Situated Wise Reasoning Scale – Chinese Version

Description

The framework of wise reasoning has its roots in the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm (Berlin Wisdom Paradigm, Baltes & Staudinger, 2000). Proposed by Baltes and colleagues, the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm conceptualizes wisdom as practical intelligence. This paradigm integrates mental and personality aging, life-span development theory, and the historical and cultural aspects of wisdom. Wisdom is defined as the exhibition of extremely important and exceptional expert knowledge when addressing fundamental issues related to “the meaning of life and ways of acting.” “Expert knowledge” usually refers to the extraordinary level of both implicit and explicit knowledge gained through long-term intense, goal-oriented practice in a particular domain. Wise reasoning encompasses five standards (Brienza et al., 2018). Among these, two are attribute standards: (1) a rich factual knowledge about human nature and the life course and (2) a rich procedural knowledge about addressing life issues. The other three characteristic standards are: (1) life contextualism – understanding the interrelationships and historical changes among many life contexts; (2) value relativism and tolerance – recognizing differences in values and priorities in individuals, societies, and cultures; (3) knowledge of how to cope with uncertainty (including the limitations of one’s own knowledge). These wisdom standards are referred to as “knowledge related to wisdom.” The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm’s “Wisdom-Related Knowledge Assessment Manual” mentions that only factual knowledge includes knowledge about emotions and considers the protagonist’s feelings (Staudinger et al., 1994). However, regardless of whether the wisdom standards include emotions, the focus is on knowledge rather than emotions themselves. Thus, it is evident that the standards for wise reasoning do not explicitly mention emotional processes or emotional abilities; we can infer that they conceptualize knowledge related to wisdom as a rational problem-solving approach separate from emotions.

Authors and Contact Email

Information not available

Purpose

To measure and assess wise reasoning using a self-report tool based on the situational context of conflicts.

Test Year

Information not available

Administration Method and Scoring

The tool used to measure wise reasoning is the Situated Wise Reasoning Scale (SWIS). The scale consists of two parts. The first part guides participants to reconstruct a recent conflict situation objectively and specifically based on personal experiences. The second part requires participants to rate their reasoning behaviors concerning the recalled conflict incident on a Likert 5-point scale. However, the reconstruction of conflict situations by participants may face two scenarios: one where there is significant variance between the participants’ reconstructions, making it difficult to quantify the degree of conflict and control for unrelated variables, and another where participants may downplay, distort, or even reject recalling the conflict due to actor-observer bias or self-defense (Mickler & Staudinger, 2008). Therefore, researchers often substitute participant-created conflict scenarios with pre-selected conflict situations, which have been proven reliable and effective (Staudinger, 1999). The second part is a self-report scale that includes 5 dimensions and 21 items. The advantage of SWIS lies in its foundation on event reconstruction (Schwarz et al., 2009). SWIS does not require participants to self-evaluate personality traits or general tendencies related to wisdom, nor does it measure wise reasoning in contexts that do not consider ecological validity or cultural environment; rather, it requires participants to recall specific reasoning behaviors within an event or regarding a certain event. Compared to other self-reported wisdom measurement methods, SWIS minimizes self-report bias (e.g., social desirability, memory bias). Verification has shown that the self-evaluated wisdom reasoning scores derived from the SWIS self-report and scoring standards have good reliability and validity.

Reliability and Validity

Using the SWIS self-assessment tool and scoring standards, the derived self-rated wisdom reasoning and peer-rated wisdom reasoning have good reliability and validity.

Factors and Subscales

Information not available

Keywords

Wise reasoning, Berlin Wisdom Paradigm, expert knowledge, practical intelligence, emotional knowledge, self-report tools.

Items in Chinese

1. 情境熟悉度，即“类似的情境在你生活中出现过，听说过，或者你对它们的了解程度。”
2. 情境发生频率，即“生活中经历此情境或类似情境的频率。”
3. 困境程度，即“当你处于该情境中时，你感到焦虑、伤心或者痛苦的程度。”
4. 可控程度，即“该情境对你来说可以控制或可以改变的程度，即当你处于此情境时你知道怎么做让事情变得更好的难易程度。”

一般情境：

1. 这种情境首次出现在什么时候？
A.这星期
B.最近一个月以内
C.最近六个月以内
D.最近一年以内
E.超过一年以前

2. 这件事发生在星期几？
A.周一
B.周二
C.周三
D.周四
E.周五
F.周六
G.周日
H.记不清了

3. 这件事发生在那天的什么时候？
A.早上
B.下午
C.晚上
D.记不清了

4. 事情发生时你在做什么？只需一两句话即可。
5. 你当时在哪？
6. 跟当时事情相关的人有谁？请把相关的人都选出来或者补充进来。
A.领导、上级或管理者
B.导师
C.教练
D.同事
E.下属
F.被指导者
G.学徒
H.顾客或来访者
I.供应商
J.朋友
K.家人

7. 这个人和你同性别吗？ 是 否
8. 当你思考这件事的时候，你脑中想起了什么？请在空白的地方记录下来。

以上两个情景均接续下面的测试：请继续思考上一部分你所看到的情境，并回忆你有以下想法和行为的程度，即随着事情发展你所作出的实际行动。以下所列出的说明都不该被认为是“好”或者是“坏”。我们只是好奇人们对困难情境会做出什么反应。因此，你尽可能准确地回答问题对我们来说非常重要，我们也会对你的回答进行匿名处理。“当情况发生时，我做了以下……”

1 = 一点也不
2 = 稍微
3 = 有些
4 = 很多
5 = 非常多

1. 把我自己放进对方的视角。
2. 思考对方和我有什么共同之处。
3. 努力采用对方的视角。
4. 在做出结论之前，花时间去考虑对方对事件的看法。
5. 随着冲突的发展寻找不同的解决方法。
6. 当我发现冲突时，考虑可替代的解决方案。
7. 相信这个冲突可能会导致许多不同的结果。
8. 认为这个冲突会以许多不同的方式展开。
9. 反复思考我对这个冲突的看法是否可能不正确。
10. 反复思考对方的观点是否可能正确。
11. 在形成我的观点前考虑任何特殊情况。
12. 仿佛存在一些我未接触到的信息一样行事。
13. 尽我所能寻找一个可以迁就双方的方法。
14. 寻找一个可以使我们都满意的解决办法，虽然也许是不可能的。
15. 在解决这个冲突时，首先考虑妥协是不是可行的。
16. 认为解决冲突是一件很重要的事。
17. 尽量预想冲突如何能被解决。
18. 想知道如果我是其他人考虑这个冲突，我会怎么想。
19. 努力从一个局外人的视角看待这个冲突。
20. 问问我自己：如果其他人在考虑这个冲突，会有怎样的想法和感受。
21. 思考一个局外人对这个冲突是否会有一个和我不同的看法。

Items in English

1. Familiarity with the situation, that is, “whether a similar situation has appeared in your life, whether you have heard of it, or your level of understanding about it.”
2. Frequency of the situation, that is, “the frequency of encountering this situation or similar situations in your life.”
3. Degree of dilemma, that is, “the extent to which you feel anxious, sad, or distressed when you are in this situation.”
4. Controllability level, that is, “the extent to which this situation can be controlled or changed for you, that is, the ease of knowing what to do to improve the situation when you are in it.”

General Situation:

1. When did this situation first occur?
A. This week
B. Within the last month
C. Within the last six months
D. Within the last year
E. More than a year ago

2. What day of the week did this event happen?
A. Monday
B. Tuesday
C. Wednesday
D. Thursday
E. Friday
F. Saturday
G. Sunday
H. I can’t remember

3. What time of day did this event occur?
A. Morning
B. Afternoon
C. Evening
D. I can’t remember

4. What were you doing when it happened? Just a sentence or two is enough.
5. Where were you at that time?
6. Who were the relevant people involved in that situation? Please select all relevant persons or add them.
A. Leader or superior
B. Mentor
C. Coach
D. Colleague
E. Subordinate
F. Person being guided
G. Apprentice
H. Customer or visitor
I. Supplier
J. Friend
K. Family

7. Is this person of the same gender as you? Yes / No
8. What came to your mind when you thought about this matter? Please write it in the space provided.

Both scenarios are followed by the test below: Please continue thinking about the situations you observed in the previous part and recall the degree to which you had the following thoughts and behaviors, that is, the actual actions you took as things developed. The descriptions listed below should not be regarded as “good” or “bad.” We are just curious about how people respond to difficult situations. Therefore, it is crucial for you to answer the questions as accurately as possible; we will also treat your responses anonymously. “When the situation occurred, I did the following…”

1 = Not at all
2 = Slightly
3 = Moderately
4 = Very much
5 = Extremely much

1. Put myself in the other person’s perspective.
2. Thought about what similarities existed between me and the other person.
3. Tried to adopt the other person’s perspective.
4. Took time to consider the other person’s view on the matter before concluding.
5. Sought different resolutions as the conflict developed.
6. Considered alternative solutions when I discovered the conflict.
7. Believed this conflict could lead to many different outcomes.
8. Thought this conflict could unfold in many different ways.
9. Reflectively questioned whether my view of this conflict might be incorrect.
10. Reflectively questioned whether the other person’s view could be correct.
11. Considered any special circumstances before forming my opinion.
12. Acted as if there were some information I hadn’t been exposed to.
13. Sought as much as possible a method that could accommodate both parties.
14. Looked for a solution that could satisfy both, even if it might be impossible.
15. Considered whether compromise was feasible first when resolving this conflict.
16. Thought that resolving the conflict was very important.
17. Tried to anticipate how the conflict could be resolved.
18. Wondered how I would think about this conflict if I were someone else.
19. Strived to see this conflict from an outsider’s perspective.
20. Asked myself: What thoughts and feelings would others have if they considered this conflict?
21. Thought about whether an outsider would have a different view on this conflict than I do.

References

– Thomas, J. L., & Kunzmann, U. (2013).
– Brienza, J. P., Lu, G., & Grossmann, I. (2018).
– Kross, E., & Grossmann, I. (2012).
– Brienza, J. P., Lu, G., & Grossmann, I. (2021).
– Grossmann, I. (2017).
– Staudinger, U. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1994).
– Schwarz, N., et al. (2009).
– Mickler, L. E., & Staudinger, U. M. (2008).
– Staudinger, U. M. (1999).