For millennia, the question of wisdom, its precursors and correlates, and its implications for informing a ‘good life’ has fascinated philosophers and social scientists alike (Sternberg & Gl€ uck, 2019). The gerontological literature in particular has a rich research tradition exploring this concept (Staudinger & Gl€ uck, 2011), but there is an ongoing tension: Laypeople’s aging expectations (e.g., L€ ockenhoff et al., 2009) and positive aging stereotypes (Hummert, Garstka, Shaner, & Strahm, 1994) emphasize age-related increases in wisdom, whereas studies examining actual age differences in wisdom-related concepts yield more complex, and, at times contradictory results (for reviews see Grossmann et al., this issue; Staudinger & Gl€ uck, 2011; Gl€ uck, 2019). In part, such inconsistencies are explained by methodological variations in assessment strategies (i.e., performance vs. self-report measures), sample composition (e.g., age range, cultural background), and study design (e.g., crosssectional vs. longitudinal assessment; Grossmann et al., this issue). More fundamentally, however, the various research streams differ in the very definition of what constitutes the core components of wisdom (e.g., the relative role of experience-based knowledge, fluid reasoning, integration of affect and cognition etc., Gordon & Jordan, 2017; Labouvie-Vief, 2003; Sternberg, 2005). In this respect, the Common Wisdom Model (CWM) outlined by Grossmann and colleagues (this issue), offers much-needed conceptual clarity by defining wisdom as aspects of perspectival meta-cognition that are grounded in cultural/experiential context and moral aspirations. The specific (albeit narrow) scope of the CWM sets the stage for mapping out a conceptual framework that outlines key mechanisms behind age differences in wisdom, along with relevant moderators including both task characteristics and contextual factors (Figure 1). Note that this framework shows commonalities with the one proposed in L€ ockenhoff (2018) to inform the literature on aging and decision making. Given that any good decision entails the engagement of meta-cognitive processes and contextual awareness, some overlap is not surprising, although there are important differences (e.g., in the relative significance of different age-related mechanisms and the specific role of contextual factors and task characteristics). In the remainder of this commentary, I briefly touch on each of the components of this framework, highlight key findings within each area, and point to notable gaps that should be addressed in future research.

中文翻译：

---

利用通用模型为老龄化和智慧研究议程提供信息

几千年来，智慧问题、它的先兆和相关因素，以及它对告知“美好生活”的影响，一直让哲学家和社会科学家都着迷（Sternberg & Gl€ uck，2019 年）。尤其是老年学文献有着丰富的研究传统来探索这一概念（Staudinger & Gl€ uck，2011），但存在持续的紧张：外行的老龄化预期（例如，L€ ockenhoff 等，2009）和积极的老龄化刻板印象（ Hummert、Garstka、Shaner 和 Strahm，1994 年）强调与年龄相关的智慧增长，而检验与智慧相关概念的实际年龄差异的研究会产生更复杂的，有时甚至是相互矛盾的结果（有关评论，请参见 Grossmann 等人，这问题；Staudinger & Gl€ uck，2011 年；Gl€ uck，2019 年）。部分地，这种不一致可以通过评估策略（即绩效与自我报告措施）、样本组成（如年龄范围、文化背景）和研究设计（如横断面与纵向评估；格罗斯曼等人）的方法差异来解释。 ， 这个问题）。然而，更根本的是，各种研究流在什么构成智慧的核心组成部分的定义上有所不同（例如，基于经验的知识的相对作用、流畅的推理、情感和认知的整合等，Gordon & Jordan，2017 ；Labouvie-Vi​​ef，2003 年；Sternberg，2005 年）。在这方面，Grossmann 及其同事（本期）概述的 Common Wisdom Model (CWM)，通过将智慧定义为基于文化/经验背景和道德愿望的透视元认知的各个方面，提供了急需的概念清晰度。CWM 的特定（尽管很窄）范围为制定概念框架奠定了基础，该框架概述了智慧年龄差异背后的关键机制，以及包括任务特征和背景因素在内的相关调节因素（图 1）。请注意，该框架与 L€ ockenhoff (2018) 中提出的框架具有共性，以告知有关老龄化和决策制定的文献。鉴于任何好的决策都需要元认知过程和情境意识的参与，一些重叠并不奇怪，尽管存在重要差异（例如，不同年龄相关机制的相对重要性以及情境因素和任务特征的具体作用）。在本评论的其余部分，我将简要介绍该框架的每个组成部分，突出每个领域的主要发现，并指出应在未来研究中解决的显着差距。