J Youth Adolescence (2007) 36:825–834

DOI 10.1007/s10964-007-9190-6

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Subjective Age in the Transition to Adulthood for Persons

with and without Motor Disabilities
Nancy L. Galambos Æ Johanna Darrah Æ
Joyce Magill-Evans

Published online: 10 May 2007

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract This study examined subjective age (how old Keywords Subjective age
Motor disabilities

one feels) and associated variables in 148 emerging adults, Transition to adulthood
Psychosocial maturity

ages 20–30 years. Seventy-six participants had a motor Emerging adulthood
disability (cerebral palsy, spina bifida) and 72 had no motor
disability. Participants completed questionnaires and were
interviewed. There was no significant difference in sub- Introduction
jective age between groups. Consistent with previous re-
search, chronological and subjective ages were significantly The presence of a motor disability is a potentially impor-
negatively related in participants without motor disabilities. tant source of diversity in human development, but very
Chronological and subjective ages were unrelated in the little is known about how individuals with motor disabili-
group with motor disabilities but higher psychosocial ties manage the transition to adulthood (Hauser-Cram and
maturity was related to an older subjective age. Perceptions Howell 2003; Hauser-Cram and Krauss 2004), a period
of how much parents fostered autonomy did not predict termed emerging adulthood (Arnett 2000). The experiences
subjective age in either group. In both groups, individuals of individuals with motor disabilities during emerging
whose parents treated them as younger reported feeling adulthood are of particular interest because their physical
younger. Number of role transitions did not predict sub- limitations may influence their experiences of establishing
jective age. The results highlight the importance of autonomy and independence, engaging in productive
exploring motor disabilities as a source of diversity in the activity, establishing a sense of identity, and achieving
subjective ages of young people during the transition to intimacy (Marn and Koch 1999; Stevenson et al. 1997).
adulthood. Exploring identity development in this group is critical
(Hauser-Cram and Kraus 2004) to learn if and how phys-
ical impairments alter longer term psychological develop-
ment. In this regard, subjective age, or how old one feels
relative to one’s actual chronological age (Montepare and
Lachman 1989), may provide important insights into the
N. L. Galambos (&) journey to adulthood. The purpose of the current paper is to
Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, P217 examine subjective age in persons with and without motor
Biological Sciences Building, T6G 2E9 Edmonton, AB, Canada disabilities who are in their 20s, and to consider predictors
e-mail: [email protected]
of variation in their experiences of subjective age.
J. Darrah Theoretically, subjective age is important because it is
Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, T6G one aspect of an individual’s implicit theory of devel-
2G4 Edmonton, AB, Canada opment. Implicit theories of development are unspoken
beliefs about how personal attributes change over time
J. Magill-Evans
Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Alberta, (e.g., how the young and old differ) and the conditions
T6G 2G4 Edmonton, AB, Canada (e.g., parenthood) that promote stability and change

123
826 J Youth Adolescence (2007) 36:825–834

(Ross 1989). Ross argued that implicit theories contrib- persons with motor disabilities since infancy during the
ute to identity, the perception of self through time, by transition to adulthood.
helping people to interpret stability and change in It is not clear how subjective age might differ for
themselves. A growing body of work addresses implicit emerging adults with motor disabilities compared to those
theories in emerging adults by examining subjective age without disabilities. For example, twelve adolescents (ages
and whether individuals feel that they have reached 15–19) with motor disabilities (Skär 2003) reported diffi-
adulthood (Arnett 2003; Galambos et al. 2005; Mayseless culty establishing relationships with peers of the same age.
and Scharf 2003; Montepare 1991; Montepare and Cle- Some adolescents chose to associate with younger children
ments 2001; Nelson et al. 2004; Shanahan et al. 2005). who demanded less age-typical activities, and some chose
Empirically, subjective age is important across the life- older individuals because they felt that they had outgrown
span. In adolescence, dating, sex, and substance use lead their same-age peers. Previous research on adolescents
to an older subjective age (Galambos et al. 2007). In without disabilities has found a positive relationship be-
emerging adulthood, individuals possess age schemas tween association with older peers and self-perceived
that help them process information about themselves maturity (Stattin and Magnusson 1990). To the extent that
(Montepare and Clements 2001). In the elderly, declines emerging adults with motor disabilities connect more with
in physical health are related to feeling older (Markides younger or older individuals than with same-age peers,
and Boldt 1983). subjective age could move in either direction.
Subjective or self-perceived age has been measured in Delay in mastery of important developmental tasks is
multiple ways, ranging from a single item (Arbeau et al. in another experience of people with motor disabilities that
press; Baum and Boxley 1983) to a multi-item scale could influence subjective age. Magill-Evans et al. (2001)
(Galambos et al. 2005; Montepare and Lachman 1989) or a found that adolescents and young adults with cerebral palsy
multidimensional measure with subcomponents such as had lower expectations for their future achievements in
psychological and physical age (Montepare 1996a). Sub- employment, education, independent living, and social
jective age may be reported in years (Montepare and relationships compared to control groups without disabili-
Lachman 1989) or individuals may rate their subjective age ties. Different expectations for the mastery of these tasks,
relative to their chronological age on a scale ranging from or different timetables for their mastery, might lead to
‘‘a lot younger than my age’’ to ‘‘a lot older than my age’’ younger subjective ages.
(Galambos et al. 2003; Montepare 1996a). Regardless of Parental overprotection may also play a role in sub-
how it has been measured, consistent age-related differ- jective age for persons with motor disabilities. Overpro-
ences in subjective age are reported. tection may prolong adolescence, as dependence is not
necessarily replaced with new opportunities for indepen-
Subjective and Chronological Age dent decision-making and responsibility, establishment of
sexual relations, and maturation in occupational realms
In a cross-sectional study (Montepare and Lachman 1989) (Marn and Koch 1999). In adolescents without a motor
of individuals ages 14–83, adolescence was the only period disability, those who engage in independent behaviors,
when the majority of individuals reported subjective ages form close relations with others in their peer group, and
older than their chronological ages. At about age 30 and establish friendships with the other sex report having an
extending into old age, individuals reported feeling youn- older subjective age (Galambos et al. 1999).
ger than their chronological ages. Individuals in their 20s Given this picture, emerging adults with motor disabil-
felt about the age that they were. Other studies have also ities could have younger subjective ages because of expe-
documented the older subjective ages of adolescents riences associated with their physical limitations (e.g.,
(Arbeau et al. in press; Galambos et al. 1999), the younger hindrances to autonomy) or older subjective ages because
subjective ages of adults after age 29 (Barnes-Farrell and of more frequent contact with adults (parents, caregivers).
Piotrowski 1989; Heckhausen 1997; Hubley and Hultsch Montepare (1996b) speculated that people have models of
1994; Montepare 1996a), and the same-age to slightly older the optimal path of development across stages of life. For
subjective ages of individuals in their 20s (Barnes-Farrell example, the 20s may be considered as ‘‘the prime of life,’’
and Piotrowski 1989; Montepare 1996a; Montepare and which could explain why individuals in their 20s feel about
Clements 2001). These age-related trends indicate that the the age that they are as well as why subjective age becomes
transition to a younger subjective age occurs on average by younger by age 30. Does this apply to people with motor
age 30 (Montepare and Lachman 1989), a phenomenon disabilities? Based on previous research (e.g., Magill-
highlighted in a cross-sectional study of 20- to 29-year-old Evans et al. 2001), young people with motor disabilities
university students (Galambos et al. 2005). To our may not expect to develop in the same direction, at the
knowledge, no study has examined subjective age in same pace, or to reach the same goals as their peers without

123
J Youth Adolescence (2007) 36:825–834 827

a motor disability. A possible by-product of their unique Murphy et al. 2000; Pascall and Hendey 2004; Skär 2003).
developmental trajectory might be a reduction in the sal- Holmbeck and colleagues (2002) showed that mothers and
ience of chronological age as a marker of one’s develop- fathers of preadolescent children with spina bifida were
mental status. significantly more protective than parents of matched able-
bodied controls, and parental overprotection was associated
Role Transitions and Psychosocial Maturity as with children’s lower behavioral autonomy. Some persons
Predictors of Subjective Age with motor disabilities report being treated by people in
their social worlds as too young during the transition to
Although the relationship between chronological and sub- adulthood (Clark and Hirst 1989; Stewart et al. 2001). It is
jective age is important and interesting, there are interin- reasonable to hypothesize that parents’ fostering of
dividual differences in the subjective ages of individuals autonomy during emerging adulthood and feeling treated
within any given chronological age period (Barnes-Farrell by parents as older rather than younger than their age will
and Piotrkowski 1989; Montepare 1996a). Montepare and be associated with an older subjective age.
Lachman (1989) argued that the circumstances surrounding
life transitions likely explain the variability. Thus, major Severity of Disability as Predictor of Subjective Age
role transitions, or objective markers traditionally associ-
ated with adulthood (e.g., leaving home, obtaining work, Persons with motor disabilities such as cerebral palsy or
marrying, having children) should be related to an older spina bifida display a range of physical limitations, from
subjective age. However, Galambos et al. (2005) found almost no detectable limitations to severe restriction of
that the number of significant role transitions experienced voluntary movement (Palisano et al. 1997). In the absence
by university students in their 20s did not significantly of research, it is not clear whether and how subjective age
predict their subjective ages, which supported Arnett’s is connected to the severity of a motor disability. If a more
(1994) arguments that emerging adults do not see such severe disability is linked with others treating them as
transitions as salient markers of adulthood. Still, the younger than they are, individuals with more severe motor
number of role transitions is worth examining in a sample limitations may feel younger. On the other hand, a more
that includes persons with motor disabilities, because these severe disability could be associated with an older sub-
transitions may be more salient predictors of subjective age jective age if, for example, it leads to close ties with an
if they are seen as less normative and less attainable for older social network.
people with disabilities.
Arnett’s (1994) research with individuals in the transi- The Current Study
tion to adulthood found that intangible and individualistic
characteristics such as taking responsibility for one’s ac- In the current study a group of emerging adults (ages 20–
tions and making independent decisions were more indic- 30 years) with motor disabilities (cerebral palsy, spina
ative of adult status than were role transitions. Galambos bifida) was compared to a group with no motor disabilities
et al. (2005) interpreted responsibility and independent for two reasons. First, research on the psychosocial
decision-making as fitting under the construct of psycho- development of adolescents with disabilities is scant
social maturity (Erikson 1963; Greenberger et al. 1975; (Hauser-Cram and Krauss 2004), and even rarer among
Rosenthal et al. 1981), and examined whether psychosocial emerging adults with disabilities. Hauser-Cram and
maturity (a composite measure reflecting autonomy, iden- Krauss (2004) argued that it is important to learn whether
tity, and intimacy) predicted subjective age. Higher scores theories based almost exclusively on typically developing
on psychosocial maturity were linked to older subjective samples are applicable to individuals with motor disabil-
ages in their sample of university students. We expect that ities. Second, it is important to learn how the transition to
higher psychosocial maturity ought to predict an older adulthood is similar and different for individuals with and
subjective age in young persons with motor disabilities. without motor disabilities so that education, intervention,
and transition planning for emerging adults with disabil-
Parents’ Fostering of Autonomy and Age Treated by ities can be effectively designed and implemented to
Parents as Predictors of Subjective Age maximize their potential (Marn and Koch 1999; Steven-
son et al. 1997).
Independence in one’s activities and decision-making is Our first objective was to learn about group differences
clearly important for emerging adults. Parents’ fostering of in subjective age, number of role transitions, psychosocial
autonomy may be critical to this process, as parental maturity, perceptions of fathers’ and mothers’ fostering of
overprotection is an issue for children, adolescents, and autonomy, and the age they felt they were treated by par-
adults with motor disabilities (Marn and Koch 1999; ents. We hypothesized that, in the group with motor

123
828 J Youth Adolescence (2007) 36:825–834

disabilities, there would be fewer role transitions and par- interviewer read the instructions and individual questions,
ents would be reported as fostering of autonomy less often the participant responded verbally, and the interviewer
and treating their emerging adult children as younger. recorded the answers.
Second, predictors of variation in subjective age were
examined within each group. Predictors included chrono- Measures
logical age, which was expected to be negatively related to
subjective age at least in the group with no motor dis- The dependent variable of subjective age was the mean of
abilities; number of role transitions, which might be posi- seven questionnaire items used previously in research on
tively related to subjective age in the group with motor subjective age in adolescents and young adults (e.g., Gal-
disabilities; and psychosocial maturity, which was pre- ambos et al. 2003; Montepare et al. 1989). Participants
dicted to show a positive relationship with subjective age in rated how old they perceived themselves to be relative to
both groups. Higher fostering of autonomy by parents and their chronological age on a scale ranging from 1 (a lot
feeling treated as older by parents were expected to predict younger than my age) to 4 (the age I am) to 7 (a lot older
an older subjective age in both groups. than my age). Examples of items are: ‘‘Compared to most
Finally, for the group with motor disabilities, an index of people my age, most of the time I feel ___;’’ ‘‘Compared
the severity of their motor limitations was included to learn to most people my age, most of the time I look ___;’’ ‘‘My
whether it explained additional variance in subjective age. interests and activities are most like people who are ___;’’
A directional hypothesis was not made for this variable, as and ‘‘Compared to most people my age, I think of myself
arguments could be made in opposite directions. as ___.’’ This scale was reliable for the group with motor
disabilities (a = 0.80) and the group with no motor dis-
ability (a = 0.88). Higher scores indicate an older sub-
Method jective age.
Predictor variables included chronological age, number
Sample of role transitions, psychosocial maturity, fathers’ and
mothers’ fostering of autonomy, and age treated by parents.
Seventy-six (35 male, 41 female) individuals with a motor Chronological age in years was assessed using date of
disability (cerebral palsy, n = 54; spina bifida, n = 22) and birth. To measure number of role transitions, a series of
72 (31 male, 41 female) persons without a motor disability interview questions determined whether participants had
participated. Persons with both diagnoses were included moved away from parents, currently worked at a job, were
because the diagnoses are similar in the range of physical married, or had at least one child. Living situation was
limitations represented, from persons who walk indepen- coded as either 0 (lived with parents) or 1 (moved away
dently and are independent in self-care to those who use a from parents, e.g., lived alone, in a college dorm, or in a
wheelchair for mobility and require assistance for most group home). Work status was coded as 0 (not currently
self-care activities. Both diagnoses also are present working) or 1 (currently working at any job for any number
throughout a person’s lifespan. Participants were recruited of hours). Marital status was coded as 0 (single, never
from across a province in Canada, including urban and married) or 1 (married, had been married in the past, or
rural areas. The age range was 20–30 years. The sample living common law). Parental status was coded as 0 (no
was primarily Caucasian. children) or 1 (at least one child). Number of role transi-
Participants were recruited through service providers tions was the sum of the role transitions experienced and
and organizations (medical institutions, recreation associ- could range from 0 to 4.
ations, housing providers, and community associations), Psychosocial maturity was assessed with the mean of 48
involvement in previous studies, newspaper and newsletter items from the Erikson Psychosocial Inventory Scale
advertisements, posters, word-of-mouth (referrals from (Rosenthal et al., 1981). Twelve items each from the
other participants), and a website devoted to the study. industry (‘‘I stick with things until they’re finished,’’ ‘‘I’m
Because relatively few participants with motor disabilities trying hard to achieve my goals’’), autonomy (‘‘I am able
were or had been enrolled in university, efforts were made to take things as they come,’’ ‘‘I like to make my own
to recruit the group without disabilities from outside the choices’’), identity (‘‘the important things in life are clear
university. All participants were interviewed in person, to me,’’ ‘‘I like myself and am proud of what I stand for’’),
typically in their homes, by trained interviewers. Inter- and intimacy (‘‘I’m ready to get involved with a special
views were audiotaped and then transcribed. Participants person,’’ ‘‘I care deeply for others’’) subscales were rated
were mailed questionnaires and were asked to complete on a scale ranging from 1 (hardly ever true) to 5 (almost
them prior to the interview. For anyone who needed always true). The subscale items were combined because
physical help (n = 9) completing the questionnaires, the all 48 items were internally consistent (a = .92 for both

123
J Youth Adolescence (2007) 36:825–834 829

groups). Higher scores indicated a higher level of psy- (Palisano et al. 1997). The GMFCS is an ordinal, five-level
chosocial maturity. scale used to classify the functional motor abilities of
Father fosters autonomy and mother fosters autonomy persons with cerebral palsy. Interviewers coded partici-
were assessed using the parental fostering of autonomy pants’ mobility options using their observations during the
subscale from Kenny’s (1987; Kenny et al. 1998) measure interview and some supplemental questions. Twenty-five
of attachment to parents. The subscale consists of the mean percent of participants walked without restrictions but had
of 14 items (e.g., ‘‘respects my privacy;’’ ‘‘encourages me reduced gross motor skills; 16% used no assistive devices
to make my own decisions’’), on which fathers and but had limitations moving outside; 30% used assistive
mothers are rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 mobility devices and had limitations moving outside; 21%
(very much). Internal consistencies were high for both the moved with mobility devices such as wheelchairs including
motor disability group (a = .88 for fathers and mothers) power chairs; and 8% had severely limited self-mobility
and the no motor disability group (father fosters autonomy: even with power chairs.
a = .84; mother fosters autonomy: a = .91). Higher scores
indicate that the parent is perceived as more autonomy-
fostering, allowing the young person to express opinions,
form values on his or her own, and to behave indepen- Results
dently.
Age treated by parents was a single item obtained from The means and standard deviations for all variables avail-
Montepare (1991), ‘‘My parents treat me as if I am ___’’ able for both groups are presented in Table 1. T-tests were
rated on the same scale as the subjective age items, ranging conducted to learn whether the group with motor disabili-
from (1) a lot younger than my age to (4) the age I am to ties differed from the comparison group. With respect to
(7) a lot older than my age. Although this item appeared to subjective age, which did not differ significantly by group,
overlap with one of the items on the parents’ fostering of the mean scores indicate that the participants felt about the
autonomy scale (i.e., ‘‘treats me like a younger child’’), same age to slightly older than their chronological age. The
they were not redundant. Specifically, in the motor chronological ages of both groups were nearly identical.
disabilities group, age treated by parents was correlated at Perceived psychosocial maturity was equivalent in the two
–.28 (P < .05) with the similar item on the mothers’ fos- groups.
tering of autonomy scale and –.17 (P > .05) with the The number of role transitions, however, was signifi-
similar item on the fathers’ fostering of autonomy scale. In cantly higher in the group with no motor disabilities, who
the group with no motor disabilities, respective correlations reported an average of two role transitions, compared to the
were –.51 (P < .05) and –.23 (P > .05). Furthermore, the group with motor disabilities, who experienced one role
age treated by parents item showed minimal to moderate transition. The number of transitions ranged from 0
correlations with the full fostering of autonomy scale (see (11.8%) to 3 (6.6%) for the group with motor disabilities
Table 2). Thus, this item seems to reflect a very specific compared to a range of 0 (2.8%) to 4 (4.2%) for those with
feeling that is unique from fostering of autonomy. no motor disabilities. The two most common transitions in
Categories from the Gross Motor Function Classification the motor disability and the comparison groups were living
System for Cerebral Palsy (GMFCS) were used to classify away from parents (69.7% and 77.8%, respectively) and
the physical abilities of participants with motor disabilities having a job (53.9% and 94.4%, respectively).

Table 1 Means and standard deviations for study variables by group

Variable Motor disability No motor disability t (df)
M SD M SD

Subjective age 4.08 0.95 4.25 1.01 –1.08 (146)

Chronological age 24.98 3.11 24.91 3.29 0.14 (146)
Number of role transitions 1.39 0.78 2.11 0.88 –5.23 (146)*
Psychosocial maturity 3.87 0.48 3.94 0.44 –0.86 (144)
Father fosters autonomy 3.83 0.79 4.08 0.61 –2.08 (135)*
Mother fosters autonomy 3.78 0.74 3.88 0.77 –0.76 (146)
Age treated by parents 3.57 1.29 4.14 1.39 –2.57 (145)*
Note. N for motor disability group: 70–76. N for no motor disability group: 67–72.
* P £ .05

123
830 J Youth Adolescence (2007) 36:825–834

The group without motor disabilities reported signifi- contained GMFCS categories. They were entered last to
cantly more fostering of autonomy by their fathers than did allow comparison of the first four blocks for those with and
the group with motor disabilities. There was no group without motor disabilities. R2 change for each block was
difference in fostering of autonomy by mothers. A signif- examined for significance. If the block was significant, then
icant difference in age treated by parents showed that individual predictors were assessed for significance.
participants with motor disabilities felt that parents treated The group with no motor disabilities had missing data
them as slightly younger than they were whereas partici- only for fathers’ fostering of autonomy (five cases). The
pants with no motor disabilities reported their parents as motor disability group had complete data for five of eight
treating them slightly older than their chronological age. variables, one and two missing cases for age treated by
Correlations among variables are shown in Table 2. It is parents and psychosocial maturity respectively, and six
notable that in the group with motor disabilities, an older cases missing fathers’ fostering of autonomy. T-test com-
subjective age was significantly associated with higher parisons of the 11 cases missing fathers’ fostering of
psychosocial maturity, more fostering of autonomy by fa- autonomy with the 137 non-missing cases revealed no sig-
thers, feeling treated as older by parents, and a higher score nificant differences in subjective and chronological age, role
(more severe mobility limitations) on the GMFCS cate- transitions, mothers’ fostering of autonomy, and age treated
gories. Only chronological age and age treated by parents by parents. Therefore, the pairwise deletion option in SPSS
were significantly linked with subjective age in the group 14.0 was selected. This option allowed the use of all avail-
with no motor disabilities. able data, as correlation coefficients used in the regression
analysis are based on all valid pairs of data. The df for sig-
Hierarchical Regressions nificance testing uses the minimum pairwise N (68 for the
motor disability group and 67 for the comparison group).
Hierarchical regressions examined predictors of subjective Results of the regression analysis are presented in Ta-
age separately by group due to the inclusion of GMFCS as ble 3. For the motor disability group, chronological age
a predictor, which applied only to the motor disability was not a significant predictor. The second block explained
group. Regressions proceeded in blocks, beginning with the a significant 14% of the variance in subjective age, with
ordering set out by Galambos et al. (2005), to examine psychosocial maturity the single significant predictor.
effects of the individual characteristics of chronological Individuals who reported higher psychosocial maturity also
age (Block 1) and objective and subjective indicators of felt older. Parents’ fostering of autonomy did not explain a
maturity (role transitions and psychosocial maturity; Block significant share of the variance, but age treated by parents
2). In Block 3 we moved from individual characteristics to explained a significant 26% of the variance in subjective
the family influences of father and mother fostering of age; being treated as older was associated with feeling
autonomy. Block 4 examined the unique contribution of older. Addition of the GMFCS categories explained an
age treated by parents. It was important to include this additional 5% of the variance, with more severe physical
variable after partialling out fostering of autonomy to iso- limitations associated with an older subjective age. The full
late the unique variance in subjective age explained by the model explained 51% of the variance in subjective age.
portion of this variable that did not overlap with fostering For the group with no motor disabilities, Block 1
of autonomy. For those with motor disabilities, Block 5 (chronological age) explained a significant share of the

Table 2 Intercorrelations among study variables by group

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Subjective age –.37* .04 .15 –.02 .06 .43*

2. Chronological age –.08 .28* .09 .21 .05 –.20
3. Number of role transitions .15 .24* .28* .18 .05 .02
4. Psychosocial maturity .32* .25* .22 .20 .33* .19
5. Father fosters autonomy .28* .19 .05 .47* .28* .12
6. Mother fosters autonomy .04 –.03 .03 .28* .42* .42*
7. Age treated by parents .57* –.04 .01 .17 .22 .22
8. GMFCS .26* .27* –.04 .28* .24* –.10 –.02
Note. Correlations for motor disability group are below the diagonal (pairwise N = 68–76); correlations for no motor disability group are above
the diagonal (pairwise N = 67–72)
* P £ .05

123
J Youth Adolescence (2007) 36:825–834 831

Table 3 Hierarchical regressions predicting subjective age by group

Block and predictor Motor disability No motor disability
2
B SE B b R B SE B b R2

1. Chronological age –.03 .04 –.08 –.11 .04 –.37*

Full model .01 .14*
2. Number of role transitions .15 .15 .12 .13 .14 .11
Psychosocial maturity .68 .24 .34* .36 .27 .16
Change .14* .04
Full model .14* .18*
3. Father fosters autonomy .31 .17 .26 .01 .21 .01
Mother fosters autonomy –.20 .16 –.16 .04 .17 .03
Change .05 .00
Full model .19* .18*
4. Age treated by parents .40 .07 .53* .29 .09 .40*
Change .26* .12*
Full model .46* .31*
5. GMFCS .19 .08 .25*
Change .05*
Full model .51*
Note. Pairwise N = 68–76 (motor disability) and 67–72 (no motor disability). R changes may not add up to full model R2 due to rounding error
2

* P £ .05

variance. As chronological age increased, subjective age motor disabilities during their transition to adulthood.
decreased. Block 2 (role transitions and psychosocial Scores on subjective age did not differ for the two groups.
maturity) did not explain a significant portion of variance On average, persons with and without motor disabilities
in subjective age, nor did Block 3 (parents’ fostering of felt about the same as or slightly older than their chrono-
autonomy). Age treated by parents was significantly related logical ages, converging with results for other samples in
to subjective age in this group, explaining 12% of the their 20s (Barnes-Farrell and Piotrowski 1989; Galambos
variance. Again, being treated as older was associated with et al. 2005). Comparable subjective age scores were found
feeling older. The full model explained a total of 31% of despite differences in some life experiences for persons
the variance in subjective age. with motor disabilities, such as fewer role transitions, less
fostering of autonomy by fathers, and feeling treated by
Follow-Up Analyses parents as younger. Perhaps, as Montepare (1996b) sug-
gested, individuals have implicit models of the stages of
Screening of the predictor and criterion variables indicated life, with many identifying the emerging adult years as
that fathers’ and mothers’ fostering of autonomy were optimal. This model could underlie a subjective age that is
negatively skewed, which was corrected by applying a log close to one’s chronological age, and based on the current
transformation. Log scores were then reflected to preserve results, the model may be held by individuals with and
the original meaning of higher and lower values. The t-tests without motor disabilities. It is encouraging to report, that,
reported in Table 1 were re-run on the transformed, re- despite the different life experiences of emerging adults
flected variables. Fathers’ fostering of autonomy was still with motor disabilities, their subjective ages are similar to
significantly lower in the group with motor disabilities but those of their non-disabled peers.
there was still no significant difference in mothers’ fos- We found that, although subjective age was comparable
tering of autonomy. The regressions reported in Table 3 in both groups, predictors of variation in subjective age
were re-run using the transformed, reflected scores. No differed across groups. Most interestingly, the significant
results changed. negative relationship between subjective and chronological
age, observed in individuals in their 20s (e.g., Galambos
Discussion et al. 2005; Montepare and Lachman 1989) as well as in
the current group with no motor disabilities, was not found
The goal of this study was to learn whether the experience in the group with motor disabilities. Providing that
of subjective age differed in young people with and without this result is replicated in the future, it suggests that

123
832 J Youth Adolescence (2007) 36:825–834

chronological age may be less important as a benchmark by enough to detect this small effect as significant in the rel-
which to judge age in the implicit theories of persons with atively small group of people without motor disabilities.
motor disabilities. This leads to the question of what they There was some support for the idea that parents of
use to judge their subjective age. people with motor disabilities would be perceived as less
In typically developing samples, a decreasing subjective autonomy-fostering. Specifically, fathers of young adults
age during the transition to adulthood is thought to result, with motor disabilities were reported to foster less auton-
in part, from changing reference groups. That is, in the omy relative to fathers of the group without motor dis-
early 20s individuals may still compare themselves and abilities. However, our prediction of a significant positive
their accomplishments to adolescents who are chronologi- relationship between parents’ fostering of autonomy and
cally younger and in a markedly different stage of devel- subjective age was not supported. Although there are no
opment, and this comparison might be associated with a previous studies examining the relationship in this age
‘‘top (older) dog’’ feeling. By the mid-20s, however, group, perhaps fostering of autonomy is a more significant
having clearly left adolescence behind, the new reference element in adolescence than during the transition to
group might become older adults, which leads to the adulthood. The majority of the sample in this study, those
feeling of being a ‘‘bottom (younger) dog’’ (Galambos with motor disabilities and without, had left home. Parents’
et al. 2005). These adults may be encountered in the work fostering of autonomy may be less important for young
environment. people who have left home, are more responsible for
Who is the reference group for persons with motor themselves, and are presumably in less contact with their
disabilities? Without further research, it is hard to tell but it parents.
may be other people with motor disabilities, perhaps of any On the other hand, distance from parents is not a com-
age or of an older age. As employment rates for partici- plete explanation, given that perceptions of the age treated
pants with motor disabilities in this study are lower by parents was a significant predictor of subjective age in
(53.9%) than for participants with no motor disabilities both groups, after controlling for fostering of autonomy. In
(94.4%), the reference group may not consistently be oth- support of our hypothesis, age treated by parents explained
ers in their work environment. Alternatively, it might be 26% of the variance in subjective age in the motor dis-
that subjective age in young people with motor disabilities abilities group and a significant 12% of the variance in the
is not influenced so much by comparison to a particular group with no motor disability. Young people with motor
reference group but by other experiences in their lives. disabilities perceived that they were treated by parents as
The results of the regression analyses point to the kinds younger than their chronological ages, implying that per-
of experiences that might be critical. Specifically, in line ceived age-inappropriate treatment figures prominently in
with our hypothesis, psychosocial maturity was a signifi- their implicit theories of development. Perceptions of age-
cant predictor of subjective age in the group with motor inappropriate treatment were also important for young
disabilities. These results align with other studies showing people in the group with no motor disabilities. Perhaps the
that responsibility and independence are strongly associ- difference in the significance of fostering of autonomy and
ated with the belief that one has achieved adult status age treated by parents is that the fostering of autonomy
(Arnett 1994; Galambos et al. 2005; Shanahan et al. 2005). scale does not pick up on the parental behaviors that are as
Although we thought that the number of role transitions relevant to subjective age as does the item on age treated
might be more meaningful to individuals with motor dis- by parents. In fact, Table 1 shows that the means for the
abilities because it is harder for them to make these tran- fostering of autonomy measures are on the higher end of
sitions, subjective evidence of movement towards the five-point scale (indicating that the average participant
psychosocial maturity seems to trump objective counts of felt that their parents were quite autonomy fostering) while
transition into roles. Thus, these subjective experiences the means for the age treated by parents item are around the
must be part of the implicit theories of development held mid-point of its seven-point scale (indicating that this item
by persons with and without motor disabilities. might have discriminated better than did the fostering
Contrary to our prediction, however, psychosocial autonomy scale).
maturity was not related to subjective age in the group with Finally, a more severe disability was a significant pre-
no motor disabilities. We think this is an issue of sample dictor of an older subjective age, even after controlling for
size and power. At the bivariate level, the correlation be- all other predictors in the model. The directionality of this
tween psychosocial maturity and subjective age was a non- relationship was entirely open at the outset of the study.
significant r = .15. In the Galambos et al. (2005) study Not being able to keep up physically with others might
with double the sample size, the correlation between very make one feel older along with requiring assistive devices,
similar measures was essentially the same (r = .16) but help with transportation, and/or caregiving support. In
significant. Thus, in the current study, power was not ample addition, persons with more severe physical disabilities

123
J Youth Adolescence (2007) 36:825–834 833

may not have the same opportunities for social interactions References
with people their own age, relative to persons with less
severe motor impairments, leading to more contact with Arbeau, K. J., Galambos, N. L., & Jansson, S. M. (in press). Dating,
sex, and substance use as correlates of adolescents’ subjective
older adults, including parents and caregivers. Even in sit- experience of age. Journal of Adolescence.
uations such as school where they are with people their Arnett, J. J. (1994). Are college students adults? Their conceptions of
own age, physical limitations may hinder interactions with the transition to adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 1,
same-age peers. Additionally, persons with greater physical 213–224.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development
limitations may have had to cope with more physical from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist,
challenges and have had to problem solve their way around 55, 469–480.
obstacles and deal with others’ responses to their disability. Arnett, J. J. (2003). Conceptions of the transition to adulthood among
This may result in them feeling older and more mature than emerging adults in American ethnic groups. In J. J. Arnett & N.
L. Galambos (Eds.), New directions for child and adolescent
persons with minimal physical limitations. development: Exploring cultural conceptions of the transition to
One of the limitations of this study is that the data on adulthood (No. 100, pp. 63–75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
psychosocial maturity and parenting behavior were all Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Piotrowski, M. J. (1989). Workers’ percep-
based on self-report from one source. It would be inter- tions of discrepancies between chronological age and personal
age: You’re only as old as you feel. Psychology and Aging, 4,
esting to include the views of parents on the psychosocial 376–377.
maturity and age-appropriate functioning of their young Baum, S. K., & Boxley, R. L. (1983). Age identification in the elderly.
adult children, or observe interactions between parents and The Gerontologist, 23, 532–537.
their emerging adult children. The extent to which Clark, A., & Hirst, M. (1989). Disability in adulthood: Ten-year
follow-up of young people with disabilities. Disability, Hand-
emerging adults’ perceptions of their parents’ behaviors are icap, & Society, 4, 271–283.
accurate could be assessed, and parental behaviors that lead Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: W.
to perceptions of autonomy fostering or being treated like a W. Norton.
child could be identified. Such knowledge would have Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Tilton-Weaver, L. C. (2003). Who
gets caught at maturity gap? A study of pseudomature,
implications for parents in aiding their young adult children immature, and mature adolescents. International Journal of
during the transition to adulthood. Another limitation is Behavioral Development, 27, 253–263.
that a larger sample size would have increased power. The Galambos, N. L., Albrecht, A. K., & Jansson, S. M. (2007). Dating,
difficulties of finding and engaging individuals with motor sex, and substance use predict increases in adolescents’
subjective age across 2 years. Manuscript submitted for publi-
disabilities in research continue to pose a challenge. cation.
This research is important because little is known about Galambos, N. L., Kolaric, G. C., Sears, H. A., & Maggs, J. L. (1999).
the implicit theories of development and the identity Adolescents’ subjective age: An indicator of perceived maturity.
development of individuals with motor disabilities as they Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 309–337.
Galambos, N. L., Turner, P. K., & Tilton-Weaver, L. C. (2005).
make the transition to adulthood. Subjective age is one Chronological and subjective age in emerging adulthood: The
aspect of identity that informs us as to where the young crossover effect. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 538–556.
person thinks he or she stands developmentally. A future Greenberger, E., Josselson, R., Knerr, C., & Knerr, B. (1975). The
direction for research would be to ask individuals with measurement and structure of psychosocial maturity. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 4, 127–143.
motor disabilities to discuss how they go about forming Hauser-Cram, P., & Howell, A. (2003). Disabilities and development.
their subjective ages, to learn whether they compare In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks,
themselves to a particular reference group, what they & J. Mistry (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 6.
consider as important in determining their subjective ages, Developmental psychology (pp. 513–533). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
and what cognitive processes they engage in to estimate Hauser-Cram, P., & Krauss, M. W. (2004). Adolescents with
their subjective ages. Individuals with motor disabilities are developmental disabilities and their families. In R. M. Lerner
as heterogeneous in their life experiences and personal & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd
characteristics as individuals without motor disabilities are ed., pp. 697–719). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Heckhausen, J. (1997). Developmental regulation across adulthood:
in theirs. By going beyond group differences in behaviors Primary and secondary control of age-related challenges.
and characteristics and trying to understand underlying Developmental Psychology, 33, 176–187.
processes which account for such differences, we will be Holmbeck, G. N., Johnson, S. Z., Wills, K. E., McKernon, W., Rose,
able to learn more about how motor disabilities contribute B., Erklin, S., & Kemper, T. (2002). Observed and perceived
parental overprotection in relation to psychosocial adjustment in
to diversity in development and the transition to adulthood. preadolescents with a physical disability: The mediational role of
behavioral autonomy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Acknowledgements Data are from a larger study funded by Alberta Psychology, 70, 96–110.
Heritage Foundation for Medical Research and Canadian Institutes of Hubley, A. M., & Hultsch, D. F. (1994). The relationship of
Health Research (CIHR). Dr. Darrah was funded by a New Investi- personality trait variables to subjective age identity in older
gator Grant from CIHR. adults. Research on Aging, 16, 415–439.

123
834 J Youth Adolescence (2007) 36:825–834

Kenny, M. E. (1987). The extent and function of parental attachment classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy.
among first-year college students. Journal of Youth and Adoles- Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 39, 214–223.
cence, 16, 17–29. Pascall, G., & Hendey, N. (2004). Disability and the transition to
Kenny, M. E., Lomax, R., Brabeck, M., & Fife, J. (1998). adulthood: The politics of parenting. Critical Social Policy, 24,
Longitudinal pathways linking adolescent reports of maternal 165–186.
and paternal attachments to psychological well-being. Journal of Rosenthal, D. A., Gurney, R. M., & Moore, S. M. (1981). From trust
Early Adolescence, 18, 221–243. to intimacy: A new inventory for examining Erikson’s stages of
Magill-Evans, J., Darrah, J., Pain, K., Adkins, R., & Kratochvil, M. psychosocial development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
(2001). Are families with adolescents and young adults with 10, 525–537.
cerebral palsy the same as other families? Developmental Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of
Medicine and Child Neurology, 43, 466–472. personal histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341–357.
Markides, K. S., & Boldt, J. S. (1983). Change in subjective age Shanahan, M. J., Porfeli, E. J., Mortimer, J. T., & Erickson, L. D.
among the elderly: A longitudinal analysis. The Gerontologist, (2005). Subjective age identity and the transition to adulthood:
23, 422–427. When do adolescents become adults? In R. A. Settersten Jr., F. F.
Marn, L. M., & Koch, L. C. (1999). The major tasks of adolescence: Furstenberg Jr., & R. G. Rumbaut (Eds.), On the frontier of
Implications for transition planning with youths with cerebral adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy (pp. 225–255).
palsy. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabil- Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
itation, 13, 51–58. Skär, R. N. L. (2003). Peer and adult relationships of adolescents with
Mayseless, O., & Scharf, M. (2003). What does it mean to be an disabilities. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 635–649.
adult? The Israeli experience. In J. J. Arnett & N. L. Galambos Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (1990). Pubertal maturation in female
(Eds.), New directions for child and adolescent development: development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Exploring cultural conceptions of the transition to adulthood Stevenson, C. J., Pharoah, P. O. D., & Stevenson, R. (1997). Cerebral
(No. 100, pp. 5–20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. palsy—the transition from youth to adulthood. Developmental
Montepare, J. M. (1991). Characteristics and psychological correlates Medicine and Child Neurology, 39, 336–342.
of young adult men’s and women’s subjective age. Sex Roles, 24, Stewart, D. A., Law, M. C., Rosenbaum, P., & Willms, D. G. (2001).
323–333. A qualitative study of the transition to adulthood for youth with
Montepare, J. M. (1996a). An assessment of adults’ perceptions of motor disabilities. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediat-
their psychological, physical and social ages. Journal of Clinical rics, 21, 3–21.
Geropsychology, 2, 117–128.
Montepare, J. M. (1996b). Variations in adults’ subjective ages in
relation to birthday nearness, age awareness, and attitudes
toward aging. Journal of Adult Development, 3, 193–203. Author Biographies
Montepare, J. M., & Clements, A. E. (2001). ‘‘Age schemas’’: Guides
to processing information about the self. Journal of Adult
Nancy L. Galambos is a Professor in the Psychology Department at
Development, 8, 99–108.
the University of Alberta. She received her Ph.D. in Human Devel-
Montepare, J. M., & Lachman, M. E. (1989). ‘‘You’re only as old as
opment from Penn State University. Her research interests include
you feel’’: Self-perceptions of age, fears of aging, and life
psychosocial maturity and adjustment during the transition to adult-
satisfaction from adolescence to old age. Psychology and Aging,
hood.
4, 73–78.
Montepare, J. M., Rierdan, J., Koff, E., & Stubbs, M. (1989, May).
The impact of biological events on females’ subjective age Johanna Darrah is a Professor in the Department of Physical
identities. Paper presented at the Eighth Meeting of the Society Therapy. She received her Ph.D. in Rehabilitation Science from the
for Menstrual Cycle Research, Salt Lake City, UT. University of Alberta. Research interests include variability in typical
Murphy, K. P., Molnar, G. E., & Lankasky, K. (2000). Employment development and the management and outcome of persons with
and social issues in adults with cerebral palsy. Archives of developmental motor disabilities.
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, 807–811.
Nelson, L. J., Badger, S., & Wu, B. (2004). The influence of culture in Joyce Magill-Evans is a Professor in the Department of Occupa-
emerging adulthood: Perspectives of Chinese college students. tional Therapy at the University of Alberta. She received her Ph.D. in
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 26–36. Family Studies from the University of Alberta. Her research interests
Palisano, R., Rosenbaum, P., Walter, S., Russell, D., Wood, E., & include children and adolescents with and without disabilities and
Galuppi, B. (1997). Development and reliability of a system to their families.

123