Advertisement

Journal of Adult Development

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 173–182 | Cite as

Measuring Prosocial Attitudes for Future Generations: The Social Generativity Scale

  • Davide Morselli
  • Stefano Passini
Article

Abstract

Erik Erikson’s theory of human development defines generativity as the concern for the continuation of life after an individual’s death. According to the theory, such a concern has a wide spectrum that ranges from the desire to procreate to the willingness to contribute for the sake of generations that have yet to come, and is thus closely related to concepts of social responsibility and agency. Although this is a well-known aspect of the theory it is only marginally measured in the common quantitative measures of generativity—e.g. the Loyola Generativity Scale. In this study we present the Social Generativity Scale (SGS), which is focused on responsibility for future generation. Correlational analysis showed that the SGS is more consistently linked to future orientation than other generativity measures (i.e. measured with consideration of future consequences), inclusiveness, and political engagement, and negatively related to social dominance orientation and prejudice. The results suggest that the SGS better captures the social responsibility dimension of the generativity concept than previous measures, and for this reason it is complementary to those scales that comprehend generativity as the concern for personal continuation after death and desire of parenting.

Keywords

Generativity Future time orientation Inclusion Social responsibility 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This manuscript has been developed within the framework of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES, which is financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The authors are grateful to the Swiss National Science Foundation for its financial support.

References

  1. Bradley, C. L. (1997). Generativity-stagnation: Development of a status model. Developmental Review, 17(3), 262–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley, C. L., & Marcia, J. E. (1998). Generativity-stagnation: A five-category model. Journal of Personality, 66, 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Couper, M. (2008). Designing effective web surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de St. Aubin, E., & McAdams, D. (1995). The relations of generative concern and generative action to personality traits, satisfaction/happiness with life, and ego development. Journal of Adult Development, 2(2), 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de St. Aubin, E., McAdams, D. P., & Kim, T. C. (2004). The generative society: An introduction. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  7. Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 463–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (Revised ed.). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  9. Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Feather, N. T. (2004). Value correlates of ambivalent attitudes toward gender relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Green, L. W., & Lewis, F. M. (1986). Measurement and evaluation in health education and health promotion. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  13. Grouzet, F. M., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y., Lau, S., et al. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 800–816.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hofer, J., Busch, H., Chasiotis, A., Kärtner, J., & Campos, D. (2008). Concern for generativity and its relation to implicit pro-social power motivation, generative goals, and satisfaction with life: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Personality, 76, 1–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Keyes, C. L., & Ryff, C. (1998). Generativity in adult lives: Social structural contours and quality of life consequences. In D. P. McAdams & E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development: How and why we care for the next generation (pp. 227–263). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim, G., & Youn, G. (2002). Role of education in generativity differences of employed and unemployed women in Korea. Psychological Reports, 91, 1205–1212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kooij, D., & Van De Voorde, K. (2011). How changes in subjective general health predict future time perspective, and development and generativity motives over the lifespan. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 228–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kotre, J. (1984). Outliving the self: Generativity and the interpretation of lives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in the social sciences. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  22. Marcia, J. E. (2010). Life transitions and stress in the context of psychosocial development. In T. W. Miller (Ed.), Handbook of stressful transitions across the lifespan (pp. 19–34). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marushima, R., & Arimitsu, K. (2007). Revised generative concern scale and generative behavior checklist: Scale reconstruction, reliability, and validity. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 78, 303–309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1003–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McAdams, D. P., de St. Aubin, E. D., & Logan, R. L. (1993). Generativity among young, midlife, and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 8, 221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. McAdams, D. P., Hart, H. M., & Maruna, S. (1998). The anatomy of generativity. In D. P. McAdams & E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development (pp. 7–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  27. McFarland, S., & Mathews, M. (2005). Who cares about human rights? Political Psychology, 26, 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morselli, D. (2011). Caring for the future: Potential exit from outgroup discrimination. Paper presented at the 34th annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Istanbul.Google Scholar
  29. Morselli, D. (2013). The olive tree effect: Future time perspective when the future is uncertain. Culture & Psychology, 19, 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morselli, D., & Passini, S. (2011). New perspectives on the study of the authority relationship: Integrating individual and societal level research. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41, 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morselli, D., & Passini, S. (2012). Measuring moral inclusion: A validation of the inclusion/exclusion of other groups (IEG) scale. LIVES working papers, 2012, 1–18.Google Scholar
  32. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  33. O’Hanlon, A., & Coleman, P. (2004). Attitudes towards ageing: Adaptation, development and growth into later years. In J. F. Nussbaum & J. Coupland (Eds.), Handbook of communication and ageing research (pp. 31–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Ochse, R., & Plug, C. (1986). Cross-cultural investigation of the validity of Erikson’s theory of personality development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1240–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Opotow, S. (2008). “Not so much as place to lay our head…”: Moral inclusion and exclusion in the American civil war reconstruction. Social Justice Research, 21, 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Passini, S. (2005). Costruzione e validazione di una scala sull’esclusione morale [Construction and validation of a questionnaire on moral exclusion]. Testing Psicometria Metodologia, 2, 21–34.Google Scholar
  38. Passini, S. (2008). Exploring the multidimensional facets of authoritarianism: Authoritarian aggression and social dominance orientation. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 67, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Passini, S. (2010). Moral reasoning in a multicultural society: Moral inclusion and moral exclusion. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40, 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Passini, S., & Villano, P. (2013). Judging moral issues in a multicultural society: Moral reasoning and social dominance orientation. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72, 235–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peterson, B. E. (2006). Generativity and successful parenting: An analysis of young adult outcomes. Journal of Personality, 74, 847–870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Peterson, B. E., & Klohnen, E. C. (1995). Realization of generativity in two samples of women at midlife. Psychology and Aging, 10, 20–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Peterson, B. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1996). Antecedents and contexts of generativity motivation at midlife. Psychology and Aging, 11, 21–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pratto, F., Çidam, A., Stewart, A. L., Zeineddine, F. B., Aranda, M., Aiello, A., et al. (2013). Social dominance in context and in individuals: Contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roets, A., Van Hiel, A., & Cornelis, I. (2006). Does materialism predict racism? Materialism as a distinctive social attitude and a predictor of prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 20, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryff, C., Almeida, D. M., Ayanian, J. S., Carr, D. S., Cleary, P. D., Coe, C., et al. (2007). Midlife development in the United States (MIDUS II), 2004–2006. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
  48. Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 711–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Snarey, J. R. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation: A four-decade study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stewart, A. J., & Vandewater, E. A. (1998). The course of generativity. In D. P. McAdams & E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development: How and why we care for the next generation (pp. 75–100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van de Water, D. A., & McAdams, D. P. (1989). Generativity and Erikson’s “belief in the species”. Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., & Roets, A. (2010). To have or to be? A comparison of materialism-based theories and self-determination theory as explanatory frameworks of prejudice. Journal of Personality, 78, 1037–1070.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Explaining conservative beliefs and political preferences: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 965–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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, 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2009). Group threat, collective angst, and ingroup forgiveness for the war in Iraq. Political Psychology, 30, 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVESUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations