ArticlePloS one2025
Was Aristotle right about moral decision-making? Building a new empirical model of practical wisdom.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical wisdom in medicine: defending a multidimensional, integrated view of an indispensable virtue.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2026Article
- An integrative head-heart-hands model of moral education: evidence from Chinese higher education.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Perceived Stress and Society-Wide Moral Judgment.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents the development and validation of the Short Phronesis Measure (SPM), a novel tool to assess Aristotelian phronesis (practical wisdom). Across three studies, using large, nationally representative samples from the UK and US (demographically matched to census data), we employed a systematic and rigorous methodology to examine the structure, reliability, and validity of the SPM. In Study 1a, exploratory factor analysis identified ten distinct, internally reliable components of phronesis, challenging the traditional four-component Aristotelian model. Study 1b confirmed these findings in two additional nationally representative samples from the UK and the US. In Study 1c, the SPM demonstrated strong test-retest reliability over two months. Study 2 used network analysis to uncover interrelations among the components, allowing for the creation of a new and empirically driven neo-Aristotelian model of phronesis. In Study 3, we tested criterion validity, showing phronesis correlates positively with flourishing and predicts flourishing two months later, demonstrating strong predictive validity. Phronesis also correlated with Big 6 and Dark Tetrad personality traits, moral disengagement, and Moral Foundations in expected directions. Importantly, phronesis predicted key outcomes-related to flourishing, moral disengagement, and morally relevant aspects of personality-beyond what Moral Foundations alone explained, with an average increase in predictive power of 13.7% across all outcomes. The SPM is quick to administer (15-20 minutes), making it a valuable tool for researchers and practitioners in psychology, education, and professional ethics. The introduction of the neo-Aristotelian Phronesis Model, and the identification of central phronesis components, offers actionable insights for moral psychologists and moral educators, suggesting areas of focus that could yield broad, positive effects across related traits, providing a significant contribution to both theory and practice.
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.