Thewww.frontiersin.orgJuly 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 405 |Gl k et al.How to

LY-411575 web Thewww.frontiersin.orgJuly 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 405 |Gl k et al.How to measure wisdomTable 4 | Differences between wisdom nominees and order UNC0642 control participants in the four wisdom measures.Wisdom M (SD) M (SD) T -test Controlling for education and vocabulary SAWS ASTI 3D-WS BWP 4.62 (0.50) 4.27 (0.51) t (167) = 3.95 R 2 = 0.085, p < 0.001 3.35 (0.33) 3.07 (0.30) t (162) = 5.14 R 2 = 0.140, p < 0.001 3.82 (0.41) 3.60 (0.39) t (167) = 3.34 R 2 = 0.063, p = 0.001 3.17 (1.07) 2.62 (1.02) t (91) = 2.50 R 2 = 0.064, p = 0.014 R 2 = 0.082, p = 0.001 R 2 = 0.135, p < 0.001 R 2 = 0.059, p = 0.004 R 2 = 0.046, p = 0.measure nominees controlsTable 5 | Correlations between wisdom measures and correlates.Correlate SELF-RELATED Self-Efficacy Openness to experience Ryff personal growth Ryff self-acceptance Emotional competence/self OTHER-RELATED Empathy Emotional competence/others COGNITIVE Inductive reasoning Vocabulary -0.154* 0.176* 0.223** -0.017 0.135 0.116 0.104 0.126 0.394** 0.448** 0.260** 0.482** 0.282** -0.012 0.467** 0.265* 0.384** 0.409** 0.282** 0.170* 0.317** 0.329** 0.591** 0.413** 0.369** 0.627** 0.335** 0.444** 0.222** 0.327** 0.500** 0.113 0.365** 0.173 0.003 0.276** SAWS 3D-WS ASTI BWPCorrelations with the BWP are based only on the nominee and parallel control group (N = 94). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.Here, the scree plot, eigenvalue criterion, and parallel analysis suggested two factors whereas the MAP test suggested only one factor. To obtain more differentiated results, we used two factors, which explained 58.8 of the variance. The two factors largely represented the self-related/other-related distinction, with selfefficacy (loading = 0.73), self-acceptance (0.77), and self-related emotion regulation (0.80) loading on the first factor, empathy (0.76) and openness to experience (0.77) loading on the second factor, and personal growth (0.52, 0.55) and other-related emotion regulation (0.52, 0.62) loading on both factors. Both factor scores were significant predictors of the SAWS (r2 = 0.33; self = 0.26, p < 0.001, other = 0.46, p < 0.001), the 3D-WS (r2 = 0.51; self = 0.48, p < 0.001, other = 0.44, p < 0.001), and the ASTI (r2 = 0.34; self = 0.39, p < 0.001, other = 0.35, p < 0.001). They did not predict the BWP, although there was a marginal relation for the other-related factor (r2 = 0.09; self = 0.14, p = 0.225, other = 0.22, p = 0.054). Again, the amount of common variance was somewhat higher for the 3D-WS than for the SAWS and the ASTI, and the SAWS was more strongly related to the other-related than to the self-related correlates in spite of its largely self-related content. Correlations to intelligence were low, and insignificant for the ASTI and the BWP. The SAWS PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19901140 was positively related to vocabulary (r = 0.18, p = 0.024) and negatively to inductive reasoning (r = -0.15, p = 0.050); both became insignificant when age was controlled. In contrast, the 3DWS was positively correlated to inductive reasoning (r = 0.22, p = 0.004), and this relationship remained significant after controlling for age. Specifically, the reflective (r = 0.29, p < 0.001) and the cognitive (r = 0.31, p < 0.001) but not the affective dimension were correlated to inductive reasoning.Relationships to age, gender, and educationconflict-interview rating (r = 0.22, p = 0.044) and marginally to the difficult-event interview (r = 0.20, p = 0.051), which may be partly due to common method variance among interview-based measures (note that the BWP ratings and the in.Thewww.frontiersin.orgJuly 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 405 |Gl k et al.How to measure wisdomTable 4 | Differences between wisdom nominees and control participants in the four wisdom measures.Wisdom M (SD) M (SD) T -test Controlling for education and vocabulary SAWS ASTI 3D-WS BWP 4.62 (0.50) 4.27 (0.51) t (167) = 3.95 R 2 = 0.085, p < 0.001 3.35 (0.33) 3.07 (0.30) t (162) = 5.14 R 2 = 0.140, p < 0.001 3.82 (0.41) 3.60 (0.39) t (167) = 3.34 R 2 = 0.063, p = 0.001 3.17 (1.07) 2.62 (1.02) t (91) = 2.50 R 2 = 0.064, p = 0.014 R 2 = 0.082, p = 0.001 R 2 = 0.135, p < 0.001 R 2 = 0.059, p = 0.004 R 2 = 0.046, p = 0.measure nominees controlsTable 5 | Correlations between wisdom measures and correlates.Correlate SELF-RELATED Self-Efficacy Openness to experience Ryff personal growth Ryff self-acceptance Emotional competence/self OTHER-RELATED Empathy Emotional competence/others COGNITIVE Inductive reasoning Vocabulary -0.154* 0.176* 0.223** -0.017 0.135 0.116 0.104 0.126 0.394** 0.448** 0.260** 0.482** 0.282** -0.012 0.467** 0.265* 0.384** 0.409** 0.282** 0.170* 0.317** 0.329** 0.591** 0.413** 0.369** 0.627** 0.335** 0.444** 0.222** 0.327** 0.500** 0.113 0.365** 0.173 0.003 0.276** SAWS 3D-WS ASTI BWPCorrelations with the BWP are based only on the nominee and parallel control group (N = 94). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.Here, the scree plot, eigenvalue criterion, and parallel analysis suggested two factors whereas the MAP test suggested only one factor. To obtain more differentiated results, we used two factors, which explained 58.8 of the variance. The two factors largely represented the self-related/other-related distinction, with selfefficacy (loading = 0.73), self-acceptance (0.77), and self-related emotion regulation (0.80) loading on the first factor, empathy (0.76) and openness to experience (0.77) loading on the second factor, and personal growth (0.52, 0.55) and other-related emotion regulation (0.52, 0.62) loading on both factors. Both factor scores were significant predictors of the SAWS (r2 = 0.33; self = 0.26, p < 0.001, other = 0.46, p < 0.001), the 3D-WS (r2 = 0.51; self = 0.48, p < 0.001, other = 0.44, p < 0.001), and the ASTI (r2 = 0.34; self = 0.39, p < 0.001, other = 0.35, p < 0.001). They did not predict the BWP, although there was a marginal relation for the other-related factor (r2 = 0.09; self = 0.14, p = 0.225, other = 0.22, p = 0.054). Again, the amount of common variance was somewhat higher for the 3D-WS than for the SAWS and the ASTI, and the SAWS was more strongly related to the other-related than to the self-related correlates in spite of its largely self-related content. Correlations to intelligence were low, and insignificant for the ASTI and the BWP. The SAWS PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19901140 was positively related to vocabulary (r = 0.18, p = 0.024) and negatively to inductive reasoning (r = -0.15, p = 0.050); both became insignificant when age was controlled. In contrast, the 3DWS was positively correlated to inductive reasoning (r = 0.22, p = 0.004), and this relationship remained significant after controlling for age. Specifically, the reflective (r = 0.29, p < 0.001) and the cognitive (r = 0.31, p < 0.001) but not the affective dimension were correlated to inductive reasoning.Relationships to age, gender, and educationconflict-interview rating (r = 0.22, p = 0.044) and marginally to the difficult-event interview (r = 0.20, p = 0.051), which may be partly due to common method variance among interview-based measures (note that the BWP ratings and the in.