Wisdom for Interpersonal Conflicts across World Regions and Situations

How do individuals across diverse societies navigate interpersonal conflicts? We investigated wisdom-related strategies—such as intellectual humility, perspective-taking, and compromise—across eleven countries. In Study 1 (N=2,493), autobiographical recall of real-world conflicts yielded a robust three-factor structure: Perspectival Metacognition, Conflict Resolution, and Self-Transcendence. Study 2 (N=1,952) replicated this structure using standardized scenarios of social rejection and trust betrayal, establishing approximate measurement invariance across cultures. Though wisdom features were largely consistent across regions, Continental East Asian samples scored highest on Perspectival Metacognition, whereas regions endorsing independent agency were more likely to actively seek Conflict Resolution. At the same time, we observed robust individual and situational differences. In both studies, higher need for cognition and relational self-construal were aligned with wiser strategy use. Situationally, conflicts involving social rejection (vs. trust betrayal) elicited lower negative affect in the open-ended reflections and higher scores of wisdom-related strategies. Indeed, we observed high cross-situational variability: within-person variance exceeded between-person differences in all Study 2 samples (accounting for 70% of variance), challenging trait-centric conceptualizations of wisdom. These findings suggest that wisdom in conflict is less a stable trait and more a situationally grounded affordance, universally organized around three core metacognitive processes.