Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:16:22.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship among openness, wisdom, and humor: a preliminary mediation model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2022

Trilas M. Leeman ,
Bob G. Knight Open the ORCID record for Bob G. Knight [Opens in a new window]  and
Erich C. Fein
Trilas M. Leeman
Affiliation:
University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia
Bob G. Knight*
Affiliation:
University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia
Erich C. Fein
Affiliation:
University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Bob G. Knight, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia. Tel: 61 7 4631 1480. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Objectives:

Wisdom researchers acknowledge the complex nature of this ancient construct, although they are yet to agree on its core components. A key question in the literature is whether Openness and Humour are aspects of wisdom or whether Openness is an antecedent of wisdom with Humour as a consequence.

Methods:

Using structural equation modelling, we evaluated data from 457 online respondents aged 16–87 years (M age = 35.19, SD = 17.45). We analyzed a model with Openness as a precursor to Wisdom (conceptualised as a latent mediator variable using parcels of the SAWS Experience, Reminiscence/Reflection, and Emotional Regulation items), with Humor as outcome. We compared this model with a model using Wisdom as a latent mediator variable using parcels of the Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale-12 (3D-WS-12).

Results:

A model using Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale (SAWS)-9 latent mediator variable with Openness as precursor to wisdom and Humour as a consequence was good fit for the data and displayed full mediation. Similarly, a model using the 3D-WS-12 as latent mediator variable to measure wisdom and with Openness as a precursor to wisdom and Humour as a consequence also fits the data with full mediation.

Discussion:

These findings provide empirical support for theoretical suggestions in the literature that Openness is a precursor to wisdom and that Humour is a consequence of wisdom using two of the most common self-report measures of wisdom. An improved understanding of the nature of wisdom and especially of its potential precursors can also be of use in future efforts to facilitate the development of wisdom.

Keywords

WisdomSAWSSAWS-15opennesshumor3D-WS-12
Type
Original Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 34 , Special Issue 7: Issue Theme: Wisdom, Loneliness, and Other Behavioral Traits , July 2022 , pp. 627 - 636
Copyright
© International Psychogeriatric Association 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ardelt, M. (2003). Empirical assessment of a three-dimensional wisdom scale. Research on Aging, 25, 275–324. DOI 10.1177/0164027503025003004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardelt, M. (2011). The measurement of wisdom: a commentary on Taylor, Bates, and Webster’s comparison of the SAWS and 3D-WS. Experimental Aging Research, 237, 241–255. DOI 10.1080/0361073.554509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardelt, M., Pridgen, S. and Nutter-Pridgen, K. L. (2018). The relation between age and three-dimensional wisdom: variations by wisdom dimensions and education. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 73, 1339–1349. DOI 10.1093/geronb/gbx182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bangen, K. J., Meeks, T. W. and Jeste, D. V. (2013). Defining and assessing wisdom: a review of the literature. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 1254–1266. DOI 10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brienza, J. P., Kung, F. Y. H., Santos, H. C., Bobocel, D. R. and Grossmann, I. (2018). Wisdom and bias: towards a process-sensitive measurement of wisdom-related cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 1093–1126. DOI 10.1037/pspp0000171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. C. and Greene, J. A. (2006). The wisdom development scale: translating the conceptual to the concrete. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 1–19. DOI 10.1353/csd.2006.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cagnone, S., Mignani, S. and Moustaki, I. (2009). Latent variable models for ordinal data. In: M. Bini et al. (Eds.), Statistical Methods for the Evaluation of Educational Services and Quality of Products, Contributions to Statistics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Clayton, V. P. (1975). Erikson’s theory of human development as it applies to the aged: wisdom as contradictive cognition. Human Development, 18, 119–128. DOI 10.1159/000271479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr. and McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665. DOI 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damon, W. (2000). Setting the stage for the development of wisdom: self-understanding and moral identity during adolescence. In: Brown, W. S. (Ed.), Understanding Wisdom: Sources, Science, and Society (pp 339–360). Radnor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Dortaj, F., Noghabi, R. K., Ferrari, M., Jahan, F. and Esmaeili, S. (2018). Investigating validity and reliability and factor analysis of Webster’s wisdom questionnaire in Iran. Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory, 1, 7–19. DOI 10.22034/IEPA.2018.77421.Google Scholar
Erikson, E. H. (2008). The life cycle: epigenesis of identity. In: Schustack, M. W. and Friedman, H. S. (Eds.), The Personality Reader (pp 51–54). Delhi: Pearson.Google Scholar
Fung, S., Chow, E. O. and Cheung, C. (2020). Development and validation of a brief self-assessed wisdom scale. BMC Geriatrics, 20, Article number: 54. https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-020-1456-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glück, J. et al. (2013). How to measure wisdom: content, reliability, and validity of five measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 405. DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glück, J. and Bluck, S. (2013). The MORE life experience model: a theory of the development of personal wisdom. In: Ferrari, M. and Weststrate, N. (Eds.), The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom: From Contemplative Traditions to Neuroscience (pp 75–97). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7987-7_4.Google Scholar
Glück, J., Bluck, S. and Weststrate, N. M. (2018). More on the MORE life experience model: what we have learned (so far). The Journal of Value Inquiry, 53, 349–370. DOI 10.1007/s10790-018-9661-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, J. A. and Brown, S. C. (2009). The Wisdom Development Scale: further validity investigations. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 68, 289–320. DOI 10.2190/AG.68.4.b.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossmann, I. and Kung, F. Y. H. (2019). Wisdom and culture. In: Kitayama, S. and Cohen, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Psychology (2nd ed., pp 343–364). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hayat, S. Z., Khan, S. and Sadia, R. (2016). Resilience, wisdom, and life satisfaction in elderly living with families and in old-age homes. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 31, 475–494. Retrieved June 11, 2020, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d7e5/7d88330f1e1f319e634743f6e170ccd3ff21.pdf.Google Scholar
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. DOI 10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jason, L. A., Reichler, A., King, C., Madsen, D., Camacho, J. and Marchese, W. (2001). The measurement of wisdom: a preliminary effort. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 585–598. DOI 10.1002/jcop.1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeste, D. V. et al. (2021). Is spirituality a component of wisdom? Study of 1,786 adults using expanded San Diego Wisdom Scale (Jeste-Thomas Wisdom Index). Journal of Psychiatric Research, 132, 174–181. DOI 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.09.033/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeste, D. V., Ardelt, M., Blazer, D., Kraemer, H. C., Vaillant, G. E. and Meeks, T. W. (2010). Expert consensus on characteristics of wisdom: a delphi method study. The Gerontologist, 50, 668–680. DOI 10.1093/geront/gnq022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karami, S., Ghahremani, M., Parra-Martinez, F. A. and Gentry, M. (2020). A polyhedron model of wisdom: a systematic review of the wisdom studies in psychology, management and leadership, and education. Roeper Review, 42, 241–257. DOI 10.1080/02783193.2020.1815263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, K. and Green, S. B. (2016). The problem with having two watches: assessment of fit when RMSEA and CFI disagree. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 51(2–3), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015.1134306.Google Scholar
Leeman, T. M., Knight, B. G., Fein, E. C., Winterbotham, S. and Webster, J. D. (2021). An evaluation of the factor structure of the Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale (SAWS) and the creation of the SAWS-15 as a short measure for personal wisdom. International Psychogeriatrics, 11, 1–11. DOI 10.1017/S1041610220004202.Google Scholar
Levenson, M. R., Jennings, P. A., Aldwin, C. M. and Shiraishi, R. W. (2005). Self-transcendence: conceptualization and measurement. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 60, 127–143. DOI 10.2190/XRXM-FYRA-7U0X-GRC0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsunaga, M. (2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: a primer. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(4), 260–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450802458935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R. et al. (2000). Nature over nurture: temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186. DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, R. P. and Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82. DOI 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meeks, T. W. and Jeste, D. V. (2009). Neurobiology of wisdom: a literature overview. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 355–365. DOI 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moustaki, I. (2000). A latent variable model for ordinal variables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 211–223. DOI 10.1177/01466210022031679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newsom, J. T. (2018). Minimum sample size recommendations. (Psy 523/623 Structural Equation Modeling, Spring 2018). Manuscript Retrieved from upa.pdx.edu/IOA/newsom/semrefs.htm.Google Scholar
Perry, C. L., Komro, K. A., Jones, R. M., Munson, K., Williams, C. L. and Jason, L. (2002). The measurement of wisdom and its relationship to adolescent substance use and problem behaviors. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 12, 45–63. DOI 10.1300/J029v12n01_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E. and Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25. DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robitzsch, A. (2020). Why ordinal variables can (almost) always be treated as continuous variables: clarifying assumptions of robust continuous and ordinal factor analysis estimation methods. Frontiers in Education, 5, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherbaum, C. A. (2006). A basic guide to statistical research and discovery: planning and selecting statistical analyses. In Leong, F. T. L. & Austin, J. T. (Eds.), The Psychology Research Handbook (pp. 275–292). Newbury Park CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Taranto, M. A. (1989). Facets of wisdom: a theoretical synthesis. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 29, 1–21. DOI 10.2190/N76X-9E3V-P1FN-H8D8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, M., Bates, G. and Webster, J. D. (2011). Comparing the psychometric properties of two measures of wisdom: predicting forgiveness and psychological well-being with the Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale (SAWS) and the Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale (3D-WS). Experimental Aging Research, 37, 129–141. DOI 10.1080/0361073X.2011.554508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. L. et al. (2019). A new scale for assessing wisdom based on common domains and a neurobiological model: The San Diego Wisdom Scale (SD-WISE). Journal of Psychiatric Research, 108, 40–47. DOI 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. L., Bangen, K. J., Ardelt, M. and Jeste, D. V. (2017). Development of a 12-item abbreviated Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale (3D-WS-12): item selection and psychometric properties. Assessment, 24, 71–82. DOI 10.1177/1073191115595714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, J. D. (2003). An exploratory analysis of a self-assessed wisdom scale. Journal of Adult Development, 10, 13–22. DOI 10.1023/A:1020782619051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J. D. (2007). Measuring the character strength of wisdom. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 56, 163–183. DOI 10.2190/AG.65.2.d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J. D. (2019). Self-report wisdom measures: Strengths, limitations, and future directions. In: Sternberg, R. J. and Glück, J. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Wisdom (pp 297–320). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI 10.1017/9781108568272.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J. D., Westerhof, G. J. and Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2014). Wisdom and mental health across the lifespan. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69, 209–218. DOI 10.1093/geronb/gbs121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, H. and Leung, S.-O. (2017). Can Likert scale be treated as interval scales?—A simulation study. Journal of Social Services Research, 43, 527–532. DOI 10.1080/01488376.2017.1329775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, S.-Y. (2001). Conceptions of wisdom among Taiwanese Chinese. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 662–680. DOI 10.1177/002202210103200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Leeman et al. supplementary material

Appendix A

Download Leeman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 21.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Leeman et al. supplementary material

Appendix B

Download Leeman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 20.8 KB