Correction to: Journal of Adult Development (2020) 27:305–322 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-019-09343-y

The original version of the article has contained some errors in text and tables.

The errors are given below and the original article has been updated.

Participants: Reliability estimates: For Sample A: median = 0.75; for Sample B: median = 0.85, ranging from .57 to .93)

Measures and Procedure—Wisdom Scales: Reliability of reflective subscale of 3D-WS = 0.80 and 0.85; of affective subscale = 0.75 and 0.83.

Results—Factor Analysis of the Wisdom Scales: Intercorrelations between the two factors = 0.47 and 0.14.

Discussion—The Structure of Wisdom: Next to last sentence (“The correlation between … of 0.11”) to be deleted.

Discussion—Predicting Wisdom About the (Social) World: Two-sentence section (“There is a hint … reached significance”) to be deleted.

Discussion—Predicting Wisdom About the (Social) World: Percentage in variance of wisdom explained about the (social) world = 5–29%.

Discussion—Wisdom and the Moral Foundations: Beta values for the final step in explaining the binding foundation from social conservatism = 0.52 and 0.75; from wisdom about the self = 0.25 and 0.14; and from wisdom about the (social) world − 0.07 and − 0.01.

The correct Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 are given below.

Table 1 Factor analysis of the nine wisdom scales in both samples; principal axis analysis with oblimin rotation
Full size table
Table 2 Correlation matrix for the background variables, mindfulness variables, and wisdom factors; Sample A data presented above the diagonal, Sample B below
Full size table
Table 3 Results from hierarchical regression analyses to predict the wisdom factors
Full size table
Table 4 Results from hierarchical regression analyses to predict the moral foundations
Full size table