Components of Wise Judgment

According to the hypothesis of Baltes and his colleagues there are five components of wise judgment consisting of factual knowledge about matters of life, procedural knowledge, lifespan contextualism, recognition and management of uncertainty and relativism regarding solutions. An example situation is one that a mother knows her seven year old child has stolen has stolen a box of cookies from the store while she was shopping.
In this situation the mother is well aware of the factual knowledge that stealing is stealing no matter how old the person committing the crime is. She knows that the immediate consequence of this will fall directly on her as the mother. Understanding from the child’s point of view that if you want something you take it, for example, a block at school, he can just take it to play with it whenever he pleases. At seven the child is still too young to fully understand what is right and wrong, so, when he takes the cookies he thinks it is okay because it’s not harming anyone to his knowledge.
The procedural knowledge from the child is not present in that he does not understand the consequences of taking the cookies from the store. The mother should take the cookies back to the store and explain to someone what happened and apologize to prevent any further conflict. When she gets the box of cookies back and has a moment afterward with the child she should describe to him that stealing is unacceptable and that it will not be tolerated without consequence, remaining firm as a parent while giving the proper advice to her child.
The child does not have full lifespan contextualism, because he isn’t truly aware that this is a store that needs to sell products in order to create revenue and by stealing he is taking away from that income. The child is unaware of the effects his actions could have on his family, mostly his mother, and also the effects on his own life in the future if he were to continue stealing. The mother understands fully that by her child stealing it will have a negative consequence all around for her and him both short term and potentially long term if it is not corrected right away.
The knowledge of the child in this scenario is limited in that he has no knowledge of what stealing is and what kind of trouble goes along with being a thief. While the child does not have the knowledge to understand what he has done the mother could explain to him all of the effects following him taking the box of cookies without purchasing them.
The relativism regarding solutions here are that it is not okay to steal in any situation. The managers of the store should at least acknowledge that the child is too young to realize what he’s done and this will save the mother any consequences.
After all is done the mother should bring the child back into the store to return the stolen item and explain to the store manager(s) the situation. The child should apologize to them and the mother. As a parent the mother should then talk to her child about the problems with stealing and discuss the consequences of his actions. Not only should she explain the direct impact, but, also the impact it could have on them both in the future if he continues his behavior. This could potentially eliminate the possibility of the child continuing his behaviors in the future which would have much worse consequences for his own well being.
The rationale in my conclusion is based on the fact that with the mother discussing the consequences with her child at age seven while he is still very impressionable will have greater impact on his life further down the road than if she just let him get away with it or didn’t address the situation at all.