Advertisement

Personality Predictors of Midlife Generativity: A Longitudinal Study

  • Marek BlatnýEmail author
  • Katarína Millová
  • Martin Jelínek
  • Marta Romaňáková
Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

The study aims to broaden the knowledge of the relationship between personality and generativity. The study tests personality predictors of generativity on the basis of longitudinal data and includes not only personality traits but also self-concept variables while examining five of the seven components of generativity within the McAdams and de St. Aubin model. The sample consists of 150 participants from two longitudinal studies (63 men, 87 women; mean age 54.82). Generativity (concern, belief in the species, commitment, action, and narration measured by different methods) was assessed in the last wave of the study, personality traits (measured by NEO-FFI), and self-concept variables (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale, Self-Concept Clarity Scale) were assessed in previous two stages of the study (at the age of 50 and 40 of the participants). Regression analysis was used to identify unique relationships between variables. From the longitudinal point of view, extraversion is the main predictive factor of later generativity, and openness to experience also contributes to the prediction of generativity. Self-concept variables are not as strong predictors of generativity as personality traits. The only association between variables of self-concept and generativity was found between self-concept clarity and belief in the species.

Keywords

Personality traits Self-concept Generativity Longitudinal study 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (Grant No. 15-22474S) and Czech Republic’s support for long-term strategic development of research organization (RVO: 68081740).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The present study was approved by the Institutional Board of the Institute of Psychology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, and written consent was obtained from participants before commencing all stages of the longitudinal study during adulthood.

Supplementary material

10804_2018_9323_MOESM1_ESM.csv (53 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (CSV 52 KB)
10804_2018_9323_MOESM2_ESM.csv (88 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (CSV 88 KB)

References

  1. Ardelt, M., Landes, S. D., & Vaillant, G. E. (2010). The long-term effects of World War II combat exposure on later life well-being moderated by generativity. Research in Human Development, 7, 202–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakan, D. (1967). On method: Toward a reconstruction of psychological investigation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74, 769–782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaumont, S. L., & Pratt, M. M. (2011). Identity processing styles and psychosocial balance during early and middle adulthood: The role of identity in intimacy and generativity. Journal of Adult Development, 18, 172–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blatný, M., Jelínek, M., & Osecká, T. (2007). Assertive toddler, self-efficacious adult: Child temperament predicts personality over forty years. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2127–2136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blatný, M., Millová, K., Jelínek, M., & Osecká, T. (2015). Personality predictors of successful development: Toddler temperament and adolescent personality traits predict well-being and career stability in middle adulthood. PLoS ONE, 10, e0126032.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blatný, M., & Šolcová, I. (2015). Well-being. In M. Blatný (Ed.), Personality and well-being across the life-span (pp. 20–59). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Bohlin, G., & Hagekull, B. (2009). Socio-emotional development: From infancy to young adulthood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 592–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., & Brown, G. D. A. (2010). The dark side of conscientiousness: Conscientious people experience greater drops in life satisfaction following unemployment. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 535–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradley, C. L. (1997). Generativity–stagnation: Development of a status model. Developmental Review, 17, 262–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradley, C. L., & Marcia, J. E. (1998). Generativity-stagnation: A five-category model. Journal of Personality, 66(1), 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Milne, B., Amell, J. W., Theodore, R. F., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Children’s behavioral styles at age 3 are linked to their adult personality traits at age 26. Journal of Personality, 71, 495–514.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chakraborty, N., & Das, S. (2013). Influence of psychiatric morbidity and self-efficacy on midlife generativity. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 4, 1374–1380.Google Scholar
  16. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  17. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). A theoretical context for adult temperament. In T. D. Wachs & G. A. Kohnstamm (Eds.), Temperament in context (pp. 1–21). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Cox, K. S., Wilt, J., Olson, B., & McAdams, D. P. (2010). Generativity, the big five, and psychosocial adaptation in midlife adults. Journal of Personality, 78, 1185–1208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Crocetti, E., Moscatelli, S., Van der Graaff, J., Rubini, M., Meeus, W., & Branje, S. (2016). The interplay of self-certainty and prosocial development in the transition from late adolescence to emerging adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 30, 594–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De St. Aubin, E., & McAdams, D. P. (1995). The relations of generative concern and generative action to personality traits, satisfaction/happiness with life, and ego development. Journal of Adult Development, 2, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Emmons, R. A. (2003). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in personality. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  24. Eysenck, H. J. (1959). Manual of the maudsley personality inventory. London: London University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the eysenck personality inventory. London: London University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gale, C. R., Booth, T., Mõttus, R., Kuh, D., & Deary, I. J. (2013). Neuroticism and extraversion in youth predict mental wellbeing and life satisfaction 40 years later. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 687–697.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hart, H. M., McAdams, D. P., Hirsch, B. J., & Bauer, J. J. (2001). Generativity and social involvement among African Americans and white adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 208–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hofer, J., Busch, H., Chasiotis, A., Kärtner, J., & Campos, D. (2008). Concern for generativity and its relation to implicit pro-social power motivation, generative goals, and satisfaction with life: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Personality, 76(1), 1–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hřebíčková, M., & Urbánek, T. (2001). NEO pětifaktorový osobnostní inventář (podle NEO five-factor inventory P.T. Costy a R.R. McCraee). Praha: Testcentrum.Google Scholar
  31. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kandola, S. S., & Egan, V. (2014). Individual differences underlying attitudes to the death penalty. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kinnunen, U., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Childhood socio-emotional characteristics as antecedents of marital stability and quality. European Psychologist, 8, 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kokko, K., Rantanen, J., & Pulkkinen, L. (2015). Associations between mental well-being and personality from a life span perspective. In M. Blatný (Ed.), Personality and well-being across the life-span (pp. 134–159). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Kotre, J. (1984). Outliving the self: Generativity and the interpretation of lives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lawford, H. L., & Ramey, H. L. (2017). Predictors of early community involvement: Advancing the self and caring for others. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59, 133–143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Psycho-logic and eco-logic: Insights from social axiom dimensions. In F. V. D. Vijver, D. V. Hemert & Y. P. Poortinga (Eds.), Individuals and cultures in multilevel analysis (pp. 197–219). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Leung, K., Lam, B. C. P., Bond, M. H., Conway, L. G., Gornick, L. J., Amponsah, B., et al. (2012). Developing and evaluating the social axioms survey in eleven countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 833–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lodi-Smith, J., Spain, S. M., Cologgi, K., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Development of identity clarity and content in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 755–768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Malone, J. C., Liu, S. R., Vaillant, G. E., Rentz, D. M., & Waldinger, R. J. (2016). Midlife eriksonian psychosocial development: Setting the stage for late-life cognitive and emotional health. Developmental Psychology, 52, 496–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological inquiries into identity. Homewood: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  42. McAdams, D. P. & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1003–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McAdams, D. P. (2001). Generativity in midlife. In M. E. Lachman (Ed.), Handbook of midlife development (pp. 395–443). New York: Academic press.Google Scholar
  44. McAdams, D. P. (2013a). The positive psychology of adult generativity: Caring for the next generation and constructing a redemptive life. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Positive psychology: Advances in understanding adult motivation (pp. 191–205). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McAdams, D. P. (2013b). The redemptive self: Stories Americans live by. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. McAdams, D. P., Hart, H. M., & Maruna, S. (1998). The anatomy of generativity. In D. P. McAdams & E. D. S. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development: How and why we care for the next generation (pp. 7–43). Washington, DC: APA Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new big five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 159–180). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  49. Millová, K., & Blatný, M. (2016). Generativity in contemporary empirical research. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 60, 609–621.Google Scholar
  50. Millová, K., Blatný, M., Poláčková, I. S., & Jelínek, M. (2018). Psychometric characteristics of Czech versions of selected generative questionnaires: Internal consistency and factor structure. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 62, 119–142.Google Scholar
  51. Ochse, R., & Plug, C. (1986). Cross-cultural investigation of the validity of Erikson’s theory of personality development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1240–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Omoto, A. M., & Packard, C. D. (2016). The power of connections: Psychological sense of community as a predictor of volunteerism. Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 272–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2014). The development of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 381–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peterson, B. E., & Duncan, L. E. (2007). Midlife women’s generativity and authoritarianism: Marriage, motherhood, and 10 years of aging. Psychology and Aging, 22, 411–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peterson, B. E., & Klohnen, E. C. (1995). Realization of generativity in two samples of women at midlife. Psychology and Aging, 10(1), 20–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Peterson, B. E., Smirles, K. A., & Wentworth, P. A. (1997). Generativity and authoritarianism: Implications for personality, political involvement, and parenting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1202–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pilarska, A. (2016). How do self-concept differentiation and self-concept clarity interrelate in predicting sense of personal identity? Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Caspi, A. (2008). The development of personality traits in adulthood. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 375–398). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schoklitsch, A., & Baumann, U. (2011). Measuring generativity in older adults: The development of new scales. GeroPsych, 24(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1010–1028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy: Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research. Berlin: Freien Universitat.Google Scholar
  64. Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Getting older, getting better? Personal strivings and psychological maturity across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 37, 491–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Snarey, J. R. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation: A four-decade study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stewart, A. J., & Vandewater, E. A. (1998). The course of generativity. In D. P. McAdams & E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development (pp. 75–100). Washington: American Psychological Association Press.Google Scholar
  67. Van De Water, D. A., & McAdams, D. P. (1989). Generativity and Erikson’s “belief in the species”. Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van Hiel, A., Mervielde, I., & Fruyt, F. (2006). Stagnation and generativity: Structure, validity, and differential relationships with adaptive and maladaptive personality. Journal of Personality, 74, 543–574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vonkomer, J., & Miglierini, B. (1979). Eysenck personality inventory (manual in Czech). Bratislava: Psychodiagnostické a Didaktické Testy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marek Blatný
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katarína Millová
    • 1
  • Martin Jelínek
    • 1
  • Marta Romaňáková
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Psychology of the Czech Academy of SciencesBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations