What Is Generativity?
The Summary
Generativity, “concern for and commitment to promoting the growth and wellbeing of future generations,” (McAdams & Guo, 2015 p.475) first came to light when Erik Erikson noted it as a central part of middle adulthood psychosocial development and a contributing factor of positive mental health later in life. McAdams expands this theory noting that generative adults tend to narrate their lives following a redemptive sequence such that negative events or experiences of adversity lead to positive outcomes. In addition, five important life story elements were identified as signs of high generativity: early advantage, sensitivity to suffering, moral steadfastness, redemption sequences and prosocial goals (McAdams & Guo, 2015 p.476). In
a comprehensive longitudinal study, 157 participants aged 55 to 57 were subjected to interviews using the life story protocol in order to test for the five life story elements. In preparation for the interview, the individuals did online self-reports on mental health and demographic with the purpose to gauge “individual generativity and psychosocial adaptation” (McAdams & Guo, 2015 p.476). The interviews were recorded and analyzed for the corresponding life story elements by two unbiased parties who gave ratings of 0 (element is absent) or 1 (element is present). These scores along with the self-reports were analyzed together to find correlating patterns. The results of the study indicated a positive correlation between generativity and psychological well-being as well as generativity and the five life story elements.
Critiques of the Study
This study had both strengths and weaknesses affecting the validity of its claims. One major strength of the study was the distribution of wealth of its participants. The study included participants who’s incomes ranged from $25,000 to more than $300,000, accounting for the effect of economic status on mental health and generativity. Furthermore, using an unbiased outside party to check for life story elements eliminates inaccuracies due to the biases of researchers and interviewers involved in the study. A major weakness was the usage of self-reports, as they can often be inaccurate due to the societal desire to conform. People will choose answers that they think should be true about themselves based to societal standards and not what is actually true for them. Additionally, the study’s participants were limited in diversity with “55% of participants [describing] themselves as White, 43% as African American, 1% interracial and 1% other” (McAdams & Guo, 2015 p.476). Results could be skewed due to the lack of diversity within participants, as the study is not representative of all people unless it has equal representation of all racial backgrounds.
Expanding the Study
One way to expand this study would be to view it through the scope of the nature vs. nurture argument and study the children of highly generative adults once they reach middle adulthood. McAdam’s study covers the signs of high generativity and their correlation with mental health, but it neglects the cause of this generativity; having a highly positive, influential, and generative adult in one’s life, might be one of the causes. A second way to view this study would be the effect of culture and society on levels of generativity in adults. McAdam and Guo often mention that the heroic narrative of overcoming adversity to achieve positivity and success typically associated with generative adults is a purely American idea and story archetype that is reflected in popular American ideas such as the American Dream. In fact, the five important story factors may not apply to adults in other countries as a representation of generativity. That is to say we may achieve great insight on generativity through further examination.
Generativity, “concern for and commitment to promoting the growth and wellbeing of future generations,” (McAdams & Guo, 2015 p.475) first came to light when Erik Erikson noted it as a central part of middle adulthood psychosocial development and a contributing factor of positive mental health later in life. McAdams expands this theory noting that generative adults tend to narrate their lives following a redemptive sequence such that negative events or experiences of adversity lead to positive outcomes. In addition, five important life story elements were identified as signs of high generativity: early advantage, sensitivity to suffering, moral steadfastness, redemption sequences and prosocial goals (McAdams & Guo, 2015 p.476). In
a comprehensive longitudinal study, 157 participants aged 55 to 57 were subjected to interviews using the life story protocol in order to test for the five life story elements. In preparation for the interview, the individuals did online self-reports on mental health and demographic with the purpose to gauge “individual generativity and psychosocial adaptation” (McAdams & Guo, 2015 p.476). The interviews were recorded and analyzed for the corresponding life story elements by two unbiased parties who gave ratings of 0 (element is absent) or 1 (element is present). These scores along with the self-reports were analyzed together to find correlating patterns. The results of the study indicated a positive correlation between generativity and psychological well-being as well as generativity and the five life story elements.
Critiques of the Study
This study had both strengths and weaknesses affecting the validity of its claims. One major strength of the study was the distribution of wealth of its participants. The study included participants who’s incomes ranged from $25,000 to more than $300,000, accounting for the effect of economic status on mental health and generativity. Furthermore, using an unbiased outside party to check for life story elements eliminates inaccuracies due to the biases of researchers and interviewers involved in the study. A major weakness was the usage of self-reports, as they can often be inaccurate due to the societal desire to conform. People will choose answers that they think should be true about themselves based to societal standards and not what is actually true for them. Additionally, the study’s participants were limited in diversity with “55% of participants [describing] themselves as White, 43% as African American, 1% interracial and 1% other” (McAdams & Guo, 2015 p.476). Results could be skewed due to the lack of diversity within participants, as the study is not representative of all people unless it has equal representation of all racial backgrounds.
Expanding the Study
One way to expand this study would be to view it through the scope of the nature vs. nurture argument and study the children of highly generative adults once they reach middle adulthood. McAdam’s study covers the signs of high generativity and their correlation with mental health, but it neglects the cause of this generativity; having a highly positive, influential, and generative adult in one’s life, might be one of the causes. A second way to view this study would be the effect of culture and society on levels of generativity in adults. McAdam and Guo often mention that the heroic narrative of overcoming adversity to achieve positivity and success typically associated with generative adults is a purely American idea and story archetype that is reflected in popular American ideas such as the American Dream. In fact, the five important story factors may not apply to adults in other countries as a representation of generativity. That is to say we may achieve great insight on generativity through further examination.