UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

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

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

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. Northern Michigan U n i v e r s i t y , 1975 M.A. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1978 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Psychology The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FEBRUARY, 1983 © S T E P H E N GEORGE HOLLIDAY, 1983 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date A?£/t /9 /?eSr DE-6 C3/81} 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I c o u l d not have completed t h i s p r o j e c t without the a s s i s t a n c e of a l a r g e number of people. My committee members, Dr. Michael Chandler, Dr. Merry B u l l o c k and Dr. J e r r y Wiggins gave me the encouragement and expert guidance needed to develop t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n from a glimmer of an i d e a to a completed product. The s t a f f members a t Langara Community C o l l e g e , S i l v e r Harbour Centre, West Vancouver Senior Centre and UBC Summer Program f o r R e t i r e d People helped me to o r g a n i z e data c o l l e c t i o n procedures. C h r i s King and Thomas Moran p r o v i d e d much needed a s s i s t a n c e i n c o l l e c t i n g data f o r Phase I and Phase I I of the study. My f e l l o w graduate students, M i c h a e l Boyes, Ross Broughton and B e v e r l y Fehr spent many arduous hours r a t i n g the l i s t o f d e s c r i p t o r s which form the h e a r t o f the study. My w i f e , Kathleen Sun, p r o v i d e d v a l u a b l e e d i t o r i a l a s s i s t a n c e i n p r e p a r i n g the manuscript and typed the f i n a l copy. My f a m i l y and f r i e n d s l i s t e n e d t o my complaints, p a t t e d me on the back, and helped me keep on course throughout the p r o j e c t . I am very g r a t e f u l t o a l l of these people and to any others whom I have f a i l e d to mention f o r h e l p i n g me to make t h i s p r o j e c t a success. i i ABSTRACT The purpose of this project was to provide a psychologically based analysis of the concept of wisdom. Although wisdom has long been used to label competent people, psychologists have largely ignored wisdom in favour of such variables as i n t e l l i g e n c e . This study used a prototype analysis procedure to i d e n t i f y the attributes that characterize wise people together with the descriptors for i n t e l l i g e n t , perceptive and other types of in d i v i d u a l s . This served as a basis for describing 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 also examined generational differences i n conceptions of wisdom and assessed the manner i n which the prototype for wisdom influenced information processing. The project was divided into three studies. In Study I, groups of f i f t y young adults, middle aged adults and eld e r l y adults provided descriptions of wise, i n t e l l i g e n t and other types of i n d i v i d u a l s . In Study I I , groups of subjects representing the same age cohorts rated the descriptors for wise people. An additional group of subjects rated descriptors associated with other categories. In Study I I I , t h i r t y - e i g h t young adults were administered a recognition memory task to assess the biasing effects of prototype descriptors. i i i T he r e s u l t s o f S t u d i e s I and I I i n d i c a t e d t h a t w i sdom i s a w e l l - d e f i n e d , p r o t o t y p i c a l l y o r g a n i z e d c o n c e p t . R e l i a b i l i t y a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d w i t h i n and b e t w e e n c o h o r t 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 o f w i s e p e o p l e . E x a m i n a t i o n o f o v e r l a p b e t w e e n c a t e g o r i e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t w i s d o m was l a r g e l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f o t h e r c o m p e t e n c y d e s c r i p t o r s . A p r i n c i p a l c o m p o n e n t s a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d f i v e f a c t o r s , w h i c h w e re l a b e l l e d " E x c e p t i o n a l U n d e r s t a n d i n g , " " J u d g e m e n t and C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s , " " B a s i c C o m p e t e n c y , " " I n t e r p e r s o n a l S k i l l s , " and " S o c i a l U n o b t r u s i v e n e s s . " The r e s u l t s o f S t u d y I I I i n d i c a t e d t h a t p e o p l e ' s memory p r o c e s s e s w e re i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e p r o t o t y p e s o f w i s e p e o p l e . The e v i d e n c e f r o m S t u d i e s I , I I and I I I s u g g e s t t h a t w i s d o m may be v i e w e d as a p r o t o t y p i c a l l y o r g a n i z e d c o n c e p t . T h e s e r e s u l t s b o t h r e p l i c a t e p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s and p r o v i d e a more c o m p l e t e p i c t u r e o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a b i l i t i e s o f w i s e p e o p l e . The r e s u l t s a r e i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n a t h e o r y o f d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s s e v e r a l f a c t o r s t h a t may c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e e m e r g e n c e o f wisdom. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i ABSTRACT i i TABLES v i i CHAPTER I . INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1 I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14 T r a d i t i o n a l A d u l t Psychology 14 The C r i t i q u e of Developmental Methodology and Theory 23 The C r i t i q u e of Research Methods 24 The C r i t i q u e of Theories of 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 of 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 Greek Conception of Wisdom 51 The C l a s s i c a l Greek P h i l o s o p h e r s 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 of Wisdom 55 Renaissance Conceptions of Wisdom 57 C a r t e s i a n and Modern Conceptions 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 Jungian and E r i k s o n i a n Conceptions of Wisdom 64 Modern P s y c h o l o g i c a l Conceptions of Wisdom 71 E m p i r i c a l Studies of Wisdom 75 C a t e g o r i z a t i o n Theory 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 Prototypes and Person P e r c e p t i o n 87 Prototypes and C l i n i c a l Research 89 Prototypes and Other Research...90 Prototypes and C o g n i t i o n 91 A Prototype A n a l y s i s of Wisdom 95 V I I I . METHOD SECTION - STUDIES I AND I I 99 Method S e c t i o n - Study 1 99 Method S e c t i o n - Study I I 118 IV. RESULTS - STUDIES I AND I I 124 I n t e r - r a t e R e l i a b i l i t y Analyses 124 D e s c r i b i n g the Prototype C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 127 I d e n t i f y i n g U n d e r l y i n g Dimensions 135 A n a l y s i s of the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Wisdom and Other C a t e g o r i e s 140 V. STUDY I I I 155 V a l i d a t i n g the Prototype 155 Method 157 R e s u l t s 165 VI. DISCUSSION 172 V I I . DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 213 V I I I . CONCLUDING COMMENTS 222 APPENDICES REFERENCES v i TABLES I. Age C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Study I Subjects ....101 I I . E d u c a t i o n a l L e v e l Study I Subjects 102 I I I . 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 Wise, Other Target C a t e g o r i e s and V a r i o u s Sources I l l IV. Age C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Study I I Subjects...119 V. E d u c a t i o n a l L e v e l Study I I Subjects 120 VI. I n t r a c l a s s C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s A l l Targets 126 V I I . D e s c r i p t o r s f o r the Category Wise People Grouped by R a t i n g Values 129 V I I I . Average R a t i n g Values f o r Prototype and Non-prototype D e s c r i p t o r s 134 IX. 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 the P r i n c i p a l Components A n a l y s i s 136 X. Percent of Items i n a P a r t i c u l a r Category 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 XI. Percent of Items W i t h i n Each Category That Do Not Overlap With Other Categories..145 X I I . Percent Overlap Between Wise and Other C a t e g o r i e s as a F u n c t i o n of C h a r a c t e r i s t i c n e s s of Items 146 X I I I . Overlap Between P a i r s of C a t e g o r i e s Using A n a l y t i c a l l y Derived Dimensions 149 XIV. Summary of Items Used to D e s c r i b e the Experimental and C o n t r o l Characters 160 XV. Ratings of Experimental and C o n t r o l Characters f o r Membership i n the C a t e g o r i e s of Wise People and Shrewd People 167 XVI. Mean Values of Item Types 169 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM This d i s s e r t a t i o n introduces and presents the results of a research program for studying the concept of wisdom as a unique competency descriptor referencing 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 associated with the adult years. From a t r a d i t i o n a l psychological perspective, wisdom may seem to be a curious place to begin a study of human competency, as i t i s often thought of as an arcane, mysterious holdover from an ancient philosophical t r a d i t i o n . Perhaps more than other factors, the suspicion that wisdom only references anachronistic b e l i e f s may have led psychologists to ignore wisdom, in favour of less mystifying and more manageable concepts. When i t i s considered at a l l , wisdom i s most often regarded by psychologists as a poor r e l a t i o n of the more popular, and presumably more pr o f i t a b l y studied, construct of i n t e l l i g e n c e . Rather than dispensing with the concept of wisdom, however, the reasons for i t s place in older t r a d i t i o n s should be considered. The philosophical perspective alluded to above is only one aspect of a larger wisdom heritage. T r a d i t i o n a l Western culture i s steeped with the idea 2 t h a t there i s a p r a c t i c a l wisdom which i s o r i e n t e d to the problems of a d u l t competence and concerned w i t h s p e c i a l i n s i g h t s i n t o the nature and mechanics of human l i f e . T h i s mundane wisdom t r a d i t i o n has been c a r r i e d forward l a r g e l y through the s t o r i e s , p a r ables and f o l k t a l e s t h at may be found i n every s o c i e t y . The ideas expressed i n the v a r i o u s bodies of wisdom l i t e r a t u r e a l s o l e a d to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t there must be a pragmatic wisdom that i s e x e m p l i f i e d i n the a c t i o n s of wise people and which i s amenable to p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s . Even i n the w r i t i n g s of the p h i l o s o p h e r s there i s a h i g h l y v i s i b l e theme that at l e a s t some kinds of wisdom are o r i e n t e d toward l i v i n g w e l l . Today, however, although we continue to use the word 'wise', we have not s y s t e m a t i c a l l y examined i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the p a t t e r n of l i f e f u n c t i o n . E x c a v a t i n g t h i s b u r i e d dimension of a d u l t competency and d e c i p h e r i n g the p s y c h o l o g i c a l f e a t u r e s that d i s t i n g u i s h wise people, then, became the task of t h i s t h e s i s . There are s e v e r a l i s s u e s f l o w i n g from contemporary l i f e span p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h which f u r t h e r support my d e c i s i o n to undertake the study of wisdom. During the past twenty years the combined 3 c r i t i c a l e f f o r t s o f a small army of developmental t h e o r i s t s have been d i r e c t e d at understanding the nature of p s y c h o l o g i c a l changes d u r i n g adulthood ( B a l t e s , Reese and L i p s i t t , 1980). These e f f o r t s have l e d to a l a r g e s c a l e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of many long s t a n d i n g b e l i e f s about the t r a j e c t o r y of human development. They have a l s o p o i n t e d out the need to supplement an e a r l i e r n e g a t i v e r e s e a r c h t r a d i t i o n w i t h new r e s e a r c h programs aimed at 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 changes d u r i n g l a t e r l i f e . T h i s has r e s u l t e d i n a concerted e f f o r t to i d e n t i f y new competency i n d i c a t o r s that r e f e r e n c e p o s i t i v e a g e - r e l a t e d change ( B i r r e n , 1982). Although I w i l l p r o v i d e a d e t a i l e d review of those trends i n l a t e r s e c t i o n s of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , I w i l l summarize them here i n an e f f o r t to f u r t h e r j u s t i f y the ap p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the choice of wisdom as a t o p i c of The study of p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n i n l a t e r l i f e i s c u r r e n t l y i n a s t a t e o f u n c e r t a i n t y r e g a r d i n g p o s s i b l e d i r e c t i o n s f o r new r e s e a r c h . In the pa s t , the r e s u l t s o f most r e s e a r c h on a g e - r e l a t e d changes i n human a b i l i t i e s demonstrated only that o l d e r people do more p o o r l y than t h e i r younger c o u n t e r p a r t s on most measures of p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n (Schaie and Gribben, 1975). These f i n d i n g s were p a r a l l e l e d by r e p o r t s o s t e n s i b l y 4 showing t h a t the s o c i a l world o f the e l d e r l y was a l s o c h a r a c t e r i z e d by m u l t i p l e l o s s e s (Cumming and Henry, 1961). Although there were o c c a s i o n a l r e p o r t s of p r o g r e s s i v e change, most t h e o r i e s of adulthood and aging both a n t i c i p a t e d and pro v i d e d e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r p a t t e r n s o f r e g r e s s i v e change. Consequently, the dominant views of development i n l a t e r l i f e regarded o l d e r people as being i n a s t a t e o f gr a d u a l , but continuous, d e c l i n e . During the mid-1960s, s e v e r a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c r i t i q u e s appeared i n the l i t e r a t u r e , each p o i n t i n g out flaws i n c o n v e n t i o n a l l i f e span r e s e a r c h designs (Schaie, 1965; B a l t e s , 1968). The c e n t r a l theme of these arguments was that people who d i f f e r i n age a l s o d i f f e r i n other ways, some of which i n f l u e n c e t h e i r l e v e l o f performance. This was seen as a problem because standard r e s e a r c h designs were unable to separate the e f f e c t s o f age from the e f f e c t s of these other f a c t o r s . Since the e l d e r l y s u b j e c t s i n many s t u d i e s d i f f e r e d fro™ t h e i r younger c o u n t e r p a r t s i n p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ways, c r i t i c s argued that most r e s u l t s i n the a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e made no c l e a r case f o r the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of d e c l i n i n g competence wi t h advancing age. This argument was giv e n f u r t h e r credence by s t u d i e s which e m p i r i c a l l y demonstrated t h a t h i s t o r i c a l , or cohort, e f f e c t s accounted f o r apparent 5 a g e - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e v e r a l areas of f u n c t i o n (Schaie et a l , 1973). During the 1970s, a s e r i e s o f t h e o r e t i c a l c r i t i q u e s appeared suggesting that t r a d i t i o n a l views o f aging were rooted i n models of human development that e i t h e r d i d not e n t e r t a i n the i d e a of continued development throughout l i f e , or saw such development as an i m p o s s i b i l i t y (Reese and Overton, 1970). As Kuhn (1970), Pepper (1970) and many others have noted, such untested assumptions o f t e n d e t e r m i n i s t i c a l l y i n f l u e n c e the course o f c o n c e i v a b l e r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t y . T h i s argument suggested t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e s on aging assumed, r a t h e r than t e s t e d , the b e l i e f t h a t people r e g r e s s as they a~e. In order to escape the c o n s t r a i n t s of t r a d i t i o n a l views, some contemporary t h e o r i s t s argued f o r r a d i c a l changes i n b a s i c assumptions about human development. The r e s u l t o f these c r i t i q u e s was an emergence o f a l t e r n a t i v e approaches that c o n s i d e r e d , or l e f t room f o r , the p o s s i b i l i t y of p r o g r e s s i v e a d u l t development ( B a l t e s and W i l l i s , 1977). The common thread i n these approaches has been that there may be not one but many p o s s i b l e developmental outcomes. The p a r t i c u l a r developmental course that a person f o l l o w s i s , from t h i s 6 vantage p o i n t , a f u n c t i o n of the p s y c h o l o g i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l / h i s t o r i c a l f a c t o r s t hat the person experiences ( R i e g e l , 1975). An argument f o r such open-ended views i s that they allow the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e s e a r c h agendas f o c u s i n g on p o s i t i v e , as w e l l as n e g a t i v e , developmental pathways. Such even-handed a l t e r n a t i v e s have the i n t u i t i v e appeal of making more, r a t h e r than fewer, r e s e a r c h o ptions p o s s i b l e . I t might seem easy to choose an a l t e r n a t i v e model and generate a program o f i n t e r e s t i n g r e s e a r c h . In p r a c t i c e , t h i s has proven to be q u i t e d i f f i c u l t . Although c u r r e n t o p i n i o n runs i n favour o f such m u l t i - a l t e r n a t i v e models, these conceptions have had l i t t l e o b servable impact on people's r e s e a r c h agendas ( H u l t s c h and Deutsch, 1981). Instead, p l u r a l i s t i c ideas o f a d u l t development have served p r i m a r i l y as conceptual frameworks f o r c r i t i q u i n g the doomsday c o n c l u s i o n s of t r a d i t i o n a l d e c l i n e models. These c r i t i q u e s argue that many apparent a g e - r e l a t e d d e f i c i e n c i e s disappear when a p p r o p r i a t e methodologies are used (Schaie and LaB o u v i e - V i e f , 1974) or i f simple i n t e r v e n t i o n procedures are undertaken (Fury and B a l t e s , 1973). While these c r i t i q u e s have made important c o n t r i b u t i o n s to our knowledge of a d u l t f u n c t i o n , they have not 7 s u b s t a n t i a l l y advanced our knowledge of p r o g r e s s i v e l y changing competencies i n adulthood. The l o g i c a l and necessary next step i n f o r m u l a t i n g a more balanced psychology of the l i f e span i s to demonstrate the e x i s t e n c e of p o s i t i v e developmental o p t i o n s . The s t r e n g t h o f multipathway models i s t h e i r p o s t u l a t i o n o f a number of developmental courses. T h e i r weakness i s that they have not succeeded i n i n s p i r i n g a systematic search f o r such o p t i o n s . Given the p o t e n t i a l advantages i n m a i n t a i n i n g such models, i t i s important to generate i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n s about p r o g r e s s i v e aspects of a d u l t development. T h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t was i n i t i a t e d at a p o i n t when the need f o r st u d y i n g p o s i t i v e change was being f e l t i n many q u a r t e r s . Thomae (1980), f o r example, i n a d i s c u s s i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y i n l a t e r l i f e argued that the most important l i f e span r e s e a r c h task i s to i d e n t i f y the pathways that l e a d to s u c c e s s f u l f u n c t i o n i n g i n l a t e r l i f e . Schaie (1977-1978) has both c a l l e d f o r such an agenda and presented a broad, d e s c r i p t i v e model d i s c u s s i n g ways i n which middle-aged a d u l t s are more complex than younger people. More r e c e n t l y , R y f f (1982) c a l l e d f o r conceptions of s u c c e s s f u l f u n c t i o n which would l i n k the c h i l d and a d u l t developmental 8 l i t e r a t u r e s . I t was w i t h i n t h i s context that I began to look f o r a new way of c o n s t r u i n g p r o g r e s s i v e a d u l t development. One means of approaching t h i s task i s to examine the etaphors i n the f i e l d o f a d u l t development ( B i r r e n , 1982). Much of the t r a d i t i o n a l g e r o n t o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h and theory can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as embodying the maxim that "The f o r c e s of age and time defeat people." In keeping w i t h t h i s maxim, the m a j o r i t y o f e a r l i e r i n v e s t i g a t o r s searched f o r evidence of p h y s i c a l or p s y c h o l o g i c a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n and l o s s of s o c i a l r o l e s , a c t i v i t i e s and s t a t u s . Both the p r o c l i v i t y of r e s e a r c h e r s to pose questions about r e g r e s s i v e l a t e r l i f e changes and the r e l u c t a n c e of people to i n t e r p r e t c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s as demonstrating anything other than a g e - r e l a t e d d e c l i n e may be seen as a symptom of an over r e l i a n c e upon the o r i e n t i n g assumption that people are n e c e s s a r i l y defeated by age and time. Pepper (1970), Kuhn (1970) and others have noted that g u i d i n g metaphors are not e a s i l y r e f u t e d by counter evidence, but must be superceded by a l t e r n a t i v e views. T h i s p o s i t i o n argues i n favour of the p r o d u c t i o n of new maxims to serve as a means of r e o r i e n t i n g q u e s t i o n s about a d u l t f u n c t i o n . Fuerbach has proposed 9 that one may break out of old modes of thought by turning propositions onto t h e i r l o g i c a l heads (Buss, 1979). Rather than arguing that "Man i s made in the image of God", for example, one might reverse the subject-object r e l a t i o n and suggest that "God is made i n the image of man." Although that example "may seem t r i v i a l toHay, i n Fuerbach's time i t had drastic consequences for how people considered r e l i g i o n . Applying Fuerbach's transformational method to the proposition "The forces of age and time defeat people", yiel d s the novel and int e r e s t i n g claim that "People defeat the forces of age and time." This reversal poses ° • i^w of l a t e r l i f e function which may serve to s t i ulate questions about progresive change in adulthood. The immediate challenge i n this undertaking was to i d e n t i f y an int e r e s t i n g instance of adult competency which r e f l e c t e d such a new and optimistic maxi . After c a r e f u l l y considering this problem, I chose to systematically investigate the concept of wisdom. This seemed to be a promising launching point, as the common language t r a d i t i o n and certain parts of ancient wisdom writings suggested that the concept of wisdom references e s p e c i a l l y competent adult function. 10 Choosing this topic was the prelude to finding a n o n - t r i v i a l means of exploring the psychological features of wisdom. While the common usage of wisdom suggests that i t i s a popular competency descriptor, the words "wise" and 'wisdom' are t y p i c a l l y applied as descriptive l a b e l s . Although they presumably reference a c o n s t e l l a t i o n of features that characterize wise behaviour, they provide l i t t l e information about the psychological correlates of wisdom. Reference to philosophical accounts was of l i t t l e help as most formal theories emphasized metaphysical issues and not the pragmatic features of wisdom that inspired this study. Examining the ancient wisdom l i t e r a t u r e proved to be int e r e s t i n g , but yielded l i t t l e information about the psychological processes characterizing wise people. The lack of a working theory of wisdom led me to try to conceptualize wisdom in a way that was psychologically sound, but not overly narrow. I concluded that while psychologists say l i t t l e about wisdom, lay people may know, with some precision, what they mean when they say someone i s wise. Since I was interested i n wisdom as i t i s manifested in adult l i f e , 11 i t seemed a p p r o p r i a t e to begin my i n v e s t i g a t i o n by e s t a b l i s h i n g the meaning of wisdom w i t h i n t h a t context. In the absence o f a p r e - e x i s t i n g formal theory o f wisdom, I chose to study people's n a i v e , or i m p l i c i t , t h e o r i e s as a means of s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i n v e s t i g a t i n g the nature and f u n c t i o n o f wisdom. There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e precedent f o r pursuing t h i s course of a c t i o n i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n areas where there i s assumed to be some degree o f correspondence between the p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l use of concepts. For example, s i n c e both p s y c h o l o g i s t s and l a y people use the term ' i n t e l l i g e n t ' to connote competent i n d i v i d u a l s , and s i n c e p s y c h o l o g i s t s c l a i m that formal t h e o r i e s of i n t e l l i g e n c e have some correspondence w i t h l i f e f u n c t i o n , i t i s reasonable to expect some degree of s i m i l a r i t y between formal and i n f o r m a l notions of i n t e l l i g e n c e ( N e i s s e r , 1979). Demonstrating t h i s correspondence has served to c l a r i f y and v a l i d a t e ideas about i n t e l l i g e n c e . T h i s i s not to suggest that p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s should m i r r o r c o l l o q u i a l usage. Rather, whp p s y c h o l o g i s t s d i s c u s s s o c i a l l y - b o u n d phenomenon, and c l a i m that formal t h e o r i e s r e f l e c t s o c i a l p r a c t i c e , people's i n f o r m a l 12 conceptions may serve to keep formal theories oriented to the world that they r e f l e c t and elaborate. One of the more elegant ways of analyzing people's informal theories flows from Rosch's demonstration that we determine category membership by comparing objects to a prototypic representation of the category (Rosch, 1975, 1978). This work also suggested that one could study categories by describing the category prototype. This research was extended into the study of person perception by Cantor and Mischel (1979) , who used a prototype analysis to study how people used personality descriptors. The procedure was subsequently applied 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 relationship between psychometric and common language ideas of the nature of i n t e l l i g e n c e (Neisser, 1979). Since wise, l i k e i n t e l l i g e n t , may be viewed as a label referencing a d i s t i n c t group of ind i v i d u a l s , I concluded that category analysis procedures could serve as the basis for analyzing the nature of wisdom. In th i s study I used a prototype analysis to describe the category of wise people. In carrying out this analysis, I hoped to provide a systematic description which could serve as a means of i d e n t i f y i n g the set of 13 psychological competencies that characterize wise behaviour. In order to demonstrate the psychological v a l i d i t y of the concept, I undertook two further types of analyses. The f i r s t involved systematically examining the relationship between wisdom, i n t e l l i g e n c e and other related terms. In so doing, I hoped to demonstrate that the word 'wise' references a d i f f e r e n t set of psychological attributes than does the word ' i n t e l l i g e n t . 1 The second involved an attempt to demonstrate that the prototype for the category of wise people has cognitive implications for how people actually categorize competent in d i v i d u a l s . In summary, I attempted to present converging l i n e s of evidence indicating that wisdom i s a useful psychological competency descriptor. This included a demonstration that people hold clear, r e l i a b l e and detailed conceptions of the nature of wisdom, that those conceptions are explainable i n terms of psychologically meaningful a b i l i t i e s , and that people's conceptions of wisdom a c t i v e l y influence the manner in which they process information about competent in d i v i d u a l s . 14 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Tr a d i t i o n a l Adult Psychology The bulk of research on adult development consists of attempts to determine i f psychological a b i l i t i e s thought to peak during childhood, adolescence or early adulthood are maintained through adulthood and into old age (Botwinick, 1977, 1978; Hooper, Fit z g e r a l d & Papalia, 1971; Horn & Donaldson, 1976). These studies have consistently indicated that older adults fare poorly r e l a t i v e to younger people on most measures of psychological a b i l i t y . During the l a s t several decades researchers reported that older people were less e f f i c i e n t i n the use of memory strategies (Gilbert, 1941; Bromley, 1958), slower and poorer learners (Rowe 8c Schnorre, 1971; Arenberg, 1968), more r i g i d i n t h e i r use of decision strategies (Botwinick, 1978; Rabbitt, 1977) and less i n t e l l i g e n t than younger adults (Wechsler, 1958). A smaller number of studies examining the performance of young and e l d e r l y subjects on Piagettian type cognitive tasks found that older people were less able to appreciate multiple perspectives (Looft and Charles, 1971; DelVento-Bielby and Papalia, 1975), 15 l e s s a b l e to use high e r order c o g n i t i v e processes and more l i k e l y to use simple o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s than younger people (Sanders, Laurendeau and Bergeron, 1966; St o r c k , L o o f t and Hooper, 1972; P a p a l i a , 1972). In s h o r t , much o f the t r a d i t i o n a l developmental l i t e r a t u r e p o r t r a y e d adulthood as a time when sl o w l y moving but i n e v i t a b l e r e g r e s s i v e f o r c e s eroded away the competencies developed i n e a r l y l i f e . The emergent p i c t u r e o f adulthood as a time o f l o s s was r e i n f o r c e d by the suggestion i n the c l i n i c a l l i t e r a t u r e t h a t the e l d e r l y were p a r t i c u l a r l y s u s c e p t i b l e to c e r t a i n c o g n i t i v e d i s t u r b a n c e s , i n c l u d i n g o r g a n i c b r a i n syndromes and d e p r e s s i o n (Davison and Neale, 1978). In the absence o f ac c u r a t e e t i o l o g i c a l models, many r e s e a r c h e r s assumed that the i n c r e a s e i n i n c i d e n c e o f mental d i s o r d e r s r e p r e s e n t e d an exa 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 c e n t r a l nervous system. T h i s r e i n f o r c e d the ide a t h a t degenerative b r a i n changes underlay the re p o r t e d performance d e f i c i t s e x h i b i t e d by the e l d e r l y across a v a r i e t y o f c o g n i t i v e t a s k s . In r e t r o s p e c t , the most d i s t u r b i n g f e a t u r e of these viewpoints i s the acceptance that p a t h o l o g i c a l d e c l i n e i s a normal and expected consequence of aging. 16 Despite the f a c t t h at p s y c h o l o g i s t s have had l i m i t e d success i n r e l a t i n g b i o l o g i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n a t any p o i n t i n the l i f e span, r e s e a r c h e r s were qui c k to h y p o t h e s i z e ways i n which an aging b r a i n could produce performance d e f i c i t s . During t h i s p e r i o d , then, c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n was given to s p e c i f y i n g the d e t e r m i n i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i o l o g i c a l l o s s i n l a t e r l i f e and d e c l i n e i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l a b i l i t i e s . Age group performance d i f f e r e n c e s were o f t e n i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n a b i o - b e h a v i o u r a l framework aimed at e s t a b l i s h i n g the l i n k s between b i o l o g i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l d e c l i n e (Kimmel, 1974). The poor showing of o l d e r i n d i v i d u a l s on c o g n i t i v e tasks was thought to r e f l e c t r e g r e s s i v e changes i n the b r a i n and c e n t r a l nervous system ( J a r v i k and Cohen, 1973). The most commonly c i t e d e x p l a n a t i o n was that aging i s accompanied by a p r o g r e s s i v e l o s s of neuronal and/or s y n a p t i c s t r u c t u r e (Bondaroff, 1977) . T h i s was i n i t i a l l y based on a r e p o r t e d n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between b r a i n weight and age (Appel and Appel, 1942). L a t e r , r e s e a r c h e r s proposed other p h y s i o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s arguing that e i t h e r programmed or random l o s s e s l e a d to a decreased e f f i c i e n c y o f f u n c t i o n ( J a r v i k ^ 1-975) . The p l e t h o r a of c e l l u l a r and g e n e t i c t h e o r i e s of aging were used to 17 support the p o s i t i o n t h at b i o l o g i c a l l o s s was the cause o f a l l age d i f f e r e n c e s . A v a r i a n t of t h i s theme was that sensory system l o s s e s r e s t r i c t e d the amount o f r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n and i n d i r e c t l y produced reduced c o g n i t i v e performance (Botwinick, 1978; Fozard et a l . , 1977; Corso, 1977). The model u n d e r l y i n g many accounts of aging, i n keeping w i t h the emphasis on b i o l o g i c a l c a u s a t i o n , viewed development as a sequence of growth, s t a b i l i t y and d e c l i n e . In the e a r l y y e a r s , growth and expansion were seen as pre-eminent. At m a t u r i t y , the organism was thought to enter a p e r i o d of s t a b i l i t y o f f u n c t i o n that would be maintained, although perhaps w i t h some s l i g h t l o s s e s , u n t i l the organism began to d e c l i n e . Adherence to t h i s viewpoint l e d to some i n t e r e s t i n g and c o n t r o v e r s i a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o f the performance o f o l d e r a d u l t s . One m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f t h i s p o s i t i o n was a sentiment that age group performance d i f f e r e n c e s marked a r e t u r n to developmentally p r i m i t i v e f u n c t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , some r e s e a r c h e r s have sought p a r a l l e l s to c h i l d f u n c t i o n i n the supposedly r e g r e s s e d performance of the e l d e r l y (Hooper, F i t z g e r a l d , , and P a p a l i a , 1971,;.. Rubin et a l , 1973). A consequence of t h i s view was the 18 perceived j u s t i f i c a t i o n for applying such pejorative labels as regressed, c h i l d l i k e and incompetent to patterns of adult behaviour. A second manifestation of t h i s b e l i e f was the occasional speculation that the performance of the e l d e r l y i s analogous to that of such deviant groups as schizophrenics and mentally retarded individuals (Kirby et a l , 1978-1979; Sacuzzo, 1977). A t h i r d manifestation may be seen i n the common strategy of d i v i d i n g psychological functions into age-sensitive and age-insensitive functions, with the former r e f l e c t i n g the expected patterns of age-related decline (Botwinick, 1977,,1978). The implication that aging leads to a regressed or pathologically disturbed state may not have been subscribed to by a l l researchers, but i t appeared often enough to indicate a widespread willingness to consider late l i f e function as being i n f e r i o r to function at other points i n the l i f e span. A f i n a l consequence of using a b i o l o g i c a l metaphor when discussing progressive change i s that i t leaves no motivation for development during middle adulthood. Since b i o l o g i c a l development was believed to cease aft e r puberty, psychological development was thought to stop -as well. (Actually, theorists usually spoke of the c h i l d achieving a mature l e v e l of function 19 (Muhs, Hooper and Papalia-Finlay, 1979-1980).) Most theorists then attributed changes i n adult function to the e f f e c t of experiential factors and concluded that such performance variations could not legitimately be ca l l e d development (Bower, 1979; F l a v e l l , 1970). Consequently, much of adulthood was excluded from serious considerations of human development. Conceptions of Positive Development i n Adulthood Such negative conclusions, while t y p i f y i n g the mainstream research 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 function. A small body of research reported instances of s t a b i l i t y , or even progressive change, during adulthood. In pa r t i c u l a r , a number of longitudinal studies found that s t a b i l i t y or p o s i t i v e change characterized much of the l i f e span (Bayley and Oden, 1955). The difference between these results and those obtained i n t r a d i t i o n a l studies was most s t r i k i n g when researchers examined i n t e l l e c t u a l functioning and found dramatically d i f f e r e n t performance patterns (Bayley, 1955; Owens, 1973). The presentation of thi s c o n f l i c t i n g data had l i t t l e impact on the f i e l d . Although the longitudinal 20 method was regarded as a purer measure of developmental change than other methods, reseachers regarded the r e s u l t s as anomalous. As I w i l l argue l a t e r , the manner i n which people d i s r e g a r d e d c o n f l i c t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n r e f l e c t e d the i n f l u e n c e o f n o n - e m p i r i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s about the nature of a d u l t f u n c t i o n . The p e s s i m i s t i c o r i e n t a t i o n o u t l i n e d i n the pre c e d i n g pages was most apparent i n s t u d i e s concerned with the development of such b a s i c p s y c h o l o g i c a l s k i l l s as l e a r n i n g , memory, problem s o l v i n g , and i n t e l l i g e n c e . In o ther areas, and most n o t a b l y i n the f i e l d of p e r s o n a l i t y psychology, there was some i n d i c a t i o n of a tre n d towards viewing l a t e r l i f e as a time o f i n t e r e s t i n g and p o t e n t i a l l y p o s i t i v e change. One example of t h i s work i s seen i n the w r i t i n g o f Buhler (1968) who i d e n t i f i e d f i v e stages, or phases, of human development, three of which were p o s i t e d t o occur d u r i n g adulthood. She suggested t h a t the 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 nature and concerned with r e s o l v i n g the c h a l l e n g e s posed by l i f e . She f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t people respond t o c h a l l e n g e s i n the stages of l i f e by s e t t i n g goals and •formulating s o l v a b l e problems t h a t serve to guide them. „ through each phase. Buhler's phases correspond l o o s e l y 21 to what she saw as the b i o l o g i c a l ebbs and flows of l i f e . U n l i k e other t h e o r i s t s , however, she d i d not see b i o l o g i c a l change as a d e t e r m i n i s t i c f o r c e , but as one of a number of f e a t u r e s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d to the d e f i n i t i o n of problems w i t h i n each stage. The a c t i v i t y d u r i n g each stage was seen as being motivated by a p s y c h o l o g i c a l need to a t t a i n growth and mastery. Even more than Buhler, E r i k s o n (1950, 1959) championed the i d e a t h a t the s e l f c o ntinued to expand and change throughout l i f e . He proposed a m u l t i - s t a g e s e q u e n t i a l model of ego ( p e r s o n a l i t y ) development with the f i n a l t hree stages o c c u r r i n g i n adulthood. His theory, which was based on h i s c l i n i c a l work and on h i s encounters with people r e p r e s e n t i n g indigenous c u l t u r a l groups i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , emphasized the r o l e of m a t u r a t i o n a l sequences and s o c i e t a l s t r u c t u r e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y development. The stages of E r i k s o n ' s theory are 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 that one must r e s o l v e i f one i s to continue to grow. In adulthood, these c h a l l e n g e s i n c l u d e d e v e l o p i n g i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , e s t a b l i s h i n g s o c i a l c o n t i n u i t y and d e v e l o p i n g understanding of the l i f e c y c l e . - Erikson-also-emphasized the m u l t i p l e determining f a c t o r s i n p e r s o n a l i t y development. In 22 e a r l y l i f e , ego development c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l s the m a t u r a t i o n a l schedule suggested by Freud. In l a t e r l i f e , E r i k s o n p a i d l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n to the r o l e o f b i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s , p l a c i n g more emphasis on how s o c i e t y s t i m u l a t e s p a t t e r n s of i n t r a p e r s o n a l change. E r i k s o n saw l i f e as a c o n t i n u a l process of r e d e f i n i t i o n between the s e l f and s o c i e t y , w i t h s p e c i f i c developmental i s s u e s r e f l e c t i n g the needs of both. The work of Lehman (1953) a l s o addresses the i s s u e of improved f u n c t i o n d u r i n g adulthood. He examined the c r e a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of many a r t i s t s and s c i e n t i s t s to i d e n t i f y the age at which they made t h e i r most important c o n t r i b u t i o n s . He found that i n some f i e l d s i n d i v i d u a l s made prime c o n t r i b u t i o n s i n e a r l y or middle adulthood, whereas i n others they reached t h e i r peak i n middle and l a t e adulthood. This i s an i n t e r e s t i n g example of how r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s were i n t e r p r e t e d i n the context of dominant views of human f u n c t i o n . Although Lehman's study demonstrated that many people 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 age and l a t e r adulthood, i t was o f t e n taken to i n d i c a t e that c r e a t i v i t y d e c l i n e d w i t h age. In s h o r t , d e s p i t e the emphasis on d e c l i n e , a m i n o r i t y viewpoint emerged i n which l a t e r l i f e f u n c t i o n 23 was viewed as e i t h e r being s t a b l e or i n a s t a t e of p r o g r e s s i v e change. The data gathered i n l o n g i t u d i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , although c o n t r a d i c t i n g long standing claims about the nature of a d u l t f u n c t i o n , had a r e l a t i v e l y small impact on the f i e l d . Reports by p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i s t s , o f l i f e long development were give n l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n i n other q u a r t e r s . Although these r e p o r t s suggested that i t was q u e s t i o n a b l e to u n i l a t e r a l l y view adulthood as a time of d e c l i n e , most r e s e a r c h e r s continued to embark on i n v e s t i g a t i o n s designed to catalogue the ways that the f o r c e s of age and time defeat people. The C r i t i q u e of Developmental Methodology and Theory E v e n t u a l l y , c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n the l i f e span data base l e d to s e r i o u s attempts to r e c o n c i l e competing p o s i t i o n s . These e f f o r t s took the form of a s e r i e s of c r i t i q u e s of r e s e a r c h and theory. Although these c r i t i q u e s s t a r t e d at very d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s , they l e a d to s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s about the n e c e s s i t y f o r equating age and d e c l i n e . In the f o l l o w i n g pages I sketch the main p o i n t s of two major c r i t i q u e s . The f i r s t , which emerged i n the mid-1960s, i s concerned w i t h the methodological 24 d i f f i c u l t i e s 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 changes i n human a b i l i t i e s . The second, which began i n the e a r l y 1970s, i s concerned w i t h i d e n t i f y i n g n o n - e m p i r i c a l , p r e - t h e o r e t i c a l b e l i e f s that have i n f l u e n c e d l i f e span r e s e a r c h and theory. The C r i t i q u e of Research Methods The problems stemming from the e x i s t e n c e o f c o n t r a d i c t o r y bodies of data came to a head with the p u b l i c a t i o n i n the mid-1960s of a number of r e p o r t s d i s c u s s i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of c o n v e n t i o n a l r e s e a r c h designs f o r s t u d y i n g human development. The f i r s t of these c r i t i q u e s , presented by Schaie (1965) examined the i m p l i c a t i o n s of 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 designs i n developmental s t u d i e s . T h i s work was extended by B a l t e s (1968) and o t h e r s . The s t a r t i n g p o i n t of these c r i t i q u e s was that i t was l o g i c a l l y i n v a l i d to i n f e r developmental change from o b s e r v a t i o n s of age group d i f f e r e n c e s , as i n such s t u d i e s one cannot d i r e c t l y observe i n d i v i d u a l change. They then explored other p o s s i b i l i t i e s and concluded that i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r i n g i n age d i f f e r e d i n other ways, some of which c o r r e l a t e d w i t h experimental performance. For example, i n c r e a s e s 25 i n e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l d u r i n g the p a s t f i f t y years means t h a t people who d i f f e r i n age probably d i f f e r i n e d u c a t i o n a l achievement. I f a v a r i a b l e i s c o r r e l a t e d w i t h e d u c a t i o n a l achievement, age group d i f f e r e n c e s would occur s o l e l y as a f u n c t i o n o f the groups' d i f f e r e n t i a l e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s . The e f f e c t of education i s masked by the age v a r i a b l e , making i t easy t o m i s i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s . The metho d o l o g i c a l p o i n t i s t h a t age group designs measure the e f f e c t s of development, h i s t o r i c a l f a c t o r s , and the i n t e r a c t i o n between the two. This design, however, does not permit these e f f e c t s to be independently assessed and the e f f e c t s o f development are confounded wi t h those o f h i s t o r i c a l f a c t o r s . Because of t h i s , c r i t i c s suggested t h a t c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l r e s u l t s c o u l d o n l y be i n t e r p r e t e d as demonstrating g e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s . T h i s c r i t i q u e upset a c a r e f u l l y arranged body o f l i f e span data. Although r e s e a r c h e r s had long been aware of problems i n o v e r - i n t e r p r e t i n g c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l data, most had 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 would, a t the worst, exaggerate the t r u e course o f development. Many r e s e a r c h e r s b e l i e v e d t h a t c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l r e s e a r c h c o u l d i d e n t i f y g e n e r a l forms of developmental change and t h a t l o n g i t u d i n a l r e s e a r c h 26 should e x h i b i t s i m i l a r but l e s s exaggerated p a t t e r n s . Once that p o s i t i o n was c h a l l e n g e d i t became d i f f i c u l t to argue that c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l s t u d i e s demonstrated a g e - r e l a t e d changes. The n e c e s s i t y of r e - e v a l u a t i n g the e m p i r i c a l base of the d e c l i n e p o s i t i o n became more apparent as r e s e a r c h began to demonstrate that some age group d i f f e r e n c e s are c l e a r l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to cohort e f f e c t s (Schaie and S t r d t h e r , 1968). Subsequently, r e s e a r c h e r s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y examined how non-age-related f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e d experimental performance. Researchers soon demonstrated that a number of f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g response s e t s , t e s t t a k i n g s k i l l s , experience w i t h experimental procedures and response s t y l e s accounted f o r age group d i f f e r e n c e s (Fury and B a l t e s , 1973; L a b o u v i e - V i e f and Gonda, 1976). These f i n d i n g s were b u t t r e s s e d by r e p o r t s i n d i c a t i n g that minimal i n t e r v e n t i o n procedures could markedly decrease, or even e l i m i n a t e , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c age group d i f f e r e n c e s (Hoyer et a l . , 1978-79). The second i s s u e was the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of confounding f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l o n g i t u d i n a l d e s i g n s . Researchers had maintained that i t was p o s s i b l e to measure development w i t h t h i s d e s i g n 27 s i n c e i t f o l l o w e d i n d i v i d u a l s over time. Researchers maintained hope that l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s could provide a v a l i d means of st u d y i n g human development. This p o s i t i o n was questioned on two p o i n t s . The f i r s t c r i t i c i s m i s th a t l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s measure h i s t o r i c a l , as w e l l as developmental, e f f e c t s (Schaie, 1965). That t h i s occurs w i t h i n i n d i v i d u a l s r a t h e r than between groups makes the problem no l e s s s e r i o u s . As they age, i n d i v i d u a l s experience the e f f e c t s o f h i s t o r i c a l f a c t o r s and developmental i n f l u e n c e s . I n t r a - i n d i v i d u a l change, then, may r e f l e c t the i n f l u e n c e o f e i t h e r component or t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . As i n cross s e c t i o n a l d esigns, i t i s im p o s s i b l e to separate these e f f e c t s . Consequently, i t i s not j u s t i f i a b l e to i n f e r t h a t changes observed i n l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s are due to developmental f o r c e s . N e i t h e r i s i t j u s t i f i a b l e to g e n e r a l i z e such r e s u l t s to other age cohorts as each cohort experiences d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r i c a l e f f e c t s and may demonstrate d i f f e r e n t developmental outcomes. The second l i n e of c r i t i c i s m (Botwinick, 1978; R i e g e l et a l , 1967) a l s o s t r e s s e d that l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s have a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f sampling b i a s . In p a r t i c u l a r , s e l e c t i v e a t t r i t i o n o f the l e s s motivated and l e s s f i t s u b j e c t s may r e s u l t i n a n o n - r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 28 sample by the end of the study p e r i o d . C r i t i c s argued t h a t l o n g i t u d i n a l r e s u l t s may be o v e r l y o p t i m i s t i c as there may have been d i f f e r e n t i a l p a t t e r n s of development f o r those who dropped out and those who remained. In p a r t i c u l a r , s u b j e c t s who dropped out of the study may have been on downward trends while those who remained may have stayed r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e . T h i s argument was sometimes used by t h e o r i s t s and r e s e a r c h e r s to provide j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r d e c l i n e p o s i t i o n s . In summary, the f i r s t r e s u l t of t h i s c r i t i q u e was a d i s q u i e t i n g r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l c o n c l u s i o n s about developmental change were based on i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y gathered data and, consequently, l o g i c a l l y flawed. T h i s c h a l l e n g e d the consensus o p i n i o n that there are normal a g e - r e l a t e d decrements i n f u n c t i o n . The second r e s u l t was a growing awareness that there i s no easy way to comparatively e v a l u a t e a g e - r e l a t e d changes. In l i g h t of these problems, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of e x i s t i n g data became i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t w i t h proponents of d i f f e r e n t methodological techniques o f t e n p l a c e d i n the uncomfortable p o s i t i o n o f be i n g able to c r i t i c i z e other techniques without acknowledging the flaws i n t h e i r own designs. 29 The C r i t i q u e o f Developmental Theory The methodological c r i t i q u e s o u t l i n e d above c l e a r l y demonstrated that i n f e r e n c e s about human development based on both cross s e c t i o n a l and l o n g i t u d i n a l designs were l o g i c a l l y and e m p i r i c a l l y suspect, and there was no compelling reason f o r p o s i t i n g a g e - r e l a t e d l o s s e s i n c a p a c i t y . Although some r e s e a r c h e r s were able to s t r o n g l y defend the p o s i t i o n t h a t there i s a d e c l i n e i n c e r t a i n a b i l i t i e s (Horn and Donaldson, 1976), even the most s t r i d e n t defenders o f the r e g r e s s i o n p o s i t i o n o f aging moderated the c l a i m that widespread, normative l o s s e s occur d u r i n g adulthood. Since c r i t i c s so e a s i l y c h a l l e n g e d the d e c l i n e p o s i t i o n , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to sp e c u l a t e why these i s s u e s were not c l a r i f i e d e a r l i e r . Schaie (1965), f o r i n s t a n c e , was not the f i r s t to c r i t i c i z e c r oss s e c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s . Since the 1930s, t h e o r i s t s have po i n t e d out shortcomings i n standard r e s e a r c h p r a c t i c e s , and suggested that d e c l i n e was not an i n e v i t a b l e consequence of aging. A reasonable e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the prolonged r e s i s t a n c e to these arguments i s that r e s u l t s obtained i n cross s e c t i o n a l s t u d i e s demonstrated what people b e l i e v e d - t h a t people d e c l i n e as they age. 30 Commentators on t h i s i s s u e have concluded that most t r a d i t i o n a l models of development are based upon views of humanity that are opposed or i n d i f f e r e n t to the p o s s i b i l i t y o f l a t e r l i f e p r o g r e s i v e change. In the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n I summarize the arguments which have l e d to t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . The C r i t i q u e of T h e o r i e s of Human Development In the e a r l y 1970s, t h e o r i s t s began to examine the r o o t assumptions u n d e r l y i n g developmental t h e o r i e s (Reese and Overton, 1970). T h e i r c r i t i q u e s were extensions of the ph i l o s o p h y of s c i e n c e p o s i t i o n that s c i e n t i f i c endeavours are i n f l u e n c e d by p r e - s c i e n t i f i c views of r e a l i l t y (Pepper, 1942). That i s , s c i e n t i f i c endeavours are thought to r e f l e c t the w e l l d e f i n e d b e l i e f s about the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e of the world that are sometimes c a l l e d paradigms or world hypotheses (Kuhn, 1970). These world views are best d e s c r i b e d as metaphors or a n a l o g i e s which e x p l a i n the world i n f a m i l i a r terms. S c i e n t i f i c 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 the metaphor. I f such attempts are s u c c e s s f u l , the metaphor w i l l exert i n c r e a s i n g l y g r e a t e r i n f l u e n c e on s c i e n t i f i c a c t i v i t y . 31 Pepper (1970) i d e n t i f i e d three world hypotheses which have i n f l u e n c e d western thought. Two of these, the me c h a n i s t i c and organismic, have c l e a r l y i n f l u e n c e d developmental theory. The t h i r d , the c o n t e x t u a l view, i s begin n i n g to e x e r t some i n f l u e n c e i n the f i e l d of a d u l t development. The models corresponding to the above world hypotheses have l e d to very d i f f e r e n t conceptions o f human development. The organismic and mec h a n i s t i c models, however, have l e d to c h i l d - c e n t r i c conceptions o f development that e f f e c t i v e l y exclude adulthood as a time of important developmental change. The m e c h a n i s t i c model i s based on the metaphor of the world as a machine where elementary p i e c e s combine to form complex e n t i t i e s . These e n t i t i e s are set i n t o motion by the a p p l i c a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c e x t e r n a l f o r c e s which motivate a c t i o n sequences. The u n i v e r s e , l i k e a machine, i s seen to be composed of i n d i v i d u a l p a r t s j o i n e d together i n complex ways. D e s c r i b i n g e n t i t i e s w i t h i n the mec h a n i s t i c world i n v o l v e s i d e n t i f y i n g 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 the sources of m o t i v a t i o n that set the e n t i t i e s i n t o o p e r a t i o n . 32 Development w i t h i n the m e c h a n i s t i c model i s thought to be a k i n to the process of b u i l d i n g a machine, w i t h component a b i l i t i e s j o i n i n g together to y i e l d more complex e n t i t i e s . M i d l i f e f u n c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to the maximally e f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n of the assembled machine, w i t h peak performance o c c u r r i n g u n t i l wear and t e a r reduces e f f i c i e n c y . L a t e r l i f e development occurs as v a r i o u s p a r t s break down from the e f f e c t s of prolonged use, and the e n t i t y l o s e s i t s c a p a b i l i t y to operate e f f i c i e n t l y . At some p o i n t t h i s leads to a complete breakdown of f u n c t i o n . The organismic model views the u n i v e r s e as a l i v i n g organism, c o n t a i n i n g both an i n h e r e n t s t r u c t u r e and an i n t r i n s i c l e v e l of a c t i v i t y . The organized e n t i t y c o n s i s t s of a number of p a r t s c o - e x i s t i n g i n a p a t t e r n of s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r a c t i o n s , with the s t r u c t u r e d a c t i v i t i e s c o n t r i b u t i n g to the d e f i n i t i o n of the organism. Understanding the organism, then, must i n v o l v e both i d e n t i f y i n g component p a r t s and determining the 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 and a c t i v i t y . The organismic model has i n s p i r e d s e v e r a l i n f l u e n t i a l t h e o r i e s of human development, i n c l u d i n g 33 P i a g e t ' s theory of c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n . In such t h e o r i e s , p s y c h o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y i s thought to r e f l e c t a p r o g r e s s i v e l y u n f o l d i n g i n n e r o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h i s occurs i n a s e r i e s of d i s c r e t e steps or stages which lead to a l e v e l of mature f u n c t i o n . Since t h i s f i n a l form i s d i c t a t e d by the organism's i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e , there i s no p o t e n t i a l f o r f u r t h e r development. The course of development d u r i n g l a t e r l i f e i s not c l e a r l y s p e c i f i e d i n such organismic models. I m p l i c i t i n such views, however, i s o f t e n the assumption that some systematic breakdown i n o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s u l t s i n d e t e r i o r a t i o n l e a d i n g to a l e s s e f f f i c i e n t mode of f u n c t i o n . The t h i r d world view, e x e m p l i f i e d by c o n t e x t u a l or d i a l e c t i c models, construes the world as being i n a s t a t e of continuous change or c e a s e l e s s f l u x . W i t h i n t h i s model, the e n t i t i e s are d e s c r i b e d i n terms of t h e i r dynamic and c o n t i n u o u s l y changing i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h the other elements of the world. Studying phenomenon w i t h i n a c o n t e x t u a l framework i n v o l v e s examining the m u l t i p l e i n f l u e n c e s that serve to d e f i n e any e n t i t y . T h i s emphasis on i d e n t i t y as a f u n c t i o n of an ongoing d i a l o g u e marks a r a d i c a l departure from the p r a c t i c e of d e f i n i n g an e n t i t y i n terms of i t s s t a t i c i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 34 The c o n s t r u a l of the organism as i n h e r e n t l y a c t i v e s u p e r f i c i a l l y resembles the organismic concept of the a c t i v e organism. However, i n the c o n t e x t u a l model, the a c t i v i t y i s a b a s i c and inhe r e n t f e a t u r e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between elements, r a t h e r than a f u n c t i o n o f some i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e . T h i s p o i n t o f d i f f e r e n c e has dramatic consequences f o r the c o n t e x t u a l n o t i o n of development. Because a c t i v i t y and s t r u c t u r e are not a simple f u n c t i o n o f i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , development i s not c o n s t r a i n e d to f o l l o w a s i n g l e pathway. Instead i t may flow i n v a r y i n g d i r e c t i o n s and toward a v a r i e t y o f outcomes i n accordance w i t h the unique set of i n t e r a c t i o n s the organism e x p e r i e n c e s . During the past ten years there has been an i n c r e a s i n g movement to formulate a l i f e span psychology based on the c o n t e x t u a l model's p r i n c i p l e o f continuous change. T h i s has taken the form of attempts to e s t a b l i s h multi-determined, m u l t i - e n d p o i n t conceptions of development which emphasize the determining r o l e s o f b i o l o g i c a l , environmental, i n t e r p e r s o n a l and h i s t o r i c a l f a c t o r s . These attempts suggest t h a t development may occur throughout the l i f e span, and that both the form and p a t t e r n of development w i l l v ary among i n d i v i d u a l s . 35 In the f o l l o w i n g pages, I summarize s e v e r a l attempts to embody c o n t e x t u a l p r i n c i p l e s i n t h e o r i e s of human development. These e f f o r t s are o f t e n i d e n t i f i e d as l i f e span t h e o r i e s , as t h e i r s e l f - d e s c r i b e d purpose i s to pro v i d e an approach that accounts f o r changes at any p o i n t i n the l i f e span. I have i n c l u d e d t h i s d i s c u s s i o n because those t h e o r i e s are o f t e n r e c o g n i z e d as v a l u a b l e d e s c r i p t i o n s of l a t e r l i f e f u n c t i o n . The f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e approach i s the d i a l e c t i c a l psychology of Klaus R i e g e l (1973, 1975, 1976). R i e g e l attempted to t r a n s l a t e the d i a l e c t i c a l p r i n c i p l e of change i n t o a theory of development p r e d i c a t e d on a s e r i e s of changing i n t e r a c t i o n s between the person and the environment, w i t h b i o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l , i n t r a p e r s o n a l and h i s t o r i c a l f o r c e s p r o v i d i n g impetus on a f l u c t u a t i n g developmental pathway. R i e g e l ' s ideas are bes t seen i n h i s c r i t i c i s m o f P i a g e t f o r p o s i t i n g s t a b i l i t y ( e q u i l i b r i u m ) as the u l t i m a t e goal of development. In R i e g e l ' s view, e q u i l i b r i u m was tantamount to death as on l y by dying could an organism "escape" the sequence of d i a l e c t i c a c t i v i t i e s t h a t d e f i n e d i t s l i f e . As an a l t e r n a t i v e , R i e g e l suggested that mature c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n was marked by the use of 36 d i a l e c t i c l o g i c , which kept the person i n a s t a t e o f d i s e q u i l i b r i u m . R i e g e l construed adulthood as a time of continuous change. In adulthood, as i n e a r l i e r y e a r s , t r a n s a c t i o n s between the b i o l o g i c a l , i n t r a p e r s o n a l , c u l t u r a l , and h i s t o r i c a l spheres p r o p e l l e d the person along a f l u c t u a t i n g path of development. His p o s i t i o n allowed f o r c o n s i d e r a b l e f l e x i b i l i t y i n human f u n c t i o n through the a d u l t y e a r s . R i e g e l emphasized throughout h i s w r i t i n g s that i t was e s s e n t i a l to t r y to understand adulthood i n terms of i t s s p e c i a l d e f i n i n g f e a t u r e s r a t h e r than through a process of comparing o l d e r and younger people ( R i e g e l , 1977). That i s , he b e l i e v e d t h a t adulthood may be marked by s p e c i a l competencies o r f e a t u r e s that are obscured i f one i n s i s t s on r i g i d l y or narrowly d e f i n i n g a d u l t performance. B a l t e s and W i l l i s p r ovided a p r e l i m i n a r y model of a d u l t development t h a t e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e d m u l t i - d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of development, m u l t i p l e t r a j e c t o r i e s of f u n c t i o n and e x t e n s i v e i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b i l i t y ( B a l t e s k W i l l i s , 1977; B a l t e s et a l , 1980). T h e i r p o s i t i o n was that the b a s i c determinants of development are 1) b i o l o g i c a l events, 2) environmental 37 e v e n t s , and 3) b i o - e n v i r o n m e n t a l e v e n t s , w h i c h a r e e v e n t s c r e a t e d b y t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f 1 and 2. They s u g g e s t e d t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f e a c h d e t e r m i n a n t c o u l d l e a d t o k n o w l e d g e o f t h e n a t u r e and c o u r s e o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l c h a n g e . They f i r s t p o s t u l a t e d t h a t t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s e x e r t d i f f e r e n t i a l i n f l u e n c e s a t v a r i o u s p o i n t s i n t h e l i f e s p a n . They p r o p o s e d t h a t d u r i n g c h i l d h o o d most i m p o r t a n t e v e n t s a r e e i t h e r n o r m a t i v e b i o l o g i c a l ( p h y s i c a l m a t u r a t i o n f a c t o r s ) o r n o r m a t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t a l ( e n t e r i n g s c h o o l a t a g e . 6 ) . T h i s r e s u l t s i n t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f o r d e r l y , n o r m a t i v e a g e - r e l a t e d c h a n g e s . I n a d u l t h o o d t h e r e a r e f e w e r n o r m a t i v e e v e n t s and t h o s e w h i c h do o c c u r a r e l a r g e l y n o r m a t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t a l e v e n t s , s u c h as t e c h n o l o g i c a l c h a n g e and e c o n o m i c f l u c t u a t i o n s . S u c h n o r m a t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t a l e v e n t s were p o s t u l a t e d t o be t h e c a u s e o f t h e a p p a r e n t l y o r d e r l y age g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s o b s e r v e d i n c r o s s s e c t i o n a l s t u d i e s . They a l s o s u g g e s t e d t h a t n o n - n o r m a t i v e e v e n t s p l a y e d a more i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n a d u l t h o o d and p r o d u c e d s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b i l i t y . T a k e n t o g e t h e r , t h e s e h y p o t h e s i z e d f o r c e s a c c o u n t f o r t h e o r d e r l i n e s s o f 38 c h i l d h o o d , the appearance of cohort e f f e c t s and the d i v e r s i t y of developmental pathways i n l a t e r l i f e . L a b o u v i e - V i e f and Chandler (1978) sought to produce a s i m i l a r r e c o n c i l i a t i o n between c h i l d and a d u l t psychology by demonstrating the u s e f u l n e s s of c o n t e x t u a l l y based models of development. They began w i t h the suggestion that the p r o p e n s i t y to view o l d e r a d u l t s as d e f i c i e n t occurs because r e s e a r c h e r s o f t e n judge adulthood i n terms of standards more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a s s e s s i n g c h i l d h o o d competence. F o l l o w i n g R i e g e l (1977) they argued that there are i n h e r e n t b i a s e s i n ideas of what c o n s t i t u t e s an i d e a l form of development. Assuming t h a t such " i d e a l " f u n c t i o n occurs i n e a r l y l i f e may have l e d r e s e a r c h e r s to focus only on behaviours that c o u l d be e v a l u a t e d a g a i n s t those standards. They f u r t h e r suggested that the study of a d u l t development was complicated by t h e o r i s t s ' p r o p e n s i t i e s to switch between organismic and m e c h a n i s t i c models when attempting to account f o r both the r e g u l a r i t i e s of c h i l d h o o d and the v a r i a b i l i t y of adulthood. T h e i r s o l u t i o n was to s h i f t the base of developmental psychology to a new p o s i t i o n t h at could accept both types of phenomenon and remain open to the p o s s i b i l i t y o f v a r i o u s developmental outcomes. They endorsed the 3 9 c o n t e x t u a l viewpoint as an approach that could account f o r a m u l t i p l i c i t y of developmental t r a j e c t o r i e s and outcomes, while p r o v i d i n g an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r v a r i o u s types of change duri n g d i f f e r e n t l i f e p e r i o d s . L a b o u v i e - V i e f and Chandler f u r t h e r argued t h a t a more f l e x i b l e c o n t e x t u a l model would serve to open up the study of adulthood by l e g i t i m i z i n g a search f o r unique a d u l t phenomena. While they d i d p o i n t out c e r t a i n i n h e r e n t d i f f i c u l t i e s i n working wi t h such models, a f t e r weighing those concerns a g a i n s t the p r o b l e m a t i c s i t u a t i o n i n the l i f e span l i t e r a t u r e they suggested that the gains a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e approach j u s t i f i e d the inconvenience o f adopting such c o n t e x t u a l views. The p r e c e d i n g c r i t i q u e s suggest that c o n v e n t i o n a l f o r m u l a t i o n s of human development r e f l e c t u n t e s ted assumptions as much as they do the r e s u l t s of t h e o r e t i c a l l y n e u t r a l experiments. This c r i t i q u e makes i t e a s i e r to understand why so many r e s e a r c h e r s seemed unperturbed by f i n d i n g s that c o n t r a d i c t e d p r e v a i l i n g b e l i e f s r e g a r d i n g the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of a g e - r e l a t e d d e c l i n e . The acceptance of the l e g i t i m a c y of these m e t a t h e o r e t i c a l c r i t i q u e s marked the end of the 40 unchallenged domination of the f i e l d by d e c l i n e o r i e n t e d p o s i t i o n s . T h i s c h a l l e n g e to t r a d i t i o n a l d e c l i n e models was accompanied by an i n c r e a s e d w i l l i n g n e s s to c o n s i d e r new approaches to the study o f human development. The emergence of a s e l f - d e f i n e d l i f e span psychology movement i s perhaps the c l e a r e s t s i g n of attempts to f i l l the conceptual vacuum stemming from the c r i t i q u e s o f t r a d i t i o n a l t h e o r i e s and methods. Although the l i f e span psychology movement antedates the 1960s and 1970s, d u r i n g that time i t served as a r a l l y i n g p o i n t f o r re s e a r c h e r s i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n d i n g new ways of s t u d y i n g human development. One of the c e n t r a l f e a t u r e s of the new l i f e span movement was i t s f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h c o n t e x t u a l models. Over a very short p e r i o d of time, the c o n t e x t u a l view emerged from r e l a t i v e o b s c u r i t y t o become re c o g n i z e d as a pre-eminent way of c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g human development ( H u l t s c h & Deutsch, 1981). The a c c l a i m g i v e n c o n t e x t u a l viewpoints r e f l e c t s the p e r c e i v e d need f o r a f l e x i b l e approach to the study o f adulthood. The c l a i m that c o n t e x t u a l models b e t t e r s u i t the needs of developmental r e s e a r c h e r s than to t r a d i t i o n a l models i s probably premature. As Pepper (1970) s t a t e d , the t e s t of a 41 world view i s i t s a b i l i t y to generate i n t e r e s t i n g and c o m p e l l i n g e x p l a n a t i o n s . In t h i s r e s p e c t , the c o n t e x t u a l model has yet to be f u l l y t e s t e d . Although i t has been shown to be a u s e f u l guide f o r c r i t i q u i n g e x i s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , i t has not y e t demonstrated t h a t i t can r e l i a b l y serve to generate i n t e r e s t i n g r e s e a r c h t o p i c s . The adequacy of the c o n t e x t u a l model, then, should not be judged u n t i l there i s f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on t h i s i s s u e . The approaches d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r , which are the best e l a b o r a t e d c o n t e x t u a l t h e o r i e s , p r o v i d e o n l y h i n t s at what might be i n c l u d e d i n a program of c o n t i n u i n g r e s e a r c h . They do suggest, however, that a c o n t e x t u a l r e s e a r c h agenda should be comprised of a v a r i e t y of i s s u e s , i n c l u d i n g i n s t a n c e s of p r o g r e s s i v e change. As I noted e a r l i e r , i f we e x p l i c i t l y o r i e n t to the p o s i t i v e maxim t h a t "People defeat the f o r c e s of age and time", we could begin to generate i n t e r e s t i n g questions about p o s i t i v e l a t e r l i f e f u n c t i o n . Embodying th a t o r i e n t a t i o n i n r e s e a r c h agendas could serve as the b e g i n n i n g of a more balanced psychology of adulthood. Such an approach i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h multi-pathway models of l i f e and could c o n t r i b u t e to the v a l i d a t i o n of the c o n t e x t u a l approach which u n d e r l i e s such m u l t i - o p t i o n models. 42 I t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s approach to seek areas i n which a d u l t s are e s p e c i a l l y competent. For example, Schaie (1977-1978) provided a t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s of a d u l t development, c e n t e r i n g on the i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y of middle-aged a d u l t s to accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , handle complex s i t u a t i o n s and c o o r d i n a t e t h e i r a b i l i t i e s when f a c i n g problems. There has a l s o been some experimental evidence suggesting that o l d e r people use q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t problem s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s (Boswell, 1979). A s i m i l a r theme i s v i s i b l e i n some s t u d i e s of d e c i s i o n making which have suggested t h a t the behaviour of o l d e r a d u l t s i n d e c i s i o n tasks i s o f t e n more d e l i b e r a t e , c a r e f u l and r a t i o n a l than that of younger people ( H o l l i d a y , 1978). In keeping w i t h that l i t e r a t u r e , I attempted to c o n c e p t u a l i z e p o s i t i v e change w i t h i n a robust i n v e s t i g a t o r y framework. My search, however, e x p l i c i t l y sought new ways of d e s c r i b i n g a d u l t s t h a t embodied the important competencies that some people have d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a t t r i b u t e d to them. In my r e a d i n g of v a r i o u s sources, I found that the words 'wise' and 'wisdom' are o f t e n used to r e f e r to p a r t i c u l a r l y competent a d u l t s , but are seldom a p p l i e d to younger people. I f u r t h e r found that some d i s c u s s i o n s of wisdom emphasized the judgemental and competency 43 f e a t u r e s t h a t are o c c a s i o n a l l y mentioned i n d i s c u s s i o n s of a d u l t behaviour. Wisdom, as i t has been used h i s t o r i c a l l y , seems to i n c o r p o r a t e p a t t e r n s of competent behaviour that are c o n s i s t e n t with some conceptions of adulthood but which 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 i n the l i f e span r e s e a r c h t r a d i t i o n . Studying wisdom, then, may be a l a u n c h i n g p o i n t f o r a s y s t e m a t i c examination of g e n e r a l i z e d p a t t e r n s of a d u l t s p e c i f i c competency. The Wisdom T r a d i t i o n A f i r s t step i n understanding wisdom i s to t r a c e i t s meaning i n our c u l t u r e . T h i s a r c h i v a l a n a l y s i s may both c l a r i f y d i f f e r e n t conceptions o f wisdom i n Western thought and provide a context f o r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y based theory of wisdom. In the f o l l o w i n g reviews I present conceptions of wisdom that have appeared i n s e v e r a l bodies of l i t e r a t u r e . These reviews t r a c e the development of pragmatic and i n t e l l e c t u a l conceptions of wisdom and, when p o s s i b l e , r e l a t e these ideas to our knowledge of p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n i n g . 44 D e f i n i t i o n a l M e a n i n g s o f Wisdom The O x f o r d E n g l i s h d i c t i o n a r y r e c o g n i z e s t h r e e a s p e c t s o f w i s d o m i n c l u d i n g : 1) t h e a b i l i t y t o j u d g e r i g h t l y i n m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o l i f e and c o n d u c t ; 2) k n o w l e d g e , l e a r n i n g o r e r u d i t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n r e l a t i o n t o p h i l o s o p h y o r s c i e n c e ; and 3) w i s e d i s c o u r s e o r s a y i n g s . W i s e , i n t u r n , i s d e f i n e d a s d i s c e r n i n g and j u d g i n g s o u n d l y c o n c e r n i n g what i s t r u e and f a l s e , p r o p e r and i m p r o p e r . Wisdom h a s b e e n u s e d t o d e n o t e an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f p e r s o n s and s i t u a t i o n s i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h u n u s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and d i s c e r n m e n t i n d e a l i n g w i t h them. The i d e a t h a t w i s d o m i n v o l v e s s p e c i a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n t h e e t y m o l o g y o f t h e w o r d ' w i s e 1 . The d i c t i o n a r y o f e t y m o l o g y r e p o r t s t h a t t h e w o r d ' w i s e ' h a s t h e p r i m a r y m e a n i n g s o f : 1) k n o w i n g o r l e a r n e d ; and 2) p r u d e n t , stemmming f r o m t h e I n d o - E u r o p e a n w o r d 'wede' m e a n i n g t o s e e o r t o know. T h e r e a r e e q u i v a l e n t f o r m s o f t h e w o r d ' w i s e ' i n most a n c i e n t l a n g u a g e s , i n c l u d i n g o l d E n g l i s h , O l d German ( b o t h l o w and h i g h ) , O l d N o r s e and O l d S a x o n . The m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d h a s s e e m i n g l y r e m a i n e d c o n s t a n t a c r o s s c e n t u r i e s and o v e r l a n g u a g e s . T o d a y , i t i s s t i l l 45 used i n a manner consistent with the ancient meanings of seeing and knowing. The facets of wisdom i d e n t i f i e d i n the Oxford Dictionary correspond with several bodies of l i t e r a t u r e . The second d e f i n i t i o n , focusing on learning and erudition, r e f l e c t s the manner in which wisdom has often been used i n the philosophical l i t e r a t u r e . The t h i r d d e f i n i t i o n , focusing on wise sayings and discourse, references a small body of ancient wisdom writings and the informal folk t r a d i t i o n s of most cultures. The primary d e f i n i t i o n , with i t s emphasis on human function, references a small number of psychological analyses. Each of those t r a d i t i o n s contains information that can help to c l a r i f y the nature of wisdom. 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 attempt to gain some insight into the nature and function of wise people. The Secular Wisdom Tradition Since the e a r l i e s t times, wisdom seems to have been used to reference mastery of l i f e . Occasionally, this has taken the form of a body of l i t e r a t u r e containing a culture's prescriptions for conducting 46 l i f e (Wood, 1967). In p a r t i c u l a r , a n c i e n t near East c i v i l i z a t i o n s seem to have c o l l e c t e d p a r a b l e s , proverbs and s h o r t s t o r i e s t h at epitomize p r i n c i p l e s of c o r r e c t l i v i n g , embody moral pronouncements and c o n t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i r s o c i e t y . These wisdom w r i t i n g s are, no doubt, rooted i n an even o l d e r o r a l t r a d i t i o n i n which i n d i v i d u a l s exchanged i n f o r m a t i o n that aided them i n l i v i n g w e l l , understanding the mysteries of t h e i r l i v e s , or perhaps simply s u r v i v i n g . The p r e v a i l i n g means f o r t r a n s m i t t i n g such i n f o r m a t i o n has been through s t o r i e s i l l u s t r a t i n g g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s which are c o n s t r u c t e d to s i m u l t a n e o u s l y e n t e r t a i n and i n s t r u c t . The wisdom t r a d i t i o n , i n these e a r l y forms, appears to have been mundane and pragmatic, aimed at d i s t i l l i n g and t r a n s f e r r i n g r u l e s of l i v i n g between g e n e r a t i o n s . In l a t e r times, as t h i s o r a l t r a d i t i o n was w r i t t e n down and e n t r u s t e d to s c r i b e s , the emphasis seems to have s h i f t e d to concerns w i t h a b s t r a c t problems about the nature of man's e x i s t e n c e . In the case of the Greeks and Hebrews, f o r example, the wisdom t r a d i t i o n may have served as the b a s i s f o r the development of r e l i g i o u s and p h i l o s o p h i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . The o l d e s t known Western wisdom l i t e r a t u r e came from Egypt i n w r i t i n g s which date b e f o r e 2500 B.C. 47 These w r i t i n g s extend over s e v e r a l d y n a s t i e s , and v a r y i n both form and emphasis. S e v e r a l of the s u r v i v i n g documents are books of i n s t r u c t i o n emphasizing deportment, m o r a l i t y and r e l i g i o u s d u t i e s . Others are i n the form of songs or s t o r i e s d e s c r i b i n g the good and d e c r y i n g the e v i l aspects o f l i f e . A common theme i n the l a t t e r w r i t i n g s was the d i f f i c u l t y i n m a i n t a i n i n g f a i t h when confronted w i t h the i n j u s t i c e s and paradoxes of l i f e (Bryce, 1979). A second group of wisdom w r i t i n g s , o f t e n c a l l e d the Mesopotamian wisdom l i t e r a t u r e , c o n t a i n s fragments from the Sumerian and Babylonian c u l t u r e s . S c h o lars have suggested that other a n c i e n t mid-Eastern groups, i n c l u d i n g the Caananite, Edoman and Phonecian peoples, had e x t e n s i v e wisdom l i t e r a t u r e s , although l i t t l e or none s u r v i v e s today. The Sumerians and Babylonians a l s o used p a r a b l e s , f a b l e s and anecdotes to i l l u s t r a t e p r i n c i p l e s f o r conducting l i f e . Many e x i s t i n g fragments of that l i t e r a t u r e d e a l w i t h the dilemma of death and u n j u s t s u f f e r i n g of good people. This suggests that one of i t s purposes was to help people face the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and i n j u s t i c e s of l i f e . Other segments are more p r a c t i c a l i n nature and e x t o l such v i r t u e s as p a t i e n c e , c h e e r f u l n e s s and r e s t r a i n t , 48 while emphasizing such q u a l i t i e s as friendship, h o s p i t a l i t y and graciousness (Wood, 1967). Perhaps the best documented of the ancient wisdom l i t e r a t u r e s i s the body of Judeaic wisdom writings. This t r a d i t i o n i s the only one which has been ac t i v e l y carried into the present. It also seems to have evolved from a c o l l e c t i o n of sayings focusing on the proper manner of conducting l i f e . The oldest books of the Bible, p a r t i c u l a r l y Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes, are thought to be a l i n k to t h i s ancient t r a d i t i o n , as are the books of the Wisdom of Ben Sidra and Solomon. Within these books the unknown authors expressed t h e i r thoughts on the nature of l i f e using parables and short stories to i l l u s t r a t e t h e i r points (Crenshaw, 1976). Today, with the exception of the Judeaic t r a d i t i o n , wisdom l i t e r a t u r e exists in the West only i n the writings of a few dedicated scholars. This does not imply, however, that the wisdom t r a d i t i o n i s no longer a part of modern l i f e . Modern cultures also maintain a kind of "cracker b a r r e l " wisdom that takes the form of proverbs, folk tales and myths. Meider and Dundes (1981) noted that not only i s f o l k l o r e apparent in a l l cultures, but that similar items often appear i n 49 d i f f e r e n t cultures. This informal folk t r a d i t i o n has often been studied d e s c r i p t i v e l y , but has seldom, i f ever, been examined by researchers interested i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between f o l k l o r e and psychological function. The earthiness of modern folk wisdom i s similar to that of the more ancient wisdom t r a d i t i o n . Folk wisdom contains information about human nature, e f f e c t i v e modes of behaviour, proper ways of construing problems and strategies for e f f e c t i v e l i v i n g . Wisdom, in t h i s t r a d i t i o n , i s concerned lar g e l y with s o c i a l l i f e . The wise person, by extension, i s one who does well in l i f e , not just i n a material sense, but in terms of being able to embody p r i n c i p l e s of correct deportment. Goodwin and Wentzel (1981) present an argument that proverbs, a pervasive form of folk wisdom, serve such s o c i a l and psychological functions as providing rules for s o c i a l exchange, setting patterns for arguments, defining ambiguous situations, moderating human impulses and acting as a simple means of communicating complex ideas. They also suggested that proverbs provide the kind of systematization for s o c i a l discourse that formal*- l o g i c provides--for s c i e n t i f i c arguments. 50 In summary, the s e c u l a r wisdom l i t e r a t u r e suggests that wisdom i s s o c i a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n nature, and that wise people e x h i b i t exemplary understanding and behaviour. D e s c r i p t i o n s of t h i s s p e c i a l type of competency are f i r m l y embedded i n proverbs and f o l k t a l e s . The P h i l o s o p h i c a l T r a d i t i o n Wisdom has long been a concern i n Western p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n . The t h e o r i e s of wisdom that dominated the p h i l o s o p h i c a l l i t e r a t u r e o f t e n departed from the a n c i e n t s e c u l a r t r a d i t i o n s . Although p h i l o s o p h e r s remained i n t e r e s t e d i n v i r t u o u s conduct, they were o f t e n more concerned with a c h i e v i n g i n s i g h t s i n t o the formal s t r u c t u r e of the world. Even i n i n s t a n c e s where p h i l o s o p h e r s r e t a i n e d an i n t e r e s t i n s e c u l a r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of wisdom, t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n wise people was secondary to t h e i r concern with developing coherent i n v e s t i g a t o r y systems. The s h i f t from a pragmatic to a t h e o r e t i c a l wisdom t r a d i t i o n may, at l e a s t i n p a r t , have been due t o the movement from an o r a l c u l t u r e to one employing w r i t t e n r e c o r d s . As t h i s o c c u r r e d , there may have been 51 an increased opportunity to study wisdom writings independently of t h e i r expression i n s o c i a l exchange. Perhaps as attempts to explicate the meaning of the written texts became more complex, they served as the basis for the emergence of the formal theories of wisdom. The Greek Conception of Wisdom The term 'wisdom* f i r s t appears i n the writings of the pre-Socratic philosophers who were concerned with wisdom as a form of correct l i v i n g (Kirk & Raven, 1960). Heraclitus, for example, believed that man's l i f e was intimately bound up with the t o t a l context of his world, and that understanding the elements of that arrangement and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s constituted wisdom. Since people are a central part of that context, understanding how one should l i v e i s an e s s e n t i a l feature of wisdom. Wisdom, then, was seen as a kind of transcendental knowledge, but a type of knowledge that had to be expressed i n the person's d a i l y l i f e . The pre-Socratics maintained that people- could never achieve the complete state of understanding that 52 would constitute wisdom as they reserved t h i s for the Gods. But despite the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of attaining complete knowledge, the pre-Socratics firmly maintained that i t was both necessary and b e n e f i c i a l to pursue wisdom as i t assisted i n developing a more complete understanding and a better way of l i f e . The C l a s s i c a l Greek Philosophers During the Greek renaissance Socrates treated wisdom as an enlightened, morally based understanding that was necessarily embodied i n correct l i v i n g . Wisdom, for Socrates, lay not i n studying and acquiring knowledge of the world, but i n the attempt to make one's l i f e as moral as possible. This could be attained, i n an incomplete state, by s t r i v i n g for a comprehensive self-knowledge. Although Socrates believed that i t was presumptuous to claim that one was wise, he f e l t that a l l people should s t r i v e for and love wisdom. The wise man, for Socrates, united the q u a l i t i e s of virtue and knowledge i n the practice of a moral and self-examined l i f e . Following Socrates, Plato made wisdom the. "crowning jewel" i n his system of ethics. For Plato, wisdom, which carried a meaning similar to that of r a t i o n a l i t y , was the governing force of e t h i c a l practice. He sought to unite r a t i o n a l and e t h i c a l practices under the auspices of wisdom by showing that that r a t i o n a l thought would lead to correct action. Although Plato sought to maintain the e t h i c a l foundation of wisdom, his work, which was weighted heavily in favour of the cognitive features of wisdom, contained the seeds for the dissections of wisdom into mundane and i n t e l l e c t u a l aspects. A r i s t o t l e introduced an i n f l u e n t i a l p o sition regarding the nature of wisdom (Ross, 1980). Like his predecessors, he i d e n t i f i e d a mundane wisdom that could be seen i n the dealings of r a t i o n a l and virtuous people. However, he formally distinguished between th 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 speculative wisdom. This second type of wisdom was, for A r i s t o t l e , the highest i n t e l l e c t u a l virtue, as i t was concerned only with understanding the primary questions and issues of l i f e . In h i s system, only philosophy could hope to solve the questions of the f i r s t causes of l i f e . Speculative philosophy, then, became equated with the search for wisdom. Since one could become • -. .-. p r o f i c i e n t i n philosophy only i f properly trained, one 54 c o u l d consequently become wise on l y by f o l l o w i n g the t r a i n i n g regime of the p h i l o s o p h e r s . A r i s t o t l e ' s d i s c u s s i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the wise person p r o f o u n d l y i n f l u e n c e d western thought. In h i s view, the wise person would know a l l t h i n g s to the extent p o s s i b l e , be able to l e a r n a l l d i f f i c u l t t h i n g s and be capable of t e a c h i n g t h i s knowledge to o t h e r s . In a d d i t i o n , t h a t person would a l s o be a c u t e l y aware of the l i m i t a t i o n s of h i s wisdom. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e s c r i b e the person who has a t t a i n e d the knowledge of the u n i v e r a l p r i n c i p l e s o f l i f e , as understanding, t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g are simple matters to the person who has mastered the meaning of the h i g h e s t forms. The H e l l e n i s t i c p h i l o s p h e r s a l s o made important c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n (Long, 1974). The w r i t i n g s of the S k e p t i c and S t o i c p h i l o s o p h e r s served to c a r r y on the pragmatic wisdom t r a d i t i o n t h a t had been l a r g e l y e c l i p s e d by A r i s t o t l e . For the S t o i c s , wisdom l a y i n the a b i l i t y to grasp the t r u t h of t h i n g s i n a manner t h a t allowed the person to possess a l l v i r t u e s . S t o i c a l wisdom had a p r a c t i c a l s i d e i n t h a t wisdom l e d to-a way of l i f e and an a t t i t u d e of mind t h a t c o u l d not be a f f e c t e d by changes of 55 f o r t u n e . The S t o i c s a l s o b e l i e v e d that people could be wise only i f they were able to i n t e g r a t e e t h i c a l , p h y s i c a l and l o g i c a l knowledge i n a r e s o l u t e l y maintained b e l i e f system. The S k e p t i c s a l s o h e l d that wisdom was embodied i n c o r r e c t judgement. As they were concerned w i t h the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t r u t h , they saw wisdom as the h a b i t of mind that allowed the person t o suspend judgement under c o n d i t i o n s of u n c e r t a i n t y . Wisdom, f o r the S k e p t i c s , was seen as the a b i l i t y t o r e c o g n i z e the l i m i t s o f one's knowledge. The E a r l y C h r i s t i a n T r a d i t i o n of Wisdom The wisdom t r a d i t i o n s o u t l i n e d i n the pre c e d i n g pages were c a r r i e d i n t o the Middle Ages by the C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g i a n s , whose goal was to develop a p h i l o s o p h y / t h e o l o g y that would r e c o g n i z e the primacy o f C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g i c a l concerns while m a i n t a i n i n g some degree of c o n t i n u i t y w i t h c l a s s i c a l thought (Meaghre, 1978; Hyman and Walsh, 1974). The b l e n d i n g of Greek and C h r i s t i a n b e l i e f systems l e d to the emergence of a very d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e on both the nature of wisdom and the manner i n which people become wise. 56 The w r i t i n g s of Augustine r e p r e s e n t the most systematic treatment of wisdom to emerge duri n g the Middle Ages. 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 eformulate the Greek b e l i e f t h a t one achieves wisdom by studying the world. In the C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n the world was seen as s i n f u l , and consequently c o u l d not i n s p i r e wisdom. Wisdom, i n s t e a d , c o u l d be found o n l y i n the C h r i s t i a n God. Augustine d e a l t with t h i s by d i v i d i n g the i n t e l l e c t i n t o S a p i e n t i a , or wisdom, and S c i e n t i a , or knowledge of the world. The former, i f c u l t i v a t e d and used p r o p e r l y , c o u l d o r i e n t people toward the t i m e l e s s wisdom of the C h r i s t i a n God. The l a t t e r was concerned with the m a t e r i a l i s t i c f e a t u r e s of l i f e . By s p l i t t i n g the i n t e l l e c t , Augustine was able to argue f o r a wisdom t h a t was f r e e of the base aspects of the human c o n d i t i o n . Augustine, l i k e e a r l i e r p h i l o s o p h e r s , b e l i e v e d t h a t t r u e wisdom was u n a t t a i n a b l e . However, the manner i n which he i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s idea d i f f e r e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y from p r e v i o u s n o t i o n s . In h i s view, people's natures had been flawed when they f e l l from God and t h i s i m p e r f e c t i o n prevented them from ever a c h i e v i n g p e r f e c t wisdom. He maintained, however, that s i n c e people had been put i n t o the world to earn s a l v a t i o n , they had a 57 duty to s t r i v e toward the go a l of wisdom and p e r f e c t themselves as much as p o s s i b l e . In summary, C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g i s t s produced new conceptions o f wisdom i n which the r e s t l e s s search f o r understanding t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e d the Greek t r a d i t i o n was r e p l a c e d by a demanding r e l i g i o u s e t h i c based on prayer and s a c r i f i c e . The Greek n o t i o n t h a t wisdom was based on man's experience was a l s o r e p l a c e d w i t h the idea t h a t wisdom should i n s u l a t e the person from the m a t e r i a l world. 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 the abandonment of attempts to formulate a p r a c t i c a l wisdom. Such a wisdom, rooted as i t must be i n a flawed and e v i l world, was unacceptable w i t h i n the C h r i s t i a n p e r s p e c t i v e . Renaissance Conceptions of Wisdom The idea t h a t wisdom i n v o l v e s a r e l i g i o u s l y based t r a n s c e n d e n t a l knowledge dominated western thought u n t i l the Renaissance when the re-emergence of the Greek t r a d i t i o n s o f S t o i c i s m and S k e p t i c i s m l e d to a s h i f t i n ideas about wisdom (Rice, 1958). The goal of these r e f o r m u l i z a t i o n s was to blend--Ghristian and c l a s s i c a l ideas i n a p o s i t i o n t h a t admitted the 58 p o s s i b i l i t y o f a w o r l d l y based wisdom. The S t o i c s p o s t u l a t e d the need f o r both a pragmatic moral wisdom o r i e n t e d toward the person l i v i n g i n the world and a d i v i n e l y i n s p i r e d wisdom o r i e n t e d toward the goodness and e t e r n a l wisdom of God. They defended t h i s p o s i t i o n by arguing t h a t man p a r t i c i p a t e s i n d i v i n e wisdom i n v a r y i n g degrees and t h a t a pragmatic wisdom should serve to guide the steps of a good person as he/she sought t o f i n d God i n d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s . By sugge s t i n g t h a t t h i s e s s e n t i a l l y moral wisdom flowed from a h i g h e r , d i v i n e l y i n s p i r e d wisdom, and thus served the C h r i s t i a n purpose, the S t o i c s r e c o n c i l e d a pragmatic wisdom with the C h r i s t i a n b e l i e f t h a t the world was flawed. The Renaissance S k e p t i c s ' s o l u t i o n was based on a d i s t i n c t i o n between the i n s t r u m e n t a l and t e r m i n a l a s p e c t s of wisdom. The l a t t e r s i g n i f i e d a k i n d of d i v i n e p e r f e c t i o n , the former the development of h a b i t s o f mind which served as i n t e r m e d i a t e steps i n a t t a i n i n g wisdom. Thus, f o r the S k e p t i c s , w o r l d l y p e r f e c t i o n was seen as being a necessary p a r t of the movement towards d i v i n e enlightenment. 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 s e v e r a l v a r i e t i e s of wisdom ranging from the l i m i t e d wisdom of s p e c i a l i s t s ( d o c t o r s , lawyers, e t c.) to the i n f o r m a l wisdom manifested i n the behaviour of a good 59 person w i t h a r e f l e c t i v e mind, t o a moral wisdom used t o guide l i f e , and f i n a l l y , t o a d i v i n e l y i n s p i r e d wisdom t h a t was the s p e c i a l p r o v i n c e o f God. The Renaissance conceptions of wisdom i n v o l v e d a r e f o r m u l a t i o n of e a r l i e r C h r i s t i a n i d e a s . That work a l s o marked a r e t u r n t o the e a r l i e r Greek idea t h a t wisdom was b e s t c o n s i d e r e d as a search f o r the t r u t h s o f l i f e t h a t would l e a d to v i r t u o u s a c t i o n s i n everyday l i f e . The S t o i c and S k e p t i c p h i l o s o p h e r s of t h i s time s t i l l maintained the C h r i s t i a n p o s i t i o n t h a t wisdom must u l t i m a t e l y come from God, however, so the r e t u r n to the c l a s s i c a l p o s i t i o n was f a r from complete. The main c o n t r i b u t i o n o f the Renaissance p h i l o s o p h e r s , then, may have been t h e i r success i n r e s t o r i n g to the concept of wisdom a balance of the w o r l d l y and the d i v i n e f o r c e s w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g an e s s e n t i a l l y C h r i s t i a n p e r s p e c t i v e . C a r t e s i a n and Modern Conceptions of Wisdom Descartes i s the f i n a l p h i l o s o p h e r to be d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s b r i e f sampling of t h e o r i e s of wisdom ( C o l l i n s , 1962). As he sought t o r e - d e f i n e philosophy, he attempted to d e s c r i b e wisdom i n terms "of h i s e v o l v i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l system. In h i s e a r l y w r i t i n g s , Descartes 60 suggested that wisdom served as a c o u n t e r p o i n t to s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. Whereas s c i e n c e was concerned wi t h accumulating f a c t s , wisdom was concerned w i t h o r g a n i z i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . In h i s l a t e r w r i t i n g s , he e l a b o r a t e d t h i s i d e a , suggesting that wisdom served as a framework f o r understanding a l l other f i e l d s . 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 , DesCartes s t r u g g l e d with the b e l i e f t h a t a l l wisdom was u l t i m a t e l y a g i f t from God. His s o l u t i o n to t h i s problem was to argue that there are both e a r t h l y and d i v i n e forms of wisdom. Each form i s d i s c u s s e d i n h i s w r i t i n g s , although the e a r t h l y wisdom seems to have r e c e i v e d a g r e a t e r emphasis. He b e l i e v e d t h a t a l l men are born wi t h a God given p o t e n t i a l to become wise but t h i s p o t e n t i a l would only be r e a l i z e d i f i t were guided by the c r i t i c a l techniques o f the new C a r t e s i a n philosophy. He went on to suggest that people passed through four degrees of human wisdom, ranging from the unnurtured seeds of good sense to a c r i t i c a l l y i n s p i r e d wisdom t h a t marked a c u l m i n a t i o n o f human thought. He co n s i d e r e d , however, that one co u l d a t t a i n d i v i n e wisdom only as a g i f t from God. Since DesCartes, few s e r i o u s attempts have been made to p l a c e wisdom at the c e n t r e of an encompassing p h i l o s o p h i c a l system. That i s not to say 61 t h a t p h i l o s o p h e r s have l o s t i n t e r e s t i n the i s s u e s t h a t surround the n o t i o n of wisdom. Many w r i t e r s remain i n t e n s e l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the i s s u e s of c o r r e c t judgement, understanding the nature of l i f e , v i r t u o u s behaviour and other f e a t u r e s which were c e n t r a l to the o l d e r wisdom t r a d i t i o n s . These concerns, however, are o f t e n examined s e p a r a t e l y under such headings as e t h i c s and l o g i c . Other p h i l o s o p h e r s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y e x i s t e n t i a l w r i t e r s , have s e t the i s s u e of man's search f o r p e r s o n a l meaning i n a seemingly a r b i t r a r y world as t h e i r c e n t r a l task of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . T h i s i s somewhat continuous w i t h o l d e r t r a d i t i o n s , although the l i n e a g e i s seldom acknowledged. As C o l l i n s (1962) noted, many modern and contemporary p h i l o s o p h e r s have i n c o r p o r a t e d more or l e s s w e l l e l a b o r a t e d notions of wisdom i n t h e i r works. I d e n t i f y i n g these themes i s d i f f i c u l t as they are seldom e x p l i c i t l y l a b e l l e d as thoughts on wisdom. Such an e f f o r t i n v o l v e s a c a r e f u l s c r u t i n y of p a r t i c u l a r works f o r ideas t h a t stem from the o l d e r t r a d i t i o n s . That type of undertaking i s f a r beyond the scope of t h i s p r o j e c t . I b e l i e v e t h a t f o r now i t may s u f f i c e to note t h a t i n modern times wisdom i s , at best, a p e r i p h e r a l concern of philosophy.-62 The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s b r i e f survey suggest t h a t t h e r e are s e v e r a l d i s t i n c t themes i n a n c i e n t and non-contemporary p h i l o s o p h y . The most d i s t i n c t theme has been t h a t wisdom i s bes t c o n s i d e r e d as a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l understanding o f the nature o f the world. P h i l o s o p h e r s have h e l d numerous o p i n i o n s on what i s i m p l i e d by such a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l understanding, but have g e n e r a l l y been i n agreement on the f a c t t h a t i t i s not e a s i l y a t t a i n a b l e . In the more s e c u l a r l y o r i e n t e d t h e o r i e s , i t has been argued t h a t a n o v i t i a t e must master p a r t i c u l a r types of 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 to become wise. In the C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n s , t h e o r i s t s viewed prayer, s a c r i f i c e and p r i v a t i o n as the means of a c h i e v i n g the communion with God t h a t leads to the attainment of wisdom. A second theme i n the wisdom t r a d i t i o n c e n t r e s on d i s c u s s i o n s of the moral and pragmatic f e a t u r e s of wisdom. T h i s i n c l u d e s attempts t o d e f i n e wisdom as v i r t u o u s behaviour and endeavours to e l a b o r a t e types of e a r t h l y wisdom. T h i s theme i s c l o s e r , i n many r e s p e c t s , to the a n c i e n t pragmatic wisdom t r a d i t i o n s . The conceptions o f wisdom embodying t h i s second theme are so f i r m l y j o i n e d t o broader metaphysical i s s u e s t h a t i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o speak of the 63 value of the n o t i o n o f wisdom independently of the adequacy of the e n t i r e system. The 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 some i n t e r e s t i n g thoughts about the nature and meaning of wisdom. In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n s o f the s p e c i a l competencies o f wise people and the n e c e s s i t y o f c o r r e c t l i v i n g p r o v i d e some i n s i g h t i n t o what i t e n t a i l s to be wise. The s p e c i f i c t h e o r i e s o f wisdom, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , say l i t t l e about the p s y c h o l o g i c a l p a t t e r n s that would be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of wise people. In consequence, the p h i l o s o p h i c a l l i t e r a t u r e b e t t e r serves as a background than 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 r e s e a r c h . The P s y c h o l o g i c a l T r a d i t i o n Although there i s no coherent wisdom t r a d i t i o n i n psychology, s e v e r a l t h e o r i s t s have attempted to r e l a t e wisdom to p s y c h o l o g i c a l theory. W i t h i n the psychodynamic t r a d i t i o n , Jung (Reed et a l , 1978) and E r i k s o n (1950) d i s c u s s e d the s o c i a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l aspects of wisdom. Wi t h i n modern r e s e a r c h psychology, Brent and Watson (1980), Cl a y t o n (1978, 1980) and Thorngate (1981) have proposed wisdom as a marker of a d u l t competency. The accounts presented by Jung and 64 E r i k s o n d i s c u s s e d wisdom as i t e x i s t s w i t h i n a s o c i a l / i n t e r p e r s o n a l / h i s t o r i c a l matrix and focused on both the s o c i a l and dynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of wise people. The accounts presented by Brent and Watson (1980) and C l a y t o n (1978, 1980) each c h a r a c t e r i z e wisdom as a c o g n i t i v e l y based competency. F i n a l l y , Thorngate (1981) o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d wisdom i n terms of people's p r e f e r e n c e s f o r h e u r i s t i c p r o c e s s e s . In subsequent pages, I w i l l p r o v i d e b r i e f overviews of each p o s i t i o n and summaries of t h e i r accompanying r e s e a r c h programs. Jungian and E r i k s o n i a n Conceptions of Wisdom Jung's d i s c u s s i o n of wisdom arose from h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the archetypes of the human mind (Reed et a l , 1978). He f i r s t p o i n t e d out that b e f o r e the widespread use of w r i t i n g , c o n t i n u i t y of s o c i e t y over gen e r a t i o n s was maintained through e l a b o r a t e o r a l t r a d i t i o n s . Jung suggested that d u r i n g p r e - l i t e r a t e times, t r i b a l e l d e r s were p a r t i c u l a r l y important p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the o r a l t r a d i t i o n . The s p e c i a l s t a t u s a f f o r d e d by t h e i r age and the p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e i r knowledge d e f i n e d them as an important and unique subgroup. As members of t h i s s p e c i a l group, the e l d e r s came to f u n c t i o n as the guides and " c u l t u r a l 65 storehouses" o f the s o c i e t y , m a i n t a i n i n g and p a s s i n g on the important knowledge necessary f o r a s s u r i n g the c o n t i n u i t y o f the group. Jung suggested t h a t these circumstances l e d to the emergence of the t r a d i t i o n o f the "wise man" w i t h i n human c u l t u r e . In modern times, Jung suggested t h a t i n c r e a s i n g l i t e r a c y and the abundance of p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l l e d to a reduced need f o r o r a l l y t r a n s m i t t e d i n f o r m a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , i n c r e a s e d u r b a n i z a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n the disappearance of r u r a l p r e - l i t e r a t e s o c i e t i e s which f o s t e r e d the wisdom t r a d i t i o n . He a l s o suggested t h a t although the c o n d i t i o n s which produced wise e l d e r s have disappeared, our "memory" of t h a t o l d e r time l i n g e r s on. He p o s t u l a t e d t h a t the a n c i e n t r o l e o f e l d e r s was such a d i s t i n c t p a r t of the human experience t h a t i t was e v e n t u a l l y absorbed i n t o what Jung c a l l e d our c o l l e c t i v e unconscious. In modern times, Jung proposed t h a t the a r c h e t y p a l memory was o f t e n manifested, a l b e i t i n s t y l i z e d form, i n f a i r y t a l e s and f o l k l o r e . The wise person, t y p i c a l l y a t a l l , o l d e r man o f t e n w i t h a f l o w i n g beard and white h a i r , appeared when people were i n desperate' s t r a i t s or were faced w i t h seemingly insurmountable problems. By v i r t u e of h i s e x c e p t i o n a l 66 powers o f understanding, the wise person would e i t h e r p r o v i d e the s o l u t i o n to the problem or help the people to f i n d the s o l u t i o n s f o r themselves. T h i s , a c c o r d i n g to Jung, i s a r i t u a l i z e d re-enactment of a drama played out on innumerable occasions d u r i n g the e v o l u t i o n of human s o c i e t y . As i s o f t e n the case with Jung, h i s ideas are compel l i n g but d i f f i c u l t to e v a l u a t e . His account of the o r i g i n o f the archetype o f the wise o l d man i s c e r t a i n l y p l a u s i b l e and i s i n keeping w i t h s e l e c t e d s t u d i e s o f p r i m i t i v e t r i b e s . S t r e i b (1968) and Simmons (1945) have suggested that i n r u r a l s o c i e t i e s where o l d e r people c o n t r o l resources they o f t e n h o l d p o s i t i o n s of r e s p e c t and are accorded c o n s i d e r a b l e s t a t u s . On the othe r hand, Sharp (1981) p o i n t e d out that i n s o c i e t i e s where competency i s valued above experience and i n s i g h t , o l d e r people are o f t e n p o r t r a y e d i n negative terms. Regardless o f the v a l i d i t y o f Jung's c l a i m that wisdom i s t i m e l e s s and u n i v e r s a l , h i s d i s c u s s i o n of the r o l e of e l d e r s i n g u i d i n g s o c i e t y p r o v i d e s an account of pragmatic wisdom that remains c o n s i s t e n t with the an c i e n t s e c u l a r t r a d i t i o n s . Jung's b e l i e f that wisdom i s u l t i m a t e l y based i n s o c i a l d i a l o g u e a l s o provides an 67 i n t e r e s t i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimension to the a n a l y s i s o f wisdom. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , he d i d not pursue t h i s theme i n any d e t a i l . The work of E r i k E r i k s o n (1950, 1959), a neo-Freudian p s y c h o l o g i s t , p r o v i d e s an i n t e r e s t i n g c o u n t e r p o i n t to Jung's a r c h e t y p a l theory of wisdom. Where Jung was concerned wi t h the s o c i a l forms t h a t surround wisdom, E r i k s o n emphasized the i n t r a p s y c h i c and s o c i a l f o r c e s t h a t motivate the process o f p e r s o n a l growth which may culminate i n the attainment of wisdom. E r i k s o n suggested t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y development occurs i n e i g h t s e q u e n t i a l stages with each stage d e f i n e d by a s a l i e n t p s y c h o s o c i a l i s s u e . They span the human l i f e c y c l e , with the f i n a l three stages encompassing i s s u e s t h a t a r i s e d u r i n g adulthood. The i s s u e o f concern i n the e i g h t h stage, 'Ego I n t e g r i t y vs. Despair', c e n t r e s on r e c o g n i z i n g and a c c e p t i n g the necessary r o l e of death i n the c y c l e of l i f e . E r i k s o n suggested t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s who had been s u c c e s s f u l i n r e s o l v i n g e a r l i e r p s y c h o s o c i a l i s s u e s would be i n a p o s i t i o n to achieve a s p e c i a l i n s i g h t i n t o the meaning of t h e i r l i v e s and e x i s t e n c e i n g e n e r a l . He f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d t h i s would l e a d to an i n c r e a s e d awareness of the c o n t i n u i t y of human experience and an emergence of a p e r s o n a l equanimity which allowed the person to calmly face 68 death. The achievement of t h i s s p e c i a l i n s i g h t , which leads t o a broad understanding of man's p o s i t i o n i n the world, i s what E r i k s o n c h a r a c t e r i z e s as wisdom. One i n t e r e s t i n g aspect of E r i k s o n i a n theory i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i n t r a p s y c h i c f e a t u r e s of wise people. In other sources, the primary emphasis i s on the e x t e r n a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of wisdom, and the u n d e r l y i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l f e a t u r e s are matters of i n f e r e n c e . E r i k s o n ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the wise person as having a w e l l balanced and i n t e g r a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y lends substance to e a r l i e r c l aims about the nature o f wise people. A second c o n t r i b u t i o n was h i s success i n l o c a t i n g wisdom w i t h i n a p r o g r e s s i v e developmental sequence. In the past, w r i t e r s have t y p i c a l l y viewed the attainment of wisdom as r e s u l t i n g from a s t r u g g l e t o a t t a i n p a r t i c u l a r a t t i t u d e s of mind or types of knowledge. E r i k s o n i a n theory marks the f i r s t w e l l c o n s i d e r e d attempt to t r a c e the developmental antecedents o f wisdom. F i n a l l y , h i s su g g e s t i o n t h a t wisdom emerges from p s y c h o s o c i a l encounters remains c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a n c i e n t s e c u l a r t r a d i t i o n s w h i l e p r o v i d i n g a mechanism f o r e x p l a i n i n g the d i f f e r e n t i a l attainment of wisdom. ••«•- ~~ ... 69 There are, however, c e r t a i n d i f f i c u l t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h E r i k s o n i a n theory. The most problematic i s h i s s u g g e s t i o n t h a t the p s y c h o s o c i a l c r i s i s which motivates the f i n a l movement towards wisdom i s t r i g g e r e d by the r e a l i z a t i o n of one's nearness to death. Thus, o n l y e l d e r l y people are deemed capable of a t t a i n i n g wisdom. T h i s c l a i m v a r i e s w i t h e a r l i e r suggestions t h a t wisdom may be a t t a i n a b l e a t e a r l i e r p o i n t s i n the a d u l t l i f e span. A second p o i n t of concern i s t h a t E r i k s o n ' s emphasis on i n t r a p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n tends to overshadow the s o c i a l f e a t u r e s of wisdom. Although he i m p l i e d t h a t wisdom should have s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n s o c i a l exchanges, he says l i t t l e about the manner i n which wise people t r a n s l a t e t h e i r i n s i g h t s i n t o s o c i a l a c t i o n . The E r i k s o n i a n c o n c e p t i o n of wisdom i s , to date, the o n l y account submitted to c r i t i c a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l review (C l a y t o n , 1975). In the o p i n i o n of t h i s reviewer, however, much of t h a t a n a l y s i s was u n p r oductive. C l a y t o n argued t h a t E r i k s o n i a n ideas were t h e o r e t i c a l l y compelling, but were at odds with c e r t a i n f a c t s of a d u l t experience. S p e c i f i c a l l y , she suggested t h a t the d i f f i c u l t i e s of modern l i f e r e s u l t i n people responding to o l d age by d e v e l o p i n g r e g r e s s i v e , r a t h e r 70 than expansive, p e r s o n a l i t y s t y l e s . She f u r t h e r argued t h a t most people f a i l to r e s o l v e c h i l d h o o d ego c o n f l i c t s and, consequently, would be unable to s o l v e l a t e r p s y c h o s o c i a l i s s u e s . F i n a l l y , she suggested t h a t most wise people are motivated by the w i l l to l i v e , r a t h e r than the awareness of death and, a c c o r d i n g l y , wisdom i s expressed i n an a c t i v e involvement i n l i f e . She concluded, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the E r i k s o n i a n conception of wisdom d i d not p r o v i d e a compelling e x p l a n a t i o n of l a t e r l i f e f u n c t i o n . The t h i r d p o i n t i n Clayton's c r i t i q u e may have some m e r i t as i t r e f l e c t s the apparent theme i n o l d e r t r a d i t i o n s t h a t wisdom i s manifested i n s u c c e s s f u l l i v i n g . The f i r s t two arguments, however, are n e i t h e r c o m p e l l i n g nor c o n s i s t e n t with e s t a b l i s h e d r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s . For example, there i s no u n e q uivocal evidence showing t h a t o l d e r people e x h i b i t r e g r e s s i v e ego f u n c t i o n s i n the normal course of development. Although s i c k e l d e r l y people may demonstrate p s y c h o l o g i c a l d e f i c i t s , t h e r e i s l i t t l e evidence of widespread n e g a t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y changes d u r i n g o l d age (Thomae, 1980). Likewise, there i s l i t t l e evidence s u p p o r t i n g C l a y t o n ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t most people f a i l to r e s o l v e c h i l d h o o d p e r s o n a l i t y c r i s e s . E r i k s o n ' s theory 71 has i n s p i r e d l i t t l e r e s e a r c h and the few r e p o r t s t h a t appear i n the l i t e r a t u r e p r e s e n t e q u i v o c a l data on the i s s u e of p r o g r e s s i o n through the stages ( C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , 1972). T h i s suggests t h a t i t i s premature to s t a t e t h a t most people are d e r a i l e d from normative developmental pathways d u r i n g c h i l d h o o d . O v e r a l l , Clayton's arguments th a t people cannot be expected to achieve an E r i k s o n i a n type of wisdom are t e n t a t i v e a t b e s t . Modern P s y c h o l o g i c a l Conceptions of Wisdom F i n a l l y , t here have been s e v e r a l attempts to p o r t r a y wisdom as a s p e c i a l area o f a d u l t p s y c h o l o g i c a l competency (Cl a y t o n , 1978, 1980; Brent and Watson, 1980 and Thorngate, 1981). C l a y t o n (1980) proposed t h a t wisdom was a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s i m i l a r i n k i n d , but not i n form, to i n t e l l i g e n c e . She suggested t h a t both wisdom and i n t e l l i g e n c e were knowledge r e l a t e d , u s e f u l a i d s f o r a d a p t a t i o n , and based on a b i l i t i e s t h a t f a c i l i t a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n . They d i f f e r e d , however, i n terms of t h e i r domains of a p p l i c a t i o n and u n d e r l y i n g l o g i c s t r u c t u r e s . * I n t e l l i g e n c e , a c c o r d i n g to C l a y t o n , allows people to t h i n k l o g i c a l l y , c o n c e p t u a l i z e and s o l v e problems, and a b s t r a c t form from content. I t reaches 72 i t s z e n i t h i n s c i e n t i f i c thought and mathematical l o g i c i n which the world of c o n c r e t e events i s reduced to symbolic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l systems. C l a y t o n argued, as have P i a g e t and o t h e r s , t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e i s based on a p r o p o s i t i o n a l l o g i c system which s p e c i f i e s r u l e s both f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g concrete events i n symbolic form and procedures f o r m a n i p u l a t i n g those symbols. She argued t h a t the use of t h i s system p e r m i t t e d people to evaluate form independently of content and c o n s i d e r problems without regard f o r the s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of p a r t i c u l a r s o l u t i o n s . C l a y t o n d e f i n e d wisdom as the a b i l i t y to understand and accept paradoxes and c o n t r a d i c t i o n s t h a t mark concre t e s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . She a l s o suggested t h a t wisdom i n v o l v e d f i n d i n g meaningful s o l u t i o n s t o human concerns. For these reasons, she argued t h a t wisdom was based on a d i a l e c t i c a l l o g i c system t h a t embodied p r i n c i p l e s of paradox and change and which c o u l d s p e c i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between content laden events. Although C l a y t o n does not f u l l y d e s c r i b e what a d i a l e c t i c a l l o g i c system e n t a i l s , her w r i t i n g s suggest t h a t i t i s based on an i d e n t i t y p r i n c i p l e which d e f i n e s / o b j e c t s o n l y i n terms of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h all™, other e n t i t i e s . Presumably, such a system i s b e t t e r 73 s u i t e d f o r understanding dynamic s o c i a l events, which are s p e c i f i c a l l y d e f i n e d by t h e i r unique content, than i s the p r o p o s i t i o n a l l o g i c system deemed to form the b a s i s of i n t e l l i g e n c e . C l a y t o n f u r t h e r suggested t h a t wisdom serves a developmental f u n c t i o n by p r o v i d i n g a m o t i v a t i o n and a method f o r weighing consequences of a c t i o n s i n terms of t h e i r e f f e c t s on the s e l f and o t h e r s . She f e l t t h a t t h i s e v a l u a t i v e a c t i v i t y marked the achievement of a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d type of c o g n i t i o n which r e c o g n i z e d s u b t l e and complex p a t t e r n s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s among events. At an i n t e r p e r s o n a l l e v e l , she maintained t h a t t h i s l e d to an e n l i g h t e n e d concern with one's i n f l u e n c e on o t h e r s , w h i l e at a s o c i e t a l l e v e l i t l e d to a s t a n d i n g concern with the long term e f f e c t s of c o l l e c t i v e s o c i a l d e c i s i o n s on human w e l f a r e . The movement towards wisdom, then, leads to a more complex s o c i a l c o g n i t i o n which promotes e f f i c i e n t s o c i e t a l f u n c t i o n and e f f e c t i v e i n d i v i d u a l dynamics. Brent and Watson (1980) construed wisdom as an a g e - r e l a t e d form of a d a p t i v e i n t e l l i g e n c e . They suggested t h a t s p e c i a l communicative s k i l l s heightened s e n s i t i v i t y t o v e r b a l and non-verbal cues, and w e l l developed senses of compassion and humour were e s s e n t i a l 74 p s y c h o l o g i c a l components of wisdom. They a l s o d e s c r i b e d a developmental m o t i v a t i o n f o r becoming wise which i n c o r p o r a t e d the i d e a t h a t p e r s o n a l s u f f e r i n g played an e s s e n t i a l r o l e i n the attainment of wisdom. They suggested t h a t exposure to a r b i t r a r y i n j u s t i c e produced t u r m o i l , s u f f e r i n g , and a s t a t e of p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t r e s s . Prolonged exposure to such circumstances c o u l d r e s u l t i n a d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n of e x i s t i n g c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s . They suggested t h a t these s i t u a t i o n s p e r m i t t e d the o p p o r t u n i t y o f e i t h e r a c h i e v i n g a new and more complex e q u i l i b r i u m or d e t e r i o r a t i n g to a r e g r e s s e d s t a t e . Brent and Watson a l s o viewed wisdom as f i n d i n g i t s e x p r e s s i o n i n s o c i a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s . They argued t h a t wise people's s p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s were p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l s u i t e d f o r p r o v i d i n g maximum f l e x i b i l i t y i n human systems and f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g harmonious s o c i a l environments. They f u r t h e r suggested t h a t the s p e c i a l communicative s k i l l s of wise people served to b e t t e r t r a n s m i t phenomenological l i f e e x periences a c r o s s g e n e r a t i o n s . L i k e C l a y t o n , they p e r c e i v e d wisdom as a dynamic f o r c e l e a d i n g to a s u p e r i o r l e v e l of s o c i a l competency. Thorngate (1981) proposed t h a t wisdom simply r e f e r s t o a p r e f e r e n c e f o r s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n and 75 p a r t i c u l a r h e u r i s t i c s t r a t e g i e s . Beginning with the assumption t h a t wisdom i s b e s t construed as a body of knowledge c o n s i s t i n g of a s e t of t r u t h s , he argued t h a t i t should be manifested i n an i n c r e a s e d agreement over the r e c o g n i t i o n of those t r u t h s . Although Thorngate was not s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the developmental aspects of wisdom, such f e a t u r e s e x i s t i m p l i c i t l y i n h i s w r i t i n g s . He suggested t h a t wisdom seemed to be a g e - r e l a t e d because o l d e r people had more o p p o r t u n i t y to d i s c o v e r l i f e t r u t h s and, consequently, should demonstrate g r e a t e r convergence of agreement. U n l i k e other t h e o r i s t s , Thorngate s a i d l i t t l e about the b e h a v i o u r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of wisdom. E m p i r i c a l S t u d i e s of Wisdom S e v e r a l of the above mentioned authors have supplemented t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n s with e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h . Although i t may seem c o n t r i v e d to s e p a r a t e l y present r e s e a r c h and theory, I have done t h i s to permit a s y s t e m a t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n of the major ideas i n each t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n unencumbered by the n e c e s s i t y of d i s c u s s i n g m e t h o d o l o g i c a l and a n a l y t i c a l problems of the accompanying r e s e a r c h . I w i l l now b r i e f l y summarize 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 as r e s u l t s of a study by H o l l i d a y (1981) which i s u n r e l a t e d to those t h e o r i e s . C l a y t o n (1976, 1978) used a m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g procedure to i d e n t i f y dimensions u n d e r l y i n g common p e r c e p t i o n s of wisdom. In the study, s u b j e c t s r e p r e s e n t i n g three age groups compared f i f t e e n d e s c r i p t i v e words, generated i n a p i l o t study ( C l a y t o n , 1975) w i t h each other, and w i t h the words 'wise', 'aged', and 'myself.' The a n a l y s i s of the s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s w i t h the word 'wise' i n d i c a t e d three d i s t i n c t c l u s t e r s of a t t r i b u t e s . The authors suggested that those c l u s t e r s indexed c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e and r e f l e c t i v e dimensions c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of wise people. Brent and Watson (1980) a l s o attempted to i d e n t i f y the d e f i n i n g f e a t u r e s of wise people. To generate a set of such f e a t u r e s , they asked s u b j e c t s to i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e a wise person. A f t e r r a t i n g and a n a l y z i n g those d e s c r i p t i o n s , they i d e n t i f i e d four c l u s t e r s of a t t r i b u t e s l a b e l l e d p e r s o n a l - c o g n i t i v e , p r a c t i c a l - e x p e r i e n t i a l , i n t e r p e r s o n a l and m o r a l - e t h i c a l , which they thought r e f l e c t e d the s p e c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l a b i l i t i e s o f wise people. In a t h i r d study, H o l l i d a y (1981) used a d i f f e r e n t procedure to determine the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g 77 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of wise i n d i v i d u a l s . In t h a t study, c o l l e g e age s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e d three t a r g e t s - o l d people, wise people and i n t e l l i g e n t people - u s i n g common language Q-sort items. He found t h a t wise people were r a t e d h i g h l y on terms r e f l e c t i n g p e r s o n a l competency, s o c i a l understanding and compassion. I n t e l l i g e n t and o l d people were h i g h l y r a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y , on terms r e p r e s e n t i n g p e r s o n a l competency and l i k e a b i l i t y . S e v e r a l f e a t u r e s of these three s t u d i e s argue f o r the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of the concept of wisdom. F i r s t , a l l authors demonstrated t h a t people c h a r a c t e r i z e wise i n d i v i d u a l s i n a c o n s i s t e n t i n t e r p r e t a b l e f a s h i o n . T h i s f i n d i n g i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p ressive i n view of the f a c t t h a t d i f f e r e n t methodologies were used i n each study. T h i s p r o v i d e s a multi-method v a l i d a t i o n of the c l a i m t h a t wise people are e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from ot h e r i n d i v i d u a l s . Second, these s t u d i e s demonstrated c r o s s s i t u a t i o n a l c o n s i s t e n c y i n the dimensions summarizing the c h a r a c t e r s t i c s of wise people. For example, a p e r s o n a l competency f a c t o r appeared i n each study. Although a l l dimensions are not i d e n t i c a l , there i s enough resemblance to suggest t h a t there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e consensus r e g a r d i n g the nature of wise 78 people. T h i s evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t wisdom, as embodied i n the a c t i o n s o f wise people, i s used as a meaningful competency d e s c r i p t o r . Thorngate (1981) examined the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t wisdom i s r e f l e c t e d i n agreement on the t r u t h values of c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n . To t e s t whether wisdom, as evidenced i n convergence of o p i n i o n , i n c r e a s e d with age, he presented 232 i n d i v i d u a l s , ranging i n age from the teens through the s e v e n t i e s , with one hundred and f i f t y q u o t a t i o n s commenting on d i f f e r e n t aspects of l i f e . He asked the s u b j e c t s t o r a t e how s t r o n g l y they agreed/disagreed over the s e t of items. He found t h a t o l d e r people demonstrated a h i g h e r degree of convergence than d i d younger people. There was, however, no o r d e r l y a g e - r e l a t e d i n c r e a s e i n convergence of o p i n i o n . The s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d by C l a y t o n and B i r r e n (1978), Brent and Watson (1980) and H o l l i d a y (1981) are p a r t i c u l a r l y germane to t h i s p r o j e c t . Each of those s t u d i e s attempted to p r o v i d e an e m p i r i c a l s t r a t e g y f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g wise people from other i n d i v i d u a l s . Demonstrating t h a t wise people c o n s t i t u t e an e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e , n o n - a r b i t r a r i l y d e f i n e d group i s an important and necessary f i r s t s tep i n a systematic' — i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the nature and f u n c t i o n of wisdom. As 79 Thorngate's work demonstrates, o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g wisdom i n a very narrow manner leads to few i n t e r e s t i n g c o n c l u s i o n s about wisdom or wise people. In the absence o f a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h e o r e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n to guide r e s e a r c h attempts, i t seems p a r t i c u l a r l y important t o pay s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n t o c l e a r l y d e l i n e a t i n g the area of i n t e r e s t , and the p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d s t u d i e s are an important step i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n . D e s p i t e the apparent success of these s t u d i e s , there i s reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t they f a i l t o e x h a u s t i v e l y d e s c r i b e the domain of wisdom. In the Cl a y t o n and B i r r e n (1978) and H o l l i d a y (1981) s t u d i e s , s u b j e c t s were asked t o r a t e a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l s e t of d e s c r i p t o r s (15 f o r C l a y t o n and B i r r e n , 70 f o r H o l l i d a y ) i n terms o f t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o a wise person. In each case, the words were chosen on some a r b i t r a r y b a s i s and i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o conclude t h a t they encompassed a l l , or even a m a j o r i t y , of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of wise people. Brent and Watson (1980) avoided the problem of using a r e s t r i c t e d item s e t by as k i n g people to d e s c r i b e the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a wise person t h a t they knew. This approach p e r m i t t e d a broader, l e s s c o n s t r a i n e d examination of the f e a t u r e s of wisdom. The authors, 80 h o w e v e r , l a c k e d a c o n s i s t e n t a p p r o a c h f o r e v a l u a t i n g t h e a d e q u a c y , o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s , o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e s c r i p t o r s . T h i s r e s t r i c t e d t h e i r a b i l i t y t o e x h a u s t i v e l y c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e d o m a i n o f wisdom. I n v i e w o f t h e s h o r t c o m i n g s o f t h e s e t h r e e s t u d i e s , i t seems c l e a r t h a t t h o s e e f f o r t s s h o u l d be s u p p l e m e n t e d by a more r i g o r o u s a n a l y s i s o f t h e t e r m s u s e d t o d e s c r i b e w i s e p e o p l e . C a t e g o r i z a t i o n T h e o r y and R e s e a r c h P r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s o f w i s d o m h a v e h a d some s u c c e s s i n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p e o p l e p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g w i s e . T h o s e a t t e m p t s c o n s t i t u t e i n f o r m a l c a t e g o r y a n a l y s e s w h i c h t r y t o e s t a b l i s h t h e d e f i n i n g f e a t u r e s o f t h e c a t e g o r y o f w i s e p e o p l e . C o u n t e r p a r t e f f o r t s t o i d e n t i f y and a n a l y z e i n f o r m a l t h e o r i e s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t c a t e g o r y a n a l y s i s c a n be v a l u a b l e i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e f e a t u r e s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e ( S t e r n b e r g e t a l , 1 9 8 1 ) . S u c h an a p p r o a c h i s p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l f o r i d e n t i f y i n g t h e f e a t u r e s o f w i s d o m , a d o m a i n t h a t i s m a r k e d by a s t r o n g i n f o r m a l t r a d i t i o n , b u t w h i c h l a c k s a c o h e r e n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l f o u n d a t i o n . I n t h i s c a s e , p e o p l e ' s i n f o r m a l c o n c e p t i o n s 81 of wisdom may be a p a r t i c u l a r l y important source o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r dev e l o p i n g a comprehensive p s y c h o l o g i c a l theory o f wisdom. T h i s 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 based on a cogent theory of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . Previous attempts to study wisdom were somewhat l i m i t e d by t h e i r l a c k of c o n s i d e r a t i o n of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n theory. T h i s study attempts t o compensate f o r t h a t o v e r s i g h t . C a t e g o r i z a t i o n Theory C o g n i t i v e psychology p r o v i d e s the necesary t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r undertaking such a task. Rosch (1975, 1978) suggested t h a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a i d s i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g by p r o v i d i n g a means f o r o r g a n i z i n g i n f i n i t e l y v a r i a b l e o b j e c t s i n t o manageable groups. She proposed t h a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i s governed by two broad p r i n c i p l e s . The f i r s t , c o g n i t i v e economy, suggests t h a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n r u l e s h e l p i n d i v i d u a l s to o b t a i n maximal i n f o r m a t i o n with minimal expenditure of c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t . The second p r i n c i p l e , world s t r u c t u r e , suggests t h a t p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a t e g o r i e s r e f l e c t the p e r c e i v e d s t r u c t u r e of the world, as 82 c a t e g o r y members p o s s e s s c l u s t e r s o f c o r r e l a t e d a t t r i b u t e s . R o s e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t c a t e g o r i e s a r e o r g a n i z e d i n b o t h v e r t i c a l a n d h o r i z o n t a l d i m e n s i o n s . I n t h e v e r t i c a l d i m e n s i o n , c a t e g o r i e s a r e a r r a n g e d i n t e r m s o f i n c r e a s i n g g e n e r a l i t y r a n g i n g f r o m s u b o r d i n a t e ( n a r r o w ) , t o b a s i c ( m o d e r a t e l y b r o a d ) , t o s u p e r o r d i n a t e ( v e r y b r o a d ) . C a t e g o r i e s a t h i g h e r l e v e l s subsume t h o s e a t l o w e r o n e s r e s u l t i n g i n a r a n k e d h i e r a r c h i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t . An 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 w o u l d be: FURNITURE KITCHEN LAWN COFFEE DINING CHAIRS CHAIRS TABLE TABLE C a t e g o r i e s a t e a c h l e v e l d i f f e r b o t h i n -terras o f t h e i r s c o p e and d e t a i l . The s u b o r d i n a t e c a t e g o r i e s 83 are r i c h i n d e t a i l but narrow i n range of i n c l u s i o n . Higher l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s are more i n c l u s i v e , but l e s s d e t a i l e d . Rosch suggested t h a t b a s i c l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s are of p a r t i c u l a r p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e l e v a n c e as they possess s u f f i c i e n t scope and d e t a i l to serve as e f f e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g a i d s . The h o r i z o n t a l dimension indexes the degree of r e l a t e d n e s s of c a t e g o r i e s e x i s t i n g at the same l e v e l w i t h i n a h i e r a r c h y . In the above diagram, c h a i r s and t a b l e s are examples of such r e l a t e d c a t e g o r i e s . Rosch hyp o t h e s i z e d t h a t when c a t e g o r i e s are subsumed w i t h i n a s u p e r o r d i n a t e category, they should demonstrate some resemblance. However, s i n c e each category r e f e r e n c e s somewhat d i s t i n c t phenomena, the resemblance should be l e s s than complete. Rosch and Mervis (1975) used the W i t t g e n s t e i n i a n idea of f a m i l y resemblances to d i s c u s s the s i m i l a r i t y between c a t e g o r i e s which e x i s t at the same l e v e l of g e n e r a l i t y . The u n d e r l y i n g i d e a i s t h a t c a t e g o r i e s , l i k e f a m i l y members, share some, but not a l l , f a m i l i a l f e a t u r e s . The shared f e a t u r e s vary between c a t e g o r i e s i n the same way t h a t f a m i l y members resemble each other i n s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t ways. There is.enough o v e r l a p to r e c o g n i z e a l l members as being r e l a t e d , but 84 a l s o s u f f i c i e n t d i f f e r e n c e to r e c o g n i z e them as i n d i v i d u a l s . Rosch suggested that i t i s p o s s i b l e to examine the degree of resemblance by c o n s i d e r i n g the elements common to both c a t e g o r i e s i n c o n j u n c t i o n with the 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 t h a t are unique to each. An a d d i t i o n a l f e a t u r e of i n t e r e s t , the n o t i o n of p r o t o t y p e s , emerged from Rosch's examination of the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of n a t u r a l o b j e c t c a t e g o r i e s . T r a d i t i o n a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n theory has d e f i n e d category membership i n terms o f the necessary c o n d i t i o n s governing i n c l u s i o n w i t h i n the category. In order to be c o n s i d e r e d a member of a category, an o b j e c t would have to possess a f u l l complement of c r i t e r i a l f e a t u r e s . T h i s made category membership an a l l or none a f f a i r . In her s t u d i e s , Rosch found that while people t y p i c a l l y agreed on which members of c a t e g o r i e s c o n s t i t u t e d the c l e a r e s t i n s t a n c e of the category, when o b j e c t s were l e s s c l e a r l y d e f i n e d they o f t e n d i s a g r e e d about the c l a s s membership of those more p e r i p h e r a l o b j e c t s . Such a f i n d i n g i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l t h e o r i e s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . In view of t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y , Rosch suggested that p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a t e g o r i e s were b e t t e r thought of as b e i n g organized around the c l e a r e s t i n s t a n c e or prototype of the category. A c c o r d i n g to Rosch, people 35 determined category membership by comparing a p o t e n t i a l member with the p r o t o t y p e . Since members vary i n t h e i r degree o f resemblance t o the p r o t o t y p e , some w i l l be more c o n f i d e n t l y seen as being members of the category than o t h e r s . Category membership, from t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , i s a q u e s t i o n of degree. In t h i s r e s p e c t , Rosch's c a t e g o r i e s are l i k e f uzzy s e t s i n which the boundaries are i n d i s t i n c t and tend to fade i n t o each other. Prototypes, as d e f i n e d by Rosch, do not e x i s t i n any m a t e r i a l sense. Rather, they may be thought of as consensual judgements t h a t maximize c l u s t e r s of a t t r i b u t e s w i t h i n c a t e g o r i e s and c l a r i f y the c o r r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of the p e r c e i v e d world. E m p i r i c a l l y , p r o t o t y p e s are r e f l e c t e d i n group judgements of the goodness of f i t of membership w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r category. Prototypes are something l i k e the person of one's dreams who has a l l the f e a t u r e s of an i d e a l person and serves as a template f o r e v a l u a t i n g o t h e r people, but does not r e p r e s e n t a s p e c i f i c person. Rosch i n d i c a t e d t h a t p r o t o t y p e s , because they r e p r e s e n t i d e a l category members, may be r i c h sources of i n f o r m a t i o n about the a t t r i b u t e s t r u c t u r e of a category. One can t h e r e f o r e study c a t e g o r i e s by examining t h e i r 86 p r o t o t y p e s . D e s c r i b i n g a pro t o t y p e i s somewhat l i k e c a t a l o g u i n g a t t r i b u t e s . The purpose of such an a c t i v i t y , however, i s not to i d e n t i f y category members, but t o c l a r i f y the a t t r i b u t e s t r u c t u r e o f the category. T h i s may be c a r r i e d out i n a two-step process i n which people f i r s t generate, and then r a t e the importance or c e n t r a l i t y of, a t t r i b u t e s which d e s c r i b e an i d e a l c a t e g o r y member. Rosch a l s o found t h a t i d e n t i f y i n g the a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p r o t o t y p e p r o v i d e d a means of demonstrating the impact of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n on i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . For example, she demonstrated t h a t r a t i n g s of category membership are a f u n c t i o n of the number of p r o t o t y p i c a l a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d with the p o t e n t i a l category member. P e r c e i v e d membership i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the number of a t t r i b u t e s shared w i t h the pro t o t y p e and n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the number of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s shared w i t h o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . The c l o s e r an o b j e c t resembles the p r o t o t y p e , the more c o n f i d e n t l y i t i s i d e n t i f i e d as a category member. C a t e g o r i z a t i o n and Prototype Research Extensions of Rosch's work have demonstrated 37 t h a t people c a t e g o r i z e other i n d i v i d u a l s i n the same manner t h a t they do common o b j e c t s . Prototype analyses have been used s u c c e s s f u l l y to study i n t e l l i g e n c e , p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , c l i n i c a l judgements and stereotype formation. The success achieved i n these areas suggests t h a t p r o t o t y p e a n a l y s i s may be a p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e technique f o r c l a r i f y i n g the p s y c h o l o g i c a l dimensions of the concept of wisdom. In the f o l l o w i n g pages, I w i l l review the use of p r o t o t y p e procedures i n those d i f f e r e n t f i e l d s . The review i s not exhaustive and focuses on s t u d i e s t h a t are e i t h e r p a r t i c u l a r l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e or r e l e v a n t to the r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d here. Prototypes and Person P e r c e p t i o n Cantor and M i s c h e l (1979) i n t r o d u c e d c a t e g o r i z a t i o n theory i n t o the domain of person p e r c e p t i o n . In t h e i r i n i t i a l work, they demonstrated t h a t i t was p o s s i b l e to c o n s t r u c t p e r s o n a l i t y h i e r a r c h i e s t h a t were s i m i l a r i n form to n a t u r a l o b j e c t h i e r a r c h i e s . Focusing on such commonly used p e r s o n a l i t y d e s c r i p t o r s as ' a g g r e s s i v e 1 , ' e x t r o v e r t e d ' , and ' i n t r o v e r t e d 1 , they a l s o found t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y 88 c a t e g o r i e s e x h i b i t e d w e l l d e f i n e d p r o t o t y p e s t r u c t u r e s . T h e i r r e s u l t s suggested t h a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n p l a y s an important r o l e i n s o c i a l c o g n i t i o n . They went on to suggest t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y theory c o u l d be e n r i c h e d by the •use of p r o t o t y p e or other c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a n a l y s e s . Buss and C r a i k (1981) used a p r o t o t y p e approach to c l a r i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s and o v e r t behaviour. They f i r s t used prototype g e n e r a t i o n procedures to develop l i s t s o f behaviours c e n t r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z i n g d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . They next asked s u b j e c t s to both r a t e themselves on p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e s and i n d i c a t e t h e i r use of p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t i o n s . T h e i r r e s u l t s demonstrated t h a t s e l f r e p o r t s of engagement i n p r o t o t y p i c a l behaviours c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y with p e r s o n a l i t y d i s p o s i t i o n measures. T h i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the c u r r e n t c o n f u s i o n r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s and o v e r t behaviour c o u l d be c l a r i f i e d i f p r o t o t y p e procedures were used to i d e n t i f y behaviours t h a t are l i k e l y t o e x h i b i t c r o s s s i t u a t i o n a l c o n s i s t e n c y . Broughton (1981) used a p r o t o t y p e s t r a t e g y to c o n s t r u c t p e r s o n a l i t y r a t i n g s c a l e s which were subsequently used i n a comparative v a l i d i t y study. He. found t h a t p r o t o t y p e s c a l e s c o n s t r u c t e d by naive 89 s u b j e c t s y i e l d e d b e t t e r psychometric c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than s c a l e s generated by t r a d i t i o n a l r a t i o n a l and psychometric methods. His r e s u l t s suggested t h a t f o r s o c i a l l y d e f i n e d c a t e g o r i e s , naive i n d i v i d u a l s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of c a t e g o r i e s may be as v a l i d as the " e n l i g h t e n e d " s p e c u l a t i o n of e x p e r t s . Prototypes and C l i n i c a l Research S e v e r a l s t u d i e s have used p r o t o t y p e analyses t o c l a r i f y the manner i n which mental h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s e i t h e r conceive of mental h e a l t h problems or apply t h e i r knowledge i n the d i a g n o s t i c p r o c e s s . Cantor et a l . (1980) used a p r o t o t y p e procedure to study the manner i n which c l i n i c i a n s use d i a g n o s t i c c a t e g o r i e s . They found t h a t c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s h e l d w e l l 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 of v a r i o u s d i a g n o s t i c types ranging from s c h i z o p h r e n i a to i n v o l u t i o n a l m e l a n c h o l i a . They a l s o found t h a t c l i n i c a l judgement, which has o f t e n been d e p i c t e d as i d i o s y n c r a t i c and u n r e l i a b l e , was q u i t e o r d e r l y when viewed from a p r o t o t y p e framework. The r e l i a b i l i t y of judgements was shown to be a p o s i t i v e f u n c t i o n of t h e — resemblance of the p a t i e n t to the d i a g n o s t i c p r o t o t y p e . 90 Horowitz et a l . (1981) used a p r o t o t y p e a n a l y s i s s t r a t e g y to i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n t e r p e r s o n a l f e a t u r e s t h a t are embedded i n the meaning of d e p r e s s i o n and l o n e l i n e s s . They i d e n t i f i e d p r o t o t y p e s f o r each category and found t h a t the p r o t o t y p e f o r l o n e l i n e s s was l o c a t e d w i t h i n the l a r g e r category of d e p r e s s i o n . They went on to suggest t h a t c l i n i c i a n s c o u l d use these p r o t o t y p e d e s c r i p t i o n s as a means of i d e n t i f y i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l problems, and t h a t the symptoms comprising the p r o t o t y p e s c o u l d be used to h e l p the i n d i v i d u a l s i d e n t i f y and d e a l w i t h t h e i r i n t e r p e r s o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . P r o totypes and Other Research Bever et a l . (1981) employed a p r o t o t y p e a n a l y s i s t o study the manner i n which people form s t e r e o t y p e s of the e l d e r l y . They found t h a t the term ' e l d e r l y people' was used as a s u p e r o r d i n a t e category which subsumed a number of d i s t i n c t s u b c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d i n g the Grandmotherly type, the E l d e r Statesman and the S e n i o r C i t i z e n . Each of those s u b c a t e g o r i e s e x h i b i t e d a r i c h a t t r i b u t e s t r u c t u r e , while the s u p e r o r d i n a t e category, E l d e r l y People, was a s s o c i a t e d 91 w i t h few a t t r i b u t e s . The r e s e a r c h e r s a l s o found that i n f o r m a t i o n i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the b a s i c l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s , such as the Senior C i t i z e n , was remembered l e s s w e l l than i n f o r m a t i o n i n c o n s i s t e n t with the sup e r o r d i n a t e category E l d e r l y People. This l e d them to suggest that most s t e r e o t y p i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l s occurs at the b a s i c category l e v e l , r a t h e r than at the sup e r o r d i n a t e l e v e l as some ste r e o t y p e l i t e r a t u r e suggests. Fehr (1982) used a Roschian c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a n a l y s i s to examine the s t r u c t u r e of the domain of emotions. She d i s c o v e r e d that emotional terms were arranged i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c u r e that c l o s e l y resembled the type of h i e r a r c h i e s r e p o r t e d by Rosch i n her s t u d i e s of common o b j e c t s . She a l s o found t h a t many of the emotional d e s c r i p t o r s that people use i n everyday language f u n c t i o n e d as b a s i c l e v e l concepts w i t h i n the h i e r a r c h i e s . Prototypes and C o g n i t i o n S e v e r a l s t u d i e s i n the area of human i n t e l l i g e n c e are p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t to t h i s p r o j e c t . In the pa s t , p s y c h o l o g i s t s have debated w i t h great 92 i n t e n s i t y the meaning of the term ' i n t e l l i g e n t ' without coming to e i t h e r a consensual agreement on the nature of i n t e l l i g e n c e or any systematic understanding of how i n t e l l i g e n t people f u n c t i o n i n the world. T h i s s i t u a t i o n i s d i r e c t l y analogous to the s i t u a t i o n of wisdom where we have p o o r l y developed t h e o r i e s of wisdom and l i t t l e understanding of the common usage of the concept. Thus, p a r a l l e l attempts to c l a r i f y the meaning of i n t e l l i g e n c e may serve as guides f o r examining wisdom. N e i s s e r (1979) examined the meaning of the concept of i n t e l l i g e n c e u s ing a Roschian type a n a l y t i c procedure. His r a t i o n a l e was t h a t much of the c o n f u s i o n r e g a r d i n g the meaning of i n t e l l i g e n c e might be e l i m i n a t e d i f attempts to understand the nature of i n t e l l i g e n c e were l i n k e d to our knowledge of concepts i n g e n e r a l . The c e n t r a l p o i n t of h i s p o s i t i o n was t h a t c e r t a i n words, such as i n t e l l i g e n t , e x i s t i n n a t u r a l language because they h e l p people to c a t e g o r i z e other i n d i v i d u a l s . I n t e l l i g e n c e , i n t h a t framework, c o u l d be thought of as a concept r e f e r e n c i n g a number of c o r r e l a t e d behaviours and a t t r i b u t e s . T h i s l e d N e i s s e r t o propose t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e , l i k e common- o b j e c t s , c o u l d be more completely understood i f analyzed w i t h i n a 93 Roschian framework of p r o t o t y p i c a l l y o r g a n i z e d concepts. His a n a l y s i s suggested t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l psychometric conceptions of i n t e l l i g e n c e were subsumed i n a more g e n e r a l common language i d e a of i n t e l l i g e n c e . The category of i n t e l l i g e n c e , as i t e x i s t s i n a s o c i a l c ontext, i n c l u d e s a l a r g e number of dimensions, one of which might be c a l l e d academic smartness. While p s y c h o l o g i s t s have attempted to measure i n t e l l i g e n c e i n terms of p o s s e s s i n g a number of a b i l i t i e s t h a t c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y with academic success, N e i s s e r suggested t h a t i n the world a person's i n t e l l i g e n c e i s judged i n terms of t h a t person's resemblance to a p r o t o t y p i c a l l y i n t e l l i g e n t person. T h i s work i m p l i e s t h a t i t i s both p o s s i b l e and d e s i r a b l e to analyze complex c o g n i t i v e phenomena u s i n g p r o t o t y p e s t r a t e g i e s . S t e r n b e r g et a l (1981) a l s o i n c o r p o r a t e d a R o s c h i a n - l i k e a n a l y s i s i n a study of i m p l i c i t t h e o r i e s of i n t e l l i g e n c e . L i k e N e i s s e r , the authors suggested t h a t formal t h e o r i e s of i n t e l l i g e n c e should have some correspondence with people's i n f o r m a l c o n c e p t i o n s . In a s e r i e s of s t u d i e s , they examined the degree of consensus between laymen and experts on the nature of,, a) i n t e l l i g e n c e i n g e n e r a l ; b) academic i n t e l l i g e n c e ; and 94 c) everyday i n t e l l i g e n c e . To d e s c r i b e the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' i n f o r m a l t h e o r i e s , the authors had groups of s u b j e c t s generate l i s t s of b e h a v i o u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t t y p i f i e d each of the three groups. In a subsequent study, groups of experts and l a y people r a t e d those words i n terms of t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c n e s s of the three t a r g e t groups. Examination of the concordance between the groups on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c n e s s of the words i n d i c a t e d t h a t people maintain w e l l formed conceptions of i n t e l l i g e n c e , and t h a t experts and l a y people d i f f e r somewhat i n the importance of d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . F a c t o r analyses of the r a t i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t problem s o l v i n g a b i l i t i e s and s o c i a l competency dimensions underlay a l l d e s c r i p t i o n s . Other f a c t o r s emerged, but were c o n s i s t e n t n e i t h e r across groups nor t a r g e t s . The importance of each f a c t o r , however, v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n of both the t a r g e t and r a t e r s . In p a r t i c u l a r , the s o c i a l competency f a c t o r accounted f o r a g r e a t e r percentage of v a r i a n c e i n l a y people's d e s c r i p t i o n s than i t d i d i n experts' r a t i n g s . The authors i n t e r p r e t e d these r e s u l t s as s uggesting t h a t people's i m p l i c i t , or i n f o r m a l , t h e o r i e s of i n t e l l i g e n c e are broader i n scope than most formal t h e o r i e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , they argued t h a t the h i g h degree of resemblance between l a y people's and experts' r a t i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s of a l l backgrounds s u b s c r i b e t o s i m i l a r , w e l l formed, t h e o r i e s of i n t e l l i g e n c e . A Prototype A n a l y s i s o f Wisdom The s t u d i e s reviewed i n the preceding pages i n d i c a t e t h a t category a n a l y s i s procedures p r o v i d e a powerful means of examining c e r t a i n types of p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s . Broughton's (1981) r e p o r t t h a t s c a l e s based on p e r s o n a l i t y prototypes demonstrate h i g h e r v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s than p s y c h o m e t r i c a l l y formed s c a l e s and Sternberg et a l ' s (1981) f i n d i n g t h a t common language p r o t o t y p e s resemble formal t h e o r i e s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e are of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t . These f i n d i n g s c l e a r l y suggest t h a t people's p e r c e p t i o n s of the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e s of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n s t a n c e s of s o c i a l c a t e g o r i e s can be a s i g n i f i c a n t component i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s . Wisdom, although d i f f e r e n t i n nature, i s s i m i l a r i n form to p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t d e s c r i p t o r s and c o g n i t i v e competency terms. The a c t of r e c o g n i z i n g someone as being wise suggests .that the person 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 t h a t serves as a b a s i s f o r i n c l u d i n g the person i n the category o f wise people. I f i t i s i n f a c t c o r r e c t to t h i n k o f wisdom as a s o c i a l l y meaningful category, as the r e s u l t s o f the p r e c e d i n g e x t e n s i v e review suggest, then i t i s both p o s s i b l e and a p p r o p r i a t e to study the nature o f wisdom by i n v e s t i g a t i n g the prototype a s s o c i a t e d with the category. I t i s ev i d e n t from the reviews presented e a r l i e r t h a t both l a y people and t h e o r i s t s h o l d d e f i n i t e , although sometimes d i v e r s e , o p i n i o n s about the nature o f wisdom and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of wise people. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , much of t h a t l i t e r a t u r e i s of l i m i t e d u t i l i t y i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . The p h i l o s o p h i c a l accounts, f o r example, are t i e d to s p e c i f i c m e taphysical assumptions and cannot be regarded as unbiased r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of the nature of wise i n d i v i d u a l s . In the wisdom l i t e r a t u r e , there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e comment on the m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of wisdom, but l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n of the composition of wise people. The few p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s to appear i n the l i t e r a t u r e have i d e n t i f i e d some p o s s i b l e f e a t u r e s t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e wise people, but t h a t work i s incomplete. In s h o r t , although the l i t e r a t u r e suggests t h a t wise people are marked by c e r t a i n d i s t i n c t i v e 97 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , these important f e a t u r e s have not been rendered i n t o a coherent account of the p s y c h o l o g i c a l meaning of wisdom. The e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s undertaken i n t h i s t h e s i s , t h e r e f o r e , were designed to i l l u m i n a t e the p r o t o t y p e a s s o c i a t e d with the category of wise people. T h i s i n v o l v e d g e n e r a t i n g the prototype, demonstrating t h a t i t possessed p r o p e r t i e s s i m i l a r to prototypes found i n other i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , and a s s e s s i n g i t s impact on the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s used when c l a s s i f y i n g competent i n d i v i d u a l s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h r e e phases of work were undertaken. The f i r s t phase i n v o l v e d c o l l e c t i n g and a n a l y z i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s of wise people. The second was concerned with g e n e r a t i n g the p r o t o t y p e t y p i f y i n g the category of wise people. The t h i r d i n v o l v e d e m p i r i c a l l y demonstrating t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n about wise people was processed i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t with c a t e g o r i z a t i o n theory. W i t h i n t h i s three phase framework, I was able to address a s e r i e s of q u e s t i o n s about the nature of wisdom. The f i r s t q u e s t i o n was whether wisdom was b e s t construed as a p r o t o t y p e o r g a n i z e d concept. T h i s was answered by examining the p r o p e r t i e s of the prototype 98 d e s c i p t o r s f o r resemblance t o p r o t o t y p e s found i n other s t u d i e s . The second q u e s t i o n was whether the prototype f o r wise would be c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s age groups. T h i s problem was 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 age cohorts and examining c r o s s cohort c o n s i s t e n c y i n the prototype r a t i n g s . The t h i r d concern was whether wisdom was d i f f e r e n t i n k i n d than i n t e l l i g e n c e . T h i s concern was addressed by comparing the pro t o t y p e f o r wise with a prot o t y p e generated f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e . The f o u r t h problem i n v o l v e d whether the p r o t o t y p e f o r wise could be d e s c r i b e d i n terms of u n d e r l y i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l competencies. The s o l u t i o n i n v o l v e d u s i n g m u l t i v a r i a t e data r e d u c t i o n techniques t o i d e n t i f y the dimensions u n d e r l y i n g the prototype d e s c r i p t o r s . The f i n a l query was whether the wise p r o t o t y p e i n f l u e n c e d i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s . T h i s was answered by examining s u b j e c t s ' r e c o g n i t i o n memory performances f o l l o w i n g a pri m i n g e x e r c i s e with prototype c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n . By a d d r e s s i n g each of these i s s u e s , I developed a converging p a t t e r n of evidence arguing f o r the v a l i d i t y of wisdom as an a d u l t competency d e s c r i p t o r . 9 9 METHOD The research consisted of three projects. The f i r s t involved c o l l e c t i n g descriptions of wise people. The second was concerned with generating a prototype description of the category of wise people. The t h i r d examined the influence of the wise prototype on people's information processing strategies. The methodologies employed i n each project are d i s t i n c t and warrant separate presentation. In t o t a l , 458 subjects, representing the age cohorts of young adults, middle aged adults and e l d e r l y adults, participated i n d i f f e r e n t phases of the research. The following sections d e t a i l sequentially the methods used in each project. Projects one and two form an i n t e g r a l unit and are presented together, while study III addresses a d i s t i n c t issue, and i s described separately. Method Section - Study I SUBJECTS: Subjects i n this study were 150 indiv i d u a l s representing three cohorts - young adults, middle aged adults and senior c i t i z e n s . The f i f t y young adults were recruited from undergraduate psychology 100 courses a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The f i f t y middle aged a d u l t s were r e c r u i t e d from U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia evening courses and from a d u l t e d u c a t i o n courses o f f e r e d at Langara Community C o l l e g e . The f i f t y o l d e r a d u l t s were r e c r u i t e d from s e n i o r c i t i z e n s ' r e c r e a t i o n c e n t r e s i n the Greater Vancouver area. Approximately equal numbers of males and females were i n c l u d e d i n each cohort. There was no attempt to r e s t r i c t p a r t i c i p a n t s i n terms of e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l or any other v a r i a b l e . A l l s u b j e c t s who were able to complete the experimental tasks were i n c l u d e d i n the study. The sex, 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 of each co h o r t are d i s p l a y e d i n Tables I and I I . ( I n s e r t Tables I and I I here) PROCEDURE; The s u b j e c t s were asked to generate l i s t s o f a t t r i b u t e s or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t were d e s c r i p t i v e of s i x t a r g e t s : Wise people, Shrewd people, P e r c e p t i v e people, I n t e l l i g e n t people, S p i r i t u a l people and F o o l i s h people. The t a r g e t Wise people was of primary i n t e r e s t . The other t a r g e t s were chosen to r e p r e s e n t c a t e g o r i e s that might be s i m i l a r to or c o n t r a s t with Wise. F o o l i s h was i n c l u d e d as a d i r e c t TABLE I AGE CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY I SUBJECTS -MEAN RANGE STANDARD DEVIATION YOUNG ADULTS MALES (N= 25) FEMALES (N= 25) 22.20 22 . 00 20 - 28 20 - 28 2.10 2 .20 MIDDLE AGED ADULTS MALES (N= 25) FEMALES (N= 25) 43.24 42.72 33 - 58 33 - 59 7.83 8. 55 ELDERLY ADULTS MALES (N= 18) FEMALES (N= 32) 69.88 69.69 61 - 77 61 - 86 4. 69 5.08 TABLE I I EDUCATIONAL LEVEL - STUDY I SUBJECTS £ 8 YRS SOME HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA SOME COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY DEGREE ADVANCED DEGREE DID NOT REPLY MALE 19 1 5 YOUNG ADULTS FEMALE 17 3 5 MALE MIDDLE AGED ADULTS FEMALE 3 2 4 5 8 4 1 9 16 MALE ELDERLY ADULTS 3 6 2 4 3 1 FEMALE 1 4 9 5 4 9 i— 1 o 103 c o n t r a s t . I n t e l l i g e n t , on the other hand, was chosen because of i t s s i m i l a r i t y to wisdom (Clayton, 1980). Shrewd was thought to mark a competent mode of f u n c t i o n , while l a c k i n g the p o s i t i v e connotations a s s o c i a t e d with Wise. P e r c e p t i v e was i n c l u d e d because i t s a s s o c i a t i o n with i n s i g h t might resemble Wise. F i n a l l y , S p i r i t u a l was thought to r e f e r e n c e a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l q u a l i t y t h a t i s sometimes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h wisdom. I n c l u d i n g these a d d i t i o n a l d e s c r i p t o r s , then, p r o v i d e d a means of s y s t e m a t i c a l l y examining the resemblance between wisdom and other types of competent f u n c t i o n . The s u b j e c t s were f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d to the task, p r o v i d e d a s e t of i n s t r u c t i o n s and given an o p p o r t u n i t y to ask q u e s t i o n s . They were then given a b o o k l e t c o n t a i n i n g s i x sheets of paper, each headed by one of the t a r g e t s . The order of p r e s e n t a t i o n of the t a r g e t s was randomized across s u b j e c t s . The s u b j e c t s were asked to generate d e s c r i p t o r s f o r each t a r g e t . They were p e r m i t t e d to spend as much time as was necessary, but were t o l d t h a t they should t r y not to spend more than a few minutes on each t a r g e t . INSTRUCTIONS. The f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s , adapted from Buss & C r a i k (1981), were presented to the s u b j e c t s . 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 people f e e l are common to d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of persons. At the top of the next pages are l i s t e d d i f f e r e n t kinds of persons. For each page, you w i l l take 2 o r 3 minutes and w r i t e down a l l of the 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 your sex and age on the cover sheet. Then t u r n to the next page, read the d e s c r i p t i o n of the person and w r i t e down 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 of t h a t k i n d o f person. Try not to f r e e a s s o c i a t e . For example, i f the term " i n t e l l i g e n t person" reminds you of a p a r t i c u l a r f r i e n d , do not w r i t e down the word f r i e n d , or the f r i e n d ' s name. I am not asking you to name s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l s , but to l i s t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c e r t a i n kinds of people A f t e r you complete each page, continue on to the next one. Please do not look back at completed d e s c r i p t i o n s when you are l i s t i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of d i f f e r e n t t a r g e t s . Simply d e s c r i b e each t a r g e t u s i n g words t h a t come to mind. I would a l s o ask you not to r e f e r to books, d i c t i o n a r i e s or any o u t s i d e sources. 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. Please remember t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study i s v o l u n t a r y and th a t you are f r e e to withdraw at any time. You are a l s o f r e e to r e f u s e to answer any qu e s t i o n s without f e a r of p r e j u d i c i a l a c t i o n or r e p e r c u s s i o n s . 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 you have g i v e n your consent to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study. Thank you f o r your c o o p e r a t i o n . General Procedures f o r T r a n s c r i b i n g and Judging  Responses The responses to each t a r g e t were then formed 105 i n t o non-redundant category d e s c r i p t o r l i s t s i n a three stage process of t r a n s c r i b i n g s u b j e c t s ' responses, combining synonymous or t h e m a t i c a l l y r e l a t e d d e s c r i p t o r s and e l i m i n a t i n g i d i o s y n c r a t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In order to ensure t h a t t h i s was done as o b j e c t i v e l y as p o s s i b l e , a p o o l of judges p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the d e c i s i o n making process at each step. The judges used s e t s of p r e - e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s to determine which words should be i n c l u d e d or d e l e t e d from the f i n a l l i s t . The d e t a i l s of the t r a n s c r i p t i o n and judgement process are d e s c r i b e d below. T r a n s c r i b i n g Responses The experimenter t r a n s c r i b e d a l l words and d e s c r i p t i v e phrases t h a t were l i s t e d i n the experimental p r o t o c o l s . The responses were recorded verbatim, i f p o s s i b l e , or wi t h such minimal changes as were necessary to render the d e s c r i p t o r coherent. The responses were then d i v i d e d i n t o two separate l i s t s : s i n g l e words and d e s c r i p t i v e phrases. T h i s procedure was followed f o r each t a r g e t . Across the three c o h o r t s , the s u b j e c t s generated 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 phrases. The middle aged cohort generated the l a r g e s t number of d e s c r i p t o r s (399), foll o w e d by the c o l l e g e age cohort (300) and the e l d e r l y cohort (179). T h i s r e p r e s e n t s approximately 8 d e s c r i p t o r s per s u b j e c t f o r the middle aged group, 6 per s u b j e c t f o r the c o l l e g e age group and 3.6 per s u b j e c t f o r the o l d e r group. Many of those d e s c r i p t o r s , however, were i d e n t i c a l . When such redundancies are excluded, the number o f d i s t i n c t terms generated by each cohort was 230 f o r the middle aged s u b j e c t s , 214 f o r the c o l l e g e age su b j e c t s and 155 f o r the o l d e r s u b j e c t s . T h i s y i e l d s a t o t a l o f 784 d i s t i n c t d e s c r i p t o r s generated f o r the t a r g e t Wise people. Producing a L i s t of D e s c r i p t o r s The t r a n s c r i p t i o n y i e l d e d a l a r g e pool o f responses f o r each category, many o f which were redundant or i d i o s y n c r a t i c . The next task was to e l i m i n a t e both o f these types of responses from the l i s t . The most b a s i c r u l e i n t h i s process was that only responses r e c e i v i n g m u l t i p l e endorsements would be in c l u d e d i n the l i s t . There were s e v e r a l ways i n which items c o u l d meet t h i s requirement. F i r s t , and most simply, i f a word was l i s t e d by more than one subject i t 107 would a u t o m a t i c a l l y be i n c l u d e d . Second, i f a d e s c r i p t o r was judged to be synonymous with another d e s c r i p t o r , the two were combined and i n c l u d e d i n the l i s t . T h i r d , i f a d e s c r i p t i v e phrase was judged to be t h e m a t i c a l l y r e l a t e d to other phrases, the theme would be i d e n t i f i e d and i n c l u d e d i n the l i s t . In a l l of the above i n s t a n c e s , except the f i r s t , d e c i s i o n s to i n c l u d e a word i n the l i s t r e f l e c t e d a m a j o r i t y consensus amongst a p o o l of judges. Judges Four psychology graduate students, i n c l u d i n g the experimenter, judged the l i s t s of d e s c r i p t o r s f o r the t a r g e t Wise people. For the remaining f i v e t a r g e t s , two judges, the author and an a d d i t i o n a l judge, examined the l i s t s of responses. A l l of the judges had p r e v i o u s l y been t r a i n e d i n the procedures f o r judging category d e s c r i p t o r s . For the t a r g e t Wise people, a m a j o r i t y agreement (three of four judges) was r e q u i r e d b e f o r e a c c e p t i n g any d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g the l i s t s of d e s c r i p t o r s . For the remaining c a t e g o r i e s , unanimous agreement was r e q u i r e d as the b a s i s f o r a c c e p t i n g judgement d e c i s i o n s . I f the judges c o u l d not meet the 108 c r i t e r i o n , the item under c o n s i d e r a t i o n was e l i m i n a t e d from the l i s t o f d e s c r i p t o r s . The judgement process was c a r r i e d out i n a s e r i e s of s t e p s . F i r s t , the l i s t of s i n g l e word d e s c r i p t o r s was s c r u t i n i z e d and a l l synonyms and t h e m a t i c a l l y r e l a t e d words were combined. Next, the l i s t o f d e s c r i p t i v e phrases was submitted to the same s c r u t i n y . In the t h i r d step, words and phrases which had r e c e i v e d n e i t h e r m u l t i p l e endorsements nor been r a t e d as being r e l a t e d to other words/phrases r e c e i v e d a f i n a l s c r u t i n y and e i t h e r j o i n e d with others or d i s c a r d e d . Judging the S i m i l a r i t y of S i n g l e Word D e s r i p t o r s Webster's New C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y and Roget 1s Thesaurus were used as r e f e r e n c e guides f o r the task. Each judge examined the group of d e s c r i p t o r s and i n d i c a t e d which words were synonymous. The group of judges then decided whether the words i n each judge's groupings were a c t u a l l y synonymous. I f the d e c i s i o n was upheld, the words were combined and i d e n t i f i e d by the name of the most f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d d e s c r i p t o r . Each judge then i d e n t i f i e d words that they f e l t were 109 t h e m a t i c a l l y s i m i l a r , but not n e c e s s a r i l y synonymous. I f the grouping was upheld by a m a j o r i t y d e c i s i o n , the words were j o i n e d by a hyphen and i n c l u d e d i n the l i s t . (For example, c o n t e m p l a t i v e - r e f l e c t i v e . ) The remaining words, which had n e i t h e r been endorsed by more than one s u b j e c t nor been i d e n t i f i e d as r e l a t e d to other words, were set a s i d e f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . Judging the S i m i l a r i t y of Phrases The judges examined the d e s c r i p t i v e phrases, f i r s t i n d i v i d u a l l y making groupings and then, as a committee d e c i d i n g upon the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of each grouping. I f the judges decided that a p a r t i c u l a r group of phrases captured a theme, the category would be l a b e l l e d to express that theme ( i . e . , Learned from Experience, Has Learned a Lot from Experience and Gains Knowledge from Experience might be l a b e l l e d 'Learns from E x p e r i e n c e . 1 ) . Phrases that were n e i t h e r l i s t e d by at l e a s t two s u b j e c t s nor l i n k e d w i t h other phrases were set a s i d e f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . 110 Judging the Remaining Words The judges proceeded to examine the remaining words and phrases i n a f i n a l attempt to i n c l u d e them i n the l i s t of a t t r i b u t e s . I f a phrase seemed to be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the d e f i n i t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r word, i t was i n c l u d e d i n the l i s t . S i m i l a r l y , i f a word seemed c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r theme, i t was i n c l u d e d i n th a t thematic category. Words that could not be p l a c e d i n t h i s f i n a l judgement procedure were d i s c a r d e d . A t o t a l o f 182 words were judged to be i d i o s y n c r a t i c and were d i s c a r d e d . T h i s r e p r e s e n t s approximately 23% o f the d i s t i n c t d e s c r i p t o r s . 65 o f these were generated by the middle aged cohort, 63 by the c o l l e g e age cohort and 54 by the e l d e r l y cohort. The l i s t s thus generated by each of the three coh o r t s were then combined, producing 79 words/phrases c h a r a c t e r i z i n g people's conceptions of wisdom. These words appear i n the l e f t column of the f i r s t s e c t i o n of Table I I I . ( I n s e r t 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 MEAN VALUES Middle College Aged Elderly A l l Cohort Cohort Cohort Subjects TOLERANT 5.74 5.68 5.62 5.68 MATURE 5.84 6.12 5.90 5.95 UNDERSTANDS LIFE 5.48 6.02 5.60 5.70 MORAL 5.22 4.96 4.81 5.00 CIRCUMSPECT/DISCREET 4.82 4.96 5.16 4.99 MAY BE ANY AGE 4.08 4.30 4.73 4.36 CAN SEE AND CONSIDER ALL POINTS OF VIEW 5.80 6.00 5.42 5.74 SAYS THINGS THAT ARE WORTH LISTENING TO 5.80 5.96 5.52 5.76 POISED 4.38 4.64 4.63 4.55 HUMBLE/MODEST 4.32 4.30 4.62 4.41 LIKEABLE/FRIENDLY 4.64 4.16 4.73 4.51 RELAXED 4.68 4.40 4.32 4.47 ARTICULATE 5.26 4.92 5.24 5.14 INTERESTING TO TALK WITH 5.84 5.88 5.62 5. 78 UNCONDESCENDING 4.34 4.95 4.48 4.59 CONSIDERS ALL OPTIONS IN A SITUATION 5.70 5.94 5.58 5.74 AWARE 5.90 6.04 5.67 5.87 ALERT 5.02 5.28 5.14 5.15 CONTEMPLATIVE 5.86 6.00 5.27 5.72 KIND 4.78 4.64 4. 78 4.73 SOCIABLE 4.36 3.88 4.60 4.28 ABLE TO PREDICT HOW THINGS TURN OUT 4.72 4.66 4.04 4.47 NON-JUDGEMENTAL 4.62 4.88 4.79 4. 76 WELL READ 5.60 5.26 5.61 5.49 OPEN MINDED 5.66 6.12 5. 74 5.84 THINKS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING DECISION 5.82 5.96 5.52 5. 77 QUIET 3.94 3.98 4.26 4.06 LOGICAL/RATIONAL 6.00 5.66 5.43 5. 70 continued. TABLE I I I (Continued) 112 MEAN VALUES Middle College Aged Elderly A l l Cohort Cohort Cohort Subjects HAPPY 4 .46 4 .18 4 .33 4 .32 COMPREHENDING/UNDERSTANDING 5 .72 6 .16 5 .61 5 .83 FORESIGHTFUL/FAR SEEING 5 .58 5 .60 5 .04 5 .41 OBSERVANT/PERCEPTIVE 6 .02 6 .18 5 .70 5 .97 HAVE LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE 6 .30 6 .12 6 .04 6 .15 A SOURCE OF GOOD ADVICE 5 .98 5 .78 5 .92 5 .89 PLANS THINGS CAREFULLY 5 .38 5 .28 5 .54 5 .40 ASTUTE/DISCERNING 5 .28 5 .73 5 .12 5 .38 KNOWS WHEN TO GIVE AND WITHHOLD .28 .78 ADVICE 5 5 5 .72 5 .59 INTUITIVE 5 .42 5 .52 5 .20 5 .38 COMPASSIONATE/CARING 4 .72 4 .60 5 .24 4 .85 PHILOSOPHICAL 5 16 5 68 5 .43 5 43 AN ADVISOR OR MENTOR 5 04 4 90 4 .59 4 85 OLDER 4 42 4 62 4 47 4 50 DIPLOMATIC 4 58 4 92 4 32 4 61 COMPLEX 5 02 4 85 4 32 4 74 CALM/PEACEFUL 4 90 4 82 4 56 4 76 SEES THE ESSENCE OF SITUATIONS 5 44 5 94 5 47 5 61 FAIR 5. 32 5. 38 5 52 5 41 NOT NECESSARILY FORMALLY EDUCATED 4. 32 4. 02 4 35 4. 23 EMPATHIC 4. 50 4. 49 4. 53 4. 51 METHODICAL 4. 40 4. 40 4. 73 4. 51 GOOD LISTENER 5. 12 5. 36 5. 46 5. 31 FLEXIBLE 84 90 4. 4. 4. 75 4. 83 CURIOUS 5. 64 5. 54 5. 84 5. 67 UNSELFISH 4. 66 4. 56 4. 88 4. 70 EVEN TEMPERED 4. 78 4. 70 4. 56 4. 68 NOT NECESSARILY INTELLIGENT 3. 16 3. 28 3. 48 3. 30 UNDERSTANDS OTHER PEOPLE 5. 48 5. 62 5. 35 5. 48 THOUGHTFUL/THINKS A GREAT DEAL 5. 90 5. 76 5. 68 s 78 11 RELIABLE 4. 92 4. 94 5. 46 J . 5. continued.. . . TABLE I I I (Continued) 113 MEAN VALUES 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 DESCRIPTORS ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER THEORIES OF WISDOM (Identified by Source)  ERIKSON College Cohort Middle Aged Cohort Elderly Cohort A l l Subi ects 4.94 5.02 5.42 5.13 4.98 4.88 4.88 4.91 5.18 5.21 4.71 5.04 5.38 6.32 6.18 5.96 5.49 5.72 5.10 5.49 5.88 6.04 6.18 6.03 4.48 4.32 4.71 4.50 5.62 5.72 5.66 5.67 5.50 5.53 5.20 5.41 4.38 4.16 4.22 4.25 4.22 4.06 4.04 4.11 5.46 5.26 5.00 5.24 5.62 5.90 5.86 5.79 5.26 5.50 5.72 5.49 4.60 4.94 4.77 4.77 3.86 3.98 4.08 3.97 3.57 3.61 3.94 3. 71 5.80 5.75 5. 62 5.72 5.00 4.75 4.48 4.74 5.94 6.37 5.92 6.07 C APART C0F TLIFE N E C E S S I T Y 0 F D E A T H A S 5-54 WELL ADJUSTED 5.36 5.50 5.14 5.90 5.60 5.65 5.37 continued. TABLE I I I (Continued) MEAN VALUES Middle College Aged Elderly A l l Cohort Cohort Cohort Subi ects CLAYTON & BIRREN COMMITTED 4.46 4.37 4.65 4.50 HAS A TRANSCENDENT VIEW OF LIFE 4.75 5.16 4.65 4.84 CAN COMMUNICATE WITH NON-VERBAL MEANS 4.36 4.46 4.65 4.49 COMPETENT 5.40 5.12 5.29 5.27 BRENT & WATSON HAS A GOOD MEMORY 4.92 4.80 5.10 4.94 METAPHORICAL 4.46 3.98 4.12 4.19 A SEER 4.02 3.53 3.21 3.59 RELIGIOUS 3.73 3.60 3. 70 3.68 HAS ENDURED MUCH SUFFERING 3.44 3.34 3.76 3.51 HOLLIDAY DOES NOT ENGAGE IN SELF PITY 4.64 4.98 5.08 4.90 FRANK 4.24 4.26 4.39 4.30 NOT HOSTILE TO OTHERS 4.46 4.88 5.16 4.83 NOT JEALOUS OF OTHERS 4.70 5.14 5.32 5.05 NOT RESENTFUL OF OTHERS 4.40 4.82 4.79 4.67 SINCERE 4.94 5.34 5.62 5.30 CONFIDENT 5.38 5.24 4.92 5.18 VARIOUS PHILOSOPHERS ABLE TO LEARN ALL THINGS 4.58 3.40 3.54 3.84 DIVINELY INSPIRED 3.52 2.88 3.23 3.21 UNDERSTANDS THE WORLD 5.20 5. 77 4.82 5.26 ENLIGHTENED 5.08 5.69 5.52 5.43 continued.... TABLE I I I (Continued) 115 MEAN VALUES College Cohort Middle Aged Cohort Elderly Cohort A l l Subi ects DESCRIPTORS ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER TARGET CATEGORIES (Identified by Target) INTELLIGENT QUICK WITTED 4.64 4 .40 4 .35 4 .48 LEARNS EASILY 5.14 4 .96 4 .86 4 .99 GOOD CONVERSATIONALIST 4.94 4 .16 4 .26 4 .45 QUICK LEARNER 5.00 4 62 4 .70 4 77 PERCEPTIVE ABLE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES 5.30 5 64 5 40 5 45 TALKS/REMAINS SILENT AS IS APPROPRIATE 5.70 5 68 5 88 5 75 WARM 4.08 4 22 4 60 4 30 PERFECTIONIST 3.48 3 10 3 67 3 42 SHREWD MANIPULATIVE 2.88 2 44 2 51 2 61 INSENSITIVE 2.34 1 84 1 98 2 05 CALCULATING 3.92 3. 02 3. 54 3. 50 UNHAPPY 2.60 2. 36 2. 52 2. 49 FOOLISH GULLIBLE 1.86 1. 61 1. 98 1. 82 RECKLESS 2.06 1. 80 1. 80 1. 89 IRREPONSIBLE 1.94 1. 72 1. 77 1. 81 OVERLY TALKATIVE 2.68 2. 30 2. 30 2. 43 continued. TABLE I I I (Continued) 116 MEAN VALUES College Cohort Middle Aged Cohort Elderly Cohort A l l Subj ects SPIRITUAL VALUES SPIRITUAL ABOVE MATERIAL THINGS 4.55 4.87 4.65 4.69 A BELIEVER 4.22 3.67 4.17 4.03 CLOSED MINDED 1.72 1.53 2.41 1.88 HELPFUL 4.94 4.90 5.42 5.09 117 Forming the F i n a l A t t r i b u t e L i s t f o r Wisdom The l i s t was supplemented with 24 d e s c r i p t o r s taken from 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 and h i s t o r i c a l wisdom l i t e r a t u r e s . These were i n c l u d e d to t e s t whether people would endorse p l a u s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s generated o u t s i d e of a prototype g e n e r a t i o n procedure. Each word was chosen to r e f l e c t some dominant theme appearing i n an account o f wisdom. Four d e s c r i p t o r s were chosen to r e p r e s e n t themes i n p h i l o s o p h y , four r e p r e s e n t Clayton's (1980) a n a l y s i s of wisdom, f i v e were drawn from Brent and Watson's (1980) d i s c u s s i o n of wise people, seven d e s c r i p t o r s were s e l e c t e d from those used by H o l l i d a y (1981), and two were chosen to r e p r e s e n t E r i k s o n ' s (1950) i d e a of ego i n t e g r i t y . The words, i d e n t i f i e d by source, a l s o appear i n Table I I I . F i n a l l y , twenty words a s s o c i a t e d with other t a r g e t c a t e g o r i e s were added to the prototype l i s t . Each category was represented by four words that had been nominated as being c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the p a r t i c u l a r c ategory, but not a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the category of Wise people. T h i s allowed a l i m i t e d t e s t of the independence of Wise from other c a t e g o r i e s by examining whether c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h other c a t e g o r i e s would 118 e l i c i t h i g h p r o t o t y p e r a t i n g s when h i d d e n w i t h i n t h e s e t o f t r u e d e s c r i p t o r s . T h e s e w o r d s a l s o a p p e a r i n T a b l e I I I . M e t h o d S e c t i o n - S t u d y I I SUBJECTS: S u b j e c t s i n t h i s p h a s e o f t h e s t u d y w e r e 150 i n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h r e e c o h o r t s : y o u n g a d u l t s , m i d d l e aged a d u l t s and s e n i o r c i t i z e n s . The f i f t y y o u n g a d u l t s w e r e r e c r u i t e d f r o m c o u r s e s a t 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 . The f i f t y m i d d l e aged s u b j e c t s w e r e r e c r u i t e d f r o m a d u l t e d u c a t i o n c o u r s e s a t 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 . The f i f t y o l d e r a d u l t s w e r e r e c r u i t e d f r o m s e n i o r c i t i z e n s ' c e n t r e s i n t h e G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r a r e a . None o f t h e s e s u b j e c t s h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n s t u d y I o f t h e p r o j e c t . E q u a l numbers o f men and women were i n c l u d e d f o r e a c h age g r o u p . As i n s t u d y I , a l l s u b j e c t s who c o m p l e t e d t h e t a s k w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t u d y . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s u b j e c t s a r e d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e s I V and V. ( I n s e r t T a b l e s I V and V h e r e ) TABLE IV AGE CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY I I SUBJECTS MEAN. RANGE STANDARD DEVIATION MALES 21. 82 20 - 24 1.72 YOUNG ADULTS (N= 25) FEMALES 21.56 19 - 29 2.0 (N= 25) MALES 41. 81 32 - 57 7.16 MIDDLE AGED ADULTS (N= 25) FEMALES 42.64 3 2 - 5 8 7.20 (N= 25) MALES 71.64 61 - 92 7.15 ELDERLY ADULTS (N= 25) FEMALES 69.48 6 1 - 8 2 5.47 (N= 25) TABLE V EDUCATIONAL LEVEL - STUDY I I SUBJECTS is YRS SOME HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA SOME COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY DEGREE ADVANCED DEGREE DID NOT REPLY -MALE 24 1 YOUNG ADULTS FEMALE 22 3 MALE 1 2 10 12 MIDDLE AGED ADULTS FEMALE 4 9 10 2 MALE 3 1 2 2 7 1 9 ELDERLY ADULTS FEMALE 1 4 11 5 2 2 121 PROCEDURE: A l l s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d t o r a t e t h e l i s t o f a t t r i b u t e s g e n e r a t e d i n s t u d y I f o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c n e s s o f w i s e p e o p l e . The a t t r i b u t e s w e r e r a n d o m l y o r d e r e d and t y p e d i n t o an e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o t o c o l . A c o p y o f t h i s p r o t o c o l a p p e a r s i n A p p e n d i x A. The s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d t o r a t e e a c h o f t h e d e s c r i p t o r s i n t e r m s o f how w e l l i t m a t c h e d t h e i r c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s o f a t r u l y w i s e p e r s o n , u s i n g a s e v e n p o i n t s c a l e , w h i c h r a n g e d f r o m 1 - A l m o s t N e v e r T r u e o f W i s e P e o p l e , t o 7 - A l m o s t A l w a y s T r u e o f W i s e P e o p l e . The s u b j e c t s w e r e i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e t a s k , p r o v i d e d w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l m a t e r i a l s and g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o a s k q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e t a s k . They w e r e t o l d t o w o r k on t h e t a s k a t t h e i r own p a c e and t o r e t u r n t h e f o r m t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r when i t was c o m p l e t e d . S u b j e c t s who w i s h e d t o w o r k on t h e t a s k a t home were p r o v i d e d w i t h a s t a m p e d , s e l f - a d d r e s s e d e n v e l o p e and a s k e d t o m a i l t h e c o m p l e t e d f o r m t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r . INSTRUCTIONS: The f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s , a d a p t e d f r o m B r o u g h t o n (1981) w e r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e s u b j e c t s . T h i s s t u d y h a s t o d o - w i t h p e o p l e ' s e v e r y d a y i d e a s a b o u t c a t e g o r i e s . 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 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 name, 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 c a n 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 , t e r r i e r s , German s h e p h e r d s and so on. A l t h o u g h t h e y a r e a l l d i f f e r e n t , t h e y a r e members o f t h e same c a t e g o r y d o g s . 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 e x a m p l e s -t h a n o t h e r s . F o r e x a m p l e , t a k e t h e c a t e g o r y r e d . I m a g i n e a t r u e r e d . Now i m a g i n e an o r a n g e i s h r e d . I m a g i n e a p u r p l i s h r e d . A l t h o u g h y o u m i g h t 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 by 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 a r e r e d d e r t h a n o t h e r s . 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 o f a c a t e g o r y v a r i o u s w o r d s a r e . The c a t e g o r y i s w i sdom as e x e m p l i f i e d by w i s e p e o p l e . We w o u l d l i k e y o u t o r a t e how g ood e a c h d e s c r i p t o r i s f o r d e s c r i b i n g t h i s 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 g o e s f r o m 1 t o 7. A 1 means t h a t t h e d e s c r i p t i v e t e r m i s a l m o s t n e v e r t r u e o f w i s e p e o p l e . 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 t r u e o f w i s e p e o p l e . A 4 means t h a t t h e t e r m i s o f t e n t r u e o f w i s e p e o p l e . The r e m a i n i n g t e r m s ( 2 , 3, 5, 6) a r e f o r e x p r e s s i n g i n t e r m e d i a t e j u d g e m e n t s . 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 t i m e . Y o u a r e a l s o f r e e t o c h o o s e n o t t o a n s w e r any q u e s t i o n s . I f y o u c o m p l e t e t h e 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 e p r o j e c t . T h a n k Y o u f o r y o u r h e l p . G e n e r a t i n g P r o t o t y p i c a l i t y R a t i n g s f o r O t h e r C a t e g o r i e s An a d d i t i o n a l g r o u p o f s u b j e c t s r a t e d t h e 123 a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the c a t e g o r i e s I n t e l l i g e n t , Shrewd, P e r c e p t i v e , and S p i r i t u a l . T h i s was necessary f o r g e n e r a t i n g s t i m u l i f o r use i n study I I I . F i f t y r a t e r s , r e c r u i t e d from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia undergraduate psychology c l a s s e s , r a t e d the c a g t e g o r i e s I n t e l l i g e n t and S p i r i t u a l . A second group of f i f t y undergraduates r a t e d the c a t e g o r i e s Shrewd and P e r c e p t i v e . Both groups of r a t e r s were composed of equal numbers of males and females. The procedures used i n t h i s task, i n c l u d i n g the i n s t r u c t i o n s , were i d e n t i c a l to those employed i n the r a t i n g of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r the category Wise. The words I n t e l l i g e n t , Shrewd, P e r c e p t i v e and S p i r i t u a l were s u b s t i t u t e d f o r the word Wise as was r e q u i r e d . As i n the case of the Wise category, the words were randomly ordered and typed i n t o t e s t b o o k l e t s , with the order of p r e s e n t a t i o n of the t a r g e t s randomly determined. The seven p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e d e s c r i b e d p r e v i o u s l y was p l a c e d at the top of each page i n the b o o k l e t (see Appendix B). Subjects were encouraged to work at t h e i r own pace and to r e t u r n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e when they had completed the r a t i n g t a s k . 124 RESULTS - STUDIES I AND I I The analyses of the p rototype d e s c r i p t i o n s were c a r r i e d out i n a f i v e step s e q u e n t i a l p r o c e s s . The f i r s t step i n v o l v e d determining the r e l i a b i l i t y of a) the p r o t o t y p e r a t i n g s generated by each cohort f o r the t a r g e t Wise, and b) the r a t i n g s generated by the c o l l e g e cohort f o r the remaining t a r g e t terms. A f t e r demonstrating w i t h i n cohort r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the t a r g e t Wise people, a second a n a l y s i s was conducted to assess c r o s s cohort agreement. T h i s p r o v i d e d a b a s i s f o r p o o l i n g the cohort's responses and u s i n g the e n t i r e data base i n a m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s . Next, a p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s was used to i d e n t i f y the dimensions u n d e r l y i n g the p rototype r a t i n g s . F i n a l l y , s e v e r a l analyses were conducted to examine the s i m i l a r i t y between wisdom and other competency c a t e g o r i e s such as I n t e l l i g e n c e . I n t e r - r a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y Analyses The f i r s t a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e d e s t a b l i s h i n g the r e l i a b i l i t y o f the prototype r a t i n g s a) w i t h i n each cohort f o r the r a t i n g s of Wise people; b) between 125 c o h o r t s f o r t h e r a t i n g o f W i s e P e o p l e ; and c ) b e t w e e n r a t e r s f o r t h e c o n t r a s t c a t e g o r i e s S h r e w d , I n t e l l i g e n t , P e r c e p t i v e and S p i r i t u a l . The i n t r a - c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n ( I C C ) was u s e d t o a s s e s s t h e i n t e r - j u d g e r e l i a b i l i t y o f r a t i n g s f o r e a c h t a r g e t ( S h r o u t and F l e i s s , 1 9 7 9 ) . F o r t h e c o n c e p t o f Wisdom, I C C s w ere c o m p u t e d f o r t h e r a t e r s w i t h i n e a c h age c o h o r t . F o r t h e c o n t r a s t c a t e g o r i e s , I C C s w e re c o m p u t e d f o r t h e g r o u p s o f r a t e r s j u d g i n g e a c h t a r g e t . The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e a n a l y s e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e V I . ( I n s e r t T a b l e V I h e r e ) As may be s e e n i n T a b l e V I , t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l r a t e r a g r e e m e n t w i t h i n e a c h c o h o r t f o r t h e t a r g e t W i s e p e o p l e and w i t h i n e a c h g r o u p f o r t h e f o u r c o n t r a s t c a t e g o r i e s . The ICC t e c h n i q u e was t h e n u s e d t o e s t i m a t e t h e e x t e n t o f c r o s s c o h o r t a g r e e m e n t on t h e r a t i n g o f a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e c o n c e p t o f wisdom. I n t h i s a n a l y s i s , e a c h c o h o r t was c o n s i d e r e d as a s i n g l e j u d g e and t h e a v e r a g e r e s p o n s e f o r e a c h d e s c r i p t o r was u s e d as t h e r a t i n g v a l u e . The d e c i s i o n t o u s e mean r a t i n g s i s i n k e e p i n g w i t h c a t e g o r i z a t i o n t h e o r y i n 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 ' .96 SHREWD YOUNG ADULTS .93 L h- 1 ON w h i c h p r o t o t y p e s a r e e x p l i c i t l y d e s c r i b e d as c o n s e n s u a l j u d g e m e n t s . T h i s a n a l y s i s c a n be r e g a r d e d as a t e s t o f t h e c r o s s g e n e r a t i o n a l c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e p r o t o t y p e as w e l l as a b e t w e e n j u d g e c o m p a r i s o n . The ICC computed f o r t h e t h r e e c o h o r t s was .96, i n d i c a t i n g s u b s t a n t i a l b e t w e e n c o h o r t a g r e e m e n t on t h e r a t i n g o f t h e p r o t o t y p e d e s c r i p t o r s . S i n c e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d s u b s t a n t i a l a g r e e m e n t w i t h i n and b e t w e e n c o h o r t s , t h e d a t a s e t s f o r t h e t h r e e c o h o r t s on t h e t a r g e t W i s e p e o p l e w e r e c o m b i n e d , y i e l d i n g a s i n g l e p o o l o f one h u n d r e d and f i f t y r a t e r s . The a n a l y s e s o f t h e r a t i n g s f o r t h e c a t e g o r y W i s e p e o p l e r e p o r t e d i n s u b s e q u e n t s e c t i o n s a r e b a s e d on t h e s e p o o l e d r e s p o n s e s . D e s c r i b i n g t h e P r o t o t y p e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The n e x t a n a l y s e s e x a m i n e d w h e t h e r t h e p r o t o t y p e r e s p o n s e s e x h i b i t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e r e p o r t e d i n o t h e r s t u d i e s . F i r s t , t h e mean v a l u e s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d 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 w e r e t h e n f o r m e d i n t o a l i s t o f r a t e d a t t r i b u t e s t h a t were r a n k e d i n t e r m s o f t h e i r c e n t r a l i t y t o c o n c e p t i o n s o f t h e i d e a o f wisdom. T h i s l i s t was t h e n d i v i d e d i n t o 128 groups w i t h the groupings based on the valu e s of the items. Each grouping encompassed .5 o f a step i n the 7 p o i n t r a t i n g system. The rank ordered l i s t o f a t t r i b u t e s appears i n Table V I I . ( I n s e r t Table VII here) As may be seen i n Table V I I , the d e s c r i p t o r v a l u e s ranged from 3.3 f o r the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "Not N e c e s s a r i l y I n t e l l i g e n t " to 6.2 f o r the d e s c r i p t o r "Has Learned from Experience." The m a j o r i t y of items r e c e i v e d r a t i n g s between 4.5 and 6.2, i n d i c a t i n g that they were seen as being at l e a s t u s u a l l y true of wise people. There were 26 items i n the group o f most h i g h l y r a t e d items (range 5.51 - 6.2); 19 items i n the next h i g h l y r a t e d category (range 5.00 - 5.49); 21 items with r a t i n g s between 4.50 and 4.99; 10 items w i t h r a t i n g s between 4.00 and 4.49 and 3 items with r a t i n g s below 4.0. In sum, 45/79 items were seen as being reasonably good d e s c r i p t o r s . The remaining 34 items were seen as being somewhat to moderately good d e s c r i p t o r s . The mean va l u e o f the Wise prototype d e s c r i p t o r s were then compared w i t h the mean values o f the d e s c r i p t o r s a s s o c i a t e d with other c a t e g o r i e s and 129 TABLE V I I DESCRIPTORS FOR THE CATEGORY WISE PEOPLE GROUPED BY RATING VALUES > 5.49 HAVE LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE (6.15) SEES THINGS WITHIN A LARGER CONTEXT (6.07) USES COMMON SENSE (6.03) THINKS FOR HIS/HER SELF (5.96) MATURE (5.95) A SOURCE OF GOOD ADVICE (5.89) AWARE (5.87) OPEN MINDED (5.84) COMPREHENDING/UNDERSTANDING (5.83) UNDERSTANDS 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 LISTENING TO (5. 76) CONSIDERS ALL OPTIONS IN A SITUATION (5.74) CAN SEE/CONSIDER ALL POINTS OF VIEW (5.74) KNOWLEDGEABLE (5.72) COMTEMPLATIVE/REFLECTIVE (5.72) LOGICAL (5.70) UNDERSTANDS L I F E (5.70) TOLERANT (5.68) CURIOUS (5.67) UNDERSTANDS/EVALUATES INFORMATION (5.67) SEES THE ESSENCE OF SITUATIONS (5.61) KNOWS WHEN TO GIVE/WITHHOLD ADVICE (5-59) OBSERVANT/PERCEPTIVE (5.97) continued. 130 TABLE V I I ( C o n t i n u e d ) 5,00 - 5.49 WELL READ (5.49) INTELLIGENT (5.49) WEIGHS THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS (5.49) UNDERSTANDS OTHER PEOPLE (5.48) PHILOSOPHICAL (5.43) FAIR (5.41) EXPERIENCED (5.41) FORESIGHTFUL/FAR SEEING (5.41) PLANS THINGS CAREFULLY (5.40) INTUITIVE (5.38) ASTUTE/DISCERNING (5.38) GOOD LISTERNER (5.31) \ RESPECTED (5.24) ALERT (5.15) ARTICULATE (5.14) SENSITIVE (5.13) RELIABLE (5.11) SELF ACTUALIZED (5.04) MORAL (5.00) TABLE VII(Continued) 131 4.50 - 4.99 CIRCUMSPECT/DISCREET (4.99) PATIENT (4.91) AN ADVISOR OR MENTOR (4.85) COMPASSIONATE (4.85) FLEXIBLE (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. TABLE VI I( C o ntinued) 132 4.00 - 4.49 RELAXED (4.47) ABLE TO PREDICT HOW THINGS WILL TURN OUT (4.47) MODEST/HUMBLE (4.41) MAY BE ANY AGE (4.36) HAPPY (4.32) SOCIABLE (4.28) EDUCATED (4.25) NOT NECESSARILY EDUCATED (4.23) SUCCESSFUL (4.11) QUIET (4.06) <4.00 SPIRITUAL (3.97) CONSERVATIVE (3.71) MAY/MAY NOT BE INTELLIGENT (3.30) 133 o t h e r c o n c e p t i o n s o f w i s d o m . The mean v a l u e s f o r t h e v a r i o u s s e t s o f d e s c r i p t o r s a p p e a r i n T a b l e V I I I . ( I n s e r t T a b l e V I I I h e r e ) > A s may be s e e n i n T a b l e V I I I , t h e mean r a t i n g s f o r w o r d s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e f i v e c o n t r a s t c a t e g o r i e s w e r e l o w e r t h a n t h e v a l u e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p r o t o t y p e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The d e s c r i p t o r s r e p r e s e n t i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n a l y s e s o f w i s d o m a l s o r e c e i v e d l o w e r r a t i n g s t h a n d i d t h e w o r d s g e n e r a t e d u s i n g p r o t o t y p e p r o c e d u r e s . The e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s r u l e was f o r t h e two w o r d s r e p r e s e n t i n g E r i k s o n i a n p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y , w h i c h r e c e i v e d a h i g h e r mean r a t i n g t h a n d i d t h e p r o t o t y p e d e s c r i p t o r s . An a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s was c o n d u c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e p r o t o t y p e r a t i n g s f o r t h e W i s e d e s c r i p t o r s i n p h a s e I I was a f u n c t i o n o f t h e f r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h t h e d e s c r i p t o r s w e r e e n d o r s e d i n p h a s e I . The d e s c r i p t o r s w e r e f i r s t r a t e d as h a v i n g e i t h e r a l o w f r e q u e n c y ( < 5) o r h i g h f r e q u e n c y ( ^ 5 ) o f e n d o r s e m e n t . A p o i n t b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n was t h e n TABLE V I I I AVERAGE RATING VALUES FOR PROTOTYPE AND NON-PROTOTYPE DESCRIPTORS TARGET/SOURCE N RANGE MEAN WISE 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 1—1 135 computed between frequency and p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y r a t i n g s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y was moderately c o r r e l a t e d w i t h frequency ( r = .37; p<..001). I d e n t i f y i n g U n d e r l y i n g Dimensions In the next step a p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s was conducted on the p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y r a t i n g s . A f i v e f a c t o r s o l u t i o n a c c o u n t i n g f o r 41% of 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. The r e s u l t i n g matrix was then r o t a t e d to a varimax c r i t e r i o n . The c o r r e l a t i o n matrix and the f a c t o r p a t t e r n matrix appear i n Appendix C. The r e s u l t s of that s o l u t i o n are summarized i n Table IX. ( I n s e r t Table IX here) In t r a d i t i o n a l component a n a l y s i s , i t i s c o n s i d e r e d d e s i r a b l e to achieve a simple s t r u c t u r e i n which v a r i a b l e s load h i g h l y on a s i n g l e f a c t o r and moderately or not at a l l on o t h e r f a c t o r s . T h i s assures maximal c l a r i t y and d i s t i n c t i o n between f a c t o r s . In the c u r r e n t e x p l o r a t o r y a n a l y s i s t h e d e f i n i t i o n of f a c t o r s TABLE IX VARIABLES DEFINING THE FIVE FACTORS IDENTIFIED IN THE PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS  $1 EXCEPTIONAL UNDERSTANDING #11 JUDGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS #111 GENERAL COMPETENCIES USES COMMON SENSE HAS LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE SEES THINGS WITHIN A LARGER CONTEXT OBSERVANT/PERCEPTIVE UNDERSTANDS HIS/HER SELF SEES THE ESSENCE OF SITUATIONS INTUITIVE PHILOSOPHICAL EMPATHIC NOT NECESSARILY FORMALLY EDUCATED OPEN MINDED FLEXIBLE UNDERSTANDS PEOPLE THINKS FOR HIS/HER SELF AWARE IS A SOURCE OF GOOD ADVICE COMPREHENDING UNDERSTANDS LIFE WORTH LISTENING TO CONSIDERS ALL OPTIONS IN A SITUATION REFLECTIVE THINKS CAREFULLY BEFORE DECIDING FORESIGHTFUL/FAR SEEING WEIGHS THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS SEES AND CONSIDERS ALL POINTS OF VIEW UNCONDESCENDING CONSERVATIVE ASTUTE KNOWS WHEN TO GIVE/NOT GIVE ADVICE 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> #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 TABLE IX (Continued) §V SOCIAL UNOBTRUSIVENESS DISCREET NON-JUDGEMENTAL NON-IMPULSIVE QUIET PLANS CAREFULLY 138 i n t e r m s o f p r o t o t y p e d e s c r i p t o r s was o f more i m p o r t a n c e t h a n a s i m p l e s t r u c t u r e . A c c o r d i n g l y , a l e s s s t r i n g e n t c r i t e r i a was u s e d f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e l o c a t i o n o f v a r i a b l e s on f a c t o r s . T h e r e w e r e two ways i n w h i c h a v a r i a b l e s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be a s s o c i a t e d p r i m a r i l y w i t h one f a c t o r . F i r s t , v a r i a b l e s w h i c h e x h i b i t e d a f a c t o r l o a d i n g o f a t l e a s t .3 on one f a c t o r and l o a d i n g s o f l e s s t h a n .3 o n a l l o t h e r f a c t o r s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d t o b e l o n g t o t h a t f a c t o r . S e c o n d , when t h e r e w e r e l e s s c l e a r p a t t e r n s o f f a c t o r l o a d i n g s , v a r i a b l e s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d as b e l o n g i n g t o a p a r i c u l a r f a c t o r i f t h e i r f a c t o r l o a d i n g was a t l e a s t .3 f o r t h e home f a c t o r a n d a t l e a s t .1 l e s s t h a n t h a t on a l l o t h e r f a c t o r s . U s i n g t h e s e r u l e s as g u i d e l i n e s f o r a s s o c i a t i n g v a r i a b l e s w i t h f a c t o r s , 71 o f 79 v a r i a b l e s w e r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o n l y one f a c t o r . The c o n v e n t i o n a l p r a c t i c e o f o r d e r i n g t h e f a c t o r s i n t e r m s o f t h e p e r c e n t o f v a r i a n c e t h a t e a c h a c c o u n t s f o r was n o t a d h e r e d t o as t h e v a r i a n c e a c c o u n t e d f o r b y e a c h f a c t o r i s o f l e s s i m p o r t a n c e i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y t h a n t h e p r o t o t y p e v a l u e s o f t h e i t e m s d e f i n i n g t h e f a c t o r s . T h a t i s , a d i m e n s i o n d e f i n e d b y a few h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l i t e m s i s o f g r e a t e r c o n c e p t u a l s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a n a d i m e n s i o n d e f i n e d b y 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. I t h e r e f o r e reordered the dimensions to r e f l e c t the p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y of t h e i r d e f i n i n g members. F a c t o r 1, which i s d e f i n e d by 14 v a r i a b l e s , i s l a b e l l e d E x c e p t i o n a l Understanding as based on o r d i n a r y e x p e r i e n c e . T h i s appears to index the s u p e r i o r f u n c t i o n i n g aspects o f wisdom. Items l o a d i n g h i g h l y on t h i s f a c t o r i n c l u d e "Has Learned from Experience", "Sees Things i n a Larger Context", "Understands S e l f " , and so on. F a c t o r 2, d e f i n e d by 15 items, i s l a b e l l e d Judgement and Communication S k i l l s . The items on t h i s dimension focus on the a b i l i t y to understand and judge c o r r e c t l y i n matters of d a i l y l i v i n g . D e s c r i p t o r s d e f i n i n g t h i s f a c t o r i n c l u d e "Understands L i f e " , "Is Worth L i s t e n i n g To", "Weighs Consequences" and "Is a Source of Good A d v i c e . " F a c t o r 3, which i s d e f i n e d by 19 items, i s l a b e l l e d General Competencies. Items l o a d i n g on t h i s f a c t o r i n c l u d e the d e s c r i p t o r s C u r i o u s , A r t i c u l a t e , A l e r t , I n t e l l i g e n t , C r e a t i v e and Educated. The f o u r t h f a c t o r , which i s d e f i n e d by 18 items, i s l a b e l l e d I n t e r p e r s o n a l S k i l l s . Items d e f i n i n g t h i s f a c t o r i n c l u d e such d e s c r i p t o r s as F a i r , S e n s i t i v e , S o c i a b l e , Even Tempered and Kind. The f i n a l f a c t o r , d e f i n e d by 5 items, indexes a dimension best l a b e l l e d 140 S o c i a l Unobtrusiveness . Items d e f i n i n g t h i s f a c t o r i n c l u d e D i s c r e e t , Non-judgemental, and Q u i e t . The v a r i a b l e s d e f i n i n g f a c t o r 1 tended to have h i g h p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y r a t i n g s , as d i d those d e f i n i n g f a c t o r 2. V a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f a c t o r 3 had moderately h i g h p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y r a t i n g s while those d e f i n i n g f a c t o r s 4 and 5 had lower v a l u e s . To f u r t h e r examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between prototype values and the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e , the c o r r e l a t i o n s between f a c t o r l o a d i n g s and p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y were computed w i t h i n each f a c t o r . For f a c t o r s 1 (r= .43; p<.001) and 2 (r= .73; p<.001), the c o r r e l a t i o n was h i g h and p o s i t i v e . For f a c t o r 3 the c o r r e l a t i o n (r= .18; p ^  .06) was s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e , but not s i g n i f i c a n t . For f a c t o r 4, the c o r r e l a t i o n (r= -.31; p <.003) was moderately negative and f o r f a c t o r 5 (r= -.16; p=.07) i t was s l i g h t l y n e g ative and n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . A n a l y s i s of the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Wisdom and  Other C a t e g o r i e s The analyses r e p o r t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n attempt to a s c e r t a i n the extent o f the resemblance between Wise and the t a r g e t s 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 the t a r g e t s I n t e l l i g e n t , Shrewd, P e r c e p t i v e and S p i r i t u a l . In g e n e r a l , the t a r g e t F o o l i s h has not been i n c l u d e d i n these analyses as there was no ov e r l a p between i t and Wise. F o o l i s h seemed to serve as a d i r e c t c o n t r a s t i n which many of the competency terms a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Wise appeared i n a negated form. In view of the complete independence of the c a t e g o r i e s , f u r t h e r analyses were not deemed necessary. There are many ways of examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c o n c e p t s / c a t e g o r i e s . Rosch (1975), f o r example, asked i n d i v i d u a l s to r a t e a pool o f items 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 c a t e g o r i e s , summed the r a t i n g s f o r each category, and used that number to r e f e r e n c e the " f a m i l y resemblance" of c a t e g o r i e s . I t was not p o s s i b l e to use that type o f procedure i n t h i s study as the l a r g e number of a t t r i b u t e s (over 300 f o r a l l c a t e g o r i e s ) and c a t e g o r i e s (6) would have made such a task p r o h i b i t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t . As an a l t e r n a t e way of examining the degree o f s i m i l a r i t y between c a t e g o r i e s , an index o f overlap was c o n s t r u c t e d . T h i s index i s based on the percent of words i n a category o v e r l a p p i n g w i t h another category. As the number of o v e r l a p p i n g words approaches the t o t a l 142 number o f w o r d s i n t h e c a t e g o r y , t h e s i m i l a r i t y i n d e x a p p r o a c h e s 1 0 0 % . As t h e number o f o v e r l a p p i n g w o r d s a p p r o a c h e s z e r o , t h e i n d e x r e a c h e s 0%. U s i n g t h i s p r o c e d u r e , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o d e v e l o p two s e p a r a t e e s t i m a t e s o f s i m i l a r i t y - one f o r C a t e g o r y A w i t h r e g a r d t o C a t e g o r y B, and t h e o t h e r f o r C a t e g o r y B w i t h r e g a r d t o C a t e g o r y A. T h e s e numbers w o u l d be i d e n t i c a l o n l y i f t h e c a t e g o r y s i z e s a r e t h e same. The r e s u l t s o f t h a t a n a l y s i s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e X. ( I n s e r t T a b l e X h e r e ) As may be s e e n i n T a b l e X, t h e c a t e g o r y W i s e o v e r l a p s o n l y m o d e r a t e l y w i t h e a c h o f t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . The r a n g e o f o v e r l a p was f r o m .37 f o r W i s e and P e r c e p t i v e t o .17 f o r W i s e and S p i r i t u a l . P e r c e p t i v e showed t h e h i g h e s t d e g r e e o f o v e r l a p , w i t h 5 4 % o f i t s d e s c r i p t o r s o v e r l a p p i n g w i t h t h o s e o f W i s e p e o p l e . The f a c t t h a t o n l y .37 o f 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 W i s e o v e r l a p w i t h P e r c e p t i v e , w h i l e t h e c o n v e r s e i s n o t t r u e , i n d i c a t e s t h a t W i s e i s a b r o a d e r and r i c h e r c a t e g o r y . A s e c o n d i n d e x o f t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e / o v e r l a p o f t h e p a i r s o f c a t e g o r i e s was c a l c u l a t e d t o a s s e s s t h e TABLE X PERCENT OF ITEMS IN A PARTICULAR CATEGORY OVERLAPPING WITH OTHER CATEGORIES WISE WITH PERCEPTIVE 37 INTELLIGENT WITH WISE 37 WISE WITH INTELLIGENT 28 INTELLIGENT WITH PERCEPTIVE 38 WISE WITH SHREWD 23 INTELLIGENT WITH SPIRITUAL 15 WISE WITH SPIRITUAL 17 INTELLIGENT WITH SHREWD 10 PERCEPTIVE WITH WISE 54 SHREWD WITH WISE 31 PERCEPTIVE WITH INTELLIGENT 37 SHREWD WITH INTELLIGENT 28 PERCEPTIVE WITH SPIRITUAL 31 SHREWD WITH PERCEPTIVE 15 PERCEPTIVE WITH SHREWD 30 SHREWD WITH SPIRITUAL 07 SPIRITUAL WITH WISE 26 SPIRITUAL WITH INTELLIGENT 13 SPIRITUAL WITH PERCEPTIVE 24 SPIRITUAL WITH SHREWD 06 144 number o f u n i q u e 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 e a c h c a t e g o r y . T h i s f i g u r e i s e x p r e s s e d as t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f w o r d s i n a p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r y t h a t d i d n o t o v e r l a p w i t h a n y o t h e r c o n t r a s t c a t e g o r i e s . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e X I . ( I n s e r t T a b l e X I h e r e ) The n e x t a n a l y s i s e x a m i n e d t h e 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 o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s f o c u s i n g on t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y v a l u e s o f o v e r l a p p i n g i t e m s . P r o t o t y p e t h e o r y s u g g e s t s t h a t when c a t e g o r i e s a r e a t t h e same l e v e l o f a b s t r a c t i o n t h e r e s h o u l d be more o v e r l a p a t t h e p e r i p h e r y t h a n a t t h e c e n t r e . T h a t i s , h i g h 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 m i g h t be e x p e c t e d t o show l e s s o v e r l a p w i t h o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s t h a n l o w o r 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 . I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e c a t e g o r i e s i n t h i s s t u d y e v i d e n c e d t h a t t y p e o f p a t t e r n , t h e d e s c r i p t o r s w e r e d i v i d e d i n t o h i g h l y , m o d e r a t e l y and s l i g h t l y p r o t o t y p i c a l g r o u p s and t h e p e r c e n t o f o v e r l a p b e t w e e n w i s e and o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s was c o m p u t e d . The r e s u l t s o f t h a t a n a l y s i s a p p e a r i n T a b l e X I I . ( I n s e r t T a b l e X I I h e r e ) TABLE XI 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 OVERLAP BETWEEN WISE AND OTHER CATEGORIES AS A FUNCTION } OF CHARACTERISTICNESS OF ITEMS RATING VALUES CONTRAST CATEGORY HIGH(>5.45^ MODERATE(4. 5-5 45) LOW f< 4. 5 ) INTELLIGENT 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% 3/13 23% SHREWD 7/25 27% : 9/40 22%. 2/13 15% h- 1 147 The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s w e r e somewhat u n e x p e c t e d . C o n t r a r y t o c a t e g o r y t h e o r y t h e r e was l e s s o v e r l a p among t h e s l i g h t l y p r o t o t y p i c a l i t e m s t h a n among t h e h i g h e r v a l u e d o n e s . The h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e o v e r l a p o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n t h e c a t e g o r i e s W i s e a n d P e r c e p t i v e when m o d e r a t e l y p r o t o t y p i c a l w o r d s were c o n s i d e r e d . The n e x t h i g h e s t o v e r l a p o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n t h e c a t e g o r i e s W i s e and I n t e l l i g e n t when h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l w o r d s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d . The c a t e g o r y S p i r i t u a l showed t h e s m a l l e s t d e g r e e o f o v e r l a p r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e t y p e o f i t e m u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h e s e r e s u l t s do n o t p r o v i d e s u p p o r t f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t c a t e g o r y o v e r l a p i s a s i m p l e 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 o f t h e c a t e g o r y d e s c r i p t o r s . To f u r t h e r c l a r i f y t h e p a t t e r n s o f o v e r l a p p i n g m e a n i n g among c a t e g o r i e s , a f i n a l a n a l y s i s was c o n d u c t e d u s i n g t h e d i m e n s i o n 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 c o m p o n e n t s a n a l y s i s as a b a s i s o f c o m p a r i s o n . The a t t r i b u t e s d e f i n i n g e a c h f a c t o r w e r e r e c o r d e d a l o n g w i t h an i n d i c a t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h o s e a t t r i b u t e s w e r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . The number o f w o r d s o v e r l a p p i n g o n e a c h d i m e n s i o n w e r e t h e n c o m p u t e d f o r e a c h c o m p a r i s o n and c o n t r a s t c a t e g o r y . T h i s p e r m i t t e d a 148 d e s c r i p t i v e examination of the category resemblances. The r e s u l t s of that a n a l y s i s are shown i n Table X I I I . ( I n s e r t Table X I I I here) The f i r s t comparison of i n t e r e s t i s on the dimension r e f e r e n c i n g g e n e r a l competencies which was d e f i n e d by nineteen moderately p r o t o t y p i c a l items. Of the t o t a l number of items d e f i n i n g t h i s dimension, 55% demonstrated o v e r l a p w i t h I n t e l l i g e n t , while 42% overlapped w i t h P e r c e p t i v e and 37% w i t h Shrewd. Only 5% o f the a t t r i b u t e s overlapped w i t h the category S p i r i t u a l . The second i n t e r e s t i n g comparison i s on the dimension r e f e r e n c i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s . T h i s r a t h e r l a r g e dimension was d e f i n e d by items that were s l i g h t l y or moderately p r o t o t y p i c a l of wise people. In t h i s case, the category S p i r i t u a l o v e r l a p s on approximately 45% o f the words, while the other c a t e g o r i e s demonstrate l i t t l e or no o v e r l a p . The t h i r d p o i n t o f comparison i s on the dimension l a b e l l e d E x c e p t i o n a l Understanding which was d e f i n e d by a number of h i g h 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 . In t h i s case, there was a low to moderate degree of o v e r l a p w i t h the c a t e g o r i e s I n t e l l i g e n t , Shrewd and TABLE XIII OVERLAP BETWEEN PAIRS OF CATEGORIES USING ANALYTICALLY DERIVED DIMENSIONS #1 EXCEPTIONAL UNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENT PERCEPTIVE SPIRITUAL SHREWD . UNDERSTANDS PEOPLE X X X HAS LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE USES COMMON SENSE X SEES THINGS WITHIN A LARGER CONTEXT X OBSERVANT X THINKS FOR HIS/HER SELF X UNDERSTANDS SELF SEES THE ESSENCE OF SITUATIONS X X FLEXIBLE X X INTUITIVE X PHILOSOPHICAL X OPEN MINDED X X EMPATHIC X NOT NECESSARILY FORMALLY EDUCATED TOTAL 4 7 1 4 (Continued) •p-TABLE XIII (Continued) #11 JUDGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS INTELLIGENT PERCEPTIVE SPIRITUAL SHREWD AWARE X X 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 X X FORESIGHTFUL/FAR SEEING X X WEIGHS THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS SEE AND CONSIDERS ALL POINTS OF VIEW X X UNCONDESCENDING CONSERVATIVE ASTUTE X KNOWS WHEN TO GIVE/WITHHOLD ADVICE TOTAL 3 3 0 3 (Continued) TABLE XIIT (Continued) #111 BASIC COMPETENCIES INTELLIGENT PERCEPTIVE SPIRITUAL SHREWD CURIOUS X X v THOUGHTFUL/THINKS A GREAT DEAL X A v KNOWLEDGEABLE X X A UNDERSTANDS/EVALUATES INFORMATION WELL READ X X X V INTELLIGENT A ARTICULATE X RESPECTED ALERT X X X X SELF ACTUALIZED AN ADVISOR OR MENTOR COMPLEX X CREATIVE OLDER ABLE TO PREDICT HOW THINGS WILL TURN OUT X EDUCATED X X V SUCCESSFUL METHODICAL X A X EXPERIENCED X X TOTAL 10 8 1 7 (continued...) TABLE XIII (Continued) fIV INTERPERSONAL SKILLS INTELLIGENT PERCEPTIVE SPIRITUAL SHREWD COMPASSIONATE V X X FAIR X SENSITIVE X X RELIABLE A GOOD LISTENER X EVEN TEMPERED POISED LIKEABLE X RELAXED MODEST X X HAPPY SOCIABLE X X MORAL X PATIENT UNSELFISH X X KIND X SPIRITUAL MATURE TOTAL 3 5 8 0 continued... TABLE XIII (Continued) #V SOCIAL UNOBTRUSIVENESS INTELLIGENT PERCEPTIVE <5PTRTTIIAT DISCREET yJ f J. tvX 1 U/\Lj o n K c w U NON-JUDGEMENTAL NON-IMPULSIVE X X X QUIET PLANS CAREFULLY X X X TOTAL 2 1 1 2 I I 154 S p i r i t u a l . The category P e r c e p t i v e demonstrated a h i g h e r degree of o v e r l a p . The f o u r t h p o i n t o f comparison i s on the dimension r e f e r e n c i n g Judgement and Communication S k i l l s which was d e f i n e d by a number of moderately to h i g h 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 . On t h i s dimension the c a t e g o r i e s I n t e l l i g e n t , P e r c e p t i v e and Shrewd demonstrated a small degree of o v e r l a p . The category S p i r i t u a l evidenced no o v e r l a p on t h i s dimension. On the small f i f t h dimension l a b e l l e d S o c i a l U n obtrusiveness, there was some o v e r l a p w i t h each category. In g e n e r a l , the r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s suggest t h a t the c a t e g o r i e s examined i n t h i s study resemble each other along s p e c i f i c dimensions and that those common dimensions v a r y between c a t e g o r i e s . I t i s a l s o worth n o t i n g t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , dimensions d e f i n e d by h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l items demonstrated somewhat l e s s o v e r l a p than d i d dimensions composed of moderately and s l i g h t l y p r o t o t y p i c a l items. T h i s r e s u l t i s i n keeping w i t h c a t e g o r i z a t i o n theory and supports the i d e a that wisdom i s a d i s t i n c t , non-redundant competency term. \ 155 S t u d y I I I - V a l i d a t i n g t h e P r o t o t y p e The g o a l o f t h e t h i r d s t u d y was t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e p r o t o t y p e f o r t h e c a t e g o r y o f w i s e p e o p l e i n f l u e n c e d p e o p l e ' s i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s . The p r o t o t y p e l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s t h a t c e r t a i n c o g n i t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s a r e o b s e r v e d when s u b j e c t s a r e a s k e d t o c a t e g o r i z e o b j e c t s . R o s c h ( 1 9 7 5 ) , f o r e x a m p l e , d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t i t t o o k l e s s t i m e t o r e c o g n i z e h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l members 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 t o o k t o i d e n t i f y l e s s p r o t o t y p i c a l o n e s . She i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s a n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e p r o t o t y p e s e r v e d a s a n a i d t o more e f f e c t i v e p r o c e s s i n g . I n a s t u d y more germane t o t h i s p r o j e c t , C a n t o r a n d M i s c h e l ( 1 9 7 7 ) u s e d a r e c o g n i t i o n memory p a r a d i g m t o d e t e r m i n e i f p r o t o t y p e s a c t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e memory p e r f o r m a n c e . I n t h e a c q u i s i t i o n p h a s e o f t h e i r s t u d y , s u b j e c t s w e r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h l i s t s o f s e n t e n c e s d e s c r i b i n g f o u r f i c t i t i o u s c h a r a c t e r s . Two c h a r a c t e r s r e p r e s e n t e d p e r s o n a l i t y p r o t o t y p e s a n d two s e r v e d as c o n t r o l s . S u b j e c t s w e r e l a t e r a s k e d t o e x a m i n e a l i s t o f d e s c r i p t o r s composed o f a s u b s e t o f t h e o r i g i n a l d e s c r i p t o r s 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 w h i c h v a r i e d i n d e g r e e o f p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y t o t h e 156 c a t e g o r i e s o f i n t e r e s t . E a c h s e n t e n c e was r a t e d i n t e r m s o f how c o n f i d e n t t h e s u b j e c t s w e re t h a t t h e y h a d / h a d n o t s e e n i t d u r i n g t h e a c q u i s i t i o n t a s k . A l t h o u g h t h e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s w e re a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e a c q u i s i t i o n s e t s e n t e n c e s , t h e y a l s o d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s w e r e more c o n f i d e n t t h a t t h e y h a d s e e n h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l , b u t n o v e l d e s c r i p t o r s t h a n o t h e r n o v e l d e s c r i p t o r s . The a u t h o r s c o n c l u d e d t h a t p r o t o t y p e s a c t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e memory p r o c e s s i n g b y p r o v i d i n g a b a c k d r o p f o r e v a l u a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . The p r e s e n t s t u d y , w h i c h i s m o d e l l e d on t h e C a n t o r and M i s c h e l ( 1 9 7 7) r e c o g n i t i o n memory p a r a d i g m , a t t e m p t e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e e f f e c t o f t h e p r o t o t y p e f o r t h e c a t e g o r y W i s e p e o p l e on s u b j e c t s ' a b i l i t i e s t o p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h a t c a t e g o r y . I n t h e a c q u i s i t i o n p h a s e , s u b j e c t s w e re p r e s e n t e d w i t h d e s c r i p t i o n s o f c h a r a c t e r s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e c a t e g o r y p r o t o t y p e s f o r W i s e and Shrewd p e o p l e , t o g e t h e r w i t h d e s c r i p t i o n s o f two c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r s . I n t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k , t h e s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d t o s e l e c t t h e a c q u i s i t i o n i t e m s f r o m a l a r g e r s e t o f i t e m s , some o f w h i c h w ere c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c a t e g o r y p r o t o t y p e s . F o l l o w i n g C a n t o r a nd M i s c h e l , I a r g u e d t h a t i f w i s d o m a c t u a l l y e x i s t s as a p r o t o t y p i c a l l y o r g a n i z e d c a t e g o r y , 157 s u b j e c t s would evidence a memory b i a s i n favour of f a l s e l y r e c o g n i z i n g i n f o r m a t i o n that was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the category p r o t o t y p e . Method - Study I I I SUBJECTS: Subjects i n the study were 38 undergraduates r e c r u i t e d from a p e r s o n a l i t y psychology c l a s s at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. ACQUISITION MATERIALS: The a c q u i s i t i o n m a t e r i a l s c o n s i s t e d o f fo u r f i c t i t i o u s c h a r a c t e r s , each d e s c r i b e d by ten sentences. Two of the c h a r a c t e r s were designed to re p r e s e n t the prototype c a t e g o r i e s of Wise and Shrewd people. The oth e r two c h a r a c t e r s were designed to serve as c o n t r o l s f o r the Wise and Shrewd c h a r a c t e r s . The d e s c r i p t o r s f o r a l l c h a r a c t e r s were chosen from the l i s t s o f category d e s c r i p t o r s developed i n s t u d i e s I and I I . For the two experimental c h a r a c t e r s , s i x 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 taken from the l i s t of d e s c r i p t o r s f o r the c a t e g o r i e s Wise and Shrewd, and four n o n - p r o t o t y p i c a l d e s c r i p t o r s were chosen from the l i s t s o f a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d with other c a t e g o r i e s . For Wise, d e s c r i p t o r s were con s i d e r e d to be 158 m o d e r a t e l y p r o t o t y p i c a l i f t h e y h a d r e c e i v e d r a t i n g s b e l o w 5.0 o n t h e p r o t o t y p e r a t i n g t a s k o f s t u d y I I and h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l i f t h e y r e c e i v e d r a t i n g s g r e a t e r t h a n 5.0. F o r S h r e w d , d e s c r i p t o r s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be m o d e r a t e l y p r o t o t y p i c a l i f t h e i r v a l u e s w e r e l e s s t h a n 4.8 and h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l i f t h e v a l u e s w e r e g r e a t e r t h a n 4.85. The d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a r e f l e c t t h e d i f f e r e n t r a n g e s i n t h e r a t i n g s f o r t h e g r o u p s o f d e s c r i p t o r s . T h o s e 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 o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s w e r e d e f i n e d as n o n - p r o t o t y p i c a l . F o r t h e c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r s , t h e t e n n o n - p r o t o t y p i c a l d e s c r i p t o r s w e r e c h o s e n f r o m t h e l i s t s o f a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c a t e g o r i e s o t h e r t h a n W i s e a n d S h r e w d . A f i n a l d e s c r i p t o r was a d d e d t o t h e l i s t f o r e a c h e x p e r i m e n t a l c h a r a c t e r l a b e l l i n g them as e i t h e r W i s e o r Shrewd. The d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r e a c h c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r c o n t a i n e d t e n w o r d s t h a t h a d b e e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h n e i t h e r W i s e n o r S h r e w d p e o p l e . T h i s r e s u l t e d i n a t o t a l o f 42 d e s c r i p t o r s f o r t h e f o u r c h a r a c t e r s . T h o s e d e s c r i p t o r s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e X I V . E a c h o f t h e d e s c r i p t o r s was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a s e n t e n c e w i t h t h e s t r u c t u r e 'X' i s 'Y', ( i . e . , J i s c o u r a g e o u s ) . The l a b e l s W i s e and Shrewd were a l s o f o r m e d i n t o s e n t e n c e s . E a c h s e n t e n c e was t h e n t y p e d 159 o n t o 5" x 8" i n d e x c a r d s , p h o t o g r a p h e d , and made i n t o i n d i v i d u a l s l i d e s . The s l i d e s d e s c r i b i n g e a c h c h a r a c t e r w e r e k e p t t o g e t h e r , t h e i r s e q u e n c e b e i n g r a n d o m l y o r d e r e d , as was t h e o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t i o n . ( I n s e r t T a b l e X I V h e r e ) RECOGNITION MATERIALS: The r e c o g n i t i o n m a t e r i a l s c o n s i s t e d o f a s u b s e t o f t h e d e s c r i p t o r s t h a t w e r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e a c q u i s i t i o n t a s k , t o g e t h e r w i t h a s e t o f new d e s c r i p t o r s . The r e c o g n i t i o n i t e m s f o r t h e W i s e c h a r a c t e r i n c l u d e d f i v e new i t e m s t h a t h a d b e e n j u d g e d 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 , t h r e e new m o d e r a t e l y p r o t o t y p i c a l a nd t h r e e new n o n - p r o t o t y p i c a l d e s c r i p t o r s , t o g e t h e r w i t h f o u r i t e m s f r o m t h e a c q u i s i t i o n s e t . The r e c o g n i t i o n l i s t f o r t h e Shrewd c h a r a c t e r was c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e same manner. The r e c o g n i t i o n s e t f o r t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e W i s e c h a r a c t e r i n c l u d e d f o u r new d e s c r i p t o r s t h a t h a d b e e n r a t e d as 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 , and f o u r e a c h o f m o d e r a t e l y p r o t o t y p i c a l and n o n - p r o t o t y p i c a l i t e m s . The c o n t r o l f o r t h e Shrewd c h a r a c t e r was c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e same manner. The 62 r e c o g n i t i o n i t e m s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e X I V . TABLE X I V SUMMARY OF ITEMS USED TO DESCRIBE THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL CHARACTERS-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) (4.78) T.' IS NON-JUDGEMENTAL OF OTHERS (M) (4.52) T. IS EMPATHIC TOWARDS OTHERS (M) (4 50) T. HAS MANY INTERESTS (U) T. IS FRUSTRATED (U) T. IS NEAT AND CLEAN (U) T. IS NON-JUDGEMENTAL OF OTHERS (M) (4.52) T. IS INSECURE (U) T. IS DISCREET (M) T. IS OPEN MINDED (H) ( 5 . 6 6 ) I. IS ABLE TO CONNECTS FACTS (U) T. IS WELL READ (H) ( 5 . 6 2 ) I. HAS MANY INTERESTS (U) T. IS HUMOUROUS T. IS ATTENTIVE (U) T. IS TOLERANT OF OTHERS T. IS CURIOUS T. IS UNSELFISH (M) ( 4 . 6 6 ) T. UNDERSTANDS LIFE (H) ( 5 . 4 8 ) T. IS RELIABLE (M) ( 4 . 9 2 ) "T. IS SOCIABLE (M) ( 4 . 3 6 ) "The s t u d y I I r a t i n g s a p p e a r ** U = U n p r o t o t y p i c a l n e x t t o t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l d e s c r i p t o r s . M = M o d e r a t e l y p r o t o t y p i c a l H = H i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l M o c o n t i n u e d . . . TABLE XIV ( C o n t i n u e d ) W I S E C O N T R O L A C Q U I S I T I O N I T E M S R E C O G N I T I O N I T E M S M . I S A N N O Y I N G T O O T H E R S M . I S V A I N M . I S V A I N M . I S G I G G L Y M . I S A M U S I N G T O B E W I T H M . I S A WARM P E R S O N M . I S G I G G L Y M . I S I M P A T I E N T M . I S C L O S E M I N D E D M . I S C O N T E M P L A T I V E (H) ( 5 . 8 6 ) M . I S E F F I C I E N T M . P L A N S T H I N G S C A R E F U L L Y (H) ( 5 . 3 8 ) M . I S A WARM P E R S O N M . I S M A T U R E (H) ( 5 . 3 4 ) M . I S D R E A M Y M . T H I N K S A G R E A T D E A L (H) ( 5 . 9 0 ) M . I S I M P A T I E N T M . I S R E L A X E D (M) ( 4 . 6 8 ) M . A S K S MANY Q U E S T I O N S M . I S P O I S E D (M) ( 4 . 3 8 ) M . I S A N O L D E R P E R S O N (M.) ( 4 . 4 2 ) M . I S N O T C O N D E S C E N D I N G (M) ( 4 . 3 4 ) M . I S A GOOD C O N V E R S A T I O N A L I S T (U) M . I S A P L E A S / ^ N T P E R S O N (U) M . I S N A I V E (U) M . I S C L E V E R (U) c o n t i n u e d . TABLE X I V ( C o n t i n u e d ) ACQUISITION ITEMS R. IS EGOTISTICAL (M) (A. 14) R;. I S SNEAKY (M) (4.36) R. IS RUTHLESS (M) (4 . 0 6 ) R. I S STROMG (U) R. I S STUDIOUS (U) R. I S DOMINEERING ( M ) ( 4 . 5 6 ) R. I S THRIFTY (M) (4.10) R. I S A CAREFUL PERSON (M) (4.74) R. I S A GOOD REASONER (U) R. I S INTERESTING (U) RECOGNITION ITEMS R. I S STUDIOUS (U) R. I S DOMINEERING (M, ( 4 : 5 6 ) R. I S THRIFTY (M) ( 4 . 1 0 ) R. I S INTERESTING (U) R. I S HARD WORKING (U) R. DOES NOT USE KNOWLEDGE (U) R. I S INSECURE (U) R. HAS A KEEN MIND (H) -(5.20) R. I S DECEPTIVE IN MANNER (M) ( 4 . 4 2 ) R. I S BLUNT (M) ( 4 . 2 0 ) R. I S AMBITIOUS (H) ( 5 . 1 2 ) R. IS OPPORTUNISTIC (H) (5 . 2 8 ) R. IS NOT GULLIBLE ( H ) ( 5 . 4 8 ) R. I S M A T E R I A L I S T I C (M) ( 4 . 4 6 ) R. IS CUNNING (H) ( 5 . 1 6 ) c o n t i n u e d . TABLE XIV (Continued) ! SHREWD CONTROL . ACQUISITION ITEMS ' RECOGNITION ITEMS J . IS A GOSSIP J . IS UNORGANIZED J . IS UNREALISTIC J . IS A CULTURED PERSON J . IS RESPONSIVE TO OTHERS J . IS SELF AWARE J . IS UNORGANIZED. J . IS CONCEITED J . IS A CULTURED PERSON J . IS SCHEMING (H) ( 5 . 0 8 ) J . IS A GOOD PERSON J . IS EMOTIONAL J . IS SELF AWARE J . HAS A LARGE VOCABULARY J . HOLDS STRONG BELIEFS J . IS NOT EASILY DISTRACTED J . IS STUBBORN J . SETS A GOOD EXAMPLE J . IS CONCEITED J . IS MANIPULATIVE (H) ( 4 . 9 0 ) J . IS CONFIDENT (H) ( 5 . 1 0 ) J . IS AGGRESSIVE TO OTHERS (H) ( 4 . 9 0 ) J . WORKS STEADILY (M) ( 4 . 4 6 ) J . IS QUICK WITTED (M) (4.60) J . IS CAUTIOUS (M) ( 4 . 2 2 ) J . IS BUSINESS ORIENTED (M) (4 . 64) continued. 164 The r e c o g n i t i o n i t e m s w e r e f o r m e d i n t o s e n t e n c e s , r a n d o m l y o r d e r e d and e n t e r e d i n t o a f o u r page r e c o g n i t i o n b o o k l e t . E a c h page was h e a d e d w i t h t h e f o u r p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e u s e d f o r e x p r e s s i n g c o n f i d e n c e j u d g e m e n t s f o r e a c h s e n t e n c e . The s c a l e r a n g e d f r o m 1 - V e r y C o n f i d e n t T h a t t h e S e n t e n c e Was i n t h e A c q u i s i t i o n L i s t , t o 4 - V e r y C o n f i d e n t T h a t t h e I t e m Was N o t i n t h e A c q u i s i t i o n L i s t . On t h e f i n a l page o f t h e b o o k l e t , s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d t o r a t e how w e l l e a c h c h a r a c t e r e x e m p l i f i e d t h e c a t e g o r i e s W i s e p e o p l e , Shrewd p e o p l e , I n t e l l i g e n t p e o p l e , P e r c e p t i v e p e o p l e and S p i r i t u a l p e o p l e . The f o u r p o i n t s c a l e u s e d f o r t h e r a t i n g t a s k r a n g e d f r o m 1 - A V e r y Good E x a m p l e , t o 4 -A V e r y P o o r E x a m p l e . PROCEDURE: A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n , t h e s u b j e c t s w e r e r e a d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s : 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 i n d i v i d u a l s . I n t h e s t u d y I w i l l be s h o w i n g y o u a s e r i e s o f s l i d e s . E a c h s l i d e d e s c r i b e s some a s p e c t s o f a f i c t i o n a l p e r s o n . F o r i n s t a n c e , a s l i d e m g i t h s a y J a n e i s c o n s c i e n t i o u s . The s l i d e s i n t h e e x p e r i m e n e t w i l l d e s c r i b e f o u r f i c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r s and e a c h p e r s o n w i l l be d e s c r i b e d b y a s e p a r a t e s e r i e s o f s l i d e s i n a s e q u e n c e . I w o u l d l i k e y o u 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 y t 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 f o u r c h a r a c t e r s . A f t e r y o u v i e w t h e 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 and 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 t i m e w i t h o u t f e a r o f r e p e r c u s s i o n s . I f y o u 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 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 e i n t h e s t u d y . T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n . The 42 a c q u i s i t i o n s l i d e s w e r e t h e n p r o j e c t e d o n a s t a n d a r d s c r e e n u s i n g a K o d a k C a r o u s e l p r o j e c t o r w i t h an e x t e r n a l t i m i n g u n i t . E a c h s l i d e was p r e s e n t e d f o r a p e r i o d o f two and o n e - h a l f s e c o n d s , w i t h a two and o n e - h a l f s e c o n d d e l a y b e t w e e n s l i d e s . F o l l o w i n g t h e s l i d e p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e s u b j e c t s w e r e g i v e n a two m i n u t e i n t e r f e r e n c e t a s k c o n s i s t i n g o f c o u n t i n g b a c k w a r d s , i n w r i t i n g , f r o m 5,486. The s u b j e c t s w e r e t h e n i n s t r u c t e d t o t u r n o v e r t h e i r t e s t b o o k l e t s and c o m p l e t e t h e r e c o g n i t i o n and r a t i n g t a s k s . T h e y were e n c o u r a g e d t o w o r k a t t h e i r own s p e e d and g e n e r a l l y c o m p l e t e d t h e t a s k i n t e n t o f i f t e e n m i n u t e s . R e s u l t s - S t u d y I I I The f i r s t a n a l y s e s a s s e s s e d w h e t h e r e a c h c h a r a c t e r was p e r c e i v e d as a g ood e x a m p l e o f Shrewd and W i s e p e o p l e . To t e s t t h i s , C h i S q u a r e p r o c e d u r e s w e re u s e d t o e x a m i n e t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r a t i n g s a c r o s s 166 c a t e g o r i e s f o r e a c h t a r g e t . The r e s u l t s o f t h o s e a n a l y s e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e XV. ( I n s e r t T a b l e XV h e r e ) A s may be s e e n i n T a b l e XV, t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f r a t i n g s a c r o s s t h e f o u r r e s p o n s e o p t i o n s d i f f e r e d f r o m c h a n c e e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e W i s e c h a r a c t e r . I n s p e c t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f s u b j e c t s f e l t t h a t t h e W i s e c h a r a c t e r was a g o o d e x a m p l e o f W i s e p e o p l e and a m e d i o c r e o r p o o r e x a m p l e o f Shrewd p e o p l e . The r a t i n g s f o r t h e c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r f o r W i s e d i d n o t d i f f e r f r o m c h a n c e e x p e c t a t i o n s on e i t h e r r a t i n g t a s k . The r a t i n g s f o r t h e Shrewd c h a r a c t e r a l s o f a i l e d t o d e v i a t e f r o m c h a n c e e x p e c t a t i o n s . The r a t i n g s f o r t h e c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r f o r Shrewd q u i t e u n e x p e c t e d l y a c h i e v e d s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e on e a c h t a r g e t . I n s p e c t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t many s u b j e c t s r a t e d t h a t c h a r a c t e r as a m o d e r a t e l y good e x a m p l e o f a Shrewd p e r s o n and a m e d i o c r e o r p o o r e x a m p l e o f a W i s e p e r s o n . T h e s e a n a l y s e s c o n f i r m e d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e W i s e c h a r a c t e r was - g e n e r a l l y p e r c e i v e d as a good e x a m p l e o f TABLE XV RATINGS OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL CHARACTERS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE CATEGORIES OF WISE PEOPLE AND SHREWD PEOPLE HARACTER CATEGORY 1 2 Not^ a Good Example 3 4 Very Good Example Chi-Square Value WISE SHREWD WISE CONTROL WISE SHREWD SHREWD WISE WISE SHREWD SHREWD SHREWD CONTROL WISE 10 11 10 13 10 11 15 15 12 15 8 ** p <.005 * p < .05 11 12 1 4 . 2 7 * * 7 . 3 2 N . S 4 . 7 4 N . S 4 . 7 0 N . S , 2 . 7 6 N . S . 1 .12 N . S . 8 . 7 4 * 8 . 3 3 * 168 W i s e p e o p l e . The Shrewd c h a r a c t e r , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , was n o t s e e n as a good e x a m p l e o f Shrewd p e o p l e . The s e c o n d a n a l y s i s , p e r f o r m e d on t h e r e c o g n i t i o n r a t i n g s f o r e a c h c h a r a c t e r a s s e s s e d w h e t h e r s u b j e c t s a c c u r a t e l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n a c q u i s i t i o n i t e m s a n d n o v e l d e s c r i p t o r s . The mean v a l u e s w e re f i r s t c o m p u t e d f o r t h e s e t s o f a c q u i s i t i o n and n o n - a c q u i s i t i o n i t e m s and t h e n a n a l y z e d u s i n g a r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e p r o c e d u r e w i t h i t e m t y p e as t h e w i t h i n s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e . A summary o f t h o s e a n a l y s e s i s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e X V I . (The a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t a b l e s f o r e a c h c o m p a r i s o n a p p e a r i n A p p e n d i x D.) ( I n s e r t T a b l e X V I h e r e ) A s may be s e e n i n T a b l e X V I , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s e a n a l y s e s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t f o r e a c h o f t h e f o u r c h a r a c t e r s . I n s p e c t i o n o f t h e mean v a l u e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s w e r e h i g h l y c o n f i d e n t t h a t t h e y h a d s e e n a q u i s i t i o n i t e m s and f a i r l y c o n f i d e n t t h a t t h e y h a d n o t s e e n n o v e l i t e m s . The t h i r d a n a l y s i s e x a m i n e d t h e c o n f i d e n c e r a t i n g s o f n o v e l r e c o g n i t i o n s e t i t e m s . F o r e a c h , c h a r a c t e r , t h e mean r a t i n g s f o r t h e t h r e e t y p e s o f n o v e l TABLE XVI MEAN VALUES OF.ITEM TYPES ACQUISITION VS. NOVEL HIGHLY MODERATELY NON-PROTOTYPICAL PROTOTYPICAL PROTOTYPICAL PROTO- NON-TYPICAEi-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 s i g n i f i c a n t a t ^-.001 **Anova r e s u l t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t <.004 i-1 170 items (highy p r o t o t y p i c a l , moderately p r o t o t y p i c a l and not at a l l p r o t o t y p i c a l ) were computed and then analyzed u s i n g a repeated measures a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e with item type as the w i t h i n s u b j e c t s f a c t o r (see Appendix D). The r e s u l t s of those analyses are a l s o presented i n Table XVI. As may be seen i n Table XVI, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r item type f o r each of the c h a r a c t e r s . However, the hypothesized p a t t e r n of i n c r e a s e d c o n f i d e n c e r a t i n g s f o r p r o t o t y p i c a l items was obtained o n l y f o r the Wise c h a r a c t e r and f o r the c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r f o r Shrewd. However, f o r the Wise c h a r a c t e r , the moderately p r o t o t y p i c a l items r e c e i v e d h i g h e r c o n f i d e n c e r a t i n g s than d i d the h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l items. There was no i n t e r p r e t a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y and con f i d e n c e r a t i n g s f o r e i t h e r the Shrewd c h a r a c t e r or f o r the c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r f o r Wise. The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s found i n the study was l e s s o r d e r l y than those r e p o r t e d i n Cantor and M i s c h e l (1977) where there was a smooth, l i n e a r i n c r e a s e i n c o n f i d e n c e r a t i n g s as a f u n c t i o n of the p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y o f the r e c o g n i t i o n items. In the p r e s e n t study, that l i n e a r p a t t e r n was observed o n l y f o r the c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r f o r Shrewd. For the Wise c h a r a c t e r , the 171 confidence rating for items at both levels of p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y exceeded the ratings for non-prototypical items, but did 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 of the prototype, a second analysis was conducted i n which the ratings for highly and moderately prototypical descriptors were averaged and contrasted with the ratings for non-prototypical descriptors (see Appendix D). The results of those analyses are also presented i n Table XVI. The eff e c t for item type remained s i g n i f i c a n t for the four characters. However, inspection of the means indicated that subjects exhibited a higher l e v e l of false confidence when rating novel, but prot o t y p i c a l , Wise items than they did when rating other novel descriptors. 172 DISCUSSION The twin goals of this study were to demonstrate that 'wise' and 'wisdom' reference psychological meaningful attributes and behaviours and to provide a cogent rationale for viewing wisdom as a marker of progressive psychological change during adulthood. The f i r s t section of this discussion considers whether the data support the claim that wisdom i s best thought of as a well defined human competency. In the course of the discussion I w i l l demonstrate that there i s ample reason for regarding wisdom as a r i c h and meaningful descriptor rooted in a set of special psychological a b i l i t i e s . The second section discusses possible developmental motivations for becoming wise. It also considers the requirements of a the o r e t i c a l perspective compatible with the idea of wisdom. The discussion concludes by considering a number of future research topics that flow from this research. The empirical phase of the study used a prototype investigation to provide a picture of the attr i b u t e structure of the category Wise people. Overall, the analysis yielded six converging pieces of evidence arguing that wisdom i s best thought of as a 173 w e l l d e f i n e d p r o t o t y p i c a l l y o r g a n i z e d c o m p e t e n c y d e s c r i p t o r . T h e s e i n c l u d e 1) t h e p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r - r a t e r a g r e e m e n t ; 2) t h e p a t t e r n o f r a t i n g s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p r o t o t y p i c and n o n - p r o t o t y p i c d e s c r i p t o r s ; 3) t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e p r o t o t y p e d e s c r i p t o r l i s t ; 4) t h e p a t t e r n s o f o v e r l a p b e t w e e n w i s d o m and v a r i o u s c o n t r a s t c a t e g o r i e s ; 5) t h e r e s e m b l a n c e b e t w e e n t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l p o r t r a y a l o f w i s d o m and c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e w i s d o m l i t e r a t u r e ; and 6) t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f t h e e f f e c t o f t h e p r o t o t y p e on memory p e r f o r m a n c e . The f i r s t e v i d e n c e i s t h e h i g h d e g r e e o f c o n s e n s u s i n p e o p l e ' s j u d g e m e n t s o f t h e c e n t r a l l y i m p o r t a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f w i s e p e o p l e . The h i g h i n t e r j u d g e a g r e e m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t p e o p l e h o l d a c o n s i s t e n t c o n c e p t i o n o f what i t means t o be w i s e . One p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s e r e s u l t s i s t h a t c o n c e p t i o n s o f w i s d o m r e f l e c t a s h a r e d c o n s e n s u s a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f w i s e p e o p l e and t h e i r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g a t t r i b u t e s and b e h a v i o u r s . T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h R o s c h ' s s u g g e s t i o n t h a t p e o p l e ' s i d e a s a b o u t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f c a t e g o r i e s seem t o r e f l e c t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e w o r l d , a t l e a s t as p e o p l e p e r c e i v e i t , and p a r a l l e l s 174 t h e f i n d i n g s o f S t e r n b e r g e t a l ' s ( 1 9 8 1 ) s t u d y o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . The f i n d i n g o f h i g h c r o s s c o h o r t a g r e e m e n t on t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f w i s e p e o p l e was somewhat o f a s u r p r i s e . A l t h o u g h t h e s t u d y was t o some e x t e n t p r e d i c a t e d on t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f m o d e r a t e b e t w e e n c o h o r t a g r e e m e n t , t h e u b i q u i t y o f c o h o r t e f f e c t s i n o t h e r r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s l e d me t o s u s p e c t t h a t t h e r e w o u l d be c o n s i d e r a b l e age g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s . As n o t e d e a r l i e r , t h e e l d e r l y c o h o r t g e n e r a t e d a s m a l l e r number o f r e s p o n s e s , b u t t h o s e t h a t t h e y p r o d u c e d w e r e g e n e r a l l y s i m i l a r t o t h o s e g e n e r a t e d b y o t h e r age g r o u p s . T h e r e was a l s o g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t on t h e c o n s t e l l a t i o n o f a t t r i b u t e s d e f i n i n g w i s e p e o p l e . I n r e t r o s p e c t , t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h i s f i n d i n g m i g h t h a v e b e e n a n t i c i p a t d on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e c o n c e p t o f w i s d o m i s so f i r m l y embedded i n o u r c u l t u r e . Now, a f t e r r e a d i n g more e x t e n s i v e l y i n t h e w i s d o m l i t e r a t u r e , a nd a f t e r t a l k i n g w i t h many p e o p l e a b o u t w i s d o m , I am s t r u c k w i t h t h e r i c h n e s s and c o n s i s t e n c y o f b e l i e f a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s c o n c e p t . To a p p r e c i a t e t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e i d e a o f w i s d o m p e r m e a t e s o u r c u l t u r e , c o n s i d e r t h a t w i s d o m l i t e r a t u r e s p a n s a p e r i o d o f a t l e a s t 5,000 y e a r s . T h i s 175 y e a r s . T h i s w i s d o m t r a d i t i o n h a s b e e n m a i n t a i n e d and c a r r i e d f o r w a r d i n many d i f f e r e n t g e o g r a p h i c r e g i o n s and t h r o u g h a v a r i e t y o f i n t e l l e c t u a l t r a d i t i o n s . I t e n d u r e d t h e D a r k a n d t h e M i d d l e A g e s , emerged i n new f o r m s d u r i n g t h e R e n a i s s a n c e a n d c o n c e r n e d p h i l o s o p h e r s i n t o modern t i m e s . I n i t s l e s s f o r m a l g u i s e , one w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s p r o p e r b e h a v i o u r , s u p e r i o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g , s o c i a l a d e p t n e s s and e x c e p t i o n a l d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a b i l i t i e s , i t h a s l r o n g r e m a i n e d a v i b r a n t p a r t o f w e s t e r n c u l t u r e . I n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h i s l e n g t h y and i n t e r e s t i n g h i s t o r y , i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h r e e g e n e r a t i o n s , s p a n n i n g a t o t a l o f p e r h a p s 70 y e a r s , d e m o n s t r a t e 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 a s s o c i a t e d w i t h w i s e p e o p l e . The s e c o n d p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e was t h a t w o r d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o m p e t i n g c o n c e p t i o n s o f w i s d o m and o t h e r c o m p e t e n c y c a t e g o r i e s d i d n o t , on t h e a v e r a g e , r e c e i v e as h i g h r a t i n g s a s d i d t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l a t t r i b u t e s . I h a d s u s p e c t e d t h a t common l a n g u a g e c o n c e p t i o n s o f w i s d o m w o u l d o v e r l a p somewhat w i t h a c c o u n t s o f w i s d o m t h a t a p p e a r i n w e s t e r n l i t e r a t u r e . '""As I a r g u e d e a r l i e r , t h e r e i s some common g r o u n d b e t w e e n t h e s e v a r i e d t r a d i t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e r e c u r r e n c e 176 of the themes of understanding, good judgement and proper behaviour. G e n e r a l l y speaking, however, the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n has been l e s s concerned w i t h d a i l y e x i s t e n c e than has the s e c u l a r t r a d i t i o n . Where the former has been concerned w i t h a b s t r a c t a f f a i r s , the l a t t e r has focused on pragmatic concerns. Since the data c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s study r e f l e c t the manner i n which people p e r c e i v e and c a t e g o r i z e wise people, and s i n c e t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s are presumably based on t h e i r e xperience w i t h people who act w i s e l y , the common language c o n c e p t i o n i s rooted i n a pragmatic, r a t h e r than an i n t e l l e c t u a l , context. In view of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n o r i e n t a t i o n , the f a c t t h a t words r e f e r r i n g to e s o t e r i c f e a t u r e s o f wisdom r e c e i v e d lower r a t i n g s than d i d common language d e s c r i p t o r s argues that people's responses n e i t h e r r e f l e c t e d ideas contained 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 nor were a simple f u n c t i o n of the p l a u s i b i l i t y o f d e s c r i p t o r s rooted i n that t r a d i t i o n . People showed a h i g h degree o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n a s s i g n i n g r a t i n g s to the l i s t of d e s c r i p t o r s , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the common language conceptions were robust and to some extent non-redundant wit h other t h e o r i e s o f wisdom. S i m i l a r l y , the f i n d i n g that prototype d e s c r i p t o r s r e c e i v e d h i g h e r average r a t i n g s than d i d 177 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 o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s a r g u e s f o r t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n w i s d o m and o t h e r t e r m s . F o r i n s t a n c e , w o r d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f Shrewd and F o o l i s h p e o p l e r e c e i v e d v e r y l o w p r o t o t y p e r a t i n g s . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , 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 t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f I n t e l l i g e n t , S p i r i t u a l and P e r c e p t i v e p e o p l e r e c e i v e d h i g h e r r a t i n g s . T h i s p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s c o r r e s p o n d s t o common s e n s e e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t c o m p e t e n c y t e r m s s h o u l d s h a r e some common f e a t u r e s , w h i l e a r g u i n g t h a t p e o p l e u s e s u c h t e r m s s e l e c t i v e l y . T h i s , i n t u r n , i n d i c a t e s t h a t w i s d o m i s p e r c e i v e d as u n i q u e c o m p e t e n c y t e r m . The t h i r d , and r e l a t e d , e v i d e n c e i s t h e p a t t e r n o f o v e r l a p b e t w e e n w i s d o m and o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . B o t h t h e e s t i m a t e o f n u m e r i c a l o v e r l a p and t h e p a t t e r n s o f common m e a n i n g a l o n g f a c t o r a n a l y t i c a l l y d e r i v e d d i m e n s i o n s s u g g e s t t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t w i s d o m i s a u n i q u e t e r m . W i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f i r s t p o i n t , e a c h o f t h e n u m e r i c a l e s t i m a t e s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t t a r g e t c a t e g o r i e s w e r e r e l a t i v e l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f e a c h o t h e r , and o f t h e c a t e g o r y o f W i s e p e o p l e . The s e c o n d a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t a l t h o u g h many o f t h e 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 W i s e p e o p l e w e r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s , t h e o v e r l a p o c c u r r e d i n a v e r y s y s t e m a t i c 178 f a s h i o n . B e f o r e r e v i e w i n g t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n , h o w e v e r , i t i s n e c e s a r y t o p r o v i d e some d i s c u s s i o n o f s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s . F o l l o w i n g t h a t d i s c u s s i o n , I w i l l t h e n r e t u r n t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e p a t t e r n s o f o v e r l a p b e t w e e n c a t e g o r i e s . The most i m p o r t a n t r e s u l t s o f t h e p r i n c i p a l c o m p o n e n t s a n a l y s i s was a c o n f i r m a t i o n t h a t p e o p l e c o n s t r u e w i s d o m i n a m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l manner. The s p e c i f i c d i m e n s i o n s i d e n t i f i e d , E x c e p t i o n a l U n d e r s t a n d i n g , J u d g e m e n t / C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s , G e n e r a l C o m p e t e n c i e s , I n t e r p e r s o n a l S k i l l s a n d S o c i a l U n o b t r u s i v e n e s s , a r e a l s o i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n t e r m s o f s p e c i f i c t y p e s o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l a b i l i t i e s o r s k i l l s . The f i r s t f a c t o r , l a b e l l e d E x c e p t i o n a l U n d e r s t a n d i n g w h i c h stems f r o m o r d i n a r y e x p e r i e n c e , i s d e f i n e d b y i t e m s h a v i n g h i g h p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y v a l u e s . The f a c t t h a t i t e m s r e f l e c t i n g common s e n s e and e x p e r i e n c e l o a d on t h i s d i m e n s i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t w i sdom i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e c o n d u c t o f l i f e and management o f e v e r y d a y a f f a i r s . The i n c l u s i o n o f i t e m s d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o s e e e s s e n c e s , u n d e r s t a n d c o n t e x t s and be i n t o u c h w i t h t h e s e l f p o i n t s o u t t h e manner i n w h i c h e v e r y d a y e x p e r i e n c e i s a n a l y z e d t o y i e l d t h e p e n e t r a t i n g i n s i g h t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h w i sdom. I n a d d i t i o n , s u c h 179 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as i n t u i t i v e , d i p l o m a t i c and e m p a t h i c s t r o n g l y e m p h a s i z e t h e i d e a t h a t s u c h i n s i g h t s h a v e a s o c i a l a nd i n t e r p e r s o n a l b a s i s . The s e c o n d f a c t o r , l a b e l l e d J u d g e m e n t and C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s , i s a l s o d e f i n e d by i t e m s h a v i n g h i g h p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y v a l u e s . The f i r s t s e t o f i t e m s l o a d i n g on t h i s f a c t o r i n c l u d e s t h e d e s c r i p t o r s A w a r e , A s t u t e and C o m p r e h e n d i n g , e a c h o f w h i c h r e f l e c t s a v i g i l a n t a p p r o a c h t o t h e w o r l d . The n e x t s e t o f i t e m s , W e i g h s C o n s e q u e n c e s , C o n s i d e r s P o i n t s o f V i e w and C o n s i d e r s O p t i o n s r e f l e c t s b r e a d t h and e f f i c i e n c y o f o p e r a t i o n i n j u d g i n g i s s u e s and r e s o l v i n g p r o b l e m s . The t h i r d s e t , w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e d e s c r i p t o r s I s a S o u r c e o f Good A d v i c e a n d I s W o r t h L i s t e n i n g T o , r e f l e c t s t h e a b i l i t y and t h e p r o p e n s i t y o f t h e w i s e p e r s o n t o s h a r e t h e r e s u l t s o f h i s d e c i s i o n w i t h o t h e r s . The theme o f t h i s f a c t o r i s t h a t w i s d o m i s e x p r e s s e d i n o b s e r v i n g , a n a l y z i n g and c o m m u n i c a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t l i f e . The t h i r d f a c t o r , l a b e l l e d G e n e r a l C o m p e t e n c i e s , i s d e f i n e d b y 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 t h a t r e p r e s e n t b a s i c o r i e n t a t i o n s o r q u a l i t i e s o f t h e m i n d . T h e s e i n c l u d e t h e w o r d s A l e r t , I n t e l l i g e n t , C u r i o u s , C r e a t i v e , E v a l u a t e s I n f o r m a t i o n and T h i n k s a G r e a t D e a l . C o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h o s e i t e m s 180 i s a s e c o n d g r o u p o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e f e r e n c i n g t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e s e q u a l i t i e s a r e e x p r e s s e d i n l i f e , i n c l u d i n g t h e w o r d s W e l l R e a d , A r t i c u l a t e , E d u c a t e d and K n o w l e d g e a b l e . The e m e r g e n c e o f a c o m p e t e n c y f a c t o r i s , no d o u b t , a r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t w i s d o m must r e s t on a s o u n d f o u n d a t i o n and t h a t t h e s u p e r i o r a b i l i t i e s o f w i s e p e o p l e a r e r o o t e d i n a n e c e s s a r y l e v e l o f s k i l l . The f o u r t h f a c t o r , l a b e l l e d I n t e r p e r s o n a l S k i l l s , i s d e f i n e d b y a l a r g e number o f i t e m s , most o f w h i c h a r e n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t d e s c r i p t o r s o f w i s e p e o p l e . I t e m s d e f i n i n g t h i s f a c t o r i n c l u d e s u c h t e r m s as K i n d and U n s e l f i s h , w h i c h r e f e r e n c e t h e p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s o f human i n t e r a c t i o n . The e m e r g e n c e o f t h i s f a c t o r e m p h a s i z e s t h e e a r l i e r a r g u m e n t t h a t w i s d o m may be e x p r e s s e d i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n s w h i c h l e a d t o b e n e f i c i a l o u t c o m e s . The f i n a l d i m e n s i o n , S o c i a l U n o b t r u s i v e n e s s , i s d e f i n e d b y 5 i t e m s w h i c h r e c e i v e d m o d e r a t e l y h i g h p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y r a t i n g s . The theme o f t h i s d i m e n s i o n i s e x p r e s s e d b y t h e d e s c r i p t o r s Q u i e t , U n o b t r u s i v e and N o n - J u d g e m e n t a l . T h e s e i t e m s r e f l e c t t h e p e r c e p t i o n t h a t w i s d o m i s e x p r e s s e d q u i e t l y and m a n i f e s t e d i n s u b t l e r a t h e r t h a n d r a m a t i c - w a y s . T h i s d i m e n s i o n - - h a s no 181 p a r a l l e l i n p r e v i o u s p s y c h o l o g i c a l a c c o u n t s b u t r e f l e c t s themes f o u n d i n t h e a n c i e n t w i s d o m t r a d i t i o n s . R e t u r n i n g t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e r e s e m b l a n c e b e t w e e n w i s d o m and o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s , an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p a t t e r n s o f o v e r l a p r e v e a l e d t h a t c o m p a r i s o n c a t e g o r i e s o v e r l a p p e d w i t h t h e w i s e c a t e g o r y a l o n g d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s . O v e r a l l , t h e g r e a t e s t d e g r e e o f o v e r l a p o c c u r r e d on f a c t o r 3, t h e d i m e n s i o n l a b e l l e d G e n e r a l C o m p e t e n c i e s . The c a t e g o r i e s I n t e l l i g e n t , S h rewd and P e r c e p t i v e showed s u b s t a n t i a l o v e r l a p on t h i s d i m e n s i o n , w h i l e t h e c a t e g o r y S p i r i t u a l d e m o n s t r a t e d v i r t u a l l y no o v e r l a p . T h i s p a t t e r n s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e i s a c o r e o f d e s c r i p t o r s t h a t t e n d s t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o m p e t e n c y c a t e g o r i e s r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r l a b e l s . T h e s e i n c l u d e v e r b a l s k i l l s , t o g e t h e r w i t h b a s i c c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s and p e r c e p t u a l a b i l i t i e s . Wisdom, l i k e t h e o t h e r c o m p e t e n c y c a t e g o r i e s , l a b e l s a s t a t e o f h i g h l e v e l f u n c t i o n and c o n s e q u e n t l y s h a r e s t h o s e a t t r i b u t e s w i t h o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s d e s c r i b i n g p e o p l e who do w e l l . The r e s u l t s a l s o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t d e s c r i p t o r s a r e n o t i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y a p p l i e d t o a l l s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e c a t e g o r i e s . S p i r i t u a l , f o r e x a m p l e , showed l i t t l e o v e r l a p , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i n some s o c i a l l y v a l u e d 182 c a t e g o r i e s b a s i c c o m p e t e n c i e s a r e s e c o n d a r y t o o t h e r f e a t u r e s . T h e r e was l e s s o v e r l a p b e t w e e n t h e c a t e g o r i e s on f a c t o r I , E x c e p t i o n a l U n d e r s t a n d i n g , and f a c t o r 2, J u d g e m e n t and C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s . T h i s i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g as t h e s e d i m e n s i o n s w e r e d e f i n e d l a r g e l y b y t h e most s a l i e n t p r o t o t y p e d e s c r i p t o r s a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , w e r e e x p e c t e d t o be more c e n t r a l t o t h e W i s e c a t e g o r y t h a n t o o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . L e s s t h a n 4 0 % o f t h e a t t r i b u t e s on t h e s e d i m e n s i o n s o v e r l a p p e d w i t h o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . U n l i k e t h e p r e v i o u s c o m p a r i s o n , e a c h c a t e g o r y o v e r l a p p e d on a d i f f e r e n t s u b s e t o f d e s c r i p t o r s . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e d i m e n s i o n s r e f e r e n c i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g and p r a g m a t i c s k i l l s s e r v e as a d i s t i n c t i v e c o r e o f m e a n i n g f o r t h e c o n c e p t o f W i s e , as t h e y s e r v e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e w i s e p e o p l e f r o m o t h e r p e o p l e and t o h i g h l i g h t t h e i r u n i q u e a b i l i t i e s . The f o u r t h d i m e n s i o n , l a b e l l e d I n t e r p e r s o n a l S k i l l s , d e m o n s t r a t e d an i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n o f c a t e g o r y o v e r l a p . I n t e l l i g e n t a nd S h r e w d , w h i c h e v i d e n c e d c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p w i t h t h e W i s e c a t e g o r y on G e n e r a l C o m p e t e n c y h a d v e r y l i t t l e o v e r l a p on t h i s d i m e n s i o n . The c a t e g o r y S p i r i t u a l , w h i c h d i d n o t o v e r l a p on t h e G e n e r a l C o m p e t e n c i e s d i m e n s i o n , showed a c o n s i d e r a b l e 183 d e g r e e o f s h a r e d m e a n i n g on t h i s i n t e r p e r s o n a l f a c t o r . T h i s a r g u e s t h a t p e o p l e make c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n c a t e g o r i e s r e f e r e n c i n g c o g n i t i v e c o m p e t e n c e , w h e r e i n t e r p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s a r e r e l a t i v e l y u n i m p o r t a n t , and c a t e g o r i e s r e f e r e n c i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s , w h e re b a s i c c o g n i t i v e c o m p e t e n c i e s a r e r e l a t i v e l y u n i m p o r t a n t . T h e s e r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t p e o p l e o r g a n i z e s o c i a l c a t e g o r i e s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a . The c a t e g o r i e s may be r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t y p e s o f f u n c t i o n r e f e r r e d b y t h e s e t s o f a t t r i b u t e s . C a t e g o r i e s s u c h as I n t e l l i g e n t seem t o e m p h a s i z e c o m p e t e n c y a t t r i b u t e s , w h i l e c a t e g o r i e s s u c h as S p i r i t u a l a r e more h e a v i l y w e i g h t e d i n t e r m s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l f e a t u r e s . T h e r e seems t o be no r e q u i r e m e n t f o r c a t e g o r i e s t o r e f e r e n c e s e v e r a l t y p e s o f f u n c t i o n . I n o t h e r c a s e s , c a t e g o r i e s may r e f l e c t a more homogeneous c o l l e c t i o n o f c o m p e t e n c i e s . Wisdom, f o r e x a m p l e , i s d e f i n e d b y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f r o m c o g n i t i v e , i n t e r p e r s o n a l and e x p e r i e n t i a l d o m a i n s . To be c o n s i d e r e d w i s e , one must b o t h be c o m p e t e n t and i n t e r p e r s o n a l l y s k i l l e d , a n d h a v e j u d g e m e n t a l and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s k i l l s t h a t a r e e x e r c i s e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f an e x p e r i e n t i a l f r a m e w o r k w h i c h i n c l u d e s s u b s t a n t i a l 184 k n o w l e d g e o f human s o c i a l c o n c e r n s . Wisdom, u n l i k e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s , i s c o m p l e x and r e f e r e n c e s p e o p l e who h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d an i n t e g r a t i o n o f b a s i c p s y c h o l o g i c a l s k i l l s w i t h i n a s o c i a l l y d e f i n e d f r a m e w o r k . O t h e r c a t e g o r i e s may a l s o show a m u l t i p l e c o m p e t e n c y s t r u c t u r e . S h r e w d , f o r e x a m p l e l a b e l s p e o p l e who h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d b a s i c c o m p e t e n c i e s a nd k n o w l e d g e o f human b e h a v i o u r . Wisdom, h o w e v e r , may be one o f t h e few t e r m s i n w h i c h m u l t i p l e c o m p e t e n c i e s a r e e x p r e s s e d i n a p o s i t i v e s o c i a l c o n t e x t and a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h f a c i l i t a t i n g human s o c i a l f u n c t i o n . The f o u r t h p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e i s t h a t t h e l i s t o f p r o t o t y p e d e s c r i p t o r s e x h i b i t e d some o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o u n d i n o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . As i n p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , t h e c a t e g o r y p r o t o t y p e was d e f i n e d i n t e r m s o f a c o r e o f h i g h l y d e s c r i p t i v e t e r m s , s u r r o u n d e d b y g r o u p s o f s a l i e n t , a l b e i t l e s s d e s c r i p t i v e , t e r m s . T h i s p a t t e r n c o r r e s p o n d s w i t h R o s c h ' s ( 1 9 7 8 ) r e p o r t t h a t o c a t e g o r i e s a r e o r g a n i z e d w i t h h i g h l y s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s f o r m i n g t h e c e n t r e o f t h e c a t e g o r y and l e s s s a l i e n t d e s c r i p t o r s f o r m i n g t h e o u t e r e d g e s . I f t h e c a t e g o r y was m e a n i n g l e s s o r a r b i t r a r y , o r i f t h e d e s c r i p t o r s were i n some way i n a p p r o p r i a t e , t h i s o r d e r i n g - w o u l d n o t o c c u r . What w o u l d most l i k e l y h a p p e n i s t h a t p e o p l e 185 w o u l d r a t e a l l w o r d s as b e i n g p o o r d e s c r i p t o r s . S i m i l a r l y , i f t h e l i s t d i d n o t e x h a u s t t h e d o m a i n , b u t c o n t a i n e d o n l y h i g h l y d e s c r i p t i v e w o r d s , t h e r a t i n g s w o u l d t e n d t o be u n a n i m o u s l y h i g h . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e was a good s p r e a d b e t w e e n t h e h i g h e s t and l o w e s t r a t i n g s , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n r e f l e c t s a w e l l f o r m e d c a t e g o r y . S i m i l a r l y , t h e m o d e r a t e l y h i g h p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e n f r e q u e n c y o f e n d o r s e m e n t and p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y i s i n k e e p i n g w i t h i d e a s a b o u t p r o t o t y p e s . B e c a u s e i t e m s f r e q u e n t l y l i s t e d a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s h o u l d be c e n t r a l t o t h e c a t e g o r y o f i n t e r e s t , t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y r a t i n g s s h o u l d be f a i r l y h i g h . The r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s s u g g e s t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h e c o r r e l a t i o n i s n o t as h i g h as m i g h t be e x p e c t e d . The f i f t h p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e i s t h a t t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l c o n c e p t i o n o f w i s d o m d e v e l o p e d i n t h i s s t u d y d e m o n s t r a t e s s e l e c t i v e c o n t i n u i t y w i t h t h e 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 and s e c u l a r w i s d o m t r a d i t i o n s . T h i s f i n d i n g i s s i m i l a r i n k i n d t o S t e r n b e r g e t a l ' s ( 1 9 8 1) r e p o r t o f some s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n i n f o r m a l and f o r m a l t h e o r i e s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e , a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e p r o t o t y p e c o n c e p t i o n c a n be u s e d t o 186 s u p p l e m e n t o t h e r t h e o r i e s . I n t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e s , I w i l l b r i e f l y d e l i n e a t e t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n w i s d o m as d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s s t u d y and o t h e r c o n c e p t i o n s o f wisdom. The c o m p a r i s o n w i t h p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s i s b a s e d on c o m p a r i s o n s o f t h e d i m e n s i o n s f o u n d i n d i f f e r e n t s t u d i e s . F o r o t h e r t r a d i t i o n s , i t i s b a s e d on a c o m p a r i s o n o f themes w h i c h mark b o t h l i t e r a t u r e s . T h r e e o f t h e f i v e f a c t o r s i n t h i s s t u d y r e s e m b l e d i m e n s i o n s f o u n d i n one o r more p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s . The E x c e p t i o n a l U n d e r s t a n d i n g f a c t o r c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e R e f l e c t i v e d i m e n s i o n i d e n t i f i e d b y C l a y t o n and B i r r e n ( 1 9 7 8 ) and t h e P r a c t i c a l - E x p e r i e n t i a l d i m e n s i o n f o u n d b y B r e n t annd W a t s o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) . The c o n s i s t e n c y a c r o s s s t u d i e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l i t e m s d e f i n e t h i s f a c t o r , i n d i c a t e t h a t i t i s a c e n t r a l f e a t u r e o f w i sdom. T h i s l e n d s c r e d e n c e t o t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t e x c e p t i o n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g , r o o t e d i n l i f e e x p e r i e n c e , i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e o f w i s e p e o p l e . The G e n e r a l C o m p e t e n c i e s f a c t o r a l s o p a r a l l e l s t h e c o g n i t i v e d i m e n s i o n s i d e n t i f i e d b y C l a y t o n and B i r r e n ( 1 9 7 8 ) and B r e n t and W a t s o n • ( 1 9 8 0 ) . I n t h o s e , p r o j e c t s , t h e e m e r g e n c e o f t h a t f a c t o r was s e e n t o be 187 c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t w i s d o m i s b e s t t h o u g h t o f as a t y p e o f c o g n i t i o n . The r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n t h i s s t u d y s u g g e s t a more modest o r r e d u c e d r o l e f o r c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f wisdom. I n t h i s s t u d y , i t e m s l o a d i n g on t h i s f a c t o r w e r e s e e n as b e i n g o n l y m o d e r a t e l y s a l i e n t d e s c r i p t o r s o f w i s e p e o p l e . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e g e n e r a l c o m p e t e n c y d i m e n s i o n a p p e a r e d t o c h a r a c t e r i z e a v a r i e t y o f c a t e g o r i e s o t h e r t h a n wisdom. T h e s e r e s u l t s p o i n t t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p u r e l y c o g n i t i v e a s p e c t s o f w i s d o m do n o t s e r v e t o d i s t i n g u i s h w i s e i n d i v i d u a l s f r o m o t h e r c o m p e t e n t p e o p l e . I n s t e a d , t h e d a t a i n d i c a t e s t h a t b a s i c c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s r e p r e s e n t n e c e s s a r y , b u t n o t s u f f i c i e n t , c o n d i t i o n s f o r b e i n g r e c o g n i z e d a s w i s e . The I n t e r p e r s o n a l S k i l l s f a c t o r i n t h i s s t u d y i s s i m i l a r t o t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l d i m e n s i o n s i d e n t i f i e d b y C l a y t o n a n d B i r r e n ( 1 9 7 8 ) and b y B r e n t and W a t s o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) . I n t h o s e s t u d i e s , t h i s d i m e n s i o n was i n t e r p r e t e d a s e v i d e n c e f o r t h e u n i q u e l y s o c i a l a s p e c t s o f wisdom. I n t h i s s t u d y , a n a l y s i s o f p r o t o t y p e r a t i n g s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d e s c r i p t o r s l o a d i n g on t h i s f a c t o r a g a i n i n d i c a t e d t h a t w o r d s d e f i n i n g t h e f a c t o r w e r e n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t d e s c r i p t o r s and were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t i n t e r p e r s o n a l 188 s k i l l s , w h i l e b e i n g a c o n s p i c u o u s f e a t u r e o f w i s e p e o p l e , do n o t i n t h e m s e l v e s d i s t i n g u i s h w i s e p e o p l e f r o m o t h e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l l y f a c i l e i n d i v i d u a l s . T h e s e r e s u l t s a r g u e f o r a c a r e f u l d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s o c i a l a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l a s p e c t s o f w i s d o m . The r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d h e r e s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g s k i l l s o f w i s e p e o p l e a r e e x p r e s s e d i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . T h e i r i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e s , h o w e v e r , do n o t seem t o be d i s t i n c t i v e e n o u g h t o s e r v e as a s u f f i c i e n t means f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g them f r o m o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s . The J u d g e m e n t and C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s f a c t o r h a d no c o u n t e r p a r t i n p r e v i o u s l y r e p o r t e d s t u d i e s , w h i c h i s s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e t h i s f a c t o r was c o m p r i s e d o f h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l i t e m s . One r e a s o n f o r d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s s t u d i e s may be t h a t t h e d e s c r i p t o r s i n p r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s w e r e n o t s e l e c t e d i n ways t h a t e x h a u s t e d t h e d o m a i n o f c o n t e n t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e p i c t u r e s o f w i s d o m t o emerge f r o m e a r l i e r s t u d i e s a r e l i k e l y t o be l e s s f i n e g r a i n e d t h a n t h e one d e v e l o p e d i n t h i s p r o j e c t . A s e c o n d p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t t h e two s e p a r a t e f a c t o r s o f E x c e p t i o n a l U n d e r s t a n d i n g and J u d g e m e n t and 189 C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s may h a v e a p p e a r e d i n p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s as a s i n g l e f a c t o r . The f i f t h f a c t o r i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s s t u d y , S o c i a l U n o b t r u s i v e n e s s , 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 s t u d i e s . A g a i n , t h i s p r o b a b l y r e f l e c t s t h e f a c t t h a t n o t a l l p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s b a s e d t h e i r a n a l y s e s on p e o p l e ' s p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f W i s e p e o p l e . The g e n e r a l p o i n t t o emerge f r o m t h e s e c o m p a r i s o n s i s t h a t t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f w i s d o m p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s s t u d y i s b o t h b r o a d e r and more d e t a i l e d t h a n t h o s e p r e v i o u s l y r e p o r t e d . 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 i s s t u d y c o m p l e t e l y subsume t h e f a c t o r s r e p o r t e d b y C l a y t o n a nd B i r r e n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , and i n c l u d e t h r e e o f t h e f o u r f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d b y B r e n t and W a t s o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) . S i n c e b o t h o f t h e s t u d i e s u s e d i n c o m p l e t e c a t e g o r y a n a l y s i s p r o c e d u r e s , t h i s r e s u l t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g . The p r o c e d u r e s i n t h i s s t u d y w e r e d e s i g n e d t o p e r m i t a f u l l a n a l y s i s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e o f c a t e g o r i e s . I n s h o r t , t h e p r e s e n t r e s u l t s p r e s e n t a more c o m p l e t e p o r t r a y a l o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f w i s e p e o p l e . The f a c t o r s i n t h i s s t u d y a l s o showed some c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h themes a p p e a r i n g i n o t h e r a c c o u n t s o f wisdom. I n t h e a n c i e n t s e c u l a r t r a d i t i o n , w i s d o m i s 190 v i e w e d p r i m a r i l y as t h e a r t o f l i v i n g w e l l , and i s r e p r e s e n t e d i n q u a l i t i e s o f t h e m i n d t o g e t h e r w i t h p r a c t i c a l v i r t u e s t h a t l e a d one t o a w e l l a d a p t e d l i f e . A s i m i l a r theme a p p e a r s i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y where t h e E x c e p t i o n a l U n d e r s t a n d i n g f a c t o r i s c o m p r i s e d o f d e s c r i p t o r s t h a t h i g h l i g h t t h e p r a c t i c a l , e x p e r i e n t i a l a s p e c t s o f w i s d o m . I n t h a t d i m e n s i o n , as i n t r a d i t i o n a l a c c o u n t s , w i s d o m i s s e e n as b e i n g r o o t e d i n t h e o r d i n a r y e x p e r i e n c e s o f l i f e , g u i d e d b y g o o d s e n s e and r e f l e c t i v e i n n a t u r e . As i n t r a d i t i o n a l a c c o u n t s , t h e c u r r e n t c o n c e p t i o n i s a l s o m arked b y c o n c e r n s w i t h t h e mundane, p r a g m a t i c , c o n t e x t - d e l i n e a t e d a s p e c t s o f l i f e . A s e c o n d theme i n t h e s e c u l a r t r a d i t i o n i s t h a t w i s d o m i s e x p r e s s e d i n s o u n d j u d g e m e n t and e f f e c t i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I n t h e a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n , t h e w i s e s t p e o p l e w e re made j u d g e s and e n t r u s t e d w i t h d e c i s i o n s c r u c i a l t o t h e w e l f a r e o f t h e c o m m u n i t y . The i d e a t h a t w i s e p e o p l e a r e m a r k e d b y t h e i r s p e c i a l j u d g e m e n t a l s k i l l s a l s o f i g u r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n J u n g ' s c o n c e p t i o n 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. « F i n a l l y , t h e w i d e s p r e a d u s e o f p r o v e r b s and f o l k t a l e s t o v e r b a l l y e x p r e s s c o m p l e x t h o u g h t s a l s o s t a n d s as t e s t i m o n y t o t h e r o l e o f c o m m u n i c a t i v e s k i l l s i n , t h e w i s d o m t r a d i t i o n . 191 In t h i s study the Judgemental and Communicative S k i l l s f a c t o r embodies the above i d e a s . The h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l items d e f i n i n g t h i s dimension emphasize the importance of judgement and communication s k i l l s i n conceptions o f wisdom. T h i s suggests that a l t h o u g h our formal s o c i e t a l systems are no longer o r g a n i z e d around wise judges and wise people may no l o n g e r p r a c t i c e i n the marketplace, they may continue to express t h e i r judgements and o p i n i o n s i n a more i n f o r m a l and i n t i m a t e manner to f a m i l y and f r i e n d s . A t h i r d theme found i n the s e c u l a r t r a d i t i o n s i s t h a t i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s are an important f e a t u r e o f wise f u n c t i o n . In the a n c i e n t wisdom w r i t i n g s there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n o f the proper manner of d e a l i n g w i t h people and evidence o f a s t r o n g concern f o r g e t t i n g along w i t h o t h e r s . In t h i s study, the I n t e r p e r s o n a l S k i l l s f a c t o r emerged as a w e l l d e f i n e d , a l b e i t not c e n t r a l l y important, f e a t u r e o f wise people. Although t h i s dimension does not serve to d i s t i n g u i s h wise people from o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s , the r e c u r r e n c e of t h i s theme again emphasizes the c o n t i n u i t y between the o l d e r , mundane wisdom t r a d i t i o n s and the modern view o f wise people. D e s p i t e the heavy emphasis on achievement i n our 192 s o c i e t y , i n t e r p e r s o n a l f e a t u r e s are s t i l l v alued as an important aspect o f mature a d u l t f u n c t i o n . In t h i s study the General Competencies f a c t o r emerged as a moderately important aspect of wisdom. T h i s e x p l i c i t r e c o g n i t i o n o f d e c o n t e x t u a l i z e d competency does not have a co u n t e r p a r t i n the an c i e n t l i t e r a t u r e . I t does, however, resemble the c o g n i t i v e dimension i m p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e d by A r i s t o t l e and l a t e r c r i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h e r s who p l a c e d a premium on l e a r n i n g s k i l l s and mastering a b s t r a c t modes of understanding. The p r e s e n t data i n d i c a t e t h at g e n e r a l competencies are seen as be i n g r e a l , but not c r i t i c a l , aspects o f wisdom. The S o c i a l Unobtrusiveness f a c t o r does not have an immediate p a r a l l e l i n the a n c i e n t l i t e r a t u r e , a l though t h e r e are s e v e r a l p o t e n t i a l p o i n t s o f s i m i l a r i t y . The f i r s t i s the sentiment that wisdom i s expressed i n a form of guidance r a t h e r than commands. In the a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n s , wise people seemed to possess a f i n e sense 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 the need f o r d i r e c t i n t e r v e n t i o n i n the a f f a i r s o f other i n d i v i d u a l s . In a d d i t i o n , the r o l e o f the e l d e r as guide, d e s c r i b e d to some extent i n Jung's w r i t i n g s , a l s o r e f l e c t s t h i s p o l i c y o f n o n - i n t e r f e r e n c e . So while i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o 193 demonstrate a d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n , i t appears that t h i s f a c t o r i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h other accounts of wisdom. The p a t t e r n o f resemblance between the pr o t o t y p e d e s c r i p t o r s found i n t h i s study and t r a d i t i o n a l conceptions o f wisdom suggest that modern ideas o f wisdom are ve r y s i m i l a r to the a n c i e n t wisdom t r a d i t i o n s . People today see wisdom as being rooted i n mundane ex p e r i e n c e , concerned with the c o r r e c t e v a l u a t i o n o f human a f f a i r s , expressed i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s and p r e d i c a t e d on c e r t a i n l e v e l s of human competency. T h i s i s not to suggest t h a t these themes are u n r e l a t e d to those 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 . On the c o n t r a r y , many p h i l o s o p h e r s have been concerned w i t h pragmatic types o f wisdom and have i d e n t i f i e d areas o f concern s i m i l a r to those d e s c r i b e d here. T h e i r accounts o f t e n emphasize metaphysical i s s u e s and seem to be removed from the co n c r e t e p a t t e r n s o f behaviour i d e n t i f i e d i n the s e c u l a r l i t e r a t u r e . The s i x t h l i n e o f evidence i s th a t r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n study I I I are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the hypothesis t h a t the p r o t o t y p e f o r wisdom a c t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e s i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s . The r e s u l t s of the C h i Square a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d t hat the Wise c h a r a c t e r was seen as a good example of wise people and the 194 a n a l y s i s o f co n f i d e n c e r a t i n g s i n d i c a t e d that the s u b j e c t s ' memory p r o c e s s i n g was b i a s e d i n the expected d i r e c t i o n . While s u b j e c t s were ab l e to a c c u r a t e l y d i s t i n g u i s h between a c q u i s i t i o n and novel items, they a l s o demonstrated a c o n s i s t e n t b i a s i n the d i r e c t i o n o f be i n g more c o n f i d e n t that h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l , but no v e l , items had been presented d u r i n g the a c q u i s i t i o n task. T h i s p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s i s c o n s i s t e n t with Cantor and M i s c h e l ' s (1979) c l a i m t h a t memory performance i s i n f l u e n c e d , but not dominated, by pr o t o t y p e s . These r e s u l t s a l s o suggest t h a t p r o t o t y p e s p l a y e d a r e a l , but minor, r o l e i n memory p r o c e s s i n g . One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s that s u b j e c t s , when f o r c e d t o make a d e c i s i o n about ambiguous i n f o r m a t i o n , e v a l u a t e the p r o b a b i l i t y o f having seen an item both i n terms o f t h e i r memory o f the a c q u i s t i o n items and t h e i r p r o t o t y p i c a l conceptions o f wisdom. T h i s modest i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i m u l t a n e o u s l y f i t s the data and demonstrates c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h the ge n e r a l themes i n the c o g n i t i v e l i t e r a t u r e . The f i n d i n g t h a t the experimental c h a r a c t e r f o r the categor y Shrewd d i d not p r o d u c e t h e expected p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s w h i l e i t s c o n t r o l d i d so was 195 u n e x p e c t e d . F o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s p r o b l e m h a d no d i r e c t i m p a c t on t h e m a j o r p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y . N e v e t h e l e s s , an a t t e m p t t o u n d e r s t a n d t h i s u n a n t i c i p a t e d r e s u l t w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f p r o t o t y p e t h e o r y seems r e q u i r e d . A l t h o u g h t h e r e s u l t s w e r e c l e a r l y u n e x p e c t e d , c l o s e e x a m i n a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h e y a r e n o t t o t a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h c a t e g o r i z a t i o n t h e o r y . The r e s u l t s o f t h e c h a r a c t e r r a t i n g t a s k i n d i c a t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s v i e w e d t h e c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r as a f a i r l y g o od e x a m p l e o f Shrewd p e o p l e . T a k e n i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h a r a c t e r was n o t j u d g e d a good e x a m p l e o f a Shrewd p e r s o n , t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o e x p e c t t h e p r e d i c t e d r e s u l t s . The r e c o g n i t i o n a n a l y s i s , w h i c h i n d i c a t e d t h a t 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 t h e c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r w e r e p r o c e s s e d i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r o t o t y p e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e Shrewd p r o t o t y p e was a c t i v a t e d d u r i n g t h e a c q u i s i t i o n p h a s e , b u t was t r i g g e r e d b y t h e c o n t r o l r a t h e r t h a n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h a r a c t e r . I n summary, t h e r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r r e p o r t s i n t h e p r o t o t y p e l i t e r a t u r e o f t h e e f f e c t s o f p r o t o t y p e s on c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s . P e o p l e v i e w e d t h e W i s e c h a r a c t e r as a good e x a m p l e o f t h e c a t e g o r y o f W i s e p e o p l e and t h e i r memory s t r a t e g i e s w e re b i a s e d i n 196 accordance w i t h t h i s f a c t . T h i s i s e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h e a r l i e r r e p o r t s i n the l i t e r a t u r e t h a t one of the f e a t u r e s o f prototypes i s they seem to b i a s i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ways. These r e s u l t s f u r t h e r v a l i d a t e the i d e a that the word "wise 1 r e f e r e n c e s a w e l l formed and prototype o r g a n i z e d concept. These s i x l i n e s of evidence form a converging p a t t e r n o f support f o r the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the words 'wise' and 'wisdom' r e f e r e n c e s p e c i f i c types of competent a d u l t f u n c t i o n . In g e n e r a l , the r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n s t u d i e s I I and I I I are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t wisdom may be viewed as b e i n g embodied i n the p r o t o t y p i c a l l y organized category o f wise people. I d e n t i f y i n g and d e s c r i b i n g the prototype f o r the cate g o r y , as w e l l as demonstrating i t s e f f e c t on the manner i n which people process i n f o r m a t i o n about o t h e r s , j u s t i f i e d the attempt to study wisdom w i t h i n the framework p r o v i d e d by c a t e g o r i z a t i o n theory. E s t a b l i s h i n g the r e l i a b i l i t y of the pro t o t y p e across age groups f u r t h e r strengthened the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t s t u d y i n g the p r o t o t y p e i s a r e l i a b l e way o f i d e n t i f y i n g the s p e c i a l f e a t u r e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h wisdom. The subsequent demonstration t h a t p r o t o t y p i c a l a t t r i b u t e s c o u l d be 197 summarized by p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y meaningful dimensions completed the argument t h a t wisdom can be l o c a t e d w i t h i n a p s y c h o l o g i c a l framework. F i n a l l y , the demonstration o f c o n t i n u i t y between the modern conception of wisdom and v a r i o u s bodies o f wisdom l i t e r a t u r e p r o v i d e d consensual v a l i d a t i o n f o r the p i c t u r e of wisdom p a i n t e d i n t h i s study. In t h i s study, the attempt to develop a p s y c h o l o g i c a l theory of wisdom i s based on the e m p i r i c a l examination o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f people thought to be wise. The r a t i o n a l e f o r the emergence of wisdom d u r i n g adulthhood, t h e r e f o r e , s t r o n g l y r e f l e c t s the r e s u l t s o f the pro t o t y p e a n a l y s i s and accompanying examinations o f the s t r u c t u r e o f the p r o t o t y p e . Wise people, as d e s c r i b e d i n the pro t o t y p e a n a l y s i s , are marked by the co-occurrence of a v a r i e t y o f c o g n i t i v e , i n t e r p e r s o n a l and e x p e r i e n t i a l competencies. T h i s i s not the norm i n pro t o t y p e s t u d i e s o f s o c i a l c a t e g o r i e s . Sternberg e t a l (1981), f o r example, found t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e was c h a r a c t e r i z e d p r i m a r i l y by a set of c o g n i t i v e competencies and s e c o n d a r i l y by s o c i a l competencies. There was no evidence t h a t e x p e r i e n t i a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l f e a t u r e s were important p a r t s o f conceptions o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . S i m i l a r l y , Cantor and 198 M i s c h e l ' s p r o t o t y p e s of i n t r o v e r t e d and a g g r e s s i v e i n d i v i d u a l s d i d not c o n t a i n competency or e x p e r i e n t i a l dimensions. I t can be argued, then, t h a t the m u l t i p l e competency s t r u c t u r e of wisdom i s the e x c e p t i o n r a t h e r than the r u l e . The f i n d i n g that wisdom i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the simultaneous r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a number o f d i v e r s e competencies should be c e n t r a l to a d i s c u s s i o n of the emergence o f wisdom d u r i n g adulthood. T h i s type of p a t t e r n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p could be understood i n s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e ways. One p o s s i b l e theory i s t h a t wise people have developed a more i n t e g r a t e d or balanced r o s t e r o f competencies than ot h e r people. Such a s i t u a t i o n c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as b e i n g c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Werner's (1957) o r t h o g e n e t i c p r i n c i p l e , a c c o r d i n g to which development i s governed by two complementary processes o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and h i e r a r c h i c a l i n t e g r a t i o n . While Werner does not s p e c i f i c a l l y d i s c u s s the meaning o f i n t e g r a t i o n as i t might apply to the p e r i o d of a d u l t development, one such p o s s i b l e meaning cou l d l i e i n a h y p o t h e s i s of a d a p t a t i o n i n which otherwise autonomous competencies become co o r d i n a t e d under the auspices of what i s here r e f e r r e d to as wisdom. 199 The argument t h a t some p a t t e r n s o f development are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a g r e a t e r degree of i n t e g r a t i v e c o n t r o l i s , o f course, h i g h l y s p e c u l a t i v e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t i s compatible w i t h c e r t a i n t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l l y based d i s c u s s i o n s o f a d u l t f u n c t i o n . One common view r e g a r d i n g adulthood i s that w i t h i n c r e a s e d age one becomes b e t t e r a b l e to understand and deal w i t h the f u l l spectrum o f l i f e events. I t i s noteworthy that t h i s c o n t e n t i o n focuses not on s p e c i f i c c a p a c i t i e s , but on an i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y to cope i n g e n e r a l . T h i s p a r t i c u l a r aspect o f adulthood has served as the corners t o n e o f s e v e r a l attempts to i d e n t i f y p s y c h o l o g i c a l change i n e a r l y and mid-adulthood (Meacham, 1982). In the area o f c o g n i t i v e development, t h i s has taken the form o f an attempt to f i n d a d d i t i o n a l stages o f development which are d e f i n e d by the a b i l i t y to move beyond g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n and to d e f i n e new and i n t e r e s t i n g questions ( R i e g e l , 1974; A r l i n , 1975). Other attempts to d e s c r i b e the manner i n which a d u l t s cope w i t h l i f e s i t u a t i o n s have emphasized t h i s presumed i n t e g r a t i v e competence. Schaie's (1978-1979) s p e c u l a t i o n that the hallmark o f s u p e r i o r a d u l t f u n c t i o n l i e s i n an improved a b i l i t y " t o take r e s p o n s i b l e c o n t r o l o f i n c r e a s i n g l y complex p r o j e c t s i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f 200 t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l viewpoint. His a n a l y s i s emphasized the need f o r i n t e g r a t i n g v a r i o u s competencies i n a concerted e f f o r t undertaken i n the context of the middle aged person's l a r g e r s t o r e of e xperience. T h i s hypothesis a l s o r e c e i v e s some c o l l a t e r a l suppport from r e p o r t s o f c ontinued, or new, i n t e g r a t i o n of a b i l i t i e s i n the c o g n i t i v e domain ( B a l t e s , Reese and L i p s i t t , 1980; B o s w e l l , 1979). De s p i t e the f a c t that there i s l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l evidence s u b s t a n t i a t i n g such c l a i m s , the r e c u r r e n c e of these themes i n the d e s c r i p t i v e and t h e o r e t i c a l accounts of adulthood suggests that the i n t e g r a t i o n h y p othesis should be pursued. T h i s study i s an important c o n t r i b u t i o n to that t r a d i t i o n as i t i s one o f the f i r s t to e m p i r i c a l l y i d e n t i f y a group o f a d u l t s who may t y p i f y such an i n t e g r a t i v e movement. Viewing wisdom i n terms o f a movement toward g r e a t e r i n t e g r a t i o n does not, however, imply t h a t there i s any normative i n e v i t a b i l i t y i n becoming wise. A d u l t s become many t h i n g s , one of which i s to become wise. In study I I , Shrewd people were p i c t u r e d as combining g e n e r a l c o g n i t i v e competencies w i t h n e g a t i v e l y v a l u e d s o c i a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s which were e x e r c i s e d to f u r t h e r t h e i r own s e l f i n t e r e s t s . Becoming wise and becoming shrewd are two examples of the i n t e g r a t i v e 201 p o s s i b i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e to a d u l t s . There are, no doubt, other pathways that are not c h a r a c t e r i z e d by such balanced i n t e g r a t i v e movements. F o o l i s h people, perhaps, n e i t h e r e x c e l i n p a r t i c u l a r areas of competence nor manage to c o o r d i n a t e t h e i r a b i l i t i e s to d e a l e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h l i f e . I t may be u s e f u l to look f o r o t h e r competency terms which r e f e r e n c e e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or r e g r e s s i v e developmental movements. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f e r e d here i s most c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the m u l t i - o p t i o n , c o n t e x t u a l models of development proposed by v a r i o u s t h e o r i s t s (Chandler and L a b o u v i e - V i e f , 1978). Wisdom as d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s study c l e a r l y does not mark a u n i v e r s a l l y a v a i l a b l e developmental o p t i o n . Instead, i t seems to r e f e r e n c e a p a r t i c u l a r p r o g r e s s i v e t r a j e c t o r y that i s a v a i l a b l e to an unknown number of people. T h i s does not imply, however, that we cannot i d e n t i f y s y s t e m a t i c e f f e c t s t h a t may i n f l u e n c e the development o f wisdom, nor does i t suggest t h a t we cannot study wisdom i n a s y s t e m a t i c f a s h i o n . Rather, i t suggests that we should c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r the nature of developmental i n f l u e n c e s and c r e a t i v e l y propose new r e s e a r c h s t r a t e g i e s . In the f o l l o w i n g pages I examine each of these i s s u e s i n some d e t a i l . 0 202 T h i s next s e c t i o n c o n s i d e r s some developmental i n f l u e n c e s that p e r t a i n to the p o s s i b i l i t y of a t t a i n i n g wisdom. The f i r s t m o t i v a t i o n f o r t h i s study was the o b s e r v a t i o n that people spontaneously use the word 'wise' to d e s c r i b e competent a d u l t f u n c t i o n . The converse of t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n i s that the d e s c r i p t o r 'wise', w i t h two i n t e r e s t i n g e x c e p t i o n s , i s seldom a p p l i e d to c h i l d r e n . L i k e w i s e , i t i s almost never a p p l i e d to a d o l e s c e n t s and young a d u l t s . I b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s b i a s e d usage r e f l e c t s the a c c u r a t e r e c o g n i t i o n that t h e r e are developmental l i m i t a t i o n s on the p o s s i b i l i t y o f becoming wise. In g e n e r a l , there i s ample evidence suggesting t h a t c h i l d r e n d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from competently f u n c t i o n i n g a d u l t s . Some o f these d i f f e r e n c e s are i n areas that are p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g c e n t r a l l y important i n the d e f i n i t i o n of wise f u n c t i o n . For example, the a b i l i t y to see and understand a l l p e r s p e c t i v e s i s an important f e a t u r e of wisdom. C h i l d r e n , however, are t y p i c a l l y l e s s a b l e than a d u l t s to a p p r e c i a t e v i e w p o i n t s o t h e r than t h e i r own. S i m i l a r l y , judgemental s k i l l s p l a y an important r o l e i n the behaviour of wise people. In t h i s case, as p r e v i o u s l y , c h i l d r e n have been .shown to _ r e l y on l e s s complex c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s than do 203 a d u l t s . These two areas are examples o f the many ways i n which c h i l d h o o d competencies are l e s s w e l l developed than a d u l t a b i l i t i e s . The l i m i t e d a b i l i t y of c h i l d r e n to a p p r e c i a t e the f u l l s i g n i f i c a n c e of events, together w i t h the f a c t t h a t wisdom f i n d s i t s meaning i n the complexity o f s o c i a l i n t e r c h a n g e s , means that c h i l d r e n are not normally be expected to be wise. There are two i n t e r e s t i n g exceptions to t h i s r u l e . The f i r s t c o n s i s t s of h i s t o r i c a l accounts of c h i l d r e n e x h i b i t i n g wise behaviour as a r e s u l t of e x t r a - n a t u r a l causes. The c h i l d Jesus i n the C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n and the D h a l i Lama i n the e a s t e r n t r a d i t i o n e p i t o m i z e the wise c h i l d . The second e x c e p t i o n i s d e f i n e d by i n s t a n c e s i n which a c h i l d ' s pronouncements have an apparent p r o f u n d i t y . The saying "out of the mouths o f babes" perhaps best captures the essence of t h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f c h i l d i s h wisdom. N e i t h e r of these cases warrants s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . In the f i r s t case, claims of d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n cannot be examined by p s y c h o l o g i s t s . With re g a r d to the second i n s t a n c e , the "wisdom" i s more p r o p e r l y l o c a t e d i n the mind of the a d u l t than i n the c h i l d ' s u t t e r a n c e s . That i s , c h i l d r e n o c c a s i o n a l l y see t h i n g s i n a way that a d u l t s do not. In some cases t h i s 204 can serve to the a d u l t s ' advantages, and the c h i l d i s c a l l e d wise. Most o f t e n , however, the c h i l d i s h i n s i g h t c o n t r i b u t e s l i t t l e or n o t h i n g and i s d i s m i s s e d as " c h i l d i s h . " A d o l e s c e n t s and young a d u l t s are seldom c o n s i d e r e d to be wise. Despite the f a c t t h at these people are g e n e r a l l y regarded as having a f u l l quota of b a s i c competencies, they are t y p i c a l l y not seen as b e i n g wise, but are o f t e n c h a r a c t e r i z e d as being i n a constant s t a t e o f s t r e s s and t u r m o i l . Examining why these age groups, d e s p i t e t h e i r b a s i c s k i l l s , are not thought to be wise may shed some l i g h t on the dynamics of wisdom. There are s e v e r a l arguments which co u l d e x p l a i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . One o f the most co m p e l l i n g i s based on the suggestion that a t t a i n i n g the c a p a c i t y f o r a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d l e v e l of f u n c t i o n c a r r i e s no guarantee that the person w i l l be able to use such a b i l i t i e s i n a w e l l ordered f a s h i o n . Chandler (1975) , f o r example, has d i s c u s s e d how the attainment of the formal o p e r a t i o n a l a b i l i t y to see m u l t i p l e p e r s p e c t i v e s o f t e n t h r u s t i n d i v i d u a l s i n t o a chaos of r e l a t i v i s m from which they must choose, from myriad face v a l i d l i f e c o u r s e s , the one they wish to endorse. At the core of t h i s a d o l e s c e n t problem i s a d i f f i c u l t y i n coming to 205 terms w i t h the newly a c q u i r e d r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t many p e r s p e c t i v e s are p o s s i b l e , yet only one can be f o l l o w e d . Choosing one's p e r s o n a l p o s i t i o n i n face o f the i n h e r e n t s u b j e c t i v i t y o f l i f e i s a d i f f i c u l t task, and one which i s not e a s i l y s o l v e d without a g r e a t d e a l of experience f o r guidance. T h i s example i s r e l e v a n t i n that wisdom i n c l u d e s the a b i l i t y to a p p r e c i a t e the e x i s t e n c e of many d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s and to act on one's chosen o u t l o o k w h i l e remaining r e s p e c t f u l of the viewpoints o f o t h e r s . Turner (1973) i d e n t i f i e d a process l a b e l l e d " r e c e n t e r i n g " which might e x p l a i n how people achieve such a p e r s p e c t i v e . R e c e n t e r i n g , i n t h i s view, r e f e r s to a form o f p o s t - a d o l e s c e n t development i n which i n d i v i d u a l s , whose a c t i v e e f f o r t s at c o g n i t i v e d e c e n t e r i n g have l e d them to a p p r e c i a t e the s u b j e c t i v e nature o f knowledge, manage to achieve the i n s i g h t t h at a v i e w p o i n t , simply because i t i s s u b j e c t i v e , i s not n e c e s s a r i l y without m e r i t . I f people are to f r e e themselves from the ambivalence i m p l i e d by r a d i c a l r e l a t i v i s m , Turner f u r t h e r argued, they must a c q u i r e an understanding t h a t t h e i r own p e r s p e c t i v e has the s p e c i a l m e r it of b e i n g p e r s o n a l and unique to them. Such a r e c o g n i t i o n serves to r e c o n t e x t u a l i z e v a r i o u s 206 p e r s p e c t i v e s and s i t u a t e them i n t h e i r proper s o c i a l and a c t i o n c o n t e x t s . How and why t h i s development process comes about, and the nature of i t s r e l a t i o n to wisdom, i s the s u b j e c t of a p o t e n t i a l l y e x c i t i n g enquiry i n t o the nature and course of a d u l t development. A f u r t h e r reason f o r the apparent l a c k of wisdom i n a d o l e s c e n t s and young a d u l t s i s t h a t they have n e i t h e r the experience nor the judgemental a b i l i t i e s to behave w i s e l y . Although n e i t h e r o f these f a c t o r s are the e x c l u s i v e domain of a d u l t s , or of the wise, becoming more experie n c e d and t h o u g h t f u l l y j u d i c i o u s seems to correspond somewhat wit h age. Although younger people have no doubt mastered the r e q u i s i t e l o g i c a l s k i l l s to judge s i t u a t i o n s , i t i s l e s s l i k e l y t h a t they w i l l have experienced enough o f l i f e to be able to make s u p e r i o r judgements about i t s problems. In the context o f l i f e , j u s t as j u s t i c e must be tempered w i t h mercy, l o g i c should be tempered w i t h understanding to produce wise d e c i s i o n s , and younger people o f t e n l a c k the a b i l i t y t o weigh the components o f s i t u a t i o n s s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l to achieve t h i s end. The p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n argues that we can most l i k e l y s e t a s i d e the p e r i o d s of. c h i l d h o o d , adolescence and young adulthood and l o c a t e wisdom 207 somewhere w i t h i n the a d u l t y e a r s . W i t h i n adulthood, however, i t may be p o s s i b l e to i d e n t i f y f e a t u r e s of middle and o l d age which have some b e a r i n g on wisdom. I t i s important to keep i n mind t h a t the themes I w i l l focus on are not u n i v e r s a l or normative events. Rather, they seem to be i s s u e s t h a t are p a r t i c u l a r l y important d u r i n g s p e c i f i c p e r i o d s of adulthood. The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n i s designed to provide some c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f the manner i n which l i f e i s s u e s and events may r e l a t e t o wisdom. By middle age, most people undoubtedly possess the b a s i c p r e r e q u i s i t e competencies to be wise, and have u s u a l l y chosen a p a r t i c u l a r l i f e course. For some people, choosing t h e i r o p t i o n r e s u l t s i n a decreaesd a b i l i t y to see the p o t e n t i a l v a l u e i n other c h o i c e s . People who are so entrenched i n t h e i r own p e r s p e c t i v e are unable to p r o v i d e i m p a r t i a l advice to o t h e r s . T h i s s i t u a t i o n i s in c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the attainment o f wisdom s i n c e one o f the important f e a t u r e s of wise people i s t h e i r a b i l i t y to a c t as i m p a r t i a l judges and guides. T h i s , i n t u r n , suggests that an important i s s u e i n middle age may be to balance the importance o f one's own perspective--with—the p o t e n t i a l worth-of other o p t i o n s . 208 The manner i n w h i c h p e o p l e r e s o l v e t h i s may h a v e some i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e i r p o t e n t i a l f o r b e c o m i n g w i s e . The a v a i l a b l e s t u d i e s o f m i d - l i f e c h a n g e ( G o u l d , 1 9 7 4 ; L e v i n s o n , 1 9 7 8 ; B r i m , 1 9 7 6 ; S h e e h y , 1976) a l s o s u g g e s t t h a t d u r i n g t h i s t i m e , many p e o p l e r e - e v a l u t e t h e i r p r i o r i t i e s and l i f e c h o i c e s . S u c h a r e - e v a l u a t i o n may be made p o s s i b l e b y t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f s u f f i c i e n t e x p e r i e n c e t o p e r m i t a r e a s o n e d a n a l y s i s o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e i r c h o i c e s . T h i s may l e a d t o a r e a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e i r p r e s e n t l i f e c o u r s e o r a d e c i s i o n t o e s t a b l i s h new g o a l s and i d e a l s . The p r o c e s s o f e v a l u a t i n g b e l i e f s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a c c u m u l a t e d e x p e r i e n c e 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 i s e v o c a t i v e o f a movement t o w a r d s wisdom. One c o u l d p o s t u l a t e t h a t t h i s t y p e o f s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , i f c o n t i n u e d , may l e a d t o t h e b r o a d and e n l i g h t e n e d p e r s p e c t i v e w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s w i s d o m . The m i d d l e a d u l t y e a r s a r e a l s o t h o u g h t t o be m a r k e d b y a movement t o w a r d i n c r e a s e d c o m p e t e n c y ( S c h a i e , 1 9 7 8 - 1 9 7 9 ) . As n o t e d e a r l i e r , many p e o p l e i n d i c a t e t h a t d u r i n g m i d d l e age t h e y h a v e more c o n t r o l o f t h e i r l i v e s and a r e b e t t e r a b l e t o c o o r d i n a t e t h e i r s k i l l s . T h i s r e p o r t e d l y r e s u l t s i n b e t t e r d e c i s i o n m a k i n g s k i l l s , i n c r e a s e d i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o m p e t e n c e and an 209 i n c r e a s e d c a p a c i t y f o r coping w i t h r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . T h i s type o f movement i s q u i t e compatible w i t h the i d e a o f wisdom presented e a r l i e r i n which judgemental, communicative and i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s were seen as important f e a t u r e s o f wise f u n c t i o n . The m i d - l i f e p e r i o d , then, may encompass p r o g r e s s i v e changes that p r o v i d e the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r the development of wisdom. During l a t e r l i f e , there are c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i e t a l f o r c e s that seem to r e l a t e to the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a t t a i n i n g wisdom. The s o c i a l f o r c e s can be most c l e a r l y seen i n the r o l e p l a y e d by o l d e r people i n some r u r a l a g r a r i a n s o c i e t i e s ( S t r e i b , 1968). In such s o c i e t i e s , when o l d e r people m a i n t a i n c o n t r o l o f e x p e r t i s e and r e s o u r c e s , wisdom tends to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h age. In most p l a c e s , however, changing c u l t u r a l and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s have made o l d e r people l e s s e s s e n t i a l . S i m i l a r l y , as extended f a m i l i e s have d i s p e r s e d and k i n s h i p networks weakened, the t r a d i t i o n a l f a m i l i a l r o l e o f the e l d e r has d e t e r i o r a t e d . In s h o r t , c u l t u r a l i n f l u e n c e s may e i t h e r promote or h i n d e r the p o s s i b i l i t y o f o l d e r people being r e c o g n i z e d as wise. Although some s o c i a l p r e s s u r e s may m i l i t a t e a g a i n s t o l d e r people, they may be -recognized as having s p e c i a l competencies i n c e r t a i n areas. Some of these 210 competencies may be r e l a t e d to wisdom. Older people who have encountered and s t r u g g l e d with the r e c u r r i n g themes o f human e x i s t e n c e may have achieved some understanding o f those i s s u e s that can be used to help o t h e r s . In a d d i t i o n , perhaps because they have a l r e a d y d e a l t w i t h these i s s u e s on t h e i r own b e h a l f and t h e r e f o r e no longer have the same e g o t i s t i c a l involvement i n these matters, o l d e r people's o p i n i o n s on these s u b j e c t s could possess a v a l u a b l e sense o f o b j e c t i v i t y . T h i s may p l a c e e l d e r l y people i n a p o s i t i o n where i t i s e a s i e r to f u l f i l l the r o l e s o f i m p a r t i a l judge and guide that are c e n t r a l to the n o t i o n o f wisdom. Gutman (1981) suggested that i n c e r t a i n p r o f e s s i o n a l groups, such as lawyers, where members are encouraged to embody a conscious h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n i n t h e i r work, o l d e r people may be a f f o r d e d s p e c i a l s t a t u s . In such cases, o l d e r members are e s p e c i a l l y revered because they p r o v i d e a d i r e c t l i n k w i t h the past and are thus b e t t e r equipped to a r b i t r a t e on matters concerning the r u l e s and t r a d i t i o n s o f the p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i e t y . At l e a s t some of the l e g i t i m a c y o f these o l d e r members d e r i v e s from the f a c t t h at they are no longer competing f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a t u s and~are a b l e to more o b j e c t i v e l y e v a l u a t e what i s best f o r the group. 211 The r o l e Gutman d e s c r i b e s i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t p l a y e d b y t h e w i s e e l d e r s i n a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n s , and t h e q u a l i t i e s m a r k i n g t h e s e new e l d e r s a r e s i m i l a r t o t h o s e i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f wisdom. A l t h o u g h n o t a l l e l d e r l y p e o p l e a r e members o f p r o f e s s i o n a l g r o u p s , a s i m i l a r d y n a m i c may h o l d f o r o l d e r p e o p l e who a r e i n v o l v e d i n f a m i l i e s o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s w h e r e t h e r e i s a w e l l d e f i n e d l i n k w i t h t h e p a s t . O l d e r p e o p l e , t h e n , b e c a u s e t h e y a r e o f t e n i n a p o s i t i o n t o c o n t r i b u t e u n i q u e i n s i g h t s t o t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e s e g r o u p s , a r e e s p e c i a l l y a b l e t o f u l f i l l t h e r o l e o f w i s e p e r s o n . The i d e a t h a t w i s e p e o p l e may be o l d e r , b u t n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e l d e r l y , r e c e i v e s some i n f o r m a l s u p p o r t f r o m i n t e r v i e w s i n w h i c h I a s k e d p e o p l e t o name someone whom t h e y t h o u g h t was w i s e . M o s t p e o p l e r e s p o n d e d p o s i t i v e l y and s a i d t h a t t h i s p e r s o n p l a y e d an i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n t h e i r l i v e s . T h e r e was a t e n d e n c y a c r o s s s u b j e c t s t o i d e n t i f y w i s e p e o p l e as b e i n g e i t h e r i n l a t e m i d d l e age o r o l d a g e . Y o u n g e r p e o p l e t e n d e d t o n o m i n a t e l a t e m i d d l e age o r e l d e r l y p e o p l e . O l d e r p e o p l e t e n d e d t o name someone t h e y h a d known when t h e y w e r e y o u n g e r , b u t who was i n m i d d l e o r l a t e a d u l t h o o d a t t h a t t i m e . M i d d l e a g e d p e o p l e n o m i n a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s who w e r e o l d e r t h a n t h e m s e l v e s . W i t h o u t w a n t i n g t o u n d u l y 212 emphasize these i n f o r m a l r e p o r t s , I would suggest t h a t t h i s i s another i n d i c a t i o n t h a t wisdom i s moderately c o r r e l a t e d w i t h age. In f o c u s i n g on o l d e r people's p o t e n t i a l to become wise, I do not mean to imply that being o l d i s both a necessary and s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r a t t a i n i n g that s t a t e . R e f e r r i n g back to the d i s c u s s i o n of middle age, i t appears that the c o n t i n u a l r e - e v a l u a t i o n of e x p e r i e n c e , the i n t e g r a t i o n o f competencies and the a b i l i t y to r e s p o n s i b l y face complex l i f e s i t u a t i o n s mark the movement towards wisdom. People who enter l a t e r l i f e a f t e r having s t r u g g l e d w i t h these i s s u e s are more l i k e l y to be p e r c e i v e d as being wise. That i s , f o r some people, middle and l a t e r l i f e may be marked by a p r o g r e s s i v e movement l e a d i n g to wisdom, w h i l e f o r o t h e r s , there may be no such p r o g r e s s i o n . These a n a l y s e s , taken t o g e t h e r , suggest t h a t wisdom i s most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of l a t e r adulthood, and may d e s c r i b e a c o m p e l l i n g dimension unique to t h i s time o f l i f e . I f so, the e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s of t h i s t h e s i s may serve to advance the a b i l i t y o f s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s t o s y s t e m a t i c a l l y e x p l o r e t h i s p o s i t i v e aspect of aging. 213 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The f i n a l s e c t i o n o f t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i d e n t i f i e s s e v e r a l new a r e a s o f r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e n a t u r e and f u n c t i o n o f wisdom. The c o n v e r g i n g p a t t e r n s o f r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s s t u d y p o i n t t o t h e e f f i c a c y o f t r e a t i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f w i s d o m as a m e a n i n g f u l d e s c r i p t o r o f s p e c i a l p a t t e r n s o f s u c c e s s f u l a d u l t f u n c t i o n . W h i l e t h i s f i n d i n g c o n c l u d e s t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s , i t a l s o o p ens up p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r f u t u r e s t u d i e s . I n t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e s I p r e s e n t t h e o u t l i n e s f o r t h r e e l i n e s o f r e s e a r c h t h a t c o u l d e x t e n d t h i s w o r k . The f i r s t l i n e o f r e s e a r c h w o u l d s y s t e m a t i z e e f f o r t s 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 o t h e r c o m p e t e n c y d e s c r i p t o r s b y p r o d u c i n g an e m p i r i c a l l y v a l i d a t e d t a x o n o m y o f c o m p e t e n c y t e r m s . The s e c o n d l i n e o f r e s e a r c h w o u l d e x a m i n e t h e manner i n w h i c h p e o p l e u s e p r o t o t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s . The t h i r d and most a m b i t i o u s l i n e o f r e s e a r c h w o u l d be c o n c e r n e d w i t h i d e n t i f y i n g and s t u d y i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i s e p e o p l e . 214 A r e a 1 - A H i e r a r c h y o f C o m p e t e n c y Terms C a t e g o r i z a t i o n t h e o r y s u g g e s t s t h a t c a t e g o r i e s a r e t y p i c a l l y o r g a n i z e d i n t o h i e r a r c h i e s o r t a x o n o m i e s ( R o s c h , 1 9 7 8 ) . I n t h i s s t u d y , w h i l e e f f o r t s w e r e made t o d i s t i n g u i s h w i s d o m f r o m o t h e r s e l e c t d e s c r i p t o r s , t h e r e was no c o n c e r t e d a t t e m p t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e h i e r a r c h y w h i c h i n c l u d e s wisdom. C o n s t r u c t i n g and v a l i d a t i n g s u c h a h i e r a r c h y c o u l d s e r v e t o f u r t h e r c l a r i f y t h e 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 o t h e r c o m p e t e n c y d e s c r i p t o r s . S u c h an e f f o r t c o u l d a l s o s e r v e t o p r o v i d e some g u i d a n c e f o r s t u d y i n g d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f a d u l t c o m p e t e n c y b y e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z i n g d i f f e r e n t a r e a s i n w h i c h p e o p l e c a n show s p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s . A s i m i l a r d e m o n s t r a t i o n was u n d e r t a k e n b y C a n t o r and M i s c h e l ( 1 9 7 9 ) who f o u n d t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y d e s c r i p t o r s c a n be f o r m e d i n t o h i e r a r c h i e s i n w h i c h s u c h t e r m s as ' e x t r o v e r t e d ' s e r v e d a s s u p e r o r d i n a t e c a t e g o r i e s . T h e r e i s r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t c o m p e t e n c y t e r m s may be a r r a n g e d i n t o s i m i l a r h i e r a r c h i e s . I n t h e m ethod s e c t i o n s o f s t u d i e s I a n d I I , I b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e d a p a r t i a l h i e r a r c h y o f c o m p e t e n c y t e r m s w h i c h I s u b s e q u e n t l y u s e d • t o e x a m i n e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n w i s d o m and o t h e r d e s c r i p t o r s . A t t h e t i m e , I assumed 215 t h a t w i s d o m , i n t e l l i g e n c e , s h r e w d n e s s , p e r c e p t i v e n e s s and f o o l i s h n e s s were s u b o r d i n a t e s o f t h e g e n e r a l c a t e g o r y o f human c o m p e t e n c i e s . I n g e n e r a l , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e v a r i o u s a n a l y s e s s u p p o r t e d t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s and s u g g e s t e d t h a t w i s d o m and t h e o t h e r t e r m s f u n c t i o n e d as b a s i c l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s . A n i n t e r e s t i n g e x t e n s i o n o f t h i s w o r k w o u l d be t o g e n e r a t e a h i e r a r c h y o f c o m p e t e n c y t e r m s and t h e n d e t e r m i n e i f t h e c a t e g o r i e s a t e a c h l e v e l d e m o n s t r a t e t h e e m p i r i c a l f e a t u r e s f o u n d b y o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t o r s . F o r m i n g s u c h a h i e r a r c h y i s n o t a d i f f i c u l t p r o c e d u r e , a l t h o u g h i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o know a p r i o r i i f a h i e r a r c h y r e f l e c t s p e o p l e ' s p e r c e p t i o n s . I t i s , h o w e v e r , p o s s i b l e t o f o r m a f a c e v a l i d h i e r a r c h y and t h e n d e t e r m i n e i f t h e manner i n w h i c h p e o p l e g r o u p t h e t e r m s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e h i e r a r c h y . E x a m i n i n g t h e g r o u p i n g s f o r c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l h i e r a r c h y p r o v i d e s a good t e s t o f i t s v a l i d i t y . T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l ways o f d o i n g t h i s . C a n t o r and M i s c h e l u s e d a c a r d s o r t i n g t a s k i n w h i c h t h e y f i r s t a s k e d p e o p l e t o p l a c e l o w e r and i n t e r m e d i a t e c a t e g o r i e s u n d e r s u p e r o r d i n a t e s . They t h e n a s k e d t h e s u b j e c t s t o s o r t e a c h p i l e i n t o as many s m a l l e r g r o u p s as t h e y t h o u g h t e x i s t e d . The r e s e m b l a n c e o f g r o u p i n g s t o t h e 216 h y p o t h e t i c a l h i e r a r c h y was t h e n a s c e r t a i n e d b y u s i n g c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s p r o c e d u r e s . A s e c o n d method I s t o a s k p e o p l e t o g e n e r a t e d e s c r i p t o r s o f c a t e g o r i e s a t e a c h l e v e l i n t h e h i e r a r c h y . I f t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t i s v a l i d , t h e r e w i l l be s y s t e m a t i c d e c r e a s e s i n r i c h n e s s a n d d e t a i l o f d e s c r i p t i o n as one moves f r o m s u b o r d i n a t e t o s u p e r o r d i n a t e c a t e g o r i e s . The s t u d y t h a t I w o u l d p r o p o s e i n v o l v e s a v a r i a n t o f C a n t o r and M i s c h e l ' s p r o c e d u r e , i n w h i c h I w o u l d f o r m a r a t i o n a l h i e r a r c h y o f c o m p e t e n c y t e r m s , b a s e d b o t h on my v i e w o f what a h i e r a r c h y s h o u l d l o o k l i k e and r e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f a c o m p e t e n c y h i e r a r c h y . The f i r s t s t e p w o u l d be t o a s k p e o p l e t o g e n e r a t e e x a m p l e s o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s c o m p e t e n t and i n c o m p e t e n t i n d i v i d u a l s . I w o u l d t h e n o r d e r t h e r e s p o n s e s i n t o a c o m p l e t e h i e r a r c h y a d d i n g a d d i t i o n a l t e r m s as seemed a p p r o p r i a t e . The f i n a l h i e r a r c h y w o u l d t h e n r e f l e c t b o t h t h e i n p u t f r o m s u b j e c t s and my own c o n c e p t i o n o f a c o m p e t e n c y h i e r a r c h y t h a t i n c l u d e s w i s d o m . F o l l o w i n g C a n t o r and M i s c h e l ' s p r o c e d u r e , a d d i t i o n a l s u b j e c t s w o u l d t h e n be a s k e d t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e h i e r a r c h y . The p l a c e m e n t o f t e r m s c o u l d t h e n be e x a m i n e d t o c o n f i r m w h e t h e r t h e h i e r a r c h y i s v a 4 i d . 217 T h i s l i n e o f r e s e a r c h , w h i c h p r i m a r i l y a d d r e s s e s t h e s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n o f t h e s t a t u s o f w i s d o m , a l s o s p e a k s t o t h e more g e n e r a l t o p i c o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l c h a n g e s i n a d u l t h o o d . As I s u g g e s t e d e a r l i e r , i t may be p o s s i b l e t o u s e t h e t e r m s i n a c o m p e t e n c y h i e r a r c h y as a 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 o p t i o n s . S u c h c l u e s , t h e n , c o u l d s e r v e as t h e i m p e t u s f o r f u r t h e r s t u d i e s o f a l t e r n a t e p a t h w a y s i n a d u l t h o o d . A r e a 2 - E x a m i n i n g C a t e g o r i z a t i o n S t r a t e g i e s The d a t a r e p o r t e d h e r e a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a g r o w i n g l i t e r a t u r e e x a m i n i n g t h e c o g n i t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f p r o t o t y p e s . The r e s u l t s o f s t u d y I I I p r o v i d e d e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p r o t o t y p e f o r t h e c a t e g o r y o f w i s e p e o p l e i n f l u e n c e s c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s . An a l t e r n a t i v e means o f t e s t i n g t h e c o g n i t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f p r o t o t y p e s i s s u g g e s t e d b y R o s c h 1 s (1978) f i n d i n g t h a t t h e s p e e d w i t h w h i c h s u b j e c t s c a t e g o r i z e d o b j e c t s was a p o s i t i v e f u n c t i o n o f t h e t a r g e t s ' r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h e c a t e g o r y p r o t o t y p e . C a n t o r a nd M i s c h e l ( 1 9 7 9 ) u s e d a v a r i a n t o f t h i s p r o c e d u r e t o t e s t t h e v a l i d i t y o f p r o t o t y p e s f o r p e r s o n a l i t y c a t e g o r i e s . They f o u n d t h a t t h e c e r t a i n t y w i t h w h i c h p e o p l e j u d g e d i n d i v i d u a l s as 218 b e i n g e x a m p l e s o f p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s was a l s o a p o s i t i v e f u n c t i o n o f t h e number o f p r o t o t p y e d e s c r i p t o r s i n c l u d e d i n d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e c h a r a c t e r . T h e s e s t u d i e s s u g g e s t t h a t a s i m i l a r p r o c e d u r e w o u l d be u s e d t o f u r t h e r d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t p e o p l e r a t e o t h e r s i n a manner t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h c a t e g o r i z a t i o n t h e o r y . C a n t o r and M i s c h e l ' s ( 1 9 7 9 ) p r o c e d u r e , w h i c h i n v o l v e s d e v e l o p i n g c h a r a c t e r d e s c r i p t i o n s t h a t v a r y i n r e s e m b l a n c e t o c a t e g o r y p r o t o t y p e s i s b e s t s u i t e d t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n . The g e n e r a l p r o c e d u r e w o u l d i n v o l v e d e v e l o p i n g s h o r t d e s c r i p t i o n s o f f i c t i t i o u s c a t e g o r y members e a c h c o n t a i n i n g a s p e c i f i e d number o f p r o t o t y p i c a l d e s c r i p t o r s . S u b j e c t s w o u l d t h e n be a s k e d t o j u d g e c a t e g o r y m e m b e r s h i p . Speed o f r e c o g n i t i o n s h o u l d d e c r e a s e and c e r t a i n t y o f c a t e g o r y m e m b e r s h i p s h o u l d i n c r e a s e a s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n t o t h e p r o t o t y p e . The more i n t e r e s t i n g i s s u e o f t h e r e s e m b l a n c e b e t w e e n w i s d o m and o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s may a l s o be a d d r e s s e d w i t h t h i s p r o c e d u r e b y e x a m i n i n g how''people r a t e d e s c r i p t o r s o f c h a r a c t e r s c o n t a i n i n g a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e v e r a l c a t e g o r i e s . T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l f a c t o r s w h i c h m i g h t i n f l u e n c e t h e c o n f i d e n c e w i t h w h i c h 219 t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e a l l o c a t e d t o d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . The f i r s t i s t h e e x t e n t o f s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e c a t e g o r i e s . The s e c o n d i s t h e r e s e m b l a n c e o f t h e d e s c r i p t o r s t o t h e c a t e g o r y p r o t o t y p e s . D e s c r i p t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l i t e m s f r o m m a x i m a l l y d i v e r g e n t c a t e g o r i e s s h o u l d p r o d u c e a h i g h d e g r e e o f u n c e r t a i n t y , as s u b j e c t s m i g h t f i n d t h e m s e l v e s c o n f u s e d o v e r w h i c h c a t e g o r y t h e d e s c r i p t i o n b e s t r e p r e s e n t s . D e c i s i o n s i n v o l v i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l i t e m s f r o m one c a t e g o r y and m p 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 f r o m a r e l a t e d c a t e g o r y s h o u l d be made q u i c k l y and w i t h l i t t l e u n c e r t a i n t y . T h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s u g g e s t two b r o a d h y p o t h e s e s : 1) t h e s p e e d a nd c e r t a i n t y w i t h w h i c h s u b j e c t s r a t e d e c r i p t i o n s t h a t a r e homogeneous w i t h r e s p e c t t o a s i n g l e c a t e g o r y s h o u l d c o v a r y w i t h t h e r e s e m b l a n c e o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n t o t h e p r o t o t y p e ; 2) t h e s p e e d and c e r t a i n t y w i t h w h i c h s u b j e c t s r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h more t h a n one c a t e g o r y w i l l be a j o i n t f u n c t i o n o f t h e number o f a t t r i b u t e s r e p r e s e n t i n g e a c h c a t e g o r y and t h e d e g r e e o f p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y o f t h o s e d e s c r i p t o r s . 220 A r e a 3 - I d e n t i f y i n g and S t u d y i n g W i s e P e o p l e The t h i r d , and most a m b i t i o u s , l i n e o f r e s e a r c h w o u l d i n v o l v e i d e n t i f y i n g and s t u d y i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e members o f t h e c a t e g o r y o f w i s e p e o p l e . I n t h i s s t u d y I d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t w i s d o m c a n be d i s c u s s e d i n a c o n s i s t e n t , 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 manner. On t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e r e s u l t s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a r g u e w i t h some d e g r e e o f c e r t a i n t y t h a t i t i s b o t h r e a s o n a b l e and f e a s i b l e t o o b j e c t i v e l y i d e n t i f y and s t u d y w i s e p e o p l e . I n p a r t i c u l a r , i t may be p o s s i b l e t o u s e a p e e r n o m i n a t i o n p r o c e d u r e i n tandem w i t h t h e p r o t o t y p e f o r t h e c a t e g o r y w i s e p e o p l e t o b o t h i d e n t i f y w i s e i n d i v i d u a l s a n d c h a r a c t e r i z e how w e l l t h e y t y p i f y t h e c a t e g o r y . P r o c e d u r a l l y , s u c h a method i s r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e . P e o p l e w o u l d be a s k e d t o n o m i n a t e w i s e p e o p l e f r o m among t h e i r a c q u a i n t a n c e s . The n o m i n a t o r s w o u l d t h e n r a t e t h e n o m i n e e u s i n g t h e l i s t o f p r o t o t y p e d e s c r i p t o r s t o p r o v i d e some i n d i c a t i o n o f how r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t h e p e r s o n was o f t h e c a t e g o r y . S u b j e c t s i d e n t i f i e d t h r o u g h t h e n o m i n a t i o n p r o c e s s w o u l d t h e n be e x a m i n e d u s i n g a b r o a d s c a l e a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e d e s i g n e d t o r e f l e c t t h e d i m e n s i o n s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e 221 p r o t o t y p e s t u d y . I n t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e s I h a v e b r i e f l y s u m m a r i z e d s u c h an a s s e s s m e n t p r o g r a m . The a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e w o u l d be d i v i d e d i n t o s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t a r e a s . The f o c u s i n t h e f i r s t a r e a w o u l d be on i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e s u b j e c t ' s l i f e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The r e m a i n i n g s e c t i o n s w o u l d c e n t r e on a r e a s o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n , and w o u l d be o r g a n i z e d a r o u n d b o t h s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . The s e c o n d a r e a w o u l d encompass t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l a s p e c t o f w i s d o m and w o u l d f o c u s on t h e p e r s o n ' s l i f e e x p e r i e n c e s a nd p e r s o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t , t o g e t h e r w i t h s u c h v a r i a b l e s as t h e i r l e a r n i n g s k i l l s a nd i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s t y l e s . The t h i r d a r e a w o u l d e x a m i n e j u d g e m e n t a l a nd c o m m u n i c a t i v e a s p e c t s o f wisdom. I t w o u l d be o r g a n i z e d a r o u n d q u e s t i o n s e x a m i n i n g t h e t y p e and n a t u r e o f d e c i s i o n s t h e s e p e o p l e h a v e made i n t h e i r l i v e s and e x p e r i m e n t a l l y r i g o u r o u s m e a s u r e s o f s u c h a b i l i t i e s as m o r a l r e a s o n i n g , c o m p l e x i t y o f d i s c o u r s e and p r o b l e m s o l v i n g s k i l l s . The f o u r t h a r e a w o u l d e x a m i n e t h e p e r s o n ' s l e v e l o f g e n e r a l c o m p e t e n c y . T h i s w o u l d be o r g a n i z e d a r o u n d q u e s t i o n s a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e p e r s o n ' s l i f e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s , s u p p l e m e n t e d b y a more f o r m a l a s s e s s m e n t o f c o g n i t i v e c o m p e t e n c i e s , i n c l u d i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s and a s s e s s m e n t o f memory. The f i f t h 222 a r e a w o u l d be b a s e d on q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e p e r s o n ' s i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f e f f e c t i v e ways o f i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h o t h e r s . T h e s e q u e s t i o n s w o u l d be s u p p l e m e n t e d w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s and a s s e s s m e n t s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s . T h i s p r o c e d u r e , w i t h i t s e m p h a s i s on o b j e c t i f y i n g t h e way i n w h i c h w i s e p e o p l e may b e i d e n t i f i e d , c o u l d s e r v e t o p r o v i d e t h e f i r s t b r o a d b a s e , d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n o f w i s e p e o p l e . As s u c h , i t c o u l d c l a r i f y o u r k n o w l e d g e a b o u t w i s e p e o p l e and s e r v e as a means o f e x a m i n i n g t h e few h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t w i s d o m t h a t a p p e a r i n t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . I n s h o r t , i t c o u l d be t h e n e x t s t e p i n t h e e x p l i c a t i o n o f a f a s c i n a t i n g d o m a i n o f human f u n c t i o n . CONCLUDING COMMENTS T h i s t h e s i s p r e s e n t s a s e r i e s o f a r g u m e n t s f o r v i e w i n g w i s d o m as a 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 t e r m w h i c h r e f e r e n c e s p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n s o f e s p e c i a l l y c o m p e t e n t a d u l t f u n c t i o n . I c h o s e t o s t u d y w i s d o m b e c a u s e i t , u n l i k e s u c h t e r m s as i n t e l l i g e n c e , f i n d s i t s u n i q u e m e a n i n g i n t h e way i n w h i c h a d u l t s u n d e r s t a n d and 223 order t h e i r l i v e s . My choice to look f o r such a unique area of a d u l t competence stems from the c u r r e n t s t a t e of a f f a i r s i n l i f e span developmental psychology i n which the events of the past decades have l e d to a p r o f e s s e d need f o r f i n d i n g new ways to c o n c e p t u a l i z e and study a d u l t competency. Although there has been s u b s t a n t i a l agreement that a d u l t development i s best thought of as f o l l o w i n g a v a r i e t y of a l t e r n a t i v e pathways, r e s e a r c h e r s have had l i m i t e d success i n i d e n t i f y i n g s p e c i f i c developmental o p t i o n s . The widespread use of the words 'wise' and 'wisdom' to l a b e l c e r t a i n competent a d u l t s suggested that they might mark one path of p r o g r e s i v e , p o s i t i v e change i n a d u l t f u n c t i o n . R e c e n t l y , s e v e r a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s have attempted to v a l i d a t e the s e c u l a r c onception of wisdom by demonstrating that wise people may be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from other competent a d u l t s by v i r t u e of t h e i r unique p a t t e r n of p s y c h o l o g i c a l competencies. T h i s t h e s i s s ystematized and extended those e f f o r t s by u s i n g w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d category a n a l y s i s procedures to demonstrate that wise people are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by r i c h and v a r i e d 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 . Those d e s c r i p t o r s were then shown to r e f e r e n c e s e v e r a l competency dimensions, each of which was i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n terms of 224 p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n . The t h e s i s a l s o presents evidence f o r the v a l i d i t y of the concept of wisdom, i n c l u d i n g demonstrations that people e x h i b i t i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g b i a s e s when u s i n g p r o t o t y p i c a l d e s c r i p t o r s , and that conceptions of wisdom are s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n t e l l i g e n c e and other competency c a t e g o r i e s . The r e s u l t s obtained i n d i f f e r e n t stages of the t h e s i s are c o n s i s t e n t with the h y p o t h e s i s that wisdom r e f e r e n c e s a s p e c i f i c type of competent a d u l t f u n c t i o n . The conception of wisdom t h a t emerges from t h i s study i s somewhat s i m i l a r to the a n c i e n t s e c u l a r t r a d i t i o n s , but goes beyond them i n i t s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f p a t t e r n s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l competencies. The r e s u l t s of the r e s e a r c h are i n t e r p r e t e d as s u g g e s t i n g that there i s a p o t e n t i a l f o r i n c r e a s e d i n t e g r a t i o n of p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n d u r i n g adulthood. T h i s suggests t h a t wisdom r e f e r e n c e s a s p e c i f i c developmental t r a j e c t o r y t hat i s marked by a p a r t i c u l a r type o f i n t e g r a t i v e , p r o g r e s s i v e and p o s i t i v e change. 225 R E F E R E N C E S A p p e l , F . W . a n d 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. A r e n b e r g , D . C o n c e p t p r o b l e m s o l v i n g i n y o u n g a n d o l d a d u l t s . J o u r n a l o f G e r o n t o l o g y , 1968, 23, 279-282. A r i s t o t l e . T h e W o r k s 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 E n g l i s h . V o l . 8 M e t a p h y s i c a . W . D . R o s s ( E d . ) O x f o r d : U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1908. A r l i n , P . K . C o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t i n a d u l t h o o d : a f i f t h s t a g e ? 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. B a l t e s , P . B . L o n g i t u d i n a l a n d c r o s s s e c t i o n a l s e q u e n c e s i n t h e s t u d y o f a g e a n d 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 . a n d L i p s i t t , L . P . L i f e s p a n d e v e l o p m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g y . A n n u a l R e v i e w o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1980, 31, 65-100. B a l t e s , P . B . Sc W i l l i s , S . T o w a r d 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 a n d d e v e l o p m e n t . 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 , 197 7. B a y l e y , N . On t h e g r o w t h o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . A m e r i c a n  P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1955, 10, 805-818. 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 a d u l t s . 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 . a n d L u i , L . P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e e l d e r l y : s t e r e o t y p e s as p r o t o t y p e s . 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 , 1981, 4T^ 656-670. 226 B i r r e n , J . M e t a p h o r s on a g i n g . I n J . T h o r n t o n ( E d . ) M e t a p h o r s on A g i n g : P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e U.B.C.  C o n f e r e n c e ^ V a n c o u v e r : 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 , 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 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 : 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 y e a r s . Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1979, 22, 373-384. B o t w i n i c k , J . I n t e l l i g e n c e . I n 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 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 . A g i n g a n d B e h a v i o u r ( S e c o n d e d . ) . New Y o r k : S p r i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1978. Bower, T.G.R. Human D e v e l o p m e n t . San F r a n c i s c o : W.H. Free m a n Company, 1979. B r e n t , S.B. Sc W a t s o n , D. A g i n g and wisdom: i n d i v i d u a l and c o l l e c t i v e a s p e c t s . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n G e r o n t o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y . San F r a n s c i s c o , 1980. B r i m , O.G. T h e o r i e s o f m a l e m i d l i f e c r i s i s . C o u n s e l l i n g  P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, 6, 2-9 . B r o a d b e n t , D.E. and 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 on 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 age on s h o r t t e r m l e a r n i n g a n d r e m e m b e r i n g . J o u r n a l o f G e r o n t o l o g y , 1958, 13, 396-406. 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n s t r a t e g y . U n p u b l i s h e d m a s t e r ' 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 p r o b l e m . Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 6 8 , U , 18 4 - 2 0 0 . B u s s , 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 d i s p o s i t i o n s : a l o o f n e s s , g r e g a r i o u s n e s s , d o m i n a n c e and s u b m i s s i o n . P a p e r i n p r e s s , 1 9 8 1 . 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., and 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. and 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 and S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 7 , 3 5 , 3 8 - 4 8 . C a n t o r , N. and M i s c h e l , W. P r o t o t y p e s i n p e r s o n p e r c e p t i o n . I n L . B e r k o w i t z ( E d . ) A d v a n c e s i n E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y . New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c 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 p r o b l e m o f e p i s t o m o l o g i c a l l o n e l i n e s s . Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 5 , 15. C l a y t o n , V. E r i k s o n 1 s t h e o r y o f human d e v e l o p m e n t as i t a p p l i e s t o t h e a g e d : w i s d o m as c o n t r a d i c t i v e c o g n i t i o n . Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 5 , 18, 119 - 1 2 8 . C l a y t o n , V. A m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g a n a l y s i s o f t h e c o n c e p t o f wisdom. U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l 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 k n o w l e d g e i n t h e l a t e r y e a r s . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e A m e r i c a n G e r o n t o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y C o n v e n t i o n . San F r a n c i s c o , 1 980. C l a y t o n , V. and B i r r e n , J . The 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 t h e l i f e s p a n : 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 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 : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1978. C o l l i n s , J.D. The L u r e o f Wisdom. M i l w a u k e e : M a r q u e t t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 62. C o m f o r t , A. B i o l o g i c a l t h o r i e s o f a g i n g . Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 0 , 1 3 , 1 2 7 - 1 3 9 . 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 m e a s u r e o f p e r s o n a l i t y d e v e l o p m e n t i n c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . D e v e l o p m e n t a l  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 c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I n 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  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: C r e n s h a w , J . S t u d i e s i n A n c i e n t I s r a e l i Wisdom. New Y o r k : K l a v e P u b l i s h i n g H o u s e , 1976. Cumming, E. and 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  D i s e n g a g e m e n t . New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s , 1 9 6 1 . D a v i s o n , G.C. and N e a l e , J.M. A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y . New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y a nd Sons I n c . , 1978. D e l V e n t o B i e l b y , D. and P a p a l i a , D.E. M o r a l d e v e l o p m e n t and p e r c e p t u a l r o l e t a k i n g e g o c e n t r i s m : t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t 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 s p a n . 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 D e v e l o p m e n t , 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 and S o c i e t y . New Y o r k : W.W. N o r t o n Company, 1950. E r i k s o n , E. I d e n t i t y i n t h e L i f e C y c l e : P s y c h o l o g i c a l I s s u e s . New Y o r k : I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t i e s P r e s s , T 9 5 9 : F e h r , B. E m o t i o n s 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 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 , 1 982. F l a v e l l , J .H. 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 P i a g e t . New Y o r k : V a n N o s t r a n d Company, 1 9 6 3 . F l a v e l l , J .H. C o g n i t i v e c h a n g e s 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 Span D e v e l o p m e n t a l  P s y c h o l o g y : T h e o r y and R e s e a r c h . New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1970. 229 F o z a ' f d ' ^ - J " ' . e t a l . - V i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n and c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I n 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 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 , TWT. F u r y , C.A. and B a l t e s , P.B. The e f f e c t s o f age d i f f e r e n c e s i n a b i l i t y - e x t r a n e o u s p e r f o r m a n c e v a r i a b l e s on t h e a s s e s s m e n t 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 and t h e e l d e r l y . 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 . 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 , 1941, 36, 73-86. G o o d w i n , P.D. and W e n t z e l , J.W. P r o v e r b s and p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n i n g : a s t u d y 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. Dundes ( E d s . ) The Wisdom o f Many: E s s a y s on t h e P r o v e r b . 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 : G r o w t h and Change i n A d u l t L i f e . New Y o r k : Simon a n d S c h u s t e r , 1978. Gutman, 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 on m e n t a l h e a l t h and a g i n g . I n J . B i r r e n and R. S l o a n e ( E d s . ) 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. 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 and o l d a g e . U n p u b l i s h e d m a s t e r ' 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 , 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 and o l d i n d i v i d u a l s . U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , 1981. 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 : e x t e n s i o n s a n d s p e c u l a t i o n s . A g i n g and Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1971, 2_, 3-20. 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 d e c l i n e i n a d u l t h o o d . 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 J 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 . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1970. L a B o u v i e - V i e f , G. Sc G o n d a , J . C o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g 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 e l d e r l y . J o u r n a l o f  G e r o n t o l o g y , 1 9 7 6 , 3 1 ^ 3 2 7 - 3 3 2 . 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 s p a n d e v e l o p m e n t a l t h e o r i e s : o r g a n i s m i c v e r s u s c o n t e x t u a l m o d e l s . I n P.B. B a l t e s ( E d . ) , 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 : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1978. : Lehman, H.C. Age and A c h i e v e m e n t . P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1953. L e v i n s o n , D. The S e a s o n s o f a Man's L i f e . New Y o r k : K n o p f P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1978. L o n g , A. H e l l i n i s t i c P h i l o s o p h y . New Y o r k : C h a r l e s S c r i b n e r ' s S o n s , 1974. L o o f t , W.R. Sc C h a r l e s , D.C. E g o c e n t r i s m and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n y o u n g and o l d a d u l t s . A g i n g and Human  D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 1 , 2, 2 1 - 28. 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 : k n o w i n g what one d o e s n ' t know. I n D. Kuhn and J . Meacham ( 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 . B a s e l : K a r g e r , i n p r e s s . M e a g h r e , R.E. P h i l o s o p h y o f t h e M i d d l e A g e s . New Y o r k : N.Y.U. P r e s s , 1978. M e i d e r , W. Sc D u n d e s , A. The Wisdom o f Many: E s s a y s on t h e  P r o v e r b . New Y o r k : G a r l a n d P u b l i s h i n g I n c . , 1 9 8 1 . M o r r o w , J . and G a r n e r , C. An e v a l u a t i o n o f some t h e o r i e s o f t h e m e c h a n i s m s o f a g i n g . J o u r n a l o f G e r o n t o l o g y , 1 9 7 9 , 2 5 , 1 3 6 - 1 4 4 . 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 of Aging 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 c o n c e p t o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . I n t e l l i g e n c e , 1 9 7 9 , 3, 2 1 7 - 2 2 7 . Owens, W.A. Age and m e n t a l 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 and 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 D e v e l o p m e n t T h r o u g h o u t L i f e . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n I n c . , 1 9 7 3 . 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 s p a n . Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 2 , 1 5 , 2 2 9 - 2 4 3 . P e p p e r , S.C. W o r l d H y p o t h e s e s ( 2 n d ed.) L o s A n g e l e s : The U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1 970. P l e n n o n s , J . K . , W i l l i s , S. and B a l t e s , P.B. M o d i f i a b i l i t y o f f l u i d i n t e l l i g e n c e i n a g i n g : a s h o r t t e r m l o n g i t u d i n a l r t r a i n i n g a p p r o a c h . J o u r n a l o f G e r o n t o l o g y , 1 9 7 8 , 3 3 , 2 2 4 - 2 3 1 . R a b b i t t , P. Changes i n p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a b i l i t y i n o l d a g e . i n 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 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. and O v e r t o n , W. M o d e l s o f D e v e l o p m e n t and T h e o r i e s o f D e v e l o p m e n t . I n L.R. G o u l e t a n d 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 P s y c h o l o g y : R e s e a r c h and  T h e o r y . New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1970. R i c e , E.F. The R e n a i s s a n c e I d e a o f Wisdom. C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 5 8 . R i e g e l , K.F. I n f l u e n c e s o f e c o n o m i c a n d 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 : t h e f i n a l s t a g e o f c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t . Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 3 , 16, 3 4 6 - 3 7 0 . 232 R i e g e l , K.F. A d u l t l i f e c r i s e s : t o w a r d a d i a l e c t i c a l t h e o r y o f human d e v e l o p m e n t . I n N. Datum and L. G i n s b u r g ( E d s . ) L i f e Span D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : N o r m a t i v e  C r i s e s . New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1 9 7 5 . R i e g e l , K.F. The d i a l e c t i c s o f human d e v e l o p m e n t . A m e r i c a n  P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1976, 31, 689-700. 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 ndbook 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 I n c , 1977. R i e g e l , K.F., R i e g e l , R. and M e y e r , G. A s t u d y o f t h e d r o p o u t 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 on a g i n g and t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f d e a t h . 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. R o s c h , 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 f s e m a n t i c 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. R o s c h , 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 and B. L l o y d ( E d s . ) C o g n i t i o n and C a t e g o r i z a t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : E r l b a u m Co., 1978. R o s c h , E. and M e r v i s , C.B. F a m i l y r e s e m b l a n c e s : s t u d i e s i n t h e 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, 75 3 - 6 0 5 . R o g e t ' 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 h ed.) N. L e w i s ( E d . ) New Y o r k : B e r k l e y Pub. Co., 1978. Rowe, E. and 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 and r e p o r t e d s t r a t e g i e s i n p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g a s a f u n c t i o n o f age. J o u r n a l o f G e r o n t o l o g y , 1 9 7 1 , 2 6 , 4 7 0 - 4 7 5 . 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. D e v e l o p m e n t 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 s p a n . - D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 3 , 9, 4 3 2 . R y f f , C. S u c c e s s f u l a g i n g : a d e v e l o p m e n t a l a p p r o a c h . The  G e r o n t o l o g i s t , 1 9 8 2 , 2 2 , 20 9 - 2 1 4 . 233 Saccuzzo, D.P. Bridges between s c h i z o p h r e n i a and gerontology: g e n e r a l i z e d 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. Sanders, S., Laurendau, G. and Bergeron, K. Aging and the c o n s e r v a t i o n o f s u r f a c e s . J o u r n a l o f Gerontology, 1966, 21 , 281-286. Schaie, K.W. A ge n e r a l model f o r the study of developmental 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 stage theory of 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 Aging and Human  Development, 1977-1978, 8, 128-138. Schaie, K.W. and G r i b b i n , K. Ad u l t development and agi n g . Annual Review o f Psychology, 1975, 2_6, 65-96. Schaie, 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 versus ontogenetic components of change i n a d u l t c o g n i t i v e behaviour: a 14 year c r o s s - s e q u e n t i a l study. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 10, 304-320. Schaie, 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 study o f age changes i n c o g n i t i v e behaviour. P s y c h o l o g i c a l  B u l l e t i n , 1968, 70 , 671-680. Sharp, H.S. Old age among the chipewyan. In P.T. Amoss and S. H a r r e l l (Eds.) Other Ways of Growing Old. A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e . S t a n f o r d / 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. Sheehy, G. Passages. New York: E.P Dutton, 1976. Shock, N. B i o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s of aging. In J . B i r r e n and K.W. Schaie (Eds.) Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. New York: Van Nostrand R e i n h o l d , 1977. Shrout, 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 : uses i n a s s e s s i n g r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1979, 86 , 420-428. Simmons, L. The Role o f Aging i n P r i m i t i v e S o c i e t i e s . New Haven, C o n n e c t i c u t : Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1945. 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 , M. P e o p l e ' s c o n c e p t i o n s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . 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 8 1 , 41~j 3 7 - 5 5 . S t r e i b , G.F. O l d age i n I r e l a n d : d e m o g r a p h i c and s o c i a l a s p e c t s . The G e r o n t o l o g i s t , 1 9 6 8 , 8, 2 2 7 - 2 3 5 . S t o r c k , P., L o o f t , W.R. and H o o p e r , F.H. I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s 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 a g e d a d u l t s . J o u r n a l  o f G e r o n t o l o g y , 1 9 7 2 , 27, 4 6 1 - 4 6 5 . Thomae, 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 . I n J . B i r r e n and 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 . ( R e p o r t s u b m i t t e d 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 ) . O t t a w a , O n t a r i o , 1 9 8 1 . T u r n e r , T. P i a g e t ' s s t r u c t u r a l i s m . A m e r i c a n A n t h r o p o l o g i s t , 1 9 7 3 , 7 5 , 3 5 1 - 3 7 3 . 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 . S p r i n g f i e l d , M a s s a c h u s e t t s : G. and C. M e r r i a n Co., 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 I n t e l l i g e n c e . B a l t i m o r e , M a r y l a n d : W i l l i a m s and W i l k i n s , 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 o r g a n i s m i c p o i n t o f v i e w . I n D. H a r r i s ( E d . ) The  C o n c e p t o f D e v e l o p m e n t . M i n n e a p o l i s , M i n n e s o t a : 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 , 1 9 5 7 . Wood, J . Wisdom L i t e r a t u r e : A n I n t r o d u c t i o n . L o n d o n : D u c k w o r t h , 1967. APPENDIX A PROTOTYPE QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX A 236 INSTRUCTIONS This study has to do with people's everyday ideas about categories. A category i s l i k e a concept, and includes many instances of s i m i l a r things, a l l of which share the same l a b e l , or name. For example, think of the category DOG. We can imagine many d i f f e r e n t dogs - poodles, t e r r i e r s , German shepherds and so on. Although they are a l l d i f f e r e n t , they are members of the same category - DOGS. We al s o seem to f e e l that some members of categories are more t y p i c a l , or better examples, than others. For example, take the category RED. Imagine a true red. Now imagine an orangeish red, Imagine a p u r p l i s h red. Although you might c a l l the orangeish red or the p u r p l i s h red by the name RED, they would not be as good examples of the category RED as the true red. In short, some reds are redder than others. In t h i s study, we would l i k e you to decide how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a category various d e s c r i p t i v e terms are. The category i s wisdom, as exemplified by wise people. We would l i k e you to-rate how good various d e s c r i p t o r s are for de s c r i b i n g t h i s category using a ra t i n g scale that goes from 1 to 7. A 1 means that the d e s c r i p t i v e term i s almost never true of wise people. A 7 means that the term i s almost always true of wise people, A 4 means that the term i s often true of wise people-. The remaining terms (2,3,5,6) are f o r expressing intermediate judgements. Please remember that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study i s voluntary. You are free to withdraw at any time. You are al s o free to choose not to answer any questions. 'If you complete the questionnaire, I w i l l assume that you have given your consent to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study. Thank you very much for your help. SEX AGE EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, TOLERANT REFLECTIVE ABLE TO LEARN ALL THINGS HO NOT ENGAGE IN SELF PITY MATURE UNDERSTAND LIFE MORAL CIRCUMSPECT/DISCREET MAY BE ANY AGE/ MAY BE OLD OR YOUNG CAN SEE AND CONSIDER ALL POINTS OF VIEW GOOD PROBLEM SOLVER SAY THINGS THAT ARE WORTH LISTENING TO SELFISH COMMITTED IGNORANT FRANK POISED ABLE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES/FIN^ HIDDEN MEANING HAVE A GOOD MEMORY HUMBLE/MODEST TRANSCENDENT/ HAVE A TRANSCENDENT VIEW OF LIFE LIKEABLE/FRIENDLY RELAXED ARTICULATE INTERESTING TO TALK WITH TALK OR REMAIN SILENT AS IS APPROPRIATE DIVINELY INSPIRED UNCONDESCENDING CONSIDERS ALL OPTIONS IN A SITUATION AWARE i MOST OFTEN TRUE ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE UNDERSTAND THE WORLD ALERT ENLIGHTENED CAN COMMUNICATE USING NON-VERBAL MEANS CONTEMPLATIVE/REFLECTIVE KIND SOCIABLE ABLE TO PREDICT HOW THINGS WILL TURN OUT METAPHORICAL NON-JUDGEMENTAL COMPETENT WELL READ QUICK WITTED VALUE SPIRITUAL ABOVE MATERIAL THINGS OPEN MINDED W GULLIBLE THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING DECISIONS A BELIEVER A SEER QUIET LOGICAL/RATIONAL HAPPY COMPREHENDING/UNDERSTANDING LEARN EASILY FORESIGHTFUL/FAR SEEING OBSERVANT/PERCEPTIVE HAVE LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE A SOURCE OF GOOD ADVICE PLAN THINGS CAREFULLY GOOD CONVERSATIONALIST ASTUTE/DISCERNING WARM «l NOT "HOSTILE TO OTHERS KNOW WHEN TO GIVE AND WHEN TO WITHHOLD ADVICE INTUITIVE COMPASSIONATE/CARING HOT JEALOUS OF OTHERS PHILOSOPHICAL AN ADVISOR OR MENTOR OLDER DIPLOMATIC -MANIPULATIVE NOT RESEXTFUL OF OTHERS COMPLEX CALM/PEACEFUL SEE THE ESSENCE OF SITUATIONS INSENSITIVE MOST OFTEN TRUE ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE FAIR IS NOT NECESSARILY FORMALLY EDUCATED EMPATHIC METHODICAL SINCERE GOOD LISTENER CONFIDENT CAN ACCEPT THE NECESSITY OF DEATH AS A PART OF LIFE RECKLESS FLEXIBLE CURIOUS UNSELFISH EVEN TEMPERED MAY OK M»\Y NOT BK INTELLIGENT IRRESPONSIBLE PERFECTIONIST to CO 00 WISE PEOPLE 1 2 A L M O S T N E V E R R A R E L Y T R U E T R U E 3 S O M E T I M E S T R U E O F T E N T R U E 1 ° i £ 7 U S U A L L Y M O S T O F T E N A L M O S T A L W A Y S T R U E T R U E T R U E U N D E R S T A N D O T H E R P E O P L E • • E X P E R I E N C E D T H O U G H T F U L / T H I N K S A G R E A T D E A L H A V E E N D U R E D MUCH S U F F E R I N G z R E L I A B L E S E N S I T I V E C L O S E M I N D E D E D U C A T E D — P A T I E N T S U C C E S S F U L — S E L F - A C T U A L I Z E D R E S P E C T E D — T H I N K S F O R H I M / H E R S E L F Q U I C K L E A R N E R — W E L L A D J U S T E D U N D E R S T A N D S E L F / S E L F A W A R E — C A L C U L A T I N G I N T E L L I G E N T W E I G H T H E C O N S E Q U E N C E S O F H I S / H E R A C T I O N S N O N - I M P U L S I V E U S E COMMON S E N S E S P I R I T U A L R E L I G I O U S C O N S E R V A T I V E — S E R I O U S H A V E L E A R N E D F R O M E X P E R I E N C E H E L P F U L U N H A P P Y O V E R L Y T A L K A T I V E K N O W L E D G E A B L E — E V A L U A T E A N D U N D E R S T A N D I N F O R M A T I O N C R E A T I V E / I N V E N T I V E S E E T H I N G S W I T H I N A L A R G E R C O N T E X T APPENDIX B PROTOTYPE RATINGS FOR STUDY I I CONTRAST CATEGORIES A P P E N D I X B ^ 4 ± MASTER L I S T S - 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 ideas about cat«gori<fi6. A ca tegory i e l i k e a concept , and i n c l u d e s many ins t ances of s i m i l a r t h i n g s , a l l of which share the same name, o r L a b e l . For example, t h i n k o f the ca tegory DOG. 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 . Al though they a re a l l d i f f e r e n t , they are members of the same ca tegory - DOGS. We a l s o seem to f e e l t ha t soma members of ca t ego r i e s are uore t y p i c a l , o r b e t t e r examples, than o t h e r s . For example, take the category RED. Imagine a t rue red. Now imagine cr« orar.^eirh i \ i d . Iwagine a p u r p l i s h r e d . Al though you n i g h t c a l l the o range i sh red o r the purp l i sh , red by the name RED, they would no t be as good examples o f the ca tegory RED as the t rue r e d . In s h o r t , some reds are redder thou o t h e r s . I n t h i s s tudy , we woujjLd l i k e you to dec ide 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 . There are two c a t e g o r i e s . Each I s I d e n t i f i e d a t the top o f the f o l l o w i n g peges. For each ca t egory , 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 fo r d e s c r i b i n g the ca tegory u s i n g a r a t i n g s c a l e tha t goes from 1 to 7. A 1 means tha t the d e s c r i p t i v e term i s a lmost never t rue o f ca tegory members. A 7 means tha t the term i s a lmost always t rue o f ca tegory members. A 4 means t ha t the term I s o f t en t rue o f ca tegory members. The remain ing terms (2,3,5,6) are f o r e x p r e s s i n g In te rmedia te judgements. P l ease remember tha t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s s tudy i s v o l u n t a r y . You a re f ree to wi thdraw a t any t i n e . You are a l s o free to choose not to 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 iven your consent to p a r t i c i p a t i n g In the s t udy . AGE SEX EDUCATIONAL LEVEL 242 PERCEPTIVE PEOPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ALMOST ° 7 "JX* 0 F T E N U S U A L L Y ° ™ £ S S TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE WARM i S~. ^  GOOD PROBLEM SOLVERS 7 UNDERSTAND OTHERS J-1 OUTGOtNG/EXTROVERTED WISE S.%_ UNDERSTAND THINGS FORES IGHTFUL V'S' FAIR / TALK/REMAIN SILENT AS IS APPROPRIATE " ft 7 EMPATHIC , J-£ CALM/PEACEFUL • #6? HELPFUL 4^  EXPERIENCED . </-^ QUIET V- 7 GOOD MEMORY NOT EASILY DISTRACTED • h]_ NOT- NECESSARILY INTELLIGENT u  /'«^ CARING/COMPASSIONATE INTERESTING J«£ SHREWD/CUNNING QUICK' WITTED AWARE C'Z ' S E E T H E E S S E N C E OF S I T U A T I O N S vs".^  R E F L E C T I V E V . V I N T E R E S T I N G A T T E N T I V E _1LC_ RESPONSIVE J - f KIND A B L E TO READ BETWEEN T H E L I N E S / F I N D HIDDEN MEANING S~< 7 CONSIDERS A L L POINTS O F VIEW ^•t/ A L E R T 7-? S O C I A B L E I N T E L L I G E N T 40 EDUCATED F L E X I B L E 7 S E N S I T I V E S'O NOT G U L L I B L E -?-7 U N S E L F I S H ^ • 3 OPEN MINDED " j'J CURIOUS S E E S THINGS I N A LARGER CONTEXT <3'8 A B L E TO CONNECT FACTS yf-0 KNOWLEDGEABLE 0^ */ THOUGHTFUL (THINKS A GREAT DEAL) P E R C E P T I V E PEOPLE 2 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 ALMOST NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES OFTEN USUALLY OFTEN ALWAYS TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 6 7 MOST ALMOST y.O CONSIDERATE S'O GOOD LI S T E N E R S T E R R I F Y I N G ' j f *t CONFIDENT j£jC METHODICAL S_3 LOGICAL/RATIONAL 2J2 HUMOUROUS I N T U I T I V E 3-% P E R F E C T I O N I S T 2lZ- SHY/INTRAVE RTED 244 CONTINUE OH TO THE NEXT CATEGORY 245 SjIRl.WU PEOPjLi: i 2 - 3 k 5 C 7 ALMOST HOST ALMOST NEVER RARLLY SOMETIMES OFTEN USUALLY OFTEM ALWAYS TRUE TRUE TRUi: TRUF< TRUE TRUE TRUE RUTHLESS BUSINESS ORIENTED ALERT THOUGHTFUL (THINK A GREAT L'fc'AL) qprc: K I T T E D COLD/UNFEELING PERFECTIONISTS BLUNT DISHONEST * AMBITIOUS QUIET ' LOGICAL/RATIONAL NOT VERY HAPPY CALCULATING AGGRESSIVE INCONSIDERATE CONSIDER A L L OPTIONS IN A SITUATION r c A i ; METHODICAL !,.::i:vii?iiSTic i;;.:-v«,:!T/'--;-KCEV'.fiv;-: J&j£ S T E A D I L Y ZlA DIPLOMATIC I L A V E A SEl.'SE OF HUMOR TiiE KSSI^CT: S I T U A T I O N S J.S [>ii->rA v . • . .... ., S E L F I S H JL?Z E G O T I S T I C A L */. 7 FORES IGI1TFUL J-g" THINK ABSTRACTLY • _&o CONFIDENT D E C E P T I V E Jjj' : ; O T G U L L I B L E j£6_ SUCCE S S F U L i & 7 _ DOMINEERING _Y>° LIE>OR DISTORT T HE TRUTH J/JL. A S T U T E / D I S C E R K I H G JC:J& THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING I:ECISIO:7S J£LL SCHEMING WISE y.2, sis ART/USE: : ?;••;;!.; ,#o LOWER OPPORTUNISTIC 246 ;,\'A I.JO PttPLK 1 A L M O S T NEVER TRUE 2 RARELY TRUE SOMETIMLS TRUE OFTEN TRUE USUALLY TRUE o HOST OFTEN TRUE 7 ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE SNEAKY V.? CAPABLE UNTRUSTWORTHY Ji.^.. =!-AVE GOOD JUPGl-JiiJ-iT J f o _ MANIPULATIVE THRIFTY CUNNING j.g CAREFUL NON IMPULSIVE ' ' l-tr KNOWLEDGEABLE -_4LL INTELLIGENT CAUTIOUS STINGY INTUITIVE 247 MASTER L I S T S - INTELLIGENT AND S P I R I T U A L r.NS';"<ICY].;.v-is Thi s study has to do w i t h p e o p l e ' s everyday Ideas about c a t e g o r i e s . A ca tegory i s l i k e a concep t , and i n c l u d e o many Ins tances of s i m i l a r t h i n g s , a l l o f which share the same name, o r l a b e l . For exsfmple, t h i n k of the category DOG. We can imagine many d i f f e r e n t dogs - poodles, , t e r r i e r s , German shepherds and so on . Al though they a re a l l d i f f e r e n t , they are members of the same category - DOGS. We a l s o seem to f e e l that some members of c a t e g o r i e s a re nore t y p i c a l t or b e t t e r examples, than o t h t r e . For example, take Che c-.;«i«gory RED. Tpsginc £ true vr.d. V.ov i;wt-ir.^ c\\ citiZiz/J.sh r e d . 7.<nagiri&.-i p u r p l i s h r e d . Al though you might c a l l the o ran^e i sh r ed or the p u r p l i s h red by the name RED, they would not be as gcod axoraplea o f the ca tegory RED as the t rue r e d . In s h o r t , some reds are redder t h i n o t h e r s . In t l i i s s tudy , we v o u L i l i k e you to dec ide 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 . There are two c a t e g o r i e s . 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 pages. For each ca t ego ry , we vou ld l i k e you to 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 re f o r d e s c r i b i n g the ca tegory u s i n g . i r a t i n g s c a l e tha t goes from i to 7. A 2 cuans t h a t the d e s c r i p t i v e term i s almost never t rue o f ca tegory members. A 7 means t h a t the terra I s almost always t rue o f ca tegory members. A A means tha t the term i s o f ten t rue o f ca tegory members. The remain ing terms ( 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 ) are f o r eacpresaing In termedia te judgements. P lease remember tha t p c x t i c i p c t i o n i n t h i s j tudy i s v o l u n t a r y . You are f ree to vlth:irn*« r,'c any t ime. You sre a l s o free to choose not to' enswer any ques t i ons I f you c:inr,>lGti- the ques t l cp .na i re , I w i l l assune you have g i V G l 1 your consent to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the s tudy . AGE SEX EDUCATIONAL LEVT.L <_ INTELLIGENT PE0-M.7. 248 ALK-Jtii KEVER TRITE RARELY TRUE SOMETIMES TRUE OFTEN TRUE USUALLY TRUE 6 MOST OFTEN TRUE ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE </.(> ASK MANY QUESTIONS f.S. SEE' BOTH PAINTS AND THE WHOLE COULD BE ANY AGE INFORMED £A '.i'ASW THINGS EASILY L'.-M THINGS (RUEFULLY 4/Q EXPERIENCED if,Y ARTICULATE 4/ WORK TO.DEVELOP INNATE CAPACITIES GOOD' MEMORY * '^7 USE COMMON SENSE ^•^ RESPECTED J^2>_ GOOD PROBLEM SOLVERS </./ EFFICIENT i > SHY/INTRAVERTED THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING DECISIONS J-? AMBITIOUS J-7 CULTURED pfY. ABLE TO LEARN ALL THINGS jr'_ ™*NK FOR THEMSELVES J&y' CONSIDER ALL POINTS OF VIEW H > X STUDIOUS A-/ CONCEITED. J £ G _ THOUGHTFUL (THINK A GREAT DEAL) H- 3 WISE J-t>" SHREWD/CUNNING J j ± i WON' IMPULSIVE S L ± . ALERT REASONABLE LOGICAL/RATIONAL INTOLERANT -W PHYSICALLY ACTIVE <f./ CURIOUS HARD WORKING J . j FRUSTRATED «5T«S GOOD REASONING ABILITY J J . HUMBLE/MODEST CONFIDENT EDUCATED GOOD CITIZENS QUICK WITTED DO NOT ACT FOOLISHLY .Hlfk CAN APPLY UNDERSTANDING TO LIKS V, 7 WELL - READ 249 INTELLIGENT PEOPLE I ALMOST NEVER TRUE RARELY TRUE SOMETIMES TRUE OFTEN TRUE USUALLY TRUE b MJST OFTEN /.RUE 7 ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE IMPATIENT QUICK LEARNER £± CLEVER H A OPEN MINDED 6 & H.*.V--: MANY INTEuLiSTS 4? HAVE A LARGE VOCABULARY I.<° CARING/COMPASSIONATE ?>* OUKJOING/EXTROVERTED AWARE CONSIDERATE SELF-DISCIPLINED - „ U CREATIVE/INVENTIVE f.o GOOD CONVERSATIONALISTS NOT WISE £ A KNOWLEDGEABLE 1 L FLEXIBLE 250 co:m:!U£ o n TO THE I.'EXT CATEGORY 251 SP1 i 2 - 3 ALMOST NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES TRUE TRUE TRUE -2 RECLUSIVE J.S OTHER WORLDLY 4.*/ SELF-RIGHTEOUS 3>6> OU'CGOING/EXTROVERTED X_7. Wi:-:: STi&NG H>H REFLECTIVE _$.8_ UNREALISTIC ^ / CLOSE MINDED V, / SELF AWARE -J,? HUMBLE/MODEST _ J.£ INSECURE SHREWD/CUNNING y.fl SOCIABLE J.<? NAIVE SMILE A LOT I B HAVE AN INNER LIGHT 3 - 9 DIVINELY INSPIRED SENSITIVE J/.6_ VALUE SPIRITUAL ABOVE MATERIAL THINGS V, / LIKEABLE/FRIENDLY 3- S* WELL DEVELOPED INNER RESOURCES 3, ^  PROPHETIC '* !"• 6 7 MOST ALMOST OFTEN USUALLY OFTEN ALWAYS TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE JJL UNDERSTAND OTHERS J"'7 STAND UP FOR THEIR BELIEFS V-7 EiUOY LIFE £-3 STUBBORN id.. - f 0 Y ; rUL J i d - . I C I N D 3.7 INTELLIGENT ^•i" CARING/ COMPASSIONATE 5- ? ORDINARY • <y, f ATTEND CHURCH REGULARLY J T j / DREAMY j L i ? CONSIDERATE HOLD STRONG BELIEFS _ TRANSCENDENT/HAVE A TRANSCENDENT VIEW OF THINGS f V HELPFUL BELIEVER 6' / MORAL ^•i> MEDITATIVE V. 7 HOLD IDEALISTIC GOALS .jf-.A LOVING J J L U A V E H E L l > F ! W H A HIGHER POWER _J ._/_ OPEN MINDED ^c? f•'"*">" !*OR r-VEAMTNr T » ; T.TI.'TC 252 1 ALMOST NEVER TRUE itARSLY TRUE ,5 SOMETIMES TRUE OFTEN TRUE USUALLY TRUE 6 MOST OFTEN T2UE 7 ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE NOH4IATERIALISTIC * T7. Y THOUGHTFUL O F OTHERS 4*4 J , / SHY/INTRAVERTED W £ X • QUIET> „ « L C IMPRACTICAL 4 * 7 TRY TO CONVERT OTHKkS MOD -EXAMPLES C'.TOP '-*hTUBfB« - fc .'• ;x/::. O^PEACEFUL J .RADIANT,, S E T G Op^EXAtlPLESrFOR/qrHEte-4 C 7 F A I T H F U L ; C : J ; 4 ^ - GOOD C I T I Z E N S " l<? UNSELFISH ' ^iYSTICAL B E L I E V E I N T H E HEREAFTER •w- V APPENDIX C CORRELATION AND FACTOR PATTERN MATRICES FOR PROTOTYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CATEGORY OF WISE PEOPLE THESIS ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES F I L E NONAME (CREATION OATE • 12 /08 /82 ) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY CORRELATION C O E F F I C I E N T S . . 12/08/82 PAGE W2 W3 W4 W5 WG W7 W8 W9 V 1 0 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 0. 0. O. 0. O. W1 1 .OOOOO 0 . 2 8 1 8 9 0 . 1 0 1 6 1 0. 18837 0. 2 3 0 9 5 - 0 . 1 8 4 3 9 12230 18173 15516 .23371 .24 103 0 . 3 3 0 9 7 0 . 0 4 1 2 8 0 . 0 6 4 4 0 0 . 0 5 6 2 2 0 . 0 4 9 0 9 0 . 1 2 6 5 2 0 . 0 0 0 1 8 0 . 2 0 0 4 9 0 . 2 8 4 6 0 0. 12 150 0 . 1 6 2 0 3 0 . 0 9 5 6 3 0 . 1 6 9 8 8 0 . 2 3 5 9 4 0 . 2 7 2 2 5 0 . 1 0 1 0 7 0 . 0 8 9 5 3 0 . 1 8 2 0 6 0 . 1 9 2 9 4 15314 . 3 0 4 9 6 .26693 14448 0 . 1 9 5 9 0 0 . 0 2 0 6 5 0 . 1 7 6 6 3 0 . 1 5 2 5 1 0 . 1 9 2 4 7 0. 13767 0 . 0 6 5 8 7 W2 W3 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1 . 0. 0. 0. - 0 . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2 8 1 8 9 OOOOO 3 3 1 6 0 4 2 3 4 5 2464 1 0 4 2 2 0 2 4 6 4 0 25621 0 . 3 6 1 7 2 0. 15163 2 7 6 6 3 2 1 0 3 9 0 9 8 5 2 19340 0 6 3 9 5 0. 14660 0 . 2 3 6 4 6 0. 12670 0 . 2 3 8 0 1 0 . 2 9 3 5 3 0. 19279 0. 15171 0.09594 0 . 0 8 4 0 5 0. 13446 0 . 2 3 1 7 3 0 . 0 5 0 3 2 0 . 2 2 4 1 9 O.18544 0 . 2 8 1 7 4 0 . 2 3 5 9 4 .28531 2 4 5 5 5 0 9 6 4 8 , 17467 13242 0 9 4 3 8 0 1 9 8 0 2 2 9 0 3 13309 0 6 8 0 5 0. O. 1 0. 0. 0. O. 0. O. 0. 10161 . 3 3 1 6 0 .OOOOO 1961 1 .11902 - 0 . 0 5 4 0 2 0.3G038 0 . 3 5 5 2 6 0. 18 149 1 1385 16009 . 19744 1 1483 .29328 0 . 0 7 5 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 1 9 O . 1 6 0 2 0 O.12882 0 . 2 6 4 8 7 0 . 0 6 1 8 6 0.0664 7 0.2 1672 0. 183 16 0 . 2 2 8 7 5 O.18686 0.2624 1 0 . 0 9 8 7 3 0. 16978 0 . 0 2 8 2 0 0 . 3 1 8 8 4 0.3264 1 0 . 2 1 7 8 2 0 . 1 8 1 0 7 0 . 2 6 8 9 2 O.224 15 0.1 2 5 4 4 0 . 2 7 3 4 5 0 . 1 1 6 6 4 0 . 1 3 6 8 8 O.17009 0 . 2 1 2 9 3 W4 0 . 1 8 8 3 7 0 . 4 2 3 4 5 0 . 1 9 6 1 1 1 .00000 0 . 3 5 0 1 3 0 . 0 0 9 8 8 0. 16705 0.20O19 0 . 3 8 7 1 8 0 . 4 6 0 1 3 0 . 4 5 5 9 5 0 . 2 5 8 9 7 0 . 2 1 8 8 1 0. 19939 0. 10406 0. 1 1717 0. 1684 1 0 . 2 2 3 0 6 0 . 2 8 9 5 9 0 . 5 0 0 9 2 0 . 4 0 6 8 8 0 . 2 2 9 1 3 0 . 2 5 9 5 5 0 . 2 2 2 0 8 0 . 2 3 0 2 1 O. 10634 0. 1 1352 0. 10852 0 . 3 7 3 3 5 0. 16618 0 . 2 0 7 1 3 0 . 2 0 4 8 3 O. 12963 0.09314 0. 13144 0.09504 0. 16185 0 9 7 3 0 40844 0 8 4 9 2 2 1 2 1 5 W5 O 0 O 0 1 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 O. 0. O. O. 0. 0. 0. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. -0 0 0 0 2 3 0 9 5 2464 1 11902 3 5 0 1 3 OOOOO 12170 .20693 . 16447 .24643 .27115 .21976 .30145 . 16869 . 10256 .06857 .11813 . 1 1138 .08238 . 12597 .22745 . 19509 . 12428 .32007 .22352 . 12450 . 17022 0 9 8 2 5 15407 2 7 3 0 8 0 8 6 7 5 0 1 4 2 0 15001 14065 12596 34484 15878 2 2 1 1 3 0 2 0 4 0 2 9 1 1 0 0 6 1 5 6 14604 0. - 0 . - 0 . - 0 . W6 - 0 . 1 8 4 3 9 - 0 . 0 4 2 2 0 - 0 . 0 5 4 0 2 0 . 0 0 9 8 8 0 . 1 2 1 7 0 1.OOOOO 0 . 0 5 0 7 0 0 . 0 4 2 5 9 0 . 0 6 7 9 5 0 . 0 8 4 2 9 .01384 .09952 .05033 .09776 - 0 . 0 1 2 1 0 0.04 105 - 0 . 1 4 1 9 3 - 0 . 0 8 4 5 6 - 0 . 0 4 0 8 9 - 0 . 0 7 5 7 6 - 0 . 0 3 6 9 0 - 0 . 2 2 0 9 0 0 . 0 4 2 7 0 - 0 . 0 6 6 7 8 - 0 . 0 7 7 7 8 - 0 . 1 6 6 0 7 - 0 . 0 7 4 3 0 - 0 . 0 9 1 8 0 - 0 . 0 5 9 2 8 - 0 . 1 9 7 7 2 - 0 . 1 6 6 1 7 -O:11059 -Oi. 14567 - 0 , 1 0 5 3 4 0 . 0 3 6 0 5 - 0 . 0 3 8 0 3 - 0 : 0 1 1 7 6 - 0 . 1 0 0 2 9 0 . 0 3 0 5 2 - 0 . 0 2 6 5 1 - 0 . 0 5 2 5 4 O. 1 0. 0. W7 0 . 1 2 2 3 0 0 . 2 4 6 4 0 0 . 3 6 0 3 8 O.16705 0 . 2 0 6 9 3 .05070 .00000 .35356 .32947 0 . 2 1 9 2 5 O.17427 0.32274 0. 13711 0 . 2 9 2 4 8 0 . 2 8 7 3 6 0.58954 0 . 3 5 8 1 5 0 . 2 4 8 6 5 0 . 2 5 6 2 0 0.21864 O. 11779 0 . 2 5 7 8 7 .23407 .26806 .41053 .43257 .04144 .36570 .11545 .45387 0 . 4 7 9 1 5 0 . 3 5 1 3 3 0. 13418 0 . 3 1 2 3 5 0 . 3 1 4 6 8 0 . 2 8 9 4 6 0 . 3 0 5 3 3 0.22212 0.11394 0 . 1 5 9 3 2 0.19091 O. O. O. 0. -O. 0. O. O. W8 0 . 1 8 1 7 3 0 . 2 5 6 2 1 0 . 3 5 5 2 6 0 . 2 0 0 1 9 0 . 1 6 4 4 7 0 . 0 4 2 5 9 0 . 3 5 3 5 6 1.00000 0 . 2 5 4 9 3 0 . 2 0 1 5 1 O. 13269 0 . 2 4 9 1 4 0 . 3 0 1 4 1 0 . 4 9 6 9 5 0 . 0 9 0 0 5 0 . 3 7 0 7 0 0.294 17 0. 2 9 8 9 7 0 . 3 3 8 0 5 0 . 2 2 2 3 0 0. 14674 0 . 3 0 1 9 0 0 . 2 7 7 6 3 0 . 2 3 5 7 5 0 . 1 3 6 6 2 0 . 3 6 3 3 3 0. 15883 0 . 3 0 0 8 2 0 . 2 0 8 1 2 0 . 3 5 0 3 8 0 . 3 0 1 4 0 0.41654 0 . 2 2 6 4 6 0.46214 0 . 3 0 8 8 9 0 . 2 4 3 8 3 0 . 3 4 6 2 3 0. 11571 0.23324 0 . 2 3 0 3 6 0 . 1 8 8 3 8 W9 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 15516 .36172 18149 . 3 8718 .24643 0 . 0 6 7 9 5 0 . 3 2 9 4 7 0 . 2 5 4 9 3 1 .OOOOO 0 . 3 6 1 5 4 . 3 4 0 6 5 . 4 0 0 1 5 :22088 .20116 10716 . 2 8 053 0 . 2 5 4 3 8 0.2494 1 16919 .35327 .25763 .26559 . 2 0 1 9 0 0 . 2 7 0 3 1 0 . 0 9 6 0 2 0 . 2 8 8 8 7 0 . 2 4 9 4 4 0. 15648 0 . 2 6 8 5 8 0 . 2 5 4 9 1 0 . 2 6 8 6 7 0 . 2 3 7 5 7 0 . 0 3 8 6 6 0 . 1 3 5 0 9 0 . 2 5 7 7 0 0 . 1 3 6 0 6 0 . 3 2 0 0 3 0 . 1 3 4 3 6 0.33884 0.18354 0 . 1 0 7 6 8 O. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. O. O. 0. 0. O. W10 0 . 2 3 3 7 1 0. 15163 0. 11385 O . 4 6 0 1 3 0.271 15 0 . 0 8 4 2 9 0 . 2 1 9 2 5 0 . 2 0 1 5 1 0 . 3 6 1 5 4 1.OOOOO 0 . 4 5 7 2 5 0 . 3 5 0 4 0 0 . 0 9 9 19 0.114 12 0 . 3 0 9 9 3 0 . 1 9 3 5 6 . 0 . 1 6 6 6 8 O. 2 7 0 5 3 O.18208 0 . 4 7 5 8 7 0 . 3 6 4 6 7 0 . 1 0 4 6 3 .23142 .16944 .21043 .08571 .20031 - 0 . 0 0 5 1 3 0. 2 8 8 4 6 0. 14185 0 . 0 9 1 0 0 0 . 1 6 5 7 3 0 . 0 9 0 0 6 0. 12295 0. 12277 0 . 0 2 8 2 2 0 . 2 2 3 1 2 0 . 0 5 1 0 0 0 . 3 8 3 8 6 0 . 0 8 0 7 0 0 . 1 0 4 9 9 0. 0. 0. O. 0. O r d e r i n g o f v a r i a b l e s c o r r e s p o n d s t o l i s t i n T a b l e I I I . i H t b l a ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES 12 /08/82 PAGE F I L E NONAME (CREATION DATE « 12 /08 /82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY ¥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 ¥1 0 . 0 8 2 1 1 0. 14713 - 0 . 0 3 7 1 4 0 . 3 2 2 7 1 0. 17971 0 . 3 6 5 3 8 0 . 2 1 3 2 3 0 . 1 9 7 3 9 0 . 0 8 4 6 2 0 . 3 1 6 4 9 0. 1 1537 0 . 0 1 5 6 7 0 . 2 4 4 7 9 0 . 3 0 9 6 6 - 0 . 1 0 7 6 4 0 . 3 1 9 2 3 0 . 1 5 3 9 8 0 . 2 1 5 2 9 0.27581 0 . 3 9 1 3 1 0 . 1 4 7 0 3 0. 19581 0 . 1 0 8 4 8 0 . 1 7 0 5 6 0 . 0 6 8 7 3 0.13034 0 . 2 6 8 9 0 0 . 0 7 3 5 6 0 . 0 7 0 3 8 0.14 117 0 . 2 6 8 2 8 0. 1 1362 0 . 2 7 7 8 5 0 . 2 0 9 7 7 0 . 0 6 2 0 0 0. 12934 - 0 . 0 0 1 5 6 0 . 2 5 2 6 3 ¥2 0 . 1 4 0 8 8 0. 14825 0 . 0 0 7 2 3 0 . 2 1 8 7 8 0 . 2 0 2 1 5 0 . 2 6 3 8 9 - 0 . 0 3 6 2 0 0. 14679 0 . 0 7 6 1 2 0. 18219 0 . 2 3 3 1 3 0. 14973 0 . 3 2 8 1 8 0 . 3 0 7 7 8 - 0 . 0 6 2 5 6 0 . 2 1 8 5 4 0 . 3 1 9 2 1 0 . 2 2 0 5 9 0 . 1 5 2 3 6 0 . 2 6 3 0 3 0 . 2 7 4 9 4 0 . 2 6 6 9 9 0 . 0 6 4 3 1 0 . 1 0 1 5 0 0 . 0 4 7 6 6 0 . 1 9 6 7 3 0 . 3 0 8 2 7 0 . 0 3 3 3 1 0 . 0 9 5 2 1 0 . 2 2 0 4 1 0 . 2 5 6 8 6 0 . 1 8 5 0 4 0 . 1 1 0 7 8 0 . 1 6 3 4 8 - 0 . 0 2 5 9 2 0 . 1 3 4 9 9 0 . 0 8 0 7 1 0 . 1 0 6 0 2 ¥3 0 . 1 8 3 1 0 0. 10395 0 . 0 3 4 4 7 0. 15248 0 . 2 1 2 0 3 0 . 1 1 8 9 3 - 0 . 0 1 8 2 8 0 . 0 3 3 7 8 0 . 0 3 6 2 1 0 . 2 2 1 8 6 0 . 0 9 2 3 6 0 . 0 0 5 0 2 0 . 2 5 2 4 7 - 0 . 0 1 8 6 5 - 0 . 0 1 4 3 9 0 . 2 4 5 2 2 0 . 2 3 3 5 7 0. 12464 - 0 . 0 3 3 7 8 0. 133 18 0 . 0 9 9 5 6 0 . 1 1 8 0 9 0 . 1 4 3 9 2 0 . 0 7 4 0 5 - 0 . 0 2 5 1 7 0. 19429 0.24 186 0 . 1 3 0 9 0 0.08644 O. 14264 0. 2 4 4 7 7 0 . 0 4 0 2 5 0.07314 0 . 1 7 9 0 3 - 0 . 0 5 3 0 1 0 . 1 9 2 5 3 0 . 0 6 4 5 9 0 . 1 5 9 7 7 ¥4 O.15748 0 . 1 5 7 3 5 0 . 1 1 4 6 9 0 . 3 6 3 4 6 0 . 0 9 9 0 5 0 . 3 8 6 7 1 0.05654 0 . 1 6 6 8 9 O.10198 0 . 3 0 5 7 3 0 . 1 6 5 0 5 0 . 0 8 3 3 0 0 . 4 7 7 7 9 0 . 4 1 7 6 6 - 0 . 1 2 5 4 2 0 . 2 8 4 6 5 0.23214 0 . 2 9 5 4 9 0 . 3 4 3 2 8 0 . 4 3 2 0 3 0.30594 0 . 1 5 0 7 8 0 . 1 2 1 0 5 0. 10257 0.20354 0 . 0 6 1 4 7 0 . 2 1 3 6 9 O. 12568 0. 14798 0 . 3 5 4 9 6 0 . 2 4 6 2 6 O. 12731 0 . 1 3 0 2 6 0 . 4 5 4 9 7 0 . 0 5 2 8 5 0 . 1 2 1 6 3 0 . 3 2 6 7 0 0. 14270 ¥5 O 0 O O 0 O -0 0 0 0 O -O O 0 -0 0 O, 0. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. o. 0. o. 0. 0. 0. o. 0. 0. 0. 0 o 0 9 6 8 6 2 2 2 1 5 .05771 .29148 .06073 .257 1 1 . 0 9 3 9 9 . 16699 .26498 .26623 .08847 .00167 .24299 .24946 . 16275 . 15752 .24553 . 19196 .21359 .29698 . 17186 .08416 .07647 .04408 .27321 1 6 6 1 0 2 2 1 4 6 0 6 1 8 5 14393 2 0 4 0 0 16261 14204 3 0 3 7 1 20994 10258 17466 0 7 3 0 0 0 9 1 3 5 ¥6 - 0 . 4 0 1 1 0 - 0 . 1 2 3 7 7 0 . 0 2 6 7 7 - 0 . 0 4 0 9 6 - 0 . 0 9 4 8 7 - 0 . 1 0 7 4 4 0 . 1 0 4 5 6 0 . 0 0 4 3 7 0.0934 1 - 0 . 0 7 5 0 7 - 0 . 0 7 5 9 5 - 0 . 0 8 1 7 4 - 0 . 0 6 9 0 6 - 0 . 2 1 6 9 1 0. 16918 - 0 . 2 0 0 8 1 0 . 0 2 1 0 5 - 0 . 0 3 7 8 1 - 0 . 0 1 3 9 6 - 0 . 1 4 2 1 3 0 . 0 5 9 5 6 0 . 0 6 0 5 9 - 0 . 0 9 7 5 0 - 0 . 1 0 8 3 3 0.00784 - 0 . 0 2 3 4 8 - 0 . 2 9 9 9 7 - 6 . 1 1 4 5 5 - 0 . 0 8 3 6 2 0 . 0 1 0 3 7 - 0 . 2 3 2 0 3 - 0 . 0 5 8 2 2 - 0 . 0 7 8 8 3 - 0 . 0 4 5 8 6 - 0 . 0 2 2 6 4 -O!17213 - 0 : 0 9 2 6 3 -O.11700 W7 - 0 . 0 9 7 2 1 0 . 2 1 3 9 9 - 0 . 0 0 0 5 7 0 . 1 9 3 8 9 0 . 3 5 3 1 3 0 . 3 3 0 3 5 0 . 0 6 7 2 5 0 . 0 3 9 5 1 0. 12299 0 . 3 5 2 5 3 0 . 3 1 6 8 9 0 . 0 1 4 7 1 0 . 2 4 4 4 8 O. 14816 - 0 . 2 1 1 4 7 0 . 4 1 4 0 4 .38503 .33017 10358 .27441 .36672 0. 12283 0 . 4 5 6 5 7 0 . 2 5 5 9 8 - 0 . 0 6 3 6 6 0 . 3 2 3 3 1 0 . 2 3 2 8 1 0 . 0 9 3 2 6 O. 18954 0 . 2 8 3 5 6 0 . 2 5 4 4 7 O. 16739 0 . 2 4 8 0 2 - 0 . 0 3 5 0 2 - 0 . 1 3 1 9 3 0 . 3 9 7 7 0 0 . 1 7 7 7 7 0 . 2 6 6 2 0 0. 0. O. O. 0. ¥8 0 . 1 8 4 7 7 0 . 3 1 1 5 4 0 . 0 0 5 1 6 0 . 2 4 6 8 9 0 . 3 1 0 4 0 0 . 2 1 7 1 8 0 . 0 1 0 3 9 0 . 0 6 2 7 2 0. 15631 0 . 2 3 8 1 3 0 . 0 6 8 2 3 0 . 0 8 5 6 9 0 . 2 6 1 1 0 O. 15249 - 0 . 2 4 8 8 2 0 . 2 2 4 0 6 0 . 3 9 7 7 9 0 . 3 0 5 1 2 0. 11979 0 . 3 1 2 0 5 0 . 2 7 0 2 0 0 . 1 3 2 5 1 0 . 1 7 4 3 3 0 . 2 2 3 3 9 0 . 0 7 6 6 7 0 . 1 8 2 9 9 0 . 2 1 1 9 1 0 . 0 7 4 6 0 O.15202 0 . 2 5 7 2 5 0 . 2 1 3 5 3 O.15635 0 . 2 2 8 9 0 0 . 0 8 2 4 9 - 0 . 0 2 5 3 7 0.28494 0. 14141 0.08824 ¥ 9 0.181 14 0 . 2 8 4 2 9 0 . 0 6 6 0 2 0 . 2 9 8 2 1 0 . 2 4 0 2 4 0 . 2 3 6 9 6 0 . 0 1 8 6 5 O. 10269 0 . 2 2 0 1 5 0 . 4 5 2 4 8 0 . 2 4 4 0 2 0. 11702 0 , 3 3 7 3 6 0 . 2 5 5 8 4 -0.1 7 3 9 3 Ow 17837 0 . 3 2 3 0 8 0 . 4 6 3 6 3 0 . 2 8 5 0 3 0 . 4 0 0 1 2 0 . 3 6 8 8 3 0. 17162 0. 15816 0 . 1 0 5 2 2 0 . 2 8 9 0 8 0 . 2 2 3 7 8 0 . 3 4 5 8 0 O. 12969 0 . 2 1 2 7 4 0 . 3 4 0 1 1 0 . 3 0 6 5 6 0 . 1 8 6 3 5 0 . 3 0 2 5 0 0 . 2 2 6 8 0 0 . 0 3 3 5 7 O.11077 0 . 2 3 0 1 0 0 . 2 2 2 3 1 ¥ 1 0 0 . 1 8 5 2 8 0 . 1 7 7 8 8 - 0 . 0 5 7 7 9 0 . 3 1 6 1 3 0 . 1 7 0 0 3 O. 3 4 4 0 3 0 . 1 8 2 6 3 0 . 0 9 8 0 6 0 . 0 7 7 4 3 0 . 3 2 2 8 7 0 . 1 8 0 0 6 0 . 0 2 5 7 7 0 . 5 7 6 7 3 0 . 3 3 0 7 2 0 . 0 3 9 9 3 0 . 2 4 6 5 4 0. 1 8 0 2 3 0 . 4 6 5 9 5 0 . 4 0 1 4 3 0 . 4 3 8 1 2 0 . 2 2 2 0 0 O. 1 1919 O. 1 1427 0 . 0 7 8 1 1 0. 1 2 7 1 0 0 . 0 3 1 2 7 O. 12947 0 . 0 3 1 3 5 0 . 0 1 5 0 3 . 2 1 4 1 8 .18701 10825 . 2 0 9 3 2 .32746 0 . 0 4 5 3 1 0 . 0 2 1 3 7 O . 1 0 4 2 6 0 . 2 0 8 4 2 0. 0. O. 0. 0. Ul Ul THESIS ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF V A R I A B L E S F I L E NONAME ( C R E A T I O N DATE » 1 2 / 0 8 / 8 2 ) S U B F I L E YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY 12 / 0 8 / 8 2 PAGE 10 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. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Wl 1 0 . 2 4 1 0 3 0 . 2 7 6 6 3 0 . 1 6 0 0 9 .45595 .21976 .01384 17427 13269 .34065 .45725 1.OOOOO 0 . 4 3 6 2 5 0. 2 8 5 2 0 16864 .23836 13400 .20484 0 . 2 5 0 3 1 0 . 1 3 8 0 8 0 . 5 2 5 9 3 0 . 4 6 5 5 1 0. 13720 0.10614 0 . 2 0 6 9 8 0 . 1 5 2 9 8 0 . 0 3 6 4 0 0 . 0 7 0 6 9 0 . 1 0 5 6 6 0 . 3 2 0 2 9 0 . 2 4 3 8 0 0 . 1 3 8 3 1 17537 .05614 .23818 12220 0 . 0 6 6 9 7 0 . 2 6 5 4 3 0.021 15 0 . 4 2 9 1 9 0 . 0 2 4 7 2 0 . 1 2 7 0 5 0. 2 2 7 8 7 0.30214 - 0 . 0 9 6 3 0 0. 0. 0. 0. W12 0 . 3 3 0 9 7 0 . 2 1 0 3 9 0. 19744 0 . 2 5 8 9 7 0 . 3 0 1 4 5 - 0 . 0 9 9 5 2 0 . 3 2 2 7 4 0 . 2 4 9 1 4 0 . 4 0 0 1 5 0 . 3 5 0 4 0 0 . 4 3 6 2 5 1.00000 0 . 2 6 8 1 4 0 . 3 3 5 9 0 0 . 2 0 8 8 6 0 . 3 1 0 3 4 0 . 3 1 8 1 9 0 . 2 1 7 9 0 0 . 2 0 2 5 1 0 . 4 0 5 0 9 0 . 3 0 9 2 2 0 . 2 7 6 3 1 0 . 3 1 7 1 3 0 . 2 2 7 0 6 0 . 2 8 8 5 3 0 . 2 6 9 1 0 0 . 2 9 7 2 6 0 . 2 1 4 3 6 0 . 2 7 3 4 2 0 . 3 2 4 3 8 0 . 2 7 0 0 5 0 . 3 8 0 4 6 0 . 1 0 6 8 9 0 . 2 0 2 4 8 0 . 2 6 4 2 2 0 . 1 1 8 1 0 O. 2 6 8 0 6 0 . 2 5 6 3 0 0 . 3 7 8 1 6 0. 16335 0. 19068 0 . 2 1 8 7 6 0 . 3 2 4 6 2 0 . 0 2 3 7 7 0. o. 0. 0. 0. W13 0 . 0 4 1 2 8 0 . 0 9 8 5 2 0 . 1 1 4 8 3 0 . 2 1 8 8 1 0. 16869 - 0 . 0 5 0 3 3 0. 137 1 1 0. 3014 1 0 . 2 2 0 8 8 0.099 19 0 . 2 8 5 2 0 0.26814 1 .00000 0 . 5 0 2 7 9 - 0 . 0 8 6 7 6 0. 12407 .24707 .36582 .20740 .26336 . 22487 0.247 15 0. 1 1550 0.45244 - 0 . 0 5 8 1 1 0. 19136 0.0 8 1 0 7 0.35144 0. 18737 0. 14488 0 . 1 5 3 9 2 0 . 2 7 1 6 2 0 . 0 6 7 8 7 0.24 306 0. 12273 0 . 2 0 4 3 3 0 . 0 9 1 6 1 0 . 2 0 3 0 7 0 . 2 4 5 5 0 0 . 1 8 2 0 9 0 . 3 3 2 4 3 0 . 2 5 6 5 7 0 . 3 2 5 7 9 0 . 2 9 9 2 8 W14 0 . 0 6 4 4 0 0. 19340 0. 2 9 3 2 8 0. 19939 0. 10256 - 0 . 0 9 7 7 6 0. 2 9 2 4 8 0 . 4 9 6 9 5 0 . 2 0 1 1 6 0. 1 1412 0. 16864 0 . 3 3 5 9 0 0 . 5 0 2 7 9 1.OOOOO 0 . 0 9 0 4 0 0.361 16 0.4 4 9 9 8 0 . 3 6 7 8 2 0.3421 1 0 . 1 5 8 7 5 0 . 1 8 7 6 1 0 . 3 3 3 6 6 O.25396 0. 3 7 3 4 1 0. 14940 0.39104 O.17005 0.481 1 1 0 . 2 8 1 8 5 0 . 2 8 6 1 3 0 . 3 6 2 3 2 0 . 3 9 3 9 5 0 . 2 0 3 6 1 0.4 1587 0 . 2 5 4 3 4 .40247 .29569 .24749 .25940 .35633 .26856 .30032 0.28944 0.20344 WIS W16 W17 WIS W19 W20 0. 0. 0. 0. o. 0. 0. o 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 1 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. -o. 0. -0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. o. -0. 0. -0. 0. 0. -0. 0. o. -0. 0. 0. -0. .05622 .06395 .07531 .10406 .06857 . 0 1 2 1 0 .28736 .09005 .10716 .30993 .23836 .20886 .08676 .09040 . 0 0 0 0 0 .33190 .08083 . 1 5 6 7 0 . 12446 .20732 .00308 .02912 .26513 .00704 .3336 1 .08069 . 101 15 .09751 .06767 .30317 .03480 0 6 9 1 8 0 2 4 0 0 0 1 4 8 5 0 0 5 1 6 2 6 5 2 6 2 6 0 2 7 0 1 2 5 0 16489 0 1 8 1 2 0 2 3 6 7 0 4 5 2 1 2 0 7 8 2 2 1 0 3 2 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1 0. 0. 0. .04909 14660 .27319 .117 17 11813 0 . 0 4 1 0 5 0.58954 0 . 3 7 0 7 0 0 . 2 8 0 5 3 O. 19356 0 . 1 3 4 0 0 0.31034 0 . 1 2 4 0 7 0.361 16 0 . 3 3 1 9 0 .00000 .39236 .32289 .38558 O. 15870 0 . 0 6 5 9 9 0.27268 0 . 3 5 9 7 3 0 . 2 9 3 8 8 0 . 5 2 4 6 0 0.40024 O.14585 0 . 4 5 2 8 5 0 . 0 6 7 2 9 .56634 .47694 .43034 18837 0 , 2 7 7 3 5 0 . 3 4 0 9 6 C 2 5 4 4 4 O s 4 0 3 0 8 0 . 2 3 2 7 8 0. 11511 0. 4 0 4 2 8 0.22634 - 0 . 0 3 7 8 5 0 . 2 5 1 6 0 0.12254 0. 0. 0. O. 0 . 1 2 6 5 2 0 . 0 0 0 1 8 0 .20049 0 . 2 8 4 6 0 0 . 2 3 6 4 6 0. 126 7 0 0 .23801 0 . 2 9 3 5 3 0 . 1 6 0 2 0 0. 12882 0 .26487 0 .06186 0.1684 1 0 . 2 2 3 0 6 0 . 2 8 9 5 9 0 .50092 0 . 1 1 1 3 8 0 . 0 8 2 3 8 0 . 12597 0 .22 7 4 5 - 0 . 1 4 1 9 3 - 0 . 0 8 4 5 6 -0 .04089 -0 .07576 0 . 3 5 8 1 5 0 . 2 4 8 6 5 0 .2 5 6 2 0 0 .21864 0 . 2 9 4 1 7 0 . 2 9 8 9 7 0 .33805 0 . 2 2 2 3 0 0 . 2 5 4 3 8 0 . 2 4 9 4 1 0 .16919 0 .35327 0 . 1 6 6 6 8 0 . 2 7 0 5 3 0 .18208 0 .47587 0 . 2 0 4 8 4 0 . 2 5 0 3 1 0 .13808 0 .52593 0 . 3 1 8 1 9 0 . 2 1 7 9 0 0 .20251 • 0 .40509 0 . 2 4 7 0 7 0 . 3 6 5 8 2 0 .2 0 7 4 0 0 , 2 6 3 3 6 0 . 4 4 9 9 8 0 . 3 6 7 8 2 0 .34211 0 . 15875 0 . 0 8 0 8 3 0 . 1 5 6 7 0 0 . 12446 0 .20732 0 . 3 9 2 3 6 0 . 3 2 2 8 9 0 .38558 0 . 1 5 8 7 0 1.00000 0 . 4 4 1 8 5 0, .29208 0 .10903 0 . 4 4 1 8 5 1.00000 0. .25971 0 .23957 0 . 2 9 2 0 8 0 . 2 5 9 7 1 1 . OOOOO 0 . 15743 0 . 1 0 9 0 3 0 . 2 3 9 5 7 0. . 15743 1 . OOOOO 0. 0 7 1 5 9 0. 19156 0. 10157 0. .51893 0 . 2 1 4 1 4 0 . 2 1 1 7 1 0. 2 7 6 4 8 0. .28596 0. 17897 0.14854 0. 2 1332 0. .24764 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 3 6 6 8 0. 16350 0. 2 5 0 1 6 0. 3 1 8 4 2 0 . 3 7 6 9 2 0 . 2 0 5 1 9 0. 3 1 4 4 3 0. 12269 0 . 0 4 6 6 1 0 . 2 4 2 2 2 0. 16297 0. 0 8 8 0 5 0 . 3 9 4 1 6 0 . 1 5 3 2 2 0. 3 4 5 5 5 0. 0 8 9 3 6 0 . 1 0 4 6 6 0. 1 1249 0. 18626 0. 4 4 1 4 3 0 . 4 2 5 3 0 0 . 3 3 8 3 0 0. 2 8 4 2 5 0. 2 3 8 9 9 0 .31134 0 . 2 9 6 7 0 0. 2 4 0 5 5 0. 17615 0 . 3 6 5 7 7 0 . 3 9 5 2 0 0. 3 5 7 9 2 0. 2 7 3 1 7 0 . 2 3 7 3 4 0 . 1 3 2 5 5 0. 3 4 3 2 3 0. 15694 0 . 1 9 7 2 9 0 . 2 2 7 4 2 0. 3 0 3 5 6 0. 2 1 8 0 3 0 . 2 0 0 2 6 0 . 1 5 9 6 5 0. 3 5 6 6 8 0. 0 9 3 4 7 0 . 2 5 3 0 4 0 . 2 3 5 1 2 0. 2 8 7 0 5 0. 14081 0 . 1 8 2 2 3 0 . 2 2 7 5 9 0. 2 5 2 4 3 0. 2 3 9 6 2 0 . 3 1 0 2 2 0 . 4 1 1 1 3 0. 19844 0. 13777 0. 14585 0 . 2 2 2 6 3 0. 10661 0. 5 2 5 7 3 0 . 2 8 3 4 5 0 . 2 2 5 2 2 0. 4 1 5 7 9 0. 0 4 4 5 7 0 . 2 0 8 8 1 0 . 2 0 5 5 0 0. 17098 0. 1791 1 0. 177 7 0 0 . 2 7 5 8 0 0. 12819 0. 1 1349 0. 15537 0 . 2 1 7 3 0 0. 2 0 5 5 8 0. 3 4 1 7 5 0. 12662 0. 16991 0. 13564 0. 0 1 4 0 9 to Ul THESIS ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES F I L E NONAME (CREATION DATE • 12 /08 /82 ) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY 12 /08/82 PAGE 1 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 W1 1 0 . 2 7 0 2 9 0 . 0 1 9 8 3 0 . 3 6 4 3 8 0 . 0 8 4 6 0 0 . 0 5 0 2 8 0. 15318 0 . 2 9 2 3 2 0 . 1 9 9 5 4 0.OOOOO 0 . 4 6 2 6 5 0 . 2 1 4 0 8 - 0 . 0 5 5 9 9 0 . 3 2 8 3 7 0. 17552 0 . 3 9 6 5 9 0 . 4 0 2 0 9 0 . 3 8 3 3 0 0 . 0 3 4 9 7 0 . 0 5 5 1 6 0 . 1 1 0 2 8 0 . 1 2 4 9 1 0 . 0 9 6 2 2 0 . 0 9 1 0 6 0 . 2 1 4 6 6 0 . 0 8 8 4 5 0 . 1 0 4 7 3 .25616 .18813 .09127 .07973 .20065 - 0 . 0 5 1 1 0 0.OOOOO 0 . 1 5 3 8 6 0 . 0 4 2 1 9 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. W12 0.49204 0 . 3 1 9 4 5 0 . 2 9 6 7 7 0. 18161 0. 11588 O. 15942 0 . 3 1 1 7 1 0 . 2 9 2 5 5 0 . 0 9 8 1 6 0 . 3 9 7 0 3 0 . 2 5 8 7 5 - 0 . 1 2 3 5 8 0 . 3 5 6 5 5 0 . 3 1 5 9 5 0 . 4 0 0 3 1 0 . 2 8 5 7 3 .39507 .28223 , 11297 .32488 0 . 1 7 8 1 7 0 . 1 5 6 0 7 0.2404 1 0 . 1 9 5 6 0 0 . 1 2 2 2 9 0. 10352 0 . 2 6 6 5 9 0 . 2 1 9 9 5 0 . 1 5 4 5 9 0 . 2 5 1 9 1 0. 231 10 - 0 . 0 1 6 5 3 O.19379 0 . 2 6 7 6 5 0 . 2 6 3 7 0 0. 0. 0. 0. W13 0.07354 0. 15964 0. 2 7 6 3 8 - 0 . 1 2 4 7 3 0. 139 18 0 . 3 5 6 2 0 0 . 0 9 8 1 9 - 0 . 0 3 9 6 0 0 . 2 8 5 4 6 0. 1867 1 0 . 0 9 6 9 0 14928 .24940 .36640 .29840 15146 .23074 .27164 0 . 0 9 6 3 0 0 . 0 7 7 9 1 0. 1675 1 0 . 2 4 4 0 9 0 . 3 4 7 7 8 .25908 .35012 .23121 .32784 .24354 0 . 2 3 9 4 8 0 . 0 4 6 3 8 - 0 . 0 4 3 5 1 0 . 0 7 3 3 4 0 . 4 4 2 8 7 0 . 3 7 1 0 3 O. 1 174 1 - 0 . 0. 0. 0. O. O. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. W14 0 . 2 5 9 9 5 0 . 3 0 3 0 6 0. 2 8 2 6 8 - 0 . 0 5 4 0 5 0. 15775 0. 15998 0. 18616 0 . 2 3 2 0 7 0 . 3 6 6 2 6 0 . 1 7 6 2 2 0. 13875 - 0 . 1 0 1 5 3 0 . 2 9 8 5 5 0 . 3 9 0 9 5 0 . 2 9 6 2 6 0. 16487 0 . 2 3 9 5 2 0 . 3 3 3 1 0 0 . 2 4 4 3 5 0 . 2 0 0 7 6 0 . 3 0 3 0 9 0 . 0 4 0 2 5 0 . 3 7 4 7 1 0 . 2 9 9 8 1 0 . 2 4 2 8 0 0 . 2 2 5 0 9 0 . 2 4 9 7 6 0. 19225 0 . 2 8 2 9 6 0 . 0 8 8 6 3 0. 12258 0 . 0 7 5 5 1 0 . 4 2 1 9 3 0 . 3 3 5 4 5 O.17202 W15 0 0 0 0 0. -0. 0. 0. - 0 . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. - 0 . - 0 . 0. -o. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. - 0 . 0. -o. 0. 11744 .32256 . 19070 .05599 .08506 .01252 . 10009 .23017 .03987 .20325 .04171 .01733 .23117 .08085 .22406 .21402 .25419 .06753 . 19075 . 16282 .03195 . 16500 .02954 0 2 3 4 5 0 3 5 3 3 0 2 5 4 6 0 4 3 9 5 10255 15619 19686 10912 10589 0 4 6 3 1 0 6 9 7 1 2 0 3 7 3 W16 W17 W18 0 . 2 5 8 0 0 0 . 1 4 2 0 3 0 . 0 8 5 2 4 0 . 4 0 9 7 6 0 . 3 4 5 3 5 0 . 2 5 7 9 6 0 . 2 6 9 8 4 0 . 3 6 6 5 5 0. 16830 0 . 0 6 0 7 3 - 0 . 0 0 6 4 0 - 0.02233 0 . 0 9 7 4 0 0 . 2 0 1 2 6 0 . 1 8 8 7 6 0 . 2 1 5 7 5 0. 18283 0. 19747 0 . 3 3 7 7 8 0. 13465 0 . 3 0 1 9 3 0 . 3 6 1 0 5 0 . 2 8 8 5 3 0 . 2 7 1 7 7 0 . 2 4 2 9 2 0 . 1 8 5 8 8 0 . 2 9 0 1 6 0 . 2 5 3 1 2 0 . 2 1 9 3 3 0 . 2 2 3 1 8 0 . 0 5 5 0 6 0 . 2 5 9 3 0 0 . 0 9 5 7 6 - 0 . 1 7 3 2 1 - 0 . 1 5 3 0 8 - 0 . 0 9 9 0 4 0.4 1833 0 . 3 3 9 0 8 0 . 3 3 4 1 4 0 . 4 2 5 4 0 0 . 2 4 7 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 8 7 0 . 2 8 7 2 2 0 . 2 3 6 7 6 0 . 4 0 1 6 7 0. 1814 1 0 . 1 2 6 5 8 0 . 2 6 3 8 5 0 . 2 3 5 2 1 0 . 2 1 2 0 1 0 . 2 1 6 5 8 0 . 3 1 3 9 7 0 . 2 4 0 5 8 0 . 2 7 4 6 3 0. 18447 0 . 2 3 8 1 7 0 . 1 2 4 0 1 0 . 3 7 6 3 5 0 . 2 5 0 3 1 0 . 2 5 1 6 9 0 . 2 6 9 2 7 0 . 2 9 1 0 3 0 . 2 7 0 7 6 0 . 0 9 4 4 5 0. 11420 0 . 1 5 3 7 0 0.4 1846 0 . 3 2 4 4 7 0 . 3 4 0 3 6 0.167G4 0 . 2 9 8 0 2 0 . 2 8 2 8 5 0. 15196 0.20068 0. 17545 0. 12484 0 . 0 9 7 4 1 0. 18696 0 . 2 2 2 7 7 0 . 2 0 1 1 9 0 . 3 0 9 8 7 0.25557 0 . 3 5 2 9 5 0 . 3 4 5 4 1 0 . 1 7 3 0 0 0.30941 0 . 3 3 2 4 0 0.21 165 0 . 0 3 2 3 9 0 . 1 3 1 0 0 - 0 . 0 7 5 5 6 - 0 . 0 3 4 4 3 - 0 . 0 6 1 5 4 - 0 . 1 7 9 4 8 - 0 . 1 8 5 2 8 - 0 . 0 3 6 6 8 0 .32724 0 . 3 1 9 0 3 0 . 3 3 1 9 6 0 . 2 1 8 8 3 0.21384 0 . 2 5 1 6 7 0 . 3 8 8 3 7 0 . 3 8 8 1 8 0 . 2 7 9 9 0 W19 0 . 3 0 9 6 6 0 . 2 5 7 8 6 0 . 2 4 4 3 7 - 0 . 1 3 1 0 1 0. 10693 0 . 0 7 3 4 4 0 . 1 0 9 1 8 0 . 1 2 7 0 7 0 . 2 9 8 1 6 0 . 1 6 4 0 4 0. 15956 - 0 . 2 4 8 6 3 0 . 3 0 4 8 5 0 . 4 4 8 9 0 0. 14211 0 . 1 5 6 2 2 0 . 2 3 7 5 6 0 . 3 5 9 1 8 0. 17664 0 . 0 8 1 7 4 0. 13151 0. 16557 0. 19531 0 . 2 8 1 4 0 0 . 1 0 4 9 1 0 . 0 8 4 4 6 0 . 2 7 6 9 9 0 . 2 6 3 1 4 0 . 1 9 0 1 8 0 . 2 4 3 6 3 0 . 1 1 7 9 8 - 0 . 0 7 1 2 8 0 . 3 2 2 4 5 0 . 2 8 6 6 0 0 . 3 5 0 1 3 V 2 0 0 . 3 8 2 6 2 0 . 0 9 8 2 6 0 . 4 4 9 4 7 0 . 2 1 0 2 3 0 . 2 6 6 5 8 0 . 1 2 4 9 0 0 . 3 8 3 3 0 0 . 2 3 2 6 6 0 . 0 5 6 7 5 0 . 5 0 7 2 3 0 . 3 9 4 5 5 - 0 . 0 6 2 7 0 6.380O0 19124 .45212 .51375 .50209 0 . 2 0 0 3 6 0 . 0 8 3 5 5 0. 1 8 0 3 0 0. 12783 0 . 0 5 5 5 6 0 . 0 8 1 6 9 O. 14068 0 . 1 2 3 2 2 0 . 1 0 6 8 5 .27545 .29576 19337 .20929 .30849 .02494 .07404 0 . 2 5 7 7 8 0 . 2 1 8 9 9 0". 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0-. Ul T H E S I S ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF V A R I A B L E S F I L E NONAME ( C R E A T I O N DATE » 1 2 / 0 8 / 8 2 ) S U B F I L E YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY W2 1 W22 W23 W24 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 .16203 0 .09563 0 . 16988 0 . 19279 0 .15171 0 .09594 0 .08405 0 .06647 0 .21672 0 . 18316 0 .22875 0 .40688 0 .22913 0 .25955 0 .22208 0 .19509 0 . 12428 0 .32007 0 .22352 -0 .03690 -0 .22090 0 .04270 -0 .06678 0 .11779 0 .25787 0 .23407 0 .26806 0 .14674 0 .30190 0 .27763 0 .23575 0 .25763 0 . 2 6 5 5 9 0 .20190 0 .27031 0 .36467 0 .10463 0 .23142 0 .16944 0 .46551 0. 13720 0 .10614 0 .20698 0 .30922 0 .27631 0 .317 13 0 .22706 0 .22487 0 .24715 0 .11550 0 .45244 0 .18761 0. .33366 0. .25396 0, ,3734 1 0 .00308 -0. .02912 0. ,26513 -0, .00704 0 .06599 • 0. .27268 0. .35973 0, . 2 9 3 8 8 0, .07159 0. .21414 0. , 17897 0. .34702 0, .19156 0. .21171 0. 14854 0. .33023 0. .10157 0. ,27648 0. 2 1 3 3 2 0. 2 8 5 7 0 0. .51893 0. 2 8 5 9 6 0. 24764 0. 2 1 3 8 0 1, OOOOO 0. 2 9 3 2 5 0. 0 8 3 6 0 0. 2 2 5 0 9 0. ,29325 1 . OOOOO 0. 0 8 9 0 4 0. 2 7 1 0 0 0. 0 8 3 6 0 0. 0 8 9 0 4 1. OOOOO 0. 14691 0. 2 2 5 0 9 0. 27 100 0. 14691 1. OOOOO 0. 10486 0. 10438 0. 37 144 0. 0 7 7 4 4 0. 0 0 3 8 4 0. 2 6 6 3 5 0. 2 4 6 1 0 0. 277 15 0. 1 1730 0. 2 6 3 3 3 0. 2 7 2 0 3 0. 13642 0. 0 8 0 5 4 0. 2 9 2 5 9 0. 13258 0. 4 3 1 7 6 0. 3 8 2 4 0 0. 2 3 0 0 8 0. 2 9 4 3 8 0. 18234 0. 0 5 4 9 3 0. 17117 0. 17994 0. 3 9 4 2 3 0. 1 1827 0. 54 134 0. 1 1060 0. 3 6 1 4 9 0. 1 1583 0. 4 1972 0. 14390 0. 39524 0. 12582 0. 2 0 3 5 3 0. 0 7 2 1 4 0. 14501 0. 25651 0. 2 4 2 2 1 0. 12503 0. 37257 0. 154 12 0. 2 8 2 4 0 0. 2 8 9 0 9 0. 26484 - 0 . 0 1 6 8 7 0. 12739 0. 17674 0. 2 3 0 6 6 0. 2 3 2 6 0 0. 19375 0. 3 1 6 1 7 0. 2 2 2 5 0 0. 1 1341 0. 3 0 5 0 7 0. 0 7 0 2 8 0. 2 5 1 1 9 0. 4 5 9 8 5 0. 18452 0. 3 2 2 3 1 0. 13464 0. 0 2 3 7 1 0. 17662 0. 2 7 5 4 9 0. 38794 0. 1 1572 0. 3 1 7 0 3 0. 16809 0. 3 3 0 4 5 0. 13179 0. 2 3 5 5 0 0. 0 0 0 9 5 0. 29531 0. 2 0 0 0 7 0. 3 1 7 3 8 0. 2 1 9 3 8 0. 21641 - 0 . 0 8 5 8 8 0. 15727 0. 0 7 2 4 4 0. 2 8 0 4 6 12/08/82 PAGE 12 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 0 . 2 3 5 9 4 0 . 2 7 2 2 5 0 . 1 0 1 0 7 0 . 0 8 9 5 3 0 . 1 8 2 0 6 19294 0. 13446 0 . 2 3 1 7 3 - 0 . 0 5 0 3 2 0 . 2 2 4 1 9 0 .18544 o 0. 18686 0.2624 1 0 . 0 9 8 7 3 0 . 1 6 9 7 8 0 . 0 2 8 2 0 0. > A O 1 / «• .31884 0 . 2 3 0 2 1 0 .10634 0 . 1 1 3 5 2 0 . 1 0 8 5 2 0 . 3 7 3 3 5 o. 166 18 0 . 1 2 4 5 0 0 . 1 7 0 2 2 0 . 0 9 8 2 5 0 . 1 5 4 0 7 0 . 2 7 3 0 8 o. 0 8 6 7 5 - 0 . 0 7 7 7 8 - 0 . 1 6 6 0 7 - 0 . 0 7 4 3 0 - 0 . 0 9 1 8 0 - 0 . 0 5 9 2 8 - 0 . 19772 0 . 4 1 0 5 3 0 . 4 3 2 5 7 - 0 . 0 4 1 4 4 0 . 3 6 5 7 0 0 . 1 1 5 4 5 o. 4 5 3 8 7 0 . 1 3 6 6 2 0 . 3 6 3 3 3 0 . 1 5 8 8 3 0 . 3 0 0 8 2 0 . 2 0 8 1 2 0. 3 5 0 3 8 0 . 0 9 6 0 2 0 . 2 8 8 8 7 0.24944 0. 15648 0. 2 6 8 5 8 o. 3S4Q 1 0 . 2 1 0 4 3 0 . 0 8 5 7 1 0 . 2 0 0 3 1 - 0 . 0 0 5 1 3 0 . 2 8 8 4 6 0. j 1 1 4 1 A*; 0. 15298 0 . 0 3 6 4 0 0 . 0 7 0 6 9 0 . 1 0 5 6 6 0 . 3 2 0 2 9 0. 2 4 3 8 0 0 . 2 8 8 5 3 0 . 2 6 9 1 0 0 . 2 9 7 2 6 0.2 1436 0 . 2 7 3 4 2 6. 3 2 4 3 8 - 0 . 0 5 8 1 1 0. 19136 0 . 0 8 1 0 7 0 . 3 5 1 4 4 0. 18737 0'; 1 44 A A 0. 14940 0 .39104 0 . 1 7 0 0 5 0 . 4 8 1 1 1 0 . 2 8 1 8 5 0. 2861-3 0 . 3 3 36 1 0 . 0 8 0 6 9 0 . 1 0 1 1 5 0 . 0 9 7 5 1 0 . 0 6 7 6 7 0. 30 3 17 0 . 5 2 4 6 0 0.40024 0. 14585 0 . 4 5 2 8 5 0 . 0 6 7 2 9 o. 5 6 6 3 4 0 . 2 3 6 6 8 0 . 3 7 6 9 2 0 . 0 4 6 6 1 0 . 3 9 4 1 6 0 . 1 0 4 6 6 0. 4 2 5 3 0 0 . 1 6 3 5 0 0 . 2 0 5 1 9 0 . 2 4 2 2 2 0 . 1 5 3 2 2 0. 11249 0. 3 3 8 3 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. 3 1842 0. 12269 0 . 0 8 8 0 5 0 . 0 8 9 3 6 0 . 4 4 1 4 3 o. 2 3 8 9 9 0 . 1 0 4 8 6 0 .00384 0 . 1 1 7 3 0 0 . 0 8 0 5 4 0 . 3 8 2 4 0 o. 0 5 4 9 3 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 o. 17 117 0.37 144 0 . 2 4 6 1 0 0 . 2 7 2 0 3 6.13258 0 . 2 9 4 3 8 o. 17994 0 .07744 0 . 2 7 7 1 5 0. 13642 0 . 4 3 1 7 6 0. 18234 o. 3 9 4 2 3 1.OOOOO 0.3 2 1 3 9 0 . 0 5 1 6 2 0 . 1 8 4 0 1 0. 13842 0. 5 1268 0 . 3 2 1 3 9 1.00000 0. 15216 0 . 4 3 7 1 3 0 . 0 5 6 8 7 o. 3 6 2 8 8 0 . 0 5 1 6 2 0. 15216 1.00000 0 . 0 4 3 4 0 0. 13487 -O.i 0 3 6 5 4 0 . 1 8 4 0 1 6.43713 0 . 0 4 3 4 0 1.00000 0 . 2 5 5 5 7 o. 3 3 8 2 5 0 . 1 3 8 4 2 0 . 0 5 6 8 7 0 . 1 3 4 8 7 0 . 2 5 5 5 7 1.00000 O.i 098 16 0 . 5 1 2 6 8 0 . 3 6 2 8 8 - 0 . 0 3 6 5 4 0 . 3 3 8 2 5 0 . 0 9 8 1 6 1.1 OOOOO 0 . 3 3 4 6 5 0 . 3 7 1 7 4 0. 12937 0 . 3 3 0 7 3 0 .05494 0. 4 9 5 1 5 0 . 3 7 8 2 2 0 . 3 8 4 7 4 0 . 1 7 7 2 7 0. 3 1 3 0 1 0 . 0 6 9 5 3 o.. 4 9 8 5 8 0. 19247 0 . 3 3 7 0 3 0 . 0 5 4 8 2 0 . 2 4 2 6 3 0 . 1 5 6 7 6 0.: 268 10 0.2 1382 0 , 3 6 2 3 0 0. 17783 0 . 2 5 9 3 8 0 . 1 1 9 4 1 o.: 3 2 0 1 2 0. 13668 0 . 5 4 5 8 8 0 . 2 6 6 8 2 0 . 3 9 5 2 2 0 . 2 4 1 5 0 0. 133 18 0 . 2 9 9 8 2 0.3218 1 - 0 . 0 0 2 4 4 0.29151 0 . 1 9 2 6 7 o.: 26861 0 . 4 4 9 5 8 0 : 3 3 0 8 2 0 . 2 0 3 4 9 0 . 1 0 8 8 0 0 . 1 5 0 6 5 o.: 39433 0 . 2 9 1 8 8 0.20094 0. 2 4 3 7 8 0 . 1 3 4 5 6 0 . 0 3 2 6 8 o.: 29735 0. 2 3 7 4 5 0 . 0 9 4 2 1 0 . 2 6 2 7 6 0 . 0 4 0 7 9 0.38451 o.: 20043 0 . 2 7 6 9 7 0 . 2 2 2 8 2 0 . 1 9 0 3 7 0 . 2 5 6 8 4 0 . 0 6 5 8 7 o : 32148 ' 0.13974 0 . 3 0 7 6 0 0 . 1 5 6 7 3 0 . 2 8 6 4 3 0.08631 y • • 0. 19462 0 . 0 3 0 6 9 0 . 1 3 3 0 5 0 . 2 3 8 0 0 0.05698 0 . 1 3 8 7 8 o  • 19051 0 . 1 7 4 9 7 0 . 2 8 8 1 4 0 . 2 0 5 8 0 0 . 2 5 5 4 3 0 . 2 5 2 1 9 O.J !5467 - 0 . 0 3 7 1 6 0. 16763 0. 12791 0. 1 9 8 6 0 0 . 0 3 1 0 9 0. 1 3459 T H E S I S ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF V A R I A B L E S F I L E NONAME ( C R E A T I O N DATE - 1 2 / 0 8 / 8 2 ) S U B F I L E YOUNG MIDAGEO ELDERLY W2 1 W22 W23 W24 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 0 .27372 0 .48978 0 .15101 -o .00104 0 .27991 0 .24758 0 .28414 0 .32956 0, .16138 0 .26404 0 . 2 4 9 5 9 0 .06779 -0 .06670 0 .02515 -0 .07349 0 .02033 0 .06285 0 .26377 0, .18454 0 .07624 0, . 15599 0 .14855 0, .38512 0 .2 7 8 0 0 0. .25768 0, .30632 0 .32759 0 .06874 0. . 1 1343 0, .28902 0. .06698 0 .01467 0. .20460 0, . 1977 1 0, . 3 3 8 2 7 0 .39647 0. ,23550 0, .25010 0. .28158 0 .21289 0. ,25251 0, .26849 0. . 18972 -0 .03872 -0. 0 2 9 4 6 -0. .03055 -0. . 13188 0 .20899 0. 2 5 8 6 5 0. .31914 0. ,32714 0. .10033 0. 2 4 9 1 3 0. .28253 0. ,48378 0, .33538 0. 2 5 6 2 6 0. .24825 0. 3 6 9 0 0 0, .40363 • 0. 22774 0. .29662 0. 14992 0. .27360 0. 2 2 0 5 1 0. .42153 0. 3 6 7 2 2 0. .06722 0. 2 9 3 9 7 0. .297 12 0. 4 1 4 5 5 -0. .02926 0. 0 8 1 5 4 0. ,13060 0. 19976 0. .06782 0. 0 7 7 5 5 0. 18738 0. 2 7 3 8 2 0. . 13524 - 0 . 0 5 7 9 9 0. 14342 0. 2 5 3 5 8 0. 1 1575 0. 10689 0. 15863 0. 2 6 9 6 2 0. 0 1 0 7 4 0. 24 6 3 1 0. 0 6 5 14 0. 5 0 2 7 7 0. 14378 0. 4 0 5 1 5 0. 04 187 0. 4 4 6 5 1 0. 0 3 6 2 4 0. 2 5 7 8 9 0. 0 4 4 9 4 0. 42 8 3 4 0. 277 17 0. 3 1 7 8 0 0. 10674 0. 4 1600 0. 2 1266 0. 34 9 8 4 0. 227 3 2 0. 4 1649 0. 16252 0. 2 1 174 0. 276 10 0. 315 2 1 0. 0 9 2 8 5 0 . 0 8 5 1 0 0. 0 5 7 7 3 0. 3 8 1 6 4 0. 0 3 3 9 7 0. 18876 o. 2 6 4 6 6 0. 19205 0. 17322 0. 12724 0. 193 13 0. 1 t 5 4 0 0. 10468 - 0 . 0 0 2 4 3 0. 0 4 9 8 4 0. 0 9 7 5 9 0. 0 7 2 6 7 0. 18385 0. 18708 0. 4 7 2 2 7 0. 19249 0. 4 1622 0. 13944 0. 19471 - 0 . 0 1 8 8 8 0. 16524 0. 2731 1 0. 2 8 3 0 5 12/08/82 PAGE 13 W25 0 . 2 8 4 4 0 0 . 3 6 8 7 9 0 . 4 0 3 5 7 0 . 2 2 3 0 5 0.21 194 0 . 0 5 8 4 2 0 . 4 2 1 9 1 0 . 4 1 5 6 3 0. 16513 0. 18981 0 . 1 7 4 3 6 - 0 . 1 6 6 2 3 0 . 5 4 0 3 9 0 . 2 5 2 5 3 0 . 2 7 7 4 9 0 . 3 3 2 2 2 0 . 2 9 1 0 6 0. 12864 0 . 2 1 3 6 8 0 . 3 4 0 7 9 0 . 3 2 9 1 0 - 0 . 0 4 5 9 4 0 . 1 6 5 0 9 0 . 0 6 0 8 2 0 . 0 4 0 7 6 - 0 . 0 1 7 9 2 0 . 1 6 6 0 7 0 . 3 9 7 4 2 O.12893 0 . 2 2 4 5 8 0 . 1 9 1 1 8 - 0 . 1 6 7 0 1 0 . 2 2 3 3 2 0 . 1 6 6 2 1 0 . 5 1 0 7 6 W26 0 . 3 1 6 4 9 0 . 3 9 6 5 2 0 . 3 2 2 7 5 - 0 . 0 0 0 8 9 0. 12927 0 . 3 1 0 1 0 0 . 3 0 5 0 2 0 . 3 3 3 7 2 O.14757 0.10794 0 . 2 0 4 1 2 - 0 . 2 4 1 3 0 0 . 3 5 8 9 3 0 . 4 4 5 5 6 0 . 1 8 7 0 5 0 . 0 5 6 9 6 0 . 2 8 4 7 0 0 . 2 5 3 3 0 O.16779 0 . 4 6 3 3 5 0 . 4 0 9 5 7 0.14604 0 . 3 5 7 1 9 0 . 2 6 7 3 7 0 . 2 5 4 9 2 0 . 1 3 8 3 5 0 . 2 1 4 0 7 0 . 2 1 1 2 0 O.16995 0 . 2 7 4 6 2 0 . 0 3 2 3 7 - 0 . 0 0 6 6 2 0 . 4 2 2 2 5 0 . 2 2 0 4 5 0 . 3 7 7 3 7 W27 0.36074 0 . 2 4 4 0 4 0 . 0 6 3 6 8 - 0 . 0 4 2 9 7 -0.00237 0. 16284 0 . 2 8 9 6 2 0 . 0 7 7 0 3 O. 19629 0 . 2 1 2 2 0 0 . 1 9 9 0 9 0 . 0 5 8 1 1 0 . 0 5 3 5 1 0. 16678 0 . 2 4 0 0 2 0 . 2 4 3 5 9 0 . 3 1 1 7 5 0 . 1 9 0 7 6 0 . 0 2 5 5 2 0. 11237 0.04704 0. 19952 0.00011 O. 13332 0. 14710 0 . 1 5 7 0 0 O.15244 0 . 1 1 5 2 2 0 . 0 9 6 2 3 0 . 3 0 7 8 1 0 . 2 4 3 3 0 0 . 1 6 7 5 0 0 . 0 9 9 7 2 0. 14353 0. 16152 W28 0. 14136 0 . 2 2 0 8 8 0 . 2 3 7 8 2 - 0 . 0 5 2 6 3 O. 14230 0 . 3 3 4 1 8 0. 13977 0 . 2 2 7 3 6 0 . 4 0 0 2 3 0 . 0 9 4 8 6 0. 12456 - 0 . 3 0 4 6 2 0 . 2 9 2 1 1 0 . 4 2 3 9 0 0. 18605 0.09044 O.19066 0 . 4 0 5 8 6 0 . 1 5 4 2 5 0 . 3 0 8 6 0 0 . 2 2 7 5 0 O. 15652 0 . 4 8 6 5 8 0.30954 0 . 3 2 7 5 1 0 . 2 7 9 5 0 0.25334 0 . 2 2 2 8 9 0 . 3 1 4 0 5 0 . 1 0 5 3 9 - 0 . 0 2 3 5 9 0 . 0 6 1 2 7 0 . 5 5 5 8 2 0 . 3 0 8 7 2 0 . 2 2 0 4 6 W29 0 . 4 7 2 1 5 0 . 0 8 0 7 6 0 . 2 9 6 9 0 0 . 0 6 6 7 3 0 . 1 0 8 2 6 0 . 1 6 2 3 4 0 . 1 5 3 5 4 0 . 2 5 5 5 8 0 . 1 5 4 8 7 0 . 3 3 0 4 0 0 . 3 9 6 9 1 - 0 . 0 4 5 1 8 0 . 2 1 1 6 4 0. 12143 0 . 3 2 0 5 8 0 . 2 4 8 9 1 0 . 3 6 0 7 2 0 . 3 6 2 1 9 0 . 1 2 8 8 7 - 0 . 0 2 3 4 2 0 . 0 6 6 6 7 0 . 1 0 8 7 6 0 . 0 3 8 9 0 0 . 1 8 4 3 5 0 . 1 3 3 1 3 0 . 3 3 5 2 9 0 . 2 6 5 0 6 0 . 2 6 8 5 9 O. 15539 O. 13266 0 . 2 9 6 8 5 0 . 0 5 3 6 7 0 . 1 3 1 4 3 0 . 2 2 6 4 6 0 . 0 0 4 9 4 W30 0. 18647 0. 4 5 2 8 8 0 . 3 3 5 4 9 0 . 1 1 0 2 6 0 . 2 1 9 9 6 0 . 0 9 7 5 8 0 . 3 3 2 9 8 0 . 3 2 4 5 3 0. 13967 0 . 2 6 3 5 4 0 . 1 7 0 9 2 - 0 . 2 6 5 5 0 0-. 5 6 4 0 3 0.33604 0 . 3 3 0 4 4 0. 14887 0 . 2 7 4 5 8 0 . 2 0 1 0 9 0 . 3 0 5 4 0 0 . 3 9 9 0 9 0 . 3 3 5 0 8 -0.04 707 0 . 4 5 9 7 7 0 . 3 4 7 1 3 0 . 1 8 8 6 6 O.10499 0.2458 1 0 . 3 4 3 1 8 O.22772 0. 17129 0. 1 1448 - 0 . 2 4 9 1 8 0 . 3 2 6 2 1 0 . 1 3 4 6 2 0 . 3 3 2 9 0 to Ul ID THESIS ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES F I L E NONAME (CREATION DATE • 12 /08 /82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY W31 W32 W33 W34 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 .30496 0 .26693 0 . 14448 0 .23594 0 .28531 0 .24555 0 .09648 0 .3264 1 0 .21782 0 .18107 0 .26892 0 .207 13 0 .20483 0 . 12963 0 .09314 0 .01420 0 .15001 0 .14065 0 .12596 -0 . 16617 -0 .11059 -0 .14567 -0 .10534 0 .47915 0 .35133 0 . 134 18 0 .31235 0 .30140 0.41654 0.22646 0 .46214 0 .26867 0 .23757 0 .03866 0 .13509 0 .09100 0 .16573 0 .09006 0 . 12295 0 .13831 0.17537 0 .05614 0 .23818 0 .27005 0 .38046 0 . 10689 0 .20248 0 .15392 0 .27162 0 .06787 0 .24306 0 .36232 0 .39395 0 .20361 0 .41587 0 .03480 0 .06918 -0 .02400 0 .01485 0 .47694 • 0 .43034 0. . 18837 0 .27735 0, .31 134 0. .36577 0. .23734 0 . 19729 0, . 29670 0, .39520 0. .13255 0 .22742 0. . 24055 0. .35792 0. . 34323 0 .30356 0. . 17615 . 0, .27317 0. , 15694 0 .21803 0. .11827 0. . 1 1583 0. 12502 0. . 25651 0. .54134 0. .41972 0. 20353 0. 24221 0. 1 1060 0. 14390 0. 07214 0. 12503 0. 36149 0. 39524 0. 14 501 0. 37257 0. 33465 0. 37822 0. 19247 0. 21382 0. 37 174 0. 38474 0. 33703 0. 36230 0. 12937 0. 17727 0. 05482 0. 17783 0. 33073 0. 31301 0. 24263 0. 25938 0. 05494 0. 06953 0. 15676 0. 1 194 1 0. 49515 0. 49858 0. 268 10 0. 32012 1. OOOOO 0. 64732 0. 21919 0. 36042 0. 64732 1. OOOOO 0. 33 166 0. 4 1008 0. 2 1919 0. 33166 1. OOOOO 0. 37863 0. 36042 0. 4 1008 0. 37863 1. OOOOO 0. 25626 0. 27437 0. 28 166 0. 45244 0. 17819 0. 31507 0. 200-16 0. 24762 0. 23329 0. 33846 0. 0864G 0. 38868 0. 4 1058 0. 43337 0. 09520 0. 09927 0. 09859 0. 1951 1 0. 22925 0. 23488 0. 28286 0. 37290 0. 24522 0. 29661 0. 34232 0. 22458 0. 13 149 0. 28748 0. 12897 0. 24746 0. 15254 0. 27328 0. 13017 0. 25650 0. 10988 0. 26339 0. 15797 0. 26704 0. 14947 0. 09030 12/08/82 PAGE 14 W35 W36 W37 W38 W39 W40 0. 19590 0.02065 0. . 17663 0. 15251 0 . 19247 o 13767 0. 17467 0. 13242 0. .09438 0.01980 0 .22903 0 .13309 0.224 15 0. 12544 0. .27345 0.11664 0, . 13688 o 17009 0.13144 0.09504 0. . 16185 0.09730 0. .40844 0 .08492 0.34484 0.15878 0. ,22113 -0.02040 0. , 29110 o .06156 0.03605 -0.03803 - 0 . 01176 -0.10029 0. 03052 -0 .02651 0.31468 0.28946 0. 30533 0.22212 0. 11394 0 .15932 0.30889 0.24383 0. 34623 0. 11571 0. 23324 Q .23036 0.25770 0.13606 0. 32003 0.13436 0. 33884 0 . 18354 0. 12277 0.02822 0. 22312 0.05100 0. 38386 o .08070 0 . 1222Q 0.06697 0. 26543 0.02115 0. 42919 o .02472 0.26422 0. 11810 0. 26806 0.25630 0. 378 16 0. 12273 0.20433 0. 09161 0.20307 0. 24556 O; mono 0.25434 0.40247 0. 29569 0.24749 0. 25940 o . 3563J3 -0.00516 0.26526 0. 26027 -0.01250 0. 16489 o .01812 0.34096 0.25444 0 . 40308 0.23278 0. 11511 o .404 28 0.20026 0.25304 0. 18223 0.31022 0. 14585 o . 28345 0. 15965 0.23512 0. 22759 0.41113 0. 22263 o . 22522 0.35668 0.28705 0. 25243 0. 19844 0. 1066 1 o .4 1579 0.09347 0.14081 0. 23962 0. 13777 0. 52573 o .04 457 0.154 12 -0.01687 0. 23260 0.11341 0. 45985 0, .02371 0.28240 0. 12739 0. 19375 0.30507 0. 18452 o. 17662 0.28909 0. 17674 0. 31617 0.07028 0. 3223 1 0. , 27549 0.26484 0.23066 0. 22250 0.251 19 0. 13464 0 . 38794 0.13668 0.29982 0. 44958 0.29188 0. 23745 0. 27697 0.54588 0.32181 0. 33082 0.20094 0. 0942 1 0. 22282 0.26682 -0.00244 0. 20349 0.24378 0. 26276 0. 19037 0. 39522 0.29151 0. 10880 0.13456 0. 04079 0. 25684 O.24 150 0. 19267 0. 15065 0.03268 0. 38451 0. 06587 0. 13318 0.26861 0 . 39433 0.29735 0. 20043 0 . 32148 0.25626 0. 17819 0. 23329 0.41058 0. 09859 0. 28286 0.27437 0.31507 0. 33846 0.43337 0. 1951 1 0. 37290 0.28166 0.20046 0. 08646 0.09520 0. 22925 0. 24522 0.45244 0.24762 0. 38868 Q.09927 0. 23488 0. 2966 1 1 .00000 0.22076 0. 31783 0.04342 0. 17415 0. 2674 1 0.22076 1'. OOOOO 0. 19717 0.12461 O.i 08576 o. 386 10 0.31783 0. 197 17 1.1 OOOOO 0.21405 0.: 38724 0. 24632 0.04342 0. 12461 0. 21405 1 .00000 0.: 21358 o. 35094 0. 174 15 0.08576 0. 38724 0.21358 1 .00000 0. 20974 0.2674 1 0.38610 0. 24632 0.35094 0.: 20974 1. OOOOO 0.28604 0.22355 0. 14263 0.26006 0. 19648 0. 4077 1 0.06661 0. 17763 0. 22531 0.21651 o.: 27591 0. 27223 0.24001 0.45629 0.: 33927 0. 18969 o.: 27927 0. 2725 1 0.06974 0.06327 -O.I 35272 0. 13498 0.( 32452 0. 31390 THESIS ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE « 12/08/82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY W31 W32 W33 W34 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 .34259 0 . 18520 0 . 19423 0 .34732 0 .47392 0 .22082 0 .33012 0 .21837 0 .331 14 0 .31709 0 .27922 0 .06545 0 .20624 0 . 129 12 0 .02914 0 .17824 0 .28959 0 .27508 0 .08383 0 .21439 0 .14104 -0 .00939 0 .11592 0 .40838 0 .41989 0 .17890 0 .38414 0 .23425 0 .25966 0 .26008 0 .14027 0 .21122 0 .37327 0 .28739 0 .2291 1 0 .25206 0 .33065 0 .22492 0 .20026 0 .18220 0 .27664 0 .24047 0 . 15195 -0 .16232 -0, .10877 -0 .05361 -0 .10285 0, .38916 0. 51072 0 .32175 0 .30793 0, .42323 0. 53471 0, , 20572 0 .37565 0. . 29627 0. 28440 0. 06868 0 .24257 0. 19537 " 0. 27730 0. 14963 0 . 187 14 0. 25838 0. 30864 0. ,26062 0, .28136 0. 27868 0. 35615 0. 18200 0. 20502 0. 128 15 0. 25957 0. 15851 0. 13 186 0. 33529 0. 26544 0. 12157 0. 252 13 0. 204 50 0. 33478 0. 26409 0. 3591 1 0. 04672 0. 14454 0. 04463 0. 02972 0. 48544 0. 48947 0. 144 10 0. 25131 0. 45375 0. 42929 0. 38884 0. 31975 0. 20017 0. 13159 0. 09426 0. 10534 0. 25670 0. 21336 0. 08152 0. 20957 0. 36261 0. 33426 0. 07768 0. 22823 0. 23528 0. 37951 0. 29103 0. 19681 0. 20343 0. 26297 0. 12733 0. 15137 0. 20402 0. 25833 0. 10934 0. 19573 0. 1582 1 0. 05376 0. 10735 0. 04 148 -0. 05224 -0. 05275 -0. 02587 0. 02800 0. 36451 0. 40904 0. 24332 0. 37003 0. 39200 0. 24330 0. 09515 0. 06725 0. 26509 0. 45631 0. 28937 0. 22426 12/08/82 PAGE W35 W36 W37 0 .29218 0. 1 1365 0 .30659 0 .28390 0. 39974 0, .35249 0, .26490 0. 31223 0 .24142 0, .01512 -0. 09839 0. .07894 0. .07761 0. 09090 0. .18231 0. .38906 0. 12192 0. , 13416 0. ,30370 0. 18134 0. 45675 0. 26901 0. 2567 1 0. 29617 0. 22652 0. 20797 0. 08622 0. 17801 -0.00374 0. 26956 0. 20703 0. 16675 0. 16646 -0. 14608 -0. 16442 -0. 16245 0. 25003 0. 31268 0. 33315 0. 44189 0. 2 1686 0. 27527 0. 21940 0. 13201 0. 28279 0. 1 1795 0. 19432 0. 27188 0. 264 15 0. 26177 0. 23358 0. 23868 0. 21326 0. 07437 0. 14349 0. 32082 0. 17803 0. 26059 0. 17912 0. 29654 0. 24253 0. 18783 0. 30563 0. 23971 -0. 07789 0. 01901 0. 27740 0. 37536 0. 28341 0. 30036 0. 1 1647 0. 21772 0. 09324 0. 26504 -0. 01655 0. 22660 0. 21 143 0. 11328 0. 20635 0. 20515 0. 14024 0. 16719 0. 17491 0. 22456 0. 09765 0. 34176 0. 19064 0. 33299 0. 12597 0. 20621 -0. 01829 0.03029 0. 15048 0.05732 -O.i 05539 -0. 05900 0. 33376 0. 40066 0. 19194 0. 15027 0.-1 1057 O.i 07269 0. 19416 <V 25088 0. 33146 W38 W39 W40 0, . 19637 0.39576 0 .25105 0. .35400 0. .29390 0 .44195 0. .11793 0. .42153 0 .20663 0. .08521 0. .08342 -0 .03814 0. .27249 0. ,32826 0 .20719 0. , 19433 0. 06735 0 . 22365 0. 23866 0. 42055 0 .27699 0. 18408 0. 23548 0 .13006 0. 20839 0. 09355 0. .47712 0. 10791 0. 63959 0. . 1561 1 0. 17466 0. 28378 , o. 16150 -0. 10341 -0. 10054 -6. 11666 0. 23947 0. 39454 0'. 30758 0. 33239 0. 23737 0. 45558 0. 17807 0: 44777 0. 20080 0. 25902 0. 53433 0. 25358 0. 07204 0. 46155 0. 22236 0. 24745 0. 18 132 0. 21528 0. 08686 0. 11521 0. 24547 0. 16672 0. 10267 0. 03436 0. 22545 0. 161 10 0. 27615 0. 14787 0. 21735 0. 24516 0. 30466 0. 07273 0. 38652 0. 2081 1 0. 18050 0. 29399 0. 26519 0. 06575 0. 27764 0. 18663 O.i 08713 0. 19494 0. 16815 0. 10897 0. 24600 0. 29349 0. 35664 0. 24201 0. 27808 0.: 22499 0. 304 13 0. 11365 0. 14295 0. 23317 0. 15884 o.. 44879 0. 16854 -O.i D0564 O.I 37148 O.i 07635 0.: 34344 0. 13430 0. 40100 0.: 36757 o.: 26049 0.: 25827 o.: 37489 o.: 23100 o.: 30615 THESIS ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE • t2/08/82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGEO ELDERLY 12/08/82 PAGE 16 W4 1 w ' 0.06587 "2 0.06805 "3 0.21293 W 4 0.21215 w 5 0.14604 "6 -0.05254 w 7 0.19091 w 8 0.18838 "9 0.10768 "10 0.10499 "11 0.12705 W12 0.19068 W13 0.33243 "14 0.26856 "15 -0.02367 W16 0.22634 W17 0.20881 "18 0.20550 "19 0.17098 W20 0.17911 "21 0.11572 W22 0.31703 V23 0.16809 "24 0.33045 W25 0.13974 W26 0.30760 W27 0.15673 W28 0.28643 "29 0.08631 W30 0.19462 "31 0.34232 W32 0.22458 w 3 3 0. 13 149 W34 0.28748 W35 0.28604 W36 0.22355 W37 0.14263 W38 0.26006 W39 0.19648 V40 0.40771 "4 1 1.OOOOO W42 0.32447 "43 0.32699 W44 0.32525 W42 W43 0 .0821 1 0 .147 13 0 .14088 0 . 14825 0. . 18310 0 .10395 0 . 15748 0 . 15735 0, .09686 0 . 222 15 -0, .40110 -0. . 12377 -0, .09721 0 . 2 1399 0, .18477 0 .31 154 0. .18114 0, . 28429 0. .18528 0 . 17788 0. ,22787 0, .302 14 0. 21876 0, . 32462 0. ,25657 0, .32579 0. ,30032 0, .28944 0. 04521 0 .20782 -0. 03785 0. .25160 0. 17770 0. 15537 0. 27580 0. .21730 0. 12819 0. ,20558 0. 1 1349 0. 34 175 0. 13179 0. ,20007 0. 23550 0. 31738 0. 00095 0. 2 1938 0. 29531 0. 2164 1 0. 03069 0. 17497 0. 13305 0. 288 14 0. 23800 0. 20580 0. 05698 0. 25543 0. 13878 0. 25219 0. 19051 0. 25467 0. 12897 0. 13017 0. 24746 0. 25650 0. 15254 0. 10988 0. 27328 0. 26339 0. 06661 0. 24001 0. 17763 0. 45629 0. 22531 0. 33927 0. 21651 0. 18969 0. 27591 0. 27927 0. 27223 0. 2725 1 0. 32447 0. 32699 1. OOOOO 0. 30577 0. 30577 1. OOOOO 0. 14096 0. 10654 W44 W45 -0 .03714 0 .32271 0 .00723 0 .21878 0 .03447 0 .15248 0 . 1 1469 0 .36346 0 .05771 0 .29148 0 .02677 -0 .04096 -0 .00057 0 . 19389 0 .00516 0 .24689 0 .06602 0. .29821 -0 .05779 0. .31613 -0 .09630 0. .27029 0 .02377 0. .49204 0 .29928 * 0. .07354 0 .20344 0. .25995 -0, .2 1032 0. .11744 0, . 12254 0. ,25800 0, . 12662 0. 14203 0, . 1699 1 0. 08524 0. .13564 0. 30966 0. .01409 0. 38262 -0. .08588 0. 2451 1 0. , 15727 0. 27372 0. ,07244 0. 48978 0. 28046 0. 15101 -0. 03716 0. 28440 0. 16763 0. 31649 0. 12791 0. 36074 0. 19860 0. 14 136 0. 03109 0. 47215 0. 13459 0. 18647 0. 15797 0. 25726 0. 26704 0. 34259 0. 14947 0. 18520 0. 09030 0. 19423 0. 06974 0. 29218 0. 06327 0. 1 1365 -0. 05272 0. 30659 0. 13498 0. 19637 0. 02452 0. 39576 0. 31390 0. 25105 0. 32525 0. 22646 0. 14096 0. 23027 0. 10654 0. 3031 1 1. OOOOO 0. 06845 W46 W4 7 0 . 1797 1 0 .36538 0 .202 15 0 .26389 0 .21203 0 . 1 1893 0 .09905 0 .3867 1 0, .06073 0.25711 -0 .09487 -0 .10744 0, .35313 0 .33035 0. .31040 0 .21718 0. .24024 O, .23696 0. .17003 0. .34403 0. ,01983 0. .36438 0. ,31945 0. .29677 0. ,15964 0. .27638 0. ,30306 0. ,28268 0. ,32256 0. , 19070 0. 40976 0. 26984 0. 34535 0. 36655 0. 25796 0. 16830 0. 25786 0. 24437 0. 09826 0. 44947 - 0 . 00104 0. 32956 0. 27991 0. 16138 0. 24758 0. 26404 0. 284 14 0. 24959 0. 36879 0. 40357 0. 39652 0. 32275 0. 24404 0. 06368 0. 22088 0. 23782 0. 08076 0. 29690 0. 45288 0. 33549 0. 34732 0. 21837 0. 47392 0. 331 14 0. 22082 0. 31709 0-33012 0. 27922 0. 28390 0. 26490 0! 39974 0. 31223 0. 35249 0. 24142 0. 35400 0. 1 1793 0, 29390 0. 42153 0. 44 195 0. 20663 0. 24210 0. 21862 0. 32751 0. 16019 0. 37665 0. 36954 0. 23752 0. 09806 W48 W49 0.21323 0 . 19739 -0.03620 0 . 14679 -0.01828 0 .03378 0.05654 0 . 16689 -0.09399 0 .16699 0.10456 0 .00437 0.06725 0 .03951 0.01039 0.06272 0.01865 0 .10269 0. 18263 0 .09806 0.08460 0 .05028 0. 18161 0 .11588 -0.12473 0 . 13918 -0.05405 0 . 15775 0.05599 0 .08506 0.06073 0, .09740 -0.00640 0. .20126 -0.02233 0. . 18876 -0.13101 0. 10693 0.21023 0. 26658 0.06779 0. 02033 -0.06670 0. 06285 0.02515 0. 26377 -0.07349 0. 18454 0.22305 0. 21194 -0.00089 0. 12927 -0.04297 - 0 . 00237 -0.05263 0. 14230 0.06673 0. 10826 0.11026 0. 21996 0.06545 0. 17824 0.20624 . 0. 28959 0. 12912 0. 27508 0.02914 0. 08383 0.01512 0. 07761 -0.09839 0. 09090 0.07894 0. 18231 0.08521 0. 27249 0.08342 0. 32826 -0.03814 0. 20719 0.02380 0. 15761 0.03307 0. 15480 -0.11439 0. 07472 0.03269 0. 20278 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 M 0.17249 <n 0.23398 M 0.23886 THESIS ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE ' 12/08/82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIOAGED ELDERLY 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 W4 1 W42 W43 W44 0 . 22646 0 .23027 0 .303 1 1 0 .06845 0 .24210 0 .32751 0 .37665 0 .23752 0 .2 1862 0 . 16019 0 .36954 0 .09806 0 .02380 0 .03307 -0 . 1 1439 0 .03269 0 . 15761 0 . 15480 0 .07472 0 .20278 0 .37893 0 .17249 0, . 23398 0 .23886 0 .21829 0 .17708 0 .33010 0 .10246 0 .08965 0 .01761 0, .26736 0 .01252 0. . 13429 0. .14071 0 .18752 0 .27634 0. . 18672 0. . 27346 0 . 22 162 O .05976 0. .10342 0. . 19254 0, .33125 0 . 12 180 -0. .11570 -0, .00423 -0. .21799 0 .01128 0. , 254 17 0. . 27027 0. .2355 1 0 . 17643 0. .31603 0. .22982 0. .32345 0, .29903 0. 25180 0. 224 12 0. 31529 0. .06230 0. .08803 0. 1372 1 0. ,27137 0, .09530 0. . 16468 0. . 17724 0. .36439 0, .15010 0. 22548 0. .08952 0. . 14744 0. ,27676 0. 01277 0. 05147 0. ,00679 0. . 14888 0. 25539 0. , 10355 0. ,22003 0. 17737 0. 14558 0. 12445 0. ,20755 0. 19749 0. 20236 0. 20242 0. 1 1448 0. 34015 0. 34857 0. 10176 0. 23197 0. 39315 0. 3235 1 0. 4 125 1 0. 26 130 0. 23325 0. 37067 0. 26683 0. 28574 0. 30329 0. 24382 0. 19246 0. 31934 0. 10524 0. 39436 0. 24619 0. 38 136 0. 20259 0. 13146 0. 29070 0. 12240 0. 10483 0. 18930 0. 20689 0. 27334 0. 09656 0. 09946 0. 08390 0. 22479 -0. 00599 0. 1 1472 0. 20448 0. 04444 -0. 01979 0. 12508 0. 15764 0. 074 80 0. 16929 0. 35424 0. 19274 0. 30609 0. 29339 0. 45902 0. 2 1 180 0. 2 1077 0. 2457 1 0. 29 1 19 0. 22049 0. 18035 0. 21587 12/08/82 PAGE 17 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. 22690 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. 39480 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 - 12/08/82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY W5 1 W52 W53 W54 W1 0. 31649 0. 1 1537 0. ,01567 0. 24479 W2 0. 182 19 0. 23313 0. , 14973 0. 32818 W3 0. 22 186 0. 09236 0. ,00502 0. 25247 W4 0. 30573 0. 16505 0. ,08330 0. 47779 W5 0. 26623 0. 08847 -0. ,00167 0. 24299 W6 -0. 07507 -0. 07595 -0. .08174 -O. 06906 W7 0. 35253 0. 31689 0. ,0147 1 0. 24448 W8 0. 238 13 0. 06823 0. ,08569 0. 261 10 W9 0. 45248 0. 24402 0. ,11702 0. 33736 W10 0. 32287 0. 18006 0. ,02577 0. 57673 W1 1 0. 29232 0. 19954 0. OOOOO 0. 46265 W12 0. 31 171 0. 29255 0. ,098 16 0. 39703 W13 0. 098 19 -0. 03960 0. ,28546 0. 18671 W14 0. 18616 0. 23207 0. ,36626 0. 17622 WIS 0. 10009 0. 23017 -0, ,03987 0. 20325 W16 0. 33778 • 0. 36105 0. ,24292 0. 25312 W17 0. 13465 0. 28853 0. , 18588 0. 21933 W18 0. 30193 0. 27177 0, ,29016 0. 223 18 W19 0. 10918 0. 12707 0. ,298 16 0. 16404 W20 0. 38330 0. 23266 0. .05675 0. 50723 W2 1 0. 27800 0. 06874 0. ,01467 0. 39647 W22 0. 25768 0. 1 1343 0. ,20460 0. 23550 W23 0. 30632 0. 28902 0. , 1977 1 O. 25810 W24 0. 32759 0. 06698 0. , 33827 0. 28158 W25 0. 42191 0. 4 1563 0. 165 13 O. 18981 W26 0. 30502 0. 33372 0. , 14757 0. 10794 W27 0. 28962 0. 07703 0. , 19629 0. 21220 W28 0. 13977 0. 22736 0. ,40023 0. 09486 W29 0. 15354 0. 25558 0. , 15487 0. 33040 W30 0. 33298 0. 32453 0. ,13967 0. 26354 W31 0. 40838 0. 23425 0. .21122 0. 25206 W32 0. 4 1989 0. 25966 0, ,37327 0. 33065 W33 0. 17890 0. 26008 0. ,28739 0. 22492 W34 0. 38414 0. 14027 0. .2291 1 0. 20026 W35 0. 30370 0. 26901 0. .22652 0. 17801 W36 0. 18134 0. 2567 1 0. .20797 -0. 00374 W37 0. 45675 0. 29617 0, .08622 0. 26956 W38 0. 23866 0. 18408 0. .20839 0. 10791 W39 0. ,42055 0. 23548 0, .09355 0. 63959 W40 0. 27699 0. 13006 0, .477 12 0. 1561 1 W4 1 0. 2 1829 0. 08965 0 . 13429 0. 18672 W4 2 0. ,17708 0. 01761 Q, .14071 0. 27346 W43 0. ,33010 0. 26736 0 . 18752 0. 22162 W44 0. ,10246 0. 01252 0 .27634 0. 05976 12/OB/82 PAGE 18 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 F I L E NONAME (CREATION DATE » 12 /08 /82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY W51 W52 W53 W54 W45 0. . 35857 0. 2 1285 0. 15528 0. 43385 W46 0. .34162 0. 27096 0. 2594 1 0. 32167 W47 0. 4 1597 0. 33337 0. 17201 0. 47939 W48 0. , 19401 0 . 09723 0, 02454 0. 20765 W49 0. .19074 0 . 34 102 0. 2 1552 0. 24432 W50 0. .20643 - 0 . 02863 0. ,20910 0. 07995 W5 1 1 . OOOOO 0. 28862 0. 23637 0. 41542 W52 0. ,28862 1 . OOOOO 0. ,27420 0. , 29094 W53 0. , 23637 0 . 27420 1 . OOOOO 0. 11118 W54 0. ,4 1542 0 . 29094 0. ,11118 1 . OOOOO W55 0. .26049 0 . 27044 0. ,17470 0. ,47172 W56 - 0 . 10380 - 0 . 14094 - 0 . ,07068 - 0 . ,07867 W57 0. ,44809 0 . 38221 0. ,20822 0. ,36974 W58 0. 38355 0 . 21989 0. ,35273 0. 31922 W59 0. 49728 0 . 28280 0. ,20845 0. ,48772 W60 0. ,45596 0 . 32731 0. . 167 1 1 0. .44943 W6 1 0. 57176 0 . 33510 0. , 15959 0. ,53564 W62 0. ,25264 0 . 32667 0. ,41452 0. 26668 W63 0. ,12399 0 . 15431 0. ,17608 0. 17525 W64 0. 33530 0 . 4 1260 0. ,05985 0. 10409 W65 0. 338 17 0 . 2567 1 0. ,23636 0. ,07037 W66 0. 12121 - 0 . 1 1817 0. ,20502 0. , 18795 W67 0. 20055 0. 2 1296 0. 34735 0. 08881 WS8 0. 30124 0 . 15564 0. 32560 0. 28625 W69 0. 19455 0 . 13823 0. 2 1326 0. 10131 W70 0. 14573 0. 14350 0. 21948 0. ,08780 W7 1 0. 344 1 1 0 . 0577 1 0. 22914 0. 23233 W72 0. 29426 0 . 372 19 0. 27828 0. 34962 W73 0. 18696 0 . 10027 0. ,25678 0. 18 117 W74 0. 38091 0 . 16934 0. ,16041 0. 16102 W75 0. 28273 0 . 071 14 0. ,01542 0. 33548 W76 0. 16855 -o. 12265 0. 17373 0. 02190 W77 0. 30610 0. 14770 0. ,43975 0. 16644 W78 0. 06952 0 . 1 1510 0. ,26578 0. 21817 W79 0. 33761 0 . 34627 0. .26196 0. 24191 12/08/82 PAGE 19 W55 W56 W57 0. ,45286 -0. 07515 0. 28108 0. , 37530 -0. 12852 0. 40651 0. ,52456 -0. 13813 0. 42727 0. .07224 0. 16655 0. 20248 0. .26125 -0. 16321 0. 34300 0. .06959 -0. 13924 0. 1 1749 0, .26049 -0. 10380 0. 44809 0. .27044 -0. 14094 0. 38221 0, . 17470 -0. 07068 0. 20822 0. .47172 -0. 07867 0. 36974 1, .00000 -0. 05662 0. 19182 -0. .05662 1. OOOOO -0. 17931 0. . 19182 -0. 17931 1 . OOOOO 0. .22399 -0. 19365 0. 4431 1 0. .35926 -0. 23182 0. 40062 0. .40763 -0. 09552 0. 40627 0. .48739 -0. 0454 1 0. 46418 0. .21751 -0. 19855 0. 27808 0. .14310 0. 02550 0. 26056 0. ,02353 -0. 23373 0. 42595 0. .17650 -0. 19334 0. 36307 0. .27922 -0. 10620 0. 06178 0. .04807 -0. 24663 0. 4 1457 0. .28701 -0. 20538 0. 32333 0. ,09380 -0. 16242 0. 23361 0. .15227 -0. 1 1032 0. 19206 6. ,21417 -0. 1 1685 0. 31425 0. .27834 -0. 18648 0. 57886 0. .10708 -o. 44549 0. 21505 0. .24678 -0. 25779 0. 20593 0. .26647 -0. 04309 0. 16421 0. .06250 0. 06169 -o. 07212 0. .07066 -0. 33972 0. 39884 0. .05851 -0. •26923 0. 30104 0. . 15303 -o, 13618 0. 50918 W58 W59 W60 0. 23881 0. 22172 0. .27518 0. 42182 0. 32889 0. .21295 0. 26117 0. 44925 0. .45398 0. 05086 0. 09919 0. . 13287 0. 22690 0. 17248 0. . 38273 0. 28404 0. 26842 0. .100O7 0. 38355 0. 49728 0, .45596 0. 21989 0. 28280 0. .32731 0. 35273 0. 20845 0, . 1671 1 0. 31922 0. 48772 0. .44943 0. 22399 0. 35926 0. .40763 -0. 19365 -0. 23182. -0. .09552 0. 4431 1 0. 40062 o: 140627 1. OOOOO 0. 38692 0. .27076 0. 38692 1 i OOOOO 0. .521 17 0. 27076 0. 521 17 i . OOOOO 0. 36267 0. 53309 0. .59444 0. 40526 0. 30812 0. ,16601 0. 22740 0. 18470 0. , 24663 0. 33433 0. 21715 0. 07014 0. 33959 0. 24094 0. .22388 0. 30631 0. 29607 0. ,25781 0. 49161 0. 21790 0. 17 102 0. 41651 0. 28432 0. 09459 0. 22460 0. 29936 0. 1 1845 0. 27557 0. 25097 0. 20384 0. 36679 0. 38330 0. 24003 0. 35543 0. 33837 0. 33378 0. 28589 0. 31738 0. 25685 0. 26049 0. 32788 0. 20905 0. 1 1901 0. 26247 0. 31562 0. 06482 0. 09763 0. 19509 0. 49836 0. 25169 0. 12481 0. 27984 0. 23600 0. 16304 0. 37857 0. 22120 0. 27436 to Cs Ul T H E U S - A N A L Y S E S - 8 R t A K O O V / N O F V A R I A B L E S W 6 1 W " W63 W64 wt wo c l. 3 9 1 3 t C 1. 1 4 7 0 3 C >. 1 9 5 8 1 0 10P4 n U l 0 1 . 2 6 3 0 3 C 1. 2 7 4 9 4 C ) . 2 6 6 9 9 o i y o i o Ofi 41 1 w J U A 0 ' . 1 3 3 18 0 ' . 0 9 9 5 6 C 1. 1 1 8 0 9 • \J\> <4 J I W ** L/C 0 . 4 3 2 0 3 . 0 . 3 0 5 9 4 C 1. 1 5 0 7 8 \j o . * H j y ^ 1 0 ti"\R W 3 L / C 0 . 2 9 6 9 8 0 . 1 7 1 8 6 C > . 0 8 4 16 o * 1 -t I U 3 C\7CA 1 w o W7 - 0 . 1 4 2 1 3 0 . 0 5 9 5 6 0 1 . 0 6 0 5 9 -o • \J i o ** / . 0 9 7 5 0 W8 0 . 2 7 4 4 1 0 . 3 6 6 7 2 0 ' . 1 2 2 8 3 o WQ 0 . 3 1 2 0 5 0 . 2 7 0 2 0 0 . 1 3 2 5 1 o . ** J O O / 1 74 1*1 u i n 0 - 4 0 0 1 2 0 . 3 6 8 8 3 0 . 17 1 6 2 o • i ' i j j ( C O « / • w i y W 1 1 0 . 4 3 8 1 2 0 . 2 2 2 0 0 0 . 1 1 9 19 o • i 3 a i o 1 4 A o o W 1 1 w 1 o 0 . 3 8 3 3 0 0 . 0 3 4 9 7 0 . 0 5 5 16 o • 1 l •* <c / 1 t oo O W 1 Z u i i 0 . 3 9 5 0 7 0 . 2 8 2 2 3 0 . 1 1 2 9 7 • • i\J*a T o A a a « 1 J W 1 4 0 . 2 3 0 7 4 0 . 2 7 1 6 4 0 . 0 9 6 3 0 o H77Q 1 W 1 5 0 . 2 3 9 5 2 0 . 3 3 3 1 0 0 . 2 4 4 3 5 0 orvn7c W 1 6 0 . 2 5 4 1 9 0 . 0 6 7 5 3 0 . 1 9 0 7 5 • i o i c o o o W 1 7 0 . 2 3 5 2 1 0 . 3 1 3 9 7 0 . 1 8 4 4 7 o. • l b ^ o 2 17fi*J"? U 1 0 0 . 2 1 2 0 1 0 . 2 4 0 5 8 0 . 2 3 8 1 7 0 R f t l 4 W 1 o W 19 0 . 2 1 6 5 8 0 . 2 7 4 6 3 0 . 1 2 4 0 1 0 . ^DUJ 1 OS 1 RQ WOO 0 . . 2 3 7 5 6 0 , . 3 5 9 1 8 0 . 1 7 6 6 4 o t J IDS CifK ATA V2 1 0 . . 5 0 2 0 9 0 . . 2 0 0 3 6 0 . 0 8 3 5 5 o. V/O 1*1 i A m r i woo 0 . 2 7 3 6 0 0 . 0 6 7 2 2 - 0 . 0 2 9 2 6 r\ * o u j y A C "TOO W ^ ^ W O T 0 . 2 2 0 5 1 0 . 2 9 3 9 7 0 . 0 8 1 5 4 \J . n u o / o 2 w A J W2 4 0 . 4 2 1 5 3 0 . 2 9 7 12 0 , . 1 3 0 6 0 \j. 0 U / / 3 3 18738 W2 5 0 . 3 6 7 2 2 0 . 4 1 4 5 5 0 . 1 9 9 7 6 o, o 7 o o o woe 0 . 2 9 1 0 6 0 . 1 2 8 6 4 0 . 2 1 3 6 8 0 < ' J o z 0.4/17Q w * o y 2 7 0 . 2 8 4 7 0 0 . 2 5 3 3 0 0 . 1 6 7 7 9 o 4 fine; WO ft 0 . 3 1 1 7 5 0 . 1 9 0 7 6 0 . 0 2 5 5 2 o i 10*17 w * o WOQ 0 . 1 9 0 6 6 0 . 4 0 5 8 6 0 . 1 5 4 2 5 o l U g / 1 A O C A ™ * 3 U 1 A 0 . 3 6 0 7 2 0 . 3 6 2 19 0 . 1 2 8 8 7 J V O D U A O O A 1 w j y W3 1 0 . 2 7 4 5 8 0 . 2 0 1 0 9 0 . 3 0 5 4 0 u. 0 U234 2 woo 0 . 2 5 8 3 8 0 . 2 7 8 6 8 0 . 1 2 8 1 5 W O O 0 . 3 0 8 6 4 0 . 3 5 6 1 5 0 . 2 5 9 5 7 u. 33529 O C K A A W J J W34 0 . 2 6 0 6 2 0 . 1 8 2 0 0 0 . 1 5 8 5 1 \j. 0 10 1^7 L / T C 0 . 2 8 1 3 6 0 . 2 0 5 0 2 0 . 13 1 8 6 0 : • *. 1 3 I OR O 1 o " J J 0 . 2 6 4 1 5 0 . 2 3 8 6 8 0 . 1 4 3 4 9 0 . : j f i n ^ Q " J O WT7 0 . 2 6 1 7 7 0 . 2 1 3 2 6 0 . 3 2 0 8 2 0 . 1 7Q 1 0 w O / W38 0 . 2 3 3 5 8 O J 0 7 4 3 7 0 . 1 7 8 0 3 o.: 29654 O.i 0 7 2 0 4 0 . 2 4 7 4 5 0 . 0 8 6 8 6 w j y W40 0 . 4 6 1 5 5 0 . 18 1 3 2 0 . 1 1 5 2 1 \J. o i b b /2 1 f!0fi7 0 . 2 2 2 3 6 0 . 2 1 5 2 8 0 . 2 4 5 4 7 n t * v/*© / \*\A O C yj A *j 0 . 1 6 4 6 8 0 . : 2 2 5 4 8 0 . 0 1 2 7 7 V . V O ' ; J*» J o Llvl O 0 . 1 7 7 2 4 O . l 3 8 9 5 2 0 . ' 0 5 1 4 7 \J . 4 Ct • 1 m c e W*4 J o.: 3 6 4 3 9 0 . 1 4 7 4 4 O.i 0 0 6 7 9 r> ' • U J 3 3 > O A r t l W4 4 0 . 1 5 0 1 0 o.: 2 7 6 7 6 0 . 1 4 8 8 8 0 . 1 1 7 7 3 7 12/08/82 PAGE 20 W65 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. 22750 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*. 02972 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 W68 0. 26890 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 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 . 0 7 0 3 8 0 . 0 9 5 2 1 0 . 0 8 6 4 4 0 . 14798 0 . 14393 - 0 . 0 8 3 6 2 0 . 18954 0 . 1 5 2 0 2 0 . 2 1 2 7 4 0 . 0 1 5 0 3 0 . 1 0 4 7 3 O , 1 0 3 5 2 0 .231 .21 0 . 2 2 5 0 9 0 . 0 2 5 4 6 0 . 1 2 4 8 4 0 . 0 9 7 4 1 0 . 1 8 6 9 6 0 . 0 8 4 4 6 0 .1 0 6 8 5 0 . 2 7 7 17 0 . 3 1 7 8 0 0 . 1 0 6 7 4 0 . 4 1 6 0 0 - 0 . 0 1 7 9 2 0. 13835 0 . 1 5 7 0 0 0 . 2 7 9 5 0 0 . 3 3 5 2 9 0 . 1 0 4 9 9 0 . 2 5 6 7 0 0 . 2 1 3 3 6 0 . 0 8 1 5 2 0 . 2 0 9 5 7 0 . 2 2 6 6 0 0 . 2 1 143 0. 1 1 3 2 8 0 . 1 8 6 6 3 0 . 0 8 7 1 3 0. 19494 0 . 2 4 3 8 2 M 0 . 19246 % 0 . 3 1 9 3 4 0 . 1 0 5 2 4 THESIS ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE « 12/08/82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY 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 W6 t W62 W63 W64 0 .45401 0 .30548 0. ,07376 0 .10323 0 . 24536 0 .27964 0. ,35864 0 .22296 0 .51257 0. .23659 0. ,20294 0 . 18861 0 .03312 0. .00027 0. ,21918 0 .08990 0 .21096 0. .23103 0. , 1 1892 0 .11131 0 .17631 0 .23153 0. .10975 0 .23561 0 .57176 0. . 25264 0. . 12399 0 . 33530 0. .33510 0. .32667 0. , 1543 1 0 .41260 0, . 15959 0. . 4 1452 0. , 17608 0 .05985 0, .53564 0. . 26668 0. 17525 0, .10409 0, . 48739 0. .21751 0. 143 10 0, .02353 -0. .04541 -0. . 19855 0. 02550 -0, .23373 0. .464 18 0. .27808 0. 26056 0, .42595 0. ,36267 0. ,40526 0. 22740 0, .33433 0. .53309 0. ,308 12 0. 18470 0, .2 17 15 0, .59444 0. ,16601 0. 24663 0, .07014 1, .00000 0. 32281 0. 18701 0, .26939 0, , 3228 1 1. OOOOO 0. 24759 0. .26984 0. .18701 0. 24759 1 . OOOOO 0. .08172 0. . 26939 0. 26984 0. 08 172 1. OOOOO 0. . 19254 0. 07 135 0. 25023 0. ,52095 0. 13919 0. 18594 0. 0024 5 -0. 07029 0. 13945 0. 36800 0. 27974 0. 40206 0. 24977 0. 29765 0. 14870 0. 14604 0. 16919 0. 21730 0. 14283 0. 26664 0. 18507 0. 27488 0. 09313 0. 16680 0. 274 14 0. 27728 0. 082 13 0. 18530 0. 33573 0. 4 1733 0. 22891 0. 25415 0. 17 169 0. 27 137 0. 29998 0. 21022 0. 33355 0. 25607 0. 05894 0. 23737 0. 33565 0. 19506 0. 14773 -0. 07504 0. 14752 0. 08610 -0. 09855 -0. 03496 0. 25862 0. 46447 0. 25472 0. 40086 0. 08829 0. 35570 -0. 01 140 0. 14671 0. 23518 0. 35125 0. 2283 1 0. 33903 12/0S/82 PAGE 21 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 VARIABLES F I L E NONAME (CREATION DATE * 12 /08 /82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY W7 1 W72 W73 W74 W1 0. 14 117 0. 26828 0. 1 1362 0. 27785 W2 0. 2204 1 0 . 25686 0. 18504 O. 1 1078 W3 0. 14264 0. 24477 0. 04025 0. 07314 W4 0. 35496 0. 24626 0. 1273 1 0. 13026 W5 0. 20400 0. 1626 1 0. 14204 0. 3037 1 W6 0. 01037 - 0 . 23203 - 0 . 05822 - 0 . 07883 W7 0. 28356 0. 25447 0. 16739 0. 24802 W8 0. 25725 0. 2 1353 0. 15635 0. 22890 W9 0. 3401 1 0 . 30656 0. 18635 0. 30250 W10 0. 2 14 18 0. 18701 0. 10825 0. 20932 W1 1 0 . 25616 0. 18813 0. 09127 0. 07973 W12 0. 26659 0. 2 1995 0. 15459 0. 25191 W13 0. 32784 0. 24354 0. 23948 0. 04638 W14 0. 24976 0. 19225 0. ,28296 0. ,08863 W 15 0. 04395 0. 10255 0. 156 19 0. .19686 W 16 0. 22277 0. 25557 0. .17300 0. 2 1 165 W17 0. 201 19 0. 35295 0. 3094 1 0. 03239 W18 0. 30987 0. ,34541 0. .33240 0. 13100 W19 0. 27699 0. 26314 0. ,19018 0. 24363 W20 0. 27545 0. ,29576 0. , 19337 0. 20929 W2 1 0. 21266 0. 16252' 0. ,09285 0. 03397 W22 0. 34984 0. 2 1 174 0. ,08510 0. 18876 W23 0. 22732 0. 276 10 0. .05773 0. 26466 W24 0. 4 1649 0. 31521 0. 38 164 0. 19205 W25 0. 16607 0. 39742 0. , 12893 0. 22458 W26 0. 2 1407 0. 2 1 120 0. , 16995 0. 27462 W27 0. 15244 0. 1 1522 0. ,09623 0. 30781 W28 0. 25334 0. 22289 0. 31405 0. 10539 W29 0. 26506 0. 26859 0. , 15539 0. 13266 W30 0. 24581 0. 34318 0. , 22772 0. 17 129 W3 1 0. 36261 0. 23528 0. ,20343 0. , 20402 W32 0. , 33426 0. 37951 0. ,26297 0. 25833 W33 0. .07768 0. 29 103 0. ,12733 0. ,10934 W34 0. .22823 0. 1968 1 0. ,15137 0. 19573 W35 0. .20635 0. 167 19 0. ,09765 0. .33299 W36 0. .20515 0. ,1749 1 0, ,34 176 0. ,12597 W37 0. .14024 0. , 22456 0. .19064 0, .20621 W38 0. ,16815 0. , 29349 0, .27808 0, , 1 1365 W39 0. ,10897 0. ,35664 0 .22499 0, .14295 W40 0. ,24600 0. ,24201 0 .30413 0, .23317 W4 1 0. .39436 0. .13 146 0 .18930 0 .09946 W4 2 0 .24619 0. .29070 0 .20689 0 .08390 W43 0 .38136 0. . 12240 0 .27334 0, .22479 W44 0 .20259 0, .10483 0 .09656 - 0 , .00599 12/08/82 PAGE 22 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 .04 148 - 0 . 0 1 8 2 9 0 .03029 0 .15048 0 .15884 0 .44879 0 .16854 0 . 1 1472 0 .20448 0 .04444 - 0 . 0 1 9 7 9 W76 0 .06200 -0 .02592 -0 .05301 0 . 0 5 2 8 5 0 .10258 -0 .02264 -0 .13193 -0 .02537 0 . 0 3 3 5 7 0 .0453 1 - 0 . 0 5 1 1 0 -0 .01653 0 .07334 0 .07551 -O.10589 - O . 17948 - 0 . 18528 - 0 . 0 3 6 6 8 -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 . 0 2 5 8 7 0 .02800 0. 05732 - 0 . 0 5 5 3 9 - 0 . 0 5 9 0 0 -0 .00564 0 .07148 0 . 0 7 6 3 5 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 .14 14 1 0 .23010 0 .10426 0 . 15386 0 .26765 0 .37103 0 .33545 - 0 . 0 6 9 7 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 . 1 4 2 7 0 0 .09135 - 0 . 1 1 7 0 0 0 .26620 0 .08824 0 .22231 0 .20842 0 .04219 0 . 2 6 3 7 0 0 .1174 1 0 .17202 0 .20373 0 .38837 0 .38818 0 . 2 7 9 9 0 0 .35013 0 .21899 -0 .O1888 O.16524 0 .2731 1 0 .28305 0 .51076 0 .37737 0 .16152 0 .22046 0 .00494 0 . 3 3 2 9 0 0 .26509 0 .45631 0 .28937 0 .22426 O . 194 16 0 .25088 0 .33146 0 .37489 0 . 2 3 1 0 0 0 .30615 0 .291 19 0 .22049 0 .18035 0 .21587 THESIS ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE * 12/08/82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY W7I W72 W73 W74 W 4 5 0 . 3 6 4 6 6 0 . 2 0 4 3 7 0 . 0 9 5 5 3 0 . 2 9 2 3 7 W46 0 . 2 3 6 17 0 . 3 2 8 8 4 0 . 2 9 7 4 5 0 . 3 0 8 7 2 W 4 7 0 . 2 4 7 4 6 0 . 3 5 4 9 7 0 . 2 0 6 1 5 0 . 2 0 9 5 1 W 4 8 0 . 0 5 9 14 0 . 0 7 6 2 0 - 0 . 0 7 7 4 5 0 . 0 0 0 5 9 W 4 9 0 . 0 8 7 4 4 0 . 303 1 1 0 . 2 3 6 0 9 0 . 1 5 4 7 7 W 5 0 0 . 3 9 2 8 2 0 . 0 8 7 1 1 0 . 2 2 9 18 0 . 2 0 6 7 8 W5 1 0 . 3 4 4 1 1 0 . 2 9 4 2 6 0 . 1 8 6 9 6 0 . 3 8 0 9 1 W52 0 . 0 5 7 7 1 0 . 3 7 2 19 0 . 1 0 0 2 7 0 . 1 6 9 3 4 W 5 3 0 . 2 2 9 1 4 0 . 2 7 8 2 8 0 . 2 5 6 7 8 0 . 1 6 0 4 1 W54 0 . 23233 0 . 3 4 9 6 2 0 . 18 1 1 7 0 . 1 6 1 0 2 W 5 5 0 . 2 14 17 0 . 2 7 8 3 4 0 . 1 0 7 0 8 0 . 2 4 6 7 8 W 5 6 - 0 . 1 1 6 8 5 - 0 . 1 8 6 4 8 - 0 . 4 4 5 4 9 - 0 . 2 5 7 7 9 W57 0 . 3 1 4 2 5 0 . 5 7 8 8 6 0 . 2 1 5 0 5 0 . 2 0 5 9 3 W58 0 . 3 6 6 7 9 0 . 3 5 5 4 3 0 . 2 8 5 8 9 0 . 2 6 0 4 9 W 5 9 0 . 3 8 3 3 0 0 . 3 3 8 3 7 0 . 3 1 7 3 8 0 . 3 2 7 8 8 W60 0 . 2 4 0 0 3 0 . 3 3 3 7 8 0 . 2 5 6 8 5 0 . 2 0 9 0 5 WG 1 0 . 2 7 4 14 0 . 3 3 5 7 3 0 . 17 1 6 9 0 , 33355 W62 0 . 2 7 7 2 8 0 . 4 1 7 3 3 0 . ,271 3 7 0 . 2 5 6 0 7 WG3 0 . 082 13 0 . . 2 2 8 9 1 0 . , 2 9 9 9 8 0 . 0 5 8 9 4 W64 0 . 1 8 5 3 0 0 . 2 5 4 15 0 . , 2 1 0 2 2 O. 2 3 7 3 7 W 6 5 0 . 14 1 2 7 0 . 2 3 4 7 1 0 . 3 5 4 8 3 0 , 1 4 8 5 2 W66 0 . 2 6 1 4 5 0 . 13 1 9 4 0 . 13 1 3 7 0 . , 2 0 2 1 7 W67 0 . • 2 5 4 9 0 . 2 2 9 0 9 0 . 4 6 0 9 0 0 . 1 2 6 0 6 W 6 8 0 . 3 4 3 0 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 2 0 . 2 4 9 4 3 0 . 2 5 3 2 4 W 6 9 0 . 3 6 4 1 1 0 . . 1 5 7 8 0 0 . 3 7 5 0 2 - 0 , , 0 2 5 5 4 W 7 0 0 . . 4 9 9 6 1 0 . . 2 2 1 14 0 . , 2 9 7 1 0 0 . , 0 8 1 6 5 W7 1 1, OOOOO 0 . , 2 7 1 4 1 0 , , 2 5 7 0 3 0 , 2 2 7 9 8 W72 0 . . 2 7 1 4 1 1. .00000 0 , , 2 3 6 4 9 0 , . 1 7 7 7 0 W 7 3 0 . . 2 5 7 0 3 0 . . 2 3 6 4 9 1, ,OOOOO 0 , 1 1 2 11 W74 0 . . 2 2 7 9 8 0 . . 1 7 7 7 0 0 , , 1 1 2 11 1. . OOOOO W 7 5 0 . . 1 4 3 4 4 0 . . 1 2 9 4 9 0 , . 0 5 2 0 0 0 , , 2 0 9 9 7 W76 0 , . 1 9 5 9 4 - 0 . . 1 1 8 1 9 0 , , 1 3 0 7 8 0 , . 0 0 7 5 9 W77 0 . 3 2 4 4 0 0 . . 3 2 9 8 6 0 , . 5 5 2 7 2 0 , . 1 9 0 2 8 W 7 8 0 . . 3 2 8 9 4 0 . 2 5 1 5 0 0 , . 2 5 2 6 1 0 , . 1 1 6 4 8 W 7 9 0 . 1 3 5 0 2 0 . 5 5 0 7 7 0 , . 2 1 4 8 9 0 , . 3 2 2 8 3 12/08/32 PAGE 23 W75 W76 W77 W78 W79 0. 334 17 0. 1 1530 0. 14 118 0. 24077 0. 22967 0. 14092 -0. 12446 0. 36849 0. 1 1 190 0. 46622 0. 1 1896 0. 00502 0. 28424 0. 08259 0. 28835 0. 07909 0. 05888 -0. 06538 -0. 00200 0. 23097 0. 21656 0. , 14978 0. , 10217 0. 13223 0. 35866 0. 02473 0. ,32019 0. 32519 0. 30788 0. 17873 0. 28273 0. , 16855 0. ,30610 0. 06952 0. 3376 1 0. 071 14 -0. , 12265 0. , 14770 0. 1 1510 0. 34627 0. 01542 0. , 17373 0. ,43975 0. 26578 0. .26196 0. 33548 0. ,02190 0. . 16644 0. 21817 0. ,24191 0. ,26647 0. ,06250 0. ,07066 0. 05851 0. , 15303 0. ,04309 0. ,06169 -0. ,33972 -0. 26923 -0. . 13618 0. , 1642 1 -0. ,07212 0. . 39884 0. 30104 0. , 50918 -0. , 1 1901 0. .06482 0. ,49836 0. 27984 0. , 37857 0. , 26247 0. ,09763 0. 25169 0. 23600 O. ,22 120 0. , 3 1562 0 .19509 0. , 1248 1 0. 16304 0, , 27436 0. , 33565 0 .14752 0. , 25862 0. 08829 0. ,23518 0. ,19506 0. .08610 0. ,46447 0. 35570 0. ,35125 0. , 14773 -0. .09855 0. ,25472 -0. 01 140 0. 22831 0. ,07504 -0. .03496 0. .40086 0. 1467 1 0. ,33903 •0. ,07256 0. .04484 0. .43027 0. 07 166 0. 35648 0. ,07464 0, .31234 0. ,18091 0. 30584 0. 18368 0. ,07826 0. ,02447 0. .62009 0. 32383 0. 28763 0. . 14722 0, .08866 0. ,35369 0. 32467 0. . 26742 0. ,09781 0, , 2242 1 0. .35840 0. 30766 0. ,09567 0. .006 18 0, .2602 1 0. .29249 0. 24003 0. ,06993 0. , 14344 0, .19594 0. .32440 0. 32894 0. , 13502 0. .12949 -0, . 1 1819 0. .32986 0. 25150 0. .55077 0 .05200 0 .13078 0. .55272 0. 25261 0. . 2 1489 0. .20997 0, .00759 0. .19028 0. 1 1648 0. .32283 1. .00000 0, .09305 -0. .05307 0. 19862 0. ,10086 0, .09305 1 .OOOOO 0. .06652 0. 02856 -0. .04519 •0 .05307 0 .06652 1, .00000 0. 36989 0. ,34570 0, .19862 0.O2856 0, .36989 1. OOOOO 0. . 26599 0 .10086 -o, .04519 0. .34570 0. 26599 1. OOOOO THESIS ANALYSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES f*/uS/S2 P A G E 28 FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE - 12/08/82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 * W 1 0 .32368 -0. .00502 W2 0 . 36057. 0, .11353 W3 0 .14 205 0. .097 1 1 W4 0 .66270 0. .17053 W5 0 .35855 0, .10523 W6 -0 .05173 -0, .17126 W7 0 16012 0. .06608 W8 0 .22948 0, .20318 W9 0 .47569 0. .20591 W10 0 .65947 -0. ,04673 W1 1 0. .7 1242 0. .08067 W12 0. .48578 0. , 12656 W13 0 .223 14 0. .64397 W 14 0 .16 16 1 0. 47156 W15 0 .24090 -0. . 24996 W 16 0. .04496 0. . 1 1540 W17 0. . 1 1744 0. ,30635 W18 0. .2149 1 0. ,39965 W19 0. ,10743 0. 25452 W20 0. . 75297 0. 07735 W2 1 0. .65360 0. 15850 W22 0. 27222 0. 4 1513 W23 0. , 27252 -0. 03374 W24 0. . 16246 0. 62495 W25 0. . 197 18 -0. 15103 W26 -o. .01601 0. 23388 W27 0. ,20663 0. 15836 W28 -0. 02732 0. 4962 1 W29 0. 55259 0. 17992 W30 0. , 15922 0. 14946 W3 1 0. 1 1724 0. 36644 W32 0. 15092 0. 35175 W33 0. 09805 0. 14490 W34 0. 14930 0. 25288 W35 0. 07998 0. 20814 W36 0. 01743 0. 24 103 W37 0. 274 18 -0. 01525 W38 0. 04984 0. 37606 W39 0. 68229 0. 09389 W40 -0. 03 153 0. 4 2 209 W4 1 0. 0982 1 0. 52608 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 0, .09930 0 .30320 0 . 18316 0. . 272 12 0 .05335 -0 .00867 0 .45 119 -0 .03205 0 .02570 0, ,06666 0 .03 1 12 0 .06271 0, ,14071 -0, .09657 0 .40220 -0, .00416 -o, .21530 0 .21236 0, .74979 0, .04898 0 .05150 0, ,52896 -0, .09061 0, . 17931 0. , 2484 1 -0, .01545 0 .22249 0. ,09722 0, .09714 * 0 .108 10 0, , 176 18 -0. 07332 -0 .16819 0. ,32282 0, . 12 196 0, .15556 0. .12380 -0, .09279 -0 .08895 0. , 42734 0. ,05125 0, .02446 0. ,34762 0. . 16579 -0 .01047 0, ,70572 0, .21394 0, . 16284 0, ,43284 0, , 26473 -0, .14665 0, .27624 0. 2 1732 -0, .14466 0, ,39309 0, 12049 0. .23327 0. 10420 0. .15091 -0. .04606 0. ,03578 -O. , 1274 1 -0. .09694 0. 23246 -0. 02390 0. .07875 0. 24208 0. 19839 0. .50004 0. .25056 0. 10428 0. ,07596 0. 46707 0. 54421 0. .06889 0. ,57506 0. 17733 0. ,32793 -0. ,03744 0. ,08773 0. ,48282 0. 46743 0, 01626 0. ,1054 1 0. 03775 -0. 04994 0. , 15697 0. 62151 0. 38596 -0. , 1834 1 0. ,47995 0. 2 1638 -0. 01 107 0. ,4223 1 0. 44921 0. ,06879 0. 19644 0. 36622 0. .08896 0. 44204 0. 09182 0. , 15809 0. 432 17 -0. 034 12 0. ,56082 0. 4 1705 0. 18142 0. 04008 0. 46539 0. 2 1654 0. 18825 0. 107 14 0. 42791 -0. 04258 0. 01 100 0. 257 1 1 0. 09892 0. 1862.1 0. 37512 0. 28582 0. 157 17 0. 06803 0. 14840 O r d e r i n g o f v a r i a b l e s c o r r e s p o n d s t o l i s t i n T a b l e I I I . THESIS A'tiALSSES - BREAKDOWN OF VARIABLES FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE • 12/08/82) SUBFILE YOUNG MIDAGED ELDERLY FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 W42 0. 25984 0. 42454 -0. 065 1 1 0. 20433 -0. 04902 W43 0. 3 1773 0. 31919 0. 28682 0. 00925 0. 17451 W44 -0. 14001 0. 50687 -0. 1055 1 0. 25434 0. 16983 W45 0. 47747 0. 06200 0. 14865 . 0. 16282 0. 47339 W46 0. 09578 0. 19783 0. 37875 0. 504 28 0. 20509 W47 0. 49487 0. 10377 0. 269G5 0. 33384 0. 08890 W48 0. 1 34 1 1 -0. 16352 -0. 07090 0. 4 19 18 -0. 01616 W49 0. 16666 0. 16249 -0. 08032 0. 58?67 0. 09503 W50 0. 05 147 0. 52019 0. 06804 -0. 05484 0. 34029 W5 1 0. 42257 0. 1 1825 0. 27230 0. 32'870 0. 30738 W52 0. 22092 -0. 04925 0. 37020 0. 42253 0. 04 168 W53 -0. 05791 0. 47542 0. 04675 0. 33720 0. 2 1003 W54 0. 70949 0. 09631 0. 10160 0. 23449 0. 05938 W55 0. 49470 0. 10865 -0. 01953 0. 28577 6. 25529 W5G -0. 0248 1 -0. 23782 -0. 28691 -0. 03219 0. 00176 W57 0. 32235 0. 2 1088 0. 40889 0. 52916 -0. 06455 W58 0. 13026 0. 45453 0. 396 18 0. 23635 0. 29130 W59 0. 57 167 0. 28007 0. 19554 0. 17359 0. 09578 W60 0. 58628 0. 1 1349 -0. 05208 0. 4 1302 0. . 12924 W6 1 0. 60837 0. 1 1439 0. 18638 0. 24505 0. ,30152 W62 0. 17093 0. 40425 0. 23709 0. 17877 0. . 25688 W63 0. 0664 1 0. .10037 0. 20050 0. 36600 0. ,00661 W64 0. 01 155 0, 14669 0. .51963 0. 23401 0. .03212 WS5 -0. 00152 0, ,21345 0, , 3 1647 0. ,4 1798 0 .04413 W66 0. 13 177 0. . 44444 -0. .22300 0. .04465 0 .41089 W6 7 -0, .09472 0 .58926 0. .41338 0. .22345 -0 .01986 W68 0 . 1967 1 0 .52028 0 .1936G 0. .17 17 1 0 .05688 W69 0. .05361 0 .60517 0 .04389 0 .07199 -0 .02383 W70 0 .15707 0 .52959 0 .07470 -0 .03964 0 .08526 W7 1 0 .31254 0 .51256 0 . 17697 -0 .03447 0 . 16747 W72 0 .29578 0 .23753 0 . 2 1378 0 .49639 -0 .056 1 1 W73 0 .09795 0 .48777 0 .16454 0 .22997 -0 .08450 W74 0 . 17437 0 .02422 0 .22908 0 . 1643 1 0 .521 1 1 W75 0 . 48967 -0 .00104 -0 . 1474 1 0 . 17875 0 . 19881 W76 0 .06473 0 .31567 -0 .38528 -0 .03728 0 .35156 W77 -0 .07127 0 .60739 0 .40866 0 .22548 0 .08948 W7 8 0 .19033 o .562 19 0 .080G0 0 .05649 -0 .00344 W79 0 .04930 0 .15450 0 .26745 0 .66820 0 . 16239 12/08/82 PAGE APPENDIX D ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES STUDY I I I ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES NOVEL VS. ACQUISITION ITEMS - ALL CHARACTERS CHARACTER SOURCE SS DF MS F P S ( W i t h i n ) 16. 618 37 .449 WISE Item Type Item Type X S(Withii^) 18. 1-2. 257 058 1 37 18 .257 .326 56.022 <.001 S ( W i t h i n ) 14. 211 37 .384 WISE - CONTROL Item Type Item Type X S ( W i t h i n ) 44. 10. 390 620 1 37 44 .390 .282 154.661 <.001 S ( W i t h i n ) 14. 375 37 SHREWD Item Type Item Type X S ( W i t h i n ) 35. 11. 021 059 1 37 35 .021 .311 112.589 <.001 S ( W i t h i n ) 13 653 37 .369 SHREWD-CONTROL Item Type Item Type X S ( W i t h i n ) 29 13 376 711 1 37 29 .376 .371 79.273 <r.ooi ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES THREE LEVELS OF PROTOTYPICALITY - ALL SUBJECTS CHARACTER SOURCE SS DF MS F P S ( W i t h i n ) 44 .514 37 1 203 WISE Item Type Item Type X S ( W i t h i n ) 6 19 .584 .804 2 74 3 392 268 12.301 <.001 S ( W i t h i n ) 20 .385 37 .551 * WISE - CONTROL Item Type Item Type X S ( W i t h i n ) 2 14 .896 .064 2 74 1 .448 .190 7.618 < .001 S ( W i t h i n ) 17 .938 37 .485 SHREWD Item Type Item Type X S ( W i t h i n ) 3 16 .704 .188 2 74 1 .852 .219 8.466 <.001 S ( W i t h i n ) 32 .865 37 .888 SHREWD - CONTROL Item Type Item Type X S ( W i t h i n ) 6 15 .812 .355 2 74 3 .406 .208 16.415 c . o o i ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES PROTOTOTYPICAL VS. NON-PROTOTYPICAL ITEMS - ALL CHARACTERS CHARACTER SOURCE MS DF SS F P WISE S ( W i t h i n ) Item Type Item Type X S ( W i t h i n ^ 29.644 3.386 8.012 37 1 37 .801 3.386 .219 15. 465 001 WISE - CONTROL S ( W i t h i n ) Item Type Item Type X S ( W i t h i n ) 14.915 .238 3.622 37 1 37 .403 .238 .018 2. 429 - 128 SHREWD , * S ( W i t h i n ) Item Type Item Type X S ( W i t h i n ) 13.977 2.056 8.015 37 1 37 .378 2.056 .219 9. 398 < .004 SHREWD - CONTROL S( W i t h i n ) Item Type Item Type X S ( W i t h i n ) 21.042 3.916 5.960 37 1 37 .569 3.916 .161 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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095866/manifest

Comment

Related Items