Researchers view intelligence as an individual’s ability to adapt, often in multiple environments (Sternberg, 2001). General intelligence has been classified into two dimensions of ability: Fluid intelligence involves the ability to perform abstract reasoning, whereas crystallized intelligence involves the ability to use knowledge, skills, and experience that are acquired over a lifetime (Horn & Cattell, 1966). Researchers have shown that people’s intelligence quotient, whether referring to fluid or crystallized intelligence, has been rising considerably over the generations (Flynn, 2007). However, the scale and extent of conflict around the world has not shown signs of diminishing. For example, people in all societies, to differing degrees, still marginalize minorities, and in many societies people are becoming more polarized and increasingly xenophobic and nationalistic (Sternberg, 2018). It is suggested by the current global situation that the growth of human intelligence has not correspondingly brought wisdom.

Wisdom involves the use of certain types of pragmatic reasoning that guide an individual toward a balance of different interests (Grossmann, 2017; Sternberg, 1998). Grossmann (2017) synthesized these facets of cognition in a framework of wise reasoning, which includes (a) intellectual humility or recognition of limits of an individual’s knowledge, (b) appreciation of perspectives broader than the immediate issue, (c) sensitivity to possible changes in social relations, and (d) compromise between different points of view. Dealing with various conflicts can be regarded as good medicine, as wise reasoning can promote a balance between the conflicting interests (Brienza, Kung, Santos, Bobocel, & Grossmann, 2018; Sternberg, 1998). “Societies define intelligence largely on the basis of individual differences to account for the fact that some people are more successful than others…in life” (Sternberg, 2001, p. 360). Intelligent people are more likely to be rewarded than are those who are less intelligent, because they can adapt in multiple environments (Sternberg, 2001). As a result, people in societies invest substantial resources in the development of cognitive abilities related to intelligence. Many psychological researchers have examined the development of individual intelligence. In contrast, the cultivation of wisdom has been the focus in a relatively small amount of research (Huynh & Grossmann, 2020).

However, recent societal shifts regarding the call for wisdom have given rise to uncertainty and populist politics around the world (Twenge, Abele, & Campbell, 2010). Therefore, it is necessary to explore ways of fostering wisdom and an understanding of the influence of intelligence on wisdom. In this study we empirically examined the Confucian doctrine of the mean (Zhongyong thinking) as a moderator in the relationship between intelligence and wisdom. Zhongyong thinking can be defined as considering all factors and interests involved in an individual’s situation and then behaving appropriately in accordance with this consideration (Wu & Lin, 2005). Zhongyong thinking is similar to Grossman’s (2017) definition of wise reasoning in that both emphasize interpersonal harmony from a holistic perspective; however, they are also different. After considering a situation from other people’s perspectives, high Zhongyong thinking people may readily abandon their own ideas in an effort to find a solution broadly accepted by others (Yao, Yang, Dong, & Wang, 2010). In contrast, from the wise reasoning perspective, as defined by Grossmann (2017), people are not required to abandon their own opinion. Moreover, peoples’ own perspective and past experience are important for wise reasoning (Kunzmann, Nowak, Thomas, & Nestler, 2018). Zhongyong thinking and wise reasoning also differ in people’s prescription for approaching conflict. Those with high Zhongyong thinking often choose to avoid conflict as much as possible by pursuing conflict resolution (Du, Ran, & Cao, 2014). In contrast, wise reasoning may lead people to use conflict as a means to resolve a particular problem. For example, wisdom may require leaders to endorse unpopular reforms to achieve long-term beneficial societal outcomes (Grossmann et al., 2012).

The relationship between intelligence and wisdom has long been a focus in psychological wisdom research (Clayton, 1983). Wisdom is defined in the Berlin wisdom paradigm as expert knowledge in the fundamental pragmatics of life, that is, knowledge as insight into the uncertainty of life dilemmas, and knowledge about making decisions and managing life dilemmas efficiently (Baltes & Smith 2008). However, standardized intelligence tests do not capture people’s ability to think about real-world decision making or social relations (Stanovich, 2009). Moreover, according to Sternberg’s (2004) imbalance theory of foolishness, smart people are often those most susceptible to acting in foolish ways. This theory builds on his earlier balance theory of wisdom, according to which wisdom is an individual’s application of intelligence to the balancing of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal goals over the long and short term by adapting to, versus influencing, their environment (Sternberg, 1998).

It is difficult to make an empirical evaluation of the relationship between intelligence and wisdom, because researchers have used different definitions and measures of wisdom. In general, intelligence has been found to be correlated with cognitively oriented wisdom measures (Glück et al., 2013). However, this correlation can differ according to the specific rating or cognitively oriented measure that is used. For instance, according to the Berlin wisdom paradigm, wisdom-related performance is significantly correlated with fluid intelligence and with two crystallized intelligence measures: the comprehension and vocabulary subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Staudinger, Lopez, & Baltes, 1997). Further, fluid intelligence has been found to be negatively correlated with wise reasoning, whereas crystallized intelligence was positively correlated with wise reasoning (Grossmann, Na, Varnum, Kitayama, & Nisbett, 2013). Thus, the Berlin wisdom paradigm and wise reasoning, which both emphasize cognitive aspects of wisdom, have different relationships with intelligence (Kunzmann et al., 2018).

A measure of intelligence is an assessment of people’s ability to choose the most effective way to achieve a certain goal. Fluid and crystallized intelligence both have features in common with wisdom. Fluid intelligence and wisdom involve abstract, as opposed to pragmatic, reasoning. Crystallized intelligence also involves knowledge and skills from past experiences, and may increase with age (Grossmann et al., 2010). However, unlike wisdom, neither of these forms of intelligence is focused on the balance of interests of all parties in a situation. Intelligent people tend to prioritize their own immediate goals, and often act foolishly as they focus only on their own interests and ignore those of others (Sternberg, 2004).

In contrast, wisdom involves the balance of short- and long-term interests and goals among all parties involved in a situation (Grossman, 2017). As such, making a wise decision sometimes necessitates the individual making a compromise and/or concessions in regard to the original target. Cheung et al. (2003) suggested that Zhongyong rationality can offer a solution to the paradox of rationality, in that Zhongyong rationality is a mixture of instrumental rationality, whereby the doer seeks to attain their own rationally pursued ends, and human-value rationality, whereby rationality is independent of its prospects of success (Weber, 1921/1978). High Zhongyong thinking people have a well-developed sense of the interests of the involved conflicting parties. Thus, Zhongyong thinking can help intelligent people to think not only of themselves but also of others, and make wise decisions. Therefore, we hypothesized that Zhongyong thinking will play a moderating role in the relationship between crystallized intelligence and wisdom.

Method

Participants and Procedure

This research was approved by the Ethics Board of Nanjing Normal University and informed consent was obtained from all participants before the study began. We recruited 114 undergraduate and postgraduate students from a college in China. Participants met in a laboratory and were instructed to complete all the measures, which took approximately 40 minutes. Their attentiveness when they were participating in the study was assessed with two items (e.g., “I conscientiously attempted to follow instructions to the best of my ability”) rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time). We excluded those respondents who indicated that they were attentive “none of the time” (Huynh, Oakes, Shay, & McGregor, 2017). The final sample comprised 103 participants (68 women and 35 men), whose average age was 21.35 years (SD = 3.08). Each participant received 20 yuan (~US$3.00) and was thanked for their participation.

Measures

Intelligence. We initially tested two measures of fluid intelligence: the short form of Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices Test (Arthur & Day, 1994), which is a well-established measure of abstract reasoning, and the Digit Span subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, which we used to measure the number storage capacity of the working memory. However, the relationship between the two tests was not significant (r = -.07, ns) in our study. Thus, we judged that Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices Test was the more appropriate measure to use because it represents the ability to reason. Participants also completed two measures of crystallized intelligence: the comprehension and vocabulary subtests of the Chinese version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. As the two subtests were significantly correlated with each other (r = .63, p < .001), they were collapsed into a single index.

Wisdom. We used the Situated Wise Reasoning Scale (Brienza et al., 2017) to measure wise reasoning in the context of interpersonal conflict. The Chinese version of the scale was obtained from the original authors’ website (https://uwaterloo.ca/wisdom-and-culture-lab/measures). Participants first recalled a recent experience of conflict with a friend or in the workplace. To ensure accuracy of recall, we asked participants to answer several questions about the situation and their subjective experience. They then responded to 21 items measuring the extent to which they used the following five aspects of wise reasoning: (a) consideration of others’ perspectives, (b) consideration of change and multiple ways a situation may unfold, (c) intellectual humility/recognition of limits of knowledge, (d) search for a compromise/conflict resolution, and (e) view of the event through the vantage point of an outsider. Sample items are “Tried to communicate with the other person what we might have in common” and “Looked for different solutions as the situation evolved.” Participants rated the items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Cronbach’s alpha was .90 in this study.

Zhongyong thinking. Zhongyong thinking was measured with the Zhongyong Thinking Scale (Wu & Lin, 2005), which comprises 13 items assessed on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), and are divided across three dimensions: multiple thinking, holism, and harmoniousness. However, we considered that the harmoniousness dimension has higher social desirability than the other two in the Chinese culture because harmony is highly respected. In addition, harmony is not only deemed an end in its own right but it can also be viewed as a means to a materialistic end (Leung, Koch, & Lu, 2002). Thus, we used only the first two dimensions, which comprise nine items. A sample item is “I will adjust my idea after taking into account the views of others.” Cronbach’s alpha was .84 in this study.

Control variables. As previous researchers have found that demographic variables may influence participants’ performance (Grossmann et al., 2010), we controlled for gender and age.

Results

First, we tested for common method variance using Harman’s single-factor test. The first unrotated factor extracted from a factor analysis containing all items of interest accounted for 26% (< 40%) of the total variance is wisdom (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Thus, we concluded that common method variance was not a problem in our study. The relationships among the variables were then assessed with Pearson’s correlations. Wisdom was significantly and positively correlated with both crystallized intelligence and Zhongyong thinking, whereas the relationship between wisdom and fluid intelligence was nonsignificant (see Table 1).

The interaction effect of crystallized intelligence and Zhongyong thinking on wisdom was significantly positive (see Table 2). The addition of this interaction effect explained an additional 4% of the variance in wisdom, and results of an F test remained significant after the addition of this interaction effect (see Table 2). Results of a simple slope test show that the relationship between crystallized intelligence and wisdom was significantly positive when Zhongyong thinking was high (b = 0.30, SE = 0.11, t = 2.79, p < .01), but was not statistically significant when Zhongyong thinking was low (b = -0.01, SE = 0.10, t = -0.10, p = .46). Therefore, Zhongyong thinking strengthened the relationship between crystallized intelligence and wisdom (see Figure 1). Hypothesis 1 was, thus, supported.

Discussion

Our results are consistent with previous findings on wisdom and intelligence (Grossmann et al., 2013; Staudinger et al., 1997), and we found a significant correlation between crystallized intelligence and wisdom. In addition, we found that Zhongyong thinking moderated this relationship. That is, as crystallized intelligence may not be correlated with wisdom for people with low Zhongyong thinking, these people appear less likely to be able to turn their crystallized intelligence into wisdom. In contrast, this correlation was significantly positive for people with high Zhongyong thinking in our study. In other words, high Zhongyong thinking may promote the transformation of crystallized intelligence into wise behavior. People with high crystallized intelligence tend to use this ability to achieve their own immediate goals while ignoring the interests of others. As Zhongyong thinking leads people to take a holistic perspective and to seek to compromise (Yang et al., 2006), we suggest that Zhongyong thinking can lead people with high crystallized intelligence to prioritize interpersonal relationships, and that doing so brings wisdom.

In addition, our finding that fluid intelligence, as measured by Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices Test, was nonsignificantly correlated with wisdom is consistent with the idea that fluid intelligence is insufficient to solve the complex, ill-defined problems of adult life, which need postformal dialectical thinking (Grossmann, 2017). We also found a significant positive correlation between Zhongyong thinking and wisdom. As East Asian people tend to behave in ways that can be captured by a Zhongyong-oriented model in daily life (Cheung et al., 2003), this may explain previous findings that Japanese (vs. North American) young adults show greater use of wise reasoning during interpersonal conflict (Grossmann et al., 2012).

Our findings offer a novel contribution to research on intelligence, wisdom, and Zhongyong thinking. First, although the distinction between intelligence and wisdom has often been discussed, few researchers (e.g., Glück et al., 2013) have attempted to understand how and when these two concepts are closely related. We introduced a Chinese indigenous concept to address this universal relationship. Second, although Zhongyong thinking is an important concept in Confucian philosophy, people often view it as the cause of deep-rooted bad habits of Chinese people, such as blurring the line between right and wrong, mediocrity, and lack of ambition (Feng 2014; Yang, 2010). Our findings suggest that this mode of thinking can also help people, especially intelligent people, become wiser when dealing with interpersonal conflict. Therefore, when intelligence is being developed and cultivated, Confucian resources should be used to further clarify and cultivate Zhongyong thinking.

However, there are several limitations in this study. First, our participants were university students, with no middle-aged or older adults. A wider range of participants from different age groups is needed to test the generalizability of our findings, because previous researchers have found that both wisdom and crystallized intelligence increase with age (e.g., Grossmann et al., 2013). Second, we measured wisdom by employing a state-focused approach in daily life. Thus, the wisdom trait as represented in our study can be defined as a distribution of state wisdom. Future researchers could use the Situated Wise Reasoning Scale (Brienza et al., 2017) to test participants at more than one time point to measure trait wisdom. This will lead to a deeper understanding of the relationships between Zhongyong thinking, intelligence, and wisdom.

References

Arthur, W., & Day, D. V. (1994). Development of a short form for the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 394–403.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054002013

Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (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

Brienza, J. P., Kung, F. Y. H., Santos, H. C., Bobocel, D. R., & Grossmann, I. (2018). Wisdom, bias, and balance: Toward a process-sensitive measurement of wisdom-related cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 1093–1126.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000171

Cheung, T.-S., Yang, C.-F., Chiu, C.-Y., King, A. Y.-C., Chan, K.-M., & Chan, H.-M. (2003). On Zhongyong rationality: The Confucian doctrine of the mean as a missing link between instrumental rationality and communicative rationality. Asian Journal of Social Science, 31, 107–127.
https://doi.org/10.1163/156853103764778559

Clayton, V. (1983). Wisdom and intelligence: The nature and function of knowledge in the later years. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 15, 315–321.
https://doi.org/10.2190/17TQ-BW3Y-P8J4-TG40

Du, J., Ran, M., & Cao, P. (2014). The context-contingent effect of Zhongyong on employee innovation behavior [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46, 113–124.
https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00113

Feng, Y. L. (2014). Six books of Zhen Yuan [In Chinese]. Beijing, China: Zhonghua Book Company.

Flynn, J. R. (2007). What is intelligence? Beyond the Flynn effect. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605253

Glück, J., König, S., Naschenweng, K., Redzanowski, U., Dorner, L., Straßer, I., & Wiedermann, W. (2013). How to measure wisdom: Content, reliability, and validity of five measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 405.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00405

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

Grossmann, I., Karasawa, M., Izumi, S., Na, J., Varnum, M. E. W., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2012). Aging and wisdom: Culture matters. Psychological Science, 23, 1059–1066.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612446025

Grossmann, I., Na, J., Varnum, M. E. W., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2013). A route to well-being: Intelligence versus wise reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 944–953.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029560

Grossmann, I., Na, J., Varnum, M. E. W., Park, D. C., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2010). Reasoning about social conflicts improves into old age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 7246–7250.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001715107

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023816

Huynh, A. C., & Grossmann, I. (2020). A pathway for wisdom-focused education. Journal of Moral Education, 49, 9–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2018.1496903

Huynh, A. C., Oakes, H., Shay, G. R., & McGregor, I. (2017). The wisdom in virtue: Pursuit of virtue predicts wise reasoning about personal conflicts. Psychological Science, 28, 1848–1856.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617722621

Kunzmann, U., Nowak, J., Thomas, S., & Nestler, S. (2018). Value relativism and perspective taking are two distinct facets of wisdom-related knowledge. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 73, 1384–1392.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx136

Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 201–220.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016287501806

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Staudinger, U. M., Lopez, D. F., & Baltes, P. B. (1997). The psychometric location of wisdom-related performance: Intelligence, personality, and more? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1200–1214.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972311007

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

Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist, 56, 360–362.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.360

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Why smart people can be so foolish. European Psychologist, 9, 145–150.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.9.3.145

Sternberg, R. J. (2018). Speculations on the role of successful intelligence in solving contemporary world problems. Journal of Intelligence, 6, 4.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6010004

Twenge, J. M., Abebe, E. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Fitting in or standing out: Trends in American parents’ choices for children’s names, 1880–2007. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 19–25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609349515

Weber, M. (1921/1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretative sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Wu, C.-H., & Lin, Y.-C. (2005). Development of a Zhongyong thinking style scale [In Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247–300.
https://doi.org/10.6254/2005.24.247

Yang, C. F. (2010). Multiplicity of Zhongyong studies [In Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 34, 3–96.
https://doi.org/10.6254/2010.34.3

Yang, C. F., Chiu, C. Y., Chan, K. M., King, A., Cheung, T. S., & Chan, H. M. (2006). How Confucian are contemporary Chinese? Construction of an ideal type and its application to three Chinese communities. European Journal of East Asian Studies, 5, 157–180.
https://doi.org/10.1163/157006106778869289

Yao, X., Yang, Q., Dong, N., & Wang, L. (2010). Moderating effect of Zhong Yong on the relationship between creativity and innovation behaviour. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 53–57.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01300.x

Arthur, W., & Day, D. V. (1994). Development of a short form for the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 394–403.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054002013

Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (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

Brienza, J. P., Kung, F. Y. H., Santos, H. C., Bobocel, D. R., & Grossmann, I. (2018). Wisdom, bias, and balance: Toward a process-sensitive measurement of wisdom-related cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 1093–1126.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000171

Cheung, T.-S., Yang, C.-F., Chiu, C.-Y., King, A. Y.-C., Chan, K.-M., & Chan, H.-M. (2003). On Zhongyong rationality: The Confucian doctrine of the mean as a missing link between instrumental rationality and communicative rationality. Asian Journal of Social Science, 31, 107–127.
https://doi.org/10.1163/156853103764778559

Clayton, V. (1983). Wisdom and intelligence: The nature and function of knowledge in the later years. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 15, 315–321.
https://doi.org/10.2190/17TQ-BW3Y-P8J4-TG40

Du, J., Ran, M., & Cao, P. (2014). The context-contingent effect of Zhongyong on employee innovation behavior [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46, 113–124.
https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00113

Feng, Y. L. (2014). Six books of Zhen Yuan [In Chinese]. Beijing, China: Zhonghua Book Company.

Flynn, J. R. (2007). What is intelligence? Beyond the Flynn effect. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605253

Glück, J., König, S., Naschenweng, K., Redzanowski, U., Dorner, L., Straßer, I., & Wiedermann, W. (2013). How to measure wisdom: Content, reliability, and validity of five measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 405.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00405

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

Grossmann, I., Karasawa, M., Izumi, S., Na, J., Varnum, M. E. W., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2012). Aging and wisdom: Culture matters. Psychological Science, 23, 1059–1066.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612446025

Grossmann, I., Na, J., Varnum, M. E. W., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2013). A route to well-being: Intelligence versus wise reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 944–953.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029560

Grossmann, I., Na, J., Varnum, M. E. W., Park, D. C., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2010). Reasoning about social conflicts improves into old age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 7246–7250.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001715107

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023816

Huynh, A. C., & Grossmann, I. (2020). A pathway for wisdom-focused education. Journal of Moral Education, 49, 9–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2018.1496903

Huynh, A. C., Oakes, H., Shay, G. R., & McGregor, I. (2017). The wisdom in virtue: Pursuit of virtue predicts wise reasoning about personal conflicts. Psychological Science, 28, 1848–1856.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617722621

Kunzmann, U., Nowak, J., Thomas, S., & Nestler, S. (2018). Value relativism and perspective taking are two distinct facets of wisdom-related knowledge. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 73, 1384–1392.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx136

Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 201–220.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016287501806

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Staudinger, U. M., Lopez, D. F., & Baltes, P. B. (1997). The psychometric location of wisdom-related performance: Intelligence, personality, and more? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1200–1214.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972311007

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

Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist, 56, 360–362.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.360

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Why smart people can be so foolish. European Psychologist, 9, 145–150.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.9.3.145

Sternberg, R. J. (2018). Speculations on the role of successful intelligence in solving contemporary world problems. Journal of Intelligence, 6, 4.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6010004

Twenge, J. M., Abebe, E. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Fitting in or standing out: Trends in American parents’ choices for children’s names, 1880–2007. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 19–25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609349515

Weber, M. (1921/1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretative sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Wu, C.-H., & Lin, Y.-C. (2005). Development of a Zhongyong thinking style scale [In Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247–300.
https://doi.org/10.6254/2005.24.247

Yang, C. F. (2010). Multiplicity of Zhongyong studies [In Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 34, 3–96.
https://doi.org/10.6254/2010.34.3

Yang, C. F., Chiu, C. Y., Chan, K. M., King, A., Cheung, T. S., & Chan, H. M. (2006). How Confucian are contemporary Chinese? Construction of an ideal type and its application to three Chinese communities. European Journal of East Asian Studies, 5, 157–180.
https://doi.org/10.1163/157006106778869289

Yao, X., Yang, Q., Dong, N., & Wang, L. (2010). Moderating effect of Zhong Yong on the relationship between creativity and innovation behaviour. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 53–57.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01300.x

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31971014) and the Key Research Center funding of Humanities and Social Science of the Ministry of Education China (16JJD880026).

Feng-Yan Wang, Institute of Moral Education, Nanjing Normal University, 122 Ninghai Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210097, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]