Identity

An International Journal of Theory and Research

ISSN: 1528-3488 (Print) 1532-706X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hidn20

Identity, Intimacy, and Generativity in Adolescence

and Young Adulthood: A Test of the Psychosocial
Model

Heather L. Lawford, Lisa Astrologo, Heather L. Ramey & Stine Linden-

Andersen

To cite this article: Heather L. Lawford, Lisa Astrologo, Heather L. Ramey & Stine Linden-
Andersen (2020) Identity, Intimacy, and Generativity in Adolescence and Young Adulthood: A
Test of the Psychosocial Model, Identity, 20:1, 9-21, DOI: 10.1080/15283488.2019.1697271

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2019.1697271

Published online: 12 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5547

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hidn20
IDENTITY
2020, VOL. 20, NO. 1, 9–21
https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2019.1697271

Identity, Intimacy, and Generativity in Adolescence and Young

Adulthood: A Test of the Psychosocial Model
Heather L. Lawforda,b, Lisa Astrologoa, Heather L. Rameyb,c, and Stine Linden-Andersena
a
Department of Psychology, Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, Canada; bDepartment of Child and Youth Studies, Brock
University, St. Catharines, Canada; cSchool of Social and Community Services, Humber Institute of Technology &
Advanced Learning, Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Recently, there has been increasing interest in understanding generativity, Generativity; caregiving;
defined as concern for future generations as a legacy of the self, in adoles- friendship; adolescents;
cence and young adulthood. In Erikson’s model of psychosocial develop- young adults
ment, generativity was the seventh task following identity and intimacy.
Although studies to date have found links between early generative con-
cern and identity and intimacy, few studies have examined these associa-
tions simultaneously. An examination of the unique and shared relevance of
identity and intimacy to early generativity would further our understanding
of Erikson’s model of psychosocial development. In this study, we report on
a cross-sectional study of adolescents (N = 160) and young adults (N = 237)
who completed measures of generative concern, identity style, and inti-
macy (represented as caregiving behaviors with friends). Results indicate
that both identity and, to a lesser extent, caregiving were relevant to early
generativity, with no differences between samples. These findings further
support Erikson’s original theory establishing links between generativity,
identity, and intimacy.

Generativity, the seventh of Erikson’s (1968) eight stages of development, involves the desire to care and
contribute to future generations, with the objective of leaving a positive legacy. Although generativity is
likely at full strength in midlife, Erikson asserted that all stages are present throughout the lifespan. For
example, although identity and intimacy are in focus in young adulthood, their association with
generativity carries important implications for successful development in youth and across adulthood.
As Erikson theorized, generativity largely comes into focus around midlife, though there are ongoing
research questions regarding its developmental roots, mainly in adolescence and young adulthood (Pratt
& Lawford, 2014; Pratt, Lawford, Matsuba, & Posada, in press). Framed within Erikson’s original theory
of psychosocial development, generativity is fully realized through the positive achievement of a stable
sense of identity as well as through building intimate relationships with others, which are Erikson’s fifth
and sixth tasks. Although there has been research examining the developmental course of identity and
intimacy (e.g., Kuiper, Kirsh, & Maiolino, 2016), there is less research that includes early generativity
within these models. Therefore, in this study we examined the contributions of elements of identity and
intimacy in early generative concern, in two samples of adolescents and young adults.

Early generativity
According to Erikson, at each developmental milestone, individuals grapple with a crisis (e.g.,
intimacy vs. isolation) and each new crisis depends upon the resolution of the previous crisis.

CONTACT Heather L. Lawford [email protected] Bishop’s University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Quebec
J1M 1Z7
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
10 H. L. LAWFORD ET AL.

Further consideration of his writing, however, implies a more synergistic and less linear process.
Framed within Erikson’s (1968) original theory of psychosocial development, generativity is fully
realized through the positive achievement of a stable sense of identity as well as building intimate
relationships with others. Erikson’s theory, however is epigenetic. That is, he stated that all tasks
were present across development, though their importance peaked at particular points in the
lifespan.
Generativity has been widely studied across adulthood, often through the commonly used model
of generativity outlined by McAdams, Hart and Maruna (1998). In this model, generativity has seven
components, where generative concern is most commonly studied. Generative concern, sometimes
also considered generative motivation, refers to the perception of generativity being personally
important. Generative concern has a bidirectional association with generative commitment and
generative action, all of which culminate in a life story narrative pattern the authors named
a “story of commitment”. Of all the components in this model, generative concern has been the
most widely studied construct in adulthood and earlier in the lifespan.
Although generativity becomes more central in midlife, understanding its role in psychosocial
development earlier in the lifespan might point to an actualization of generative motivations earlier
in development. Stewart and Vandewater (1998) have found that motivations for generativity were
more common in younger populations, such as young adulthood and adolescence, whereas commit-
ment and generative actions were more prevalent during midlife. Since then, there have been
a growing number of studies that have examined generativity prior to midlife (e.g., Jia, Alisat,
Soucie, & Pratt, 2015; Mackinnon, De Pasquale, & Pratt, 2016; Pratt, Arnold, & Lawford, 2009). For
example, Lawford, Pratt, Hunsberger, and Pancer (2005) found longitudinal associations between
generative concern and community involvement from ages 19 to 22 years. In a follow-up study,
Soucie, Jia, Zhu, and Pratt (2018) reported longitudinal findings that generative concern codeveloped
with community involvement across ages 23 to 32. Another two-year longitudinal study of youth
ages 14 to 16 years found that generative concern was stable across time, and was also associated
with prosocial behavior and secure attachment styles (Lawford, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2013, 2017).
Empirical research has also uncovered links to early generative concern in young adulthood. Pratt
and colleagues, for example, have examined generative concern in young adulthood as a key
predictor of sustained commitment to environmental issues (Jia et al., 2015; Matsuba & Pratt,
2013; Pratt, Norris, Alisat, & Bisson, 2013). Therefore, the literature thus far points to generativity
as a useful construct, and present prior to midlife (Pratt, Lawford, Matsuba, & Posada, in press).

Identity and generativity

Identity is the central psychosocial task of adolescence, in Erikson’s (1968) theory. Moreover, it is
a well-established developmental milestone in adolescence and young adulthood. Two commonly
studied approaches include Marcia’s identity status, and Berzonsky’s identity style. Identity status
refers to categories determined on the basis of levels of exploration and commitment across multiple
domains, such as work and religion. Berzonsky’s model examines the strategies used to approach
identity work. Berzonsky’s (2011) model of identity style emphasizes the processes by which
adolescents seek and arrive at identity-related decisions. While the approaches are related, we
focused on the identity style approach in this study, as this measure is more stable over time, similar
to the measure of generative concern. In general, we were particularly interested in how participants’
approaches to identity work were connected with their generative concern. Berzonsky conceptua-
lized identity within three constructs: an information-orientated personality style, a normative-
orientated, and a diffuse-orientated personality style. Typically, the informational identity style has
been considered to be the most adaptive, as it relates to Marcia’s (1966) categories? of both
moratorium and achieved identity by involving exploration of possibilities before arriving at
a decision (Schwartz, 2001). It has been linked to openness to experiences, goal-directedness, and
social support seeking (Berzonsky & Sullivan, 1992). Berzonsky often also includes an additional
 IDENTITY 11

scale assessing identity commitment, which refers to the extent to which the individual commits to
their values, beliefs and goals. It reflects a clarity and a certainty about self (Berzonsky, 2003).
Commitment to an identity has been associated with higher well-being overall (Meeus & Dekovic,
1995). It has also been connected to greater personal agency (Berzonsky, 2003). Agency is considered
to be a key component of generativity (Grossbaum & Bates, 2002; Lawford & Ramey, 2017)
Erikson (1988) recognized that part of a youth’s process of integrating their positive identity was
the recognition of the role that youth played as a “bearer of fresh energy” to their community (p. 9).
In his discussions on identity in youth, he included the importance participation in “campaigns of
major ideological forces” and “for feeling essential in moving something along toward an open
future” (p. 10). Thus, within Erikson’s own understanding of identity in youth, he spoke clearly
about how youth might reflect and engage in shaping their social world. In this way, there were clear
undertones of generative themes within the adolescent period. Thus, his writings acknowledge
a layered complexity to his model of psychosocial development.
There is some empirical work linking identity and generativity more directly. In a sample of
young adults, Pratt et al. (2009) found that moral identity, as measured by personal narratives, was
associated with generative concern in a young adult sample. Along the same lines, significant
associations in identity maturity and generativity have been found in young adults in the context
of environmental issues (Matsuba et al., 2012). Beaumont and Pratt (2011) found associations
between informational identity style and generativity in an young adult sample. Finally, Busch and
Hofer (2011) found identity achievement in adolescents to be associated with the development of
generative concern in German and Cameroonian adolescents.
There is mounting evidence supporting the theorized links of identity and generativity. To date,
however, there is little research that includes an examination of intimacy, which according to
Erikson, is an intermediary between these two constructs.

Caregiving
Within Erikson’s theory, intimacy includes a number of relationship characteristics, such as trust,
support, and affection for a close other. Caregiving is an important aspect of intimacy, though
generativity is also tied to it conceptually, in that care is the central virtue of generativity. Caregiving,
from an attachment theory perspective, includes aspects of validation, empathy, helping behaviors,
and intimate exchange (Feeney & Collins, 2001). While intimacy is often used in reference to
romantic partners, our focus in this study was on friends. Research suggests that friendships
represent central intimate relationships in adolescence and young adulthood (Berndt, 2002;
Sullivan, 1953). In fact, friendship characteristics allow early adolescents fulfillment of their need
for intimacy, more than a romantic partner (Markiewicz, Lawford, Doyle, & Haggart, 2006).
Therefore, friendships represent an ideal target for the study of the stage of intimacy at this
developmental timepoint.
Care is the central strength of generativity, according to Erikson’s theory, in that it refers to
attention and resources being devoted to the needs of others. Therefore, theoretically it might be the
aspect of intimacy most strongly related to generativity. Whereas overall intimacy revolves around
caring for a few close others, the construct of generativity expands to caring for a more abstract
other, namely future generations. Offering care and support as a parent is also a key indicator for
generativity in midlife. Attachment research has noted that secure attachment does predict warm
and caring parenting behaviors later on (Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007). In earlier ages,
however, parenting is less prevalent and so caregiving might be expressed to other close ones, such as
friends. This idea was supported in an adolescent population, where caregiving in friendship
predicted generativity two years later (Lawford et al., 2013). Another study found that friendship
quality in young adulthood, as measured through relationship-defining narratives, also predicted
generative concern five years later (Mackinnon et al., 2016). Thus, caregiving is clearly an important
12 H. L. LAWFORD ET AL.

factor in understanding early generativity, though no research to date has considered this association
along with the role of identity.

Developmental course of psychosocial skills

Researchers have empirically examined the developmental course of psychosocial skills, and found
mixed results. In a cross-lagged study from ages 15 to 25, Beyers and Seiffge-Krenke (2010) found
a unidirectional association, wherein identity predicted greater intimacy 10 years later, supporting
Erikson’s original theory that identity precedes intimacy. Alternatively, in a four-year study of early
adults, Lascano, Galambos, and Hoglund (2013) found that intimacy predicted later identity devel-
opment. Although the direction of association in this study is opposite to Erikson’s model, it does
point to the predictive importance of intimacy in early adulthood, thus highlighting the complexity
of the developmental course of psychosocial development.
While there is considerable research outlining the developmental trajectory of aspects of identity and
intimacy, we are only aware of one study that considered generativity in this model. Beaumont and Pratt
(2011) examined associations among subscales of a psychosocial balance measure including identity,
generativity, and intimacy in early and mid adulthood. They also looked at associations with
Berzonsky’s identity styles. Overall, they found that informational identity predicted generativity
balance as well as intimacy balance. They also found that intimacy balance predicted generativity
balance. There was no test in differences of strength of associations across age, or differences in strength
of association among the psychosocial tasks. Therefore, the current study will consider the role of
identity style and caregiving in predicting generative concern in two different samples.

Study purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine how approaches to identity work and caregiving within
a friendship contributed to early generative concern in two different samples. Given that previous
research has established an association between generativity and identity as well as caregiving, we
expected to find significant associations among? all three constructs. Further, we wanted to compare
the strength of association in the link between identity style and caregiving behavior to generativity.
There has been considerable discussion connecting identity work to generativity. Alternatively,
caregiving behavior as a construct is a component of intimacy, while caring is also central to
Erikson’s conceptualization of generativity. Therefore, we did not have any hypotheses regarding
which link might be stronger. Furthermore, we tested whether the strength of association between
psychosocial stages were different for the two different samples. Finally, given the expected impor-
tance of both identity and intimacy, it is possible that youth who report healthy approaches to
identity development and caregiving behaviors will show the highest levels of generative concern.
Therefore, we tested for an interaction between identity and caregiving in predicting generativity.

Method
Participants and procedure
The data reported here are part of a larger study examining youth engagement in communities and
youth serving organizations (see Lawford & Ramey, 2015). The purpose of the larger study was to
examine youth’s positive development (e.g., identity), in contexts of both undergraduate education
and youth’s active roles in community organizations. The study included two samples (young adults
and adolescents) that differed in age and recruitment approach. The first sample includes 221 young
adults (Mage = 20 years; 10% male) recruited from a midsized Canadian university through
a psychology participant pool and on-campus advertisements. Participants (38%) reported mother’s
education at having completed university or college (i.e., a score of 4 on a 5-point scale) as the modal
 IDENTITY 13

response, while others (24%) reported mother’s completing high school (score of 2) or some college
(score of 3; 20%). With respect to ethnicity, most participants (81%) identified as White. The next
most-identified ethnicity (3%) was “other”; these participants tended to identify with multiple groups
(e.g., Asian-Canadian). The remainder of participants was fairly evenly split in identifying as Asian,
African American, Aboriginal, and West Indian. Participants completed the paper and pencil version
in a single one-hour session (62% of sample), or completed the same survey online. There were no
significant differences on target variables with respect to scores on these two versions.
The adolescent sample (N = 160 adolescents; Mage = 17 years; 36% male) were youth
involved in decision-making activities (e.g., youth advisory councils) at community organizations
(e.g., youth drop in centers) in Ontario, Canada. Participants were recruited through e-mails to
community organizations. Reports of mother’s education was diverse; participants reported
mother’s education as having completed some university or college (24%) completed high school
(23%), completed college (20%), or completed graduate school (20%). With respect to ethnicity,
participants most frequently identified as White (44%) and Asian (21%). Other participants
identified with African American (10%), West Indian (6%), and Aboriginal (4%). The remaining
15% identified as other, but they did not indicate their ethnicity in the space provided.
Ethics approval was obtained through the Research Ethics Boards at both the first and third
authors’ institutions. No parental permission was required. For the adolescent sample, young people
were engaged in their roles at the organizations without parental permission. A requirement of
parental consent might then have excluded youth who might benefit from the research process,
either as individuals or as members of a larger youth population (Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada, 2014).
With regard to demographic information, there were some differences between the two samples.
Not surprisingly, the young adult sample was significantly older than the adolescent sample, t
(377) = 10.51, p < .001; also, there was a significantly larger proportion of male participants in the
adolescent sample (33%) compared to the young adult sample (10%), χ2(1) = 98.99, p < .001. There
was no significant difference in level of mother’s education.

Measures
Demographic information
This questionnaire consisted of questions concerning gender, age, academic programs, ethnicity, and
mother’s highest level of education (on a 5-point Likert scale).

Generativity
Generative concern was measured with the 20-item Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS; McAdams &
de St. Aubin, 1992). Each item consists of a statement (e.g., “I have important skills that I try to
teach others”). Two items (“I think I would like the work of a teacher” and “If I were unable to
have children of my own, I would like to adopt children”) were dropped due to low inter-item
correlations. The LGS is one of the most commonly used measures of generativity in the
literature. Previous research has also established some construct validity, as well as stability
and internal reliability of the LGS with younger samples (Lawford et al., 2005; Lawford et al.,
2017; Soucie et al., 2018). Reliability information for all measures are presented in Table 1.

Caregiving
Intimacy was measured using the Caregiving Patterns Questionnaire (Collins & Feeney, 2000),
which assesses caregiving behaviors directed to close friends through 15 items. Each item
consists of a statement regarding caregiving behaviors toward friends (e.g., “I’m good at
recognizing my friend’s needs and feelings”), responses were averaged to create a single caregiv-
ing score. It has been used previously with younger samples (Lawford et al., 2013).
14 H. L. LAWFORD ET AL.

Table 1. Descriptives and bivariate correlations of target variables by sample, young adult sample (N = 221); Adolescent sample
(N = 160).
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Gender –- −.032 −.096 −.136* −.046 −.227** −.247***
2. Mother’s education −.164* –- .104 .094 .076 .170** .068
3. Grades −.210* .264** –– .270*** .105 .142* .166*
4. Generative concern −.179* .120 .341*** –– .270*** .464*** .303***
5. Informational identity .043 .103 .262** .452*** –- .155* .052
6. Identity commitment −.002 .179* .148 .450*** .427*** – .325***
7. Caregiving −.186* .186* .218** .375*** .300*** −.088 –
Young Adult Sample .10 3.29 (1.16) 4.25 (0.62) 2.93 (0.39) 4.11 (1.02) 3.38 (0.62) 4.18 (0.63)
Mean (SD)
Adolescent Sample .36 3.04 (1.59) 4.5 (.97) 2.96 (.42) 3.94 (0.65) 3.20 (.60) 3.68 (.52)
Mean (SD)
Range 1–5 1–6 1–4 1–5 1–5 1–6
Alpha – – – .78 .83 .83 .78
Young adults are on top diagonal; Adolescents are on bottom diagonal. Ranges and alphas are reported for both samples
combined. Note that 0 = female; 1 = male for gender variable.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Identity style
Identity style was measured with the Identity Style Inventory (ISI; Berzonsky, 1992, 2004). This is
a 23-item self-report measure that aims to connect identity to general ways of acting and to
categorize how participants (particularly adolescents) make decisions by evaluating how they
process information through four dimensions. In this study, only the informational dimension
and the commitment scale were used. Informational orientation involves actively seeking out and
evaluating self-relevant information (e.g., “Talking to others helps me explore my personal
beliefs”). The 9-item commitment scale measures the level of commitment to the individual’s
sense of identity (e.g., “I know basically what I believe and don’t believe”). Scores for each of the
subscales were averaged to create composite informational identity style and identity commitment
scores.

Analyses
Initial data screening included an examination of descriptive statistics and tests of assumptions, and
handling of outliers and missing values. Missing data were not substantively related to scores on
study variables. Missing values (3%) were imputed using the EM algorithm in SPSS (Schafer &
Graham, 2002).
Structural equation modeling (SEM) using the Amos program was used for the main analysis (see
Figure 1). Goodness of fit was assessed with the comparative fit index (CFI), which is considered to
reflect acceptable fit when it is .90 and good fit when it is .95 or above (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), which is considered to reflect reasonable fit
when it is .08 or below and good fit when it is .05 or below (Kline, 2011).

Results
First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the measurement model of generativity
and caregiving. In order to improve fit, six reversed items were not included in the model; only the
positively worded items were included in the LGS variable. This is consistent with McAdams and de
St. Aubin (1992) who found that positively and negatively worded items loaded on to separate
factors, and this approach has been used in the past (Lawford & Ramey, 2017). The bivariate
correlation between the full scale and the 16-item positive scale was .94. To create manifest variables
across all scales, we used Little and colleagues’ parceling technique of combining two to four items
randomly to reduce the number of indicators loading onto the latent variable (Little, Cunningham,
 IDENTITY 15

Figure 1. Path model of identity and caregiving predicting to generative concern.

Note. Not all paths shown. All coefficients are significant p < .05, except gender and care to generative concern.
Grades and Mother Education were not significantly correlated to generativity, but was correlated with the
predictors. CFI = .927, RMSEA = .069. x2 = 211.795 df = 75, p < .001

Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). With respect to identity, only informational and commitment scales
were included in the model.
The CFA of the complete model resulted in an acceptable fit, CFI = .952, RMSEA = .066, and an
examination of standard residuals showed no large outliers. All correlations were significant. We
concluded that items fell relatively well within their latent variables. Next, we used multiple group
analysis to test for metric invariance between the young adult and adolescent sample (Cheung &
Rensvold, 2002; Kline, 2011). The Chi square difference test was not significant, χ2 = 13.888, df = 8,
p = .085, and the difference in CFI between the constrained and unconstrained model was less than
.01 (CFI diff = .004), therefore we concluded that factor loadings were operating similarly across
young adult and adolescent samples (Byrne, 2010). We tested the model for full scalar invariance and
found the models to be significantly different, χ2 = 110.825, df = 12, p < .001. Following van de
Schoot, Lugtig, and Hox (2012), we proceeded with a test of partial scalar invariance. We found
partial scalar invariance. When item intercepts were held constant, latent variables were significantly
different. When five of these intercepts were released, there was no significant difference between
models, χ2 = 10.424, df = 6, p = .108. Given current recommendations in the literature on the degree
of acceptable partial invariance (Byrne, 2010; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998; Steinmetz, 2013), we
proceeded with our analysis.
Next, we tested a path model, whereby generativity was predicted by informational identity,
identity commitment, and caregiving, controlling for gender, grades, and mother’s education (see
Figure 1). Correlations between predictors and control variables were removed if non-significant
(e.g., informational identity and maternal education). Again, the hypothesized model showed
acceptable fit, CFI = .927, RMSEA = .069. Identity paths both significantly predicted generative
16 H. L. LAWFORD ET AL.

concern (β = .25,.28 for commitment and informational respectively), and caregiving (β = .12) was
a trend, p = .072.
We further tested this path model to see if the associations with generativity were consistent
across samples (young adults and adolescents). We conducted a second multigroup analysis, this
time holding regression weights constant. The Chi square difference test was not significant,
χ2 = 3.662, df = 4, p = .454, therefore we concluded that path model was not significantly different
in young adult and adolescent samples.
Next, we tested whether the strength of the paths from identity and caregiving to generative
concern were equivalent. The path from informational identity to generative concern (β = .276) was
not significantly stronger than the path from commitment identity to generative concern (β = .254,
χ2 = .036, df = 1, p = .850, but the path from informational identity was significantly stronger than
the path from caregiving to generativity (β = .12), χ2 = 5.205, df = 1, p = .023. Moreover, the path
from commitment identity was modestly stronger than caregiving as well, χ2 = 3.065, df = 1, p = .083.
Finally, we tested whether two-way interactions between informational, commitment, and car-
egiving predicted generativity, by centering predictors and adding the interaction latent variable one
at a time. There were no significant interactions, so we conducted no further analysis (strongest path
was informational × commit, β = .101, p = .125).

Discussion
In this study, we examined the contributions of identity and caregiving to early generativity in two
different samples. As theorized by Erikson (1968), both a healthy identity style and demonstration of
caregiving behaviors with friendships predicted generative concern, though caregiving only emerged
as a trend.
Not surprisingly, both informational identity and identity commitment were important
predictors of generative concern. This is in line with Beaumont and Pratt’s (2011) finding,
though their study did not include commitment. In narrative work, McAdams and colleagues
have found strong links between identity and generative concern in adulthood (McAdams,
Reynolds, Lewis, Patten, & Bowman, 2001). Both commitment and exploration are considered
a healthy approach to identity work, and both aspects of identity contribute to generativity.
According to Berzonsky (2003), committing to an identity is connected to a sense of meaning
and purpose. Furthermore, studies that have examined meaning making in personal narratives
in youth have found consistent associations with generativity (Lawford & Ramey, 2015;
McLean & Pratt, 2006). Moreover, generativity has been theoretically linked to youth purpose
(Damon, Menon, & Bronk, 2003; Pratt & Lawford, 2014). Identity salience has also been linked
to civic purpose (Malin, Ballard, & Damon, 2015). Identity has also been associated with
volunteering and a sense of social responsibility (Crocetti, Jahromi, & Meeus, 2012). Thus, this
study contributes to this line of research, which suggests the importance of youth internalizing
and committing to their goals and values. That informational identity style also predicted
generative concern demonstrates that exploration is also important to healthy generativity. It
also supports research by Crocetti, Erentaitė, and Žukauskienė (2014) that suggests that
informational identity style benefits both the individual and the larger community. In order
for individuals to consider how they might contribute to future generations, it would be useful
for them to be open to exploring both societal needs, as well as their own capacities to serve
those needs, so an informational approach to decision-making would certainly be useful in that
respect. Notably, our measures of generativity and identity did not specify any particular
domain or context, such as work or family. Research has identified that context is an
important consideration for both of these constructs. From a developmental perspective, it is
interesting to consider how contexts might contribute to the complexity of these constructs
across the lifespan. Thus, a next step in this research might be to explore different measures of
identity and generativity that account for contextual variables.
 IDENTITY 17

Caregiving was modestly associated with generativity, giving partial support to the theory that
caring for close others contributes to caring in a more generalized way. It also replicates previous
research that links intimacy and generativity in adolescence and young adulthood. (Lawford
et al., 2012; Mackinnon et al., 2016). This measure of intimacy focused on the friendship
relationship, as it is a key relationship at this developmental period. That said, it is possible
that caregiving in general, or caregiving in other relationships (toward siblings, parents, or just
general others) might have produced stronger results.
In testing the specific paths of identity and caregiving to generativity, we found that an
informational identity style was a significantly better predictor than caregiving. This is some-
what surprising given that intimacy, of which caregiving is a component, is the task devel-
opmentally closer, according to Erikson’s model. It is also surprising given that care is
a central virtue of generativity. Alternatively, work by McAdams and colleagues point to the
central role of identity in adult generativity (McAdams, 1993; McAdams et al., 1997). Other
researchers have noted the strong link between moral identity and generativity (Pratt et al.,
2009). From this perspective, it is unsurprising that identity showed the stronger associations
with generativity. We suggest that more work is needed to understand the associations between
identity development and generativity across time. We suspect a bidirectional association,
whereby not only do advances in identity work support maturity of generativity, but also
that as generative motivations evolve, or become focused, identity work can be positively
influenced.
Interestingly, multigroup path analysis did not reveal any differences between the two
samples. While identity comes into focus in adolescence according to Erikson’s model,
Arnett’s (2000) work points to identity also being central in young adulthood. It should be
noted, however, these groups not only represent different ages, but the contexts in which the
participants were recruited differed (university vs. community organizations), and there were
also important demographic differences between samples. For example, given that the adoles-
cent sample came from community organizations, it is possible that these participants repre-
sent a sample that report higher levels of generative concern than less involved youth. While
the two samples include too many confounds to derive any developmental conclusions, it does
offer some evidence of replicability in the findings. Moreover, the developmental course of
generativity might be too complex to measure using only quantitative measures. It is more
likely that generativity changes more qualitatively over time. A number of short term and long
term longitudinal studies have found stability in generative concern, as measured through the
LGS. Furthermore, Lawford et al. (2013) found that adolescents reported the same levels of
generative concern as their parents. The LGS has been a very useful tool to capture generative
motivations prior to midlife, but it was designed to capture generativity in adults, not youth.
Future research is needed to better understand how early generativity might be qualitatively
different from midlife generativity.
While a great deal of research focuses on specific psychosocial crises at the developmental
period where they might peak, Erikson’s theory stated that each of these crises carried relevance
across the lifespan, and was not necessarily limited to one point in the lifespan (Pratt et al., in
press). Therefore, research should continue to investigate how Erikson’s tasks are expressed
across the lifespan, not only during the developmental period where they come into prominence.
Just as researchers are investigating the importance of generativity in later life (Newton,
Chauhan, & Pates, 2019), understanding generativity earlier in the lifespan can be beneficial.

Strengths and limitations

A number of limitations need to be acknowledged. First, this study is cross-sectional, suggesting
the need for caution in interpreting the direction of effects. Presumably, aspects of both identity
and caregiving precede the development of generativity, and this has been supported in past
18 H. L. LAWFORD ET AL.

longitudinal studies (e.g., Mackinnon et al., 2016). It is also quite likely that advancements in
generativity promote further positive developmental outcomes with respect to identity and
caregiving. Moreover, this study only considers caregiving in its measurement of intimacy.
Thus, it is unclear how other components of intimacy, such as trust and self-disclosure might
relate to generativity and identity. Both samples include a majority of female participants. Other
studies have found significant gender differences in early generative concern (Lawford et al.,
2005), thus we should be cautious in interpreting the findings too broadly. Finally, the adoles-
cent sample was collected through participation in community organizations and the young
adult sample was collected from a university context. Therefore, neither sample was collected at
random, which limits the generalizability of the findings.
This study also includes a number of strengths. It is, to our knowledge, the first study to include
both identity and intimacy as predictors of generativity. Furthermore, using two samples adds to the
replicability of the findings.

Conclusions
This study highlights the independent contributions of both identity work and caregiving
behaviors with friends in early generativity. Overall, we found that in two samples, identity
work was most strongly related to generativity. This finding reflects the non-linear complexity
that Erikson often discussed in outlining his theory. Findings suggest the need to continue to
study contextual factors in the development of generativity. By uncovering and fostering
generative motivation early on, researchers and others can support youth in shaping their
life course in a way that is meaningful, productive, and offers a valuable contribution to their
community (Matsuba, Alisat, & Pratt, 2017; Pratt & Lawford, 2014). Results demonstrate that
generativity carries relevance earlier than midlife, in young adults and adolescents.
Furthermore, it supports past research that tests the epigenetic aspect of Erikson’s theory
whereby all stages are present at all developmental periods in some form. Future research is
needed to better understand how these associations evolve across development.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research was supported by a SSHRC Insight Development Grant given to the first author and a Humber SIRF
grant given to the third author. This research was presented as a poster by the second author at the European Society
for Adult Development in Netherlands in 2016; Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada [Insight
Development Grant.

References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American
Psychologist, 55, 469–480. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469
Beaumont, S. L., & Pratt, M. M. (2011). Identity processing styles and psychosocial balance during early and middle
adulthood: The role of identity in intimacy and generativity. Journal of Adult Development, 18, 172–183.
doi:10.1007/s10804-011-9125-z
Berndt, T. J. (2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 7–10.
doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00157
Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 60(4), 771–788.
Berzonsky, M. D. (2003). Identity style and well-being: Does commitment matter? Identity: an International Journal of
Theory and Research, 3(2), 131–142. doi:10.1207/S1532706XID030203
 IDENTITY 19

Berzonsky, M. D. (2004). Identity processing style, self-construction, and personal epistemic assumptions: A social-
cognitive perspective. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1(4), 303–315.
Berzonsky, M. D. (2011). A social-cognitive perspective on identity construction. In S. J. Schwarz, K. Luyckx, &
V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research: Structure and processes (Vol. 1, pp. 55–76). London,
England: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_3
Berzonsky, M. D., & Sullivan, C. (1992). Social-cognitive aspects of identity style: Need for cognition, experiential
openness, and introspection. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 140–155. doi:10.1177/074355489272002
Beyers, W., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2010). Does identity precede intimacy? Testing Erikson’s theory on romantic
development in emerging adults of the 21st century. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 387–415. doi:10.1177/
0743558410361370
Busch, H., & Hofer, J. (2011). Identity, prosocial behavior, and generative concern in German and Cameroonian Nso
adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 629–638. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.09.009
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2014). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for
research involving humans. inappropriate exclusion. Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique
/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/chapter4-chapitre4/#toc04-1a
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance.
Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support and caregiving in
intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1053–1073. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.78.6.1053
Crocetti, E., Erentaitė, R., & Žukauskienė, R. (2014). Identity styles, positive youth development, and civic engagement
in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1818–1828. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0100-4
Crocetti, E., Jahromi, P., & Meeus, W. (2012). Identity and civic engagement in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 35
(3), 521–532. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.08.003
Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied
Developmental Science, 7(3), 119–128. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_2
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1988). Youth: Fidelity and diversity. Daedalus, 117, 1–24.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment
theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 972–994. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.972
Grossbaum, M. F., & 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(2), 120–127.
doi:10.1080/01650250042000654
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Jia, F., Alisat, S., Soucie, K., & Pratt, M. (2015). Generative concern and environmentalism a mixed methods
longitudinal study of emerging and young adults. Emerging Adulthood, 3, 306–319. doi:10.1177/2167696815578338
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kuiper, N., Kirsh, G., & Maiolino, N. (2016). Identity and intimacy developmenet, humor styles, and psychological
well-being. Identity, 16, 115–125. doi:10.1080/15283488.2016.1159964
Lascano, D. I. V., Galambos, N. L., & Hoglund, W. L. (2013). Canadian youths’ trajectories of psychosocial
competencies through university academic and romantic affairs matter. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 38, 11–22. doi:10.1177/0165025413491372
Lawford, H., Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B., & Pancer, S. M. (2005). Adolescent generativity: A longitudinal study of
two possible contexts for learning concern for future generations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 261–273.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00096.x
Lawford, H. L., Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2013). The association between early generative concern and
caregiving with friends from early to middle adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(12), 1847–1857.
doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9888-y
Lawford, H. L., Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2017). Associations of attachment orientation with early generative
concern across adolescence. Journal of Personality. doi:10.1111/jopy.12353
Lawford, H. L., & Ramey, H. L. (2015). “Now I know I can make a difference”: Generativity and activity engagement as
predictors of meaning making in adolescents and emerging adults. Developmental Psychology, 51, 1395–1406.
doi:10.1037/dev0000034
Lawford, H. L., & Ramey, H. L. (2017). Predictors of early community involvement: Advancing the self and caring for
others. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(1–2), 133–143. doi:10.1002/ajcp.2017.59.issue-1pt2
Little, T. D, Cunningham, W. A, Shahar, G, & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the
question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.
20 H. L. LAWFORD ET AL.

Mackinnon, S. P., De Pasquale, D., & Pratt, M. W. (2016). Predicting generative concern in young adulthood from
narrative intimacy: A 5-year follow-up. Journal of Adult Development, 23, 27–35. doi:10.1007/s10804-015-9218-1
Malin, H., Ballard, P. J., & Damon, W. (2015). Civic purpose: An integrated construct for understanding civic
development in adolescence. Human Development, 58, 103–130. doi:10.1159/000381655
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3,
551–558. doi:10.1037/h0023281
Markiewicz, D., Lawford, H. L., Doyle, A. B., & Haggart, N. (2006). Developmental differences in adolescents’ and
young adults’ use of mothers, fathers, best friends, and romantic partners to fulfill attachment needs. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 35(1), 127–140. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-9014-5
Matsuba, M. K., Alisat, S., & Pratt, M. W. (2017). Environmental activism in emerging adulthood. In L. M. Padilla-
Walker & L. J. Nelson (Eds.), Flourishing in emerging adulthood. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Matsuba, M. K., & Pratt, M. W. (2013). The making of an environmental activist: A developmental psychological
perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 142, 59–74. doi:10.1002/cad.20049
Matsuba, M. K., Pratt, M. W., Norris, J. E., Mohle, E., Alisat, S., & McAdams, D. P. (2012). Environmentalism as
a context for expressing identity and generativity: Patterns among activists and uninvolved youth and midlife
adults. Journal of Personality, 80(4), 1091–1115. doi:10.1111/jopy.2012.80.issue-4
McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
McAdams, D. P., Hart, H. M., & Maruna, S. (1998). The anatomy of generativity. In D. P. McAdams & E. D. St. Aubin
(Eds.), Generativity and adult development (pp. 7–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
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.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.1003
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, 678–694.
McAdams, D. P., Reynolds, J., Lewis, M., Patten, A. H., & 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 psychosocial
adaptation in midlife adults and in students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 474–485. doi:10.1177/
0146167201274008
McLean, K. C., & Pratt, M. W. (2006). Life’s little (and big) lessons: Statuses and meaning-making in the turning point
narratives of emerging adults. Developmental Psychology, 42, 714–722. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.714
Meeus, W., & Dekovic, M. (1995). Identity development, parental and peer support in adolescence: Results of
a national Dutch survey. Adolescence, 30(120), 931–945.
Newton, N. J., Chauhan, P. K., & Pates, J. L. (2019, online first). Facing the future: Generativity, stagnation, intended
legacies, and well-being in later life. Journal of Adult Development, 1–11.
Pratt, M. W., Arnold, M. L., & Lawford, H. (2009). Growing toward care: A narrative approach to prosocial moral
identity and generativity of personality in emerging adulthood. In D. Narvaez & D. K. Lapsley (Eds.), Personality,
identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 295–315). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511627125.014
Pratt, M. W., & Lawford, H. L. (2014). Early generativity and types of civic engagement in adolescence and emerging
adulthood. In L. M. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp.
410–432). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199964772.003.0020
Pratt, M. W., Lawford, H. L., Matsuba, M. K., & Posada, F. V. (in press). Generativity: A lifespan approach. In
L. Jensen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of moral development: An interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford University
Press.
Pratt, M. W., Norris, J. E., Alisat, S., & Bisson, E. (2013). Earth mothers (and fathers): Examining generativity and
environmental concerns in adolescents and their parents. Journal of Moral Education, 42(1), 12–27. doi:10.1080/
03057240.2012.714751
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–
177. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and Neo-Eriksonian identity theory and research. A review and
integration. Identity: an International Journal of Theory Ad Research, 1, 7–58. doi:10.1207/S1532706XSCHWARTZ
Simpson, J., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. (2007). Attachment and the experience and expression of emotions
in romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 355–367.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.355
Soucie, K. M., Jia, F., Zhu, N., & Pratt, M. W. (2018). The codevelopment of community involvement and generative
concern pathways in emerging and young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 54(10), 1971–1976. doi:10.1037/
dev0000563
Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.
 IDENTITY 21

Steinmetz, H. (2013). Analyzing observed composite differences across groups. Methodology, 9, 1–12. doi:10.1027/
1614-2241/a000049
Stewart, A. J., & Vandewater, E. A. (1998). The course of generativity. In E. de St. Aubin, & D. P. McAdams (Eds.),
Generativity and adult development: How and why we care for the next generation(pp. 75–100). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY: Norton.
Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492.