Wise Reasoning About the Future Is Associated With Adaptive Interpersonal Feelings After Relational Challenges

Abstract

Two prospective studies examine how wise reasoning about an anticipated conflict interaction—intellectual humility, recognition of uncertainty and change, consideration and integration of different perspectives—is associated with interpersonal feelings and closeness to the interaction partner after the challenging interaction. In Study 1 (N = 243) and preregistered replication Study 2 (N = 234), participants who reasoned more wisely before an anticipated conflict interaction felt more positively toward and closer to the person involved in the conflict afterward. We explored three avenues accompanying effects of wise reasoning about the future for interpersonal outcomes: conflict outcome, perception of the interaction as fair and satisfying, and sense of meaning in the conflict experience. Path models indicated that sense of meaning was a consistent factor accounting for the positive effect of prospective wise reasoning for relational well-being. We discuss implications for research on prospection, wisdom, and well-being.

Keywords

wise reasoning relational well-being meaning-making interpersonal conflict

On average, North Americans report having disagreements with friends, colleagues, or family members 7 times a day (Laursen, 1995) and disagreements with a spouse twice a month (McGonagle et al., 1992). Although conflicts can be unpredictable, anticipation and planning of challenges is one of the most critical features of human social cognition (Seligman et al., 2013; Wilson & Gilbert, 2005). Here, we propose that thinking about upcoming relational challenges in a way that involves characteristics of wise reasoning (Grossmann, 2017; also see Darnell et al., 2019) can be adaptive. In two studies, we examine how wise reasoning about an upcoming conflict relates to the subsequent experience of conflict and feelings toward others.

Wise Reasoning

Contemporary cognitive and behavioral scientists view wisdom as a quality that extends beyond knowledge or general cognitive abilities (Baltes & Kunzmann, 2004; Baltes & Smith, 2008; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000; Jeste et al., 2010; McKee & Barber, 1999; Sternberg, 1998). Although wisdom can be defined in many ways, contemporary research has focused on five central aspects including (a) recognition of limits of one’s knowledge, (b) consideration of change and multiple ways in which the situation may unfold, (c) recognition of others’ perspectives, (d) consider outsider’s viewpoint, and (e) search for compromise (Brienza et al., 2018). A wide range of philosophical and psychological definitions of wisdom includes these characteristics (Bangen et al., 2013; Grossmann, 2017; for a review, see Oakes et al., 2018), which in turn converge on a single latent factor that is distinct from Big Five personality, dispositional empathy, theory of mind, and general cognitive abilities (Brienza & Grossmann, 2017; Brienza et al., 2018; Grossmann, Brienza, & Bobocel, 2017; Grossmann et al., 2013; Rakoczy et al., 2018; for a review, see Grossmann et al., 2020).

Since Aristotle, practical wisdom has focused on sound judgments in challenging situations (Darnell et al., 2019). In such situations, reasoning that involves several characteristics of wisdom should produce better judgments. For example, in challenging interpersonal situations, people reflexively focus on protecting self-interests (Kross et al., 2005), falsely assuming that others may react similarly to them (Epley et al., 2004). Thus, considering other’s perspectives alone can backfire (Sassenrath et al., 2016). Instead, a wise approach to the same conflict combines the consideration of other’s interests together with other aspects of reasoning such as recognizing limits of one’s knowledge and consideration of multiple ways a situation may unfold. The resulting quality of thought about the situation at hand is more likely to promote sound judgment than any one component alone.

The ability to reflect wisely on past challenges has been associated with hedonic and relational well-being (Grossmann et al., 2013). Wise reasoning about daily challenges has also been associated with more adaptive emotion regulation (Grossmann et al., 2016, 2019). For example, in a 9-day diary study, participants reflected on a negative experience from the previous day and reported wise reasoning about the experience. Within-person increases in wise reasoning was linked to more adaptive emotional responses such as greater emotional complexity, more positive emotions, and greater forgiveness for others’ transgressions (Grossmann et al., 2016).

Furthermore, two aspects of wise reasoning—recognition of others’ perspectives and considering an outsider’s viewpoint—have individually been linked to better interpersonal relationships. Trait perspective taking has been linked to constructive responses during conflict (Rusbult et al., 1991), attunement to partner during conflict (Nelson et al., 2017), and forgiveness after the conflict (Kimmes & Durtschi, 2016). When married couples were instructed to take the perspective of their partner, they solved a hypothetical relationship conflict more constructively than when they took their own perspective or when they did not receive any instructions (Arriaga & Rusbult, 1998). Moreover, instructions to adopt an outsider’s viewpoint in daily writing can benefit relationships. When couples were instructed to adopt a neutral third-party perspective when reflecting on a significant marital disagreement from the last 4 months in diary-style reflections, these couples sustained their level of marital satisfaction over time compared to a control group (Finkel et al., 2013).

Consequences of Prospective Wise Reasoning

We suggest that wiser reasoning about an upcoming challenging situation will be associated with better interpersonal outcomes such as more positive feelings toward the person involved in the conflict. There are three potential mechanisms through which wise reasoning might provide relational benefits.

First, wise reasoning may influence the conflict outcome. Previous research suggests that prospective thoughts about major life transitions can affect how people navigate through these challenges (Churchill & Davis, 2010; Jackson et al., 2000; Pancer et al., 2000; Taylor-Carter et al., 1997). For example, more realistic expectations before motherhood predict fewer depressive symptoms after becoming a mother (Churchill & Davis, 2010), and having realistic expectations rather than indulging in idealistic fantasies increase college graduates’ success at gaining employment (Oettingen & Mayer, 2002). Wise reasoning includes markers of realistic thought (e.g., recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge, considering multiple ways in which the situation may unfold) as well as markers of other cognition (e.g., recognition of others’ perspectives and interests) that has been linked to better outcomes in romantic relationship conflicts (Arriaga & Rusbult, 1998; Finkel et al., 2013). Thus, prospective wise reasoning might be associated with a better resolution of the conflict—that is, a greater satisfaction with the conflict outcome.

Second, regardless of the actual outcome, wise reasoning might lead people to perceive the conflict experience more positively. Sometimes satisfaction with the way a situation unfolded can be more predictive of overall satisfaction than satisfaction with the outcome itself (see related work on procedural justice; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 2003). Entering a conflict situation prepared to consider others’ perspectives, to recognize the limits of one’s knowledge, and to search for compromise might facilitate a more respectful and fair interaction. Thus, prospective wise reasoning might be associated with a greater satisfaction with the way the conflict unfolded—that is, the process of the interaction.

Third, wise reasoning might afford a bigger picture perspective on the conflict, placing it into a larger context and finding a sense of purpose in the experience. A conflict interaction might provide meaning in teaching insights about the self and others, regardless of conflict outcome or process. Finding meaning or purpose in negative experiences has been linked with various positive outcomes (see Park, 2010, for a review), such as better adjustment after a romantic break up (Samios et al., 2014). While most of the psychological literature on meaning has focused on traumatic events (e.g., death of a loved one; Davis et al., 1998), a sense of meaning can also be found in more mundane daily stressors (King & Hicks, 2009). Prospective wise reasoning includes markers of thought (e.g., consideration of multiple ways in which the situation may unfold, considering an outsider’s viewpoint) that might facilitate finding meaning and purpose. For example, transcending one’s point of view to take a larger perspective might lead individuals to consider what they have learned about themselves and others as a result of the interaction, or what they have learned about interpersonal conflicts in general, which could translate to a sense of the conflict having meaning.

Present Research

In two longitudinal studies, we assessed wise reasoning before an anticipated conflict interaction and followed up with participants after the interaction occurred. We examined interpersonal consequences (feelings toward the person involved in the conflict) as well as three aspects of the conflict interaction that might be influenced by wise reasoning: outcome satisfaction, process satisfaction, and a sense of meaning. In Study 2, we also attempted to manipulate wise reasoning. All data were collected prior to analysis. All manipulations and exclusions in the studies are disclosed. The unabridged surveys and data are available here (https://osf.io/wxhbz/?view_only=2fd21eacf3ab4dae8ed3e91e50e484f0).

Study 1

In this first study, we asked participants to describe an anticipated conflict in the next 2 weeks and then followed up after the 2 weeks had passed. We reminded each participant of their personal anticipated conflict situation before assessing reports about the actual conflict experience and interpersonal outcomes. Because we assessed interpersonal conflicts across a spectrum of relationships (e.g., romantic partners, colleagues, and acquaintances), we assessed two interpersonal outcomes that might apply across types of relationships: the general positive feelings toward and closeness to the person. We obtained these ratings both in the intake survey and in the postconflict survey to assess change in feelings.

Method

Participants

We aimed to recruit 200 participants with complete data sets, based on an a priori power analysis (in a two-tailed test, n = 191 has 80% power to detect a typical effect in social psychology [r = .20; Gignac & Szodorai, 2016]). We oversampled to account for exclusions, attrition, and for those who might not actually experience the anticipated interaction. We recruited 526 U.S. Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers for the initial session. We excluded 19 individuals who did not describe an anticipated interaction. About half of the sample completed the second session 2 weeks later, thus our final sample included 243 participants (57.2% female, M _age = 39.70, SD = 12.53, 20–69 years. We did not assess ethnicity as part of the study. However, estimates obtained by the recruitment tool indicate that the sample was primarily composed of European-Americans (82% White, 10% Black, 6% Asian, 1% Multiracial)) who completed both sessions. Those who completed the follow-up did not differ from those who did not complete the follow-up in terms of how wisely they reasoned about the anticipated interaction, t(517) = 1.10, p = .273, or in terms of the rated importance of the anticipated interaction, t(523) = −0.67, p = .503. The subset of participants who did not complete the follow-up was younger, t(524) = −4.63, p < .001, and included more male participants, χ²(N = 524) = 11.21, p = .001, than the subset who did complete the follow-up.

Time 1

After a brief demographic survey in which we assessed only age and gender, participants described a conflict situation they anticipated experiencing in the next 2 weeks. Specifically, they were instructed to

…think about a difficult situation that you anticipate will happen to you with another person in the next 2 weeks. This should be a situation that you yourself will be involved in, whether or not you might the person who initiates the situation. We would like you to take a moment to imagine the situation and visualize the events in your mind’s eye; consider who might be involved and what might happen, what you would think and feel. Please describe the event.

Anticipated conflict interactions ranged from relatively minor “I have loaned a friend money and they have failed to pay it back. I need to go to them and ask them to replay [sic] it as soon as possible” to severe

I might have to fire someone at work. They were doing some unethical behaviors. I am waiting on HR to get back to me before I make my move to fire. We are a union so It’s a little complicated. [sic]

Participants reported current feelings toward the person(s) involved in the interaction on 2 items (“How positive do you feel about the person(s) you expect to interact with in the situation?” and “How close do you feel to the person(s) you expect to interact with in the situation?”), on 7-point scales. Participants also rated the importance of the situation on scales from not important at all (1) to extremely important (5). On average, participants reported the events being important to them (M = 3.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [3.84, 4.12]). Notably, event importance did not moderate any of the analyses reported hereafter (see Online Supplement).

After describing anticipated conflict interactions, participants completed the Situated Wise Reasoning Scale (SWiS; Brienza et al., 2018). The SWiS Scale has been extensively tested and validated to assess situation-specific reasoning (Brienza et al., 2018) and includes 21 items capturing five aspects of reasoning: items assessing recognition of limits of one’s knowledge (“Behaved as if there may be information to which I did not have access”), the consideration of multiple ways in which the situation may unfold (“Looked for different solutions as the situation evolved”), the recognition of others’ perspective (“Put myself in the other person’s shoes”), the consideration of an outsider’s view (“Tried to see the conflict from the point of view of an uninvolved person”), and the search for a compromise (“Tried my best to find a way to accommodate both of us”). Items were answered on scales from not at all (1) to very much (5). All subscales were also averaged into an overall index of wise reasoning (α = .83; see Online Supplement for psychometrics).

Time 2

Two weeks later, participants were contacted again by email and reminded of their event (participants’ own conflict description was copied verbatim into the second survey). They reported whether the conflict had actually occurred (83% reported that it had happened in some form). They reported satisfaction with the outcome of the conflict situation and satisfaction with the process (i.e., the way the situation had unfolded) on scales from not at all satisfied (1) to very satisfied (7). They reported the extent to which they had found meaning in the event on 3 items (“I have a good sense of what makes the experience meaningful,” “I have discovered a satisfying purpose for the experience,” and “The experience has no clear purpose [reverse coded]”; α = .77). All participants again reported their current feelings (positivity, closeness) toward the person involved in the interaction on 7-point scales. On average, participants felt more positive about the person at Time 2 compared to Time 1, t(195) = −4.58, p < .001, d = .35, but felt less close to the person, t(195) = 2.69, p = .008, d = .16. Finally, participants reported retrospective wise reasoning (Brienza et al., 2018), which correlated with prospective wise reasoning, r = .57, p < .001 (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Measures for Participants Who Experienced the Conflict Interaction.

Measures	Study 1 (N = 196)	Study 2 (N = 234)
Time 1
Prospective wise reasoning	3.44 [3.33, 3.54]	3.51 [3.41, 3.61]
Positivity toward person	3.87 [3.58, 4.15]	3.85 [3.60, 4.10]
Closeness to person	4.47 [4.16, 4.78]	4.28 [4.01, 4.55]
Time 2
Outcome satisfaction	4.07 [3.79, 4.36]	4.33 [4.05, 4.61]
Process satisfaction	4.31 [4.02, 4.61]	4.06 [3.78, 4.34]
Perceived process fairness	—	3.00 [2.84, 3.16]
Meaning found in the situation	4.82 [4.63, 5.01]	4.76 [4.48, 5.04]
Positivity toward person	4.55 [4.27, 4.83]	4.39 [4.11, 4.67]
Closeness to person	4.09 [3.80, 4.39]	4.18 [4.00, 4.36]
Retrospective wise reasoning	3.35 [3.24, 3.46]	3.42 [3.32, 3.52]

Note. Values presented are M and 95% CI [LL, UL]. Wise reasoning and perceived process fairness measured on 5-point scales, all other variables measured on 7-point scales. CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit; LL = lower limit.

Results and Discussion

Wise reasoning about an anticipated difficult interpersonal situation did not significantly affect whether the situation occurred, B = 0.17, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.60], p = .430, Exp B = 1.19. All analyses below are based on the subset of participants who reported that the situation had occurred (n = 196).

Interpersonal Outcomes

To examine changes in feelings, we regressed interpersonal judgments at Time 2 on wise reasoning while controlling for the respective judgment at Time 1. Greater wise reasoning was associated with increased feelings of positivity and closeness after the interpersonal conflict had happened (see Table 2 for regression coefficients). We cross-validated the results via cross-lagged structural equation models in AMOS (see Online Supplement), showing that wise reasoning at Time 1 significantly predicted feelings of closeness and positivity when controlling for feelings at Time 1 and for post-hoc wise reasoning at Time 2.

Table 2.

Regression Coefficients.

Predictor	Outcome	B 95% CI [LL, UL]
Study 1
Wise reasoning	Positivity	0.61 [0.27, 0.94]*
Wise reasoning	Closeness	0.42 [0.11, 0.72]*
Wise reasoning	Process satisfaction	0.47 [0.10, 0.84]*
Wise reasoning	Meaning found	0.35 [0.10, 0.60]*
Indirect effect of wise reasoning via process satisfaction	Positivity	0.18 [0.04, 0.35]*
Indirect effect of wise reasoning via process satisfaction	Closeness	0.12 [0.02, 0.24]*
Indirect effect of wise reasoning via meaning found	Positivity	0.15 [0.04, 0.29]*
Indirect effect of wise reasoning via meaning found	Closeness	0.10 [0.02, 0.21]*
Study 2
Wise reasoning	Positivity	0.43 [0.11, 0.75]*
Wise reasoning	Closeness	0.27 [−0.01, 0.55]^†
Wise reasoning	Perceived process fairness	0.36 [0.14, 0.58]*
Wise reasoning	Meaning found	0.39 [0.16, 0.62]*
Indirect effect of wise reasoning via perceived process fairness	Positivity	0.17 [0.03, 0.34]*
Indirect effect of wise reasoning via perceived process fairness	Closeness	0.17 [−0.02, 0.38]
Indirect effect of wise reasoning via meaning found	Positivity	0.18 [0.02, 0.36]*
Indirect effect of wise reasoning via meaning found	Closeness	0.14 [0.02, 0.28]*

Note. All analyses are based on only participants who reported actually experiencing the conflict interaction. Study 2 aggregates across conditions. Direction and significance level of effects are unchanged when controlling for condition as covariate (see Online Supplements). Positivity = positivity toward person involved in conflict situation at Time 2, controlling for positivity toward that person at Time 1; closeness = closeness with person involved in conflict situation at Time 2, controlling for closeness with that person at Time 1. CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit; LL = lower limit.

^† p < .07. *p < .05.

Conflict Experience

Wise reasoning was not associated with more outcome satisfaction, r = .08, p = .268, but was associated with more process satisfaction, r = .19, p = .009, and with finding more meaning, r = .23, p = .001. The wise reasoning facets most consistently linked with these outcomes were intellectual humility, recognition of others’ perspectives, and search for compromise (see Online Supplements for results by subscales).

We examined only the variables that were linked to wise reasoning as potential mediators. Regression analyses (PROCESS; Hayes, 2018; Model 4 with 5,000 bootstrapped samples) with wise reasoning as predictor, process satisfaction as mediator, and positivity or closeness at Time 2 as outcome variable (controlling positivity and closeness at Time 1, respectively) showed an indirect effect of wise reasoning via process satisfaction on changes in positivity and closeness (see Table 2). A parallel regression showed significant indirect effect of wise reasoning via meaning making on changes in positivity and closeness. In sum, Study 1 suggests that prospective wise reasoning promotes positive feelings and closeness to conflict interaction partners—in part due to being more satisfied with the way the conflict situation unfolded and due to finding a sense of meaning in the experience.

Study 2

The next study had two aims. First, we sought to experimentally vary wise reasoning to examine whether induced wise reasoning could facilitate the same positive outcomes as individual differences in wise reasoning about the upcoming situation. Building on observational studies linking wise reasoning to an abstract construal of the situation (Grossmann et al., 2016), we reasoned that a shift toward more abstract processing would increase wise reasoning (Hypothesis 1). Second, we aimed to replicate Study 1. Following the results from Study 1, we expected that prospective wise reasoning would predict greater satisfaction with process of the interaction but would not be linked with satisfaction with the outcome (Hypothesis 2). We further expected that prospective wise reasoning would predict feeling closer and more positive toward the person involved in the conflict (Hypothesis 3). Preregistered hypotheses, data collection plan, and planned analyses are available here (https://osf.io/eqjpz/).

Method

Participants

Sample size was determined with an a priori power analysis: A sample of 136 would have 80% power to detect a condition effect (one-tailed), and a sample of 191 would have 80% power to detect a small association, r = .2, between wise reasoning and the outcome variables (two-tailed). We oversampled to account for exclusions and a high attrition rate as in Study 1. We recruited 503 U.S. MTurk workers. In line with preregistered exclusion criteria, we excluded 17 who did not describe an anticipated interpersonal conflict, 198 participants who did not complete the follow-up 1 week after the first session, and 54 participants who reported that the interaction did not occur. Our final sample included 234 participants (56.0% female, M _age = 38.65, SD = 12.25, 21–73 years. We did not assess ethnicity. However, estimates obtained by the recruitment tool indicate that the sample was primarily composed of European-Americans (82% White, 9% Black, 7% Asian, 1% Multiracial)). Those who completed the follow-up did not differ from those who did not complete the follow-up in terms of wise reasoning, t(497) = 1.46, p = .146, age, t(497) = −1.41, p = .160, gender, χ²(N = 505) = 3.20, p = .202, or in distribution by conditions, χ²(N = 505) = 1.56, p = .212.

Procedure

Time 1

After reporting only age and gender, participants completed a thought exercise intended to induce either abstract or concrete mindsets (Freitas et al., 2004), participants in the abstract construal mindset condition were asked “why” they would maintain a goal (health improvement), and participants in the concrete construal mindset condition were asked “how” they would maintain this goal.

Participants then reported a conflict situation they anticipated experiencing within the next week. They reported current feelings (positivity, closeness) toward the person(s) involved in the interaction and completed the 21-item prospective wise reasoning scale (Brienza et al., 2018; α = .86), as in Study 1.

Time 2

One week later, participants were contacted again by email and reminded of their personal conflict situation (copied verbatim). They reported whether the event had actually taken place, rated satisfaction with the conflict outcome and the conflict process, as in Study 1. As another measure of satisfaction with the process, participants rated how supported they felt, how valued they felt, how understood they felt, and how much they felt they were treated with respect during the interaction on scales from not at all true (1) to very true (5). These 4 items were averaged into an index of perceived process fairness (Van Erp et al., 2011; α = .94). This scale correlated positively with the single item assessing process satisfaction, r = .70, p < .001. They also again reported the extent to which they had found meaning or a sense of purpose in the event, using the same 3 items as in Study 1 (α = .75). Finally, participants reported their feelings (positivity, closeness) toward the other person(s) involved in conflict interaction. On average, participants felt more positive about the person at Time 2 compared to Time 1, t(225) = −4.06, p < .001, d = .26, but felt equally close to the person, t(225) = 0.83, p = .408, d = .04. Finally, participants reported retrospective wise reasoning (Brienza et al., 2018), which correlated with prospective wise reasoning, r = .68, p < .001. Descriptive statistics is presented in Table 1.

Results and Discussion

Wise Reasoning Manipulation

Participants in the abstract construal condition reported marginally more prospective wise reasoning (M = 3.62, SD = 0.76) than participants in the concrete construal condition (M = 3.42, SD = 0.82), t(230) = 1.90, p = .059, d = .25. Further, when including Time 1 participants who did not complete the follow-up, difference between experimental conditions in wise reasoning did not reach statistical significance, t(480) = 1.14, p = .255, d = .10. Because of this failure to experimentally manipulate wise reasoning, we focus on examining measured wise reasoning about the upcoming conflict interaction (Hypotheses 2 and 3).

Interpersonal Outcomes

To examine change in feelings, we regressed interpersonal judgments at Time 2 on wise reasoning while controlling for the respective judgments at Time 1. Consistent with Study 1, greater wise reasoning was linked to increased feelings of positivity and marginally more closeness (Table 2). We cross-validated these results via cross-lagged structural equation models in AMOS (see Online Supplement), showing that wise reasoning at Time 1 was significantly associated with feeling greater closeness and positivity when controlling for feelings at Time 1 and for post-hoc wise reasoning at Time 2.

Conflict Experience

Consistent with Study 1, prospective wise reasoning was not significantly associated with conflict outcome satisfaction, r = .07, p = .320, but was associated with perceiving greater process fairness, r = .18, p = .008, and with finding more meaning, r = .22, p = .001. Unlike Study 1, prospective wise reasoning was not significantly associated with the single item assessing process satisfaction, r = .02, p = .762.

We focused on those variables that were significantly associated with wise reasoning as potential mediators. Multiple regression analyses with prospective wise reasoning as predictor, perceived process fairness as mediator, and positivity or closeness at Time 2 as outcome variables (controlling positivity or closeness at Time 1, respectively) showed a significant indirect effect of wise reasoning via perceived process fairness on positivity, but not on closeness (Table 2). A parallel regression analysis showed a significant indirect effect of wise reasoning via meaning making on positivity and closeness (Table 2). Thus, it appears that one underlying reason why those who reasoned wisely in advance experienced more positive interpersonal outcomes was their greater sense of meaning found in the conflict interaction. The indirect effect via perceived process fairness on change in closeness was less systematic and mostly failed to reach statistical significance, suggesting that perceived process fairness is not a mediator of the relationship between prospective wise reasoning and change in closeness.

General Discussion

Interpersonal conflicts are frequent and can affect relationships for the better or for the worse (Gottman et al., 1998; Laursen & Hafen, 2010; Overall & McNulty, 2017). Our studies showed that wise reasoning before the conflict occurs was associated with relatively more positive feelings and greater closeness toward the person involved in the conflict.

Across two studies, one of the underlying reasons for the association between wise reasoning and positive relational outcomes involved a greater sense of meaning in the conflict experience: Whereas prospective wise reasoning might not be associated with experiencing fewer conflicts or more favorable conflict outcomes, it appears to be associated with viewing the conflict as a purposeful and meaningful experience. Another reason may also be that wise reasoning was associated with perceiving more fairness in the way the conflict unfolded (e.g., feeling respected and understood). However, results were less consistent for this potential mediator, and more research is needed to examine how wise reasoning might be associated with the way a conflict unfolds.

Theoretical Contributions

This research contributes to the literature on prospective cognition. Future events tend to be construed more prototypically (Kane et al., 2012), to be associated with greater emotional intensity (Caruso et al., 2008; Caouette et al., 2012), and to be attributed more intentionality (Burns et al., 2012) than equivalent past events. These aspects of prospective cognition might reduce the benefits of wise reasoning because prospective perspective taking might be subject to stereotypical representations of what others might feel in similar situations, exaggerated emotions, and incorrect assumptions about intent. It is notable, therefore, that wise reasoning about a future conflict was prospectively associated with several adaptive interpersonal outcomes, including people’s feelings toward involved parties as well as the interaction experience itself. It is noteworthy that the prospective wise reasoning assessed in the present studies was measured as a between-person individual difference since our attempt at manipulating wise reasoning was unsuccessful (Study 2). Thus, it is possible that people who tend to reason wisely in general extract more meaning from conflict experiences and tend to have better relationships over time. More research is needed to determine whether this style of reasoning can be reliably cultivated as a habit and whether situation-specific interventions aiming to boost wise reasoning can reliably foster equivalent outcomes over time.

Moreover, this research contributes to the literature on wisdom-related psychological processes. These studies are the first to assess prospective benefits of wise reasoning, thereby filling a critical void in prior research on consequences of wise reasoning that relied on retrospective methods (e.g., Brienza et al., 2018; Weststrate & Glück, 2017). Previous benefits of wise reasoning have been studied retrospectively (e.g., Brienza et al., 2018; Grossmann et al., 2016; Kimmes & Durtschi, 2016; Nelson et al., 2017) after the challenging experience has occurred. In these retrospective designs, contextual details of the experience itself might have affected the degree to which individuals reasoned wisely. For instance, it is possible that people who forgave another person after a transgression reasoned wisely (Grossmann et al., 2016) because they were seeking justification for the decision to forgive. Insights from the present studies also provided evidence of a boundary to benefits of wise reasoning: In both studies, wise reasoning did not directly impact the conflict outcome, which likely depends on factors beyond the control of an individual. This observation implies that the benefits of wise reasoning might not lie in objectively better experiences in wise individuals’ lives, but in how wise individuals reflect on the experiences they do have (also see Weststrate & Glück, 2017). The relative importance of finding meaning in the event also suggests that the main benefits of wise reasoning might lie in the reappraisal of experiences once they have occurred rather than in shaping people’s behaviors during the event itself.

Limitations

Our studies were conducted online, using brief self-report measures of complex concepts. While the scale used to assess wise reasoning differentiated individual aspects of wise reasoning and has been extensively validated (Brienza et al., 2018), our measures of the conflict experience and feelings toward the conflict interaction partner were assessed via single items (Study 1) or very brief scales (Study 2). A more thorough operationalization that does justice to the rich and varied concepts of conflict outcomes, conflict process perception, and person perception is needed.

While the conflicts listed by participants were regarded as important (Study 1), they represent ordinary day-to-day challenges. Wise reasoning about such everyday challenges might be easier (e.g., more practiced, less emotional involvement) than for extraordinary challenges. Wise reasoning might emerge as particularly important in extreme circumstances such as major life transitions (e.g., Churchill & Davis, 2010; Pancer et al., 2000).

Constraints on Generality

It is worth highlighting that the samples chiefly involved Western Educated Industrialized Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) (Henrich et al., 2010) samples of MTurk workers who are used to engaging in deliberate thought exercises such as anticipating and describing future conflicts. Findings might not generalize to individuals less used to such introspection. Further, most of the participants in the present study involved young and middle-aged European Americans, raising the question how prospective wise reasoning may impact relationships in other ethnic groups as well as among children or older adults (Grossmann, 2017).

Our findings might also not generalize to all types of interpersonal conflicts. While we assessed a range of interpersonal conflicts—with examples ranging from calling the police on a family member to having discussions with a colleague about scented candles—all conflicts were anticipated in advance by participants, and participants had time (during the experiment and after) to think about how the conflict might play out. Prospective wise reasoning may not be associated as strongly—or might not even be feasible—in situations where conflicts occur unexpectedly, with little time for wise deliberation. Lastly, since our findings are based on participants’ self-report about the conflict, the association between prospective wise reasoning and this reported experience may not generalize to how the conflict actually unfolded or how other involved people experienced the conflict.

Conclusion

Under the right conditions, conflict can benefit interpersonal relationships (e.g., Overall & McNulty, 2017). One such condition appears to be the way people reason about an anticipated conflict. Someone who expects to get into an argument with her colleague and who realizes the limitations of their knowledge, considers their colleagues’ perspective, and is open to compromise before this argument comes to pass might view their colleague more positively after the conflict. In sum, the present studies suggest that prospective wise reasoning is associated with better interpersonal outcomes after experiencing conflicts.

Supplemental Material

R1.Supplemental_Tables_for_subscales,_manipulation,_and_crosslagged_analyses - Wise Reasoning About the Future Is Associated With Adaptive Interpersonal Feelings After Relational Challenges

R1.Supplemental_Tables_for_subscales,_manipulation,_and_crosslagged_analyses for Wise Reasoning About the Future Is Associated With Adaptive Interpersonal Feelings After Relational Challenges by Johanna Peetz and Igor Grossmann in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank Marta Kolbuszewska and Iiulia Kolotylo for their research assistance. We are very grateful to Roger Buehler for his comments and insights on previous versions of the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada grants (Grant # 435-2012-1211 to the first author and Grant # 435-2014-0685 to the second author), as well as the Templeton Pathway to Character Project, and the Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science (Early Researcher Award) to the second author.

ORCID iD

Johanna Peetz

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

References

Arriaga

X. B.

Rusbult

C. E.

(1998). Standing in my partner’s shoes: Partner perspective taking and reactions to accommodative dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(9), 927–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298249002

Baltes

P. B.

Kunzmann

(2004). The two faces of wisdom: Wisdom as a general theory of knowledge and judgment about excellence in mind and virtue vs. wisdom as everyday realization in people and products. Human Development, 47, 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1159/000079156

Baltes

P. B.

Smith

(2008). The fascination of wisdom: Its nature, ontogeny, and function. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00062.x

Baltes

P. B.

Staudinger

U. M.

(2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.122

Bangen

K. J.

Meeks

T. W.

Jeste

D. V.

(2013). Defining and assessing wisdom: A review of the literature. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 1254–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.020

Brienza

J. P.

Grossmann

(2017). Social class and wise reasoning about interpersonal conflicts across regions, persons and situations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1870

Brienza

J. P.

Kung

Santos

Bobocel

Grossmann

(2018). Wisdom, bias, and balance: Toward a process-sensitive measurement of wisdom-related cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(6), 1093–1126. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000171

Burns

Z. C.

Caruso

E. M.

Bartels

D. M.

(2012). Predicting premeditation: Future behavior is seen as more intentional than past behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024861

Caouette

Wohl

M. J.

Peetz

(2012). The future weighs heavier than the past: Collective guilt, perceived control and the influence of time. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(3), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1857

10.

Caruso

E. M.

Gilbert

D. T.

Wilson

T. D.

(2008). A wrinkle in time: Asymmetric valuation of past and future events. Psychological Science, 19(8), 796–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02159.x

11.

Churchill

A. C.

Davis

C. G.

(2010). Realistic orientation and the transition to motherhood. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.1.39

12.

Darnell

Gulliford

Kristjánsson

Paris

(2019). Phronesis and the knowledge-action gap in moral psychology and moral education: A new synthesis? Human Development, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1159/000496136

13.

Davis

C. G.

Nolen-Hoeksema

Larson

(1998). Making sense of loss and benefiting from the experience: Two construals of meaning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.561

14.

Epley

Keysar

Van Boven

Gilovich

(2004). Perspective-taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327

15.

Finkel

E. J.

Slotter

E. B.

Luchies

L. B.

Walton

G. M.

Gross

J. J.

(2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1595–1601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612474938

16.

Freitas

A. L.

Gollwitzer

Trope

(2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 739–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.003

17.

Gignac

G. E.

Szodorai

E. T.

(2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069

18.

Gottman

J. M.

Coan

Carrere

Swanson

(1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/353438

19.

Grossmann

(2017). Wisdom in context. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616672066

20.

Grossmann

Brienza

J. P.

Bobocel

D. R.

(2017). Wise deliberation sustains cooperation. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0061

21.

Grossmann

Gerlach

T. M.

Denissen

J. J.

(2016). Wise reasoning in the face of everyday life challenges. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(7), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616652206

22.

Grossmann

Varnum

M. E.

Kitayama

Nisbett

R. E.

(2013). A route to well-being: Intelligence versus wise reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 944–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029560

23.

Grossmann

Oakes

Santos

H. C.

(2019). Wise reasoning benefits from emodiversity, irrespective of emotional intensity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000543

24.

Grossmann

Weststrate

N. M.

Ardelt

Brienza

J. P.

Dong

Ferrari

Fournier

M. A.

C. S.

Nusbaum

H. C.

Vervaeke

(2020). Wisdom science in a polarized world: Knowns and unknowns. Psychological Inquiry, 31(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1750917

25.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

26.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29–29.

27.

Jackson

L. M.

Pancer

S. M.

Pratt

M. W.

Hunsberger

B. E.

(2000). Great expectations: The relation between expectancies and adjustment during the transition to university. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(10), 2100–2125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02427.x

28.

Jeste

D. V.

Ardelt

Blazer

Kraemer

H. C.

Vaillant

Meeks

T. W.

(2010). Expert consensus on characteristics of wisdom: A Delphi method study. The Gerontologist, 50, 668–680. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq022

29.

Kane

Van Boven

McGraw

A. P.

(2012). Prototypical prospection: Future events are more prototypically represented and simulated than past events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(3), 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1866

30.

Kimmes

J. G.

Durtschi

J. A.

(2016). Forgiveness in romantic relationships: The roles of attachment, empathy, and attributions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42(4), 645–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12171

31.

King

L. A.

Hicks

J. A.

(2009). Detecting and constructing meaning in life events. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(5), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902992316

32.

Kross

Ayduk

Mischel

(2005). When asking “why” does not hurt distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. Psychological Science, 16(9), 709–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01600.x

33.

Laursen

(1995). Conflict and social interaction in adolescent relationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/s15327795jra0501_3

34.

Laursen

Hafen

C. A.

(2010). Future directions in the study of close relationships: Conflict is bad (except when it’s not). Social Development, 19(4), 858–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00546.x

35.

McFarlin

D. B.

Sweeney

P. D.

(1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 626–637. https://doi.org/10.2307/256489

36.

McGonagle

K. A.

Kessler

R. C.

Schilling

E. A.

(1992). The frequency and determinants of marital disagreements in a community sample. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9(4), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407592094003

37.

McKee

Barber

(1999). On defining wisdom. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 49, 149–164. https://doi.org/10.2190/8G32-BNV0-NVP9-7V6G

38.

Nelson

B. W.

Laurent

S. M.

Bernstein

Laurent

H. K.

(2017). Perspective-taking influences autonomic attunement between partners during discussion of conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(2), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515626595

39.

Oakes

Brienza

Elnakouri

Grossmann

(2018). Wise reasoning: Converging evidence for the psychology of sound judgment. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9qvtk

40.

Oettingen

Mayer

(2002). The motivating function of thinking about the future: Expectations versus fantasies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1198–1212. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1198

41.

Overall

N. C.

McNulty

J. K.

(2017). What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate relationships? Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.002

42.

Pancer

S. M.

Pratt

Hunsberger

Gallant

(2000). Thinking ahead: Complexity of expectations and the transition to parenthood. Journal of Personality, 68(2), 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00097

43.

Park

C. L.

(2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301

44.

Rakoczy

Wandt

Thomas

Nowak

Kunzmann

(2018). Theory of mind and wisdom: The development of different forms of perspective-taking in late adulthood. British Journal of Psychology, 109(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12246

45.

Rusbult

C. E.

Verette

Whitney

G. A.

Slovik

L. F.

Lipkus

(1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53

46.

Samios

Henson

D. F.

Simpson

H. J.

(2014). Benefit finding and psychological adjustment following a non-marital relationship breakup. Journal of Relationships Research, 5, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2014.6

47.

Sassenrath

Hodges

S. D.

Pfattheicher

(2016). It’s all about the self: When perspective taking backfires. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 405–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416659253

48.

Seligman

M. E.

Railton

Baumeister

R. F.

Sripada

(2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612474317

49.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2, 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.4.347

50.

Taylor-Carter

M. A.

Cook

Weinberg

(1997). Planning and expectations of the retirement experience. Educational Gerontology: An International Quarterly, 23(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/0360127970230306

51.

Thibaut

J. W.

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

52.

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1086/652233

53.

Van Erp

K. J.

Giebels

Van Der Zee

K. I.

Van Duijn

M. A.

(2011). Expatriate adjustment: The role of justice and conflict in intimate relationships. Personal Relationships, 18(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01312.x

54.

Weststrate

N. M.

Glück

(2017). Hard-earned wisdom: Exploratory processing of difficult life experience is positively associated with wisdom. Developmental Psychology, 53(4), 800–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000286

55.

Wilson

T. D.

Gilbert

D. T.

(2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00355.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.55 MB