Abstract

Previous research has shown that recalling positive influences in one’s life story correlates with generative concern. Given findings that not everyone benefits from generative efforts uniformly, however, the present study tested if extraversion moderates this relation. In total, 147 older German adults (59 through 83 years) recalled positive influences in their lives in an interview session and provided self-report questionnaire data on their generative concern (Loyola Generativity Scale), generative behavior (Generative Behavior Checklist), and extraversion (Mini-IPIP scales). Results from a moderated mediation model indicate that recalled positive influences related to generative concern but not generative behavior. Moreover, extraversion did indeed moderate between recalled positive influences and generative concern in that the relation was significantly positive for medium and high extraversion. The findings suggest that what people learn from generative role models is generative concern rather than generative behavior. They also suggest a twofold role of extraversion for generativity: It has been found to be a predictor of generativity but also affects what people gain from others’ generative efforts.

Highlights

  • In his lifespan developmental theory, Erikson (1963) introduced the term generativity to denote individuals’ desire to help younger generations thrive (Kotre, 1984)

  • Given findings on how extraversion moderated the effects of generative efforts (Thomas et al, 2021), we hypothesized that the relation between positive influences and generative concern would be closer when extraversion is high

  • Drawing on findings on the relation between generative concern and generative behavior (e.g., McAdams et al, 1998), we added the latter to the model so that we tested a moderated mediation: positive influences related to generative concern, but extraversion did moderate this link

Read more

Summary

Participants

Data from 147 participants were used (73 females, 74 males). They ranged from 59 through 83 years in age (M = 68.03, SD = 5.90). A minimum age of 60 years had been set as inclusion criterion, but three participants aged 59 took part, and we decided against discarding their data. Eleven participants who had taken part in the interview session produced missing data in the questionnaire, here defined as more than 10% of items of a given scale unanswered. One participant’s data were discarded because of multivariate outliers. Seven additional participants did not provide any response to the interview question they had initially consented to participate in the interview session

Procedure
Results
Discussion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call