Wisdom, Life Longings, and Optimal Development 121
regulation (e.g., Carstensen & Turk-Charles, 1998; Freund & Baltes, 2000; Sa-
lovey, Mayer, & Caruso, 2002; Sternberg, 1999). Wisdom is a candidate that we
have considered in our own work (P. B. Baltes & Kunzmann, 2003; P. B. Baltes &
Smith, 1990; P. B. Baltes & Staudinger, 2000; Dittmann-Kohli & Baltes, 1990;
Dixon & Baltes, 1986). At the core of this concept is the notion of a perfect, per-
haps utopian integration of knowledge and character, mind and virtue (P. B.
Baltes & Kunzmann, 2003; P. B. Baltes & Staudinger, 2000). Although the psy-
chology of wisdom is a relatively new field, several promising theoretical and
operational definitions of wisdom have been developed (for reviews see P. B.
Baltes & Staudinger, 2000; Kramer, 2000; Kunzmann & Baltes, 2005; Sternberg,
1990, 1998). In these models, wisdom is thought to be different from other
human strengths in that it facilitates an integrative and holistic approach to-
ward life’s challenges and problems—an approach that embraces past, present,
and future dimensions of phenomena, values different points of views, consid-
ers contextual variations, and acknowledges the uncertainties inherent in any
sense-making of the past, present, and future.
A second important feature of wisdom is that it involves an awareness that indi-
vidual and collective well-being are tied together so that one cannot exist without
the other. In this sense, wisdom has been said to refer to time-tested knowledge
that guides our behavior in ways that optimize productivity on the level of indi-
viduals, groups, and even society (e.g., Kramer, 2000; Sternberg, 1998).
Finally, given that wisdom has been linked to the ancient idea of a good life at
all times, its acquisition during ontogenesis may be incompatible with a hedonic
life orientation and a predominantly pleasurable, passive, and sheltered life.
Given their interest in self-realization and the maximization of a common good,
wiser people are likely to partake in behaviors that contribute to, rather than con-
sume, resources (Kunzmann & Baltes, 2003a, 2003b; Sternberg, 1998). Also, an in-
terest in understanding the significance and deeper meaning of phenomena,
including the blending of developmental gains and losses, most likely is linked to
emotional complexity (Labouvie-Vief, 1990) and to what has been called “con-
structivistic” melancholy (P. B. Baltes, 1997b).
Although there appears to be considerable agreement on several important ideas
about the definition, development, and functions of wisdom, all existing psycho-
logical wisdom models encompass their unique features. On an abstract level of de-
scription, there are two ways of studying wisdom in psychological research (P. B.
Baltes & Kunzmann, 2004). One is to focus on the nature of wise persons, that is,
their intellectual, motivational, and emotional characteristics. This work is
grounded in research on social and personality psychology (e.g., Ardelt, 2004; Erik-
son, 1980; Wink & Helson, 1997). An approach that we have pursued has been to de-
fine wisdom as a body of highly developed knowledge on the basis of relevant
psychological and cultural-historical wisdom work (e.g., P. B. Baltes & Smith, 1990;
P. B. Baltes & Staudinger, 2000). This approach proceeds from the idea that a com-
prehensive definition of wisdom requires going beyond the individual and his or
her characteristics, simply because wisdom is an ideal rather than a state of being.
T
HE
B
ERLIN
W
ISDOM
M
ODEL
Integrating work on the aging mind and personality, life span-developmental
theory, and cultural-historical work on wisdom, in the Berlin paradigm,