View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Differential Performance of Wise Reasoning among High School Students in Teacher-Student Conflict and Peer Conflict: A Psychometric Network Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Differential Performance of Wise Reasoning among High School Students in Teacher-Student Conflict and Peer Conflict: A Psychometric Network Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Hongyi Lin (ORCID 0000-0002-4504-1485), Yan Wang, Fengyan Wang
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2025 62(9):3208-3224.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Abstract Reasoning, High School Students, Student Attitudes, Teacher Student Relationship, Conflict, Peer Relationship, Psychometrics, Network Analysis, Interpersonal Communication, Coping, Problem Solving
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23531
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: As the primary location for adolescents' interpersonal communication, schools are an inevitable setting for interpersonal conflicts. This study aims to explore the differential performance of wise reasoning in both teacher-student and peer conflicts among high school students by network analysis, as well as the mediating roles of coping style. Data were collected from 1015 Chinese adolescents using a randomized trial design by self-report measures. The mediation analysis demonstrated that problem coping orientation and emotional coping orientation played parallel mediating roles in the influence of conflict type on wise reasoning. Results of the network analysis showed that problem-solving was the node with the strongest centrality in the network and had the highest bridge association degree with wise reasoning. "View of an outsider" and "Searching for a compromise" had the highest bridge association degrees with coping style. These findings enhanced our understanding of the differential performance of wise reasoning among high school students in different school conflict types. Future research should further explore these differences to develop more appropriate wisdom education for adolescents.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1479969
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHYelL9QRCoETcIB1-LD4y3AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPVl6eZIWFb5eizIzAIBEICBms5jE4_bnqDFQebpUM1mq4c1GhaKL6--mqXky5-O5-3tLSw-nsvftK1zn5uE24l4DY_HnOgZk8aHqRCuaz852VirheCG8rXLKFBqeK9Jza7cR96w-FAG_NgI7DWHPE4eoGRa5MIo2_BiaDAEh3OnPs7yoHfWdMe8nFlvm2GW2gvg8GX1dbDJFV-Ys6TcVqgGY0TOHDLNcSypdzw=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187257406;pis01sep.25;2025Aug14.01:14;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187257406-1">The Differential Performance of Wise Reasoning Among High School Students in Teacher–Student Conflict and Peer Conflict: A Psychometric Network Analysis </title> <p>As the primary location for adolescents' interpersonal communication, schools are an inevitable setting for interpersonal conflicts. This study aims to explore the differential performance of wise reasoning in both teacher–student and peer conflicts among high school students by network analysis, as well as the mediating roles of coping style. Data were collected from 1015 Chinese adolescents using a randomized trial design by self‐report measures. The mediation analysis demonstrated that problem coping orientation and emotional coping orientation played parallel mediating roles in the influence of conflict type on wise reasoning. Results of the network analysis showed that problem‐solving was the node with the strongest centrality in the network and had the highest bridge association degree with wise reasoning. "View of an outsider" and "Searching for a compromise" had the highest bridge association degrees with coping style. These findings enhanced our understanding of the differential performance of wise reasoning among high school students in different school conflict types. Future research should further explore these differences to develop more appropriate wisdom education for adolescents.</p> <p>Summary: School conflicts serve as valuable educational tools and provide opportunities for cultivating wisdom in adolescents.Teacher–student conflict is more conducive to promoting adolescents' wise reasoning than peer conflict.Problem solve orientation is more conducive to promoting adolescents' wise reasoning than emotional coping orientation.</p> <p>Keywords: coping style; peer conflicts; psychometric network analysis; teacher–student conflict; wise reasoning</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Wisdom, a quality that humans have sought as the zenith of life for millennia (Assmann [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref1">3</reflink>]; Lambert [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref2">58</reflink>]), is viewed as the end goal of life‐long development (Baltes and Staudinger [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]; Erikson [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]). Early research into wisdom, greatly influenced by the "older and wiser" perspective, focused primarily on adults and seniors (Clayton and Birren [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref5">16</reflink>]; Knight and Parr [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref6">55</reflink>]). Adolescents and early adults, however, are in an embryonic stage and a critical period of wisdom development (Richardson and Pasupathi [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref7">72</reflink>]; Wang et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref8">85</reflink>]), and this age group has attracted the attention of many scholars in recent years (Wang et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref9">85</reflink>]; Hu et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref10">44</reflink>]), particularly in the context of how to cultivate wisdom in school settings (Bruya and Ardelt [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref11">9</reflink>]; Sternberg [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref12">78</reflink>]). Sternberg ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref13">78</reflink>]) argues that schools should integrate wisdom‐related skills into their curricula. He emphasizes that schools should not only teach knowledge but also help students apply it wisely for positive outcomes. While wise thinking is often implicit in education, making it explicit can better enable students to consciously apply lessons from different subjects to their lives.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-3">Wisdom, Wise Reasoning, and School Conflict</hd> <p>Several models and measures of wisdom exist (Glück and Weststrate [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref14">27</reflink>]). Overall, some researchers conceptualize wisdom in two directions: trait orientation and state orientation (Grossmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref15">33</reflink>]). The trait orientation views wisdom as a stable personality trait, exemplified by Ardelt's three‐dimensional wisdom model (3D‐WM), a personality‐focused model that describes personal wisdom as an integration of cognitive, reflective, and compassionate (affective) qualities (Ardelt et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>]). In contrast, state‐oriented researchers represented by Grossmann argue that wisdom is not always a stable trait but rather a more fluctuating cognitive state, easily influenced by context and subject to change in the short term (Grossmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref17">33</reflink>]). Accordingly, Grossmann and colleagues have conceptualized wisdom in conflict scenarios as a form of wise reasoning (WR), characterized by the application of knowledge to navigate various challenges through cognitive processes (Grossmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref18">33</reflink>]; Grossmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref19">34</reflink>]). This reasoning involves several key components: recognizing the limits of one's own knowledge, understanding the dynamic nature of life contexts and their potential evolution over time, acknowledging and appreciating diverse perspectives, and reconciling opposing viewpoints (Grossmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref20">32</reflink>]). Existing research has identified a significant positive correlation between trait‐centered wisdom (3D‐WS) and state‐centered wisdom (WR) (Ardelt [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]). Sternberg ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref22">78</reflink>]) argues that teaching wisdom should focus on how to think, rather than what to think. In the context, the gradual development of adolescents' wise reasoning in school interaction is conducive to the formation of wisdom personality.</p> <p>Schools are a primary sphere of life and learning for adolescents, thus, conflicts with teachers and peers, as primary participants in the daily interactions of adolescents, are unavoidable (Cao et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref23">11</reflink>]). School conflict refers to an interpersonal situations that involves opposition in terms of disagreements about behaviors, values, or points of view by different actors in the educational context (Ceballos Vacas & Rodríguez‐Ruiz et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]). Although many studies have emphasized the destructive effects of conflict (Kong et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref25">56</reflink>]; Mason et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref26">67</reflink>]), some researchers argue that conflict can also have systematic and predictable constructive outcomes (Johnson and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref27">49</reflink>]; Roseth et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref28">73</reflink>]). For example, Uline et al. ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref29">82</reflink>]) suggested that school conflict can invigorate relationships, fostering innovation and productivity among individuals. Thus, the current study plan to recruit high school students as subjects to examine the performance of and disparities between adolescents' WR in both teacher–student and peer conflict contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-4">The Influences of Teacher–Student Conflict and Peer Conflict on WR</hd> <p>The influence of situations on human behavior has long been emphasized by psychologists, and many theories have been born (Ross and Nisbett [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref30">74</reflink>]). Among these, conflict situations are commonly discussed within social interdependence theory (Johnson and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref31">50</reflink>]). Social interdependence, characterized by the mutual impact of individuals' actions on each other's outcomes (Johnson and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref32">48</reflink>]), suggests that the structuring of goals shapes interpersonal interactions, and their management is contingent upon the nature of social interdependence in the given context (Johnson and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref33">50</reflink>]). An abundance of studies shows that people make inferences about the object and degree of conflicting in situations and that these inferences affect how interactions unfold (Campbell et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]; Minson and Dorison [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref35">68</reflink>]). Thus, when dealing with conflicts, such as teacher–student or peer conflicts, the adoption of distinct strategies and coping styles may be required due to differing situational characteristics and the individual roles involved (Laursen and Collins [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref36">60</reflink>]). For example, Ciuladiene and Kairiene ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref37">15</reflink>]) suggest that in teacher–student conflicts, adolescents may adopt clarifying strategies to resolve the conflict. In contrast, Shute and Charlton ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref38">77</reflink>]) found that in peer conflicts, adolescents tend to use overt anger as one of the most frequently employed strategies, which is regarded as a destructive response and includes aggressive behavior, arguments, and verbal attacks on the other party.</p> <p>There is an old Chinese saying: "古之圣王, 未有不尊师者也" (This proverb, found in <emph>Master Lü's Spring and Autumn Annals</emph>, roughly means that throughout history, no wise ruler has ever failed to respect their teachers). In this sense, regardless of their social status or wealth, even the highest rulers in Chinese culture have always shown respect and humility toward their teachers. This reflects the deep‐rooted values in Chinese society, where respect and humility toward teachers and knowledge are highly valued. Humility, in particular, has been shown to have a strong positive correlation with wisdom (Ardelt [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>]; Krause [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref40">57</reflink>]), and is considered one of the key qualities of WR (Grossmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref41">34</reflink>]). This respect for authority figures is pervasive in Chinese society, especially in educational settings where teachers are seen as authority figures responsible for both education and classroom management. In this context, resolving conflicts with teachers may require greater psychological effort from students compared with peer conflicts, leading them to exercise more caution and draw on creativity and experiential knowledge (Gyimah and Bonsu [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref42">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>As far as we know, only a few studies have explored WR in adolescents (Hu et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref43">44</reflink>]; Wang et al. [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref44">84</reflink>]; Wu et al. [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref45">89</reflink>]). Among them, the studies of Wang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref46">84</reflink>]) and Wu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref47">89</reflink>]) both focus on the influence of awe on WR of adolescents. Although Hu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref48">44</reflink>]) has explored the differences in WR among typical adolescents and adolescents with a history of delinquency in school setting, but no study has focused on the differences in WR between teacher–student conflict and peer conflict. Notwithstanding, existing wisdom psychology research and literature on school conflict can provide evidence and support for our research. For example, wisdom psychology suggests that there are situational differences in wisdom manifestation amid adversity (Ferrari et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>]), and research on Solomon's paradox (i.e., People are wiser when reasoning about others' problems than when reasoning about their own problems) also validates that different types of conflict with different levels of involvement will influence one's WR (for review, see Grossmann and Kross [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref50">31</reflink>]). On the one hand, Solomon's paradox arises from differences in perspective. People tend to adopt a first‐person perspective when facing their own problems and a third‐person perspective when considering others' issues (Grossmann and Kross [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]). These differing cognitive approaches lead to asymmetries in the performance of WR when addressing personal versus others' life challenges (Grossmann [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref52">28</reflink>]). On the other hand, emotions may play a crucial role in the internal mechanisms of Solomon's paradox. Thinking about conflict will increase emotional arousal, and different conflict objects may have different effects on emotions (Grossmann and Kross [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref53">31</reflink>]; Xu et al. [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref54">91</reflink>]). According to existing work, students may exhibit more destructive strategies (e.g., coercion or verbal confrontation) in peer conflicts (Laursen et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref55">61</reflink>]; Shute and Charlton [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref56">77</reflink>]), while adopting more constructive strategies (e.g., clarification) when dealing with adult authority (Ceballos Vacas and Rodríguez‐Ruiz [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref57">12</reflink>]). Thus, the WR of adolescents may be different in teacher conflict and peer conflict.</p> <p>By the same logic, we try to explore the difference impact of conflict types on WR through the characteristics of teacher–student conflict and peer conflict. According to the Agency–Communal orientations model (Rucker et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref58">75</reflink>]), people with a lower level of power pay more attention to others and their environment, care more about their connection with others, and are more likely to consider the views of others when making decisions. Also, the power approach theory suggests that an individual's level of power significantly influences their social behavior and decision‐making patterns (Harinck et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref59">39</reflink>]; Inesi [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref60">47</reflink>]). For example, individuals with high power tend to adopt direct problem‐solving strategies, while those with low power are more likely to focus on maintaining relationships (Ju et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref61">52</reflink>]). Therefore, in teacher–student conflicts, students, due to their lower power position, may use more cognitive strategies and have to get rid of self‐centeredness, which can foster a higher level of WR. Moreover, the research of Brienza and Grossmann ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref62">6</reflink>]) has shown that class is an important predictor of WR. People demonstrate lower WR when the conflicting party's status is lower than their own. Given the official roles and power imbalance inherent in teacher–student relationships, as well as students' lower social status (Ferguson et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref63">22</reflink>]), students may rely more on cognitive strategies and demonstrate a higher level of WR when handling conflicts with teachers. In contrast, peer conflicts, which are characterized by each party having a higher sense of power and more intense personal emotional factors, may drive individuals to prioritize self‐interest first, failing to fully consider the other's viewpoints and positions (Lammers et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref64">59</reflink>]). This can lead to a reduction in their level of WR. Therefore, although there is no theory and empirical research to support the differential performance of WR in school conflicts directly, based on the above literature analysis, the current study proposed Hypothesis 1 (H1): High school students' level of WR differs between teacher–student conflicts and peer conflicts.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-5">The Mediating Role of Coping Style</hd> <p>Compared with the conflict itself, one of the best predictors of the outcomes of conflict is the strategy a student uses (Johnson and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref65">49</reflink>]). The process‐oriented model of coping wisely suggests that effective coping requires confronting adverse experiences in a manner that challenges one's capacity to address them, thereby utilizing existing wisdom‐related coping styles and fostering personal growth from conflict (Ferrari and Munroe [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref66">24</reflink>]; Ferrari et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref67">23</reflink>]; Grossmann [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref68">29</reflink>]). Coping style refers to the response strategies taken by individuals in the face of frustration, pressure, and related emotional distress, which can be divided into problem‐solving orientation and emotional orientation (Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref69">14</reflink>]; Lazarus and Folkman [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref70">62</reflink>]). Problem‐solving orientation is also a positive orientation, including actively seeking internal and external resources, and actively constructing problem‐solving strategies; emotional orientation also belongs to negative orientation, which means that individuals tend to take escape, denial, fantasy and other ways to deal with problems, less consider the interests of others, more easily break through the constraints of social morality (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref71">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to the cognitive appraisal theory (Folkman and Moskowitz [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref72">25</reflink>]), in situations of conflict and stress, individuals first assess and evaluate external stimuli, subsequently choosing appropriate coping style. A key aspect of this evaluation is the power and social status of the conflicting parties, which significantly influences conflict cope in interpersonal relationships (Kamans et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref73">53</reflink>]). Research indicates that high‐power individuals are less likely to empathize with others during conflicts (De Wit et al. [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref74">88</reflink>]), tend to prioritize their own interests (Tost and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref75">81</reflink>]), and are less likely to employ concession strategies. In contrast, low‐power individuals are more likely to consider and accommodate the perspectives and interests of others (Magee et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref76">66</reflink>]). Furthermore, Feng ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref77">21</reflink>]) found that individuals with high power typically adopt more negative coping strategies, whereas those with low power are inclined to use more positive coping strategies. Thus, we hypothesize that adolescents may adopt different coping styles in teacher–student versus peer conflicts.</p> <p>The Cognitive‐Experiential Self‐Theory (CEST) proposes that individuals possess two cognitive systems: the rational (analytical) and the experiential (intuitive), both influencing conflict resolution. The rational system, based on reasoning and knowledge, promotes understanding others' perspectives and logical problem‐solving. In contrast, the experiential system, closely linked to emotions, can lead to egocentricity and hinder concession‐making during conflict (Todd et al. [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref78">80</reflink>]). Moreover, Lazarus and Folkman's ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref79">62</reflink>]) classic theory of stress and coping showed that coping efforts are more likely to lead to positive psychological outcomes when individuals adopt a problem‐solving orientation. In contrast, emotion orientation coping tends to be less effective in achieving such outcomes.</p> <p>This distinction is further evidenced by a series of empirical studies on coping styles and wisdom. For instance, Etezadi and Pushkar ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref80">20</reflink>]) found that wisdom was positively correlated with problem‐solving‐oriented coping. Conversely, Rathore ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref81">71</reflink>]) showed that emotion‐focused strategies, such as denial and venting, were negatively correlated with wisdom. Not only that, past work by Kanwar ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref82">54</reflink>]) and others (e.g., Ferrari and Munroe [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref83">24</reflink>]) all suggested that coping style is closely related to wisdom, and individuals who learn positive coping strategies by reflecting upon past conflicts demonstrate higher levels of wisdom. To test this, we propose two mediating paths—problem coping and emotional coping orientation—and formulate Hypothesis 2 (H2): Problem coping orientation and emotional coping orientation mediate the influence of conflict on WR respectively, with problem coping orientation being more conducive to promoting WR.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-6">Psychometric Network Analysis</hd> <p>While some previous studies have provided evidence supporting the positive correlation between wisdom and coping styles (Kanwar [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref84">54</reflink>]), they have not addressed how the components within this framework interact with one another. To gain a deeper understanding of optimal coping strategies in conflict situations, it is crucial to investigate the interconnectivity between these components. The integration or interaction of different strategies represents a key aspect of both coping styles and WR (Heffer and Willoughby [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref85">43</reflink>]; Santos et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref86">76</reflink>]). Recent advances in psychological research, such as the implementation of psychometric network analysis, offer promising solutions for studying multivariate associations (Epskamp, Borsboom, et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref87">17</reflink>]; Lin et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref88">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Network analysis is a method that uses nodes and edges to represent variables and their relationships. Nodes signify observable variables, such as emotional states or cognitive processes, while edges indicate the associations between these nodes (Borsboom et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>]; Epskamp, Borsboom, et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref90">17</reflink>]). In a network, nodes with short paths between them tend to cluster together, forming distinct communities. A node's bridge strength is defined as the sum of the absolute values of all edges connecting it to nodes outside its community (Jones et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref91">51</reflink>]). This network approach provides a deeper understanding of coping strategies' roles beyond mean scores by identifying the structural connectivity and influence of each variable within the network. Given that the node with the highest centrality value has the greatest impact on the network as a whole, interventions targeting such a node are expected to propagate their effects throughout the network, thus maximizing the impact of conflict resolution strategies (Bringmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref92">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>By contextualizing psychometric network analysis as a method, this study seeks to bridge gaps left by traditional aggregate‐based approaches. Compared with structural equation modeling (SEM), which assumes latent variable structures, the network approach explicitly models the direct relationships between variables, providing a more nuanced understanding of how coping styles influence WR. The current study leverages this methodology by applying psychological network comparisons across various conflict types to elucidate the interplay of coping styles and WR under different situational demands.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-7">The Current Study</hd> <p>The current study aims to explore the differential performance of WR in both teacher–student and peer conflicts among high school students, as well as the mediating roles of coping style. According to the theoretical basis (Figure 1) and the relationship between variables, the current research raises three research questions: Question 1: Does WR differ between peer conflict and teacher–student conflict? Base on existing literature, we propose a hypothesis that conflict type (0 = peer conflict; 1 = teacher–student conflict) significantly positively predicts WR; Question 2: Is there an indirect mechanism related to coping style that influences conflict types on WR? We propose a hypothesis that conflict type influences WR through a parallel indirect effect of problem coping orientation and emotional coping orientation, and an exploratory Question 3: What is the central strategy (node) in the conflict coping network and whether there are differences in the network structure between peer conflict and teacher–student conflict? More specifically, we designed a randomized trial design to compare the two conflict conditions and explore our questions via indirect model (to answer Questions 1 and 2) and network analysis (to answer Question 3).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01sep25/pits23531-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23531-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 A theoretical model of how teacher–student conflict and peer conflict influence wise reasoning." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187257406-9">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187257406-10">Participants</hd> <p>Participants in this study were high school students located in two provinces within China: Jiangsu Province and Anhui Province. A total of 1080 participants were recruited, and 1015 useful questionnaires remained after excluding invalid questionnaires, which had not been answered completely, resulting in an effective rate of 93.98%. The final sample included 481 boys (47.4%) and 534 girls (52.6%). There were 282 students in Senior One[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>] (27.8%), 377 students in Senior Two (37.1%), and 356 students (35.1%) in Senior Three. Only student accounted for 379 (37.3%) participants, while 636 (62.7%) were non‐only children. Five hundred and six students (49.9%) lived in urban areas and 509 students (50.1%) lived in rural areas. Participants' ages ranged from 15 to 19 years, with <emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 17.19 years (SD <subs>age</subs> = 0.77).</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-11">Instruments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187257406-12">Demographic Questionnaire</hd> <p>The demographic questionnaire designed by the study researchers was distributed to the participants to gather information about the participants, including gender, age, grade, birthplace, and their ethnicity.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-13">Situated Wise Reasoning Scale (SWIS)</hd> <p>The SWIS developed by Brienza et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref94">7</reflink>]) was adopted. The scale was revised by Hu Chao's team and proved to have good reliability and validity under Chinese adolescents (Hu et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref95">44</reflink>]; Wang et al. [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref96">84</reflink>]; Wu et al. [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref97">89</reflink>]). The English and Chinese versions of the scale was downloaded from Grossmann's website (https://uwaterloo.ca/wisdom-and-culture-lab/measures). The scale contains 21 items which measure five dimensions: Others' perspectives (e.g., Made an effort to take the other person's perspective), Consideration of change (e.g., Thought the situation could unfold in many different ways), Intellectual humility (e.g., Behaved as if there may be some information to which I did not have access), Searching for a compromise (e.g., Considered first whether a compromise was possible in resolving the situation), and View of an outsider (e.g., Tried to see the conflict from the point of view of an uninvolved person). Participants provided self‐reported ratings on a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (completely inconsistent) to 5 (completely consistent). The higher the score, the higher the respondent's level of WR.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-14">Coping Style Scale of Middle School Students</hd> <p>The Coping Style of Middle School Students Scale, as compiled by Huang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref98">45</reflink>]), was adopted. The scale includes 30 items, and is divided into two second‐order factors—problem coping and emotional coping (Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref99">14</reflink>])—and six first‐order factors—problem‐solving (e.g., Make effort to find solutions to the problem), withdrawal (e.g., Just want to pretend nothing ever happened), tolerance (e.g., Silently enduring the troubles within), help‐seeking (e.g., Asking others for help to overcome difficulties), fantasy (e.g., Imagining that the difficulties have already been resolved), and venting (e.g., Releasing inner frustrations through venting). Each item is scored on a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 ("totally inconsistent") to 5 ("totally consistent"), based on self‐reports. The higher the score, the more inclined the respondent is to adopt this specific type of coping style.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-15">Procedure</hd> <p>The Declaration of Helsinki (2013) were followed to ensure that participation in this study was anonymous, voluntary, and confidential. In addition, our study was approved by the Ethics Board of Nanjing Normal University's ethical review (IRB Number: NNU202301012). All participants provided written informed consent before completing the questionnaire, and each participant received a gift (e.g., a mechanical pen or a paper notebook).</p> <p>The cluster sampling method was adopted to select students from senior one to three of senior high schools in Jiangsu and Anhui provinces of China, as the subjects for testing. Specifically, the students were grouped into clusters based on their grade level, with each class within a grade level representing a separate cluster. From each grade (10th to 12th), several classes were randomly selected as the clusters for the study. The research procedure consists of some parts. First, participants were randomly assigned to one of two different recall tasks that prompted participants to recall an event where they experienced either teacher–student conflict or peer conflict. Specifically, they were asked to recall a single, specific conflict event involving either a classmate (peer conflict group) or a teacher (teacher–student conflict group). Participants were then prompted with a series of structured questions to reconstruct the context and details of the conflict. For the peer conflict group, questions included: "When did the conflict occur?" "What was the gender of the person involved?" and "Please briefly describe the content of the conflict." For the teacher–student conflict group, additional questions were tailored to the context, such as: "When did the conflict occur?" "Which subject does the teacher involved teach?" and "Please briefly describe the content of the conflict."</p> <p>These questions were designed to guide participants in recounting the sequence of events, emotions, and thoughts experienced during the conflict, thereby facilitating accurate and concrete recall. This approach aligns with established methods for enhancing the fidelity of autobiographical memory reconstruction (Brienza et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref100">7</reflink>]) and provides a foundation for assessing WR and coping strategies in the conflict situations.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-16">Data Analysis</hd> <p>We used SPSS 25.0 for descriptive statistics and correlation analysis to understand the preliminary data structure before testing the hypothesized relationships. To examine the hypothesized model and assess indirect effects, we employed Hayes ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref101">40</reflink>]) PROCESS macro (Model 4). This method was chosen to estimate both direct (question 1) and indirect effects (question 2) in mediation models, which are crucial for understanding the relationships in our research. For the question 3, we used R 4.1.3 to analyze the network model, which allows for exploring complex interrelationships and estimating variable associations while accounting for their joint effects.</p> <p>To be specific, to assess the potential common method bias in this study (Podsakoff et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref102">70</reflink>]), we used Harman's single‐factor test and the results showed that there was a total of 12 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. The maximum explanation of a single factor variance was 23.01% (< 40%), indicating that there was not significant common method bias in this study. Subsequently, to analyze the relationships between variables, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated. According to established guidelines (Hair et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref103">37</reflink>]), the intensity and direction of these correlations were interpreted using the following thresholds: < 0.20 = very weak; 0.20–0.39 = weak; 0.40–0.69 = moderate; 0.70–0.89 = strong; 0.90–1.0 = very strong. Furthermore, to assess the internal consistency of the scales, Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> coefficients were calculated. The interpretation of these values followed current guidelines: >0.89 = excellent; >0.79 = good; >0.69 = fair; >0.59 = questionable; >0.49 = poor (George and Mallery [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref104">26</reflink>]; He, Chen, et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref105">41</reflink>]). Last, following common indices used to evaluate the goodness of fit for the Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA): <emph>χ</emph>²/<emph>df</emph> < 5.0 Incremental Fit Index (IFI) > 0.90, Comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.90, Tucker‐Lewis index (TLI) > 0.90, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08.</p> <p>In network analysis section, previous studies have shown that the Gaussian graphical model is computationally efficient and highly interpretable, making it ideal for exploratory analysis with continuous variables (Epskamp, Borsboom, et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref106">17</reflink>]; Epskamp, Waldorp, et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref107">18</reflink>]). Therefore, first, the R package "qgraph" was used to establish the network estimated using Gaussian graphical modeling between WR and coping style. Second, the centrality index of the network model was calculated to compare the importance of each node in the network. The higher the strength, the more important the node in the network. Third, the stability of node strength was evaluated with the help of the "bootnet" package of R. A difference test between the two networks (i.e., teacher–student conflict and peer conflict) was also performed to evaluate whether there were differences between node strength or edge weights. Fourth, the accuracy of the network was evaluated by calculating the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the edge weights and associated stability coefficients of the expected influence of the nodes. Finally, the "network tools" package in R was used to divide the nodes into two groups according to the research variables, and the bridge centrality index of the network was calculated to evaluate the connection between the groups.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187257406-18">Preliminary Analysis</hd> <p>First, we examine the reliability and validity of the instruments in the current sample. Our results showed that, in the SWIS, the Cronbach's <emph>α</emph>s of the total scale and the five dimensions were 0.91, 0.82, 0.78, 0.77, 0.76, and 0.84, respectively. Confirmatory factor Analysis of the SWIS: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>/<emph>df</emph> = 4.96, RMSEA = 0.06, TLI = 0.91, IFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.92. In the Coping Style of Middle School Students Scale, the Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> of total coping style was 0.89. The Cronbach's <emph>α</emph>s of the two second‐order factors were 0.88 and 0.80, respectively. The Cronbach's <emph>α</emph>s of the six first‐order factors were 0.85, 0.67, 0.73, 0.84, 0.81, and 0.56, respectively. Confirmatory factor Analysis of this scale: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>/<emph>df</emph> = 5.83, RMSEA = 0.07, TLI = 0.87, IFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.90. Therefore, the SWIS and the Coping Style of Middle School Students Scale has acceptable reliability and validity.</p> <p>Table 1 shows the results related to the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations of each variable. Specifically, conflict type was positively correlated with both coping style (<emph>r</emph> = 0.21, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and WR (<emph>r</emph> = 0.08, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). Furthermore, we also found that the two factors of coping styles were significantly related to the conflict type, and the correlation coefficient was higher for emotional coping orientation (<emph>r</emph><subs>Problem coping orientation</subs> = 0.15, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; <emph>r</emph><subs>Emotional coping orientation</subs> = 0.22, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Similarly, both coping styles were significantly related to WR, and the correlation coefficient was higher for Problem coping orientation (<emph>r</emph><subs>Problem coping orientation</subs> = 0.63, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; <emph>r</emph><subs>Emotional coping orientation</subs> = 0.36, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). In summary, the correlations suggest that conflict type is related to both coping style and WR, which is conducive to the subsequent indirect model analysis.</p> <p>1 Table Descriptive and correlation statistics of study variables (N = 1015).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Variables</th><th><italic>M </italic>± SD</th><th>Conflict type</th><th>Problem coping orientation</th><th>Emotional coping orientation</th><th>Coping style</th><th>WR</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Conflict type</td><td>—</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Problem coping orientation</td><td>2.82 ± 0.86</td><td>0.15<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Emotional coping orientation</td><td>2.51 ± 0.74</td><td>0.22<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.46<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>1</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Coping style</td><td>2.68 ± 0.68</td><td>0.21<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.88<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.82<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>1</td><td /></tr><tr><td>WR</td><td>2.94 ± 0.82</td><td>0.08<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.63<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.36<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.59<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05</p> <p>2 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-19">The Main Effect of Conflict Type</hd> <p>In Table 2, we compared the differences in WR and coping styles of high school students in teacher–student conflict and peer conflict through one‐way ANOVA. Consistent with H1, the results showed that the high school students were more likely to use WR strategies to resolve teacher–student conflict (<emph>M</emph> = 3.01, SD = 0.81) than to resolve peer conflict (<emph>M</emph> = 2.88, SD = 0.82; <emph>F</emph> = 6.37, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, <emph>η</emph><subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.01). However, out of all the dimensions of WR, only the view of an outsider (<emph>F</emph> = 28.95, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, <emph>η</emph><subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.03) and consideration of change (<emph>F</emph> = 3.94, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, <emph>η</emph><subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.03) showed significant difference between the two types of conflict. In terms of coping styles, the scores in the teacher–student conflict condition (<emph>M</emph> = 2.82, SD = 0.62) were significantly higher than those in the peer conflict condition (<emph>M</emph> = 2.54, SD = 0.70; <emph>F</emph> = 44.91, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, <emph>η</emph><subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.04). In addition to the problem‐solving orientation dimension (<emph>F</emph> = 2.06, <emph>p</emph> = 0.15), the two conflict conditions also had significant differences in other dimensions.</p> <p>2 Table The main impacts of conflict type on wise reasoning and related variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Variables</th><th>Peer conflict (<italic>M±</italic>SD)</th><th>Teacher–student conflict (<italic>M</italic>±SD)</th><th><italic>F</italic></th><th><italic>η</italic><sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>WR</td><td>2.88 ± 0.83</td><td>3.01 ± 0.81</td><td>6.37<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Others' perspectives</td><td>2.54 ± 1.07</td><td>2.49 ± 1.02</td><td>0.55</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Intellectual humility</td><td>3.01 ± 1.08</td><td>3.08 ± 1.09</td><td>1.09</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Searching for a compromise</td><td>3.04 ± 1.00</td><td>3.15 ± 1.04</td><td>2.78</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Consideration of change</td><td>3.09 ± 1.09</td><td>3.23 ± 1.09</td><td>3.94<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>View of an outsider</td><td>2.65 ± 1.16</td><td>3.04 ± 1.14</td><td>28.95<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Coping style</td><td>2.54 ± 0.62</td><td>2.82 ± 0.71</td><td>44.91<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Problem coping orientation</td><td>2.69 ± 0.81</td><td>2.94 ± 0.90</td><td>21.72<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional coping orientation</td><td>2.34 ± 0.71</td><td>2.67 ± 0.74</td><td>50.71<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Problem‐solving</td><td>3.15 ± 0.95</td><td>3.24 ± 1.00</td><td>2.06</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Withdrawal</td><td>2.44 ± 0.97</td><td>2.75 ± 1.02</td><td>46.88<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Tolerance</td><td>2.43 ± 1.04</td><td>2.89 ± 1.13</td><td>25.41<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Help‐seeking</td><td>2.23 ± 0.99</td><td>2.64 ± 1.07</td><td>40.12<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Fantasy</td><td>2.15 ± 1.18</td><td>2.35 ± 1.26</td><td>6.37<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Venting</td><td>2.36 ± 0.93</td><td>2.68 ± 0.92</td><td>31.20<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.03</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05</item> <item>4 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187257406-20">Testing for Mediation</hd> <p>We explored the mediation effect between problem coping orientation and emotional coping orientation on both conflict type and WR using Process (model 4) to conduct parallel mediation effect analysis using 5000 samples and a 95% CI (see Table 3 and Figure 2). Figure 2 depicts the path coefficients and their significance in the hypothetical model. The results showed that the direct effect of conflict type on WR was not significant (<emph>β</emph> = −0.05, <emph>t</emph> = −1.13, <emph>p</emph> = 0.26, 95% CI = [−0.13, 0.03], which included 0). Conflict type significantly positively predicted problem coping (<emph>β</emph> = 0.29, <emph>t</emph> = 4.65, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and problem coping orientation significantly positively predicted WR (<emph>β</emph> = 0.58, <emph>t</emph> = 21.23, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), with the 95% CI mediated by problem coping orientation being [0.08,0.20], which excluded 0, indicating a significant mediating effect. Conflict type positively predicted emotional coping orientation (<emph>β</emph> = 0.44, <emph>t</emph> = 7.14, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and emotional coping orientation significantly positively predicted WR (<emph>β</emph> = 0.10, <emph>t</emph> = 3.42, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), with the 95% CI mediated by emotional coping orientation being [0.01,0.06], which excluded 0, meaning the mediating effect was significant. In addition, by comparing the two mediation paths, we found that the CIs did not coincide, indicating that there were significant differences between the two mediation paths. In addition, Table 3 presents the effect size of the mediation analysis, standard error and its 95% CI. Both problem coping orientation and emotional coping orientation mediated the effect of conflict type on WR (indirect effect through problem coping orientation = 0.14, 95% CI [0.08, 0.20]; indirect effect through emotional coping orientation = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.06]). Notably, the indirect effect through problem coping orientation was over four times larger than the indirect effect through emotional coping orientation. Thus, the effect of problem coping orientation outweighed the effect of emotional coping orientation.</p> <p>3 Table Indirect pathways from conflict type to wise reasoning.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th><italic>B</italic></th><th><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="center">95% CI</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th align="center">Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Direct effect</td><td>−0.05</td><td>0.04</td><td>−0.13</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Conflict type→ problem coping orientation→ WR</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Conflict type→ emotional coping orientation→ WR</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Total effect</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.23</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01sep25/pits23531-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23531-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Analysis of parallel mediating effects of conflict types on wise reasoning." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187257406-22">Network Structure</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187257406-23">Difference Test of the Entire Network and Node Centrality</hd> <p>Overall, the peer conflict and teacher–student conflict networks were similar (Figures 3 and 4), and there was no significant difference seen in the strength of the two networks (Strength<subs>peer conflict</subs> = 4.30, Strength<subs>teacher–student conflict</subs> = 4.37, <emph>p</emph> = 0.77). Compared with emotional coping, problem coping occupied a stronger central node position in both networks (Strength <subs>peer conflict</subs> = 0.79, Strength <subs>teacher–student conflict</subs> = 1.17), meaning that the "problem‐solving" node had the highest strength. In emotional coping, "tolerance" and "withdrawal" in the teacher–student conflict network (Strength = −0.66, −0.12) were lower than in the peer conflict network (Strength = −1.49, −1.23), while "fantasy" and "venting" in the teacher–student conflict network (Strength = −1.50, −1.99) were higher than in the peer conflict network (Strength = −0.57, −1.40). From the WR perspective, with the exception of "searching for a compromise" (Strength<subs>peer conflict</subs> = 0.86, Strength<subs>teacher–student conflict</subs> = 0.42), the strength of the WR nodes in the teacher–student conflict network (Strength<subs>intellectual humility</subs> = 0.76; Strength<subs>Others' perspectives</subs> = −0.07; Strength<subs>consideration of change</subs> = 0.39; Strength<subs>View of an outsider</subs> = 0.42) were lower than in that of the peer conflict networks (Strength<subs>intellectual humility</subs> = 1.14; Strength<subs>Others' perspectives</subs> = 0.27; Strength<subs>consideration of change</subs> = 1.00; Strength<subs>View of an outsider</subs> = 0.86). In Figure 5, we visualized the comparison of centrality differences between nodes in teacher–student conflict and peer conflict, and detailed results can be obtained from Figure 5.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01sep25/pits23531-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23531-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Peer conflict network analysis model." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01sep25/pits23531-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23531-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Teacher–student conflict network model." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01sep25/pits23531-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23531-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Network centrality nodes." /> </p> <p></p> <p>We also tested whether there were significant differences in permutation tests between the two groups of networks in regard to line weights. The results showed that certain line weights in the peer conflict network were significantly lower than in the teacher–student conflict network. Specifically, for coping styles, there were significant differences in the edge weights of "problem‐solving"; for the perspective of WR, the edge weights of "consideration of change—intellectual humility" were significantly different; and for coping styles on WR, there were significant differences in the side weights of "others' perspectives—help‐seeking," "searching for a compromise—help‐seeking," "intellectual humility—fantasy," and "consideration of change—fantasy."</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-27">Bridge Centrality Test</hd> <p>The nodes were classified into two groups—WR and coping style—and the nodes in each group that had a key impact on the other group were measured using the index of bridge centrality. The results of the network analysis showed that in both the peer conflict and teacher–student conflict networks, "problem‐solving" was the bridge variable that affected WR the most (Values = 0.68, 0.71, respectively). In the teacher–student conflict network, the influence of "tolerance" and "Seeking help" on WR (Values = 0.20, 0.30, respectively) were higher than in the peer conflict network (Values = 0.10, 0.17, respectively), while the influence of "venting" on WR in the teacher–student network (Value = 0) was lower than in the peer conflict network (Value = 0.13). Meanwhile, "view of an outsider" and "searching for a compromise" were both important bridging variables that influenced coping styles via WR (teacher–student Values = 0.34, 0.39, respectively; Value growth = 0.38, 0.31, respectively). In the teacher–student conflict network, the influence of "others' perspectives" on coping styles (Value = 0.29) was higher than in the peer conflict network (Value = 0.15). The impact of "consideration of change" on coping styles in the peer conflict network (Value = 0.20) was lower than in the teacher–student conflict network (Value = 0.25). In Figure 6, we visualized the index of bridge strength in teacher–student conflict and peer conflict, and detailed results can be obtained from Figure 6.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01sep25/pits23531-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23531-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Central node of the bridge (left: peer conflict; right: teacher–student conflict)." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187257406-29">Robustness Test</hd> <p>The node strength of the two networks (i.e., peer conflict and teacher–student conflict) were evaluated, and determined to be 0.594 and 0.516, respectively, both higher than the standard of 0.5 (Epskamp, Borsboom, et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref108">17</reflink>]), indicating that the stability of the node centrality index of both networks was acceptable. Figure 7 visualizes the stability assessment process and shows that the stability of closeness and betweenness centrality drop steeply, whereas the stability of node strength remains relatively better. The average correlations between centrality indices of networks sampled with persons dropped and the original sample are shown, with lines indicating the means and shaded areas representing the range from the 2.5th to the 97.5th quantile. Finally, edge weight accuracy analysis was performed, and the results are shown in Figure 8, with the black line representing the average edge weight using the bootstrap method (2500 times), the red line representing the edge weight of the current study sample, and the gray area shows the bootstrapped CIs. The narrow 95% CI of the edge weights of the current sample indicated that the evaluation of the edge weights was accurate.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01sep25/pits23531-fig-0007.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23531-fig-0007.jpg" title="7 Stability analysis of central nodes (left: peer conflict; right: teacher–student conflict)." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01sep25/pits23531-fig-0008.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23531-fig-0008.jpg" title="8 Accuracy analysis of edge weights (left: peer conflict; right: teacher–student conflict)." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187257406-32">Discussion</hd> <p>Johnson and Johnson ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref109">49</reflink>]) believed that conflict is ever present and it is a necessary and positive condition for development and growth of children and adolescents. If students are to manage their conflicts constructively, they must learn to value conflicts and see them as potentially positive. Guided by social interdependence theory, which emphasizes how interdependence between individuals influences their behavior, cooperation, and conflict resolution (Johnson and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref110">50</reflink>]), we compared the differences in WR among high school students facing two types of conflict—conflict with peers and conflict with teachers—with problem‐solving coping and emotional coping serving as parallel mediating variables in these relationships. Our findings supported our mediation model, and that the network structure between coping styles and WR varied between the different conflict types. This provides empirical support for the wisdom view of socio‐ecological context, which emphasizes that wisdom can change in the short term and is easily affected by different situations (Grossmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref111">34</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref112">92</reflink>]). Our findings broaden the understanding of WR by integrating the contextual effects of conflict type and coping styles, providing a nuanced perspective on how situational and individual factors interact to influence adolescents' WR.</p> <p>In terms of WR scores, the average recorded in this study was 2.94, falling short of previously noted scores in adults, which have ranged from 3.50 to 3.99 (Huynh et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref113">46</reflink>]; Wang et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref114">85</reflink>]; Xu et al. [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref115">91</reflink>]). This discrepancy shows the link between wisdom and age. One possible explanation for this difference lies in the developmental stage of the participants. High school students, who are still in adolescence, are undergoing significant cognitive development, which may limit their capacity for complex reasoning required for wisdom (Grossmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref116">32</reflink>]). In addition, adults often have more life experience, which allows them to draw upon a broader range of perspectives and past experiences when making decisions. This experience may enhance their ability to navigate complex social and conflict dilemmas, leading to higher wisdom perform (Grossmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref117">30</reflink>]; Weststrate and Glück [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref118">86</reflink>]). Therefore, the difference in scores can be attributed to both cognitive maturation and the accumulation of life experiences that are more common among older individuals. Of course, the low score in our study may also be influenced by factors beyond age, such as the specific conflict contexts (Intimate relationship conflict vs. School conflict) and data collection methods used (Online vs. Offline). Future research should examine their combined effects to better understand their influence on adolescents' WR.</p> <p>The results of mediation analysis suggested that both problem coping orientation and emotional coping orientation serve parallel mediating roles in the effect of conflict type on WR. Importantly, the effect size of problem solve orientation was much larger than that of emotional coping orientation. This result corroborates the CEST (Cerni et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref119">13</reflink>]) proposal that cognition‐related system can help individuals take cognizance of the perspectives of others, and reduce egocentrism, which is more conducive to the development of wisdom than emotional systems.</p> <p>Tests for differences in WR across the different types of conflict considered in the current study showed significant differences in both the WR total score and the scores of some of the WR sub‐dimensions (such as "others' perspective") in high school students. This finding is in line with the results of conflict situation in Huynh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref120">46</reflink>]). Analysis of coping styles showed that, with the exception of the "problem‐solving" dimension, the total score and all sub‐dimensions of coping style scores in the teacher–student conflict condition scored significantly higher than in the peer conflict condition. This shows the effect of social status on adolescents' conflict response (Ju et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref121">52</reflink>]). The subjective inequality between teachers and students in terms of class and power will cause students to pay more attention to environmental cues, particularly the behaviors and ideas of those in power (i.e., their teachers; Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref122">64</reflink>]), which can help improve their perspective‐taking ability and thereby lead to them demonstrating higher levels of WR. However, previous research has categorized interpersonal conflicts into either value conflicts, or interest conflicts (Harinck et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref123">39</reflink>]; Harinck and De Dreu [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref124">38</reflink>]). Due to the instructional nature of their interactions, teacher–student relationships often involve only value conflicts (such as conflict between a teacher's academic demands and the student's academic burnout). However, peer conflicts can be more complex, involving value conflicts as well as interest conflicts between two or even multiple parties. Thus, in complex conflict situations, adolescents might lack comprehensive coping methods, thus displaying a lower level of WR that ultimately leads to conflict becoming destructive.</p> <p>Although previous research has indicated that peer interactions can enhance adolescents' reasoning skills (Tenenbaum et al. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref125">79</reflink>]), the current study did not focus on high school students' abstract reasoning abilities regarding logical propositions (e.g., He, Hua, et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref126">42</reflink>]); rather, it focused on their WR abilities, which entails intellectual humility and the recognition of uncertainty in change. Following the results of the current study, teacher–student conflicts contribute more effectively to adolescents' growth and departure from egocentrism, encouraging them to pay greater attention to others' perspectives and thereby fostering wisdom development (Richardson and Pasupathi [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref127">72</reflink>]). The "view of an outsider" score in the teacher–student conflict condition significantly surpassed that in the peer conflict condition. This could be because high school students, still adolescents, tend to still be excessively concerned about their own image and status, and are sensitive to peer evaluations (Guyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref128">35</reflink>]). Teacher–student conflicts tend to be more formal and are likely to occur in front of the whole class, which compels individuals to consider the views of outsider parties more, thereby influencing their decision‐making. With the exception of "view of an outsider," the subdimensions of WR did not show significant differences between the two kinds of conflicts; this could be because high school students are at the initial stage of wisdom development. Overall, their levels of WR are still relatively low, which leads to a call for educators to develop and conduct suitable wisdom education during this formative period of individual wisdom, to better promote wisdom development in adolescents.</p> <p>According to the results of network analysis, in both conflict types, the node strength of problem coping orientation was higher than that of emotional coping orientation, and problem coping orientation acted as a bridging variable influencing WR, which is consistent with previous findings (Huang et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref129">45</reflink>]). This suggests that, in interpersonal conflicts, high school students prefer to take tangible measures to resolve conflict, rather than turning to emotional venting, as problem coping strategies effectively promote one's level of WR. Regarding emotional coping, the differences between the two conflict types were more evident. Analysis results revealed that high school students were more inclined to adopt "fantasy" and "venting" strategies in teacher–student conflicts, while they tended to lean toward "tolerance" and "withdrawal" in peer conflicts. According to these findings, in teacher–student conflicts, students should avoid using "fantasy" to escape or "venting" to release frustration. Instead, they should communicate openly with their teachers, expressing their thoughts and feelings clearly. This helps both students and teachers understand each other better, and turn conflict into an opportunity for education. Teachers should also create an environment that encourages student feedback and participation, where students feel comfortable sharing their views without pressure. In peer conflicts, strategies like "tolerance" and "withdrawal" may seem helpful, but they can allow issues to grow and even lead to bullying. Tolerating bad behavior or withdrawing can let problems continue unchecked. Students should instead address conflicts directly, standing up for themselves or seeking help from others.</p> <p>Looking at the differences in edge weights in the two conflict‐type networks, compared with the peer conflict network, the connection between "problem‐solving" and "withdrawal" in the teacher–student conflict network was closer. This finding suggests that in teacher–student conflicts, problem‐solving strategies are more closely linked to withdrawal behaviors, indicating a unique dynamic between these coping strategies in this context. This result supports power approach theory which suggests that those with less power are more sensitive to potential negative outcomes (Inesi [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref130">47</reflink>]). Students may choose to retreat from teacher–student conflict situations to maintain their image in front of their educators and reduce negative consequences. If the students are powerless to change the conflict situation, they can only choose to passively allow it to exist. Second, the connection between "consideration of change" and "intellectual humility" was closer in teacher–student conflict. On one hand, traditional Chinese culture values the virtue of respecting one's teachers. In teacher–student conflicts, students often embrace a humbler attitude, which is conducive to them recognizing their own shortcomings or potential limitations. On the other hand, compared with peer relationships, teachers often play numerous roles (e.g., counselors and caregivers) for a student (Winthrop and Kirk [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref131">87</reflink>]), and teacher–student interactions are more educational (Xie et al. [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref132">90</reflink>]). When faced with conflict, if both teachers and students seize the opportunity to learn from one another, they may produce more positive results and grow together. Finally, the connections between "seeking help," "others' perspectives," and "searching for a compromise" were more closely connected in the teacher–student conflict network. This suggests that, in teacher–student conflicts, high school students are more likely to step out of their self‐centeredness, pay more attention to environmental cues, improve in their ability to consider different perspectives.</p> <p>Our study has several significant theoretical implications. First, our findings extend the literature on social interdependence theory (Johnson and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref133">50</reflink>]), particularly in terms of its impact on wisdom‐related cognitive performance, while also broadening its application to the field of fostering adolescents' wisdom. Second, this challenges the traditional belief that wisdom is primarily acquired in old age (Baltes and Staudinger [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref134">4</reflink>]; Erikson [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref135">19</reflink>]). Our study provides empirical support for the idea that adolescence can be a formative period for the development of wisdom. Some researchers (e.g., Ardelt [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref136">1</reflink>]) argue that individuals with wisdom personality excel in WR, and we believe that this relationship can be bidirectional. For adolescents, who are still developing their wisdom personality, engaging in more school‐based interactions to cope with conflicts and challenges can enhance their WR. This, in turn, may facilitate the formation of a wisdom personality in adulthood.</p> <p>From the practical implications, this study provides significant insights into the field of adolescent conflict resolution and WR. The differential mediating roles of problem and emotional coping orientations underscore the complexity of adolescents' cognitive and emotional responses in various conflict contexts. Additionally, the findings of network analysis highlight the importance of tailoring conflict resolution strategies to specific conflict types, as well as fostering adaptive coping mechanisms that align with adolescents' developmental needs. Overall, according to our findings, conflicts can be viewed as a normal part of school life (Valente and Lourenço [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref137">83</reflink>]). They are not inherently harmful; rather, they can uncover underlying needs, transform into valuable educational tools, and offer students meaningful opportunities for learning and growth (Parker and Bickmore [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref138">69</reflink>]). On the one hand, for educators and school counselors, the results emphasize the need to design targeted interventions that promote problem‐solving and emotional regulation skills, particularly in teacher–student interactions where authority dynamics play a critical role. Tailoring conflict resolution strategies to specific conflict types can enhance adolescents' ability to navigate complex social situations effectively. Additionally, peer conflict resolution programs should incorporate emotional coping strategies, such as cultivating empathy, to help adolescents handle peer conflicts more constructively. On the other hand, fostering adaptive coping mechanisms in adolescents themselves is crucial for their personal development. Encouraging emotional regulation and perspective‐taking can empower adolescents to better manage both peer and teacher conflicts, leading to healthier interpersonal relationships and more positive conflict outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-33">Study Limitations and Prospective Future Research</hd> <p>First, this study was a cross‐sectional study, which only examines the relationship between variables at a single point in time based on the individual's perspective. Correlation is not causation, and future research should seek a more comprehensive understanding of WR in high school students through experimental interventions or longitudinal studies. Second, consistent with previous research (Huynh et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref139">46</reflink>]; Xu et al. [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref140">91</reflink>]), this study identified differences in WR according to conflict type, however, the effect size was relatively small (<emph>η</emph><subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.01–0.03), and much smaller than the results of Grossmann and Kross ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref141">31</reflink>]). Future research should use diversified psychological measurement methods (e.g., peer evaluation) to determine the level of WR. Furthermore, the current study may rely on a single measurement tool for assessing WR, and future research could incorporate multiple measurement tools, like the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm, to further enhance the validity and reliability of the measurements. Third, although the difference between problem‐solving orientation and emotion‐oriented coping styles on intelligent reasoning was examined, this study only focused on the impact of negative emotions, and future studies should focus on the role of positive emotions (e.g., empathy) and emotional diversity in WR. Fourth, the cultural context of this study was limited, as the participants were sampled from a single cultural setting. The results may not be generalizable to other cultures or countries. Given that both wisdom and educational practices vary significantly across cultures, the generalizability of the findings to other cultural contexts remains uncertain. For instance, in China, due to the large population, class sizes are typically large, with one teacher often responsible for instructing and maintaining discipline for around 50 students. This context may necessitate stricter teaching methods, such as reprimands, which are relatively common. In contrast, campus management in the United States tends to be more flexible, with students enjoying greater freedom and autonomy. These differences in educational environments and cultural norms could influence how wisdom‐related reasoning (WR) develops and is expressed among adolescents. Future research should therefore explore these variations through cross‐cultural research to better understand how educational practices and cultural values shape WR and coping strategies in diverse settings. Finally, the diversity of the sample is a limitation. This study focused on high school students from a relatively homogeneous background. It is reasonable to speculate that conflict resolution strategies may vary across developmental stages, from late elementary school through college. These changes are likely influenced by shifts in adolescents' comprehension of peer and teacher relationships. Thus, future investigations could include a more diverse sample, encompassing different ages and educational levels, to explore how the development of WR varies throughout life and in different social settings.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-34">Conclusion</hd> <p>The purpose of the study was to examine the differential performance of WR among high school students in teacher–student conflict and peer conflict, with problem coping orientation and emotional coping orientation as mediators. The results indicated that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref142">1</reflink>) Problem coping orientation and emotional coping orientation play parallel mediating effects in the influence of conflict type on high school students' WR. (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref143">2</reflink>) High school students have higher levels of problem coping orientation, emotional coping orientation and WR in teacher–student conflict situations than they do in peer conflict situations. (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref144">3</reflink>) The network structure between coping styles and WR differs significantly in the subgroup characteristics of conflict types. In teacher–student conflicts, high school students show more "authority orientation," in that they are more likely to adopt humility, evasion, and other similar coping strategies; meanwhile, in peer conflicts, they may show more coping strategies related to private relationships and emotional factors, such as "venting."</p> <p>Collectively, these findings deepen our understanding of conflict dynamics and coping strategies within educational settings, emphasizing the importance of tailoring interventions to specific school conflict scenarios. By addressing the distinct characteristics of teacher–student and peer conflicts, this study provides a theoretical supporting for refining conflict resolution models in education. Practically, this study provides valuable insights for designing targeted programs. Teachers, in particular, play a crucial role in the constructive resolution of conflicts. By promoting forms of wise interpersonal interaction and effective coping strategies, educators can transform conflicts into valuable educational opportunities.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-35">Author Contributions</hd> <p>Data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, draft manuscript preparation: Hongyi Lin. Analysis and interpretation of results, draft manuscript preparation, enrich the content of the article with processing and polishing: Yan Wang. Design the article framework, provide constructive comments for the writing of the article: Fengyan Wang. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-36">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>Thanks to Dr. Zhengdong Wang from Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine for his constructive comments on this article. This study was supported by the Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (Grant number: KYCX24_1717).</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-37">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. Ethical clearance for our work has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Nanjing Normal University (NNU202301012).</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-38">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0187257406-39">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0187257406-40"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The Chinese educational system is structured as follows: Primary school (1st through 6th grade), junior high school (7th through 9th grade), and senior high school (10th through 12th grade). Senior 1 corresponds to the 10th grade, Senior 2 to the 11th grade, and Senior 3 to the 12th grade.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref16" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Hongyi Lin and Yan Wang made equal contribution to this article, so they share first authorship.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref1" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> [Corrections made May 31, 2025, after initial online publication. Affiliation order for author Fengyan Wang has been adjusted. Co‐first author Yan Wang has been updated from Wang Yan.]</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0187257406-41"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ardelt, M. 2025. " Wisdom Predicts Emotional Intelligence and Wise Reasoning." Journal of Positive Psychology 20, no. 1 : 123 – 135. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2024.2322448.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ardelt, M., S. Pridgen, and K. L. Nutter‐ Pridgen. 2019. " Wisdom as a Personality Type." In The Cambridge Handbook of Wisdom, edited by R. J. Sternberg and J. Glück, 144 – 161. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108568272.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Assmann, A. 1994. " Wholesome Knowledge: Concepts of Wisdom in a Historical and Cross‐Cultural Perspective." In Life‐Span Development and Behavior, Edited by D. L. Featherman, R. M. Lerner and M. Perlmutter, 187 – 224. Routledge Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baltes, P. B., and U. M. Staudinger. 2000. " Wisdom: A Metaheuristic (Pragmatic) to Orchestrate Mind and Virtue Toward Excellence." American Psychologist 55, no. 1 : 122 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref89" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Borsboom, D., M. K. Deserno, and M. Rhemtulla, et al. 2021. " Network Analysis of Multivariate Data in Psychological Science." Nature Reviews Methods Primers 1, no. 1 : 58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-021-00055-w.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref62" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brienza, J. P., and I. Grossmann. 2017. " Social Class and Wise Reasoning About Interpersonal Conflicts Across Regions, Persons and Situations." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284, no. 1869 : 20171870. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1870.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref94" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brienza, J. P., F. Y. H. Kung, H. C. Santos, D. R. Bobocel, and I. Grossmann. 2018. " Wisdom, Bias, and Balance: Toward a Process‐Sensitive Measurement of Wisdom‐Related Cognition." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 115, no. 6 : 1093 – 1126. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref92" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bringmann, L. F., T. Elmer, S. Epskamp, et al. 2019. " What do Centrality Measures Measure in Psychological Networks? " Journal of Abnormal Psychology 128, no. 8 : 892 – 903. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000446.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref11" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bruya, B., and M. Ardelt. 2018. " Wisdom can be Taught: A Proof‐of‐Concept Study for Fostering Wisdom in the Classroom." Learning and Instruction 58 : 106 – 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, L., J. A. Simpson, J. Boldry, and D. A. Kashy. 2005. " Perceptions of Conflict and Support in Romantic Relationships: The Role of Attachment Anxiety." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88, no. 3 : 510 – 531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.510.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cao, Y., H. Wang, Y. Lv, and D. Xie. 2023. " The Influence of Children's Emotional Comprehension on Peer Conflict Resolution Strategies." Frontiers in Psychology 14 : 1142373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1142373.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ceballos Vacas, E. M., and B. Rodríguez‐Ruiz. 2023. " How do Teachers and Students Deal With Conflict?: An Analysis of Conflict Resolution Strategies and Goals." Revista de Investigación Educativa 41, no. 2 : 551 – 572. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.547241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cerni, T., G. J. Curtis, and S. H. Colmar. 2012. " Cognitive‐Experiential Self Theory and Conflict‐Handling Styles: Rational and Constructive Experiential Systems are Related to the Integrating and Compromising Conflict‐Handling Styles." International Journal of Conflict Management 23, no. 4 : 362 – 381. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061211267263.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, H., X. Huang, and C. Guo. 2002. " A Correlation Study of Personality Characters and Middle School Students' Coping Styles of Middle School Students." Journal of Psychological Science 2002, no. 5 : 520 – 522. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2002.05.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ciuladiene, G., and B. Kairiene. 2017. " The Resolution of Conflict Between Teacher and Student: Studentsí Narratives." Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability 19, no. 2 : 107 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2017-0017.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clayton, V. P., and J. E. Birren. 1980. " The Development of Wisdom Across the Life Span: A Reexamination of an Ancient Topic." In Life‐Span Development and Behavior, Edited by P. B. Baltes and O. G. Brim, 103 – 135. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Epskamp, S., D. Borsboom, and E. I. Fried. 2018. " Estimating Psychological Networks and Their Accuracy: A Tutorial Paper." Behavior Research Methods 50, no. 1 : 195 – 212. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Epskamp, S., L. J. Waldorp, R. Mõttus, and D. Borsboom. 2018. " The Gaussian Graphical Model in Cross‐Sectional and Time‐Series Data." Multivariate Behavioral Research 53, no. 4 : 453 – 480. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1454823.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erikson, E. 1959. Identity and the Life Cycle. International Universities Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etezadi, S., and D. Pushkar. 2013. " Why are Wise People Happier? An Explanatory Model of Wisdom and Emotional Well‐Being in Older Adults." Journal of Happiness Studies 14 : 929 – 950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9362-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feng, Y. S. 2023. The Effect of Sense of Power on College Students' Coping Strategies for Romantic Conflict —The Moderating Role of Self‐Construal. (Unpublished Master's Theses). Northeast Normal University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson, L. M., O. Yonge, and F. Myrick. 2004. " Students' Involvement in Faculty Research: Ethical and Methodological Issues." International Journal of Qualitative Methods 3, no. 4 : 56 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406904003004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferrari, M., I. Grossmann, S. Grimm, and J. Staffel. 2019. " A Process Model of Wisdom From Adversity." Journal of Value Inquiry 53 : 471 – 473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-019-09711-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferrari, M., and M. Munroe. 2022. " Coping With Adversity Through Metaconscious Wisdom." In Post‐Traumatic Growth to Psychological Well‐Being, Edited by M. Munroe and M. Ferrari, 67 – 81. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15290-0_8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Folkman, S., and J. T. Moskowitz. 2004. " Coping: Pitfalls and Promise." Annual Review of Psychology 55 : 745 – 774. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George, D., and P. Mallery. 2019. IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glück, J., and N. M. Weststrate. 2022. " The Wisdom Researchers and the Elephant: An Integrative Model of Wise Behavior." Personality and Social Psychology Review 26, no. 4 : 342 – 374. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221094650.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossmann, I. 2017. " Wisdom in Context." Perspectives on Psychological Science 12, no. 2 : 233 – 257. https://doi.org/10.1177/174569161667206.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossmann, I. 2018. " Wisdom and how to Cultivate it: Review of Emerging Evidence for a Constructivist Model of Wise Thinking." European Psychologist 22, no. 4 : 223 – 246. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossmann, I., T. M. Gerlach, and J. J. A. Denissen. 2016. " Wise Reasoning in the Face of Everyday Life Challenges." Social Psychological and Personality Science 7, no. 7 : 611 – 622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616652206.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossmann, I., and E. Kross. 2014. " Exploring Solomon's Paradox: Self‐Distancing Eliminates the Self‐Other Asymmetry in Wise Reasoning About Close Relationships in Younger and Older Adults." Psychological Science 25, no. 8 : 1571 – 1580. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976145354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossmann, I., J. Na, M. E. W. Varnum, S. Kitayama, and R. E. Nisbett. 2013. " A Route to Well‐Being: Intelligence Versus Wise Reasoning." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142 : 944 – 953. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029560.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossmann, I., H. Oakes, and H. C. Santos. 2019. " Wise Reasoning Benefits From Emodiversity, Irrespective of Emotional Intensity." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 148, no. 5 : 805 – 823. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000543.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossmann, I., N. M. Weststrate, M. Ardelt, et al. 2020. " The Science of Wisdom in a Polarized World: Knowns and Unknowns." Psychological Inquiry 31, no. 2 : 103 – 133. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1750917.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guyer, A. E., J. D. Caouette, C. C. Lee, and S. K. Ruiz. 2014. " Will They Like me? Adolescents' Emotional Responses to Peer Evaluation." International Journal of Behavioral Development 38, no. 2 : 155 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413515627.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gyimah, G., and N. O. Bonsu. 2020. " An Examination of Senior High Schools Teacher‐Students' Conflicts in Ghana." All Nations University Journal of Applied Thought 8, no. 1 : 186 – 198. https://doi.org/10.47987/IRAY1926.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2019. Multivariate Data Analysis. Cengage Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harinck, F., and C. K. W. De Dreu. 2004. " Negotiating Interests or Values and Reaching Integrative Agreements: The Importance of Time Pressure and Temporary Impasses." European Journal of Social Psychology 34, no. 5 : 595 – 611. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harinck, F., C. K. W. De Dreu, and A. E. M. Van Vianen. 2000. " The Impact of Conflict Issues on Fixed‐Pie Perceptions, Problem Solving, and Integrative Outcomes in Negotiation." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 81, no. 2 : 329 – 358. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2873.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> He, G., S. Chen, H. Lin, and A. Su. 2024. " The Association Between Initial Metacognition and Subsequent Academic Achievement: A Meta‐Analysis of Longitudinal Studies." Educational Psychology Review 36, no. 3 : 81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09922-w.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> He, G., T. Hua, F. Liang, and A. Su. 2024. " Can Growth Mindset Always Promote Students' Math Achievement? Perspectives From Chinese University Students." Psychology in the Schools 61, no. 10 : 3926 – 3941. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heffer, T., and T. Willoughby. 2017. " A Count of Coping Strategies: A Longitudinal Study Investigating an Alternative Method to Understanding Coping and Adjustment." PLoS One 12, no. 10 : e0186057. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186057.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, C., H. Zhang, and C. Huang, et al. 2024. Wise Reasoning About Peer Conflicts Among Delinquent and Typical Adolescents (Preprint). Available at SSRN 4975605. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4975605.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, X., H. Yu, Y. Zheng, J. Yang, and W. Wang. 2000. " Preliminary Research on the Coping Style of Middle School Students." Journal of Psychological Science 2000, no. 1 : 1 – 5. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2000.01.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huynh, A. C., H. Oakes, G. R. Shay, and I. McGregor. 2017. " The Wisdom in Virtue: Pursuit of Virtue Predicts Wise Reasoning About Personal Conflicts." Psychological Science 28, no. 12 : 1848 – 1856. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976177445.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inesi, M. E. 2010. " Power and Loss Aversion." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112, no. 1 : 58 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.01.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. 1989. Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Interaction Book Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. 1996. " Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation Programs in Elementary and Secondary Schools: A Review of the Research." Review of Educational Research 66, no. 4 : 459 – 506. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004459.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. 2005. " New Developments in Social Interdependence Theory." Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 131, no. 4 : 285 – 358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, P. J., R. Ma, and R. J. McNally. 2021. " Bridge Centrality: A Network Approach to Understanding Comorbidity." Multivariate Behavioral Research 56, no. 2 : 353 – 367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1614898.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ju, L., H. Zou, and Y. Li. 2004. " Research Progress of Peer Conflict Resolution Strategies and Their Influencing Factors." Psychological Development and Education, 20, no. 2 : 84 – 88. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-4918.2004.02.016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamans, E., S. Otten, E. H. Gordijn, and R. Spears. 2010. " How Groups Contest Depends on Group Power and the Likelihood That Power Determines Victory and Defeat." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 13, no. 6 : 715 – 724. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210375252.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kanwar, M. 2013. " Exploring Wisdom in Relationship With Coping Styles, Social Desirability, Subjective Wellbeing, age and Gender." Indian Journal of Positive Psychology 4, no. 2 : 227 – 234.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight, A. J., and W. V. Parr. 1999. " Age as a Factor in Judgments of Wisdom and Creativity." New Zealand Journal of Psychology 28 : 37 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kong, X., L. Cui, J. Li, and Y. Yang. 2022. " The Effect of Friendship Conflict on Depression, Anxiety and Stress in Chinese Adolescents: The Protective Role of Self‐Compassion." Journal of Child and Family Studies 31, no. 11 : 3209 – 3220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02413-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krause, N. 2016. " Assessing the Relationships Among Wisdom, Humility, and Life Satisfaction." Journal of Adult Development 23 : 140 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-016-9230-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lambert, W. G. 1960. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Clarendon Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lammers, J., D. A. Stapel, and A. D. Galinsky. 2010. " Power Increases Hypocrisy: Moralizing in Reasoning, Immorality in Behavior." Psychological Science 21, no. 5 : 737 – 744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610368810.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laursen, B., and W. A. Collins. 1994. " Interpersonal Conflict During Adolescence." Psychological Bulletin 115, no. 2 : 197 – 209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.197.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laursen, B., B. D. Finkelstein, and N. T. Betts. 2001. " A Developmental Meta‐Analysis of Peer Conflict Resolution." Developmental Review 21, no. 4 : 423 – 449. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.2000.0531.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazarus, R. S., and S. Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, H., G. He, H. Zheng, and J. Ai. 2025. " What Makes Chinese Adolescents Glued to Their Smartphones? Using Network Analysis and Three‐Wave Longitudinal Analysis to Assess how Adverse Childhood Experiences Influence Smartphone Addiction." Computers in Human Behavior 163 : 108484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108484.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, S., Z. Yu, and X. Tang. 2022. " The Influence of Social Power on the Fundamental Attribution Error." Journal of Psychological Science 45, no. 4 : 953 – 959. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20220424.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, W., Z. Li, Y. Ling, and T. Cai. 2016. " Core Self‐Evaluations and Coping Styles as Mediators Between Social Support and Well‐Being." Personality and Individual Differences 88 : 35 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.044.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magee, J. C., A. D. Galinsky, and D. H. Gruenfeld. 2007. " Power, Propensity to Negotiate, and Moving First in Competitive Interactions." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33, no. 2 : 200 – 212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294413.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason, B. A., D. B. Hajovsky, L. A. McCune, and J. J. Turek. 2017. " Conflict, Closeness, and Academic Skills: A Longitudinal Examination of the Teacher–Student Relationship." School Psychology Review 46, no. 2 : 177 – 189. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0020.V46-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minson, J. A., and C. A. Dorison. 2022. " Toward a Psychology of Attitude Conflict." Current Opinion in Psychology 43 : 182 – 188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.07.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, C., and K. Bickmore. 2020. " Classroom Peace Circles: Teachers' Professional Learning and Implementation of Restorative Dialogue." Teaching and Teacher Education 95 : 103129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. " Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies." Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 5 : 879 – 903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rathore, M. 2016. Relationship Between Wisdom and Coping in College Students. (Unpublished Master's Theses, Eastern Illinois University). https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/2508.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, M. J., and M. Pasupathi. 2005. " Young and Growing Wiser: Wisdom During Adolescence and Young Adulthood." In A Handbook of Wisdom: Psychological Perspectives, Edited by R. J. Sternberg and J. Jordan, 139 – 159. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610486.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roseth, C., M. Hickey, C. Bohn, et al. 2008. " Teacher Intervention and US Preschoolers' Natural Conflict Resolution After Aggressive Competition." Behaviour 145, no. 11 : 1601 – 1626. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40295891">www.jstor.org/stable/40295891</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross, L., and R. E. Nisbett. 2011. The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. Pinter & Martin Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rucker, D. D., A. D. Galinsky, and D. Dubois. 2012. " Power and Consumer Behavior: How Power Shapes Who and What Consumers Value." Journal of Consumer Psychology 22, no. 3 : 352 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos, H. C., A. C. Huynh, and I. Grossmann. 2017. " Wisdom in a Complex World: A Situated Account of Wise Reasoning and its Development." Social and Personality Psychology Compass 11, no. 10 : e12341. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12341.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shute, R., and K. Charlton. 2006. " Anger or Compromise? Adolescents' Conflict Resolution Strategies in Relation to Gender and Type of Peer Relationship." International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 13, no. 1–2 : 55 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2006.9747966.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R. J. 2001. " Why Schools Should Teach for Wisdom: The Balance Theory of Wisdom in Educational Settings." Educational psychologist 36, no. 4 : 227 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3604_2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tenenbaum, H. R., N. E. Winstone, P. J. Leman, and R. E. Avery. 2020. " How Effective is Peer Interaction in Facilitating Learning? A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Educational Psychology 112, no. 7 : 1303 – 1319. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Todd, A. R., M. Forstmann, P. Burgmer, A. W. Brooks, and A. D. Galinsky. 2015. " Anxious and Egocentric: How Specific Emotions Influence Perspective Taking." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144, no. 2 : 374 – 391. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000048.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tost, L. P., and H. H. Johnson. 2019. " The Prosocial Side of Power: How Structural Power Over Subordinates can Promote Social Responsibility." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 152 : 25 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uline, C. L., M. Tschannen‐Moran, and L. Perez. 2003. " Constructive Conflict: How Controversy can Contribute to School Improvement." Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 105, no. 5 : 782 – 816. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valente, S., and A. A. Lourenço. 2020. " Conflict in the Classroom: How Teachers' Emotional Intelligence Influences Conflict Management." Frontiers in Education 5, no. 5 : 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Y., T. Jiang, and W. Yan. 2025. " Suddenly Enlightened: Awe Promotes Wise Reasoning via Self‐Transcendence." Journal of Positive Psychology : 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2025.2461570.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Y., Z. Wang, and F. Wang. 2022. " The Relationship Between Mindfulness and Wise Reasoning Among College Students: The Mediating Role of Personal Growth Initiative." Journal of Psychological Science 45, no. 1 : 54 – 60. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20220108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weststrate, N. M., and J. Glück. 2017. " Hard‐Earned Wisdom: Exploratory Processing of Difficult Life Experience is Positively Associated With Wisdom." Developmental Psychology 53, no. 4 : 800 – 814. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winthrop, R., and J. Kirk. 2005. " Teacher Development and Student Well‐Being." Forced Migration Review 22 : 18 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Wit, F. R. C., D. Scheepers, N. Ellemers, K. Sassenberg, and A. Scholl. 2017. " Whether Power Holders Construe Their Power as Responsibility or Opportunity Influences Their Tendency to Take Advice From Others." Journal of Organizational Behavior 38, no. 7 : 923 – 949. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, Q., L. Cui, X. Han, W. Ding, and W. He. 2023. " Awe and Wise Reasoning in Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Small‐Self and Need for Relatedness." Heliyon 9, no. 4 : e15235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15235.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie, R., J. Jiang, L. Yue, L. Ye, D. An, and Y. Liu. 2022. " Under Psychological Safety Climate: The Beneficial Effects of Teacher–Student Conflict." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 15 : 9300. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, W., K. Zhang, and F. Wang. 2022. " The Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Solomon's Paradox: Impact of Mood and Self‐Transcendence." Frontiers in Psychology 13 : 901012. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.901012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, H., H. Glassman, L. J. Ji, C. Huang, and C. S. Hu. 2024. " Future‐Oriented Temporal Perspective Promotes Wise Reasoning." Journal of Personality 92, no. 4 : 1158 – 1171. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12879.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Hongyi Lin; Yan Wang and Fengyan Wang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref138"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1479969
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Differential Performance of Wise Reasoning among High School Students in Teacher-Student Conflict and Peer Conflict: A Psychometric Network Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hongyi+Lin%22">Hongyi Lin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4504-1485">0000-0002-4504-1485</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yan+Wang%22">Yan Wang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fengyan+Wang%22">Fengyan Wang</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2025 62(9):3208-3224.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Abstract+Reasoning%22">Abstract Reasoning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conflict%22">Conflict</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Network+Analysis%22">Network Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Communication%22">Interpersonal Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coping%22">Coping</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23531
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: As the primary location for adolescents' interpersonal communication, schools are an inevitable setting for interpersonal conflicts. This study aims to explore the differential performance of wise reasoning in both teacher-student and peer conflicts among high school students by network analysis, as well as the mediating roles of coping style. Data were collected from 1015 Chinese adolescents using a randomized trial design by self-report measures. The mediation analysis demonstrated that problem coping orientation and emotional coping orientation played parallel mediating roles in the influence of conflict type on wise reasoning. Results of the network analysis showed that problem-solving was the node with the strongest centrality in the network and had the highest bridge association degree with wise reasoning. "View of an outsider" and "Searching for a compromise" had the highest bridge association degrees with coping style. These findings enhanced our understanding of the differential performance of wise reasoning among high school students in different school conflict types. Future research should further explore these differences to develop more appropriate wisdom education for adolescents.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1479969
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1479969
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23531
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 3208
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Abstract Reasoning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Conflict
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Network Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coping
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Solving
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Differential Performance of Wise Reasoning among High School Students in Teacher-Student Conflict and Peer Conflict: A Psychometric Network Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hongyi Lin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yan Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fengyan Wang
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1