Chapter 13

The Positive Psychology of Adult Generativity:

Caring for the Next Generation and
Constructing a Redemptive Life

Dan P. McAdams

Fifty years before Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) introduced positive psy-
chology as a breakthrough movement for psychological science and practice, Erik
Erikson (1950) envisioned a positive psychology of the human life cycle, delineat-
ing fundamental strengths and virtues for each of the eight developmental stages.
According to Erikson, each stage in the human life cycle is defined by a basic psy-
chosocial challenge expressed in a polarity of human experience. In the first stage,
the infant faces the challenge of establishing a secure bond of attachment with care-
givers, expressed in the polarity of trust vs. mistrust. In the last stage, the elderly
man or woman faces the challenge of accepting life as something that has been good
and worthwhile, felicitously captured in Erikson’s notion of ego integrity vs. despair.
Ideally, a trusting attachment in the first stage affirms the virtue of hope, Erikson
argued, whereas the experience of ego integrity bequeaths to the older person the
virtue of wisdom. Between its beginning in hope and its ending in wisdom, the ide-
alized human life—a life characterized not merely by good adjustment but also by a
rich experience of flourishing— confronts a sequence of biologically and culturally
induced transitions and ultimately affirms a series of corresponding life virtues. For
the great seventh stage of middle adulthood, Erikson asserted that the challenge is
generativity vs. stagnation, and the corresponding virtue is care.
Nearly 15 years before Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) introduced positive
psychology to the world, my students and I began research on the concept of gener-
ativity, examining how the virtue of caring for the next generation plays itself out in
human lives and in the stories adults construct to make sense of their lives (McAdams
1985; McAdams et al. 1986). Around the same time, the topic of generativity began
to attract the attention of other investigators (e.g., Ryff and Heincke 1983; Snarey
et al. 1987) because behavioral scientists sought to translate Erikson’s clinical intu-
itions and case studies into quantitative, hypothesis-testing research. Over the past
three decades, research on generativity has developed apace. The concept of gener-
ativity, however, has not typically been featured in the mainstream publications of

D. P. McAdams ()
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, 2120 Campus Drive,
Evanston, IL 60208, USA
e-mail: dmca@northwestern.edu

J. D. Sinnott (ed.), Positive Psychology, 191

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-7282-7_13, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013
192 D. P. McAdams

positive psychology such as Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) handbook of character

strengths and virtues. Nonetheless, research in personality, developmental, and so-
cial psychology, and in sociology has yielded an impressive corpus of findings on the
meanings and manifestations of generativity in adulthood—findings that contribute
an important body of knowledge and perspective to positive psychology.
My goal in this chapter is to highlight some of the central theoretical concepts and
empirical findings in the positive psychology of generativity, as it has developed over
the past three decades. In doing so, I will emphasize concepts and findings for which
I have a special fondness, that is, those that have originated in the work conducted
by my students and myself. Our research program on generativity dovetails with the
study of the stories adults construct to make meaning and affirm purpose in their
lives (McAdams 1985, 2006a, 2008). I will begin by describing what generativity is,
the various ways in which it is expressed in the adult years, and how it is measured.
I will then review behavioral studies into the origins, consequences, and correlates
of generativity. Finally, I will consider the particular kinds of life stories that highly
generative adults tend to tell and live by. Our research shows that a central psy-
chological and cultural theme running through those stories is the power of human
redemption.

What Is Generativity?

At its heart, generativity is “primarily the concern in establishing and guiding the next
generation” (Erikson 1950, p. 267). As parents, teachers, mentors, role models, and
leaders, generative adults aim to care for or contribute to the advancement of younger
generations and thereby leave a positive legacy of the self for the future (Kotre 1984).
The most obvious way in which many adults actualize their generative potential and
assume generative social roles is through raising children. But adults can be genera-
tive in many other ways too, through a variety of family and work roles, friendships,
volunteerism and community activity, and through a wide range of venues wherein
men and women find opportunities to make productive and meaningful contributions
to society—contributions that hold the promise of promoting, directly or indirectly,
the survival, well-being, and/or flourishing of future generations.
In Erikson’s model of the human life cycle, generativity is the psychosocial cen-
terpiece of the seventh stage of development, the stage associated with midlife.
Although young adults and older adults can certainly make important contributions
to future generations, the middle adulthood years—roughly ages 35 through 65 in
contemporary modern societies—typically hold out the greatest opportunities and
the heaviest burdens in generativity. By the time midlife rolls around, adults have
typically made psychosocial headway in consolidating identity (the fifth stage in
Erikson’s scheme) and establishing long-term bonds of intimacy (the sixth stage).
They are now ready to devote a significant portion of their energies to taking care of
young people, and taking care of the things that matter for people (young and old)
in families, at the workplace, in neighborhoods and communities, and in society at
13 The Positive Psychology of Adult Generativity 193

large. In the midlife years, then, the object of one’s generative efforts can range from
a single baby to planet earth. In Gandhi’s Truth, Erikson (1969) portrayed the Indian
religious and political leader as a paragon of generativity, a man who made it his gen-
erative mission to care for an entire nation. Erikson marks a key scene in Mahatma
Gandhi’s midlife years when he seemed to take up the mantle of generativity:
From the moment in January of 1915 when Gandhi set foot on a pier reserved for important
arrivals in Bombay, he behaved like a man who knew the nature and the extent of India’s
calamity and that of his own fundamental mission. A mature man of middle age has not only
made up his mind as to what, in the various compartments of his life, he does and does not
care for, he is also firm in his vision of what he will and can take care of. He takes as his
baseline what he irreducibly is and reaches out for what only he can, and therefore, must do.
(Erikson 1969, p. 255, italics in original).

Beyond Erikson, a number of theorists have sought to describe the meaning of

generativity and its place in adult life (Browning 1975; Kotre 1984; McAdams 1985;
Peterson and Stewart 1990; Snarey 1993; Vaillant and Milofsky 1980). Generativity
has been variously described as a biological drive to reproduce oneself, an instinctual
need to care for and be needed by others, a philosophical urge for transcendence
and symbolic immortality, a developmental sign of maturity and mental health in
adulthood, and a social demand to create a productive niche in society. It has been
identified with behavior (such as raising children), motives and values (concerns for
preserving what is good and making other things better), and a general attitude about
the world (having a broad perspective and understanding one’s place in the sequence
of generations).
Drawing from the best ideas in the theoretical literature on generativity, Ed de
St. Aubin and I developed a model that delineates seven interrelated features of
generativity, all oriented toward the individual and societal goal of providing for
the next generation (McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992; see also McAdams 2001;
McAdams et al. 1998). Generativity begins with (1) cultural demand. All human
cultures demand that older and more experienced members provide care and guid-
ance for younger and less experienced members. Societies provide age-graded norms
regarding adult roles and responsibilities and set up institutions through which gen-
erative efforts may be channeled (Rossi 2001; Vaillant and Milofsky 1980). As men
and women move toward and into their midlife years, they are increasingly expected
to step up, as Gandhi did, to take care of the people and things that must be taken
care of, and to assume greater responsibility in families, communities, professions,
and societal institutions. As adults move through their 30s and 40s, those who are
unable or unwilling to contribute to and assume responsibility for the next gener-
ation, usually through family or work, are considered “off time” and at odds with
the expected “social clock” (Neugarten and Hagestad 1976). According to Erikson
(1950), these adults may sink into the opposite of generativity—“stagnation.”
Interacting with and reinforcing cultural demand is (2) inner desire. Adults often
feel a “need to be needed,” a communal desire to nurture others, to be of use to
those who are in need (Erikson 1950; Stewart et al. 1988). Adults may also feel a
strong agentic urge to extend themselves into the next generation, to leave a legacy
of the self for the future and thereby attain a kind of symbolic immortality (Becker
194 D. P. McAdams

1973; Kotre 1984; McAdams 1985). One’s generative legacy can be as humble as a
sage piece of advice offered to a coworker, or agreeing to chair the church’s fund-
raising committee. It can be as grand as raising a large family, building a business,
composing a symphony, making a scientific discovery, leading a community, or
even building a nation. Ideally, the product of one’s generative efforts outlives the
self, such that mature adults ultimately come to define themselves in terms of what
they leave behind. In middle adulthood and beyond, Erikson wrote, “I am what
survives me” (Erikson 1968, p. 141). At its paradoxical heart, therefore, generativity
relies on both communal (selfless) and agentic (selfish) desires (Bakan 1966; Kotre
1984; McAdams 1985). To be generative is to generate something or someone in
one’s own image—an agentic enterprise par excellence—and to care for and nurture
that something or someone in a communal way, in order to provide for the next
generation. Indeed, the narrow but evolutionarily crucial task of successful biological
reproduction is a primal microcosm of an agency-communion dynamic that lies at
the motivational heart of all generative expressions. I create a child in my own image,
and then I care for it.
Agentic and communal desires combine with and are structured by cultural norms,
expectations, and influences that specify when and how adults are to engage in
generative efforts in a given social milieu. Motivated by cultural demand and inner
desire, adults develop (3) a conscious concern for the next generation. They begin
to expand their purview of concern to encompass the well-being of others who
will survive them. They become more interested in those institutions and cultural
practices designed to promote positive functioning and social life into the future—
schools, churches, charities, community organizations, professional societies, and
so on. They become more concerned with intergenerational relations. They begin to
see that they may have something to offer others, that the time may be right to “give
something back” to society, to move from being the recipient to being the agent of
care and concern.
Interacting with cultural demand, inner desire, and conscious concern are (4) be-
liefs pertaining to how advisable it may be to invest in others and in the future and
how worthy others may be of one’s care. Erikson (1950, p. 267) saw a “belief in the
species” as a key attitudinal support for generativity. These kinds of beliefs may take
many forms—faith in the goodness of humankind, hope for redemption in the future,
optimism about the prospects of future prosperity for one’s family, belief in a just
world, and so on. By contrast, deep pessimism, cynicism, despair, and hopelessness
undermine generativity, for they suggest that investments in the future are not likely
to bring positive returns (Van De Water and McAdams 1989). A positive belief in
the species, then, may help to buttress the adult’s efforts to translate concerns into
behavior through plans, goals, and other generative (5) commitments. Not all mani-
festations of generativity are planned in advance, of course. Unexpected pregnancy
is the most obvious example, and in many other lives adults find that generative op-
portunities and challenges are as much thrust upon them as they are developed out of
their own life agendas. Sooner or later, however, generativity nearly always results
in some kind of commitment, entailing goals and plans. Ideally commitments lead to
13 The Positive Psychology of Adult Generativity 195

generative (6) actions. Many different kinds of actions may be construed as genera-
tive. Most common, however, are behaviors that involve creating or generating new
things and people (developing an innovation, giving birth to a child), maintaining
and caring for those things (and people) deemed to be good (preserving religious tra-
ditions, raising children), and passing on that which has been created or maintained
as a “gift” (Becker 1973) to the next generation (teaching a skill, launching a son or
daughter into the adult world).
The last feature of the theoretical model proposed by McAdams and de St. Aubin
(1992) is generative (7) narration. As they translate their concerns and beliefs into
commitment and action designed to promote the well-being of the next genera-
tion, adults construct personal narrations or stories of their generative efforts, which
eventually become incorporated into the larger, autobiographical stories that come to
comprise their narrative identities (McAdams 1985, 1996, 2008; McAdams and Pals
2006; McLean et al. 2007). Within a person’s internalized and evolving story of his
or her own life, narratives of generativity become increasingly central and salient as
the adult moves into and through midlife (McAdams 1996). These narrations specify
how the adult has worked and/or will continue to work to fashion a positive legacy
for the future. As such a narration of generativity functions to provide a potentially
satisfying “sense of an ending” (Kermode 1967) for a person’s life story, in that the
generativity narration anticipates how one’s life may ultimately result in the genera-
tion of offspring, products, and outcomes that will outlive the self. Generative adults
craft self-defining life stories whose endings defy death, in a narrative sense; even
though one’s own life will end, it may give birth to new beginnings.
Although some researchers have developed interview-based (Bradley and Mar-
cia 1998), questionnaire (Ochse and Plug 1986), and Q-sort (Peterson and Klohnen
1995) measures designed to assess an Eriksonian stage of generativity as a whole,
most researchers have focused on one or more of the particular features identified
in the generativity model I have just described. For example, McAdams and de
St. Aubin (1992) developed and validated the Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS), a
20-item self-report measure of generative concern. Self-report measures of genera-
tive beliefs (Van De Water and McAdams 1989), generative commitments or goals
(McAdams et al. 1993), and generative actions (McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992)
have also been developed and used in many studies. Researchers have also coded
life narrative texts for generative themes (McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992; Stewart
et al. 1988), and have developed various measures for estimating the strength of the
agentic and communal desires that give rise to the inner motivations for generativ-
ity (Mansfield and McAdams 1996; Peterson 1998; Stewart and Vandewater 1998).
Findings from numerous studies show that conscious generative concerns, assessed
via the LGS, are positively correlated with self-report behavioral acts indicative
of generativity and with generative commitments (goals) and generative themes in
life stories (Cox et al. 2010; de St. Aubin and McAdams 1995; Hofer et al. 2008;
McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992; McAdams et al. 1993). Research also supports the
proposition that generativity may be motivated by strong inner desires or needs for
agency and communion (Ackerman et al. 2000; Frimer et al. 2011; Mansfield and
McAdams 1996; McAdams et al. 1986; Peterson and Stewart 1993).
196 D. P. McAdams

The Generative Adult

Erikson situated generativity within a midlife stage of psychosocial development.

But should generativity be conceived as a discrete “stage”? A considerable amount
of research has tested Erikson’s claim, examining relations between age and various
assessments of generative desire, concern, commitment, action, and narration. Most
studies have been cross-sectional, rather than longitudinal. Although a few studies
find no relationship between generativity and age (e. g., Whitbourne et al. 1992),
others have documented a smooth stage sequence (e. g., Snarey 1993; Vaillant and
Milofsky 1980). The best estimate, however, probably lies somewhere between the
two extremes.
McAdams et al. (1993) examined various features of generativity among young
(age 22–27), midlife (age 37–42), and older (age 67–72) adults. The significant
quadratic trend in the data showed that the midlife cohort scored markedly higher
on generativity measures overall, compared to the young and older adults. However,
different results were obtained for different features of generativity. McAdams et al.
(1993) found that generative behaviors and narrations showed the strongest quadratic
trends, with scores peaking in the midlife years. However, generative concern (as-
sessed via the LGS) was relatively high among young adults and midlife adults, but
dropped for older adults, whereas generative commitments/goals were very low for
young adults but showed markedly and equally high levels for both midlife and older
adults.
In a nationwide sample of over 3,000 American men and women ranging in
age from 25 to 74, Keyes and Ryff (1998) showed that middle-aged and older adults
provided more emotional support and unpaid assistance to others (generative actions)
compared to younger adults. With respect to generative commitments/goals, midlife
and older adults also showed higher levels of civic responsibility, but younger adults
scored higher than the midlife and older adults, on obligations and plans to help
children and other people directly. In a longitudinal study of inner desires linked
to generativity, Stewart and Vandewater (1998) found that generativity motivation,
assessed via ThematicApperception Test (TAT) stories, actually declined from young
adulthood to middle age. Young adults often feel strong urges—both agentic and
communal—to make positive contributions to the next generation. But they may
find it difficult to translate these urges into effective generative behavior until they
have attained the status and resources that often come with middle age. Although
young adults may feel strong generative desires, they look ahead to their midlife
years as a time when those desires will be most effectively translated into generative
commitment and action (Ryff and Heincke 1983; Peterson 1998).
The empirical findings on age and generativity seem to suggest that Erikson was
broadly correct in supposing that midlife is a prime time for the expression of gener-
ativity. However, it is probably claiming too much to assert that generativity is neatly
situated within a discrete, midlife stage. Different features of generativity may be
differentially expressed across the adult life course. Generative desires may peak
in early adult years whereas generative behaviors and commitments may increase
13 The Positive Psychology of Adult Generativity 197

well into and through midlife. Many older adults continue to show strong commit-
ments to providing for younger generations. Furthermore, sociologically oriented
researchers have argued that generativity is contoured by unpredictable economic
and cultural changes, historical events, and sheer chance, rendering the general idea
of discrete stages of adult development untenable (Cohler et al. 1998). Gender and
social class may interact with age and contextual factors to shape the trajectories
of generativity over time (Stewart and Ostrove 1998). Women and men may face
different generative challenges and respond to different gender-based expectations
regarding the timing and nature of generative expression (Miller-McLemore 2004).
In a broad sense, furthermore, different cultures may comprehend generativity in
different terms. For example, researchers have compared and contrasted idealized
American and Japanese models regarding what constitutes a generative life and how
it should unfold over the life course (de St. Aubin 2004; Yamada 2004).
Within any given society, therefore, and within any age cohort of adults, broad
individual differences in generativity will reveal themselves. Simply put, some
people—at any given point in time and place in society—are more generative
than others. Research shows that individual differences in generativity are robustly
associated with a range of psychological strengths and important life outcomes.
The prototype of generativity is the bearing and nurturing of offspring. A number
of studies suggest that men and women who score high on various measures of gen-
erativity are especially effective as parents, compared to their less generative peers.
In a survey study of parents whose children were enrolled in a major metropolitan
school system, Lewis and Nakagawa (1995) found that mothers and fathers with high
scores on a short version of the LGS tended to be more involved in their children’s
schooling than parents scoring lower. Parents scoring high on generativity tended to
help their children with their homework more, showed higher levels of attendance at
school functions, and evidenced greater knowledge about what their children were
learning and doing in school, compared with parents scoring lower in generative
concern. In another study of parents, researchers found that high levels of gener-
ativity were associated with valuing trust and communication with one’s children
and viewing parenting as an opportunity to pass on values and wisdom to the next
generation (Hart et al. 2001). In a study asking adults to tell socialization stories
for adolescent children, those adults scoring high on the LGS constructed narratives
that manifested a strong investment in personal values and that emphasized learning
important lessons from the past (Pratt et al. 1999).
Research has also connected generativity to an authoritative parenting style. Au-
thoritative parenting combines an emphasis on high standards and discipline with
a warm, child-centered, and caring approach to raising children. Peterson et al.
(1997) found that middle-aged parents of college students expressed more authori-
tative attitudes about parenting if they were high in generativity. In the same study,
authoritative parenting predicted attitudinal similarities between parents and their
college-aged children, and it was negatively associated with parent–child conflict.
Pratt et al. (2001) found that generativity among mothers of teenaged children was
positively associated with authoritative parenting. Peterson (2006) examined rela-
tions between generativity in parents and the resultant personality characteristics of
198 D. P. McAdams

their children. When parents were high in generativity, their college-age offspring
tended to show higher scores on personality traits related to conscientiousness and
warmth, more positive emotion in everyday life, and greater levels of civic and re-
ligious involvement. Peterson (2006) argued that highly generative parents serve as
role models for healthy lifestyles and engaged citizenship.
If parenting within the family is seen as the most private and local realm of genera-
tive expression, social involvements among one’s peers, in churches and synagogues,
and in the community offer opportunities for a more public expression of generativ-
ity. Hart et al. (2001) found that high levels of generativity were associated with more
extensive networks of friends and social support in the community and greater levels
of satisfaction with social relationships among both African American and white
adults. In addition, generativity was positively associated with church attendance
and with involvement in church activities. Adults scoring high in generativity, fur-
thermore, were more likely to have voted in the last US Presidential election, worked
for a political party or campaigned for a candidate, and called or written to a public
official about a social concern or problem. Similarly, Cox et al. (2010) found that
high scores on the LGS strongly predicted an index of positive societal engagement
in a sample of 128 highly religious midlife American adults. Jones and McAdams
(in press) found positive associations between generativity and indices of religious
involvement, political participation, volunteerism, and public service motivation in
a sample of 150 midlife men and women.
Cole and Stewart (1996) reported that generative concern among both, African
American and Euro-American women in midlife correlated highly with measures of
sense of community and political efficacy, suggesting that adults with strong gener-
ative concerns also tend to express strong feelings of attachment and belongingness
in their communities and tend to view themselves as effective agents in the political
process. An especially impressive documentation of generativity’s positive role in
both family and community life comes from Rossi’s (2001) analysis of the National
Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS). After controlling for
age and demographic factors in the nationwide data set, Rossi’s research team found
that items from the LGS were the single strongest predictor of “caring and doing for
others” and “social responsibility in the domains of family, work and community”
(Rossi 2001, title page). In the MIDUS study, social responsibility encompassed a
wide range of prosocial behaviors, including volunteerism and contributing one’s
time and money to family members and to community concerns.
It is clear that by caring for the next generation, strengthening social institutions,
maintaining valued cultural traditions, and working for positive social change, gen-
erative adults do a great deal of good for other people and the world around them.
They also do good for themselves. Consistent with Erikson’s (1950) suppositions,
research shows that generativity is consistently associated with mental health and
flourishing. Longitudinal investigations conducted by Vaillant (1977) and Snarey
(1993) show that clinical ratings of generativity are positively associated with things
such as the use of mature coping strategies during times of stress and measures of psy-
chosocial adjustment in adulthood. A number of studies reveal consistently positive,
albeit relatively modest, correlations between assessments of generative concern and
13 The Positive Psychology of Adult Generativity 199

generative behaviors on the one hand and self-report measures of life satisfaction,
self-esteem, and psychological well-being on the other (Ackerman et al. 2000; Cox
et al. 2010; de St. Aubin and McAdams 1995; Efklides et al. 2003; Grossbaum and
Bates 2002; Keyes and Ryff 1998). In two longitudinal studies of graduates from the
University of Michigan and Radcliffe College, Stewart and Ostrove (1998) found
that the quality of midlife roles and generativity were the only significant predictors
of later midlife well-being. Westermeyer (2004) found that generativity was posi-
tively associated with successful marriages, overall mental health, and a history of
favorable relationships with peers across the adult life course. Peterson and Duncan
(2007) reported that generativity was positively associated with a range of variables
indicative of successful aging.
Researchers have also examined relationships between measures of generativity
and dispositional personality traits. In general, generativity scores tend to show posi-
tive correlations with self-report indices of extraversion, agreeableness, and openness
to experience, and negative associations with neuroticism (Bradley and Marcia 1998;
de St. Aubin and McAdams 1995; Peterson and Duncan 2007; Van Hiel et al. 2006;
Cox et al. 2010). Cox et al. (2010) conducted a fine-grained analysis of generativity’s
associations with personality traits by examining self-report measures of generative
concern and generative actions and specific facets or components of the Big Five dis-
positional traits (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and
openness to experience). They found the strongest associations between measures
of generativity on the one hand and many facets comprising the broad traits of ex-
traversion and openness to experience on the other. For example, generativity was
positively associated with the extraversion facets of warmth, assertiveness, activity,
and positive emotions (but not with the extraversion facet of excitement seeking).
Generativity was also strongly related to the agreeableness facet of altruism and the
conscientiousness facets of achievement striving and dutifulness. For neuroticism,
generativity was negatively associated with the facets of anxiety, depressiveness, and
feelings of vulnerability.

Redemptive Life Stories

How do generative adults become generative in the first place? What are the devel-
opmental antecedents of generativity? The general answer is surely some complex
variation on the simple idea that almost all features of an adult’s personality are
evolving and overdetermined products of repeated transactions between genotypes
and environments. That certain features of generativity such as generative concern,
may be partially determined by heredity is indirectly supported by the wealth of data
showing that basic dispositional traits correlated with generative concern such as ex-
traversion, openness, and tendencies toward altruism and dutifulness are themselves
at least moderately heritable (Krueger et al. 2006). Although no prospective studies of
the development of generativity from childhood into middle age are currently avail-
able, retrospective studies suggest that positive experiences with generative agents
200 D. P. McAdams

themselves (such as teachers and mentors) and with valued socializing institutions
(such as schools, churches, and the military) may be partly responsible for shaping
generative lives (An and Cooney 2006; Jones and McAdams in press; Rossi 2001).
Nonetheless, psychologists know precious little about the developmental origins of
generativity.
Despite the fact that psychologists know little, generative adults themselves have
their own ideas about how they developed their strong commitments to promot-
ing the well-being of future generations. Their own lay theories and developmental
suppositions may often be found in the stories generative adults compose to make
sense of their lives. In a series of qualitative and quantitative investigations con-
ducted over the past decade and a half, my students and I have examined the life
stories of highly generative adults, typically comparing their narratives to those com-
posed by their less generative counterparts (Jones and McAdams in press; Mansfield
and McAdams 1996; McAdams 2004, 2006a, b; McAdams and Albaugh 2008;
McAdams and Bowman 2001; McAdams et al. 1997, 2001). The research program
is based on the idea that all adults living in modern societies typically construct
life stories, or what psychologists today often call narrative identities. By recon-
structing the past and imagining the future as a story with plot, character, setting,
scenes, and themes, adults formulate and internalize evolving stories of the self
that function to provide life with some semblance of unity, meaning, and purpose
(Bruner 1986; McAdams 1985, 2008; McAdams and Pals 2006; McLean et al. 2007;
Singer 2004).
Generativity is tough work. In order to support one’s best generative efforts and
to render sensible and coherent a life given over to promoting the well-being of
future generations, highly generative adults in their midlife years need a good story.
For many highly generative adults, the story centers on the theme of redemption.
Stripped to its psychological core, redemption is the deliverance from suffering to an
enhanced status or state. Redemptive life narratives tell how protagonists invariably
experience bad things in life, but bad things often lead to positive results. People
overcome adversity, recover from sickness, rise above their limitations, learn positive
life lessons from difficult setbacks, rehabilitate themselves, atone for their sins,
and attain ultimate rewards after a life of punishment. Among the most powerful
narratives of redemption in contemporary American society are stories of upward
social mobility (from poverty to riches, often called “theAmerican Dream”), personal
liberation (from slavery to freedom), recovery (from sickness or addiction to health),
and atonement (from sin to salvation) (McAdams 2006a). Models for these narratives
can be found everywhere in American culture—from self-help books to Hollywood
movies to the kinds of stories that American children learn in school about American
history (McAdams 2006a).
The findings from our studies show that highly generative American adults in
midlife are significantly more likely than their less generative counterparts to narrate
their lives in redemptive terms. Careful content analysis of narrative data provided
by hundreds of research participants shows that generativity is associated with con-
structing a greater number of redemption sequences (individual life episodes telling
13 The Positive Psychology of Adult Generativity 201

how a negative event led to a positive effect) in life narrative interviews and writ-
ten autobiographical accounts. The studies also suggest that redemption sequences
are accompanied by a suite of related themes that together comprise what I call the
redemptive self. The main themes that make up the redemptive self are these: (1)
the protagonist’s enjoying a special advantage or blessing in childhood, or feeling
that he or she has been “called” to do something good in life (the theme of early
advantage); (2) recalling early events in which other people experienced suffering
or oppression or even death (the theme of the suffering of others); (3) establishing
strong and clear moral values, often associated with religion, by the time one has
completed adolescence, and sticking with those values for the rest of life (the theme
of moral steadfastness); (4) experiencing negative events that lead to positive out-
comes or beneficial long-term effects (the theme of redemption); (5) struggling to
reconcile competing desires/goals for agency and communion (the theme of power
vs. love); and (6) anticipating a future in which the protagonist continues to invest
in goals aimed at benefiting others and/or society at large (the theme of prosocial
goals).
The redemptive self is a life-narrative form that is well-designed to support a
generative life. The story reinforces the idea that the teller/protagonist is fortunate in
some fundamental way, blessed from birth perhaps. Yet the world is full of suffering,
as early memories also reinforce. “I am blessed; but others suffer.” Perhaps, then, I
have been called to do something good with my life, in gratitude for the blessings I
have received. The juxtaposition of early advantage and the suffering of others sets
up a moral challenge in the narrative. Generativity makes sense as an expression of
gratitude or the pursuit of a mission in a world that really needs me. Often derived
from either a faith tradition or the strong influences of family members or mentors,
the protagonist develops a clear and abiding set of beliefs early on in life—typically
simple ideas like the golden rule, love thy neighbor, always work for social justice,
and so on. The story tells how these values continue to provide clear guidance and
encouragement throughout life. The values provide a justification or rationalization
for generative programs and pursuits. Bad things inevitably happen: divorce, un-
employment, illness, abuse, and neglect. Family members die. Life’s dreams are
dashed. But good things often follow the bad in redemptive life narratives. The tough
work of generativity will pay off in the long run, these stories say. The seeds you
plant and water will eventually grow; bad children will become good; your long-term
investments will yield dividends down the road.

Conclusion

In the positive psychology of generativity, the key virtue of an adult’s life becomes
care. Generativity is a complex arrangement of cultural demand, inner desire, con-
cern, belief, commitment, action, and narration, constellated around the individual
and collective goal of caring for and contributing to the well-being and advancement
of future generations. Although generative desires may well up in adolescence and
202 D. P. McAdams

early adulthood, generative commitments and actions become especially salient in

the midlife years, in keeping with Erikson’s assertion that generativity vs. stagnation
is the key psychosocial issue of middle adulthood. Research shows that highly gen-
erative adults prove to be more effective and engaged parents, experience broader
social networks and more satisfying social support, invest themselves heavily in re-
ligious and/or civic institutions, engage in high levels of volunteer work and other
behaviors aimed at improving the world they live in, and enjoy better mental health,
compared to less generative adults.
Among the psychological resources upon which highly generative adults draw to
support their generative activities and commitments are inspiring personal stories of
redemption. Research on the life stories of highly generative American adults has
identified a common form of narrative identity—called the redemptive self—that
appears to sustain their efforts to care for and contribute to the well-being of future
generations. The redemptive self tells the story of a blessed or gifted protagonist
who journeys forth into a dangerous world, equipped with moral steadfastness and
called to give something back to society for early blessings received. As the plot
unfolds, the protagonist suffers greatly, but suffering is repeatedly redeemed by
positive outcomes, reinforcing the protagonist’s confidence and determination to
make the world a better place for future generations. Strongly reinforced and shaped
by a wealth of cultural narratives in American society, the redemptive self is a positive
story to support a positive psychology of generativity. It is the kind of positive story
you might want to construct for your own life, especially if you fancy yourself to be
a highly generative adult.

References

Ackerman, S., Zuroff, D. C., & Moscowitz, D. S. (2000). Generativity in midlife and young adults:
Links to agency, communion, and subjective well-being. International Journal of Aging and
Human Development, 50, 17–41.
An, J. S., & Cooney, T. M. (2006). Psychological well-being in mid to late life: The role of
generativity development across the lifespan. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
30, 410–421.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press.
Bradley, C. L., & Marcia, J. E. (1998). Generativity-stagnation: A five-category model. Journal of
Personality, 66, 39–64.
Browning, D. S. (1975). Generative man. New York: Dell.
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cohler, B. J., Hostetler, A. J., & Boxer, A. M. (1998). Generativity, social context, and lived
experience: Narratives of gay men in middle adulthood. In D. P. McAdams and E. de St.
Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development (pp. 265–309). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association Press.
Cole, E. R., & Stewart, A. J. (1996). Meanings of political participation among Black and
White women: Political identity and social responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 130–140.
13 The Positive Psychology of Adult Generativity 203

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.
De St. Aubin, E. (2004). The propagation of genes and memes: Generativity through culture in
Japan and the United States. In E. de St. Aubin, D. P. McAdams, and T. C. Kim (Eds.), The
generative society (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
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.
Efklides, A., Kalaitzidou, M., & Chankin, G. (2003). Subjective quality of life in old age in
Greece: The effect of demographic factors, emotional state and adaptation to aging. European
Psychologist, 8, 178–191.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1969). Gandhi’s truth. New York: Norton.
Frimer, J. A., Walker, L. J., Dunlop, W. L., Lee, B. H., & Riches, A. (2011). The integration of
agency and communion in moral personality: Evidence of enlightened self-interest. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 149–163.
Grossbaum, M. G., & Bates, G. W. (2002). Correlates of psychological well-being at midlife: The
role of generativity, agency and communion, and narrative themes. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 26, 120–127.
Hart, H. M., McAdams, D. P., Hirsch, B. J., & Bauer, J. J. (2001). Generativity and societal
involvement among African Americans and white adults. Journal of Research in Personality,
35, 208–230.
Hofer, J., Bush, H., Chasiotis, A., Kartner, 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, 1–30.
Jones, B. K., & McAdams, D. P. (in press). Becoming generative: Socializing influences captured
in life stories of late midlife. Journal of Adult Development.
Kermode, F. (1967). The sense of an ending. New York: Oxford University Press.
Keyes, C. L. M., & Ryff, C. D. (1998). Generativity in adult lives: Social structural contours and
quality of life consequences. In D. P. McAdams and E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and
adult development (pp. 227–263). Washington: American Psychological Association Press.
Kotre, J. (1984). Outliving the self: Generativity and the interpretation of lives. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Krueger, R. F., & Johnson, W., & Kling, K. C. (2006). Behavior genetics and personality de-
velopment. In D. K. Mroczek and T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development
(pp. 81–108). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Lewis, D., & Nakagawa, K. (1995). Race and educational reform in the American metropolis: A
study of school decentralization. Albany: SUNY Press.
Mansfield, E. D., & McAdams, D. P. (1996). Generativity and themes of agency and communion
in adult autobiography. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 721–731.
McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story. Homewood: Dorsey Press.
McAdams, D. P. (1996). Narrating the self in adulthood. In J. E. Birren, G. M. Kenyon, J-E. Ruth,
J. F. Schrot, and T. Svensson (Eds.), Aging and biography (pp. 131–148). New York: Springer.
McAdams, D. P. (2001). Generativity in midlife. In M. E. Lachman (Ed.), Handbook of midlife
development (pp. 395–443). New York: Wiley.
McAdams, D. P. (2004). Generativity and the narrative ecology of family life. In M. W. Pratt and
B. Fiese (Eds.), Family stories and the life course (pp. 235–257). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
McAdams, D. P. (2006a). The redemptive self: Stories Americans live by. New York: Oxford
University Press.
McAdams, D. P. (2006b). The redemptive self: Generativity and the stories Americans live by.
Research in Human Development, 3, 81–100.
204 D. P. McAdams

McAdams, D. P. (2008). Personal narratives and the life story. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, and
L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 241–261). New
York: Guilford Press.
McAdams, D. P., & Albaugh, M. (2008). The redemptive self, generativity, and American Christians
at midlife. In J. A. Belzen and A. Geels (Eds.), Autobiography and the psychological study of
religious lives (pp. 255–286). Amsterdam: Rodolpi.
McAdams, D. P., & Bowman, P. J. (2001). Narrating life’s turning points: Redemption and contam-
ination. In D. P. McAdams, R. Josselson, and A. Lieblich (Eds.), Turns in the road: Narrative
studies of lives in transition (pp. 3–34). Washington: American Psychological Association 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, 1003–1015.
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative
science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.
McAdams, D. P., Ruetzel, K., & Foley, J. M. (1986). Complexity and generativity at midlife:
Relations among social motives, ego development, and adults’ plans for the future. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 800–807.
McAdams, D. P., de St. Aubin, E., & Logan, R. L. (1993). Generativity among young, midlife, and
older adults. Psychology and Aging, 8, 221–230.
McAdams, D. P., Diamond, A., de St. Aubin, E., & Mansfield, E. D. (1997). Stories of commitment:
The psychosocial construction of generative lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72, 678–694.
McAdams, D. P., Hart, H. M., & Maruna, S. (1998). The anatomy of generativity. In D. P. McAdams
and E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development (pp. 7–43). Washington:
American Psychological Association Press.
McAdams, D. P., Reynolds, J., Lewis, M., Patten, A., & Bowman, P. J. (2001). When bad things turn
good and good things turn bad: Sequences of redemption and contamination in life narrative,
and their relation to psychological adaptation in midlife adults and in students. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 472–483.
McLean, K. C., Pasupathi, M., & Pals, J. L. (2007). Selves creating stories creating selves: A
process model of self-development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 262–278.
Miller-McLemore, B. J. (2004). Generativity and gender: The politics of care. In E. de St. Aubin,
D. P. McAdams, and T. C. Kim (Eds.), The generative society (pp. 175–194). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association Press.
Neugarten, B. L., & Hagestad, G. O. (1976). Aging and the life course. In R. H. Binstock and
E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (pp. 35–57). New York: D. Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
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, 800–807.
Peterson, B. E. (1998). Case studies of midlife generativity: Analyzing motivation and realization. In
D. P. McAdams and E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development (pp. 101–131).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Peterson, B. E. (2006). Generativity and successful parenting: An analysis of young adult outcomes.
Journal of Personality, 74, 847–869.
Peterson, B. E., & Duncan, L. (2007). Midlife women’s generativity and authoritarianism: Marriage,
motherhood, and 10 years of aging. Psychology and Aging, 22, 411–419.
Peterson, B. E., & Klohnen, E. C. (1995). Realization of generativity in two samples of women at
midlife. Psychology and Aging, 10, 20–29.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (Eds.). (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook
and classification. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, B. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1990). Using personal and fictional documents to assess psy-
chosocial development: The case study of Vera Brittain’s generativity. Psychology and Aging,
5, 400–411.
13 The Positive Psychology of Adult Generativity 205

Peterson, B. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1993). Generativity and social motives in young adults. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 186–198.
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.
Pratt, M. W., Norris, J. E., Arnold, M. L., & Filyer, R. (1999). Generativity and moral development
as predictors of value-socialization narratives for young persons across the adult life course:
From lessons learned to stories shared. Psychology and Aging, 14, 414–426.
Pratt, M. W., Danso, H. A., Arnold, M. L., Norris, J. E., & Filyer, R. (2001). Adult generativity and
the socialization of adolescents: Relations to mothers’ and fathers’ parenting beliefs, styles, and
practices. Journal of Personality, 69, 89–120.
Rossi, A. S. (2001). Caring and doing for others. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ryff, C. D., & Heincke, S. G. (1983). Subjective organization of personality in adulthood and aging.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 807–816.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American
Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Singer, J. A. (2004). Narrative identity and meaning making across the adult lifespan: An
introduction. Journal of Personality, 72, 437–459.
Snarey, J., Kuehne, V. S., Son, L., Hauser, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1987). The role of parenting in
men’s psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of early adulthood infertility and midlife
generativity. Developmental Psychology, 23, 593–603.
Snarey, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation: A four-decade study. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Stewart, A. J., & Ostrove, J. M. (1998). Women’s personality in middle age: Gender, history, and
midcourse corrections. American Psychologist, 53, 1185–1194.
Stewart, A. J., & Vandewater, E. A. (1998). The course of generativity. In D. P. McAdams and E. de
St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development (pp. 75–100). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association Press.
Stewart, A. J., Franz, C. E., & Layton, L. (1988). The changing self: Using personal documents to
study lives. Journal of Personality, 56, 41–74.
Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. Boston: Little, Brown.
Vaillant, G. E., & Milofsky, E. (1980). The natural history of male psychological health: IX.
Empirical evidence for Erikson’s model of the life cycle. American Journal of Psychiatry,
137, 1349–1359.
Van De Water, D., & McAdams, D. P. (1989). Generativity and Erikson’s “belief in the species.”
Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 435–449.
Van Hiele, A., Mervielde, I., & de Fruyt, F. (2006). Stagnation and generativity: structure, validity,
and differential relationships with adaptive and maladaptive personality. Journal of Personality,
74, 543–573.
Westermeyer, J. F. (2004). Predictors and characteristics of Erikson’s life cycle model among
men: A 32-year longitudinal study. International Journal of Aging and Human Development,
58, 29–48.
Whitbourne, S. K., Zuschlag, M. K., Elliot, L. B., & Waterman, A. S. (1992). Psychosocial devel-
opment in adulthood: A 22-year sequential study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
63, 260–271.
Yamada, Y. (2004). The generative life cycle model: Integration of Japanese folk images and gen-
erativity. In E. de St. Aubin, D. P. McAdams, and T. C. Kim (Eds.), The generative society
(pp. 97–112). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.