ArticleBMC psychology2024
Wisdom affinity in the general population.
Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWisdom is an important coping resource for difficult and ambiguous life situations. Wisdom trainings have been developed in clinical and non-clinical settings. What has been missing so far are representative data on wisdom affinity from the general population. These are important regarding needs assessments and identification of risk groups with low wisdom affinity and potential problems in coping with difficult and ambiguous life situations.
methodThe study examined a population-representative sample of 2509 persons. Socio-demographic data, presence of chronic and mental illnesses was assessed, and wisdom attitudes by the 12-WD Wisdom Scale. The surveys were carried out by means of interviews and self-report questionnaires at the respondents' homes, done by an experienced social research company (USUMA GmbH).
resultsOnly 6% of the whole sample appeared to be highly wisdom-affirmative (12-WD mean score 10 on scale 0-10), whereas 4% may appear low wisdom-affirm, due to very low agreement (12 WD mean score 0-4). Most of the moderately wisdom-affirm people had a religious denomination (70.9%), whereas only 57-59% of the high or low wisdom-affirm persons reported religious affiliations. Low wisdom-affirm were most often chronically ill (25%), with mental or physical illness in similar frequency, and had significantly more unemployment times than persons with higher wisdom scores. Wisdom affinity was independent from age, gender and age, household situation, and higher school education.
conclusionIt must be assumed that people with socio-medical risk factors also have impairments in their wisdom-related problem-solving strategies, and that these can be of interest for transdiagnostic wisdom trainings in prevention or rehabilitation, which has shown positive effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.