Contribution
An argument, with summaries of the authors’ own studies, that generativity is a concern of all adult ages and especially old age, not only Erikson’s seventh crisis of midlife. The authors place it inside an ethics of ageing in which the old have rights to participate in public life and obligations to use them for others. The research on which the claims rest is reported elsewhere; here it is summarized without numbers.
Key insight
Generativity is caring for the next generation that has the self in it. On the McAdams model the authors adopt, one of its two sources is an “inner desire” with two parts, a “need to be needed” and a need for “symbolic immortality, that is, to invest resources and potentials into things that outlive the self” (§2). The authors draw the consequence: “engagement for younger generations can reflect selfish as well as altruistic motives” (§2).
Assumptions
- Generativity operationalizes an ethical category. The authors use McAdams’ construct as “an operationalization” of joint responsibility, the willingness to engage for others and society (§2).
- Three spheres of responsibility (§1), framed by the Latin coram, “in front of”: self-care, joint responsibility for others and society, and an obligation “against God and creation”, which is “joint responsibility for following generations, with those not yet been born included”.
- Identity is narrative and social (§2, §3). Adults make themselves through a life story, and that story depends on social roles and expectations, so social change reshapes identity in old age.
- Arendt’s public sphere as the setting of a good old age: access to it, relationships and the chance to start something new (§2, §4).
Key results
- McAdams’ model, restated (§2).
- Two motivational sources: cultural demand (the age structure of society, normative expectations) and inner desire (to be needed; for symbolic immortality).
- These lead to conscious concern for the next generation and to commitment to take responsibility for it.
- Concern and commitment become action through Erikson’s “belief in the species”: to hope for the betterment of human life in later generations “even in the face of strong evidence of human destructiveness and deprivation” (quoted from McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992).
- Adults construct a “generativity script” within their life story: what they have done, and “what is worth to outlive the self”.
- Generativity is not altruism (§2). The authors take altruism as “behavior that benefits a recipient at a cost to the actor” (de Waal), empathy as sharing another’s emotional state, and intergenerational solidarity as social cohesion between generations. Generative behaviour often costs the old, but its motives may be selfish or altruistic, and it is not always wanted by the young.
- Mexico, Spain, Germany (§2). 3,308 people aged 59 to 108: 1,506 from four Mexican regions, 1,200 from two Spanish regions, 602 from Germany. In each of the 7 regions generativity was “a highly significant predictor” of optimism and life satisfaction. Subjective health, finances and family status explained much less. No gender differences. Read as support for Veenhoven’s distinction between a life’s “utility” (relevance for others) and its “appreciation” (relevance for oneself), both predicting well-being.
- The Baltic states (§2), ongoing. 360 people in three generations (15–25, 45–55, 75–85), 5 women and 5 men per generation in each of the four largest cities of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Generativity predicted life satisfaction after controlling for country, age, gender, national identity and age stereotypes. Women scored higher, but only in the youngest group, which the authors connect to McAdams and de St. Aubin’s finding that “having children is more intimately linked with a man’s generative concern than with a woman’s” (their p. 1008).
- Dementia (§2). In the authors’ research on quality of life in dementia, many participants showed generative concern: wanting to help others understand the disease and the end of life.
- The intervention (§3). Funded through the Foundation “Remembrance,
Responsibility and Future”. In 2009, 40 intergenerational projects ran
in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia; 14 were evaluated over two years at four
time points, with interviews and scales.
- Loyola Generativity Scale scores rose “substantially” in all three countries, for older and younger participants.
- Self-acceptance, purpose in life, meaningfulness, attitudes to one’s own ageing and “lonely dissatisfaction” all showed “highly significant increases”, as printed; for the last, an increase would be a worsening, so the wording is probably loose. Older participants’ gains in generativity correlated with these measures.
- Ukrainians and Belarusians started higher than Russians; Ukraine gained most; Russians at the end matched the others’ start.
- Lower initial generativity predicted larger gains.
- Younger people rated the old as more generative than their own generation.
Claims
| id | claim | strength | support |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Generativity, on McAdams’ model, is motivated in part by a need for symbolic immortality, to invest in what outlives the self | restated, not tested here | §2 |
| C2 | Generative engagement for the young can be selfish or altruistic in motive, and is distinct from altruism | conceptual assertion, not argued at length | §2 |
| C3 | Generativity predicts optimism and life satisfaction in old age beyond health, money and family | weak as reported: cross-sectional, “highly significant” without statistics; details in other publications | §2 |
| C4 | Generativity is a concern of old age and very old age, not only midlife | weak to moderate: samples up to 108 and people with dementia, described qualitatively | §2 |
| C5 | Intergenerational dialogue projects raise generativity in old and young | weak: no control group is mentioned, and no numbers are given | §3 |
Concepts
- generativity: Erikson’s “concern in establishing and guiding the next generation”.
- inner desire: in McAdams’ model, the personal source of generativity: a need to be needed and a need for symbolic immortality.
- cultural demand: the social source: normative expectations and the age structure of society.
- belief in the species: hope for humanity’s betterment in coming generations, which turns concern and commitment into action.
- generativity script: the part of a life story that says what one has given and what of oneself should outlive one.
- joint responsibility (Mitverantwortung): the authors’ ethical category: willingness to engage for others and for society.
Connections
- McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992 (LIT-1777), the work this note stands in for. The authors adopt its model and quote it twice. They use its scale (the LGS) in their intervention but describe neither its items nor its scoring.
- Lifton (LIT-1714) is not cited. “Symbolic immortality” arrives via McAdams.
- Sandoval-Obando et al. 2026, read alongside, validates the LGS and finds a “Generative Legacy” factor that separates from generative action.
Bearing on the record
- The legacy question (QUESTION-301). The paper confirms the
question’s report of McAdams: symbolic immortality is one of the inner
desires behind care for the next generation. The bearing, as
inference:
- On McAdams’ model, legacy care has the thesis’s shape. One motive is to invest in “things that outlive the self”, which reads as self-interest on a self extended in time. The other, the need to be needed, is a present-tense self-interest.
- But it is one source among several. Cultural demand is a second source, and concern and commitment are separate stages. The model does not say care for the next generation reduces to the inner desire. The authors say only that the motives “can” be selfish or altruistic.
- The test the question asks for is not run. Nothing here measures the symbolic-immortality motive apart from concern and asks which predicts action. That is CLAIM-492’s test in time.
- Well-being as a return (inference). Generativity predicting life satisfaction fits the thesis’s reading that acting for others serves the actor. It fits equally a reading in which caring is valued for its own sake and satisfaction follows. Cross-sectional data cannot choose.
- Batson’s objection (CLAIM-494). The authors separate generativity from empathy and altruism but do not test either against the other. Not addressed.
- A dated note on QUESTION-301, jointly with Sandoval-Obando et al. Proposed text: “Two works read in place of McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992) confirm its model: generativity has two personal motives, a need to be needed and a need for symbolic immortality, ‘to invest resources and potentials into things that outlive the self’ (Kruse and Schmitt, NOTE-1261). On that model legacy care has the thesis’s temporal shape, but the model also gives a cultural source and treats concern as a separate stage, and no study read measures the immortality motive apart from concern. A Chilean validation of the scale finds a ‘legacy’ factor separable from generative action (r = .45; Sandoval-Obando et al., NOTE-YYYY), which is the kind of measure such a test would need.” No note is needed on CLAIM-491.
- No THEORY filed.
- No ML instruction.
Limitations
- No statistics. “Highly significant” and “substantial” stand in for test values, effect sizes and Ns for the intervention. The studies are published elsewhere, partly in German and Spanish.
- No control group is mentioned for the intervention, so the rise in scores cannot be attributed to the projects.
- An essay as much as a report. Policy argument (ageing workforces, demographic change) takes much of the text.
- Typos.
- “his psychoanalytically inspired biographies of Erikson [34] and Mahatma Gandhi”: Erikson wrote on Luther, as reference 34 shows.
- “Guadalayara” for Guadalajara; “Juste” among the partner universities is unexplained.
- Decimal points as thousands separators (“3.308”, “1.506”, “300.000”).
- “coram public” for coram publico; “do not only failed to contribute”; “giving raise to”.
- In the references: “de SAE” for de St. Aubin (ref. 37), “Venhooven” (47), “Bemtsen” for Berntsen (57), “Budkholdt” (52), pages “65–685” (49), “Simmons GJ” for J. L. Simmons (35).
Open questions
- Does the symbolic-immortality motive, measured on its own, predict generative action when concern is held fixed?
- Is generative action in the very old, such as people with dementia explaining their illness, better described as legacy or as present relationship? The paper’s examples could support either.