That asked for information on age, income, and gender. Measures. Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale. The 3D-WS is a measure of cognitive, reflective, and affective dimensions of jasp.12117 wisdom [41,44]. The 3D-WS has adequate construct, content,PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/purchase Bay 41-4109 journal.pone.0149369 February 18,4 /The Relationship between Mental and Somatic Practices and WisdomTable 1. Means and standard deviations of wisdom, its components, and predictor variables. AT M Tot wisdom Cog Wisdom Refl Wisdom Aff Wisdom Years Age TA CE AE 3.90 4.25 3.66 3.79 19 50.49 1.81 3.22 2.42 SD .33 .45 .36 .47 12.07 13.76 .41 .41 .24 M 3.59 4.00 3.31 3.47 13.44 24.74 2.18 3.09 2.50 Ballet SD .37 .57 .47 .45 9.69 6.02 .48 .40 .21 M 3.92 4.20 3.83 3.74 14.05 52.80 1.84 3.17 2.41 FM SD .39 .58 .47 .44 8.74 11.68 .46 .40 .27 M 4.01 4.30 3.88 3.85 9.56 41.61 1.88 3.13 2.46 Meditation SD .36 .35 .46 .53 7.81 14.55 .46 .41 .doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149369.tpredictive, discriminant, and convergent validity, among older populations [45] and is a valid measure of wisdom among young adults of varying cultural backgrounds [46?9]. Examples from the individual subscales include: cognitive dimension–A person either knows the answer to a question or he/she doesn’t (reverse scored); reflective dimension–I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision; and affective dimension–It’s not really my problem if others are in trouble and need help (reverse scored). Questionnaire for Cognitive and Affective Empathy. The QCAE [42] measures cognitive empathy using the Perspective Taking and Online Simulation subscales, and affective empathy using the Emotional Contagion, Proximal Responsivity, and Peripheral Responsivity subscales. Perspective Taking refers to the ability to take on the perspective of another person, while Online Simulation involves imagining what another is feeling. Emotional Contagion is a measure of the automatic mirroring of another’s emotions. Proximal Responsivity is ones’ response when witnessing the mood of someone else in a close social context, while Peripheral Responsivity refers to the same type of response but in a detached social context. The cognitive and affective Bay 41-4109 biological activity portions of the QCAE show convergence with the Basic Empathy Scale (BES [50]). For this study, four items that overlap with the 3D-WS were removed from the Online Simulation subscale of cognitive empathy, leaving 5 of the original 9 items. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory–Trait Anxiety. The Trait Anxiety portion of the STAI fpsyg.2017.00209 Form Y contains 20 items related to typical daily experiences of stress, discomfort and worry. Respondents rate each item (e.g., “I worry too much over something that doesn’t really matter”) on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). Considerable evidence attests to the construct and concurrent validity of the scale [43,51]. Internal consistency coefficients for the scale have ranged from .86 to .95 and test-retest reliability coefficients have ranged from .65 to .75 over a 2-month interval [43]. Data Analyses. Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were performed to investigate the differences between groups in wisdom, cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and anxiety, followed by a similar analysis after partialling out variance due to individual differences in age. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models were constructed to test whether experience with each practice is associated with individual differences in wisdom, c.That asked for information on age, income, and gender. Measures. Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale. The 3D-WS is a measure of cognitive, reflective, and affective dimensions of jasp.12117 wisdom [41,44]. The 3D-WS has adequate construct, content,PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149369 February 18,4 /The Relationship between Mental and Somatic Practices and WisdomTable 1. Means and standard deviations of wisdom, its components, and predictor variables. AT M Tot wisdom Cog Wisdom Refl Wisdom Aff Wisdom Years Age TA CE AE 3.90 4.25 3.66 3.79 19 50.49 1.81 3.22 2.42 SD .33 .45 .36 .47 12.07 13.76 .41 .41 .24 M 3.59 4.00 3.31 3.47 13.44 24.74 2.18 3.09 2.50 Ballet SD .37 .57 .47 .45 9.69 6.02 .48 .40 .21 M 3.92 4.20 3.83 3.74 14.05 52.80 1.84 3.17 2.41 FM SD .39 .58 .47 .44 8.74 11.68 .46 .40 .27 M 4.01 4.30 3.88 3.85 9.56 41.61 1.88 3.13 2.46 Meditation SD .36 .35 .46 .53 7.81 14.55 .46 .41 .doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149369.tpredictive, discriminant, and convergent validity, among older populations [45] and is a valid measure of wisdom among young adults of varying cultural backgrounds [46?9]. Examples from the individual subscales include: cognitive dimension–A person either knows the answer to a question or he/she doesn’t (reverse scored); reflective dimension–I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision; and affective dimension–It’s not really my problem if others are in trouble and need help (reverse scored). Questionnaire for Cognitive and Affective Empathy. The QCAE [42] measures cognitive empathy using the Perspective Taking and Online Simulation subscales, and affective empathy using the Emotional Contagion, Proximal Responsivity, and Peripheral Responsivity subscales. Perspective Taking refers to the ability to take on the perspective of another person, while Online Simulation involves imagining what another is feeling. Emotional Contagion is a measure of the automatic mirroring of another’s emotions. Proximal Responsivity is ones’ response when witnessing the mood of someone else in a close social context, while Peripheral Responsivity refers to the same type of response but in a detached social context. The cognitive and affective portions of the QCAE show convergence with the Basic Empathy Scale (BES [50]). For this study, four items that overlap with the 3D-WS were removed from the Online Simulation subscale of cognitive empathy, leaving 5 of the original 9 items. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory–Trait Anxiety. The Trait Anxiety portion of the STAI fpsyg.2017.00209 Form Y contains 20 items related to typical daily experiences of stress, discomfort and worry. Respondents rate each item (e.g., “I worry too much over something that doesn’t really matter”) on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). Considerable evidence attests to the construct and concurrent validity of the scale [43,51]. Internal consistency coefficients for the scale have ranged from .86 to .95 and test-retest reliability coefficients have ranged from .65 to .75 over a 2-month interval [43]. Data Analyses. Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were performed to investigate the differences between groups in wisdom, cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and anxiety, followed by a similar analysis after partialling out variance due to individual differences in age. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models were constructed to test whether experience with each practice is associated with individual differences in wisdom, c.