Wisdom and Well-being Across the Lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considered the pinnacle of psychosocial development, and the outcome of a long, well-lived life, wisdom ostensibly confers advantages to persons who possess it. Nevertheless, the relationship among wisdom, aging, and well-being is still not fully understood. This study investigated the relationship between wisdom and several measures of wellbeing across the lifespan. Participants included 186 male and 326 female Dutch adults ranging in age from 17 – 92 (M = 46.46, SD = 21.37) who completed measures of wisdom (Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale, Webster, 2010), personality (NEO-FFI, Costa & McCrae, 1992), mental health (Mental Health Continuum, Keyes et al., 2008) physical health (General Health Questionnaire, Goldberg, 1978), and a balanced time perspective (Balanced Time Perspective Scale, Webster, 2011). A series of 2 (wisdom) by 3 (age) ANOVA’s revealed main effects for both variables in support of hypotheses. Main study findings revealed that wisdom was unrelated to physical health but positively related to openness to experience, mental health, and a balanced time perspective. Overall, midlife adults scored higher on wisdom than either younger or older participants. Older adults scored lower on physical and mental health, openness, and the use of a balanced time perspective. The results are discussed from a lifespan perspective in which gains and losses contribute to conditions in which midlife adults show high levels of wisdom and well-being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".