Effects of Generativity in Later Life: A Study on Living a Generative Life, Schemes and Mind Maps of Literature

Download Effects of Generativity in Later Life: A Study on Living a Generative Life and more Schemes and Mind Maps Literature in PDF only on Docsity! Manifestations of Generativity During the Last Stage of Life by David Hauser A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Approved August 2013 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Richard Kinnier, Chair Judith Homer Guillermo Arciniega ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY December 2013 i ABSTRACT 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. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 v Support for Erikson’s Stage Model of Development .................................... 59 Comparisons to McAdams’ Findings ............................................................ 60 Other Comparisons ........................................................................................ 61 Limitations ..................................................................................................... 62 Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................... 63 Implications for Practice ................................................................................ 65 REFERNECES ..................................................................................................................... 67 APPENDIX A LIST OF ALL THEMES FOUND IN OPEN CODING .............................. 71 B LOYOLA GENERATIVITY SCALE ........................................................... 72 C LIFE STORY INTERVIEW OUTLINE ........................................................ 73 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Characteristics of the Sample ........................................................................... 32 2. Axial Codes Established from List of Open Codes ......................................... 33 2 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. 3 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 4 era, theory was developed based upon theorists’ observations of patterns within their patients. Erikson came to be known more as neo-Freudian in that his academic work was based on psychoanalytic underpinnings; however, he steered his study of humans away from simply looking at them through a series of sexual drives and impulses. It was in his work with his patients that he began to identify a pattern of psychosocial stages across the life span. Erikson (1963) proposed that life’s first task is developing some level of trust in others. He states, “the infant’s first social achievement, is his [sic] willingness to let the mother [sic] out of sight without undue anxiety or rage” (Erikson, 1963, p. 247). Erikson characterized the second stage of development as a crisis between autonomy vs. shame and doubt. Once some level of trust is established in the world, the next step is to have some level of faith in one’s own ability to control or exert will on one’s surrounding environment. This faith of “outer control” is the seedling for eventually being able to develop free choice or free will in adult life (Erikson 1963; Erikson, 1968). Erikson’s third stage of initiative vs. guilt is typically associated with the pre- school years of a child. Erikson describes initiative in this stage as, “[adding] to autonomy the quality of undertaking, planning and “attacking” a task for the sake of being active and on the move” (Erikson, 1963, p. 255). Rivaling this construct of initiative is the idea that guilt can arise when embarking on new endeavors as a child. These new endeavors inherently place toddlers in environments where they are taking resources from others, which may cause a child to feel bad about taking something from someone else. 7 McAdams’ Development of Generative Adult Profile The majority of research on the construct of generativity has focused on mid-life, which is consistent with the stage model developed by Erikson (e.g., McAdams, 1985; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992; Peterson & Stewart, 1990). McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992) stated, “in suggesting that generativity belongs in a particular stage in the human life cycle, Erikson alerts the reader to the fact that generativity is an issue for adults, not children. One of the reasons generativity emerges as a psychosocial issue in the adult years is that society comes to demand that adults take responsibility for the next generation, in their roles as parents, teachers, mentors, organizers, and creative ritualizers” (p. 1004). The initial phase of generativity research began as a means of developing a broader conceptual theory of generativity. McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992) crafted a generativity theory stating that generativity is unlike personality traits or developmental stages that can be construed as a single, structured concept located “within” the individual. Generativity is more like the construct of attachment or the more complex socially contextualized ecological systems theory, from Bronfenbrenner (1979), that requires a consideration of the particular relation or fit between the person and the environment. McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992) discovered this broader understanding of generativity by first surveying 149 adults from ages 19 to 68 on a series of generativity items that they eventually narrowed down into a 20 item quantitative scale of generativity that became known as the Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS). This scale was developed by drawing from similar scales on social desirability, a sub scale on generativity from a broader scale on Eriksonian developmental stages, a previously used generativity scale 8 (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 9 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 12 (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. 13 The increased awareness of the value and importance for caring for others found in studying subjects of near-death experiences is in sync with the wisdom of the Dalai Lama, who frequently stresses the importance of helping others in cultivating one’s own self-development and maturity. In a speech titled “Eight Verses of Training the Mind given in Washington, D.C., the Dalai Lama extolled, “by going beyond your own problems and taking care of others, you gain inner strength, self-confidence, courage, and a greater sense of calm” (Dalai Lama, 1998). In an article he added, “when we are motivated by wisdom and compassion [for others], the results of our actions benefit everyone” (Dalai Lama, 1991, p. 52). These teachings from the Dalai Lama suggest an intrinsic health and psychological benefit from giving to and helping others. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle posited that there are two different types of “happiness” in life. According to Aristotle, “eudemonic happiness” is fundamentally different than “hedonic happiness,” which tends to be a short-term and fleeting happiness, more associated with eating a good meal, watching an entertaining movie, or rooting for a winning sport’s team. Eudemonic happiness is more associated with engaged, meaningful, and purposeful activity. Ryff and Singer (2008) have explored Aristotle’s different types of happiness in older aged populations. Happiness in its hedonic or lay meaning—the experience of pleasure or positive feelings–has been found to be less important to physical health than the type of well-being that comes from engaging in meaningful activity. Raising children, volunteering, or going back to graduate school may be less enjoyable from day to day, but Ryff and Singer (2008) suggest that these pursuits give a sense of meaning and fulfillment that provides eudaimonic well-being. Their evidence suggests that people who focus on living with a sense of meaning and 14 purpose are more likely to remain cognitively intact, have better mental health, and even live longer than people who focus on achieving feelings of hedonic happiness (Wang, 2011). For the past 72 years, researchers at Harvard have explored what features of life are most important for living “the good life” in the longest longitudinal study yet to date in the social sciences. The Harvard Study of Adult Development began measuring 268 white undergraduate men at Harvard in 1938. They were assessed on many medical and psychological variables (Shenk, 2009). Arlie Bock began the study with the goal of learning what it means to “live well.” This was in contrast to the medical research of his day that he believed paid too much attention to “sick people” and the deconstruction of human beings into a series of symptoms (Heath, 1945). In describing Bock’s method of study, Shenk (2009) wrote, “the study began in the spirit of laying lives out on a microscope slide. But it turned out that the lives were too big, too weird, too full of subtleties and contradictions to fit any easy conception of “successful living.” If [the study] was to come to life, this cleaver-sharp science project would need the rounding influence of storytelling” (p. 2). Thus a mixed methods approach was adopted as the longitudinal study evolved, with a heightened focus on qualitative interviewing of participants. At the outset of the research project, the goal of the study was to analyze men whom researchers would expect to be naturally successful (given they were successful enough to enroll and thrive at an Ivy League University) (Vaillant, 1977). However, this research question changed over time, when to the surprise of the researchers, the participants met all kinds of obstacles and hurdles like depression, alcoholism, and 17 stage and the effect that has in moving into the ego integrity versus despair stage. Since the final two stages of the Erikson model consist of roughly 45-50 years, more than half the human lifespan, it is important to investigate the relationship between these final two long stages. Furthermore, as McAdams, Vaillant, and others have pointed out, it is critically important to develop a greater understanding of what constitutes a meaningful life. This area of the literature is by no means new to science, as scholars going all the way back to Socrates have been asking questions about what it means to live a full life. I believe the expansion and broadening interest in the generativity construct over the last twenty years allows for a new chapter in the continued pursuit of answers within this domain of the literature. The study of generativity within human life offers an opportunity to deconstruct and better understand how and why giving is of paramount importance in human behavior. Of additional importance, for those making many sacrifices and giving of themselves in middle adulthood, the question arises as to whether giving is beneficial for the “giver.” There are many contemporary philosophers, such as Michael Onfray, who argue a contrasting viewpoint, suggesting that hedonism and doing whatever is in one’s own best interest is the only logical way to live. For those dedicated teachers, nurses, researchers, doctors, or mental health practitioners focused on helping others, it would be useful to discover whether there are hidden and intrinsic benefits in spending a lifetime in a “helping” or “giving” career. It is evident from some of the previously discussed literature that these types of “giving” are critical for the well being of society at large. Part of the rationale and 18 purpose of the current study is to learn what function giving has on individual lives, not just for society at large. For the subset of individuals who are committing their lives to the pursuit of helping others and developing future generations, I believe it is important to collect more data about the impact that such giving has on individuals over the lifespan. The central question being investigated in the current study is: How does generativity manifest itself during the final stage of life? The primary research question is: what are the specific and tangible effects of living a generative life when the individual enters the final stage of life? Does living a highly generative life make the last stage of life more fulfilling and make facing death any easier? These questions are posed with the intent of developing a greater scientific understanding of the benefits of giving, especially the effects that giving throughout one’s life has for individuals when they arrive at the end of the life. Data from these years of reflection at the end of life will hopefully broaden the understanding of how generativity affects one’s life story. The goal of the current study is to expand the understanding of Erikson’s and McAdams’ theoretical constructs of generativity as it impacts the final stage of life. Using a qualitative approach similar to the methods used by McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992) and McAdams, Diamond, de St. Aubin, and Mansfield (1997) in their research on generativity in middle adulthood, the current study will examine the effect of generativity in the last stage of life. 19 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY Qualitative Approach to Studying Generativity Qualitative research has been a primary method used in studying generativity. Gathering narratives and interview data allows for a bottom up approach especially useful in areas where little or no previous literature body exists. As Elliott, Fischer, and Rennie (1999) explain, “qualitative research includes such diverse approaches as empirical phenomenology, ethnography, qualitative discourse analysis, conversation analysis, ethnomethodology, grounded theory, and social action research. These approaches have all developed their own, somewhat different, traditions of rigor and of communication with readers. They also work within differing explicit and implicit philosophies” (p. 216). The use of qualitative methodology in this study seems most fitting, as there is a paucity of empirical data in this literature. The spirit of qualitative research caters toward “observing in detail what people do, by listening to their words, and by observing the artifacts they produce” (Morrow & Smith, 2000, p. 199). In trying to develop a theoretical understanding of the link between Erikson’s final two stages, the qualitative approach was chosen to more fully inform how to construct such a link. Morrow and Smith (2000) stated, “whereas conventional research in counseling psychology aims to develop universal and generalizable principles of behavior, qualitative research aims to understand participants’ actions within a particular social context. From this understanding, the investigator develops theoretical constructs that may serve as principles or models that will contribute to the knowledge base about the phenomenon under investigation” (p. 200). 22 participants. Lastly, a philanthropy group, affiliated with a large state university in the Southeastern United States, was identified and the leader of this group agreed to send out an email to the listserv of the group requesting survey participation. Measure. The Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS) (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992) is a 20-item, 4- point likert-scale measure that includes questions aimed at assessing an individual’s level of generative concern (how much a person focuses on giving to others and contributing to future generations). Examples of items on this scale are “I try to pass along knowledge I have gained through my experiences,” “I feel as though I have made a difference to many people,” “If I were unable to have children of my own, I would like to adopt children,” and “Others would say I have made unique contributions to society.” McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992) conducted several validity studies of the LGS. In two validity studies, one with a sample of 149 undergraduate college participants and another 165 undergraduate college participants the scale’s validity was assessed. The Cronbach’s alpha was .83, indicating good internal consistency. In a separate 3-week test-retest reliability study of 71 subjects, the correlation coefficient was .73 suggesting moderately high temporal stability. According to McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992), “the Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS) exhibited good internal consistency and retest reliability and showed strong positive associations with reports of actual generative acts (e.g., teaching a skill) and themes of generativity in narrative accounts of important autobiographical episodes” (p. 1003). Erikson did not clearly demarcate his stages by certain age thresholds. His description of ego integrity was somewhat vague in terms of operationalization; however, he described a person at this stage as someone who had “taken care of things and adapted 23 himself [sic] to the triumphs and disappointments adherent to being” (Erikson, 1950, p. 268). He went on to describe ego integrity as being “aware of the relativity of all the various life styles which have given meaning to human striving, the possessor of integrity is ready to defend the dignity of his own life style against all physical and economic threats” (Erikson, 1980, p. 104). He contrasted this description of ego integrity with the following description of despair as, “[an expression of] the feeling that the time is short, too short for the attempt to start another life and to try out alternate roads to integrity” (Erikson, 1980, p. 104). Several studies drawing samples from the ego integrity vs. despair population have tried to identify with more concrete parameters of this stage. Procedure. The 89 participants in phase I filled out a short demographics questionnaire and the Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS). Participants were encouraged to fill out the LGS on their own without guidance, unless questions arose. The most common question participants had was associated with difficulty delineating between responding “1” stating “this statement occasionally or seldom applies” versus a responding “2” stating “this statement applies fairly often.” The electronic survey was created in the exact form of the hand survey using an online survey platform. On the electronic survey, my email address was listed and participants were instructed to contact me if they had questions in relation to responding to the survey. No questions were submitted from participants who filled out the electronic survey. The LGS was used as a screening instrument to identify two separate groups: highly generative individuals and low generative individuals. Of these participants, 8 highly generative individuals and 8 low generative individuals were selected to participate in the 24 more in-depth qualitative phase of the study. These individuals were chosen based on a cutoff established by McAdams, de St. Aubin, & Logan (1993), in which they normed the LGS for three different age groups including senior adults (ages 67-72). Based on the average for the older adult group (M=38.26, SD=9.59), participants who scored 48 or above were one standard deviation above the mean for this age group (in the 84th percentile for this population) and a score of 28 or below were at the 16th percentile. These cutoffs are consistent with the mean average score of the “highly generative group” in a similar qualitative study on highly generative individuals in midlife (McAdams, Diamond, de St. Aubin, & Mansfield, 1997). Phase II Data Collection Sample. The sample size was (n=16) as suggested by Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997) given the intensive and time-consuming nature of the qualitative methodology. The mean age of the group was 71.1. Half of the participants were male and half were female. Of the highly generative group, 3 subjects were male and 5 were female. Whereas in the low generative group, 5 subjects were male and 3 were female. The sample was largely homogenous despite efforts to attract a more diverse sample; 15 participants were Caucasian and one participant was African-American. LGS scores for both sets of groups are listed below in the results section. Due to the potential declining health of this population, a final requirement for participation was that participants were cogent enough to carry on a conversation and to construct a reasonably coherent narrative. The researcher assessed before the interview whether or not the participant had enough cognitive ability to construct their life story and participate in the phase II data collection portion of the research. The researcher 27 contacted, then the research team “went down the list” and sought out other participants that still qualified as either fitting the criterion for the high or low generative group (one standard deviation above or below the LGS mean). Interviews were completed both in person and by phone. Eight interviews took place in person with an audio recorder and eight interviews took place over the phone using Internet software that recorded the phone calls. When participants asked about the nature of the study they were taking part in before or during the interview, participants were told they were told they were being interviewed for a study on older adults’ attitudes toward life, work, and family. The author conducted all of the interviews. All interviews were completed in one session, lasting between 35 minutes and 90 minutes, largely depending on participants’ variance in verbosity. At the conclusion of the interview, participants were asked if they had any questions about the process. In cases where participants inquired further about the nature of the study, they were debriefed about the researcher’s pursuit to learn more about generativity in the older adult population where this construct had been scantly explored. Statistics and Data Analysis Fitting with how Mondada (2007) described the qualitative transcript as an evolving flexible object tied to the context in which it was produced, the final section of the interview (approximately 15-20 minutes of interview time), the section that specifically pertained to participants’ lists of generative accomplishments and how these effect them today, were isolated and selected to be transcribed by a transcription services organization. This is consistent with the methods of Pomerantz (1980) in a study about 28 language and social interaction. It is also congruent with the qualitative research theory placed forth by Poland (1995), in that research observations converted into transcripts can only be considered excerpted accounts of the actual genuine encounter of the interview itself. The initial sections of the Life Story Interview were not transcribed as it was not directly related to the research questions. However, this part of the interview remained in the procedure as it was intended to provide the participants with a greater opportunity to become more reflective about their lives and help them to identify how generative acts fit into their life’s story. All data was transmitted to the transcription service electronically using secure measures to maintain the confidentiality of the data. The transcription service was careful to use only one transcriber to complete all sixteen transcriptions, both as a means of maintaining as much confidentiality of the data as possible and to allow the transcriber more familiarity with the interviewer to maximize the quality of the transcripts. In a study seeking similar discoveries, but on the topic of transgender resilience strategies, counseling psychologists Singh, Hays & Watson (2011) used a blend of grounded theory and phenomenological methodologies in their analysis. With a similar sample size to the current study, this research team analyzed transcriptions from semi structured interviews, using two coders to initially code the data and arrived at a consensus of codes in the initial phase. In a second phase to validate the presence or lack of presence of these codes or themes within the interviews, a separate group of 3 raters rated whether these themes were present in each of the interviews. In the current study, the research process extracted textual unstructured data from participants related to the investigation of a relatively unknown phenomena: the presence 29 (or lack thereof) and meaningful structure of generativity in older adults. In order to make greater sense of this unstructured textual data (transcription of audio interviews), this research utilized grounded theory analytical approaches. As Charmaz (2003) stated, “unlike quantitative data, in which preconceived categories or codes are applied to the data, grounded theorists create their codes by defining what they see in the data. Codes emerge as you scrutinize your data and define meanings within them. Coding consists of at least two phases: an initial phase involving the naming of data followed by a focused, selective phase that uses the most significant or frequent initial codes to sort, synthesize, and organize large amounts of data” (p. 93). The codes in the current study were identified as follows in congruence with most recent findings in the qualitative research methodologies literature (Charmaz, 2003; Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Creswell, 1998; Henwood & Pidgeon, 2003; Singh, Hays, & Watson, 2011): 1. As forwarded by grounded theory researchers Corbin and Strauss (1990), the first stage of the data analysis was “open coding,” the familiarizing phase of analysis, wherein the data was examined in a broad sense with two coders doing an initial review of the transcripts to get a feel for the entire data set and in developing ideas for the salient coding categories. Consistent with Corbin and Strauss’ methods for open coding the two coders focused on identifying salient categories of information supported by the text using the “constant comparative approach” and attempted to “saturate” the coding categories by exhaustively combing through the transcripts until no further data could be categorized. 32 Chapter 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The data collected in phase I and the two groups established from this phase of data collection is displayed in Table 1. Table 1 Characteristics of the Sample Phase I Participants (n=89) Phase II High Generative Group (n=8) Phase II Low Generative Group (n=8) Gender Male 37 (41.6%) 5 (62.5%) 3 (37.5%) Female 50 (56.2%) 3 (37.5%) 5 (62.5%) Race/Ethnicity Caucasian 81 (91.0%) 7 (87.5%) 8 (100%) African-American 5 (5.6%) 1 (12.5%) 0 Native-American 1 (1.1%) 0 0 Age (mean) 70.3 72.9 69.3 LGS Score (mean) 41.9 54.1 28.8 Note. The range of possible scores on the Loyola Generative Scale (LGS) was 0-60 (SD=8.64). Displayed in Appendix A are the 162 codes identified in the initial open coding phase of the data analysis. Table 2 displays the first stage of the axial coding wherein the data was broken down into the categories related to the identified central phenomena in the study. Table 2 Axial Codes Established from List of Open Codes Shared in Both Groups High Generative Group Low Generative Group Desire to help/impact others Purposeful life Searching for purpose/meaning Life has hardships Surrendering of control Self-doubting 33 in life Love for family/friends Adaptive coping via resilience/optimism Doubting of own legacy Death inevitable w/ anxiety Confident in legacy Regretful Blessed/fortunate Education as a primary value Figure 1 provides a visual display of the Theoretical findings form the data. Figure 1. Theoretical model from the grounded data. The middle section depicts the shared themes found in both the high and low generative groups. The right section shows the themes found within the low generative group and how these themes related to the shared themes. Similalry, the left side of the model shows the highly generative group themes and how these themes related to the shared themes. Shared Themes/Categories Found in both High and Low Groups The first themes listed below are the most salient themes found across the entire data set; themes found in both high and low generative participants. As discussed in step two of the procedure within the methods section, prominent themes were assigned based on prevalence and frequency found and grounded within the data. As also stated in step 34 two of the procedure, within the axial coding process, three central categories were established (shared themes, highly generative group themes, and low generative group themes). Then within each these categories, themes were discovered from within the data, consistent with step three of the procedure, and analyzed for the causal nature of how the themes fit together. Desire to help and impact others. Both high and low generative participants expressed a desire to help others. This included such actions as caring for, volunteering, mentoring, and advocating for others. Participant #4, a highly generative female, exhibited this theme stating: I guess taking care of people. That’s the biggest thing, is helping people; trying to motivate them. Letting them see that life is something important. Life is a gift to you. Life is something that you need to motivate yourself on and try to move on; to make better for yourself. To try to do better things and try to put things in process so that you can educate yourself better. Participant #1, a low generative male, shared a similar sentiment about a desire to help others saying, “I think giving to others has given my life, to a large extent, more of a purpose. I guess I feel better about myself because I think that I’m doing work that is difficult and benefits people in general.” Participant #7, a highly generative female, discussed how even small actions of helping make a difference saying: The things that you do for people; you make a loaf of bread. I make bread, and I take it to people. I call people, everybody, in our church on their birthdays and sing “Happy Birthday” if I’m here. I can’t do the same things I used to do, because of my age, but I can do a lot of things. I can talk to young people about, 37 Another element of this theme was found in participants discussing how hardships and difficulties are inevitable and that obstacles are simply something you must work through or try to make sense of. Participant #10, a low generative male, described this stating, “Despite life’s difficulties, the traumas, some of the dislocations and disjointedness, I’m still one of the luckiest men to have walked the face of this Earth.” Highly generative female participant #13, shared a similar attitude stating, “I wouldn't be where I am today if there hadn't been some really bad patches.” Adding to this theme and using a literary example to relay her experience, highly generative female participant #7 asserted: It’s not an ideal world, and certainly I’ve read enough of Voltaire to have some concept about “this ain’t a very good world.” And maybe not; I’m sure for a lot of people they’d be hasty to say –I know many people who are not blessed the way I am and I don’t know why I’m blessed, but if I can do something to make life a little bit easier for somebody else, then I hope I would do it. Love for family/friends is a primary meaningful life action. Also a shared theme amongst both the high and low generative groups was a feeling that relationships with family and friends are of the most meaningful of life actions. Participants with no children of their own were prone to discussing this as perhaps their greatest regret, but were also quick to point to other relationships with friends, nieces/nephews, or partners as being some of the most meaningful aspects of their lives. Highly generative female, participant #3, communicated, “I think that the best thing I’m leaving behind are my children. All three of them are great people.” Similarly, participant #14, a low generative male, shared: 38 The thing that's important to me is the fact that we have two great kids and six great grandchildren and they've never wanted for anything. By some magic, which I don't really understand, I've managed to make my wife happy and hopefully she'll never want for anything. Highly generative male participant #16 held a similar feeling expressing: One [last accomplishment] that I feel very good about is that I have a son who is now living in California, and because I grew up without a father and then went through a divorce along the way, when my son was born, I felt like I wanted to have a good relationship with him and see him have a good life in a broad sense - again, not a materialistic life- and to have a close relationship with him. I think that happened; I see feedback from that now. He was 40 this year and has two little girls. I see having passed on something to him about that parent-child relationship that he's mapping over very nicely on his own. I'm very proud of that; that's an accomplishment. Participant #12, a low generative female, had a similar tone in discussing parenthood and her feeling about caring for others stating: Children and grandchildren; love them dearly. Love to spend time with them. Sadly I don’t get to spend a lot of time with them because they’ve never lived close to me. But I try to be wide open to them, show a lot of love and respect and devotion to all of them. For family, like my husband would say, I’m a very nurturing woman and I continue to nurture my family as much as I possibly can. This passion for family and the moments of joy you get from giving to them was also shared by participant #5, a highly generative male, who shared: 39 But [doing and giving] opens up lots of variants. Like the grandkids, [my kids] say “dad, they really need their bed fixed. Could you fix it?” I don’t feel like it, but I put on my tools and go over there and they all give me a hug. Participant #10, a low generative male, described feeling lucky in life, namely because of his family, expressing, “I was fortunate to have found my wife at an early age, and to have fathered two really great kids.” And lastly in discussing her continued generative acts in a later stage in life, participant #15, a highly generative female, shared that her most focused giving right now is that she is, “busy with the generative legacy of two sons.” Themes/Categories Found Highly Generative Group As displayed in Figure 1, three prominent themes emerged from the data within the highly generative group in response to the three themes shared by both groups. These themes were “the purposeful life,” the “surrendering of control in life,” and “adaptively coping via resilience and optimism.” Out of these three categories, three other themes were found in the data from highly generative participants including being “confident in their legacy,” having “feelings of being blessed and fortunate,” and lastly of “valuing education.” The purposeful life. It was found that highly generative participants expressed a strong sense of purpose, often from the experiences of giving and volunteering. As can be further understood in the quotes below, this strong sense of purpose in the world also seems to have provided the highly generative participants an ability to better handle life’s hardships. Participant #13 (female) exhibited this sentiment stating: 42 Female participant #15 shared that for her a primary purpose that she has connected with is via the search for one’s self, declaring, “It’s never too late to find yourself, that’s number one.” Lastly, participant #13 captured an essential aspect of the purposeful theme, sharing “I feel like I have given and am giving in a way that is important to other people in a very small way and that makes me feel good in a big way.” Surrendering of control in life. Separate from the purposeful life theme, but found among the data from the highly generative group was the importance of ceding control in life and learning that “everything will be okay,” and being able to let life come to you, rather than trying to be overly controlling of events in your life is important. This seemed to be a significant quality in being able to cope with hardships in life and remain optimistic in still giving to others. Participant #2 (male) shared: I have a long to-do list and I’m somewhat driven, when I was working, and even in retirement. But, I tell you, once you get a certain age, getting things done is not quite as important. What I would say now is that it’s going to be okay. I’m going to be okay.” Participant #4 (female) expressed this theme with an added religious connotation, but having a similar experience when she said: Get into the Lord; God leads you to wherever he wants you to be at. He can lead you back if you’re doing something wrong, and something says “don’t do that”, that’s God saying “don’t do that, move over to the other side and try to get yourself together. Participant #15 (female) shared that a bout with cancer helped her to cede control in her life and this has been important for her. She described that she: 43 Almost died once, and could feel myself dying. After I got over that though, then I knew that I was going to be fine and that everyone else was going to be fine. I don't worry about whether I've done enough or whether there's so many things that I have to do. Also with a religious grounding, female participant #7 shared a similar sentiment about relinquishing control in life, stating: I think that one of them is simply the business about being upbeat about life; recognizing that the Lord does things with us that we don’t understand. I think the Lord has a plan for my life and it makes a difference in the way I treat people. Participant #5 directly connected the experience of hardships in life and the importance for him of ceding control to a high power in order to get a long in life, as he asserted: At this time in your life you realize that I just see other older people and I realize that you start out in life and you don’t know the answer. And then, God might, as you get older, start calling you home. There is always a controller outside of yourself; you can basically say, “I can’t control things”. When bad things happen, I really can’t control this, so I’m going to say my prayers and say “here I am, do the best for me. Adaptive coping via resilience and optimism. The final of the three core themes found in the highly generative group was the ability of highly generative participants to adapt to life’s hardships, often through resilient and optimistic attitudes. Female participant #13, shared: 44 The rough patches give me that perspective of how unhappy it can be and how happy it is now. Now calm and content. I think if you can somehow get through the really hard parts there is a reward. Participant #5 (male) shared that a humble optimism for life makes a world of difference in combating the inevitable hardships, relating: I think that you have to feel good about yourself. Not to make yourself better than somebody else, but they make you feel good about -not so much where you stand- but it keeps you going when arthritis and all of the other things as you get older. The generative things keep a smile on your face, or someone will say something about something that happened thirty years ago and that gets you going. Or you maybe want to do more; volunteer more, maybe even at an advanced age, it doesn’t matter. Participant #4 (female) expressed that she’s maintained a faith and optimism in life that allows her to conquer developmental hurdles and gain accomplishments and she shares this with her family, revealing that: My ‘great-grand,’ that I’m working with now, she’s in 10th grade –she’ll be in 11th grade- and she’s striving to go to college. And I told her that if she did, “I don’t have any money, but with God’s will, you’ll make it there and I’ll try to help you as best as I can, to get you into the college. Participant #3 (female) concisely remarked, “I would say that I have noticed that I have resilience and enthusiasm for life.” Participant #5 (male) observed that, “The people with better attitudes seem to make out better than people with a not-so-positive outlook on things.” 47 Participant #15 added to this talking about the fortunate nature of her timing in life, when she expressed: We have been blessed. We lucked out. We had jobs waiting. I had three job offers to be a teacher when I got my teaching credentials in 1965. It's not like that today for kids. My husband had job offers here and there. It's different now. We were lucky. Participant #16 felt fortunate that he’s been able to accomplish what he set out to do while still building strong relationships with those around him, conveying: We're lucky. I always wanted to have accomplishments and experiences that somehow were connected with people, and I never thought about it so much as generativity in that sense. But I guess those are the things that I really feel good about; content. Participant #4 added that it is the act of giving that she connects to a feeling of being fortunate, suggesting, “Giving makes me feel good. It makes me feel that I’m being blessed.” Lastly, participant #13 expressed feeling fortunate about where she has finally arrived in life, announcing, “I’ve got it made now.” Education as a primary value. The final theme discovered within the qualitative data from the highly generative group was that they hold education as a primary value of importance. Participant #4 expressed this sentiment, stating, “When my kids were coming up, I would tell them to educate themselves: ‘get your education, get your diploma, go to college, go to some kind of training school, get your skills, and better yourself.’” Participant #7, a retired professor, spoke of her feeling that education and ideas are of the utmost importance, suggesting: 48 When you’re in English, it’s an entirely different world, as one of my students tells me –who was in something else- he used to say “this is the only class where I’m able to talk about ideas.” That, I think, is what the arts do. It doesn’t just talk about things and making things work, but it’s interested in ideas and in people, because that’s what you’re dealing with. Participant #3, suggested one of her favorite aspects of one of her former careers was that she got to advocate for education, sharing, “That job was good in that sense because I also felt as though I was advocating for educational standards at the time, which is critically important.” Participant #15 shared that despite her parents wishes, she needed more than just the church for learning about the world, stating, “I was longing for education and there was nothing from the church. Nothing. What I learned was in college and in life.” Lastly, participant #13 captured her feelings about the importance of education in the lives of young children, when she noted: What I've found is that I worry about some of the kids that are in school: the ones whose parents don't have the time or the money to sit with them and go through the basics like reading, learning the alphabet. I feel so sad and I want to take them home and teach them how to read; so that's what my job is at school: I work with them one-on-one, reading, learning their letters. Because I can't imagine going home to a house where their parents probably don't even ask if they have a book to read. Themes/Categories Found in Low Generative Group The core theme discovered and grounded within the interview data from the low generative group was that many of the participants are still searching and struggling to 49 identify purpose and meaning in their lives. As demonstrated in Figure 1, seemingly as a result of this search without yet finding answers or purpose, themes of self-doubt, doubting of one’s legacy, and feelings of regret also emerged as themes from the low generative data set. Searching for purpose/meaning. A primary theme within the low generative group was a feeling of disappointment of not quite having found a larger meaningful purpose in their life that they could look back on. This theme was captured by participant #12, as she expressed: I think that maybe what we could say is that I had expectations of maybe doing a lot better or doing something that would make me unique; stand out of the crowd, someone that others would be in awe of, of something I’d done. Participant #1 similarly communicated a feeling of uncertainty about searching for a purpose and contributions, as he said: I’m fairly uncertain about [the future] in that I don’t ever see myself completely retiring from what I do. I have an attorney buddy of mine who has been visiting me and we’ve sort of talked to some extent about it. This is kind of the same boat I’m in: if I wasn’t doing this, what would I do? I don’t have a tremendous amount of outside interests and I like doing what I do, but I’ve seen attorneys that stay to long. Participant #14 shared that he has struggled to identify a larger purpose beyond his family, stating: I take care of family, including grandkids, but beyond that, almost nothing. I have almost no religious grounding; I'm a member of a church only because my wife is. 52 Participant #1 said simply, “I wish I had done more, I guess.” Participant #12 suggested she was disappointed about not having something physical or tangible she could look back on and be proud of, stating, “I’m disappointed that I did not create or accomplish something that was very meaningful, and maybe in a narcissistic way, would’ve impressed other people. Having something that was going to last forever. An everlasting type of accomplishment.” Participant #11 reflected back that she’s disappointed she did not impact others at a greater level, stating, “[My husband and I] don’t do a whole lot for others…I should have done more.” Regretful. The final theme discovered grounded within the data from the low generative participants was feelings of regret. Participant #12 relayed feelings of disappointment and regret, suggesting she wished she had made some different choices. She stated: I’m not trying to put myself down or anything, but I think that my story is so average and kind of dull in many ways. I never really achieved anything famous; I never created anything that was life-changing. In that respect, and maybe it’s because of the age I’m in and the mood I’m in at this age, but I do have to say that I’m disappointed. Participant #1 felt some regret that he was not more effective in helping others, expressing, “I guess I wish, to some extent, that I had done better but I’m not sure that I could say exactly how that could be.” In thinking about his death, participant #9, suggested concerns that he may become even more regretful than he currently is. He explained, “I can imagine being really regretful. And who knows? Maybe when I’m really close to death some things will come back to me and I’ll think, ‘oh, my God, why 53 didn’t I do that?’” For participant #11, her greatest regret was not having children stating, “I had no children, I have adopted several fake children.” Lastly participant #12 added: I guess what I’m talking about when I’m disappointed is that I never became a famous author and I never accomplished anything for the long term. I’m happy with what I’m doing, in terms of giving back to the community but I feel like it’s limited. Death is Inevitable and Anxiety Provoking The last shared category/theme identified concerned thoughts and feelings about death. For the most part, participants expressed feelings that death is uncomfortable to think about and face, yet it is inevitable. This sentiment was captured well in highly generative participant #5 when he exclaimed that, “Nobody makes it out of here alive. Arthritis or not, maybe you can take something to make you feel better, but you have to go on until the end. At least that’s my feeling.” For most of the participants, in both groups, this was an anxiety provoking topic to discuss. However, some of the highly generative participants did take solace and feel at peace about the end. Quotations below are divided into three sections: highly generative participants who felt at peace with eventual death, highly generative participants scared by death, and finally low generative participants who also expressed anxiety about eventual death. Highly generative and at peace with death. Within this theme seems to be a strong belief in a higher power or certain religious beliefs about the nature of death. Participant #4 communicated her feelings about death, stating, “At the end of my life, I’ll have done what I was supposed to do. When I get ready to go, there is nothing for me to 54 worry about because I’ll have done what I wanted to do.” Participant #7 added to this notion suggesting her belief in an afterlife provides her peace, expressing: I know, for instance, that all of the people that have gone on ahead of me, they’re in that great cloud of witnesses cheering us on. I firmly believe that and I firmly believe that when I get there, I’ll see them and I’ll live with them. And that’ll be it. And that death is a part of life… But if you think that death can be cut off or can be done away with, you’re deluding yourself. Highly generative with anxiety about death. A theme found among some of the highly generative participants is that they are reticent to leave this world because they feel productive about how they are helping others in this life. In dying they would have to give that up. A quote from participant #3 captures this theme. When asked if she thought whether having lived a very generative life would make facing death any easier she asserted: Not necessarily; no. After my husband died, my immediate thought was that I really wanted to go ahead and join him, but after that thought passed, I thought, “Well, he’s such a courageous person and a strong person.” But I remember thinking to myself: “well, if he can do this, surely I can”. It’s not a simple thing. Not at all. Everybody faces this differently. I don’t know how I feel. I try not to worry about it. I try to be more like my son when he was four years old, and one of our family members died, and he wanted to know what was going on, what did that mean. So I was trying to explain it and he says “I’m not doing that. You can do that but I’m not doing that. I am not going to do that.” So I’m going to operate on that for the moment. [Laughs]. 57 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION The results of this study suggest that there are significant benefits of having lived a generative life. Moreover, it appears that highly generative adults feel confident in themselves and the legacy they are leaving behind. While highly generative individuals in this study are no more or less likely to encounter hardships in life than the low generative participants, they seem to manage these difficulties very effectively through adaptive coping mechanisms. It also appears that these hardships do not detract from their ability to maintain a strong sense of purpose in life. Furthermore, the results suggest that highly generative older adults were able to maintain a strong sense of confidence in themselves and avoided expressing much doubt about their lives. Contrary to the highly generative older adults, the low generative older adults seemed to struggle with doubts, both about themselves and their legacy after death. They also expressed feeling regret within their lives. It appears that this sense of self-doubt and regret may stem from a difficulty in identifying a larger sense of purpose within their lives. Rather than having found a strong sense of purpose or meaning in middle adulthood, as many of the highly generative participants spoke to, low generative individuals seem to continue this search into older adulthood. It was surprising to see that both groups communicated a desire to help and give to others through volunteering and other such activities. It was expected, based on previous research, that this was a primary feature of highly generative adults. It seems though that people, in general, want to make a difference and to help others. However, the low generative older adults did not seem to experience the same level of life- 58 satisfaction and contentment that the highly generative participants attained from these actions. The high and low generative groups seemed to differentiate from one another based on two factors. The first factor was oriented around life’s purpose and meaning. While both groups seemed to refer to much of their middle adulthood as a time of searching for purpose, the highly generative group claimed to have found a sense of purpose, whereas the low generative participants continued to search or in some cases expressed pessimism about not finding more purpose. The second factor differentiating the two groups was found in attitudes about life events. Participants’ attitudes seemed to significantly alter the tone of their narratives. The highly generative group consistently spoke of optimism, resilience, and enthusiasm for life, which allowed them to adapt in healthy ways to the constraints presented to them. The low generative group seemed to be more psychologically injured by hardships, which easily knocked them off a potential life course and prevented them from seeing their life stories and contributions more optimistically. Perhaps the most difficult element of the grounded data to analyze was the diverse set of expressions about the inevitability of death in the final stage of life. While the low generative group expressed a more consistent difficulty with not wanting to face death, even being reticent to discuss the topic, the high generative group data was not as “clean.” On the whole, the data did suggest that the high generative group was somewhat content and accepting of death, consistent with Erikson’s theory about ego integrity. However, the highly generative participant responses were quite diverse. Specifically, several highly generative participants balked at the idea of being near death and still felt 59 as though they were in their prime generative years. In these cases, participants felt they were not ready to begin thinking about death as they still had much to give and provide others with the remainder of their lives. These participants seemed quite connected to the purpose and meaning of their lives, and seemed to have a difficult time letting that go. The more religiously oriented participants, within the highly generative group, appeared to be those most content with the inevitability of death. These participants often cited a strong belief in God and other religious beliefs as buffering a sense of death anxiety. Support for Erikson’s Stage Model of Development Just as the early stages of Erikson’s model have been supported by modern psychological research, his final two stages of development: generativity vs. stagnation and ego integrity vs. despair, were supported by the results of the current study. The participants who were identified as being highly generative in middle adulthood were consistent with Erikson’s description of “ego integrity,” in that they were confident and aware of their place in the world, self-assured about the contributions they had made and what they will leave behind after death. Erikson (1982) described successful individuals in middle adulthood as acquiring and embodying wisdom in the final stage of life as an “informed and detached concern with life itself in the face of death itself” (p. 61). Conversely, Erikson (1982) defined despair as a lack of ability to find resolution in life’s pursuits that may manifest with anxiety about death, regrets, and depression. The lack of “resolution,” that Erikson spoke of, was an accurate description of what was observed in the low generative participants in the present study. Consistent with Erikson’s theory, the theme of a lack of resolution manifested within the low generative 62 There are several limitations of this study. The main weakness relates to the sampling. The sample used in the current study was largely homogenous, limited in size, and affected by the snowball sampling method of identifying and finding participants. While a diverse sample was sought for the current study, both in socio-economic status (SES) and race/ethnicity, ultimately the sixteen participants used in phase II were of mostly similar SES and ethnicity. Fifteen of the sixteen participants were Caucasian. From the content of the interviews it was also ascertained that most of the participants were college educated and of some affluence, although no formal demographics were collected on these specific variables. A more heterogeneous sample would have provided the study with greater external validity and allowed the results to speak more broadly about generativity in older adults across class and race. Future studies on this topic would benefit from gathering data from more diverse samples. In that qualitative research is time intensive in data collection and analysis, only sixteen participants (eight in each group) were interviewed. This limitation further reduced the external validity of the results. With more resources and a larger research team, replication with 50-60 participants, would be ideal. The nature of the snowball sampling procedures, in identifying participants, also presented a limitation in the current study. As a result of this sampling procedure, the study had a large proportion of participants from religious organizations and university settings. McAdams (2006) found highly generative people are often active in religious organizations. As a result of this finding, the current study actively sought out church groups in order to find highly generative participants, which resulted in some self- selection bias. While it is quite possible, and even expected, that there is a population of 63 more secular highly generative individuals, this study did not access as much of that population. Another limitation of this study was the nature of identifying participants within the two groups for phase II. While the Loyola Generativity Scale is considered the “gold standard” of generativity measures within this body of the literature, it is still only one measure. It would be desirable to have more assessment to isolate and confirm the presence and amount of generativity within participants for such a study. This study would have benefitted from having more precision in identifying the presence of “high” and “low” generativity within the participants assigned to each of these groups. In furthering research on generativity, the goal is to continue to learn more about the qualities and features that make up this construct. The hope is that qualitative studies, like the current study, utilize the power of in-depth interviews to detect important themes that may increase knowledge about the construct in order to further develop measurement tools to more reliably assess for generativity. Suggestions for Future Research The current study used a grounded theory qualitative methodology in line with the suggestions of Morrow & Smith (2000) that such is the best approach when trying to develop and expand the understanding of new theoretical constructs. Investigating the manifestations of generativity in the final stage of life meets this criterion. The findings from this study established a theoretical foundation of themes expected to be found in high and low generative older adults. Future research could test the presence of these themes and characteristics with larger samples. It may be beneficial for future studies to study generativity in the older adult population using quantitative research. This would 64 allow for researchers to have larger and more diverse samples of both high and low generative participants. Themes identified in the current study could serve as the theoretical basis for creating targeted items to confirm and establish further theory about these populations. Future research in this area could also serve to further test the connective link in Erikson’s final two stages of development, as so few studies have attended to these final two stages of his developmental model, despite the fact that these stages encompass such a large proportion of the lifespan. Like McAdams (2006) with generative adults, future research may also develop a more detailed profile of the typical high and low generative older adult. Furthermore, while most of the research on generativity has focused on highly generative individuals, a continued exploration of low generative individuals would serve to provide a broader understanding of the many layers of the generativity construct. With larger samples, this body of research would benefit from developing a more nuanced understanding of generativity within individuals. Specifically, future studies could analyze generativity across multiple different groups and variables. For example, gender differences in the expression of generativity between older adult males and females, as first hinted at by Peterson and Stewart (1993) with younger populations, could be a fruitful area to further investigate. Also, as previously discussed, studying differences in generativity using marriage status as a potential independent variable could produce a deeper understanding about the relationship between Erikson’s final three psychosocial stages. Lastly, the body of generativity research could benefit from continuing to tease apart the nature of the relationship between generativity and death anxiety. Erikson 67 REFERENCES Aristotle. (350 B.C.E). Nicomachean Ethics. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html Black, H.K. & Rubinstein, R.L. (2009). The effect of suffering on generativity: Accounts of elderly African American men. Journal of Gerontology: Social Science, 4B(2), 296-303. Bradley, C.L. & Marcia, J.E. (1998). Generativity-stagnation: A five-category model. Journal of Personality, 66(1), 39-64. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Charmaz, K. (2003). “Grounded theory.” In Smith, J.A. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 81-110). London: Sage Publications. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dalai Lama. (1991). A universal task. EPA Journal: A Magazine on National and Global Environmental Perspectives, 17(4), 51-53. Dalai Lama. “Eight Verses for Training the Mind.” Washington, D.C. 8 Nov. 1998. de Medeiros, K. (2009). Suffering and generativity: Repairing threats to self in old age. Journal of Aging Studies, 23, p. 97-102. Elliott, R., Fischer, C.T., & Rennie, D.L. (1999). “Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields.” British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215-229. Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Erikson, E.H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for 68 qualitative research. Piscataway, N.J.: Aldine Transaction. Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Grof, S. & Halifax, J. (1977). The human encounter with death. New York: Dutton. Hawley, G.A. (1985). Construction and validation of an Eriksonian measure of psychosocial development. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2804A. Heath, C.W. (1945). What people are. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Henwood, K., & Pidegeon, N. (2003). Grounded theory in psychological research. In Camic, P.M., Rhodes, J.E., & Yardley, L (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 131-155). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Hill, C.E., Thompson, B.J., & Williams, E.N. (1997). A Guide to Conducting Consensual Qualitative Research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517-572. doi: 10.1177/0011000097254001 Kinnier, R.T., Tribbensee, N.E., Rose, C.A., & Vaughan, S.M. (2001). In the final analysis: More wisdom from people who have faced death. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 171-177. Kinnier, R. T., Dannenbaum, Lee, D., Aasen, P., & Kernes, J. L. (2004). Values extolled in U.S. presidential inaugural addresses. Counseling and Values, 48, 126-131. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Levinson, D.J., Darrow, C.N., Klein, E.B., Levinson, M.H., & McKee, B. (1978). The Seasons of a Man’s Life. New York: Ballantine Books. Lubin, G. (2011). The 20 Richest People of All Time. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-people-of-all-time-2011-1# McAdams, D.P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personal logical inquires into identity. New York: Guilford Press. 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(6), 1003-1015. McAdams, D.P. (1993). The stories we live by: personal myths and the making of the self. New York: Morrow. 69 McAdams, D.P. St. Aubin, E., & Logan, R.L. (1993). Generativity Among Young, Midlife, and Older Adults. Psychology and Aging, 8(2), 221-230. McAdams, D.P., Diamond, A., de St. Aubin, E., & Mansfield, E. (1997). Stories of commitment: The psychosocial construction of generative lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), p. 678-694. McAdams, D.P., Reynolds, J., Lewis, M., Patten, A.H., and Bowman, J.P. (2001). Things turn good and good things turn bad: Sequences of redemption and contamination in life narrative and their relation to psychosocial adaptation in midlife adults and in college students. Personality Social Psychological Bulletin, 27, 474-485. McAdams, D.P. (2006). The redemptive self. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McLean, K.C. & Pratt, M.W. (2006). Life’s little (and big) lessons: Identity statuses and meaning-making in the turning point narratives of emerging adults. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 714-722. Mondada, L. (2007). Commentary: Transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse Studies 9(6), 809-821. Morrow, S.L. & Smith, M.L. (2000). Qualitative Research for Counseling Psychology. In S.D. Brown & R.W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of Counseling Psychology 3rd edition (pp. 199-230. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Peterson, B. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1990). Using personal and fictional documents to assess psychosocial development: A case study of Vera Britain's generativity. Psychology and Aging, 5, 400-411. Peterson, B.E. & Stewart, A.J. (1993). Generativity and social motives in young adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 186-198. Poland, B. (1995). Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 290-310. DOI: 10.1177/107780049500100302 Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side- Limited access as a fishing device. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3-4), 186-198. Potter, J. (2003). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In Camic, P.M., Rhodes, J.E., & Yardley, L (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 73-94). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Ryff, C.D., & Singer, B.H. (2008). Understanding healthy aging: Key components and 72 APPENDIX B Loyola Generativity Scale (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992) For each of the following statements, please indicate how often the statement applies to you, by marking either a "0," "1," "2," or "3" in the space in front. Mark "0" if the statement never applies to you. Mark "1" if the statement only occasionally or seldom applies to you. Mark "2" if the statement applies to you fairly often. Mark "3" if the statement applies to you very often or nearly always. 1. I try to pass along the knowledge I have gained through my experiences. 2. I do not feel that other people need me. 3. I think I would like the work of a teacher. 4. I feel as though I have made a difference to many people. 5. I do not volunteer to work for a charity. 6. I have made and created things that have had an impact on other people. 7. I try to be creative in most things that I do. 8. I think that I will be remembered for a long time after I die. 9. I believe that society cannot be responsible for providing food and shelter for all homeless people. 10. Others would say that I have made unique contributions to society. 11. If I were unable to have children of my own, I would like to adopt children. 12. I have important skills that I try to teach others. 13. I feel that I have done nothing that will survive after I die. 14. In general, my actions do not have a positive effect on other people. 15. I feel as though I have done nothing of worth to contribute to others. 16. I have made many commitments to many different kinds of people, groups, and activities in my life. 17. Other people say that I am a very productive person. 18. I have a responsibility to improve the neighborhood in which I live. 19. People come to me for advice. 20. I feel as though my contributions will exist after I die. 73 APPENDIX C Life Story Interview (with modifications for current study) (McAdams, Diamond, de St. Aubin, and Mansfield, 1997) I. Life Chapters II. Important Persons III. Dominant Theme or message of the Story IV. Future Chapters V. How have the generative acts of your life impacted how you feel about your life now? VI. Do you think being a generative person makes facing dying any easier?