Thomas et al. (2019) reported the first task-fMRI study correlating a psychometric wisdom measure with brain activation: in 39 community-dwelling US adults, scores on the San Diego Wisdom Scale (SD-WISE) moderated blood-oxygenation-level-dependent (BOLD) responses to moral versus nonmoral dilemmas and to moral-personal versus moral-impersonal dilemmas, most consistently in or near the default mode network (DMN). The finding is correlational, from a single modest and demographically narrow sample, obtained under a short time-pressured response window, and leaves an unexplained behavioral dissociation (higher wisdom predicted utilitarian choices — endorsing options that maximize aggregate welfare even through harmful means — for nonmoral but not moral dilemmas). The open problem is to establish the neurocognitive mechanism underlying this association: determine whether the wisdom-by-moral-condition interaction replicates in independent, larger, and more diverse samples (including when deliberation time is unconstrained), whether the implicated circuits (DMN, salience network, lateral prefrontal cortex) play a causal role in wise decision-making or merely covary with it, which functional or effective connectivity pathways mediate the interaction, and why the behavioral wisdom-utilitarianism link is condition-dependent.

Background

Wisdom has been operationalized in empirical psychology as a measurable human trait with components such as social decision-making/advising, emotional regulation, prosocial behavior, self-reflection/insight, acceptance of divergent values, decisiveness, and (in some models) spirituality. The San Diego Wisdom Scale (SD-WISE) is a 24-item self-report instrument assessing six of these components, validated psychometrically by Thomas et al. (2019, Journal of Psychiatric Research 108:40-47); an abbreviated 7-item version (SD-WISE-7) and the Jeste-Thomas Wisdom Index followed in 2022. Wisdom trait scores correlate with well-being, health, and resilience, motivating a neurobiological account of the construct (Meeks & Jeste 2009; Jeste & Lee 2019), but such an account has remained explicitly speculative. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measures brain activation via the blood-oxygenation-level-dependent (BOLD) signal, which rises in active regions. In the moral-decision paradigm introduced by Greene et al. (2001), participants judge vignettes that are moral versus nonmoral, and, within moral items, 'personal' (directly violating another person's rights) versus 'impersonal'; personal moral dilemmas preferentially engage the default mode network (DMN), a set of regions (posterior cingulate/precuneus, medial prefrontal cortex, angular gyrus) more active during rest and self-referential thought than during many externally directed tasks, whereas impersonal dilemmas engage cognitive-control regions. The salience network (anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate) detects behaviorally relevant cues and is thought to switch between the DMN and executive networks; effective-connectivity (directed, model-based influence between regions) evidence indicates the salience network drives DMN activity during moral reasoning (Chiong et al. 2013). Thomas et al. (2019, Brain and Behavior 9:e01302) gave 39 adults the SD-WISE and the Greene dilemmas during fMRI. Across region-of-interest and whole-brain analyses, higher wisdom scores were associated with (a) a smaller BOLD difference between moral and nonmoral conditions (contrary to their hypothesis) and (b) a larger BOLD difference between moral-personal and moral-impersonal conditions, mainly in DMN regions, with descriptive involvement of salience-network and lateral prefrontal regions. Because the design was correlational, the sample small, predominantly well-educated and White, the response window time-pressured, and wisdom quantified only by self-report, the authors stated that the findings must be replicated and followed by carefully controlled experiments (e.g., transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS, a noninvasive method for focally perturbing cortex with magnetic pulses; or randomized interventions), that connectivity between the implicated regions should be examined, and that the impact of deliberation time on the wisdom-brain relationship was unknown. Later work has built a small correlational wisdom-neuroscience literature — resting electroencephalography (EEG, the scalp recording of the brain's ongoing electrical activity) and resting-state DMN correlates of behaviorally rated wise advising (Huang/Hu et al. 2020; Hu et al. 2023) and EEG correlates of wisdom during an emotional-bias task (Grennan et al. 2021) — and meta-analytic evidence that behavioral interventions can improve individual wisdom components such as prosocial behavior and emotion regulation (Lee et al. 2020, JAMA Psychiatry). However, none of these used the moral-decision task, none tested the SD-WISE-by-condition interaction, none included a neural outcome for an intervention, and reviews through 2025-2026 (Jeste & Lee 2019; Jeste et al. 2020; Jeste et al. 2025; Jeste et al. 2026) continue to cite the 2019 study as essentially the only task-fMRI evidence and to describe the neurobiology of wisdom as preliminary and speculative. Thus the step from correlation to mechanism — replication, causal direction, circuit mediation, and the condition-dependent behavioral signature — remains open.

Problem Statement

Determine the neurocognitive mechanism by which trait wisdom modulates brain activation during moral decision-making, moving beyond the original correlational evidence (Thomas et al. 2019). The question comprises four interrelated strands, to be addressed with adequately powered studies: (1) Replication and generalization — whether the wisdom-by-condition interaction reported with the SD-WISE (relatively smaller moral-minus-nonmoral BOLD contrast and relatively larger moral-personal-minus-moral-impersonal contrast with higher wisdom, in or near the default mode network) reproduces in independent, larger, more demographically and culturally diverse samples, and how it depends on deliberation time (the original task enforced a short, time-pressured window) and on dilemma context; replication may alternatively decisively refute the original association, which also resolves this strand. (2) Causal direction — whether the implicated regions/networks (default mode network, salience network, lateral prefrontal cortex) contribute causally to wise moral decision-making, or whether the activation differences are epiphenomenal covariation. (3) Circuit mediation — which specific functional or effective connectivity pathways among these regions mediate the wisdom-by-condition interaction, and to what extent those pathways account for the condition-dependent behavioral effect. (4) Behavioral mechanism — why higher wisdom predicts utilitarian responding for nonmoral but not moral dilemmas, and whether this condition-dependence arises from the same circuit mechanism. These strands are aspects of a single mechanistic question: a satisfying resolution would be either a coherent, falsifiable mechanistic account of the wisdom-moral-decision brain association that integrates replication, causality, mediation, and behavioral-mechanism evidence and specifies the pre-registered, adequately powered designs (predictions, contrasts, and stopping rules) that would confirm or refute it, or a decisive, adequately powered refutation of the association that renders the remaining strands moot.

References

  1. Thomas ML, Martin AS, Eyler L, Lee EE, Macagno E, Devereaux M, Chiong W, Jeste DV (2019). Individual differences in level of wisdom are associated with brain activation during a moral decision-making task. Brain and Behavior 9(6):e01302. doi:10.1002/brb3.1302, https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1302 (full text at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6577614/)
  2. Thomas ML, Bangen KJ, Palmer BW, Sirkin Martin A, Avanzino JA, Depp CA, Glorioso D, Daly RE, Jeste DV (2019). A new scale for assessing wisdom based on common domains and a neurobiological model: The San Diego Wisdom Scale (SD-WISE). Journal of Psychiatric Research 108:40-47. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.09.005, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.09.005
  3. Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD (2001). An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science 293(5537):2105-2108. doi:10.1126/science.1062872, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872
  4. Chiong W, Wilson SM, D'Esposito M, Kayser AS, Grossman SN, Poorzand P, Seeley WW, Miller BL, Rankin KP (2013). The salience network causally influences default mode network activity during moral reasoning. Brain 136(6):1929-1941. doi:10.1093/brain/awt066, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt066
  5. Huang C, Zhang H, Huang J, Duan C, Kim JJ, Ferrari M, Hu CS (2020). Stronger resting-state neural oscillations associated with wiser advising from the 2nd- but not the 3rd-person perspective. Scientific Reports 10:12677. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-69507-9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69507-9
  6. Hu CS, Zheng Y, Dong G, Glassman H, Huang C, Xuan R (2023). Resting state default mode network is associated with wise advising. Scientific Reports 13:14239. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-41408-7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41408-7
  7. Meeks TW, Jeste DV (2009). Neurobiology of wisdom: a literature overview. Archives of General Psychiatry 66(4):355-365. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.8, https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.8
  8. Grennan G, Balasubramani PP, Alim F, Zafar-Khan M, Lee EE, Jeste DV, Mishra J (2021). Cognitive and Neural Correlates of Loneliness and Wisdom during Emotional Bias. Cerebral Cortex 31(7):3311-3322. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhab012, https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab012
  9. Lee EE, Bangen KJ, Avanzino JA, Hou B, Ramsey M, Eglit GML, Liu J, Tu XM, Paulus MP, Jeste DV (2020). Outcomes of Randomized Clinical Trials of Interventions to Enhance Social, Emotional, and Spiritual Components of Wisdom: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 77(9):925-935. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0821, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0821
  10. Jeste DV, Lee EE (2019). The Emerging Empirical Science of Wisdom: Definition, Measurement, Neurobiology, Longevity, and Interventions. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 27(3):127-140. doi:10.1097/HRP.0000000000000205, https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000205
  11. Jeste DV, Lee EE, Palmer BW, Treichler EBH (2020). Moving from Humanities to Sciences: A New Model of Wisdom Fortified by Sciences of Neurobiology, Medicine, and Evolution. Psychological Inquiry 31(2):134-143. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2020.1757984, https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1757984
  12. Jeste DV, Alexopoulos GS, Blazer DG, Lavretsky H, Sachdev PS, Reynolds CF (2025). Wisdom, Resilience, and Well-Being in Later Life. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 21:33-59. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081423-031855, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081423-031855
  13. Jeste DV, Paulus MP, Alexopoulos GS, Barnard M, Otte WM, Satake Y, Na PJ, Torous J, Prodan A, Occhipinti JA (2026). Transforming artificial intelligence into artificial wisdom. Nature Mental Health 4(6):886-897. doi:10.1038/s44220-026-00640-6, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-026-00640-6
  14. Thomas ML, Palmer BW, Lee EE, Liu J, Daly R, Tu XM, Jeste DV (2022). Abbreviated San Diego Wisdom Scale (SD-WISE-7) and Jeste-Thomas Wisdom Index (JTWI). International Psychogeriatrics 34(7):617-626. doi:10.1017/S1041610221002684, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610221002684
  15. Dewangan RL, Pathaka S, Jeste DV, Thomas ML (2024). Psychometric validation of Indian adaptation of the San-Diego Wisdom Scale (SD-WISE-28). Current Psychology 43:23611-23623. doi:10.1007/s12144-024-06133-y, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06133-y