背景中的智慧

原文作者 Igor Grossmann 单位 University of Waterloo

摘要：哲学家和心理学家一致认为，智慧包含了思维的某些方面（例如：智性谦逊性、对不确定性和变化的认知、对更广泛的已知背景和他人观点的思考、统合观点或做出让步）使得知识能够应用于生活挑战。那么这些明智的思考是如何通过人们在生活中遇到的情况而改变的？经验性的证据显示，人们明智的思维能力会在他们一生中不同的经验背景下有着巨大的变化。并且，明智的思维在不同情境下表现不同，在自我中心的背景下明智的思维会被抑制。实验展示了当不能避免自身利益的情况下，个体会减少具有偏见的推理。具体说，就是一个自我中心的认知倾向能够使人更明智的思考对个体有意义的问题。经验、情境和文化因素对塑造智慧呈现出的影响比先前想象的更为显著。关注这些背景因素可以使我们对潜在的智慧思维及其发展有更新的认识，有助于整合智慧研究的不同方法，并且影响测量及开发增强智慧的干预手段。

关键词：智慧；推理；自我；社会冲突；成年发展；文化

背景中的智慧

数千年来，智慧一直被认为是人类最珍视的品质之一(Lambert, 1960)。智慧的概念在教育和理解个人发展中扮演了中心角色。例如，美国教育部将智慧作为“品格教育”的中心目标，为州和地方教育机构提供资金去实现这一目标(U.S. Department of Education, 2005)。智慧也在无数流行的科学书籍中扮演了中心角色，这些书籍声称能深入了解这种神秘、珍贵的品质。尽管科学家长期以来对此一直抱有热忱，但最近他们才开始评估背景因素是如何影响智慧思维的可塑性 (Staudinger amp; Gluuml;ck, 2011)。本篇综述利用从最近的实验、日记研究和跨文化调查重的证据来探讨这些因素。总之，这一证据表明，对于背景的关注有助于智慧心理学的进步，以及以经验为基础的开发手段，去促进在学校、工作环境和日常生活中与智慧相关的过程

背景的意义

背景因素在对于许多方面的理解都扮演着重要的角色，例如在理解认知(e.g., Neisser, 1982; Yeh amp; Barsalou, 2006)、理解文化(e.g., Markus amp; Kitayama, 1991; Oishi amp; Graham, 2010; Shweder amp; Sullivan, 1993)、理解发展(Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Vygotsky, 1960)、理解社会现象(e.g., Lewin, 1936; E. R. Smith amp; Semin, 2007)。例如经验环境可以通过与年龄相关的经验或在学校或专业环境中特定的社会化经验来影响这个现象。情境背景（例如，任务相关性、压力源、心态）可以解释某些技能或能力是如何转变成可观察到的任务表现的(cf. Sophian, 1997)。此外，在宏观上，文化背景可以提供影响心理特性的意义、功能和表达的标准框架(Grossmann amp; Na, 2014; Kitayama, Mesquita, amp; Karasawa, 2006; Norenzayan amp; Heine, 2005)。值得注意的是，至少从Vygotsky、Lewin、Bronfenbrenner和 Neisser开始，这些背景就被观察到在相互依存的更大的系统框架中存在，也就是情境背景嵌入到经验背景中，并且二者都处于一个更大的社会文化背景下。

早期智慧理论者的大量工作表明，智慧研究可能会同样受益于这种对背景因素的系统性的分析(Baltes amp; Staudinger, 1993; Staudinger, 1996; Staudinger, Kessler, amp; Doerner, 2006)。然而直到近10年，实证主义学术才开始为经验、情境和文化因素在表达智慧中起到的作用提供清晰的洞察力。本文旨在系统地回顾这一实证研究成果，为日常生活中的智慧思维理论、测量方法和提升提供新奇见解。在回顾这一研究前，下一部分将介绍在心理学中对智慧相关特征进行研究所使用的主要研究范式。

世俗观念中的智慧

简而言之，智慧可以是很多事物，从创伤性的生活经验中获取的知识、智慧，到理性(Staudinger amp; Gluuml;ck, 2011)。为了估计人们是如何看待智慧的，学者们首先通过要求个体评估哪些形容词或者短语与智慧有关，来考察民间理论(e.g., Bluck amp; Gluuml;ck, 2005; Clayton amp; Birren, 1980; Holliday amp; Chandler, 1986; Sternberg, 1985)。例如，Sternberg在1985年发现，人们在对于智慧（wisdom）、智力（intelligence）和创造力（creativity，在较小程度上）的直觉存在一些重叠，但也观察到一些差异：富有智慧的人（wise people）被认为和高智力的人（intelligent people）具有同等解决问题和推理的能力；然而，智者（wise people）与睿智这个概念间有独特的联系，即知道何时倾听他人，灵活的与他人打交道，考虑长期和短期的后果。此外，智者被认为是具有反思，有能力在他们的生活环境中整合观点，而富有创造力的人（creative people）则被视为冲动的自由灵魂，他们试图追求别人所认为的不可能事件(Sternberg, 1985)。对于智慧在跨年龄层(e.g., Clayton amp; Birren, 1980)、专业(e.g., Sternberg, 1985)、文化( e.g., Takahashi amp; Bordia, 2000; S.-Y. Yang, 2001; for a review, see Grossmann amp; Kung, in press)、情境(Gluuml;ck, Bluck, Baron, amp; McAdams, 2005)中是如何被定义的，世俗智慧的研究提供了一些可变性。这项研究预示了关于智慧思维表达的背景可变性的争论(也见Staudinger, 1996)。

智慧思维

生活经验往往是不确定的。这些不确定性存在于展望未来时，考虑过去事情发生的原因时，在试图去洞悉此时此地的意外事件时。不同的情境引发不确定性，包括当前和长期利益的冲突，生活中不同个人内部、人际间和/或个人之外（即群体中心）的利益之间的冲突(Gardner, 2007; Sternberg, 1998)，或者道德和职业两难(Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, amp; Damon, 2001)。掌握处理这些不确定性似乎是智慧的一个缩影(e.g., Brugman, 2006; Meacham, 1990)，然而这种优势意味着什么呢？

知识根源。新皮亚杰主义学者(e.g., Basseches, 1980; Kegan, 1982; Kramer, 1983; Labouvie-Vief amp; Blanchard-Fields, 1982; Perry, Jr., 1970; Riegel, 1973; Sinnott, 1989)是第一批探索这个问题的。这些学者的研究涉及复杂的、“定义模糊”的社会情感问题的管理(cf. Schraw, Dunkle, amp; Bendixen, 1995; Vervaeke amp; Ferraro, 2013)，为后续许多的智慧模型提供了基础(e.g., Arlin, 1990, 1993; Kallio, 2015; Kitchener amp; Brenner, 1990; Kramer, 2000; Pascual-Leone, 1990)。根据皮亚杰的观点，发展结束于随着对形式运算掌握（即符号规则和程序，如命题逻辑）的青少年时期 (Inhelder amp; Piaget, 1958)。相比而言，新皮亚杰注意学者认为，形式运算的发展不足以解决成人生活中复杂且“定义模糊”的问题(Schraw et al., 1995)。他们提出了一套可以进一步发展到成年期的“后形式”认知，在对生活事件的看法上从绝对主义信念发展到相对主义观点，以及对不同问题相关关注点的辩证整合(for a review, see Kallio, 2015)。例如，Basseches在1984年制订了一套能够使人过度到辩证认知的包含24个图解的系列，其中包括认识到个人的知识局限，对变化的认识，觉察背景，灵活视角，以及试图整合不同视角。这些元认知策略为社会问题或困境提供了更大的图景，使人们能够应对生活中诱发不确定性的挑战。

与新皮亚杰主义相平行，另一个当代智慧领域的关键知识根源包括Erikson的同一性发展理论(Erikson, 1984)。Erikson将智慧概念化为一种个人成熟的形式，这种成熟形式是从对老年生活的完整性危机（即接受自己的生命历程）与绝望（关于生命历程中未曾体验过的）中的不确定性所掌握的。Erikson和其他类似的精神分析理论(e.g., Jung, 1965)认为，这种自我发展能够超越个人界限的限制，并且整合看似相反的欲望。随后，实证主义学者在测量发展成熟时 (e.g., Ryff amp; Heincke, 1983; Ryff amp; Keyes, 1995)以及与智慧有关的人格特征时(e.g., Helson amp; Wink, 1987; Wink amp; Helson, 1997)都应用了Erikson的观点。需要注意的是，尽管有不同的理论假设，但新皮亚杰主义和自我发展观对于智慧的看法都相当多的共同之处。两种框架都强调对于生活挑战中不确定性的掌控。在两种情况下，这种掌控包含整合看似相反的观点以及认识并超越自我的过程。事实上，一些成人发展模型，如Loevinger的自我发展模型(Hy amp; Loevinger, 2014)，将明确的将目标定于将认知发展的观点同成人成熟的学术结合起来(Staudinger amp; Gluuml;ck, 2011)。

智慧强于知识：当代学术。在真实世界问题的社会情感背景下，新皮亚杰主义和埃里克森派观点出现在一系列当代智慧模型中(e.g., Ardelt, 1997; Baltes amp; Smith, 2008; Clayton, 1982; Mickler amp; Staudinger, 2008; Sternberg, 1998, for reviews, see Bangen et al., 2013; Birren amp; Svensson, 2005)。例如，Baltes 和Staudinger (for reviews, see Baltes amp; Smith, 2008; Baltes amp; Staudinger, 2000)将智慧定义为“处理生活的行为和理解的专家知识系统” (Baltes amp; Smith, 2008, p. 58)。

外文文献出处：Grossmann, I. (2017). Wisdom in context. Perspectives on Psychological Science A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 12(2), 233-257.

附外文文献原文

Wisdom in Context

Igor Grossmann, University of Waterloo

in press in

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

Philosophers and psychological scientists converge on the idea that wisdom involves certain aspects of thinking (e.g., intellectual humility, recognition of uncertainty and change, consideration of the broader context at hand and perspectives of others, integration of these perspectives/compromise) enabling application of knowledge to life challenges. How does wise thinking change across various contexts people encounter in their lives? Empirical evidence indicates that peoplersquo;s ability to think wisely varies dramatically across experiential contexts they encounter over the lifespan. Moreover, wise thinking varies from one situation to another, with self-focused contexts inhibiting wise

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

Wisdom in Context

Igor Grossmann, University of Waterloo

in press in

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

Philosophers and psychological scientists converge on the idea that wisdom involves certain aspects of thinking (e.g., intellectual humility, recognition of uncertainty and change, consideration of the broader context at hand and perspectives of others, integration of these perspectives/compromise) enabling application of knowledge to life challenges. How does wise thinking change across various contexts people encounter in their lives? Empirical evidence indicates that peoplersquo;s ability to think wisely varies dramatically across experiential contexts they encounter over the lifespan. Moreover, wise thinking varies from one situation to another, with self-focused contexts inhibiting wise thinking. Experiments can show ways to buffer reasoning against bias in cases where self-interests are unavoidable. Specifically, an ego-decentering cognitive mindset enables wise thinking about personally meaningful issues. It appears that experiential, situational and cultural factors are even more powerful in shaping wisdom than previously imagined. Focus on such contextual factors can shed new light on the processes underlying wise thought and its development, helps to integrate different approaches to studying wisdom and have implications for measurement and development of wisdom-enhancing interventions.

Keywords: Wisdom, Reasoning, Self, Social conflict, Adult development, Culture

Wisdom in Context

For millennia, wisdom has been considered one of the most cherished human qualities (Lambert, 1960). The notion of wisdom has played a central role in pedagogy and the understanding of individual development. For instance, the U.S. Department of Education refers to wisdom as a central goal of “character education,” providing grants to state and local education agencies to achieve that purpose (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Wisdom has also played a central role in the myriad of popular science books, which claim to provide insight into this mysterious, cherished quality. Despite the long-standing enthusiasm, scientists have only recently begun to evaluate how contextual factors influence the malleability of wise thought (Staudinger amp; Gluuml;ck, 2011). The present review explores these factors, drawing on evidence from recent experiments, diary studies, and cross-cultural investigations. Together, this evidence suggests that attention to context is instrumental for the advancement of psychological wisdom scholarship and development of empirically-grounded interventions aiming to promote wisdom-related processes in schools, work-setting and in daily life.

The Meaning of Context

Contextual factors can play a critical role for understanding of cognitive (e.g., Neisser, 1982; Yeh amp; Barsalou, 2006), cultural (e.g., Markus amp; Kitayama, 1991; Oishi amp; Graham, 2010; Shweder amp; Sullivan, 1993), developmental (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Vygotsky, 1960), and social phenomena (e.g., Lewin, 1936; E. R. Smith amp; Semin, 2007). For instance, the experiential context can impact the phenomenon through age-related experiences or specific socialization experiences in school and professional settings. The situational context (e.g., task relevance, stressors, and mindsets) can explain how certain skills or abilities translate into observable performance (cf. Sophian, 1997). Moreover, on the macro-level, the cultural context can provide the normative framework impacting the meaning, function, and expression of a psychological characteristic (Grossmann amp; Na, 2014; Kitayama, Mesquita, amp; Karasawa, 2006; Norenzayan amp; Heine, 2005). Notably, at least since Vygotsky, Lewin, Bronfenbrenner, and Neisser, these contexts have been viewed within larger systems framework of mutual co-dependence – i.e. the situational context is embedded within experiential context, and both of them are embedded in a larger socio-cultural context.

Prodigious work by early wisdom theorists suggests that the study of wisdom may similarly benefit from systematic analysis of such contextual factors (Baltes amp; Staudinger, 1993; Staudinger, 1996; Staudinger, Kessler, amp; Doerner, 2006). Only in the last decade, however, has empirical scholarship started to provide clear insights into the role of experiential, situational, and cultural factors for expression of wisdom. The present paper aims to systematically review this empirical scholarship, providing novel insights for the theory, measurement, and promotion of wise thought in daily life. Before reviewing this body of research, the next section introduces major paradigms for studying wisdom-related characteristics in psychology.

Lay Beliefs about Wisdom

In lay terms, wisdom can mean many things, ranging from knowledge drawn from traumatic life experiences to intellect, to rationality (Staudinger amp; Gluuml;ck, 2011). To gauge how people view wisdom, scholars have initially examined folk theories by asking individuals to evaluate what adjectives or short statements they associated with wisdom (e.g., Bluck amp; Gluuml;ck, 2005; Clayton amp; Birren, 1980; Holliday amp; Chandler, 1986; Sternberg, 1985). For instance, Sternberg (1985) has identified some overlap in peoplersquo;s intuitions about wisdom, intelligence, and (to smaller extent) creativity, yet also observed some differences: Wise people were perceived to be equally capable of problem solving and reasoning as intelligent people; however, wise people were uniquely associated with the notion of sagacity -- i.e. knowing when to listen to others, flexible dealing with people, consideration of long and short-term consequences. Moreover, wise people were perceived as reflective and capable of integrating ideas in a context of lives they live in, w

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[272227]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word