATING  i&7_  AGGRESSIVE  _Y>°  LIE>OR  INCONSIDERATE  J/JL.  ASTUTE/DISCERKIHG  CONSIDER  A L L OPTIONS  A SITUATION  IN  DOMINEERING  JC:J& J£LL  rcAi;  DISTORT  THINK  T H E TRUTH  CAREFULLY  SCHEMING  WISE  METHODICAL y.2,  sis A R T / U S E : : ?;••;;!.;  ,#o  LOWER  !,.::i:vii?iiSTic OPPORTUNISTIC  i;;.-v«,:!T/'--;-KCEV'.fiv;-: :  SITUATIONS  [>ii->rA v . • . .... .,  COLD/UNFEELING  VERY  L  ( T H I N K A G R E A T L'fc'AL)  KITTED  7 ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE  STEADILY  ALERT THOUGHTFUL  C HOST OFTEM TRUE  BEFORE  MAKING  I:ECISIO:7S  246  ;,\'A I.JO P t t P L K  1  2  o  7  RARELY TRUE  HOST OFTEN TRUE  ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE  ALMOST  NEVER TRUE  SNEAKY V.?  CAPABLE UNTRUSTWORTHY  Ji.^.. Jfo_  =-AVE GOOD JUPGl-JiiJ-iT !  MANIPULATIVE THRIFTY CUNNING  j.g  CAREFUL NON I M P U L S I V E ' '  l-tr _4LL  KNOWLEDGEABLE INTELLIGENT CAUTIOUS STINGY INTUITIVE  SOMETIMLS TRUE  OFTEN TRUE  USUALLY TRUE  247 MASTER L I S T S  - I N T E L L I G E N T AND  SPIRITUAL  r.NS';"<ICY].;.v-is  T h i s s t u d y has t o do w i t h p e o p l e ' s  everyday I d e a s about c a t e g o r i e s .  c a t e g o r y i s l i k e a c o n c e p t , and i n c l u d e o many I n s t a n c e s of  which share  DOG. and  the same name, o r l a b e l .  A  of s i m i l a r things, a l l  F o r exsfmple, t h i n k o f the  category  We can i m a g i n e many d i f f e r e n t dogs - p o o d l e s , , t e r r i e r s , German shepherds so o n .  A l t h o u g h they a r e a l l d i f f e r e n t ,  c a t e g o r y - DOGS. nore t y p i c a l  they a r e members o f t h e same  We a l s o seem to f e e l t h a t some members o f c a t e g o r i e s  o r b e t t e r e x a m p l e s , than o t h t r e .  t  are  F o r example, take Che  c-.;«i«gory RED.  Tpsginc £ t r u e vr.d.  purplish red.  A l t h o u g h y o u m i g h t c a l l the o r a n ^ e i s h r e d o r the p u r p l i s h  red  V.ov i;w -ir.^ c\\ citiZiz/J.sh r e d . t  7.<nagiri&.-i  by the name RED, they w o u l d n o t be as gcod axoraplea o f the c a t e g o r y RED as  the t r u e r e d . In  In short,  some r e d s a r e r e d d e r t h i n  others.  t l i i s s t u d y , we v o u L i l i k e you t o d e c i d e how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f •  different  c a t e g o r i e s v a r i o u s d e s c r i p t i v e terms a r e .  Each i s i d e n t i f i e d "at the top o f the f o l l o w i n g p a g e s .  There a r e  two c a t e g o r i e s .  F o r each c a t e g o r y , we  v o u l d l i k e you t o r a t e how good the v a r i o u s d e s c r i p t o r s a r e f o r d e s c r i b i n g the c a t e g o r y u s i n g . i r a t i n g s c a l e t h a t goes from i to 7.  A 2 cuans t h a t  d e s c r i p t i v e term i s a l m o s t n e v e r t r u e o f c a t e g o r y members. terra I s a l m o s t always t r u e o f c a t e g o r y members. often  t r u e o f c a t e g o r y members.  eacpresaing I n t e r m e d i a t e  If  AGE  SEX  the  A A means t h a t t h e term i s for  judgements.  You s r e a l s o f r e e  jtudy i s v o l u n t a r y .  You a r e  free  t o choose n o t to' enswer any q u e s t i o n s  you c:inr,>lGti- the q u e s t l c p . n a i r e , I w i l l assune you have g i  to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the  A 7 means t h a t  The r e m a i n i n g terms ( 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 ) a r e  P l e a s e remember t h a t p c x t i c i p c t i o n i n t h i s to vlth:irn*« r,'c any t i m e .  the  V G l 1  your consent  study.  EDUCATIONAL LEVT.L  <_  248  INTELLIGENT PE0-M.7.  ALK-Jtii KEVER TRITE  RARELY TRUE  SOMETIMES TRUE  </.(>  ASK MANY QUESTIONS  f.S.  SEE' BOTH PAINTS AND THE WHOLE  OFTEN TRUE  USUALLY TRUE  £A  CONCEITED.  J £ G _  THOUGHTFUL (THINK A GREAT DEAL)  H- 3 J-t>"  '.i'ASW THINGS EASILY L'.-M  J  THINGS (RUEFULLY  EXPERIENCED  if,Y  ARTICULATE  4/  WORK TO.DEVELOP INNATE CAPACITIES GOOD' MEMORY  ^'7  USE COMMON SENSE  ^•^  RESPECTED  j  ±  WISE SHREWD/CUNNING  i  S L ± .  4/Q  ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE  A-/  COULD BE ANY AGE INFORMED  6 MOST OFTEN TRUE  WON' IMPULSIVE ALERT REASONABLE LOGICAL/RATIONAL  *  INTOLERANT -W  PHYSICALLY ACTIVE  <f./  CURIOUS HARD WORKING  J^2>_ GOOD PROBLEM SOLVERS  J.j  FRUSTRATED  </./  EFFICIENT  «5T«S  GOOD REASONING ABILITY  i>  SHY/INTRAVERTED  J J .  HUMBLE/MODEST  THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING DECISIONS  CONFIDENT  J-?  AMBITIOUS  EDUCATED  J-7  CULTURED  GOOD CITIZENS  pfY.  ABLE TO LEARN ALL THINGS  QUICK WITTED  ™ * N K FOR THEMSELVES  DO NOT ACT FOOLISHLY  jr'_ J&y' H>X  CONSIDER ALL POINTS OF VIEW STUDIOUS  .Hlfk V, 7  CAN APPLY UNDERSTANDING TO LIKS WELL - READ  249 INTELLIGENT PEOPLE  I ALMOST NEVER TRUE  RARELY TRUE  IMPATIENT QUICK LEARNER  £±  CLEVER  HA  OPEN MINDED  6&  H.*.V--: MANY INTEuLiSTS  4?  HAVE A LARGE VOCABULARY  I.<°  CARING/COMPASSIONATE  ?>* OUKJOING/EXTROVERTED AWARE CONSIDERATE SELF-DISCIPLINED  U f.o  - „  CREATIVE/INVENTIVE GOOD CONVERSATIONALISTS NOT WISE  £A  KNOWLEDGEABLE  1 L  FLEXIBLE  SOMETIMES TRUE  OFTEN TRUE  USUALLY TRUE  b MJST OFTEN /.RUE  7 ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE  250  co:m:!U£  o n  TO  T H E I.'EXT C A T E G O R Y  251 SP1  i ALMOST NEVER TRUE  -2 J.S  2 RARELY TRUE  - 3 SOMETIMES TRUE  OFTEN TRUE  USUALLY TRUE  OTHER WORLDLY SELF-RIGHTEOUS  3>6>  X_7.  6 MOST OFTEN TRUE  UNDERSTAND OTHERS  J"'7  STAND UP FOR THEIR BELIEFS EiUOY L I F E  OU'CGOING/EXTROVERTED  £-3  STUBBORN  Wi:-::  id..  -  J i d - .  REFLECTIVE  7 ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE  JJL  V-7  STi&NG  _$.8_  !"•  RECLUSIVE  4.*/  H>H  '*  I  3.7  f0Y;r  C  I  N  UL  D  INTELLIGENT  UNREALISTIC  ^•i"  CARING/ COMPASSIONATE  ^/  CLOSE MINDED  5- ?  ORDINARY •  V, /  SELF AWARE  <y, f  -J,?  HUMBLE/MODEST  J.£  INSECURE  _  ATTEND CHURCH REGULARLY  JTj/  DREAMY  jLi?  CONSIDERATE  SHREWD/CUNNING y.fl  SOCIABLE  J.<?  NAIVE SMILE  HAVE AN INNER LIGHT  3-9  DIVINELY INSPIRED SENSITIVE  V, /  VALUE  SPIRITUAL ABOVE MATERIAL THINGS  LIKEABLE/FRIENDLY  3- S* WELL DEVELOPED INNER RESOURCES 3, ^  _  TRANSCENDENT/HAVE A TRANSCENDENT VIEW OF THINGS  f V  HELPFUL  A LOT  I B  J/.6_  HOLD STRONG BELIEFS  PROPHETIC  BELIEVER 6' /  MORAL  ^•i>  MEDITATIVE  V. 7  HOLD IDEALISTIC GOALS  .jf-.A JJL _J._/_  ^c?  LOVING U  A  V  E  H E L l >  F  !  W  H  A  HIGHER POWER  OPEN MINDED f•'"*">" *OR r-VEAMTNr !  T»;  T.TI.'TC  252 1  ,5  6 MOST  ALMOST  itARSLY  NEVER TRUE  TRUE  NOH4IATERIALISTIC T. Y 7  THOUGHTFUL  OF  SOMETIMES TRUE  *  OFTEN  USUALLY  TRUE  TRUE  4*4  OTHERS  7 ALMOST  OFTEN  ALWAYS  T2UE  TRUE  O^PEACEFUL J .RADIANT,, MOD -EXAMPLES C'.TOP '-*hTUBfB« - fc S E T GOOp^EXAtlPLESrFOR/qrHEte-  J,/ £X «LC  SHY/INTRAVERTED • QUIET>  W  „  IMPRACTICAL  4C7  .'• ;x/::.  4^  l<?  FAITHFUL  - GOOD  ; C  :J;  CITIZENS  UNSELFISH  "  '  ^iYSTICAL 4 * 7  TRY TO CONVERT OTHKkS  BELIEVE  IN THE  HEREAFTER  •w- V  APPENDIX C  CORRELATION AND FACTOR PATTERN MATRICES FOR PROTOTYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CATEGORY OF WISE PEOPLE  THESIS  ANALYSES  -  BREAKDOWN OF V A R I A B L E S 12/08/82  FILE NONAME SUBFILE YOUNG  CORRELATION  (CREATION OATE MIDAGED  Ordering  12/08/82) ELDERLY  PAGE  COEFFICIENTS..  W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WG W7 W8 W9 V10 W1 1 W12 W13 W14 W15 ¥16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 V24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 W31 W32 W33 W34 W35 W36 W37 W38 W39 W40 W4 1  •  1 .OOOOO 0.28189 0.10161 0. 1 8 8 3 7 0. 2 3 0 9 5 -0.18439 0. 1 2 2 3 0 0. 1 8 1 7 3 O. 1 5 5 1 6 0.. 2 3 3 7 1 O..24 1 0 3 0.33097 0.04128 0.06440 0.05622 0.04909 0.12652 0.00018 0.20049 0.28460 0 . 12 1 5 0 0.16203 0.09563 0.16988 0.23594 0.27225 0.10107 0.08953 0.18206 0.19294 0. 1 5 3 1 4 0.. 3 0 4 9 6 0.. 2 6 6 9 3 0. 1 4 4 4 8 0.19590 0.02065 0.17663 0.15251 0.19247 0. 1 3 7 6 7 0.06587  W2  W3  0. 2 8 1 8 9 1 .OOOOO 0. 3 3 1 6 0 0. 4 2 3 4 5 0. 2 4 6 4 1 -0. 04220 0. 2 4 6 4 0 0. 2 5 6 2 1 0.36172 0. 1 5 1 6 3 0. 2 7 6 6 3 0. 2 1 0 3 9 0. 0 9 8 5 2 0. 1 9 3 4 0 0. 0 6 3 9 5 0. 1 4 6 6 0 0.23646 0. 1 2 6 7 0 0.23801 0.29353 0. 1 9 2 7 9 0. 1 5 1 7 1 0.09594 0.08405 0. 1 3 4 4 6 0.23173 0.05032 0.22419 O.18544 0.28174 0.23594 .28531 24555 09648 , 17467 13242 09438 01980 22903 13309 06805  of variables  0. 1 0 1 6 1 O.. 3 3 1 6 0 1 .OOOOO 0. 1 9 6 1 1 0 .. 1 1 9 0 2 -0.05402 0.3G038 0.35526 0 . 18 1 4 9 0. 1 1 3 8 5 O. 1 6 0 0 9 0.. 1 9 7 4 4 O. 1 1 4 8 3 0.. 2 9 3 2 8 0.07531 0.27319 O.16020 O.12882 0.26487 0.06186 0.0664 7 0.2 1 6 7 2 0 . 1 8 3 16 0.22875 O.18686 0.2624 1 0.09873 0. 1 6 9 7 8 0.02820 0.31884 0.3264 1 0.21782 0.18107 0.26892 O . 2 2 4 15 0.12544 0.27345 0.11664 0.13688 O.17009 0.21293  corresponds  W4  W5  0.18837 0.42345 0.19611 1 .00000 0.35013 0.00988 0. 1 6 7 0 5 0.20O19 0.38718 0.46013 0.45595 0.25897 0.21881 0. 1 9 9 3 9 0. 1 0 4 0 6 0. 1 1 7 1 7 0. 1 6 8 4 1 0.22306 0.28959 0.50092 0.40688 0.22913 0.25955 0.22208 0.23021 O. 1 0 6 3 4 0. 1 1352 0. 1 0 8 5 2 0.37335 0. 1 6 6 1 8 0.20713 0.20483 O. 1 2 9 6 3 0.09314 0. 1 3 1 4 4 0.09504 0. 1 6 1 8 5 09730 40844 08492 21215  to list  O 23095 0 2464 1 O 11902 0 35013 1 OOOOO 0 12170 0 .20693 0 . 16447 O .24643 0 .27115 O .21976 0 .30145 O . 16869 O . 10256 O .06857 0 .11813 0 . 1 1138 O.. 0 8 2 3 8 0.. 1 2 5 9 7 O.. 2 2 7 4 5 O.. 1 9 5 0 9 0.. 1 2 4 2 8 0.. 3 2 0 0 7 0.. 2 2 3 5 2 o.. 1 2 4 5 0 o.. 1 7 0 2 2 o.0 9 8 2 5 o. 1 5 4 0 7 o. 2 7 3 0 8 o.0 8 6 7 5 o.0 1 4 2 0 o. 1 5 0 0 1 0. 1 4 0 6 5 0. 1 2 5 9 6 0. 3 4 4 8 4 0. 1 5 8 7 8 0. 2 2 1 1 3 -0 0 2 0 4 0 0 29110 0 06156 0 14604  W6 -0.18439 -0.04220 -0.05402 0.00988 0.12170 1.OOOOO 0.05070 0.04259 0.06795 0.08429 0 .. 0 1 3 8 4 - 0 .. 0 9 9 5 2 - 0 .. 0 5 0 3 3 - 0 .. 0 9 7 7 6 -0.01210 0.04 105 -0.14193 -0.08456 -0.04089 -0.07576 -0.03690 -0.22090 0.04270 -0.06678 -0.07778 -0.16607 -0.07430 -0.09180 -0.05928 -0.19772 -0.16617 -O:11059 -Oi. 1 4 5 6 7 -0,10534 0.03605 -0.03803 -0:01176 -0.10029 0.03052 -0.02651 -0.05254  i n Table I I I .  W7 0.12230 0.24640 0.36038 O.16705 0.20693 O.. 0 5 0 7 0 1.00000 0.. 3 5 3 5 6 0.. 3 2 9 4 7 0.21925 O.17427 0.32274 0. 1 3 7 1 1 0.29248 0.28736 0.58954 0.35815 0.24865 0.25620 0.21864 O. 1 1 7 7 9 0.25787 O.. 2 3 4 0 7 O.. 2 6 8 0 6 O.. 4 1 0 5 3 0.. 4 3 2 5 7 -O.. 0 4 1 4 4 0.. 3 6 5 7 0 O.. 1 1 5 4 5 O.. 4 5 3 8 7 0.47915 0.35133 0. 1 3 4 1 8 0.31235 0.31468 0.28946 0.30533 0.22212 0.11394 0.15932 0.19091  W8 0.18173 0.25621 0.35526 0.20019 0.16447 0.04259 0.35356 1.00000 0.25493 0.20151 O. 1 3 2 6 9 0.24914 0.30141 0.49695 0.09005 0.37070 0 . 2 9 4 17 0.29897 0.33805 0.22230 0. 1 4 6 7 4 0.30190 0.27763 0.23575 0.13662 0.36333 0. 1 5 8 8 3 0.30082 0.20812 0.35038 0.30140 0.41654 0.22646 0.46214 0.30889 0.24383 0.34623 0. 1 1 5 7 1 0.23324 0.23036 0.18838  W9 0. 1 5 5 1 6 0 .. 3 6 1 7 2 0. 1 8 1 4 9 0.. 3 8 7 1 8 0 .. 2 4 6 4 3 0.06795 0.32947 0.25493 1 .OOOOO 0.36154 O.. 3 4 0 6 5 0.. 4 0 0 1 5 0.: 2 2 0 8 8 0 .. 2 0 1 1 6 O. 1 0 7 1 6 0.. 2 8 0 5 3 0.25438 0.2494 1 O. 1 6 9 1 9 O.. 3 5 3 2 7 0.. 2 5 7 6 3 0 .. 2 6 5 5 9 O.. 2 0 1 9 0 0.27031 0.09602 0.28887 0.24944 0. 1 5 6 4 8 0.26858 0.25491 0.26867 0.23757 0.03866 0.13509 0.25770 0.13606 0.32003 0.13436 0.33884 0.18354 0.10768  W10 0.23371 0. 1 5 1 6 3 0. 1 1 3 8 5 O.46013 0 . 2 7 1 15 0.08429 0.21925 0.20151 0.36154 1.OOOOO 0.45725 0.35040 0 . 0 9 9 19 0 . 1 1 4 12 0.30993 0.19356 . 0.16668 O. 2 7 0 5 3 O.18208 0.47587 0.36467 0.10463 0.. 2 3 1 4 2 0.. 1 6 9 4 4 0.. 2 1 0 4 3 O.. 0 8 5 7 1 0 .. 2 0 0 3 1 -0.00513 0. 2 8 8 4 6 0. 1 4 1 8 5 0.09100 0.16573 0.09006 0. 1 2 2 9 5 0. 1 2 2 7 7 0.02822 0.22312 0.05100 0.38386 0.08070 0.10499  iHtbla  ANALYSES  -  BREAKDOWN OF V A R I A B L E S 12/08/82  FILE NONAME SUBFILE YOUNG  (CREATION DATE MIDAGED  ¥1 ¥42 ¥43 ¥44 ¥45 ¥46 ¥47 ¥48 ¥49 ¥50 ¥51 ¥52 ¥53 ¥54 ¥55 ¥56 ¥57 ¥58 ¥59 ¥60 ¥61 ¥62 ¥63 ¥64 ¥65 ¥66 ¥67 ¥68 ¥69 ¥70 ¥7 1 ¥72 ¥73 ¥74 ¥75 ¥76 ¥77 ¥78 ¥79  0.08211 0. 1 4 7 1 3 -0.03714 0.32271 0. 1 7 9 7 1 0.36538 0.21323 0.19739 0.08462 0.31649 0. 1 1 5 3 7 0.01567 0.24479 0.30966 -0.10764 0.31923 0.15398 0.21529 0.27581 0.39131 0.14703 0. 1 9 5 8 1 0.10848 0.17056 0.06873 0.13034 0.26890 0.07356 0.07038 0 . 1 4 117 0.26828 0. 1 1 3 6 2 0.27785 0.20977 0.06200 0. 1 2 9 3 4 -0.00156 0.25263  «  PAGE  12/08/82) ELDERLY  ¥2 0.14088 0. 1 4 8 2 5 0.00723 0.21878 0.20215 0.26389 -0.03620 0. 1 4 6 7 9 0.07612 0. 1 8 2 1 9 0.23313 0. 1 4 9 7 3 0.32818 0.30778 -0.06256 0.21854 0.31921 0.22059 0.15236 0.26303 0.27494 0.26699 0.06431 0.10150 0.04766 0.19673 0.30827 0.03331 0.09521 0.22041 0.25686 0.18504 0.11078 0.16348 -0.02592 0.13499 0.08071 0.10602  ¥3 0.18310 0. 1 0 3 9 5 0.03447 0. 1 5 2 4 8 0.21203 0.11893 -0.01828 0.03378 0.03621 0.22186 0.09236 0.00502 0.25247 -0.01865 -0.01439 0.24522 0.23357 0. 12464 -0.03378 0 . 1 3 3 18 0.09956 0.11809 0.14392 0.07405 -0.02517 0. 1 9 4 2 9 0 . 2 4 186 0.13090 0.08644 O. 1 4 2 6 4 0. 2 4 4 7 7 0.04025 0.07314 0.17903 -0.05301 0.19253 0.06459 0.15977  ¥4 O.15748 0.15735 0.11469 0.36346 0.09905 0.38671 0.05654 0.16689 O.10198 0.30573 0.16505 0.08330 0.47779 0.41766 -0.12542 0.28465 0.23214 0.29549 0.34328 0.43203 0.30594 0.15078 0.12105 0. 1 0 2 5 7 0.20354 0.06147 0.21369 O. 1 2 5 6 8 0. 1 4 7 9 8 0.35496 0.24626 O. 1 2 7 3 1 0.13026 0.45497 0.05285 0.12163 0.32670 0. 1 4 2 7 0  ¥5 O 09686 0 22215 O .05771 O .29148 0 .06073 O .257 1 1 -0 . 0 9 3 9 9 0 . 16699 0 .26498 0 .26623 O .08847 -O . 0 0 1 6 7 O .24299 0 .24946 -0 . 1 6 2 7 5 0 . 15752 O,. 2 4 5 5 3 0.. 1 9 1 9 6 0.. 2 1 3 5 9 0.. 2 9 6 9 8 O.. 1 7 1 8 6 0.. 0 8 4 1 6 0.. 0 7 6 4 7 0.. 0 4 4 0 8 0 .. 2 7 3 2 1 0. 1 6 6 1 0 o.2 2 1 4 6 0. 0 6 1 8 5 o. 1 4 3 9 3 0. 2 0 4 0 0 0. 1 6 2 6 1 0. 1 4 2 0 4 o.3 0 3 7 1 20994 0. 10258 0. 17466 0. 0 7 3 0 0 0 09135  o  ¥6 -0.40110 -0.12377 0.02677 -0.04096 -0.09487 -0.10744 0.10456 0.00437 0.0934 1 -0.07507 -0.07595 -0.08174 -0.06906 -0.21691 0. 1 6 9 1 8 -0.20081 0.02105 -0.03781 -0.01396 -0.14213 0.05956 0.06059 -0.09750 -0.10833 0.00784 -0.02348 -0.29997 -6.11455 -0.08362 0.01037 -0.23203 -0.05822 -0.07883 -0.04586 -0.02264 -O!17213 -0:09263 -O.11700  W7 -0.09721 0.21399 -0.00057 0.19389 0.35313 0.33035 0.06725 0.03951 0. 1 2 2 9 9 0.35253 0.31689 0.01471 0.24448 O. 1 4 8 1 6 -0.21147 0.41404 0 .. 3 8 5 0 3 0 .. 3 3 0 1 7 O. 1 0 3 5 8 O.. 2 7 4 4 1 0 .. 3 6 6 7 2 0. 1 2 2 8 3 0.45657 0.25598 -0.06366 0.32331 0.23281 0.09326 O. 1 8 9 5 4 0.28356 0.25447 O. 1 6 7 3 9 0.24802 -0.03502 -0.13193 0.39770 0.17777 0.26620  ¥8 0.18477 0.31154 0.00516 0.24689 0.31040 0.21718 0.01039 0.06272 0. 1 5 6 3 1 0.23813 0.06823 0.08569 0.26110 O. 1 5 2 4 9 -0.24882 0.22406 0.39779 0.30512 0. 1 1 9 7 9 0.31205 0.27020 0.13251 0.17433 0.22339 0.07667 0.18299 0.21191 0.07460 O.15202 0.25725 0.21353 O.15635 0.22890 0.08249 -0.02537 0.28494 0. 1 4 1 4 1 0.08824  ¥9 0 . 1 8 1 14 0.28429 0.06602 0.29821 0.24024 0.23696 0.01865 O. 1 0 2 6 9 0.22015 0.45248 0.24402 0. 1 1 7 0 2 0,33736 0.25584 -0.17393 Ow 1 7 8 3 7 0.32308 0.46363 0.28503 0.40012 0.36883 0. 1 7 1 6 2 0. 1 5 8 1 6 0.10522 0.28908 0.22378 0.34580 O. 1 2 9 6 9 0.21274 0.34011 0.30656 0.18635 0.30250 0.22680 0.03357 O.11077 0.23010 0.22231  ¥10 0.18528 0.17788 -0.05779 0.31613 0.17003 O. 3 4 4 0 3 0.18263 0.09806 0.07743 0.32287 0.18006 0.02577 0.57673 0.33072 0.03993 0.24654 0. 1 8 0 2 3 0.46595 0.40143 0.43812 0.22200 O. 1 1 9 1 9 O. 1 1 4 2 7 0.07811 0. 1 2 7 1 0 0.03127 O. 1 2 9 4 7 0.03135 0.01503 0.. 2 1 4 1 8 0 .. 1 8 7 0 1 O. 1 0 8 2 5 0.. 2 0 9 3 2 0 .. 3 2 7 4 6 0.04531 0.02137 O.10426 0.20842  Ul Ul  THESIS  ANALYSES  - BREAKDOWN OF  VARIABLES  FILE NONAME SUBFILE YOUNG  ( C R E A T I O N DATE MIDAGED  » 12/08/82) ELDERLY  Wl 1 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9  W10 W1 1 W12  W13  W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25  W26 W27 W28  W29 W30 W31 W32  W33 W34  W35 W36 W37  W38 W39 W40 W4 1 W42 W4 3  W44  0.24103 0.27663 0.16009 0.. 4 5 5 9 5 0.. 2 1 9 7 6 0.. 0 1 3 8 4 0. 17427 0. 1 3 2 6 9 0.. 3 4 0 6 5 0.. 4 5 7 2 5 1.OOOOO 0.43625 0. 2 8 5 2 0 0. 1 6 8 6 4 0.. 2 3 8 3 6 0. 1 3 4 0 0 0.. 2 0 4 8 4 0.25031 0.13808 0.52593 0.46551 0. 1 3 7 2 0 0.10614 0.20698 0.15298 0.03640 0.07069 0.10566 0.32029 0.24380 0.13831 0. 1 7 5 3 7 0.. 0 5 6 1 4 0.. 2 3 8 1 8 0. 1 2 2 2 0 0.06697 0.26543 0 . 0 2 1 15 0.42919 0.02472 0.12705 0. 2 2 7 8 7 0.30214 -0.09630  W12 0.33097 0.21039 0. 19744 0.25897 0.30145 -0.09952 0.32274 0.24914 0.40015 0.35040 0.43625 1.00000 0.26814 0.33590 0.20886 0.31034 0.31819 0.21790 0.2025 1 0.40509 0.30922 0.27631 0.31713 0.22706 0.28853 0.26910 0.29726 0.21436 0.27342 0.32438 0.27005 0.38046 0.10689 0.20248 0.26422 0.11810 O. 2 6 8 0 6 0.25630 0.37816 0. 1 6 3 3 5 0. 1 9 0 6 8 0.21876 0.32462 0.02377  W13 0.04128 0.09852 0.11483 0.21881 0. 1 6 8 6 9 -0.05033 0. 137 1 1 0. 3 0 1 4 1 0.22088 0 . 0 9 9 19 0.28520 0.26814 1 .00000 0.50279 -0.08676 0. 1 2 4 0 7 0.. 2 4 7 0 7 o.. 3 6 5 8 2 .20740 0. .26336 0. . 22487 0. 0 . 2 4 7 15 0. 1 1 5 5 0 0.45244 -0.05811 0. 1 9 1 3 6 0.08107 0.35144 0. 1 8 7 3 7 0. 1 4 4 8 8 0.15392 0.27162 0.06787 0.24 306 0. 1 2 2 7 3 0.20433 0.09161 0.20307 0.24550 0.18209 0.33243 0.25657 0.32579 0.29928  12/08/82  W14 0.06440 0. 1 9 3 4 0 0. 2 9 3 2 8 0. 1 9 9 3 9 0. 1 0 2 5 6 -0.09776 0. 2 9 2 4 8 0.49695 0.20116 0. 1 1412 0. 1 6 8 6 4 0.33590 0.50279 1.OOOOO 0.09040 0 . 3 6 1 16 0.44998 0.36782 0.3421 1 0.15875 0.18761 0.33366 O.25396 0.37341 0. 1 4 9 4 0 0.39104 O.17005 0.481 1 1 0.28185 0.28613 0.36232 0.39395 0.20361 0.4 1 5 8 7 0.25434 0 .. 4 0 2 4 7 0 .. 2 9 5 6 9 0 .. 2 4 7 4 9 0.. 2 5 9 4 0 o... 23 65 86 53 63 0 .. 3 0 0 3 2 0. 0.28944 0.20344  WIS  W16  o.05622  0.. 0 4 9 0 9 0. 1 4 6 6 0 0.. 2 7 3 1 9 0..117 17 0. 1 1 8 1 3  0.06395 0 .07531 0 .10406 0.06857 -0 . 0 1 2 1 0 0.28736 0 .09005 0.10716 0.30993 0 .23836 0 .20886 -0 . 0 8 6 7 6 0 .09040 1.00000  0.. 3 3 1 9 0 0.. 0 8 0 8 3 0.. 1 5 6 7 0 0.. 1 2 4 4 6 0.. 2 0 7 3 2 0.. 0 0 3 0 8  -o.. 0 2 9 1 2 .26513  0. .00704 -0. .3336 1 0. .08069 0. . 101 15 0. .09751 0. .06767 0. .30317 0. .03480 0. 06918  o.0 2 4 0 0  -0. 0 1 4 8 5 0.0 0 5 1 6 -0. 2 6 5 2 6 0. 2 6 0 2 7 0. 0 1 2 5 0 -0. 1 6 4 8 9 0.0 1 8 1 2  o.0 2 3 6 7  -0. 0 4 5 2 1 0. 2 0 7 8 2 0. 2 1 0 3 2 -0.  0.04105 0.58954 0.37070 0.28053 O. 1 9 3 5 6 0.13400 0.31034 0.12407 0 . 3 6 1 16 0.33190 1.00000 0.. 3 9 2 3 6 0.. 3 2 2 8 9 0.. 3 8 5 5 8 O. 1 5 8 7 0 0.06599 0.27268 0.35973 0.29388 0.52460 0.40024 O.14585 0.45285 0.06729 0.. 5 6 6 3 4 0.. 4 7 6 9 4 0 .. 4 3 0 3 4 O. 1 8 8 3 7 0,27735 0.34096 C25444 Os40308 0.23278 0. 1 1 5 1 1 0.40428 0.22634 -0.03785 0.25160 0.12254  W17 0.12652 0.23646 0.16020 0.1684 1 0.11138 -0.14193 0.35815 0.29417 0.25438 0.16668 0.20484 0.31819 0.24707 0.44998 0.08083 0.39236 1.00000 0.44185 0.29208 0.10903 0.07159 0.21414 0. 1 7 8 9 7 0.34702 0.23668 0.37692 0.04661 0.39416 0.10466 0.42530 0.31134 0.36577 0.23734 0.19729 0.20026 0.25304 0.18223 0.31022 0. 1 4 5 8 5 0.28345 0.20881 0. 1 7 7 7 0 0. 15537 0. 1 2 6 6 2  PAGE  WIS 0.00018 0. 1 2 6 7 0 0. 1 2 8 8 2 0.22306 0.08238 -0.08456 0.24865 0.29897 0.24941 0.27053 0.25031 0.21790 0.36582 0.36782 0.15670 0.32289 0.44185 1.00000 0.25971 0.23957 0. 1 9 1 5 6 0.21171 0.14854 0.33023 0. 1 6 3 5 0 0.20519 0.24222 0.15322 0. 1 1 2 4 9 0.33830 0.29670 0.39520 0.13255 0.22742 0.15965 0.23512 0.22759 0.41113 0.22263 0.22522 0.20550 0.27580 0.21730 0. 16991  10  W19 0 .20049 0 .23801 0 .26487 0.28959 0 . 12597 -0 . 0 4 0 8 9 0 .25620 0 .33805 0 .16919 0 .18208 0 .13808 0 .20251 0 .20740 0 .34211 0 . 12446 0 .38558 0,. 2 9 2 0 8 0.. 2 5 9 7 1 1 .OOOOO 0.. 1 5 7 4 3 0. 1 0 1 5 7 0. 2 7 6 4 8 0. 2 1 3 3 2 0. 2 8 5 7 0 0. 2 5 0 1 6 0. 3 1 4 4 3 0. 16297 0. 3 4 5 5 5 0. 18626 0. 2 8 4 2 5 0. 2 4 0 5 5 0. 3 5 7 9 2 0. 3 4 3 2 3 0. 3 0 3 5 6 0. 3 5 6 6 8 0. 2 8 7 0 5 0. 2 5 2 4 3 0. 19844 0. 10661 0. 4 1 5 7 9 0. 17098 0. 12819 0. 2 0 5 5 8 0. 13564  W20 0 .28460 0 . 29353 0 .06186 0 .50092 0 .22745 -0 . 0 7 5 7 6 0 .21864 0 .22230 0 .35327 0 .47587 0 .52593 • 0. 4 0 5 0 9 0,26336 0 . 15875 0 .20732 0 . 15870 0 .10903 0 .23957 0 . 15743 1 .OOOOO 0.. 5 1 8 9 3 0.. 2 8 5 9 6 0.. 2 4 7 6 4 0. 2 1 3 8 0 0. 3 1 8 4 2 0. 1 2 2 6 9 0. 0 8 8 0 5 0. 0 8 9 3 6 0. 4 4 1 4 3 0. 2 3 8 9 9 0. 1 7 6 1 5 0. 2 7 3 1 7 0. 1 5 6 9 4 0. 2 1 8 0 3 0. 0 9 3 4 7 0. 14081 0. 2 3 9 6 2 0. 1 3 7 7 7 0. 5 2 5 7 3 0. 0 4 4 5 7 0. 1 7 9 1 1 0. 1 1 3 4 9 0. 3 4 1 7 5 0. 0 1 4 0 9  to Ul  T H E S I S ANALYSES  - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES  FILE NONAME SUBFILE YOUNG  (CREATION DATE MIDAGED  W1 1  W45 V4G W4 7 W48 W49 W50 W51  W52 W53  W54 W55 W5G  W57 W58 W59 W60  W61 W62 W63 W64 W65  V66 WG7 WG8 WG9 W70 W7 1 W72 W73 W74 W75 W76 W77 W78 W79  0.27029 0.01983 0.36438 0.08460 0.05028 0. 1 5 3 1 8 0.29232 0.19954 0.OOOOO 0.46265 0.21408 -0.05599 0.32837 0. 1 7 5 5 2 0.39659 0.40209 0.38330 0.03497 0.05516 0.11028 0.12491 0.09622 0.09106 0.21466 0.08845 0.10473 0.. 2 5 6 1 6 0.. 1 8 8 1 3 0.. 0 9 1 2 7 0.. 0 7 9 7 3 0.. 2 0 0 6 5 -0.05110 0.OOOOO 0.15386 0.04219  •  12/08/82  PAGE  1 1  12/08/82) ELDERLY  W12 0.49204 0.31945 0.29677 0. 1 8 1 6 1 0. 1 1 5 8 8 O. 1 5 9 4 2 0.31171 0.29255 0.09816 0.39703 0.25875 -0.12358 0.35655 0.31595 0.40031 0.28573 0.. 3 9 5 0 7 0.. 2 8 2 2 3 0., 1 1 2 9 7 0.. 3 2 4 8 8 0.17817 0.15607 0.2404 1 0.19560 0.12229 0. 1 0 3 5 2 0.26659 0.21995 0.15459 0.25191 0. 2 3 1 1 0 -0.01653 O.19379 0.26765 0.26370  W13 0.07354 0. 1 5 9 6 4 0. 2 7 6 3 8 -0.12473 0. 139 18 0.35620 0.09819 -0.03960 0.28546 0. 1 8 6 7 1 0.09690 - 0 . 14928 0.. 2 4 9 4 0 0.. 3 6 6 4 0 0.. 2 9 8 4 0 O. 1 5 1 4 6 O.. 2 3 0 7 4 0.. 2 7 1 6 4 0.09630 0.07791 0. 1 6 7 5 1 0.24409 0.34778 O.. 2 5 9 0 8 0.. 3 5 0 1 2 0.. 2 3 1 2 1 0.. 3 2 7 8 4 0.. 2 4 3 5 4 0.23948 0.04638 -0.04351 0.07334 0.44287 0.37103 O. 1 174 1  W14 0.25995 0.30306 0. 2 8 2 6 8 -0.05405 0. 1 5 7 7 5 0. 1 5 9 9 8 0. 1 8 6 1 6 0.23207 0.36626 0.17622 0. 1 3 8 7 5 -0.10153 0.29855 0.39095 0.29626 0. 1 6 4 8 7 0.23952 0.33310 0.24435 0.20076 0.30309 0.04025 0.37471 0.29981 0.24280 0.22509 0.24976 0. 1 9 2 2 5 0.28296 0.08863 0. 1 2 2 5 8 0.07551 0.42193 0.33545 O.17202  W15 0 11744 0 .32256 0 . 19070 0 .05599 0.. 0 8 5 0 6 - 0 .. 0 1 2 5 2 0.. 1 0 0 0 9 0.. 2 3 0 1 7 - 0 .. 0 3 9 8 7 0.. 2 0 3 2 5 0.. 0 4 1 7 1 0.. 0 1 7 3 3 0.. 2 3 1 1 7 0.. 0 8 0 8 5 O.. 2 2 4 0 6 0.. 2 1 4 0 2 0.. 2 5 4 1 9 0.. 0 6 7 5 3 0.. 1 9 0 7 5 0.. 1 6 2 8 2 - 0 .. 0 3 1 9 5 - 0 .. 1 6 5 0 0 0.. 0 2 9 5 4 -o.0 2 3 4 5 03533 0. 0 2 5 4 6 0. 0 4 3 9 5 0. 1 0 2 5 5 0. 1 5 6 1 9 0. 1 9 6 8 6 0. 1 0 9 1 2 0. 1 0 5 8 9 -0. 04631 0. 0 6 9 7 1 -o.2 0 3 7 3 0.  W16 0.25800 0.40976 0.26984 0.06073 0.09740 0.21575 0.33778 0.36105 0.24292 0.25312 0.05506 -0.17321 0.4 1 8 3 3 0.42540 0.28722 0. 1 8 1 4 1 0.23521 0.31397 0. 1 8 4 4 7 0.37635 0.26927 0.09445 0.4 1 8 4 6 0.167G4 0. 1 5 1 9 6 0. 1 2 4 8 4 0.22277 0.25557 0.17300 0.21 165 -0.07556 -0.17948 0.32724 0.21883 0.38837  W17 0.14203 0.34535 0.36655 -0.00640 0.20126 0. 1 8 2 8 3 0. 1 3 4 6 5 0.28853 0.18588 0.21933 0.25930 -0.15308 0.33908 0.24768 0.23676 0.12658 0.21201 0.24058 0.23817 0.25031 0.29103 0. 1 1 4 2 0 0.32447 0.29802 0.20068 0.09741 0.20119 0.35295 0.30941 0.03239 -0.03443 -0.18528 0.31903 0.21384 0.38818  W18 0.08524 0.25796 0. 1 6 8 3 0  -0.02233 0.18876 0. 19747 0.30193 0.27177 0.29016 0.22318 0.09576 -0.09904 0.33414 0.31187 0.40167 0.26385 0.21658 0.27463 0.12401 0.25169 0.27076 0.15370 0.34036 0.28285 0. 1 7 5 4 5 0. 1 8 6 9 6 0.30987 0.34541 0.33240 0.13100 -0.06154 -0.03668 0.33196 0.25167 0.27990  W19 0.30966 0.25786 0.24437 -0.13101 0. 1 0 6 9 3 0.07344 0.10918 0.12707 0.29816 0.16404 0. 1 5 9 5 6 -0.24863 0.30485 0.44890 0. 1 4 2 1 1 0.15622 0.23756 0.35918 0. 1 7 6 6 4 0.08174 0. 1 3 1 5 1 0. 1 6 5 5 7 0. 1 9 5 3 1 0.28140 0.10491 0.08446 0.27699 0.26314 0.19018 0.24363 0.11798 -0.07128 0.32245 0.28660 0.35013  V20 0.38262 0.09826 0.44947 0.21023 0.26658 0.12490 0.38330 0.23266 0.05675 0.50723 0.39455 -0.06270 6.380O0 0". 1 9 1 2 4 0.. 4 5 2 1 2 0.. 5 1 3 7 5 0.. 5 0 2 0 9 0.20036 0.08355 0. 1 8 0 3 0 0. 1 2 7 8 3 0.05556 0.08169 O. 1 4 0 6 8 0.12322 0.10685 0.. 2 7 5 4 5 0.. 2 9 5 7 6 O. 1 9 3 3 7 0.. 2 0 9 2 9 0.. 3 0 8 4 9 0.. 0 2 4 9 4 0-.. 0 7 4 0 4 0.25778 0.21899  Ul  THESIS  ANALYSES  FILE NONAME SUBFILE YOUNG  - B R E A K D O W N OF V A R I A B L E S ( C R E A T I O N DATE MIDAGED  W2 1 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W1 1 W12 W13 W14 WIS W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W2 1 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 W31 W32 W33 W34 W35 W36 W37 W38 W39 W40 W4 1 W4 2 W4 3 W44  0 .12150 0 . 19279 0 .06647 0 .40688 0 .19509 -0 . 0 3 6 9 0 0 .11779 0 .14674 0 .25763 0 .36467 0 .46551 0 .30922 0 .22487 0 .18761 0 .00308 0 .06599 0,. 0 7 1 5 9 0,. 1 9 1 5 6 0.. 1 0 1 5 7 0.. 5 1 8 9 3 1, OOOOO 0., 2 9 3 2 5 0. 0 8 3 6 0 0. 2 2 5 0 9 0. 1 0 4 8 6 0. 0 0 3 8 4 0. 1 1 7 3 0 0. 0 8 0 5 4 0. 3 8 2 4 0 0. 0 5 4 9 3 0. 1 1 8 2 7 0. 1 1 5 8 3 0. 1 2 5 8 2 0. 2 5 6 5 1 0. 154 12 -0. 01687 0. 2 3 2 6 0 0. 1 1 3 4 1 0. 4 5 9 8 5 0. 0 2 3 7 1 0. 1 1572 0. 1 3 1 7 9 0. 2 0 0 0 7 -0. 08588  12/08/82  PAGE  12  » 12/08/82) ELDERLY  W22 0 .16203 0 .15171 0 .21672 0 .22913 0 . 12428 -0 . 2 2 0 9 0 0 .25787 0 .30190 0.26559 0 .10463 0. 1 3 7 2 0 0 .27631 0 .24715 0.. 3 3 3 6 6 - 0 .. 0 2 9 1 2 • 0. .27268 0.. 2 1 4 1 4 0.. 2 1 1 7 1 0., 2 7 6 4 8 0. 2 8 5 9 6 0. 2 9 3 2 5 1 .OOOOO 0. 0 8 9 0 4 0. 27 100 0. 1 0 4 3 8 0. 2 6 6 3 5 0. 2 6 3 3 3 0. 2 9 2 5 9 0. 2 3 0 0 8 0. 17117 0 . 5 4 134 0. 4 1972 0. 2 0 3 5 3 0. 2 4 2 2 1 0. 2 8 2 4 0 0. 12739 0. 19375 0. 3 0 5 0 7 0. 18452 0. 1 7 6 6 2 0. 3 1 7 0 3 0. 2 3 5 5 0 0. 3 1 7 3 8 0. 15727  W23 0 .09563 0 .09594 0 . 18316 0 .25955 0 .32007 0 .04270 0 .23407 0 .27763 0 .20190 0 .23142 0 .10614 0 .317 13 0 .11550 0.. 2 5 3 9 6 0., 2 6 5 1 3 0.. 3 5 9 7 3 0., 1 7 8 9 7 0. 1 4 8 5 4 0. 2 1 3 3 2 0. 2 4 7 6 4 0. 0 8 3 6 0 0. 0 8 9 0 4 1. OOOOO 0. 14691 0. 3 7 144 0. 2 4 6 1 0 0. 2 7 2 0 3 0. 1 3 2 5 8 0. 2 9 4 3 8 0. 17994 0. 1 1 0 6 0 0. 1 4 3 9 0 0. 0 7 2 1 4 0. 1 2 5 0 3 0. 2 8 9 0 9 0. 1 7 6 7 4 0. 3 1 6 1 7 0. 0 7 0 2 8 0. 3 2 2 3 1 0. 2 7 5 4 9 0. 1 6 8 0 9 0. 0 0 0 9 5 0. 2 1 9 3 8 0. 0 7 2 4 4  W24 0 . 16988 0 .08405 0 .22875 0 .22208 0 .22352 -0 . 0 6 6 7 8 0 .26806 0 .23575 0 .27031 0 .16944 0 .20698 0 .22706 0 .45244 0,, 3 7 3 4 1 - 0 ,. 0 0 7 0 4 0,. 2 9 3 8 8 0.. 3 4 7 0 2 0.. 3 3 0 2 3 0. 2 8 5 7 0 0. 2 1 3 8 0 0. 2 2 5 0 9 0. 2 7 1 0 0 0. 1 4 6 9 1 1. OOOOO 0. 0 7 7 4 4 0. 2 7 7 15 0. 13642 0. 4 3 1 7 6 0. 18234 0. 3 9 4 2 3 0. 3 6 1 4 9 0. 3 9 5 2 4 0. 14501 0. 3 7 2 5 7 0. 2 6 4 8 4 0. 2 3 0 6 6 0. 2 2 2 5 0 0. 2 5 1 1 9 0. 1 3 4 6 4 0. 3 8 7 9 4 0. 3 3 0 4 5 0. 2 9 5 3 1 0. 2 1 6 4 1 0. 2 8 0 4 6  W25 0.23594 0. 1 3 4 4 6 0. 1 8 6 8 6 0.23021 0.12450 -0.07778 0.41053 0.13662 0.09602 0.21043 0. 1 5 2 9 8 0.28853 -0.05811 0. 1 4 9 4 0 0.3336 1 0.52460 0.23668 0.16350 0.25016 0. 3 1 8 4 2 0.10486 0.10438 0 . 3 7 144 0.07744 1.OOOOO 0.32139 0.05162 0.18401 0.13842  0.51268 0.33465 0.37822 0. 19247 0.2 1382 0. 13668 0.29982 0.44958 0.29188 0. 2 3 7 4 5 0.27697 0.13974 0.03069 0.17497 -0.03716  W26 0.27225 0.23173 0.2624 1 0.10634 0.17022 -0.16607 0.43257 0.36333 0.28887 0.08571 0.03640 0.26910 0. 1 9 1 3 6 0.39104 0.08069 0.40024 0.37692 0.20519 0.31443 0. 12269 0.00384 0.26635 0.24610 0.27715 0.32139 1.00000  0. 1 5 2 1 6 6.43713 0.05687 0.36288 0.37174 0.38474 0.33703 0,36230 0.54588 0.3218 1 0:33082 0.20094 0.09421 0.22282 0.30760 0.13305 0.28814 0. 1 6 7 6 3  W27 0.10107 -0.05032 0.09873 0.11352 0.09825 -0.07430 -0.04144 0.15883 0.24944 0.20031 0.07069 0.29726 0.08107 0.17005 0.10115 0. 14585 0.04661 0.24222 0. 1 6 2 9 7 0.08805 0.11730 0.26333 0.27203 0. 13642 0.05162 0. 1 5 2 1 6 1.00000 0.04340 0.13487 -0.03654 0. 12937 0.17727 0.05482 0. 1 7 7 8 3 0.26682 -0.00244 0.20349 0.24378 0.26276 0.19037 0.15673 0.23800 0.20580 0. 12791  W28 0.08953 0.22419 0.16978  0.10852 0.15407 -0.09180 0.36570 0.30082 0. 1 5 6 4 8 -0.00513 0.10566 0.2 1 4 3 6 0.35144 0.48111 0.09751 0.45285 0.39416 0.15322 0.34555 0.08936 0.08054 0.29259  6.13258 0.43176 0.18401 0.43713 0.04340 1.00000  0.25557 0.33825 0.33073 0.31301 0.24263 0.25938 0.39522 0.29151 0.10880 0.13456  0.04079 0.25684 0.28643 0.05698 0.25543 0. 1 9 8 6 0  W29 0.18206 0.18544 0.02820 0.37335 0.27308 -0.05928 0.11545 0.20812 0. 2 6 8 5 8 0.28846 0.32029 0.27342 0. 1 8 7 3 7 0.28185 0.06767 0.06729 0.10466 0. 1 1 2 4 9 0. 1 8 6 2 6 0.44143 0.38240 0.23008 0.29438 0. 18234 0. 13842 0.05687 0. 1 3 4 8 7 0.25557 1.00000  0.09816 0.05494 0.06953 0.15676 0.1194 1  0.24150 0.19267 0.15065 0.03268 0.38451 0.06587 0.08631 0.13878 0.25219 0.03109  W30  o  19294  > A O 1 / «•  0.  o. 1 6 6 18 o..03816878 54 -0. 19772 o. 4 5 3 8 7 0. 3 5 0 3 8  o.  j1  0. 3 S 4 Q 1 0. 2 4 3 8 0 6.3124413 A*; 8 0'; 1 4 4 A A 0 . 2861-3 0 . 3 0 3 17 o. 5 6 6 3 4 0. 4 2 5 3 0 0. 3 3 8 3 0 0. 2 8 4 2 5 o. 2 3 8 9 9 o.0 5 4 9 3 o. 17 1 1 7 o. 1 7 9 9 4 o.3 9 4 2 3 0. 5 1 2 6 8 o.3 6 2 8 8 -O.i0 3 6 5 4 o.3 3 8 2 5 O.i 0 9 8 16 1.1OOOOO 0. 4 9 5 1 5 o..4 9 8 5 8 0.:2 6 8 1 0 o.:3 2 0 1 2 0 . 1 3 3 18 o.:2 6 8 6 1 o.:3 9 4 3 3 o.:2 9 7 3 5 o.:2 0 0 4 3 o : 32148 ' y •1•9 4 6 2 0 . o. 1•9 0 5 1 O.J ! 5 4 6 7 0 . 11 3 4 5 9  THESIS  ANALYSES  - BREAKDOWN OF  VARIABLES  FILE NONAME SUBFILE YOUNG  ( C R E A T I O N DATE MIDAGEO  -  W2 1 W45 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W51 W52 W53 W54 W55 W56 W57 W58 W59 WSO W6 1 W62 W63 W64 W65 W66 WS7 W68 W69 W70 W7 1 W72 W73 W74 W75 W76 W77 W78 W79  0 .2451 1 -o . 0 0 1 0 4 0 .32956 0 .06779 0 .02033 0 .07624 0 .27800 0 .06874 0 .01467 0 .39647 0 .21289 -0 .03872 0 .20899 0.. 1 0 0 3 3 0,. 3 3 5 3 8 0,. 4 0 3 6 3 0.. 2 7 3 6 0 0.. 0 6 7 2 2 - 0 .. 0 2 9 2 6 0.. 0 6 7 8 2 0.. 1 3 5 2 4 0. 1 1 5 7 5 0. 0 1 0 7 4 0. 1 4 3 7 8 0. 0 3 6 2 4 0. 2 7 7 17 0. 2 1 2 6 6 0. 1 6 2 5 2 0. 0 9 2 8 5 0. 0 3 3 9 7 0. 1 7 3 2 2 0. 1 0 4 6 8 0. 0 7 2 6 7 0. 1 9 2 4 9 -0. 01888  12/08/82  PAGE  13  12/08/82) ELDERLY  W22 0 .27372 0 .27991 0,. 1 6 1 3 8 -0 .06670 0 .06285 0,. 1 5 5 9 9 0.. 2 5 7 6 8 0.. 1 1 3 4 3 0.. 2 0 4 6 0 0., 2 3 5 5 0 0., 2 5 2 5 1 -0. 0 2 9 4 6 0. 2 5 8 6 5 0. 2 4 9 1 3 0. 2 5 6 2 6 • 0. 2 2 7 7 4 0. 2 2 0 5 1 0. 2 9 3 9 7 0. 0 8 1 5 4 0. 0 7 7 5 5 -0. 05799 0. 1 0 6 8 9 0. 2 4 6 3 1 0. 4 0 5 1 5 0. 2 5 7 8 9 0. 3 1 7 8 0 0. 3 4 9 8 4 0. 2 1 174 0.08510 0. 1 8 8 7 6 0. 1 2 7 2 4 -0. 00243 0. 1 8 3 8 5 0. 4 1 6 2 2 0. 1 6 5 2 4  W23 0 .48978 0 .24758 0 .26404 0 .02515 0 .26377 0 .14855 0,. 3 0 6 3 2 0,. 2 8 9 0 2 0,. 1 9 7 7 1 0,. 2 5 0 1 0 0,. 2 6 8 4 9 - 0 .. 0 3 0 5 5 0.. 3 1 9 1 4 0.. 2 8 2 5 3 0.. 2 4 8 2 5 0.. 2 9 6 6 2 0.. 4 2 1 5 3 0..297 12 0., 1 3 0 6 0 0. 1 8 7 3 8 0. 1 4 3 4 2 0. 1 5 8 6 3 0. 0 6 5 14 0. 0 4 187 0. 0 4 4 9 4 0. 1 0 6 7 4 0. 2 2 7 3 2 0. 2 7 6 10 0. 0 5 7 7 3 o. 2 6 4 6 6 0 . 193 13 0. 0 4 9 8 4 0. 1 8 7 0 8 0. 1 3 9 4 4 0. 2 7 3 1 1  W24 0 .15101 0 .28414 0 . 24959 -0 . 0 7 3 4 9 0,. 1 8 4 5 4 0,. 3 8 5 1 2 0 .32759 0.. 0 6 6 9 8 0,. 3 3 8 2 7 0.. 2 8 1 5 8 0.. 1 8 9 7 2 - 0 .. 1 3 1 8 8 0., 3 2 7 1 4 0., 4 8 3 7 8 0. 3 6 9 0 0 0. 1 4 9 9 2 0. 3 6 7 2 2 0. 4 1 4 5 5 0. 1 9 9 7 6 0. 2 7 3 8 2 0. 2 5 3 5 8 0. 2 6 9 6 2 0. 5 0 2 7 7 0. 4 4 6 5 1 0. 4 2 8 3 4 0. 4 1 6 0 0 0. 4 1 6 4 9 0. 3 1 5 2 1 0. 3 8 1 6 4 0. 1 9 2 0 5 0. 1 t 5 4 0 0. 0 9 7 5 9 0. 4 7 2 2 7 0. 1 9 4 7 1 0. 2 8 3 0 5  W25 0.28440 0.36879 0.40357 0.22305 0 . 2 1 194 0.05842 0.42191 0.41563 0. 1 6 5 1 3 0. 18981 0.17436 -0.16623 0.54039 0.25253 0.27749 0.33222 0.29106 0. 12864 0.21368 0.34079 0.32910 -0.04594 0.16509 0.06082 0.04076 -0.01792 0.16607 0.39742 O.12893 0.22458 0.19118 -0.16701 0.22332 0.16621 0.51076  W26 0.31649 0.39652 0.32275 -0.00089 0. 12927 0.31010 0.30502 0.33372 O.14757 0.10794 0.20412 -0.24130 0.35893 0.44556 0.18705 0.05696 0.28470 0.25330 O.16779 0.46335 0.40957 0.14604 0.35719 0.26737 0.25492 0.13835 0.21407 0.21120 O.16995 0.27462 0.03237 -0.00662 0.42225 0.22045 0.37737  W27 0.36074 0.24404 0.06368 -0.04297 -0.00237 0. 1 6 2 8 4 0.28962 0.07703 O. 1 9 6 2 9 0.21220 0.19909 0.05811 0.05351 0. 1 6 6 7 8 0.24002 0.24359 0.31175 0.19076 0.02552 0. 1 1 2 3 7 0.04704 0. 1 9 9 5 2 0.00011 O. 1 3 3 3 2 0. 1 4 7 1 0 0.15700 O.15244 0.11522 0.09623 0.30781 0.24330 0.16750 0.09972 0. 1 4 3 5 3 0. 1 6 1 5 2  W28 0. 1 4 1 3 6 0.22088 0.23782 -0.05263 O. 1 4 2 3 0 0.33418 0. 1 3 9 7 7 0.22736 0.40023 0.09486 0. 1 2 4 5 6 -0.30462 0.29211 0.42390 0. 1 8 6 0 5 0.09044 O.19066 0.40586 0.15425 0.30860 0.22750 O. 1 5 6 5 2 0.48658 0.30954 0.32751 0.27950 0.25334 0.22289 0.31405 0.10539 -0.02359 0.06127 0.55582 0.30872 0.22046  W29 0.47215 0.08076 0.29690 0.06673 0.10826 0.16234 0.15354 0.25558 0.15487 0.33040 0.39691 -0.04518 0.21164 0. 1 2 1 4 3 0.32058 0.24891 0.36072 0.36219 0.12887 -0.02342 0.06667 0.10876 0.03890 0.18435 0.13313 0.33529 0.26506 0.26859 O. 1 5 5 3 9 O. 1 3 2 6 6 0.29685 0.05367 0.13143 0.22646 0.00494  W30 0. 1 8 6 4 7 0. 4 5 2 8 8 0.33549 0.11026 0.21996 0.09758 0.33298 0.32453 0. 1 3 9 6 7 0.26354 0.17092 -0.26550 0-. 5 6 4 0 3 0.33604 0.33044 0. 1 4 8 8 7 0.27458 0.20109 0.30540 0.39909 0.33508 -0.04 707 0.45977 0.34713 0.18866 O.10499 0.2458 1 0.34318 O.22772 0. 1 7 1 2 9 0. 1 1 4 4 8 -0.24918 0.32621 0.13462 0.33290  to Ul ID  THESIS ANALYSES  -  BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES  12/08/82  PAGE  14  FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE • 1 2 / 0 8 / 8 2 ) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY  W31 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W1 1 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W'23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 W31 W32 W33 W34 W35 W36 W37 W38 W39 W40 W4 1 W4 2 W4 3 W44  0 . 15314 0 .23594 0 .3264 1 0 .207 13 0 .01420 -0 . 16617 0 .47915 0 .30140 0 .26867 0 .09100 0 .13831 0 .27005 0 .15392 0 .36232 0 .03480 0 .47694 0,.31 134 0,. 2 9 6 7 0 0.. 24055 0.. 17615 0..11827 0..54134 0. 1 1060 0. 36149 0. 33465 0. 37 174 0. 12937 0. 33073 0. 05494 0. 49515 1. OOOOO 0. 64732 0. 2 1919 0. 36042 0. 25626 0. 17819 0. 23329 0. 4 1058 0. 09859 0. 28286 0. 34232 0. 12897 0. 13017 0. 15797  W32 0 .30496 0 .28531 0 .21782 0 .20483 0 .15001 -0 .11059 0 .35133 0.41654 0 .23757 0 .16573 0.17537 0 .38046 0 .27162 0 .39395 0 .06918 • 0 .43034 0..36577 0,.39520 0..35792 . 0,.27317 0.. 1 1583 0..41972 0. 14390 0. 39524 0. 37822 0. 38474 0. 17727 0. 31301 0. 0 6 9 5 3 0. 49858 0. 64732 1. OOOOO 0. 33166 0. 4 1008 0. 27437 0. 31507 0. 33846 0. 43337 0. 1951 1 0. 3 7 2 9 0 0. 22458 0. 24746 0. 2 5 6 5 0 0. 26704  W33 0 .26693 0 .24555 0 .18107 0 . 12963 0 .14065 -0 .14567 0 . 134 18 0.22646 0 .03866 0 .09006 0 .05614 0 . 10689 0 .06787 0 .20361 -0 .02400 0.. 18837 0..23734 0..13255 0.. 34323 0., 15694 0. 12502 0. 20353 0. 07214 0. 14 501 0. 19247 0. 33703 0. 05482 0. 24263 0. 15676 0. 268 10 0. 21919 0. 33 166 1. OOOOO 0. 37863 0. 28 166 0. 200-16 0. 0864G 0. 0 9 5 2 0 0. 22925 0. 24522 0. 13 149 0. 15254 0. 10988 0. 14947  W34 0 . 14448 0 .09648 0 .26892 0 .09314 0 .12596 -0 .10534 0 .31235 0 .46214 0 .13509 0 . 12295 0 .23818 0 .20248 0 .24306 0 .41587 0 .01485 0 .27735 0 . 19729 0 .22742 0 .30356 0 .21803 0.. 25651 0. 24221 0. 12503 0. 37257 0. 21382 0. 36230 0. 17783 0. 25938 0. 1 194 1 0. 32012 0. 36042 0. 4 1008 0. 37863 1. OOOOO 0. 45244 0. 24762 0. 38868 0. 09927 0. 23488 0. 29661 0. 28748 0. 27328 0. 26339 0. 0 9 0 3 0  W35 0. 19590 0. 17467 0.224 15 0.13144 0.34484 0.03605 0.31468 0.30889 0.25770 0. 12277 0 . 1222Q 0.26422 0. 12273 0.25434 -0.00516 0.34096 0.20026 0. 15965 0.35668 0.09347 0.154 12 0.28240 0.28909 0.26484 0.13668 0.54588 0.26682 0. 39522 O.24 150 0. 13318 0.25626 0.27437 0.28166 0.45244  1.00000  0.22076 0.31783 0.04342 0. 174 15 0.2674 1 0.28604 0.06661 0.24001 0.06974  W36 0.02065 0. 13242 0. 12544 0.09504 0.15878 -0.03803 0.28946 0.24383 0.13606 0.02822 0.06697 0. 11810 0.20433 0.40247 0.26526 0.25444 0.25304 0.23512 0.28705 0.14081 -0.01687 0. 12739 0. 17674 0.23066 0.29982 0.32181 -0.00244 0.29151 0. 19267 0.26861 0. 17819 0.31507 0.20046 0.24762 0.22076 1'. OOOOO 0. 197 17 0. 12461 0.08576 0.38610 0.22355 0. 17763 0.45629 0.06327  W37 0.. 17663 0..09438 0..27345 0.. 16185 0.,22113 - 0 . 01176 0. 30533 0. 34623 0. 32003 0. 22312 0. 26543 0. 26806 0. 09161 0. 29569 0. 26027 0 . 40308 0. 18223 0. 22759 0. 25243 0. 23962 0. 2 3 2 6 0 0. 19375 0. 31617 0. 22250 0. 44958 0. 33082 0. 20349 0. 10880 0. 15065 0 . 39433 0. 23329 0. 33846 0. 08646 0. 38868 0. 31783 0. 19717 1.1OOOOO 0. 21405 0. 38724 0. 24632 0. 14263 0. 22531 0.:33927 -O.I35272  W38 0. 15251 0.01980 0.11664 0.09730 -0.02040 -0.10029 0.22212 0. 11571 0.13436 0.05100 0.02115 0.25630 0.20307 0.24749 -0.01250 0.23278 0.31022 0.41113 0. 19844 0. 13777 0.11341 0.30507 0.07028 0.251 19 0.29188 0.20094 0.24378 0.13456 0.03268 0.29735 0.41058 0.43337 0.09520 Q.09927 0.04342 0.12461 0.21405  1.00000  0.21358 0.35094 0.26006 0.21651 0. 18969 0. 13498  W39 0 . 19247 0 .22903 0,. 13688 0..40844 0., 2 9 1 1 0 0. 03052 0. 11394 0. 23324 0. 33884 0. 38386 0. 42919 0. 378 16 0. 2 4 5 5 6 0. 2 5 9 4 0 0. 16489 0. 11511 0. 14585 0. 22263 0. 1066 1 0. 52573 0. 45985 0. 18452 0. 3223 1 0. 13464 0. 23745 0. 0942 1 0. 26276 0. 04079 0. 38451 0. 20043 0. 09859 0. 1951 1 0. 22925 0. 23488 0. 17415 O.i08576 0.:38724 0.:21358  1.00000  0.:20974 0. 19648 o.:27591 o.:27927 0.(32452  W40  o  13767 0 .13309 o 17009 0 .08492 o .06156 -0 .02651 0 .15932 Q .23036 0 . 18354 o .08070 o .02472 O; m o n o o . 3563J3 o .01812 o .404 28 o . 28345 o . 22522 o .4 1579 o .04 457 0,.02371 o. 17662 0., 27549 0 . 38794 0. 27697 0. 22282 0. 19037 0. 25684 0. 0 6 5 8 7 0 . 32148 0. 28286 0. 3 7 2 9 0 0. 24522 0. 2966 1 0. 2674 1 o. 386 10 0. 24632 o. 35094 0. 20974 1. OOOOO 0. 4077 1 0. 27223 0. 2725 1 0. 3 1 3 9 0  THESIS  ANALYSES  - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES  FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED  W31 W45 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W51 W52 W53 W54 W55 W56 W57 W58 W59 W60 W6 1 WG2 W63 W64 W65 W66 WS7 W68 W69 W70 W71 W72 W73 W74 W75 W76 W77 W78 W79  0 .25726 0 .34732 0 .21837 0 .06545 0 .17824 0 .21439 0 .40838 0 .23425 0 .21122 0 .25206 0 .18220 -0 .16232 0,.38916 0,.42323 0.. 29627 0. 19537 0. 25838 0. 27868 0. 128 15 0. 33529 0. 204 50 0. 0 4 6 7 2 0. 48544 0. 45375 0. 20017 0. 2 5 6 7 0 0. 36261 0. 23528 0. 20343 0. 20402 0. 1582 1 -0. 0 5 2 2 4 0. 36451 0. 3 9 2 0 0 0. 26509  «  12/08/82  PAGE  12/08/82) ELDERLY  W32 0 .34259 0 .47392 0 .331 14 0 .20624 0 .28959 0 .14104 0 .41989 0 .25966 0 .37327 0 .33065 0 .27664 -0,.10877 0. 51072 0. 53471 0. 28440 " 0. 2 7 7 3 0 0. 30864 0. 35615 0. 25957 0. 26544 0. 33478 0. 14454 0. 48947 0. 42929 0. 13159 0. 21336 0. 33426 0. 37951 0. 26297 0. 25833 0. 0 5 3 7 6 -0. 0 5 2 7 5 0. 40904 0. 2 4 3 3 0 0. 45631  W33 0 . 18520 0 .22082 0 .31709 0 . 129 12 0 .27508 -0 .00939 0 .17890 0 .26008 0 .28739 0 .22492 0 .24047 -0 .05361 0 .32175 0,, 20572 0. 06868 0. 14963 0.,26062 0. 18200 0. 15851 0. 12157 0. 26409 0. 0 4 4 6 3 0. 144 10 0. 38884 0. 09426 0. 08152 0. 0 7 7 6 8 0. 29103 0. 12733 0. 10934 0. 10735 -0. 02587 0. 24332 0. 0 9 5 1 5 0. 28937  W34 0 . 19423 0 .33012 0 .27922 0 .02914 0 .08383 0 .11592 0 .38414 0 .14027 0 .2291 1 0 .20026 0 . 15195 -0 .10285 0 .30793 0 .37565 0 .24257 0 . 187 14 0,.28136 0. 20502 0. 13 186 0. 252 13 0. 3591 1 0. 0 2 9 7 2 0. 25131 0. 31975 0. 10534 0. 20957 0. 22823 0. 19681 0. 15137 0. 19573 0. 04 148 0. 0 2 8 0 0 0. 37003 0. 0 6 7 2 5 0. 22426  W35 0 .29218 0 .28390 0,.26490 0,.01512 0..07761 0..38906 0.,30370 0. 26901 0. 22652 0. 17801 0. 20703 -0. 14608 0. 25003 0. 44189 0. 2 1 9 4 0 0. 1 1795 0. 264 15 0. 23868 0. 14349 0. 26059 0. 24253 0. 23971 0. 2 7 7 4 0 0. 30036 0. 0 9 3 2 4 0. 2 2 6 6 0 0. 20635 0. 16719 0. 0 9 7 6 5 0. 33299 -0. 0 1 8 2 9 0.05732 0. 33376 0. 15027 0. 19416  W36 0. 1 1365 0. 39974 0. 31223 -0. 09839 0. 0 9 0 9 0 0. 12192 0. 18134 0. 2567 1 0. 20797 -0.00374 0. 16675 -0. 16442 0. 31268 0. 2 1686 0. 13201 0. 19432 0. 26177 0. 21326 0. 32082 0. 17912 0. 18783 -0. 07789 0. 37536 0. 1 1647 0. 26504 0. 21 143 0. 20515 0. 17491 0. 34176 0. 12597 0.03029 05539 -O.i 0. 40066 0.- 1 1057 <V 25088  W37 0 .30659 0,.35249 0 .24142 0..07894 0..18231 0., 13416 0. 45675 0. 29617 0. 0 8 6 2 2 0. 26956 0. 16646 -0. 16245 0. 33315 0. 27527 0. 28279 0. 27188 0. 23358 0. 07437 0. 17803 0. 29654 0. 30563 0. 01901 0. 28341 0. 21772 -0. 0 1 6 5 5 0. 11328 0. 14024 0. 22456 0. 19064 0. 20621 0. 15048 -0. 0 5 9 0 0 0. 19194 O.i07269 0. 33146  W38 0,. 19637 0..35400 0..11793 0..08521 0..27249 0., 19433 0. 23866 0. 18408 0. 20839 0. 10791 0. 17466 - 0 . 10341 0. 23947 0. 33239 0. 17807 0. 25902 0. 07204 0. 24745 0. 0 8 6 8 6 0. 16672 0. 22545 0. 14787 0. 30466 0. 2081 1 0. 26519 0. 18663 0. 16815 0. 29349 0. 27808 0. 11365 0. 15884 D0564 -O.i 0.:34344 0.:36757 o.:37489  W39 0.39576 0..29390 0..42153 0..08342 0.,32826 0. 0 6 7 3 5 0. 4 2 0 5 5 0. 23548 0. 0 9 3 5 5 0. 6 3 9 5 9 0. 28378 - 0 . 10054 0. 39454 0. 23737 0: 44777 0. 53433 0. 4 6 1 5 5 0. 18 132 0. 11521 0. 10267 0. 161 10 0. 21735 0. 0 7 2 7 3 0. 18050 0. 06575 O.i08713 0. 10897 0. 35664 0.:22499 0. 14295 o..44879 O.I37148 0. 13430 o.:26049 o.:23100  W40 0 .25105 0 .44195 0 .20663 -0 .03814 0 .20719 0 . 22365 0 .27699 0 .13006 0..47712 0.. 1561 1 , o. 16150 -6. 11666 0'. 30758 0. 45558 0. 2 0 0 8 0 0. 25358 0. 22236 0. 21528 0. 24547 0. 0 3 4 3 6 0. 27615 0. 24516 0. 38652 0. 29399 0. 27764 0. 19494 0. 2 4 6 0 0 0. 24201 0. 304 13 0. 23317 0. 16854 07635 O.i 0. 40100 0.:25827 o.:30615  THESIS  ANALYSES  FILE NONAME SUBFILE YOUNG  - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES ( C R E A T I O N DATE MIDAGEO  W4 1 ' "2 "3 w  W  4  5 "6 w  w  7  8 "9 "10 "11 W12 W13 "14 "15 W16 W17 "18 "19 W20 "21 W22 V23 "24 W25 W26 W27 W28 "29 W30 "31 W32 33 W34 W35 W36 W37 W38 W39 V40 "4 1 W42 "43 W44 w  w  0.06587 0.06805 0.21293 0.21215 0.14604 -0.05254 0.19091 0.18838 0.10768 0.10499 0.12705 0.19068 0.33243 0.26856 -0.02367 0.22634 0.20881 0.20550 0.17098 0.17911 0.11572 0.31703 0.16809 0.33045 0.13974 0.30760 0.15673 0.28643 0.08631 0.19462 0.34232 0.22458 0. 13 149 0.28748 0.28604 0.22355 0.14263 0.26006 0.19648 0.40771 1.OOOOO 0.32447 0.32699 0.32525  •  12/08/82  PAGE  16  t2/08/82) ELDERLY  W42 0 .0821 1 0 .14088 0.. 18310 0 . 15748 0,.09686 - 0 , .40110 - 0 , .09721 0,.18477 0..18114 0..18528 0.,22787 0. 21876 0.,25657 0.,30032 0. 04521 -0. 03785 0. 17770 0. 2 7 5 8 0 0. 12819 0. 1 1349 0. 13179 0. 2 3 5 5 0 0. 0 0 0 9 5 0. 29531 0. 0 3 0 6 9 0. 13305 0. 2 3 8 0 0 0. 0 5 6 9 8 0. 13878 0. 19051 0. 12897 0. 24746 0. 15254 0. 27328 0. 06661 0. 17763 0. 22531 0. 21651 0. 27591 0. 27223 0. 32447 1. OOOOO 0. 30577 0. 14096  W43 0 .147 13 0 . 14825 0 .10395 0 . 15735 0 . 222 15 -0.. 12377 0 . 2 1399 0 .31 154 0,. 28429 0 . 17788 0,.302 14 0,. 32462 0,.32579 0,.28944 0 .20782 0..25160 0. 15537 0..21730 0.,20558 0. 34 175 0.,20007 0. 31738 0. 2 1938 0. 2164 1 0. 17497 0. 288 14 0. 2 0 5 8 0 0. 25543 0. 25219 0. 25467 0. 13017 0. 2 5 6 5 0 0. 10988 0. 26339 0. 24001 0. 45629 0. 33927 0. 18969 0. 27927 0. 2725 1 0. 32699 0. 30577 1.OOOOO 0. 10654  W44 .03714 0 .00723 0 .03447 0 . 1 1469 0 .05771 0 .02677 - 0 .00057 0 .00516 0 .06602 - 0 .05779 - 0 .09630 0 .02377 0 .29928 0 .20344 - 0 , .2 1032 0,. 12254 0,. 12662 0,. 1699 1 0..13564 0..01409 - 0 . .08588 0., 15727 0.,07244 0. 28046 -0. 0 3 7 1 6 0. 16763 0. 12791 0. 19860 0. 0 3 1 0 9 0. 13459 0. 15797 0. 26704 0. 14947 0. 0 9 0 3 0 0. 06974 0. 06327 - 0 . 05272 0. 13498 0. 02452 0. 3 1 3 9 0 0. 32525 0. 14096 0. 10654 1.OOOOO  W45  -0  *  0 .32271 0 .21878 0 .15248 0 .36346 0 .29148 -0 .04096 0 . 19389 0 .24689 0..29821 0..31613 0..27029 0..49204 0 ..07354 0..25995 0..11744 0.,25800 0. 14203 0. 08524 0. 30966 0. 38262 0. 2451 1 0. 27372 0. 48978 0. 15101 0. 2 8 4 4 0 0. 31649 0. 36074 0. 14 136 0. 47215 0. 18647 0. 25726 0. 34259 0. 18520 0. 19423 0. 29218 0. 1 1365 0. 30659 0. 19637 0. 39576 0. 25105 0. 22646 0. 23027 0. 3031 1 0. 0 6 8 4 5  W46 0 . 1797 1 .202 15 0 .21203 0 .09905 0,.06073 -0 .09487 0,.35313 0. .31040 0..24024 0. .17003 0 . ,01983 0 . ,31945 0 . ,15964 0 . ,30306 0.,32256 0. 40976 0. 34535 0. 25796 0 . 25786 0. 0 9 8 2 6 - 0 . 00104 0. 27991 0 . 24758 0. 284 14 0 . 36879 0 . 39652 0 . 24404 0. 22088 0. 0 8 0 7 6 0 . 45288 0. 34732 0 . 47392 0. 22082 0-33012 0. 2 8 3 9 0 0 ! 39974 0 . 35249 0. 35400 0 , 29390 0. 44 195 0 . 24210 0 . 32751 0 . 37665 0 . 23752 0  W4 7 0 .36538 0 .26389 0 . 1 1893 0 .3867 1 0.25711 -0 .10744 0 .33035 0 .21718 O,.23696 0. .34403 0..36438 0. .29677 0 . .27638 0.,28268 0 . , 19070 0. 26984 0. 36655 0 . 16830 0 . 24437 0 . 44947 0. 32956 0. 16138 0. 26404 0. 24959 0. 40357 0 . 32275 0 . 06368 0 . 23782 0. 29690 0 . 33549 0. 21837 0 . 331 14 0. 31709 0 . 27922 0. 2 6 4 9 0 0 . 31223 0 . 24142 0 . 1 1793 0. 42153 0 . 20663 0 . 21862 0. 16019 0 . 36954 0. 09806  W48 0.21323 -0.03620 -0.01828 0.05654 -0.09399  0.10456 0.06725 0.01039 0.01865 0 . 18263 0.08460 0 . 18161 -0.12473  -0.05405 0.05599 0.06073 -0.00640 -0.02233 -0.13101  0.21023 0.06779 -0.06670 0.02515 -0.07349  0.22305 -0.00089 -0.04297 -0.05263  0.06673 0.11026  0.06545 0.20624 0. 12912 0.02914 0.01512 -0.09839  0.07894 0.08521 0.08342 -0.03814 0.02380 0.03307 -0.11439  0.03269  W49 . 19739 0 . 14679 0 .03378 0 . 16689 0 .16699 0 .00437 0 .03951 0.06272 0 .10269 0 .09806 0 .05028 0 .11588 0 . 13918 0 . 15775 0 .08506 0,.09740 0. .20126 0.. 18876 0. 10693 0 . 26658 0. 0 2 0 3 3 0. 0 6 2 8 5 0. 26377 0. 18454 0. 21194 0. 12927 - 0 . 00237 0. 14230 0. 10826 0 . 21996 0. 17824 . 0 . 28959 0. 27508 0. 08383 0. 07761 0. 0 9 0 9 0 0 . 18231 0. 27249 0 . 32826 0. 20719 0. 15761 0. 15480 0 . 07472 0. 20278 0  W50 0.08462 0.076 12 0.0362 1 0.10198 0.26498 0.0934 1 0.12299 0. 1563 1 0.22015 0.07743 O.15318 0,, 15942 0.35620 0.15998 -0.01252 0.21575 0.18283 O.19747 0.07344 0. 12490 0.07624 0. 15599 0. 14855 0.38512 0.05842 0.31010 0. 16284 0. 334 18 0. 16234 0.09758 0.21439 0.14104 •0.00939 0.11592 0.38906 0. 12192 0. 13416 0. 19433 0.06735 O.22365 0.37893 0.17249 <n 0.23398 0.23886 M  M  T H E S I S ANALYSES  - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES  FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE SUBFILE YOUNG MIOAGED  W4 1 W4S W46 W4 7 W48 W49 W50 W51 W52 W53 W54 W55 W56 W57 W58 W59 W60 W6 1 W62 WS3 W64 W65 W66 W67 W68 W69 W70 W7 1 W72 W73 W74 W75 W76 W77 W78 W79  0 . 22646 0 .24210 0 .2 1862 0 .02380 0 . 15761 0 .37893 0 .21829 0 .08965 0.. 13429 0.. 18672 0..10342 -0..11570 0., 254 17 0..31603 0. 2 5 1 8 0 0..08803 0.. 16468 0. 22548 0. 0 1 2 7 7 0. 25539 0. 14558 0. 20236 0. 34857 0. 3235 1 0. 37067 0. 24382 0. 39436 0. 13146 0. 18930 0. 0 9 9 4 6 0. 1 1472 0. 12508 0. 35424 0. 45902 0. 29 1 19  12/08/82  PAGE  17  ' 12/08/82) ELDERLY  W42 0 .23027 0 .32751 0 . 16019 0 .03307 0 . 15480 0 .17249 0 .17708 0 .01761 0..14071 0.. 27346 0.. 19254 -0,.00423 0.. 27027 0..22982 0. 224 12 0. 1372 1 0.. 17724 0..08952 0. 05147 0., 10355 0. 12445 0. 20242 0. 10176 0. 4 125 1 0. 26683 0. 19246 0. 24619 0. 2 9 0 7 0 0. 20689 0. 0 8 3 9 0 0. 20448 0. 15764 0. 19274 0. 2 1 180 0. 22049  W43 0 .303 1 1 0 .37665 0 .36954 -0 . 1 1439 0 .07472 0,. 23398 0 .33010 0,.26736 0 .18752 0 . 22 162 0,.33125 -0..21799 0..2355 1 0..32345 0. 31529 0.,27137 0..36439 0.. 14744 0.,00679 0.,22003 0.,20755 0. 1 1448 0. 23197 0. 26 130 0. 28574 0. 31934 0. 38 136 0. 12240 0. 27334 0. 22479 0. 04444 0. 074 80 0. 30609 0. 2 1077 0. 18035  W44 0 .06845 0 .23752 0 .09806 0 .03269 0 .20278 0 .23886 0 .10246 0 .01252 0 .27634 O .05976 0 . 12 180 0 .01128 0 . 17643 0,.29903 0..06230 0,.09530 0,.15010 0.,27676 0.. 14888 0. 17737 0. 19749 0. 34015 0. 39315 0. 23325 0. 30329 0. 10524 0. 20259 0. 10483 0. 0 9 6 5 6 -0. 0 0 5 9 9 -0. 0 1 9 7 9 0. 16929 0. 29339 0. 2457 1 0. 21587  W45 1.OOOOO 0.34876 0.36494 0.10444 0.21290 0.13672 0.35857 0.21285 0. 15528 0.43385 0.45286 0.07515 0.28108 0.23881 0.22172 0.27518 0.45401 0.30548 0.07376 0.10323 0.12298 0. 14942 0.02067 O. 16186 0.07634 0. 17528 0. 36466 0.204 37 0.09553 0.29237 0.334 17 0. 1 1530 0.14 118 0.24077 0.22967  W46 0.34876 1.OOOOO 0.45207 0.08590 0.31936 0.11104 0.34162 0.27096 0.2594 1 0.32167 0.37530 -O.12852 0.40651 0.42182 0.32889 0.21295 0.24536 0.27964 0.35864 0.22296 0.29336 0. 1 1453 0.32395 0.28995 0.20902 0.17363 0.23617 6.32884 0.29745 0.30872 0.14092 -0.12446 0.36849 0..1 1190 0.46622  W47 0.36494 0.45207 1.00000 0.10076 0.26731 0.17201 0.41597 0.33337 0.17201 0.47939 0.52456 -0.13813 0.42727 0.261 17 0.44925 0.45398 0.51257 0.23659 0.20294 0.18861 0.31243 0.09087 0.17657 0.23275 0.12405 0.09273 0.24746 0.35497 0.20615 0.20951 0.11896 0.00502 0.28424 0.08259 0.28835  W48 O.10444 0.08590 0. 10076 1.00000 0.31139 0.04683 O.19401 0.09723 0.02454 0.20765 0.07224 0.16655 0.20248 0.05086 0.09919 0. 13287 0.03312 0.00027 0.21918 0.08990 0. 17412 -0.07171 -0.01311 0.03033 -0.10054 0.01762 0.05914 0.07620 -0.07745 0.00059 0.07909 0.05888 -0.06538 -0.00200 0.23097  W49 0.21290 0.31936 0.26731 0.31 139 1.00000 0.17073 0.19074 0.34102 0.21552 0.24432 0.26125 -0. 16321, 0.34300* 0. 2 2 6 9 0 0,17248 0.38273 0.21096 0.23103 0.11892 0.11131 0.19192 O.11349 0.18291 0.20315 O. 13486 0. 16727 0.08744 0.3031 1 0.23609 0. 15477 0.21656 0. 14978 0. 10217 0. 13223 0.35866  W50 0. 13672 0. 1 1 104 O. 17201 0.04683 0.17073 1.00000 O. 20643 -0.02863 0.20910 0.07995 , 0.06959  -0.13924  0: 11749 0.28404 O.26842 0.10007 O.17631 0.23153 0.10975 0.23561 0. 14010 O. 3 9 4 8 0 0.348 12 O.23424 0.40343 0.27638 0.39282 0.0871 1 0.229 18 0.20678 0.02473 0. 32019 0.32519 0.30788 0.17873  to cn  THESIS  ANALYSES  - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES  FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED  W5 1 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W1 1 W12 W13 W14 WIS W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W2 1 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 W31 W32 W33 W34 W35 W36 W37 W38 W39 W40 W4 1 W4 2 W43 W44  0. 31649 0. 182 19 0. 22 186 0. 30573 0. 26623 -0. 07507 0. 35253 0. 238 13 0. 45248 0. 32287 0. 29232 0. 31 171 0. 098 19 0. 18616 0. 10009 0. 33778 0. 13465 0. 30193 0. 10918 0. 38330 0. 27800 0. 25768 0. 30632 0. 32759 0. 42191 0. 30502 0. 28962 0. 13977 0. 15354 0. 33298 0. 40838 0. 4 1989 0. 17890 0. 38414 0. 30370 0. 18134 0. 45675 0. 23866 0.,42055 0. 27699 0. 2 1829 0.,17708 0.,33010 0.,10246  12/OB/82  PAGE  18  - 12/08/82) ELDERLY  W52 0. 1 1537 0. 23313 0. 0 9 2 3 6 0. 16505 0. 08847 -0. 0 7 5 9 5 0. 31689 0. 0 6 8 2 3 0. 24402 0. 18006 0. 19954 0. 29255 -0. 0 3 9 6 0 0. 23207 0. 23017 • 0.36105 0. 28853 0. 27177 0. 12707 0. 23266 0. 06874 0. 1 1343 0. 28902 0. 06698 0. 4 1563 0. 33372 0. 0 7 7 0 3 0. 22736 0. 25558 0. 32453 0. 23425 0. 25966 0. 26008 0. 14027 0. 26901 0. 2567 1 0. 29617 0. 18408 0. 23548 0. 13006 0. 0 8 9 6 5 0. 01761 0. 26736 0. 0 1 2 5 2  W53 0.,01567 0., 14973 0.,00502 0.,08330 -0.,00167 -0..08174 0.,0147 1 0.,08569 0.,11702 0.,02577 0. OOOOO 0.,098 16 0.,28546 0.,36626 -0,,03987 0.,24292 0., 18588 0,,29016 0.,298 16 0..05675 0.,01467 0.,20460 0., 1977 1 0., 33827 0. 165 13 0., 14757 0., 19629 0.,40023 0., 15487 0.,13967 0..21122 0,,37327 0.,28739 0..2291 1 0..22652 0..20797 0,.08622 0..20839 0,.09355 0,.477 12 0 . 13429 Q,.14071 0 . 18752 0 .27634  W54 0. 24479 0. 32818 0. 25247 0. 47779 0. 24299 -O. 06906 0. 24448 0. 261 10 0. 33736 0. 57673 0. 46265 0. 39703 0. 18671 0. 17622 0. 20325 0. 25312 0. 21933 0. 223 18 0. 16404 0. 50723 0. 39647 0. 23550 O. 25810 0. 28158 O. 18981 0. 10794 0. 21220 0. 09486 0. 33040 0. 26354 0. 25206 0. 33065 0. 22492 0. 20026 0. 17801 -0. 00374 0. 26956 0. 10791 0. 63959 0. 1561 1 0. 18672 0. 27346 0. 22162 0. 05976  W55 0.30966 0.30778 -0.01865 0.41766 0.24946 -0.21691 0. 14816 0.15249 0.25584 0.33072 0.21408 0.25875 0.09690 0.13875 0.04171 0.05506 0.25930 0.09576 0. 15956 0.39455 0.21289 0.25251 0.26849 0.18972 0.17436 0.204 12 0.19909 0.12456 0.39691 O.17092 0. 18220 0.27664 0.24047 O.15195 0.20703 0.16675 O. 16646 O. 17466 0.28378 0.16150 O.10342 O. 19254 0.33125 0. 12180  W56 -0.10764 -0.06256 -0.01439 -0.12542 -0.16275 O.16918 -0.21147 -0.24882 -0.17393 0.03993 -0.05599 -0.12358 -0.14928 -O.10153 0.01733 -0.17321 -0.1530B -0.09904 -0.24863 -0.06270 -0.03872 -0.02946 -0.03055 -0.13188 -O. 16623 -0.24130 0.0581 1 -0.30462 -0.04518 -0.26550 -0.16232 -0.10877 -0.05361 -0.10285 -0.14608 -0*. 16442 -O.16245 -0.10341 -0.10054 -0.11666 -0.11570 -0.00423 -0.21799 0.01128  W57 0.31923 0.21854 0.24522 0.28465 0.15752 -0.20081 0.41404 0.22406 0.17837 0.24654 0.32837 0.35655 0.24940 0.29855 0.23117 0.41833 0.33908 0.33414 0.30485 0.38000 0.20899 0.25865 0.31914 0.32714 0.54039 0.35893 0.05351 0.29211 0.21164 0.56403 0.38916 0.51072 0.32175 0.30793 0.25003 0.31268 0.33315 0.23947 0.39454 0.30758 0.25417 0.27027 0.23551 0.17643  W58 0.15398 0.31921 0.23357 0.23214 0.24553 0.02105 0.38503 0.39779 0.32308 0. 18023 0. 17552 0.31595 0.36640 0.39095 0.08085 0.42540 0.24768 0.31 187 0.44890 0. 19124 0.10033 0.24913 0.28253 0.48378 0.25253 0.44556 0. 16678 0.42390 0. 12143 0.33604 0.42323 0.53471 0.20572 0.37565 0.44189 0.21686 0.27527 0.33239 0.23737 0.45559 0.31603 0.22982 0.32345 0.29903  W59 0. 21529 0.22059 0. 12464 0.29549 0. 19196 -0.03781 0.33017 0.30512 0.46363 0.46595 0.39659 0.40031 0.29840 0.29626 0.22406 0. 28722 0.23676 0.40167 0. 1421 1 0.45212 0.33538 0.25626 0.24825 0.36900 0.27749 0. 18705 0.24002 0. 18605 0.32058 0.33044 0.29627 0.28440 0.06868 0.24257 0.21940 0. 13201 0.28279 0. 17807 0.44777 0.20080 0.25180 0.22412 0.31529 0.06230  W60 0.27581 0.15236 0.03378 0.34328 0.21359 •0.01396 0.10358 0. 1 1979 0.28503 0.40143 0.40209 0.28573 0. 15146 0. 16487 0.21402 0.1814 1 0. 12658 O.26385 0.15622 0.51375 0.40363 0.22774 0.29662 0.14992 0.33222 0.05696 0.24359 0.09044 0.24891 0. 14887 0.19537 0.27730 0. 14963 0. 18714 0.11795 0.19432 0.27188 0.25902 0.53433 0.25358 0.08803 0.13721 0.27137 0.09530  THESIS  ANALYSES  -  BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES  12/08/82  PAGE  19  FILE NONAME ( C R E A T I O N DATE » 1 2 / 0 8 / 8 2 ) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY  W51 W45 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W5 1 W52 W53 W54 W55 W56 W57 W58 W59 W60 W6 1 W62 W63 W64 W65 W66 W67 WS8 W69 W70 W7 1 W72 W73 W74 W75 W76 W77 W78 W79  0 . . 35857 0 .. 3 4 1 6 2 0. 4 1597 0 . , 19401 0 . .19074 0 .. 2 0 6 4 3 1 .OOOOO 0 ., 2 8 8 6 2 0 . , 23637 0 . ,4 1542 0 .. 2 6 0 4 9 - 0 . 10380 0 ., 4 4 8 0 9 0 . 38355 0 . 49728 0 ., 4 5 5 9 6 0 . 57176 0 . ,25264 0 ., 1 2 3 9 9 0. 33530 0 . 338 17 0 . 12121 0 . 20055 0 . 30124 0 . 19455 0 . 14573 0 . 344 1 1 0 . 29426 0 . 18696 0 . 38091 0 . 28273 0 . 16855 0. 30610 0. 06952 0 . 33761  W52 0 . 2 1285 0 . 27096 0 . 33337 0 . 09723 0 . 34 102 - 0 . 02863 0 . 28862 1 .OOOOO 0 . 27420 0 . 29094 0 . 27044 - 0 . 14094 0 . 38221 0 . 21989 0 . 28280 0 . 32731 0 . 33510 0 . 32667 0 . 15431 0 . 4 1260 0 . 2567 1 - 0 . 1 1817 0 . 2 1296 0 . 15564 0 . 13823 0 . 14350 0 . 0577 1 0 . 372 19 0 . 10027 0 . 16934 0 . 071 14 -o. 12265 0 . 14770 0 . 1 1510 0 . 34627  W53 0 . 15528 0 . 2594 1 0 . 17201 0 , 02454 0 . 2 1552 0 ., 2 0 9 1 0 0 . 23637 0 ., 2 7 4 2 0 1 .OOOOO 0 . ,11118 0 ., 1 7 4 7 0 - 0 . ,07068 0 . ,20822 0 . ,35273 0 ., 2 0 8 4 5 0 . . 167 1 1 0 . , 15959 0 . ,41452 0. ,17608 0 ., 0 5 9 8 5 0 . ,23636 0 . ,20502 0 . 34735 0. 32560 0 . 2 1326 0 . 21948 0 . 22914 0 . 27828 0 . ,25678 0 . ,16041 0 . ,01542 0 . 17373 0 .,43975 0 . ,26578 0 . .26196  W54 0 . 43385 0 . 32167 0 . 47939 0 . 20765 0. 24432 0. 0 7 9 9 5 0. 41542 0. , 29094 0. 11118 1 .OOOOO 0. ,47172 - 0 . ,07867 0. ,36974 0. 31922 0. ,48772 0. .44943 0. ,53564 0. 26668 0. 17525 0. 10409 0. ,07037 0 . , 18795 0 . 08881 0 . 28625 0 . 10131 0 ., 0 8 7 8 0 0 . 23233 0 . 34962 0 . 18 117 0 . 16102 0 . 33548 0. 02190 0 . 16644 0 . 21817 0 . 24191  W55 0.,45286 0., 37530 0.,52456 0..07224 0..26125 0..06959 0,.26049 0..27044 0,. 17470 0..47172 1,.00000 -0..05662 0.. 19182 0..22399 0..35926 0..40763 0..48739 0..21751 0..14310 0.,02353 0..17650 0..27922 0..04807 0..28701 0.,09380 0..15227 6.,21417 0..27834 0..10708 0..24678 0..26647 0..06250 0..07066 0..05851 0.. 15303  W56 -0. 0 7 5 1 5 -0. 12852 -0. 13813 0. 16655 -0. 16321 -0. 13924 -0. 10380 -0. 14094 -0. 0 7 0 6 8 -0. 07867 -0. 0 5 6 6 2 1. OOOOO -0. 17931 -0. 19365 -0. 23182 -0. 0 9 5 5 2 -0. 0454 1 -0. 19855 0. 0 2 5 5 0 -0. 23373 -0. 19334 -0. 10620 -0. 24663 -0. 20538 -0. 16242 -0. 1 1032 -0. 1 1685 -0. 18648 -o.44549 -0. 25779 -0. 0 4 3 0 9 0. 0 6 1 6 9 -0. 33972 -0.•26923 -o, 13618  W57 0. 28108 0. 40651 0. 42727 0. 20248 0. 34300 0. 1 1749 0. 44809 0. 38221 0. 20822 0. 36974 0. 19182 -0. 17931 1 .OOOOO 0. 4431 1 0. 40062 0. 40627 0. 46418 0. 27808 0. 26056 0. 42595 0. 36307 0. 06178 0. 4 1457 0. 32333 0. 23361 0. 19206 0. 31425 0. 57886 0. 21505 0. 20593 0. 16421 -o.07212 0. 39884 0. 30104 0. 50918  W58 0. 23881 0. 42182 0. 26117 0. 0 5 0 8 6 0. 2 2 6 9 0 0. 28404 0. 38355 0. 21989 0. 35273 0. 31922 0. 22399 - 0 . 19365 0. 4431 1 1. OOOOO 0. 38692 0. 27076 0. 36267 0. 40526 0. 2 2 7 4 0 0. 33433 0. 33959 0. 30631 0. 49161 0. 41651 0. 2 2 4 6 0 0. 27557 0. 36679 0. 35543 0. 28589 0. 26049 0. 1 1901 0. 0 6 4 8 2 0. 49836 0. 27984 0. 37857  W59 0. 22172 0. 32889 0. 44925 0. 0 9 9 1 9 0. 17248 0. 26842 0. 49728 0. 2 8 2 8 0 0. 20845 0. 48772 0. 35926 -0. 23182. 0. 40062 0. 38692 1 iOOOOO 0. 521 17 0. 53309 0. 30812 0. 18470 0. 21715 0. 24094 0. 29607 0. 2 1 7 9 0 0. 28432 0. 29936 0. 25097 0. 3 8 3 3 0 0. 33837 0. 31738 0. 32788 0. 26247 0. 0 9 7 6 3 0. 25169 0. 2 3 6 0 0 0. 2 2 1 2 0  W60 0..27518 0..21295 0..45398 0.. 13287 0.. 38273 0..100O7 0,.45596 0..32731 0,. 1671 1 0..44943 0..40763 -0..09552 o:140627 0..27076 0..521 17 i . OOOOO 0..59444 0.,16601 0., 24663 0. 07014 0..22388 0.,25781 0. 17 102 0. 0 9 4 5 9 0. 1 1845 0. 20384 0. 24003 0. 33378 0. 25685 0. 20905 0. 31562 0. 19509 0. 12481 0. 16304 0. 27436  to Cs  Ul  T H E U S - A N A L Y S E S  - 8RtAKOOV/N O F VARIABLES  12/08/82  W  wt wo U l  w J  U WA** L/C W3 L/C  wo W7  W8 WQ  uw ii yn W W 1 1 11  w W1 1o Z u i i « 1 J  W14 W15 W16  W 17 U10 W 1 o  19 WOO V2 1 W  woo  W^ ^ WOT  wA J W2 4  W2 5  woe * o y 27 WO ft w* o w  WOQ w jy W3 1 woo  ™* 3 U 1 A  6  cl.  1  3913t  01 . 2 6 3 0 3  0 .30594 0 .17186 0 .05956  0 .2744 1 0 .3 1205 0 -40012 0 .43812 0 .38330  0 .36672 0 .27020 0 .36883 0 .22200 0 .03497  0 .39507 0 .23074  0 .28223 0 .27 164 0 . 3 3 3 10 0 .06753 0 .31397 0 .24058  0 .23952 0 . 2 5 4 19 0 .23521 0 .21201 0 .21658 0..23756 0..50209 0. 27360 0. 22051 0 . 42 153 0. 36722 0 . 29 106 0. 28470 0 . 3 1 175 0. 19066 0. 36072 0. 27458  WJJ  W34 L/TC " J J  0 . 28 136 0 . 2 6 4 15  "JO WT7 wO /  0 . 26 177 0. 23358  W38 wjy  W40 yj A  *j  Llvl O  W*4 J  W4  4  O . i0 7 2 0 4  0. 46155 0. 22236 0. 16468 0. 17724  o.:3 6 4 3 9  0.  15010  W63  C1. 1 4 7 0 3 C1. 2 7 4 9 4  0 '. 1 3 3 18 0 .43203 . 0 .29698 - 0 . 1 4 2 13  0. 25838 0. 30864 0. 26062  WOO  "  W  C>. 1 9 5 8 1 C) . 2 6 6 9 9 C1. 1 1 8 0 9 C1. 1 5 0 7 8  0' . 0 9 9 5 6  0 .27463 0,.35918 0..20036 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.  06722 29397 2 9 7 12 4 1455 12864  0. 25330 0. 19076 0. 40586 0 . 3 6 2 19 0. 20109 0. 27868 0 . 3 5 6 15 0. 18200 0. 20502 0. 23868 0. 21326 OJ07437 0. 24745 0 . 18 1 3 2 0. 21528 0.:22548 O.l 38952 0 . 14744  o.:2 7 6 7 6  W64  C> . 0 8 4 16 01.06059 0 '.  12283 0 . 1325 1 0 . 17 1 6 2  0  o  -o . 0 9 7 o  0. 30540 0. 12815 0. 25957 0 . 1585 1 0 . 13 1 8 6 0. 14349 0. 32082 0. 17803 0. 08686 0 . 1 152 1 0. 24547 0. 01277 0 . ' 05 147  . ** J O  50 O /  o 1 7 4 1*1 o• i ' i j j o • (i C3Oa «i /o• o • 111 lt4o•*Ao<oc O/o  • • i\J*a ToAaa o H77Q 1 0 orvn7c • i o • ilcbo^ooo2  o.  17fi*J"?  0 Rftl 4  0 .12401 0 .17664 0 .08355  0. 16779 0. 02552 0. 15425 0. 12887  10P4 n iyoi o • Ofi \J\>4<41J 1I  \j . * H j y ^ o * 11 0-t ti"\R IU3 o C\7CA 1 • \J i o ** /  0 . 1 1 9 19 0 . 0 5 5 16 0 .11297 0 .09630 0 .24435 0 .19075 0 . 18447 0 .238 1 7  -0 .02926 0 .08154 0,. 1 3 0 6 0 0. 19976 0. 2 1368  W65  0 .  o  o.  J IDS  ^DUJ 1 OS 1 RQ t CifK 1ATA V/O *1 i* A om u jryi  r\ C "TOO \J . A uo / o2 n \j. U / / 3 3 18738 0 o, o 7 o o o < ' Joz 0 0.4/17Q o 4 fine; o i 10*17 l U g /  o  AO OD CA J1 V U  O O A2 1 u. AU234  0  u. 33529  \j. O C K A A 10 1^7 0 • *. 1 3 I 0 :OR O 1 o  0 . : jfin^Q 0 . 1 7Q 1 0  o.:29654  \J. i b b / 2  o n  1 f!0fi7 * v/*© / t . V;\*\A J * » JOoC O ' \J . 14 m c e Ct •• U J 3 3 V  O . i0 0 6 7 9  r> '> O A r t l  0.  0 . 11 7 7 3 7  14888  0.17056 0.10150 0.07405 0. 10257 0.04408 -0.10833 0.25598 0. 22339 0. 10522 0.07811 0. 12491 0. 17817 0. 16751 0.30309 -0.03195 0.26927 0.29103 0.27076 0. 13151 0. 12783 0. 13524 -0.05799 0. 14342 0.25358 0.32910 0.40957 0.04704 0. 2 2 7 5 0 0.06667 0.33508 0.20450 0.33478 0. 26409 0.35911 0.24253 0. 18783 0.30563 0.22545 0. 161 10 0.27615 0. 14558 0. 12445 0.20755 0. 19749  W66 0.06873 0.04766 -0.02517 0.20354 0.2732 1 0.00784 -0.06366 0.07667 0.28908 0. 12710 0.09622 0.15607 0.24409 0.04025 -0.16500 0.09445 0.11420 0.15370 0.16557 0.05556 0. 1 1575 0. 10689 0.15863 0. 26962 -0.04594 0. 14604 0. 19952 0. 15652 0. 10876 -0.04707 0.04672 0. 14454 0.04463 0*. 0 2 9 7 2 0.23971 -0.07789 0.01901 0. 14787 0.21735 0.24516 0.20236 0.20242 0.1 1448 0.34015  W67 0.13034 0. 19673 0. 19429 0.06147 0. 16610 -0.02348 0.32331 0. 18299 0.22378 0.03127 0.09106 0.24041 0.34778 0.37471 0.02954 0.41846 0.32447 0.34036 0.19531 0.08169 0.01074 0.24631 0.06514 0.50277 0.16509 0.35719 0.00011 0.48658 0.03890 0.45977 0.48544 0.48947 0. 14410 0.25131 0.27740 0.37536 0.28341 0.30466 0.07273 0.38652 0.34857 0.10176 0.23197 0.39315  PAGE  W68 0. 2 6 8 9 0 0.30827 0.24 186 0.21369 0.22146 -0.29997 0.23281 0.21191 0.34580 0. 12947 0.2 1466 0.19560 0.25908 0.29981 -0.02345 0.16764 0.29802 0.28285 0.28140 0.14068 0.14378 0.40515 0.04187 0.44651 0.06082 0.26737 0.13332 0.30954 0. 18435 0.34713 0.45375 0.42929 0.38884 0.31975 0.30036 0. 1 1647 0.21772 0.20811 0. 18050 0.29399 0.32351 0.41251 0.26130 0.23325  20  W69 0.07356 0.03331 0.13090 0. 12568 0.06185 -0.11455 0.09326 0.07460 0. 12969 0.03135 0.08845 0. 12229 0.35012 0.24280 0.03533 0.15196 0.20068 0.17545 0.1049 1 0.12322 0.03624 0.25789 0.04494 0.42834 0.04076 0.25492 0. 147 10 0.32751 0. 13313 0. 18866 0.20017 0. 13159 0.09426 0.10534 0.09324 0.26504 -0.01655 0.26519 0.06575 0.27764 0.37067 0.26683 0.28574 0.30329  W70 0.07038 0.09521 0.08644 0 . 14798 0 . 14393 -0.08362 0 . 18954 0.15202 0. 21274 0.01503 0.10473 O,10352 0.231.21 0.22509 0.02546 0.12484 0.09741 0.18696 0.08446 0.10685 0 . 2 7 7 17  0.31780 0.10674 0.41600 -0.01792 0. 1 3 8 3 5 0 . 15700 0. 27950 0. 33529 0.10499 0. 25670 0.21336  0.08152 0.20957  0.22660 0 . 2 1 143 0. 1 1 3 2 8  0 . 18663 0.08713 0. 1 9 4 9 4 0.24382 0 . 19246 0.31934 0.10524  M %  THESIS  ANALYSES  - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES  FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED  W6 t W4 5 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W5 1 W52 W53 W54  W55 W56 W57 W58 W59 W60 W61 W62 WS3 W64 W65 W66 W67 W68 W69  W70 W71 W72 W73 W74 W75 W76 W77 W78 W79  0 .45401 0 . 24536 0 .51257 0 .03312 0 .21096 0 .17631 0 .57176 0..33510 0,. 15959 0,.53564 0,. 48739 -0..04541 0..464 18 0.,36267 0..53309 0,.59444 1,.00000 0,, 3228 1 0..18701 0.. 26939 0.. 19254 0. 13919 0. 13945 0. 24977 0. 16919 0. 18507 0. 274 14 0. 33573 0. 17 169 0. 33355 0. 33565 0. 14752 0. 25862 0. 0 8 8 2 9 0. 23518  12/0S/82  PAGE  21  « 12/08/82) ELDERLY  W62 0 .30548 0 .27964 0..23659 0..00027 0..23103 0 .23153 0.. 25264 0..32667 0.. 4 1452 0.. 26668 0..21751 -0.. 19855 0..27808 0.,40526 0.,308 12 0.,16601 0. 32281 1. OOOOO 0. 24759 0. 26984 0. 07 135 0. 18594 0. 3 6 8 0 0 0. 29765 0. 2 1 7 3 0 0. 27488 0. 27728 0. 4 1733 0. 27 137 0. 25607 0. 19506 0. 0 8 6 1 0 0. 46447 0. 3 5 5 7 0 0. 35125  W63 0.,07376 0.,35864 0.,20294 0.,21918 0., 1 1892 0..10975 0.. 12399 0., 1543 1 0., 17608 0. 17525 0. 143 10 0. 0 2 5 5 0 0. 26056 0. 2 2 7 4 0 0. 18470 0. 24663 0. 18701 0. 24759 1 .OOOOO 0. 08 172 0. 25023 0. 0024 5 0. 27974 0. 14870 0. 14283 0. 0 9 3 1 3 0. 082 13 0. 22891 0. 29998 0. 05894 0. 14773 -0. 0 9 8 5 5 0. 25472 -0. 01 140 0. 2283 1  W64 0 .10323 0 .22296 0 . 18861 0 .08990 0 .11131 0 .23561 0 . 33530 0 .41260 0 .05985 0,.10409 0,.02353 -0,.23373 0,.42595 0,.33433 0,.2 17 15 0,.07014 0,.26939 0..26984 0..08172 1. OOOOO 0.,52095 -0. 07029 0. 40206 0. 14604 0. 26664 0. 16680 0. 18530 0. 25415 0. 21022 0. 23737 -0. 07504 -0. 03496 0. 40086 0. 14671 0. 33903  W65 0. 12298 0.29336 0.31243 0. 174 12 0. 19192 0.14010 0.33817 0.25671 0.23636 0.07037 0. 17650 -0.19334 0.36307 0.33959 0.24094 0.22388 0.19254 0.07135 0.25023 0.52095 1.OOOOO 0. 14931 0.35328 0.12439 0. 15861 0.16226 0.14127 0.23471 0.35483 O.14852 -0.07256 0.04484 0.43027 0.07166 0.35648  W66 0. 14942 0. 1 1453 0.09087 -0.07171 0. 1 1349 0.39480 0. 12121 -0.118 17 0.20502 0.18795 0.27922 -0.10620 0.06178 0.30631 0.29607 0.25781 0. 13919 0.18594 0.00245 -0.07029 0.1493 1 1.OOOOO 0.22276 0.24343 0.14357 0.15490 0.26145  6.13194 0.13137 0.20217 0.07464 0.31234 0. 1809 1 0.-30584 0.18368  t  W67 0.02067 0.32395 0. 17657 -0.01311 O. 18291 0.34812 0.20055 0.21296 0.34735 0.08881 0.04807 -0.24663 0.4 1457 0.49161 0.21790 0.17102 0.13945 0.36800 0.27974 0.40206 0.35328 0.22276 1.OOOOO 0.41463 0.31242 0.32067 0.32549 0.22909 0.46090 0.12606 -0.07826 0.02447 0.62009 0.32383 0.28763  W68 O. 16186 0.28995 0.23275 0.03033 0.20315 0.23424 0.30124 0. 15564 0.32560 0.28625 0.28701 -0.20538 0.32333 0.41651 0.28432 0.09459 0.24977 0.29765 0.14870 0.14604 0.12439 0.24343 0.41463 1.00000 0.18261 0.31619 0.34301 0.32252 0.24943 0.25324 0.14722 0.08866 0.35369 0.32467 0.26742  W69 0.07634 O.20902 0.12405 -0.10054 O.13486 0.40343 0.19455 0. 13823 0.21326 0.10131 0.09380 -0.16242 0.23361 0.22460 0:29936 0. 1 1845 0. 16919 0.21730 0. 14283 0.26664 0.15861 0.14357 0.31242 0.18261 1.00000 0.40346 0.36411 0.15780 0.37502 -0.02554 0.09781 0.22421 0.35840 0.30766 0.09567  W70 0. 17528 0. 17363 0.09273 0.01762 0. 16727 0.27638 0.14573 0.14350 0.2 1948 0.08780 O.15227 -0.11032 0'. 19206 0.27557 0.25097 0.20384 0.18507 0.27488 0.09313 0.16680 0.16226 0.15490 O.32067 0.31619 0.40346 1.OOOOO 0. 4996 1 O. 22 1 14 O. 297 10 0.08165 0.006 1 8 0. 2602 1 0. 29249 0.24003 0.06993  to -J  THESIS  ANALYSES  -  BREAKDOWN OF V A R I A B L E S  FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED  W7 1 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W1 1 W12 W13 W14 W 15 W 16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W2 1 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 W3 1 W32 W33 W34 W35 W36 W37 W38 W39 W40 W4 1 W4 2 W43 W44  0 . 14 117 0 . 2204 1 0 . 14264 0 . 35496 0 . 20400 0 . 01037 0 . 28356 0 . 25725 0 . 3401 1 0 . 2 14 18 0 . 25616 0 . 26659 0 . 32784 0 . 24976 0. 04395 0 . 22277 0 . 201 19 0 . 30987 0 . 27699 0 . 27545 0 . 21266 0 . 34984 0 . 22732 0 . 4 1649 0 . 16607 0 . 2 1407 0 . 15244 0 . 25334 0 . 26506 0 . 24581 0 . 36261 0 . , 33426 0 . .07768 0 . .22823 0 . .20635 0 .. 2 0 5 1 5 0 . .14024 0 ., 1 6 8 1 5 0 . ,10897 0 ., 2 4 6 0 0 0. . 3 9 4 3 6 0 .24619 0 .38136 0 .20259  12/08/82  PAGE  22  * 12/08/82) ELDERLY  W72 0 . 26828 0 . 25686 0 . 24477 0 . 24626 0 . 1626 1 - 0 . 23203 0 . 25447 0 . 2 1353 0 . 30656 0 . 18701 0 . 18813 0 . 2 1995 0 . 24354 0 . 19225 0 . 10255 0 . 25557 0 . 35295 0 . ,34541 0 . 26314 0 . ,29576 0 . 16252' 0 . 2 1 174 0 . 276 10 0 . 31521 0 . 39742 0 . 2 1 120 0 . 1 1522 0 . 22289 0 . 26859 0 . 34318 0 . 23528 0 . 37951 0 . 29 103 0 . 1968 1 0 . 167 19 0 . ,1749 1 0 . , 22456 0 . , 29349 0 . ,35664 0. ,24201 0. .13 146 0. . 2 9 0 7 0 0. . 12240 0, . 1 0 4 8 3  W73 0 . 1 1362 0 . 18504 0 . 04025 0 . 1273 1 0 . 14204 - 0 . 05822 0 . 16739 0 . 15635 0 . 18635 0 . 10825 0 . 09127 0 . 15459 0 . 23948 0 . ,28296 0 . 156 19 0 .. 1 7 3 0 0 0 . 3094 1 0 .. 3 3 2 4 0 0 . ,19018 0 . , 19337 0. ,09285 0 ., 0 8 5 1 0 0 . .05773 0 . 38 164 0 . , 12893 0 . , 16995 0 . ,09623 0 . 31405 0 . , 15539 0 . , 22772 0 . ,20343 0 . ,26297 0. ,12733 0 . ,15137 0 ., 0 9 7 6 5 0, ,34 176 0. .19064 0, .27808 0 .22499 0 .30413 0 .18930 0 .20689 0 .27334 0 .09656  W74 0 . 27785 O. 1 1078 0 . 07314 0 . 13026 0 . 3037 1 - 0 . 07883 0 . 24802 0. 22890 0. 30250 0 . 20932 0. 07973 0 . 25191 0. 04638 0 . ,08863 0 . .19686 0 . 2 1 165 0. 03239 0 . 13100 0 . 24363 0 . 20929 0 . 03397 0 . 18876 0 . 26466 0 . 19205 0 . 22458 0 . 27462 0 . 30781 0 . 10539 0 . 13266 0 . 17 129 0 . , 20402 0 . 25833 0 . ,10934 0 . 19573 0 .. 3 3 2 9 9 0 . ,12597 0 , .20621 0 , , 1 1365 0, . 1 4 2 9 5 0, . 2 3 3 1 7 0 .09946 0 .08390 0, . 2 2 4 7 9 -0, .00599  W75 0.20977 O.16348 0.17903 0.45497 0.20994 0.04586 0.03502 0.08249 0.22680 0.32746 0.20065 0.23110 0.04351 0.12258 0.10912 -0.07556 -0.03443 -0.06154 0.11798 0.30849 O.17322 O.12724 0.19313 0 . 1 1540 0 . 191 18 0.03237 0.24330 -0.02359 0.29685 0 . 1 1448 0.15821 0.05376 0.10735 0 . 0 4 148 -0.01829 0.03029 0.15048 0.15884 0.44879 0.16854 0 . 1 1472 0.20448 0.04444 -0.01979  W76 0.06200 -0.02592 -0.05301 0.05285 0.10258 -0.02264 -0.13193 -0.02537 0.03357 0.0453 1 -0.05110 -0.01653 0.07334 0.07551 -O.10589 - O . 17948 - 0 . 18528 -0.03668 -0.07128 0.02494 O.10468 -0.00243 0.04984 0.09759 -0.16701 -0.00662 0.16750 0.06127 0.05367 -0.24918 -0.05224 -0.05275 -0.02587 0.02800 0. 05732 -0.05539 -0.05900 -0.00564 0.07148 0.07635 0.12508 0.15764 0.07480 0 . 16929  W77 0.12934 O.13499 0.19253 0.12163 0.17466 - 0 . 17213 0.39770 0.28494 0.11077 0.02137 0.00000 0.19379 0.44287 0.42193 0.04631 0.32724 0.31903 0.33196 0.32245 0.07404 0.07267 0.18385 0.18708 0.47227 0.22332 0.42225 0.09972 0.55582 0.13143 0.32621 0.36451 0.40904 0.24332 0.37003 0.33376 0.40066 0.19194 0.34344 0.13430 0.40100 0.35424 0.19274 0.30609 0.29339  W78 -0.00156 0.08071 0.06459 0.32670 0.07300 -0.09263 0.17777 0 . 1 4 14 1 0.23010 0.10426 0 . 15386 0.26765 0.37103 0.33545 -0.0697 1 0.21883 0.21384 0.25167 0.28660 0.25778 O . 19249 0.41622 0.13944 O . 1947 1 0 . 16621 0.22045 0.14353 0.30872 O.22646 0.13462 0.39200 0.24330 0.09515 0.06725 0.15027 0.11057 0.07269 0.36757 0.26049 0.25827 0.45902 0.21180 0.21077 0.24571  W79 0.25263 0.10602 0.15977 0.14270 0.09135 -0.11700 0.26620 0.08824 0.22231 0.20842 0.04219 0.26370 0.1174 1 0.17202 0.20373 0.38837 0.38818 0.27990 0.35013 0.21899 -0.O1888 O.16524 0.2731 1 0.28305 0.51076 0.37737 0.16152 0.22046 0.00494 0.33290 0.26509 0.45631 0.28937 0.22426 O . 194 16 0.25088 0.33146 0.37489 0.23100 0.30615 0 . 2 9 1 19 0.22049 0.18035 0.21587  THESIS  ANALYSES  - BREAKDOWN OF  VARIABLES  FILE NONAME SUBFILE YOUNG  (CREATION DATE MIDAGED  * 12/08/82) ELDERLY  W7I W45 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W5 1 W52 W53 W54 W55 W56 W57 W58 W59  W60 WG 1 W62 WG3  W64 W65 W66 W67 W68 W69 W70 W7 1 W72 W73 W74 W75 W76 W77 W78 W79  0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. -0. 0. 0. 0. 0.  36466 2 3 6 17 24746 0 5 9 14 08744  39282 344 1 1 0577 1 22914  23233 2 14 17  1 1685 3 1425 36679  38330 24003 0 . 2 7 4 14 0. 27728  0 . 082 1 3 0. 18530 0 . 14 1 2 7 0 . 26 145 0. • 2549 0. 34301 0. 364 1 1 0..4996 1 1, OOOOO 0..27141 0.. 2 5 7 0 3 0.. 2 2 7 9 8 0.. 14344 0,. 1 9 5 9 4  0 . 32440 0.. 3 2 8 9 4 0 .13502  W72 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. -0. 0. 0. 0. 0.  20437 32884 35497 07620 303 1 1 087 1 1 29426 3 7 2 19 27828 34962 27834  18648 57886 35543 33837 33378 0. 33573 0. 4 1733 0.. 2289 1 0 . 2 5 4 15 0. 2347 1 0 . 13 1 9 4 0. 22909 0. 32252 0.. 15780 0 . . 2 2 1 14 0., 2 7 1 4 1 1. .00000  0.. 2 3 6 4 9 0.. 1 7 7 7 0 0.. 12949  - 0 .. 1 1 8 1 9 0.. 3 2 9 8 6 0 .25 150 0 .55077  W73 0. 09553 0. 29745 0. 20615 -0. 07745 0. 23609 0 . 2 2 9 18 0. 18696 0. 10027 0. 25678 0 . 18 1 1 7 0. 10708 -0. 44549 0. 2 1505 0. 28589 0. 3 1738 0. 25685 0 . 17 1 6 9 0 . ,27137 0., 2 9 9 9 8 0.,21022 0. 35483 0 . 13 1 3 7 0. 46090 0. 24943 0. 37502 0 . , 2 9 7 10 0,, 2 5 7 0 3 0,, 2 3 6 4 9 1, ,OOOOO 0 , , 1 1 2 11 0,. 0 5 2 0 0 0,, 1 3 0 7 8 0,. 5 5 2 7 2 0,. 2 5 2 6 1 0,. 2 1489  12/08/32  W74 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.  29237 30872 20951 00059 15477 20678 38091 0. 16934 0 . 1604 1 0. 16102 0. 24678 -0. 25779 0. 20593 0. 26049 0. 0. 0, 0.  32788 20905  33355  25607 0. 05894 O. 2 3 7 3 7 0, 14852 0., 20217 0. 12606 0. 25324 - 0 ,, 0 2 5 5 4 0., 0 8 1 6 5 0, 22798  0,. 17770 0 , 1 1 2 11 1.. OOOOO 0,, 20997 0,. 0 0 7 5 9 0,. 1 9 0 2 8 0,. 1 1 6 4 8 0,. 3 2 2 8 3  W75 0. 334 17 0. 14092 0. 1 1896 0. 0 7 9 0 9 0. 21656 0. 0 2 4 7 3 0. 28273 0. 071 14 0. 0 1 5 4 2 0. 33548 0.,26647 0.,04309 0., 1642 1 0., 1 1901 0., 26247 0., 3 1562 0., 33565 0.,19506 0., 14773 0.,07504 •0.,07256 0.,07464 0.,07826 0.. 14722 0.,09781 0..006 18 0., 14344 0..12949 0 .05200 0..20997 1..00000 0,.09305 •0 .05307 0,.19862 0 .10086  W76 0. 1 1530 -0. 12446 0. 0 0 5 0 2 0. 05888 0., 14978 0.,32019 0., 16855 -0. , 12265 0., 17373 0.,02190 0.,06250 0.,06169 -0. ,07212 0..06482 0.,09763 0 .19509 0 .14752 0..08610 -0. .09855 -0. .03496 0..04484 0,.31234 0.,02447 0,.08866 0,, 2242 1 0,.2602 1 0,.19594 -0, . 1 1819 0 .13078 0,.00759 0,.09305 1 .OOOOO 0 .06652 0.O2856 -o, .04519  W77 0. 14 118 0. 36849 0. 28424 -0. 0 6 5 3 8 0., 10217 0. 32519 0.,30610 0., 14770 0.,43975 0.. 16644 0.,07066 -0. ,33972 0.. 39884 0.,49836 0. 25169 0., 1248 1 0., 25862 0.,46447 0.,25472 0..40086 0..43027 0.,18091 0..62009 0.,35369 0..35840 0..29249 0..32440 0..32986 0..55272 0..19028 -0. .05307 0..06652 1,.00000 0,.36989 0..34570  PAGE  W78 0. 24077 0. 1 1 190 0. 0 8 2 5 9 -0. 0 0 2 0 0 0. 13223 0. 30788 0. 0 6 9 5 2 0. 1 1510 0. 26578 0. 21817 0. 05851 -0. 26923 0. 30104 0. 27984 0. 2 3 6 0 0 0. 16304 0. 0 8 8 2 9 0. 3 5 5 7 0 -0. 01 140 0. 1467 1 0. 07 166 0. 30584 0. 32383 0. 32467 0. 30766 0. 24003 0. 32894 0. 2 5 1 5 0 0. 25261 0. 1 1648 0. 19862 0. 0 2 8 5 6 0. 36989 1. OOOOO 0. 26599  23  W79 0. 22967 0. 46622 0. 28835 0. 23097 0. 35866 0. 17873 0. 3376 1 0. 34627 0..26196 0.,24191 0., 15303 -0. . 13618 0., 50918 0., 37857 O.,22 120 0,, 27436 0.,23518 0.,35125 0. 22831 0.,33903 0. 35648 0. 18368 0. 28763 0.. 26742 0.,09567 0.,06993 0., 13502 0..55077 0.. 2 1489 0..32283 0.,10086 -0. .04519 0.,34570 0.. 26599 1. OOOOO -  THESIS  ANALYSES  - BREAKDOWN OF  VARIABLES  FILE NONAME SUBFILE YOUNG  (CREATION DATE MIDAGED  -  VARIMAX  ROTATED FACTOR  FACTOR  *WW21 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W1 1 W12 W13 W 14 W15 W 16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W2 1 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 W3 1 W32 W33 W34 W35 W36 W37 W38 W39 W40 W4 1  Ordering  1  0 .32368 0 . 36057. 0 .14 205 0 .66270 0 .35855 -0 .05173 0 16012 0 .22948 0 .47569 0 .65947 0..7 1242 0..48578 0 .223 14 0 .16 16 1 0 .24090 0..04496 0.. 1 1744 0..2149 1 0.,10743 0.. 75297 0..65360 0. 27222 0., 27252 0.. 16246 0.. 197 18 -o..01601 0.,20663 -0. 0 2 7 3 2 0. 55259 0., 15922 0. 1 1724 0. 15092 0. 0 9 8 0 5 0. 14930 0. 0 7 9 9 8 0. 0 1 7 4 3 0. 274 18 0. 04984 0. 68229 -0. 03 153 0. 0982 1  f*/uS/S2  12/08/82) ELDERLY  MATRIX  FACTOR  2  -0..00502 0,.11353 0..097 1 1 0..17053 0,.10523 -0,.17126 0..06608 0,.20318 0..20591 -0. ,04673 0..08067 0., 12656 0..64397 0. 47156 -0.. 24996 0.. 1 1540 0.,30635 0.,39965 0. 25452 0. 0 7 7 3 5 0. 15850 0. 4 1513 -0. 03374 0. 62495 -0. 15103 0. 23388 0. 15836 0. 4962 1 0. 17992 0. 14946 0. 36644 0. 35175 0. 14490 0. 25288 0. 20814 0. 24 103 -0. 0 1 5 2 5 0. 37606 0.0 9 3 8 9 0. 4 2 209 0. 52608  of variables  FACTOR  3  0,.09930 0.. 272 12 0 .45 119 0,,06666 0,,14071 -0, .00416 0,.74979 0,,52896 0., 2484 1 0.,09722 0,, 176 18 0.,32282 0..12380 0., 42734 0.,34762 0,,70572 0,,43284 0,.27624 0,,39309 0. 10420 0.,03578 0. 23246 0. 24208 0..25056 0. 46707 0.,57506 -0. ,03744 0. 46743 0. 0 3 7 7 5 0. 62151 0.,47995 0.,4223 1 0. 19644 0. 44204 0. 432 17 0. 4 1705 0. 46539 0. 107 14 0. 01 100 0. 1862.1 0. 157 17  corresponds  FACTOR  4  FACTOR  0 .30320 0 .05335 -0 .03205 0 .03 1 12 -0, .09657 -o, .21530 0,.04898 -0, .09061 -0, .01545 0,.09714 * -0. 0 7 3 3 2 0,. 12 196 -0, .09279 0.,05125 0.. 16579 0,.21394 0,, 26473 0. 2 1732 0, 12049 0..15091 -O., 1274 1 -0. 0 2 3 9 0 0. 19839 0. 10428 0. 54421 0. 17733 0.,08773 0, 01626 -0. 04994 0. 38596 0. 2 1638 0. 44921 0. 36622 0. 0 9 1 8 2 -0. 034 12 0. 18142 0. 2 1654 0. 42791 0. 257 1 1 0. 37512 0. 0 6 8 0 3  to l i s t  5  0 . 18316 -0 .00867 0 .02570 0 .06271 0 .40220 0 .21236 0 .05150 0,. 17931 0 .22249 0 .108 10 -0 .16819 0,.15556 -0 .08895 0,.02446 -0 .01047 0,. 16284 -0, .14665 -0, .14466 0..23327 -0. .04606 -0. .09694 0..07875 0..50004 0.,07596 0..06889 0.,32793 0.,48282 0.,1054 1 0., 15697 -0. , 1834 1 -0. 01 107 0.,06879 0..08896 0., 15809 0.,56082 0. 04008 0. 18825 -0. 04258 0. 09892 0. 28582 0. 14840  i n Table I I I .  PAGE  28  THESIS A'tiALSSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES  12/08/82  FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE • 12/08/82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY  FACTOR W42 W43 W44 W45 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W5 1 W52 W53 W54 W55 W5G W57 W58 W59 W60 W6 1 W62 W63 W64 WS5 W66 W6 7 W68 W69 W70 W7 1 W72 W73 W74 W75 W76 W77 W7 8 W79  1  0. 25984 0. 3 1773 -0. 14001 0. 47747 0. 09578 0. 49487 0. 1 34 1 1 0. 16666 0. 05 147 0. 42257 0. 22092 -0. 05791 0. 70949 0. 49470 -0. 0248 1 0. 32235 0. 13026 0. 57 167 0. 58628 0. 60837 0. 17093 0. 0664 1 0. 01 155 -0. 00152 0. 13 177 -0,.09472 0 . 1967 1 0..05361 0 .15707 0 .31254 0 .29578 0 .09795 0 . 17437 0 . 48967 0 .06473 -0 .07127 0 .19033 0 .04930  FACTOR  2  0. 42454 0. 31919 0. 50687 0. 06200 0. 19783 0. 10377 -0. 16352 0. 16249 0. 52019 0. 1 1825 -0. 04925 0. 47542 0. 09631 0. 10865 -0. 23782 0. 2 1088 0. 45453 0. 28007 0. 1 1349 0. 1 1439 0. 40425 0..10037 0, 14669 0,,21345 0.. 44444 0 .58926 0 .52028 0 .60517 0 .52959 0 .51256 0 .23753 0 .48777 0 .02422 -0 .00104 0 .31567 0 .60739 o .562 19 0 .15450  FACTOR  3  -0. 065 1 1 0. 28682 -0. 1055 1 0. 14865 0. 37875 0. 269G5 -0. 07090 -0. 08032 0. 06804 0. 27230 0. 37020 0. 04675 0. 10160 -0. 01953 -0. 28691 0. 40889 0. 396 18 0. 19554 -0. 05208 0. 18638 0. 23709 0. 20050 0..51963 0,, 3 1647 -0..22300 0..41338 0 .1936G 0 .04389 0 .07470 0 . 17697 0 . 2 1378 0 .16454 0 .22908 -0 . 1474 1 -0 .38528 0 .40866 0 .080G0 0 .26745  FACTOR  4  0. 20433 0. 00925 0. 25434 . 0. 16282 0. 504 28 0. 33384 0. 4 19 18 0. 58?67 -0. 05484 0. 32'870 0. 42253 0. 33720 0. 23449 0. 28577 -0. 03219 0. 52916 0. 23635 0. 17359 0. 4 1302 0. 24505 0. 17877 0. 36600 0. 23401 0.,4 1798 0..04465 0..22345 0..17 17 1 0 .07199 -0 .03964 -0 .03447 0 .49639 0 .22997 0 . 1643 1 0 . 17875 -0 .03728 0 .22548 0 .05649 0 .66820  FACTOR  5  -0. 04902 0. 17451 0. 16983 0. 47339 0. 20509 0. 08890 -0. 01616 0. 09503 0. 34029 0. 30738 0. 04 168 0. 2 1003 0. 05938 6.25529 0. 00176 -0. 06455 0. 29130 0. 09578 0.. 12924 0.,30152 0.. 25688 0.,00661 0..03212 0 .04413 0 .41089 -0 .01986 0 .05688 -0 .02383 0 .08526 0 . 16747 -0 .056 1 1 -0 .08450 0 .521 1 1 0 . 19881 0 .35156 0 .08948 -0 .00344 0 . 16239  PAGE  APPENDIX  D  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE STUDY I I I  TABLES  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES NOVEL VS. ACQUISITION  CHARACTER  WISE  WISE - CONTROL  SHREWD  SHREWD-CONTROL  ITEMS - A L L CHARACTERS  SOURCE  SS  DF  MS  S(Within)  16. 618  37  .449  I t e m Type I t e m Type X S ( W i t h i i ^ )  18. 257 1-2. 058  1 37  18 .257 .326  S(Within)  14. 211  37  .384  I t e m Type I t e m Type X S ( W i t h i n )  44. 390 10. 620  1 37  S(Within)  14. 375  37  I t e m Type I t e m Type X S ( W i t h i n )  35. 021 11. 059  S(Within) I t e m Type I t e m Type X S ( W i t h i n )  F  P  56.022  <.001  44 .390 .282  154.661  <.001  1 37  35 .021 .311  112.589  <.001  13 653  37  .369  29 376 13 711  1 37  29 .376 .371  79.273  <r.ooi  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES THREE LEVELS OF PROTOTYPICALITY CHARACTER  SOURCE S(Within)  WISE  I t e m Type I t e m Type  X  S(Within)  - A L L SUBJECTS  SS  DF  44 .514  37  1 203  6 .584 19 .804  2 74  3 392 268  20 .385  37  .551  2 .896 14 .064  2 74  1 .448 .190  17 .938  37  .485  3 .704 16 .188  2 74  1 .852 .219  32 .865  37  .888  6 .812 15 .355  2 74  3 .406 .208  MS  F  12.301  P  <.001 *  S(Within) WISE - CONTROL  I t e m Type I t e m Type  X  S(Within)  S(Within) SHREWD  I t e m Type I t e m Type  X  S(Within)  S(Within) SHREWD - CONTROL  I t e m Type I t e m Type  X  S(Within)  7.618  < .001  8.466  <.001  16.415  c.ooi  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES PROTOTOTYPICAL VS. NON-PROTOTYPICAL ITEMS - A L L CHARACTERS  WISE  WISE - CONTROL ,  SHREWD  SHREWD - CONTROL  DF  S(Within)  29.644  37  .801  I t e m Type I t e m Type  3.386 8.012  1 37  3.386 .219  S(Within)  14.915  37  .403  I t e m Type I t e m Type  .238 3.622  1 37  .238 .018  S(Within)  13.977  37  .378  I t e m Type I t e m Type  2.056 8.015  1 37  2.056 .219  S(Within)  21.042  37  .569  I t e m Type I t e m Type  3.916 5.960  1 37  3.916 .161  S(Within^  X  X  S(Within)  P  F  SS  MS  SOURCE  CHARACTER  001  15. 465  2. 429  -  128  9. 398  <  .004  *  X  X  S(Within)  S(Within)  24 .310  < .001  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095866/manifest

Comment

Related Items