RESILIENCE

Ann Masten (2001, p. 228) defines resilience as “a class of phenomenon characterized by

good outcomes in spite of serious threats to adaptation or development” (author’s italics).
Ryff and Singer (2003a, p. 20), define resilience as “maintenance, recovery, or improvement
in mental or physical health following challenge”
Developmental perspective
It is important to recognize that descriptions of resilient responses or resilient individuals are
judgment calls. As Masten (2001) notes, two factors are involved. For a judgment of
resilience to be made, a person must first face a “significant” threat or risk that has the
potential to produce negative outcomes. Research has investigated a variety of factors that
may threaten normal development. Studies show that children who grow up in physically
abusive homes, who have parents suffering from mental illness or alcoholism, or who are
raised in poverty are at significant risk for a variety of problems. Compared to children raised
by healthy parents, for example, children raised by parents with mental illnesses are at
greater risk for developing mental illnesses themselves (Rutter, 1985). Without a
demonstrated risk, there is no resilience
The second part of resilience requires judgment of a favourable or good outcome. The
standards for judging outcomes may be defined by the normative expectations of society for
the age and situation of the individual (Masten, 2001). Finally, Masten (2001) notes that
some researchers have also defined resilience as an absence of problem behaviors or
psychopathology following adversity. Children of alcoholic, mentally ill, or abusive parents
may be judged resilient if they don’t develop substance abuse problems, suffer mental
illness, become abusive parents themselves, or show symptoms of poor adjustment.
Researchers studying adult development and the aging process have focused on how people
maintain their health and well-being and continue to grow as individuals despite the
inevitable challenges of life. As in childhood, resilient responses to challenge are quite
common across the life span—a phenomenon Ann Masten (2001) calls “ordinary magic.”
The foundations of resilience include psychological resources such as a flexible self-concept
that permits people to change key features of their self-definition in response to changing
circumstances, a sense of autonomy and self-direction, and environmental mastery and
competence. Social resources are also important to resilience. Included here are quality
relationships with others who provide intimacy and social support.
Clinical perspective
As we have seen, developmental researchers have examined children who faced adversity
during some part of their growing up years. Resilient responses were documented by the fat
that some children showed healthy outcomes despite facing serious threats to normal
development. Within the clinical psychology literature, studies of resilience have a
somewhat different focus. Compared to developmental research, clinical investigations have
examined how people cope with more specific life challenges occurring within a shorter
frame of time. Developmental studies of resilience often involve long-term, longitudinal
studies of children facing multiple risks. In contrast, research in clinical psychology has
investigated shorter-term reactions to specific events, such as loss (e.g., death of a loved
one) and trauma (i.e., violent or life-threatening situations).
Recent studies evaluating people’s emotional reactions to loss and trauma suggest that
recovery and resilience represent two distinct patterns of response (see Figure 1). Bonanno
(2004) argues that recovery, judged by mental health criteria, involves a period of clinically
significant symptoms (e.g., of posttraumatic stress or depression) lasting at least 6 months.
This period is followed by a much longer time frame of several years, during which the
individual gradually returns to the level of mental health that existed before the trauma or
loss. Resilience, on the other hand, involves short-term disturbances in a person’s normal
functioning lasting only for a period of weeks. This disturbance is followed by a return to
relatively stable and generally healthy functioning. The concept of resilience highlights the
strength of the individual and his or her coping resources. Recovery begins with more severe
reactions and takes considerably more time before the person returns pre-event levels of
functioning. The concept of recovery highlights individual vulnerability and coping resources
that have been overwhelmed. Chronic and delayed patterns of response to trauma are
characterized by enduring or delayed disruptions, respectively. This underestimation may
occur because clinicians tend to see only those people who suffer persistent reactions and
therefore seek out professional help. As a consequence, clinicians may tend to believe that
severe reactions to trauma and loss are relatively common, and resilient responses relatively
rare. Furthermore, resilient responses may be misinterpreted as signs of poor adjustment or
inadequate coping—in short, symptomatic of pathology. That is, people who did not go
through a prolonged grieving process were thought to be avoiding or denying the reality of
their distress
Bonanno notes that these assumptions have been challenged by recent research showing
that many people experience relatively short-term disturbances after loss, rather than
prolonged periods of distress, grieving, or depression. There is little evidence that the
absence of distress is pathological, and virtually no evidence supporting a delayed grief
reaction. In addition, people showing low levels of grief and distress following loss of a loved
one have not been found to be cold, callous, or insensitive individuals. To avoid
pathologizing normal reactions, Bonanno argues for a greater awareness that resilience is
both a common and a healthy response to loss and trauma.
Resilience Among Disadvantaged Youth
A substantial amount of research shows that children living in poverty are at risk for a variety
of problems, ranging from emotional disorders and drug use to school failure and juvenile
delinquency. These and other potential problems reflect the stressful and disadvantaged
nature of impoverishment. Poor children are more likely to have parents who suffer from
emotional disturbances or drug addictions, and are more likely than middle-class children to
witness violence and engage in criminal behavior such as vandalism and illegal drug use. In
addition, poor children have fewer resources in the form of supportive community agencies,
high-quality schools, and health care. Despite these risks, the majority of poor children do
not engage in criminal behavior, drop out of school, or suffer debilitating emotional
problems. A probable reason for this is that many poor children benefit from the protective
factors and thus show resilience in the face of adversity.
a) Cognitive and Emotional Self-Regulation Skills
Buckner and his colleagues (2003) found that resilient youths, compared to non-resilient
youths, scored significantly higher on measures of cognitive and emotional self-regulation.
Cognitive self-regulation serves an executive function in directing action and solving
problems. Youths with good cognitive self-regulation skills are well-organized, self-
disciplined, and able to carry out plans from beginning to end. They can focus their attention
on the important features of a task by concentrating and channelling their efforts toward
successful completion. Their thinking shows flexibility in considering alternative solutions,
and tasks are considered abstractly rather than concretely. In other words, cognitive self-
regulation involves the ability to see the big picture—the forest rather than just the trees.
Emotional self-regulation is equally important to resilient living. Emotional self-regulation
refers to the ability to keep your cool in tough situations. Youths with this skill are able to
suppress their anger rather than lashing out. That is, they are adept at controlling how
intensely they express their emotions and find ways of showing emotion that do not alienate
or cause negative reactions in others. The absence of emotional regulation skills, as noted by
Buckner and his colleagues, has been strongly linked to mood disorders and behavioral
disorders. Poor emotional regulation can lead to considerable trouble for children and
adolescents. Taken together, you can imagine the value of cognitive and emotional self-
regulation skills for youths living in poverty. Being able to stay on task, accomplish goals, deal
effectively with daily hassles and challenges, control negative emotions, channel energies
toward appropriate goals, and deal effectively with others are important skills for youths in
any environment. But in an environment that presents a constant array of challenges and
stressful events, these skills may make the difference between a healthy and successful life,
and a life plagued by emotional disorder, academic failure, and crime.
b) Developing Self-Regulation Abilities
The degree of parental monitoring also differentiated resilient from non-resilient youth.
Mothers who scored high on parental monitoring reported that they always knew where
their children were, and who was with their children. This was especially important when
the mother was away from home. Parental monitoring is an important aspect of the child’s
environment, given that there are real threats to children’s safety and some of these are
heightened in low-income neighbourhoods. Monitoring probably also contributed to
children’s awareness that they were cared for and valued, thereby perhaps contributing to
their own sense of worth and their development of self-regulation skills. Mothers who
actively monitored their children’s whereabouts may have provided a positive role model to
help children develop self-monitoring of their own behavior.
OPTIMISM
Seligman believes that anyone can learn how to become more optimistic. He developed a
learned optimism test designed to help people discover how optimistic they are. Seligman's
approach to learning optimism is based upon the cognitive-behavioral techniques developed
by Aaron Beck and the rational emotive behavioral therapy created by Albert Ellis. Both
approaches are focused on identifying the underlying thoughts that influence behaviors and
then actively challenging such beliefs.
Seligman's approach is known as the "ABCDE" model of learned optimism:
1. Adversity: The situation that calls for a response-
2. Belief: How we interpret the event
3. Consequence: The way that we behave, respond, or feel
4. Disputation: The effort we expend to argue or dispute the belief
5. Energization: The outcome that emerges from trying to challenge our beliefs
Some critics have argued that some learned optimism training programs are less about
teaching people to become more optimistic and more about reducing pessimism. Other
researchers believe that explanatory styles may actually have less to do with optimism than
previously believed.
Learned and Dispositional optimism.
Optimism involves believing that good things will happen and that you can take steps to help
ensure that good things will happen. Being optimistic about life can help you approach
problems with an open mind, improve your mood, and boost your subjective well-being.
While some people seem to come by optimism quite naturally, it's also something you can
cultivate and nurture.
Learned optimism involves developing the ability to view the world from a positive point of
view. It is often contrasted with learned helplessness. Dispositional optimism is the
generalized, relatively stable tendency to expect good outcomes across important life
domains By challenging negative self-talk and replacing pessimistic thoughts with more
positive ones, people can learn how to become more optimistic.
1. Better Health Outcomes- People who are more optimistic enjoy better physical
health. Evidence indicates that optimism plays a significant role in health outcomes
for cardiovascular disease, cancer, pain, physical symptoms, and overall mortality.
Researchers have also found that optimistic people are more likely to engage in
behaviors that promote good health. When dealing with a health problem, for
example, optimists are more likely to learn about the condition and take steps to
minimize their risk and protect their health.
2. Better Mental Health- Optimists report higher levels of well-being than pessimists. As
with physical well-being, optimistic people are likelier to engage in activities that
promote good mental health. Instead of turning to harmful behaviors when faced
 with stress or difficult experiences, they rely on healthy coping mechanisms that
boost well-being and promote resilience. In one study, maintaining an optimistic
outlook was associated with a lower risk of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and
alcohol misuse.
3. Higher Motivation- Becoming more optimistic can also help you maintain motivation
when pursuing goals. Optimists have more of a growth mindset when facing life's
challenges. They exert effort to learn, change, and grow, even when facing obstacles.
On the other hand, pessimists have more of a fixed mindset. They are more likely to
disengage and give up in the face of difficulty. For example, pessimists might give up
when trying to lose weight because they believe diets never work. Conversely,
optimists are more likely to focus on positive changes they can make that will help
them reach their goals.
4. Longer Lifespan- Studies have shown that optimistic people tend to live longer than
pessimists. One study found that optimistic people live 11% to 15% longer than non-
optimistic people.
5. Lower Stress Levels- Optimists not only experience less stress, but they also cope
with it better. They tend to be more resilient and recover from setbacks more quickly
Rather than becoming overwhelmed and discouraged by negative events, they focus
on making positive changes that will improve their lives
How does optimism work
Optimism goes beyond seeing the bright side of a situation or expecting good things. It's also
a way of explaining what has already happened. When something good happens, optimists
think about what they did to make the situation turn out so well. They see their abilities as
permanent, stable parts of themselves. They think of how this good thing can lead to other
good things. When things don't go as expected, it's the reverse: Optimists don't blame
themselves. They see setbacks as temporary. When something goes wrong, optimists link it
to a specific situation or event, not their capabilities. Because they don't view setbacks as
personal failings, optimists are able to bounce back from disappointment better than
pessimists.
Optimism VS pessimism
Optimists Pessimists

 Attribute positive events to  Attribute positive events to external

internalcauses causes
 Attribute negative events to external  Attribute negative events to internal
causes causes
 Believe that good things will happen  Believe that bad things will happen in the
in the future future
 Tend to view bad things as mistakes or  Tend to see good things as mistakes or
random flukes flukes
When pessimists face stress, they tend to use escapist or avoidant behaviors. In other words,
rather than dealing with the problem or using healthy coping mechanisms to manage them,
they just try to avoid the stress or their emotions altogether. This can also hurt motivation;
pessimists also let their doubts about the future discourage them from trying. Optimistic
people, on the other hand, actively pursue things that will improve their well-being and try
to minimize the stress in their lives. They are generally more hopeful about the future and
willing to take steps to ensure good things happen.
Altruism
Empathy- Emotional reactions that are focused on or oriented toward other people and
include feelings of compassion, sympathy, and concern.
Altruism- motivated purely by the desire to relieve a victim’s suffering and not by the
anticipation of reward.
In other words, we assist others because we share in their emotions and desire to aid in
eliminating of those unpleasant feelings. This is both unselfish and selfish in that it motivates
us to help others without expecting anything in return. However, it is also selfish in that
helping others can benefit us personally by improving our mood.
Empathy-altruism hypothesis The suggestion that some prosocial acts are motivated solely
by the desire to help someone in need. Such motivation may even be powerful enough to
motivate the helper to participate in unpleasant, risky, and even life-threatening tasks.
Empathy consists of three distinct components:

 an emotional aspect – (emotional empathy) which involves sharing the feelings and
emotions of others
 a cognitive component-which involves perceiving others’ thoughts and feelings
accurately (empathic accuracy)
 empathic concern -which involves feelings of concern for another’s well-being
Batson (2006) defines altruism as a “motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing
another’s welfare.” The empathy-altruism hypothesis explains altruism as a result of
empathy. Empathy is understanding someone else’s perspective or situation (sympathy is
feeling sorry for, empathy is understanding). So, if you see someone struggling with their
assignments because they procrastinated, you may not feel sympathy, but you may feel
empathy, especially if you’ve been in that position before. The hypotheses are, therefore,
that feelings of empathy will lead to altruistic actions.
Cultivating Altruism
1)Find inspiration: Look to inspirational people who engage in altruistic acts. Seeing others
work to actively improve the lives of individuals and communities can inspire you to act
altruistically in your own life.
2)Practice empathy: Rather than distancing yourself from others, practice empathy by
building connections and putting a human face on the problems you see. Consider how you
would feel in that situation, and think about things that you can do to help make a
difference.
3)Set a goal: Find ways that you can regularly perform random acts of kindness for others.
Look around you for people who may need help, or look for ways that you can volunteer in
your community. Fix a meal for someone in need, help a friend with a chore, donate during a
blood drive, or spend some time volunteering for a local organization.
4)Make it a habit: Try to keep kindness in the forefront of your thoughts. For example, think
about the altruistic acts you've performed, how they might have helped someone, and how
you might repeat them going forward. Or, consider performing at least one act of kindness a
day, and take some time to reflect on it.
Gratitude
The term gratitude is derived from the Latin concept gratia, which entails some variant of grace,
gratefulness, and graciousness. Robert Emmons defines that Gratitude emerges upon recognizing
that one has obtained a positive outcome from another individual who behaved in a way that was (1)
costly to him or her, (2) valuable to the recipient, and (3) intentionally rendered.

In Emmons's definition, the positive outcome appears to have come from another person; however,
the benefit may be derived from a nonhuman action or event. For example, the individual who has
undergone a traumatic natural event such as a family member's survival of a hurricane (see Coffman,
1996) feels a profound sense of gratitude. In a related vein, it has been suggested that events of
larger magnitude also should produce higher levels of gratitude.

Ortony, Clore, and Collins (1988) have reasoned that gratitude should be greater when the giving
person's actions are judged praiseworthy and when they deviate positively from that which was
expected. In yet another example of gratitude, a person may have come through a major medical
crisis or problem and discover benefits in that experience (Affleck & Tennen, 1996). This latter
process is called benefit finding. As is the case with altruism, it is likely that the ability to empathize is
a necessary condition for feeling gratitude toward another person. Thomas Aquinas (127311981),
not only was gratitude seen as beneficial to the individual, but it also serves as a motivational force
for human altruism. Aristotle (trans. 1962) viewed it unfavourably. In his opinion, magnanimous
people are adamant about their self-sufficiencies and, accordingly, view gratitude as demeaning and
reflective of needless indebtedness to others.

Cultivating gratitude.

Charles Dickens (1897, p. 45), "Reflect on your present blessings, of which every man has many, not
on your past misfortunes, of which all men have some." In more recent times, psychologists Robert
Emmons and Michael McCullough have explored a variety of ways to help people enhance their
sense of gratitude. These interventions aimed at enhancing gratitude consistently have resulted in
benefits. For example, in comparison to people who recorded either neutral or negative (life
stresses) in their diaries, those who kept weekly gratitude journals (i.e., recorded events for which
they were thankful) were superior in terms of (1) the amount of exercise undertaken, (2) optimism
about the upcoming week, and (3) feeling better about their lives. Furthermore, those who kept
gratitude journals reported greater enthusiasm, alertness, and determination, and they were
significantly more likely to make progress toward important goals pertaining to their health,
interpersonal relationships, and academic performances. Indeed, those who were in the "count your
blessings" diary condition also were more likely to have helped another person.

A Japanese form of meditation known as Naikan enhances a person's sense of gratitude (Krech,
2001). Using Naikan, one learns to meditate daily on three gratitude-related questions: First, what
did I receive? Second, what did I give? And third, what troubles and difficulties did I cause to others?
In Western societies, we may be rather automatic in our expectations of material comforts; gratitude
meditation helps to bring this process more into awareness so we can learn how to appreciate such
blessings.

Forgiveness

Thompson and Colleagues defined forgiveness to be freeing from a negative attachment to the
source that has transgressed against a person.

McCullough and Colleagues saw forgiveness as increase in prosocial motivation toward another such
that there is (1) less desire to avoid the transgressing person and to harm or seek revenge toward
that individual, and (2) increased desire to act positively toward the transgressing person. more
motivation driven. Forgiveness is seen as applicable only when there is another person who has
engaged in a transgression.

Enright and Colleagues who defined forgiveness as "a willingness to abandon one's right to r
esentment, negative judgment, and indifferent behaviour toward one who unjustly hurt us, while
fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity, and even love toward him or her" For
Enright (2000; Enright et al., 1998), it is crucial that the forgiving person develop a benevolent stance
toward the transgressing person. As he put it, "The fruition of forgiveness is entering into loving
community with others. Furthermore, Enright was adamant in stating that forgiveness cannot be
extended to situations and thus must be directed only at people. On this point, he wrote,
"Forgiveness is between people. One does not forgive tornadoes or floods. How could one, for
instance, again join in a loving community with a tornado?"

Tangney and Colleagues

(1) cognitive-affective transformation following a transgression in which (2) the victim makes a
realistic assessment of the harm done and acknowledges the perpetrator's responsibility, but (3)
freely chooses to "cancel the debt;' giving up the need for revenge or deserved punishments and any
quest for restitution. This "cancelling of the debt" also involves (4) a "cancellation of negative
emotions" directly related to the transgression. In particular, in forgiving, the victim overcomes his or
her feelings of resentment and anger for the act. In short, by forgiving, the harmed individual (5)
essentially removes himself or herself from the victim role.

Cultivating forgiveness.

 Forgiving Another Person

Model of Gordon, Baucom, and Snyder is a useful one (2004, 2005; Gordon & Baucom, 1998). In this
model, in which forgiveness is the goal, the first step is to promote a non distorted, realistic appraisal
of the relationship of the two people. The second step is the attempt to facilitate a release from the
bond of ruminative, negative affect held toward the violating (transgressing) partner. Finally, the third
step is to help the victimized partner lessen his or her desire to punish the transgressing partner.
Over time, forgiveness makes it possible for the hurt and the outpouring of negative feelings to
diminish-especially for the victimized partner. Likewise, the treatment enhances the empathy for the
transgressing partner, and the therapist tries to make both people feel better about themselves.

 Forgiving Oneself

A clinician will be alerted to the potential need for forgiveness of the self when a client is feeling
either shame or guilt. In this regard, shame reflects an overall sense that "I am a bad person." As
such, shame cuts across particular circumstances, and it reflects an all-encompassing view of the self
as powerless and worthless. In contrast, guilt taps a situation-specific negative. self-view, for
example, "I did a bad thing" (Tangney, Boone, & Dearing, 2005). A person who feels guilt has a sense
of remorse and typically regrets something that he or she has done. To correct for such guilt, some
sort of reparative action is warranted, such as confessing or apologizing. The process of helping a
person to deal with shame is a more difficult one for the helper than is the treatment for guilt. This
follows because shame cuts through more situations than the single-situational focus of guilt. Self-
forgiveness has been defined as "a process of releasing resentment toward oneself for a perceived
transgression or wrongdoing" (DeShea & Wahkinney, 2003, p. 4). Given that we all must live with
ourselves, it can be seen that the consequences of not forgiving oneself can be much more severe
than the consequences of not forgiving another person (Hall & Fincham, 2005). Interventions to
lessen counterproductive criticism of the self are aimed at helping the individual take responsibility
for the bad act or actions and then let go so that she or he can move forward with the tasks in life. In
fact, any client who is absorbed in very negative or very positive self-thoughts feels "caught:'
Accordingly, helpers attempt to help their clients understand how their self-absorbed thoughts and
feelings interfere with positive living.

 Forgiveness of a Situation

Recall the Enright position (described previously) that forgiveness should be applied only to people,
not to inanimate objects such as tornadoes. We disagree with this premise; our views are consistent
with the Thompson model of forgiveness, in which the target can be another person, oneself, or a
situation. For professionals who have done considerable psychotherapy, this case will not seem
unusual, in that clients often point to their life circumstances as the causes of their problems (i.e.,
they blame the happenings in their lives). For such clients, therefore, a crucial part of their
treatments entails instruction in stopping thoughts about earlier negative life events so that they
instead can look ahead toward their futures.

Wisdom

Sternberg (1985) asked 40 college students to sort cards (each describing one of 40 wise behaviors)
into as many piles as they thought necessary to explain their contents. and the following six qualities
of wisdom were identified: (1) reasoning ability, (2) sagacity (profound knowledge and
understanding), (3) learning from ideas and environment, (4) judgment, (5) expeditious use of
information, and (6) perspicacity (acuteness of discernment and perception).

In yet another study, Holliday and Chandler (1986) determined that five factors underlie wisdom: (1)
exceptional understanding, (2) judgment and communication skills, (3) general competence, (4)
interpersonal skills, and (5) social unobtrusiveness.

Developing wisdom

Theorists such as Baltes (1993), Labouvie-Vief (1990), and Sternberg (1998) suggest that wisdom
builds on knowledge, cognitive skills, and personality characteristics and that it requires an
understanding of culture and the surrounding environment. Moreover, wisdom develops slowly
through exposure to wise role models. Sternberg proposed that knowledge, judicial thinking style,
personality, motivation, and environmental context precede wisdom, and Baltes and Staudinger
(2000) suggested that fluid intelligence, creativity, openness to experience, psychological-
mindedness, and general life experiences "orchestrate" to produce wisdom. Wisdom grows as
people learn to think flexibly to solve problems, and such problem-solving entails recognizing ideas
according to place and culture. In turn, by recognizing that the answers to questions depend both on
contextual factors and on the balancing of many interests, people become even more flexible in their
thinking. On these points, Baltes and Staudinger (2000) also emphasize the importance of "guidance
by mentors or other wisdom-enhancing 'others’.

WISE PEOPLE AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS

Over centuries and cultures, the sage was considered the carrier of wisdom (Assmann, 1994; Baltes,
1993). These mysterious and rare sages were purveyors of life guidance, but they often did little to
teach life understanding and the skills needed for wisdom. Modern characterizations of the wise
person suggest that the ordinary person can acquire expertise in life matters. In this latter regard,
clinical psychologists have been found to possess high levels of wisdom.

 Monika Ardelt, a researcher who has studied aging, measured what she referred to as the
"timeless and universal knowledge of wisdom". California residents were the participants in
her longitudinal study, the Berkeley Guidance Project. Her analysis of the characteristics that
facilitated the development of wisdom revealed that a person's childhood does not have an
impact on the development of wisdom, whereas the quality of one's social environment in
early adulthood does. Ardelt (1997) also found that wise people achieved greater life
satisfaction than unwise people.
 Orwoll and Achenbaum (1993) reviewed the role that gender plays in the development of
wisdom. In considering the different ways that men and women attain and express wisdom,
these researchers concluded that wisdom combines traditional masculine and feminine
sensibilities. In their review, they also reported that many of men's wise acts took place in
public, whereas women's wise acts took place in private.
 Life-span researchers also have explored whether wisdom-related per formances vary with
chronological age. In exploring the performances of 533 people, Baltes and Staudinger
(2000) found that "for the age range from about 25 to 75 years of age, the age gradient is
zero. In this study, therefore, there were no age differences in levels of wisdom. Wisdom
does appear to decline, however, in the late seventies and beyond. Furthermore, researchers
studying adolescents (e.g., Pasupathi, Staudinger, & Baltes, 1999) have reported that the
decade between years 15 to 25 is a major time for acquiring wisdom. Taken alone, these
findings suggest that adolescence and young adulthood are fertile times for wisdom
development, and the late seventies and beyond bring about declines in wisdom.
 Wisdom and intelligence- Intelligence provides the basic knowledge for accomplishing daily
life supporting tasks for oneself and others, whereas wisdom includes the know-how,
judgment, and flexibility to resolve major life problems for the common good. Likewise,
Sternberg (1985) characterized wisdom, more than intelligence, as involving inter personal
savvy (listening to and dealing with many different people) and day-to-day life management
skills.