Responsiveness in context: Unpacking the causal model of the wisdom-responsiveness link

Abstract

By exploring the nuances of responsive phenomenology, Streib extends the science of wisdom beyond person-centric phenomena to include the social, interpersonal, and intersubjective dimensions. We applaud Streib’s efforts to enrich wisdom models and highlight several areas requiring further clarity, particularly regarding the causal relationship between responsive phenomenology and wisdom, and the role of broader cultural-historical factors for understanding the wisdom of responsiveness. Our commentary highlights the need for greater conceptual precision to differentiate responsiveness from related constructs in social psychology and calls for future research to delineate when responsiveness contributes to wisdom in varied contexts. Through this critical examination, we aim to advance the science of wisdom by emphasizing the significance of responsiveness within a comprehensive social-ecological framework, thereby fostering a deeper understanding of interpersonal and intergroup relations.

Consider a situation where two countries are at war with each other—country A and country B. Country A declared war on country B and within a few months into the war, country A began to commit war crimes and now is actively killing civilians. What started as a war progressed into a mass genocide of the people in country B due to political and religious reasons. Further, imagine that many of country B’s citizens lived in country A for years and faced prejudice and hate because of ethnic and cultural differences. Considering this cultural-historical context, what does it mean to be responsive to the “other?” Do you think people of country B may consider responsive phenomenology when engaging with people from country A, while both parties are at war and official policies in country A endorse genocide and xenophobia? What kind of response to the “other” would be wise in this situation?

In his insightful reflection, Streib provides one path to address these questions, arguing that incorporating Waldenfels’ philosophy of responsive phenomenology into the psychological science of wisdom can pave ways for new understanding of the construct and its grounding in the social context. Streib argues that psychological elements of wisdom such as intellectual humility or consideration of diverse perspectives are phenomena at the intersection of the self in relation to the other. Instead of treating wisdom as a purely person-centric phenomenon, Streib therefore pushes for a greater consideration of social context, interpersonal relations, and intersubjectivity, in line with other emerging theorizing in the field of wisdom research (Grossmann, 2017; Grossmann, Dorfman & Oakes, 2020; Staudinger et al., 2006). We applaud the author for extending the existing models of wisdom. Although the consensus position on the shared denominator of most wisdom models highlights the social consideration of the perspectival meta-cognition and moral grounding (Grossmann, Dorfman & Oakes, 2020), the idea of responsive phenomenology adds an extra layer of interpersonal relations. However, as our opening example above illustrates, some loose ends about the exact way reflective phenomenology relates to metacognitive and moral features of wisdom remain. Though Streib’s proposition expands on the role of context for understanding the nature of wisdom and its development, some broader contextual considerations, including cultural and historical factors, remain underdeveloped. As we further outline below, despite a strong call for an explicit process model in consideration wisdom-related characteristics (e.g. Grossmann, 2017; Porter et al., 2022) and their development (e.g. Glück & Weststrate, 2022), it is not entirely clear in Streib’s proposition whether elements of responsive phenomenology are antecedents or consequences of wise reasoning and behavior. Finally, in line with prior efforts in wisdom science to avoid jingle-jangle fallacies (Grossmann, Dorfman & Oakes, 2020), we call for greater conceptual clarity, as the term “responsiveness” has been used extensively in social psychology and its meaning tends to steer away from Waldenfels’ definition.

Responsiveness in the Cultural-historical Context

What is considered “wise” or adaptive when you first encounter the other? In some cases, responding to the other may be wise, but other times, not. When encountering the other, it may depend on the immediate social context and the broader cultural-historical factors. Wise reasoning or wisdom is situated within context. The social-ecological approach to wisdom argues that the differences in wisdom are due to macro factors such as cultural and regional factors, social and personal experiences, and concrete situational factors (Grossmann, Dorfman & Oakes, 2020). Let us consider the example given at the beginning of this commentary. In a situation where you are being targeted and conspired against, would you be motivated to respond to the other? Even if you understood their xenophobic perspective and where they’re coming from, would you have a high regard for their opinion or an openness to them? If there are tensions between two communities and your moral system has been conditioned such that the other is viewed as unacceptable and treated like a criminal, would it be wise to consider the other?

To unpack these questions, let us consider the context of a romantic relationship. Similar to the intergroup context, it may be useful to not only understand your partner but be open to them and have regard and concern for their feelings. Indeed, individuals who perceive their romantic partner as responsive are more open to diverse viewpoints (aspect of wise reasoning) and are less defensive (Reis et al., 2018). But there are nuances in the context of romantic relationships (McNulty & Fincham, 2011). For example, though forgiveness of transgressions is often associated with better physical and psychological health, there are limits to such benefits. Past research observed that forgiving women from a domestic violence shelter were more likely to return to their abusive partners (Gordon et al., 2004). Additionally, less forgiving partners experienced reduced frequency of physical and psychological aggression, whereas more forgiving partners experienced continued or greater levels of physical and psychological aggression (McNulty, 2010).

Building on these ideas, it may be wise to apply responsive phenomenology in certain contexts but perhaps not in others. Essentially, one cannot remove wisdom from its social-ecological context (Grossmann, Dorfman & Oakes, 2020), which implies that a general recommendation for incorporating responsive phenomenology into the broader wisdom framework may be problematic, given the context-sensitive bounds of the virtue of responsiveness. Given these considerations, future programs of research should explore when responsiveness to the other contributes to the expression and development of wisdom in specific cultural-historical and situational contexts.

What is the Mechanism Between Responsiveness to the Other and Wisdom?

When reviewing Streib’s (2024) representation of prior wisdom and responsiveness scholarship, another set of conceptual concerns arise. According to Streib, the encounter with the other results in extraordinary and radical experiences such that it leads to new possibilities which in turn lead to various features of wise reasoning and behavior (Streib, 2024). Hereby, Streib implies that responsiveness leads to wisdom, yet fails to mention any causal or process model by which the aforementioned effects would occur. Is “the other” necessary for wise reasoning or can wise reasoning manifest without the other being present? What happens after the encounter with the other? What exactly are the social and individual-level processes affording expression of wise reasoning after encountering the other? In short, how does responsive phenomenology give rise to wise reasoning and behavior?

What is the Relationship of Intellectual Humility and Responsive Phenomenology?

Several further conceptual points require attention. At places, Streib (2024) claims that the other-focus is included conceptually and methodically in the definition of intellectual humility—a key meta-cognitive feature of wisdom. Secondly, Streib (2024) claims that there should be an even greater other-focus that ideally concerns the radical and extraordinary other. Finally, the author concludes that the wise person is a humble and responsive learner.

Though these points appear plausible, upon reflection, a range of questions arise. If responsiveness is already a key element of intellectual humility, as Streib claims in his essay, what is the point of stressing it further for the wisdom construct? It is unclear whether the author is arguing that responsiveness to the other gives rise to wisdom or whether they merely want to highlight the insights from the philosophical scholarship on responsive phenomenology for the science of wisdom. Moreover, if responsive phenomenology gives rise to wisdom—that is, is an antecedent of wisdom, then how can it simultaneously be a necessary element of wisdom to extend existing conceptual frameworks? In short, again, one may wonder about the causal process model here.

Perspective-taking and Responsive Phenomenology

Turning to the claims about perspective-taking, Streib (2024) argues for a shift from the self to the other to be incorporated into the Perspectival Meta-Cognitions (PMC) construct for the Common Wisdom Model (Grossmann, Dorfman & Oakes, 2020). Again, several conceptual questions about this argument arise.

First, if encountering the other leads to wise reasoning—that is, is an antecedent of wisdom, why is there a need to argue for the other to be incorporated into existing wisdom models and theories as a necessary element? Second, perspective-taking is by definition other-focused, raising questions about how Streib’s claim would extend existing conceptual and operational definitions. One of the key features of the Common Wisdom Model is the idea of balancing multiple perspectives of the self and others. Perspective-taking is also defined as “the capacity to recognize and coordinate the differences in people’s perspectives” (Grossmann, Weststrate et al., 2020). Additionally, perspective-taking is a key component of measures such as the Situated WIse reasoning Scale (SWIS) among several others. Some items from the perspective-taking section of SWIS read “Made an effort to take the other person’s perspective” (Brienza et al., 2018). Because the existing measures of wisdom include a host of other-focused elements, there are questions about what exactly is missing from existing instruments to make a psychologically and psychometrically plausible wisdom construct that is aligned with elements of Waldenfels’ phenomenology?

Mind the Jingle and Jangle Fallacies: Intellectual Humility and Responsiveness

While arguing for the incorporation of the other within intellectual humility, we also observe some conceptual confusion of the distinct constructs of general humility and intellectual humility. Streib (2024) at times refers to the Dual Dimension Humility Scale, which measures the construct of general humility (Wright et al., 2018) rather than intellectual humility (Porter et al., 2022). Here, humility is defined as experiencing the self as being part of something vast and including both a self- and other-focused orientation (Wright et al., 2018). Meanwhile, intellectual humility is acknowledging one’s limits in knowledge and fallibility (Grossmann, 2017; Porter et al., 2022) which is a separate construct from general humility. From a virtue ethics lens, humility can be viewed as a social virtue, whereas intellectual humility is an intellectual virtue. Additionally, general humility is currently not part of the Common Wisdom Model or most other wisdom models (Grossmann, Weststrate et al., 2020).

Finally, though we truly appreciated the introduction of the concept of responsive phenomenology, the argument that responsiveness is a novel or unexplored construct in psychological science in general wisdom scholarship in particular requires some conceptual clarification. To the extent that the notion of responsiveness invoked by Streib (2024) overlaps with an established body of scholarship on responsiveness in social-personality psychology and relationship sciences (cf. Reis et al., 2018), the novelty claim may be inaccurate. But is it the same construct? For relationship scientists, responsiveness is a process by which an individual attends to and reacts supportively to their partner (e.g. Murray & Holmes, 2009; Reis et al., 2004). The main idea behind the social psychological definition of responsiveness is that partners are perceived as being supportive. At this point, it is unclear whether this existing definition of responsiveness concerns the same processes as those invoked by Streib (2024) in their insightful article. If not, perhaps a different name would be beneficial to avoid further conceptual confusion in the science of wisdom (Grossmann, Dorfman & Oakes, 2020).

Conclusion

The notion of contextual variability in wisdom when responding to others versus the self is at the heart of contemporary scholarship on wisdom and how it may develop (e.g. Grossmann et al., 2021; Grossmann & Kross, 2014; Santos et al., 2017). Streib’s (2024) elegant essay builds on this scholarship by highlighting the virtue of responsiveness. We raise questions whether responding to others may be universally wise, highlighting the need for consideration of the broader cultural historical and situational contexts. Further, we encourage Streib to outline the causal model linking the process of responding to the other and features of wisdom such as intellectual humility, open-mindedness, or perspective-taking. Additionally, we call for greater conceptual clarity in defining central psychological constructs, including intellectual humility and responsiveness. By clarifying these elements, Streib’s ideas can push the needle of the science of wisdom toward a more comprehensive, and social-ecologically mindful understanding of how to foster interpersonal and intergroup relations.