Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1993. Vol.65. No. 1.186-198 Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/93/S3.00 Generativity and Social Motives in \bung Adults Bill E. Peterson and Abigail J. Stewart Different forms of generativity described in the writings of E. H. Erikson (1950/1963) and J. Kotre (1984) were related to agentic and communal motives in a sample of young adults (M = 28 years old). For women, the power motive related to parenting, whereas the achievement motive was associated with forms of generative expression outside of the household. The opposite pattern of achievement and power motive relationships was found for men, although in a weaker form. The affiliation-intimacy motive, on the other hand, related both to women's parenting and societal concerns. Differences in expectations and opportunities for young men and women may account for these gender differences. The results for women support D. P. McAdams's (1988) suggestion that agency and communion are important for understanding generativity. In addition, the results provide evidence that people begin to grapple with generative issues as young adults. Erik Erikson (1950/1963) defined the psychosocial stage of generativity versus stagnation as that time in the life cycle when individuals strive to contribute somehow to the future. These contributions may be oriented toward the production of physi- cal objects or toward enhancing the welfare of others. Erikson directed special attention to parenting as a common expression of generative impulses. A key characteristic of this psychosocial stage of development is that an individual is no longer solely preoccupied with aspects of the self (identity vs. role confusion) or with one intimate other (intimacy vs. isolation); rather his or her concerns broaden to include society as a whole and espe- cially the next generation. Erikson believed that successful ne- gotiation of the generative crisis is indicative of the mature adult. Generative people are able to foster the development of others as well as contribute to the culture in which they belong. In his well-known epigenetic chart, Erikson (Erikson, 1950/ 1963, p. 273) depicted generativity versus stagnation as the sev- enth of eight stages of human development. This epigenetic chart, however, does not accurately reflect the length of time that individuals invest in the resolution of each developmental stage. For example, the critical period for the first psychosocial crisis of trust versus mistrust spans only the early years of in- fancy, whereas the important interval for generativity versus stagnation is hypothesized to involve all of mature adulthood— a period of decades that could involve the birth of children and Bill E. Peterson and Abigail J. Stewart, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan. Preparation of this article was supported in part by a Michigan Minority Merit Fellowship to Bill E. Peterson. Elizabeth M. Douvan, Lauren E. Duncan, and David G. Winter provided important and interesting feedback. Thanks to Eric R. Stone for his assistance in programming and to Lois W Hoffman, Jean Manis, and the Henry A. Murray Research Center at Radcliffe College for generously allowing us access to the Michigan Follow-Up Study. We bear all responsibility for the analyses and interpretations presented in this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bill E. Peterson, University of Michigan, Department of Psychology, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1346. subsequent feelings of the "empty nest" years later (see Erikson, 1980; Hulsizer et al., 1981). Both stages, however, are repre- sented within two squares of the same size, which has helped disguise an interesting puzzle in Erikson's theory. Despite his belief in parenthood as the sine qua non of gener- ativity, it is a simple fact that most women (and many men) have children (for biological and social reasons) in their early 20s and 30s, well before generative strivings were hypothesized by Erik- son to become most salient (around age 40). This raises ques- tions about the appropriateness of Erikson's (1950/1963) model, especially for women's lives. If most women have chil- dren before the age of 40, does this mean that the crisis of generativity versus stagnation comes earlier for women or, as Franz and White (1985) suggested, does becoming a new parent really engage issues of identity development for some or most people? Alternatively, if parenthood is considered best under the rubric of generativity, then the relations among young adult- hood, parental status, and generative striving need to be inves- tigated. After reviewing relevant theoretical and empirical liter- ature, this article provides data for understanding possible gender differences in the way that individual motives channel expressions of parenting involvement and contributing to one's society. By focusing on generativity in young adulthood, we do not mean to deny the importance of parenting for older adults launching their grown children into the world; rather, we hope to understand the impact of becoming a parent on expressions of generativity in the domains of parenting involvement, per- sonal productivity, and societal concern. Parenthood According to Erikson Generativity . . . is primarily the concern in establishing and guiding the next generation, although there are individuals who, through misfortune or because of special and genuine gifts in other directions, do not apply this drive to their own offspring (1950/1963, p. 267). It is clear that for Erikson one of the central expressions of generativity is having and taking care of children. In fact, Erik- 186 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.