Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A dissertation presented by David Hauser in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree at Arizona State University in December 2013. The study explores the concept of generativity, as described by Erikson, and investigates how it manifests itself during the final stage of life. The research focuses on the specific and tangible effects of living a generative life in the later years and whether it makes the last stage of life more fulfilling and easier to face death.
Typology: Schemes and Mind Maps
1 / 81
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Manifestations of Generativity During the Last Stage of Life by David Hauser
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the DegreeDoctor of Philosophy
Approved August 2013 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Richard Kinnier, ChairJudith Homer Guillermo Arciniega
December 2013
i
Generativity was first described by Erikson (1963) as an adult's concern for and commitment to promoting the welfare and development of future generations. Generativity is juxtaposed by stagnation in Erikson's stage of midlife (35-65 years old). The developmental hurdle faced at this point in the developmental cycle is whether a person will produce something of real value, both in the present and impacting future generations. Generative adults seek to give something back to society, generally behaving in a way to make the world a better place for others with no personal gain attached. The goal of the current study was to assess differences in levels of generativity at the final stage of adult life, and the potential functions that generativity can serve individuals. Results suggest that lowly generative individuals in older adult life tend to experience doubts about the impact they have had on the world and the lack of legacy they are leaving behind. Themes of highly generative participants included having felt they lived a purposeful and meaningful life, along with feeling fortunate and lucky in their lives. Also highly generative participants seemed to feel confident in the legacy they will leave behind after death. Results are discussed in light of the theories and findings of Erikson and McAdams.
iii
First and foremost, I want to thank my advisor, Richard. You have been a tremendous mentor to me throughout my graduate study. I am so grateful for your patience and attention in working with me throughout the last five years. My ability to communicate ideas through writing, which I hope to continue to grow and expand throughout my career, is significantly enhanced since I began working with you. I could not have asked for a better advisor. I want to warmly thank my committee for taking the time and effort to sit through numerous meetings, proposals, and defenses. Dr. H, I enjoyed working with you throughout many different aspects of my PhD, including clinical work, my thesis, dissertation, and even the collection of a couple Tempe City Softball Championships. Dr. A, thank you so much for sharing in this dissertation experience and offering me guidance and support via literature review recommendations and research design ideas. To John Stein, your referrals and connections made my data collection possible and your support provided me strength in order to finish this project. To Annette Satterfield, who was so gracious in helping me with finding participants. To my advisors and supervisors along the way who helped me develop and become passionate in studying lives: Linda, David, Melba, Tim, and especially Dan, whose thoughtful recommendations helped me stumble on to this fascinating topic. To Liz K., the finest research assistant a grad student could ever ask for. Lastly, to the participants in this study: thank you for having the courage to share your stories with honesty and depth.
iv
Page LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 2 BACKGROUND LITERATURE....................................................................... 3 Development of Generativity Construct ......................................................... 3 McAdams’ Development of Generative Adult Profile ................................... 7 Generatviity in Other Life Stages .................................................................. 10 The Final Stage of Life .................................................................................. 12 A Void in the Generativity Literature ........................................................... 16 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 19 Qualitative Approach to Studying Generativity............................................ 19 Phase I Data Collection.................................................................................. 21 Phase II Data Collection ................................................................................ 24 Statistics and Data Analysis........................................................................... 27 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .............................................................. 32 Shared Themes/Categories Found in both High and Low Groups............... 33 Themes/Categories Found in Highly Generative Group .............................. 39 Themes/Categories Found in Low Generative Group .................................. 48 Death is Inevibable and Anxiety Provoking ................................................. 53 5 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 57
vi
Table Page
vii
Figure Page
This story provides an apt metaphor for the current study’s focus: For those who live a generative life, giving and providing for future generations, what effect does this have for them in the final stage of life? In this review I will focus on the initial origins of the generativity construct, developed by Erik Erikson in his crisis stage model of development. I will then explore how the literature on generativity has expanded during the past two decades, specifically a burgeoning literature on generative adults in middle adulthood. Findings from initial attempts to study generativity outside of the middle stage of life will then be explored. Research on happiness in the final stage of life will be presented. Finally, a void that exists in the generativity research, that which connects the final two Eriksonian stages “generativity vs. stagnation” and “ego integrity vs. despair,” will be described. As Levinson, Darrow, Lein, Levinson & McKee (1978) found, “[Erikson’s] work on childhood has been more widely understood and appreciated than his work on later adulthood” (p. 5). The purpose of this dissertation is to begin to fill that void and broaden the field’s understanding of development later in life.
Chapter 2 BACKGROUND LITERATURE Development of Generativity Construct Erik Erikson first defined generativity in the psychology literature in his stage model theory of development. Erikson (1963) described generativity as an adult’s concern for and commitment to promoting the welfare and development of future generations. The polarity of generativity vs. stagnation was the defining struggle of the middle adulthood stage for Erikson. Erikson used such contrasting polarities to define the different stages of development. Erikson saw development as a series of stages, each with a set of tasks that need to be achieved in order for the individual to advance to the next stage. It is also important to note that he studied development largely through a social lens; determining how people grow and develop through the relationships around them. While the ideas that life’s stages are so cleanly demarcated and Erikson’s assertion that one must develop in a precise staged order have been challenged and disputed by developmental psychologists, Erikson’s model of development has held up relatively well over time (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). His theory gives a set of broad themes and tasks that are met at different periods of the life cycle for the average human being. Erikson formed his theory of development based on a series of case examples from his own clinical work, elaborating upon and expanding on Freudian theory, and an acknowledgement to the importance of viewing life as a series of cycles or processes (Erikson, 1963; Erikson, 1968). Erikson was trained in the Vienna Psychoanalytic Institute in the late 1920’s where Freud’s methods and theories reigned supreme. In this
The next three stages of Erikson’s theory can be seen as an entrance into adult life. The fourth stage, industry vs. inferiority, is centered on the idea of competence. A child must learn to have a belief that they can do certain tasks and be good at them. Specifically in a time when most children go to school for the first time, they must take what they learn and develop a level of mastery over what knowledge they begin to consume. Erikson viewed these elementary school years as critical for the development of self-confidence (Erikson, 1980). In Erikson’s fourth stage of development, he highlights a crisis between identity vs. role confusion. The core theme of this stage is developing a sense of self and a greater idea of where one is going in the world and eventually what he or she might contribute to society. If the goals of previous stages are met, according to Erikson, then a person can advance into the sixth stage of development centered on intimacy vs. isolation. In this stage, Erikson stated, “the young adult, emerging from the search for and the insistence on identity, is eager and willing to fuse his [ sic ] identity, with that of others. He [ sic ] is ready to commit himself [ sic ] to concrete affiliations and partnerships and to develop the ethical strength to abide by such commitments, even though they may call for significant sacrifices and compromises” (Erikson, 1963, p. 263). The final two stages of Erikson’s theory span roughly from age 40 until death. Over half the life span is accounted for in these final two stages compared with the initial six stages. Based on Erikson’s theory of development, once individuals are able to develop trust, autonomy, initiative, a certain level of industriousness, establish an identity, and create and maintain intimate relationships they arrive at the stage in life where generating money, offspring, products, and ideas for current and future generations
becomes the paramount developmental goal. As Erikson conceived it, adults have developed a sense of identity and solidified lasting and bonding relationships, they are then ready to launch into the largest and longest stage of life which is comprised of contributing to the larger sphere of society as a whole and hopefully improve upon it (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). Erikson refers to this middle adulthood stage as generativity vs. stagnation. On the developmental timeline, this stage usually occurs when a person is between 35 to 65 years old. Erikson seemed to believe that at this stage adults are faced with the question of whether they will produce something of real value, both in the present and impacting future generations. Adults in the beginning of this age range are often faced with the prospect of reproducing and rearing children. Parenthood is perhaps the most obvious and natural expression of generativity in one’s life (Erikson, 1980; McAdams, 2006). Successful parents are inherently generative in that they provide for their children so they can survive and hopefully thrive as a part of the next generation. Generativity includes the acts that one may undertake to ensure some continuation of self after death, such as having children, passing along traditions or skills, investing in one’s community, or creating artistic works. In generativity, an adult teaches future generations, leads people to see issues and problems larger than themselves, nurtures and tends to infants and the elderly, and propels the next generation forward through generating life products and ideas that benefit the entire social system and ensures this cycle will continue on for future generations (de Medeiros, 2009; Erikson, 1980; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992; McAdams, de St. Aubin, Diamond, & Mansfield, 1997).
(Hawley, 1985), and a newly created 39-item version of the Loyola Generativity Scale. Data from participants filling out these scales were then used to delineate the best 20 items to compose the final and current version of the LGS (McAdams and de St. Aubin, 1992). Erikson’s construct of generativity has been expanded by the literature to incorporate any facet of one’s adult life that is aimed toward bettering the world for future generations (McAdams, 2006; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). A prototypical generative adult tends to have a job or volunteer record that consists of contributing a large amount of their time to helping and giving to others. McAdams (2006) suggested that, “generative adults seek to give something back to society. They work to make their world a better place, not just for themselves but for future generations, as well” (p. 5). Professions that tend to exemplify generativity include teachers, social workers, clergy, counselors, scientists, artists, and nurses. Of course not everyone in these fields is a highly generative person, but these fields tend to embody generative principles. Generativity can also be achieved outside of these typical generative fields through acts such as mentoring younger generations in any career field or anything that might involve the betterment of others. Yet for it to be a truly generative act it must be done for another person or future generations and not done in some fashion as a roundabout means to advance one’s own goals or desires. An example of an authentically generative act was that of medical researcher Jonas Salk’s discovery of the polio vaccine and the fact that he did not try to sell his vaccine to the world for financial benefit. Instead he gave it away for the betterment of
public health. Ultimately as McAdams (2006) put it, “generativity is fundamentally about passing it on” (p. 45). A large body of generative research has focused on identifying components of lives that construct the prototypical generative adult (Bradley & Marcia, 1998; McAdams, 2000; McAdams, 2006; McAdams, Diamond, de St. Aubin, & Mansfield, 1997). McAdams (2006) proposed that highly generative adults tend to have some kind of early advantage (i.e., social adaptability or self-confidence) and have a heightened awareness of identifying and empathizing with the suffering of others. McAdams also suggests that highly generative adults tend to have some kind of moral depth or steadfastness, in some cases led by a deep religious faith. Highly generative adults tend to experience and describe redemption within their lives when they were faced with negative events and scenes in their lives. Highly generative adults seem to struggle with motivations for love and the motivation for power, as two conflicting drives and forces in their lives. Finally, highly generative adults believe that future growth is always possible and that growth is never complete. Bradley and Marcia (1998) administered several different generativity instruments to 100 adults to confirm that both new theories on the construct of generativity were accurate and that new generativity scales were measuring what they said they measured. Their results suggest that McAdams (2006) model of generativity was accurate. McAdams, Diamond, de St. Aubin, and Mansfield (1997) used a narrative framework in their research on generativity. They explored the internalized life stories of 40 highly generative and 30 less generative adults using a semi-structured qualitative interview that they called the “life story interview.” In finding participants for the highly
accounts were positively associated with self-report measures of psychological well- being. While these studies show some signs of the existence of generativity in young adults and even in adolescence, full-fledged generativity does not seem to appear until individuals are in middle adulthood. Perhaps, older individuals have more power through either relationships or careers to participate in generative acts and behaviors. These findings seem to be consistent with the Erikson development stage model, in that people do not yet have the efficacy (through developing trust, autonomy, initiative, industry, identity and solid relationships) to be generative until later in life. Among the elderly, there has been much less research on generativity. The generativity literature seems to stop once individuals go much past middle adulthood. There are a few notable exceptions. Black and Rubenstein (2009) studied the effect of suffering on generativity among elderly African-American men. Using a grounded theory qualitative approach, they studied six African-American men who were highly generative from a broader research study on “The Meaning of Suffering in Later Life.” The study’s findings were consistent with the McAdams (2006) model of the prototypical generative adult, in that suffering in these individuals’ lives was discussed through a lens of redemption and overcoming hardship, and also that moral depth and steadfastness were important in assuaging suffering. In general there appears to be a dearth of research connecting the final two developmental stages of Erikson’s model: the middle adulthood stage of generativity versus stagnation and the final life stage of ego integrity versus despair. In a study related to the later stages of Eriksonian development, Torges, Stewart, and Duncan
(2008) found that women who had let go of their regrets at age 53 achieved higher levels of ego integrity at age 62, and those who had let go of their regrets at age 62 also had higher concurrent levels of ego integrity. Sneed, Whitbourne, and Culang (2006) using a longitudinal data set of 172 participants over a 34-year period used multilevel analyses on an ego integrity vs. despair measure. They found support for Erikson’s stage development structure, including support for the stage of ego integrity versus despair. According to Sneed, Whitbourne, and Culang (2006), “Ego Integrity versus Despair followed a curvilinear trajectory with an increasing trend in middle adulthood, the unique trajectories of each of the psychosocial crisis stages were expected on the basis of Erikson’s theory. In addition there was also significant variability in either the mean or slope of each stage demonstrating individual differences in change, a central tenet of Erikson’s life span development approach” (p. 148). The Final Stage of Life In studies focused on life reviews, those attempting to “look back” and trying to glean what is important in life, several different features appear to stand out. Kinnier, Tribbensee, Rose, and Vaughan (2001) interviewed adults who had faced some form of a life threatening illness. Using qualitative grounded theory and discovery-oriented techniques, they found that participants became more spiritual and wanted to care for and help others more after facing death. Grof and Halifax (1977) studied people who experienced near-death experiences as well and found that participants became more appreciative of the simple things in life, and cared more about others, especially loved ones.
