Generativity in Midlife and Young Adults: Links to Agency, Communion, and Subjective Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three questions stimulated by Erik Erikson's theory of generativity were addressed: 1) Is generativity associated with greater subjective well-being? 2) Are agency and communion additive or interactive predictors of generativity? 3) Does generativity play a distinct role during the midlife period? Among ninety-eight midlife adults, generativity was positively related to positive affectivity, satisfaction with life, and work satisfaction. Generativity was independently predicted by agentic (masculine) and communal (feminine) traits. Among fifty-eight young adults, generativity predicted positive affect at home. Generativity was independently predicted by agentic (power) and communal (love) interpersonal orientations. Using event-contingent recording of agentic and communal behavior at work, agency was a stronger predictor of generativity for young adult men, and communion was a stronger predictor for young adult women. The studies demonstrate that generativity has similar relations to agency and communion in young and midlife adults; however, generativity may be a stronger predictor of subjective well-being in midlife adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".