Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS)

Abstract

The Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS) is a premier psychometric instrument developed by Dan P. McAdams and Ed de St. Aubin in 1992 to evaluate individual differences in generative concern among adults. Rooted in Erik Erikson’s epigenetic model of psychosocial development—specifically the seventh crisis of midlife, generativity versus stagnation—the LGS assesses an individual’s conscious preoccupation with and commitment to promoting the well-being of future generations. The instrument comprises 20 self-report items administered via a 4-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 0 (“This statement does not apply to me at all”) to 3 (“This statement applies to me very often”). Over three decades of empirical investigation, the LGS has demonstrated robust psychometric properties across diverse demographic, cultural, and clinical cohorts. Classical test theory and structural equation modeling indicate excellent internal consistency (with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely between .82 and .89) and acceptable test-retest reliability across multi-week and longitudinal intervals. Factor analytic inquiries corroborate a dominant unidimensional latent construct representing overall generative concern, while illuminating secondary dimensions related to transmitting cultural knowledge, making enduring contributions, accepting personal responsibility, and securing symbolic immortality. Construct validity is supported by strong positive correlations with generative behaviors, altruism, civic participation, parental involvement, authoritative parenting styles, and indices of psychological flourishing (such as life satisfaction, purpose in life, and ego maturity). Conversely, the scale demonstrates adequate discriminant validity with measures of neuroticism, social desirability, and generalized achievement motivation. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the LGS, delineating its historical origin, conceptual framework, structural validity, reliability parameters, factor structure, scoring protocol, and empirical utility in developmental, organizational, and clinical psychology.

Keywords

Loyola Generativity Scale, LGS, Generativity, Adult Development, Erik Erikson, Dan P. McAdams, Psychometrics, Factor Structure, Construct Validity, Midlife Stagnation, Civic Engagement, Psychological Well-Being, Prosocial Behavior, Foley Center for the Study of Lives

Authors

The Loyola Generativity Scale was formulated, validated, and published by Dan P. McAdams, Ph.D., and Ed de St. Aubin, Ph.D., in 1992 through their seminal investigation conducted at the Foley Center for the Study of Lives, Northwestern University.

• Dan P. McAdams, Ph.D.: Henry Wade Rogers Professor of Psychology and Professor of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA. McAdams is internationally renowned for his foundational contributions to narrative psychology, life-story identity theory, and adult personality development. He founded the Foley Center for the Study of Lives, directing long-term programs on the psychological, social, and narrative configurations of generativity.
• Ed de St. Aubin, Ph.D.: Associate Professor of Psychology at Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. His scholarship focuses on adult development, personality trajectory across the lifespan, social identity, and personal life narratives.

Correspondence regarding the original development of the LGS was maintained through the School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, 2120 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Loyola Generativity Scale is to measure adult individual variations in generative concern—the conscious, felt desire and intention to care for, nurture, guide, and leave a positive legacy for subsequent generations. Prior to the construction of the LGS, empirical operationalizations of Erikson’s construct of generativity were fragmented, inconsistent, and predominantly reliant on broad stage inventories or projective assessments that failed to capture the multifaceted cognitive-affective fabric of generative concern.

McAdams and de St. Aubin designed the LGS to isolate generative concern from other distinct aspects of generativity, such as cultural demands, inner desires, behavioral acts, and autobiographical narratives. The instrument fulfills three central imperatives in psychological assessment:

• Psychometric Operationalization of Psychosocial Theory: It operationalizes Erikson’s seventh developmental stage into a standardized, easily administered psychometric format that quantifies the degree to which an adult prioritizes communal welfare, legacy creation, and intergenerational transmission.
• Longitudinal and Developmental Research: It enables developmental psychologists to map changes in personality structure across the adult lifespan. The LGS permits the investigation of whether generative concern peaks during midlife (ages 35–60) as classically theorized, how it endures into older adulthood, and how it varies by gender, parental status, and occupational trajectories.
• Predictive Utility in Prosocial and Civic Domains: The scale acts as an empirical diagnostic of broad social commitment. It predicts participation in volunteerism, political involvement, community leadership, effective mentorship within corporate and educational environments, and authoritative parenting practices.

In applied and clinical settings, the LGS is utilized in life review therapy, adult counseling, and gerontological interventions. Depressive symptomatology and existential crises in midlife and older adulthood frequently manifest as stagnation—the subjective impression that one’s life is inert, self-absorbed, and devoid of lasting social significance. By measuring levels of generative concern, clinicians can evaluate an individual’s readiness to invest in communal pursuits, facilitate constructive reframing of life narratives, and design therapeutic goals aimed at rebuilding agency and relational connection.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the Loyola Generativity Scale is generative concern. Within McAdams and de St. Aubin’s (1992) comprehensive multidimensional model of generativity, generativity is conceptualized as an integrated configuration comprising seven interrelated components: cultural demand, inner desire, generative concern, generative belief, generative commitment, generative action, and generative narration.

The LGS focuses squarely on generative concern—the subjective, motivational orientation centered on caring for the next generation. This psychological construct is characterized by the following theoretical dimensions:

• Passing on Knowledge and Skills (Pedagogical Intent): The conscious motivation to instruct, guide, and transfer hard-won life lessons, technical competencies, and cultural values to younger individuals (e.g., Item 1: “I try to pass along the knowledge I have gained through my experiences”; Item 18: “I have important skills that I try to teach to others”).
• Symbolic Immortality and Enduring Legacy: The cognitive preoccupation with creating tangible works, institutional contributions, or familial lineages that will outlast physical death, thereby securing a meaningful form of immortality (e.g., Item 20: “I think that I will be remembered for a long time after I die”; Item 10: “I feel as though I have done nothing of lasting value to the world”, reverse-scored).
• Community Responsibility and Civic Care: The moral and psychological felt obligation to improve social conditions, enhance local neighborhoods, and advance the human condition (e.g., Item 11: “I made a commitment to myself to make the world a better place to live in”; Item 15: “I have a responsibility to improve the neighborhood in which I live”).
• Interpersonal Need and Impact: The perceived social utility of one’s existence—the sense that one is sought out for guidance, relied upon by others, and effective in shaping other individuals’ life outcomes (e.g., Item 4: “I feel as though I have made a difference to many people”; Item 16: “People come to me for advice”; Item 13: “I do not feel needed by other people”, reverse-scored).
• Generative Investment and Altruistic Sacrifice: The willingness to expend psychological, emotional, and material resources for the sustained benefit of others, even at personal expense (e.g., Item 8: “I have made a lot of sacrifices for people who are important to me”; Item 5: “I do not have a great investment in the next generation”, reverse-scored).

Crucially, generative concern as measured by the LGS is not merely an indicator of generic extroversion or general self-esteem. It specifically taps into the synthesis of agency (the drive for power, achievement, distinctiveness, and lasting individual legacy) and communion (the drive for intimacy, care, connection, and community integration). Highly generative adults orchestrate agentic energies in service of communal ends, creating enduring artifacts, ideas, or social networks designed to benefit descendants and society.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Loyola Generativity Scale originates in the psychosocial developmental theory of Erik H. Erikson (1950, 1963, 1982). Erikson posited that human life unfolds through eight sequential, epigenetically predetermined stages, each delineated by a nuclear psychosocial crisis. In Stage 7—characteristic of adulthood and middle age—the individual encounters the crisis of Generativity versus Stagnation.

For Erikson, generativity represents primarily the concern in establishing and guiding the next generation. When an adult successfully resolves the earlier crises of identity (Stage 5) and intimacy (Stage 6), the psychosocial ego strength of Care emerges: a widening commitment to take care of the persons, products, and ideas one has learned to care for. Failure to resolve this stage culminates in stagnation, characterized by interpersonal impoverishment, pervasive self-indulgence, early pseudo-intimacy, and an existential sense that life lacks progression and social value.

In 1992, McAdams and de St. Aubin modernized Erikson’s conceptualization by articulating a structural model designed to resolve ambiguities in the psychoanalytic literature. They argued that generativity cannot be treated as a monolithic, unitary trait, but rather as a system of forces operating across societal, cognitive, behavioral, and narrative levels:

1. Societal Demands: Cultural expectations that adults assume responsibility for dependent youth and community institutions.
2. Inner Desires: Instinctual and developmental drives, specifically the agentic desire to be remembered (symbolic immortality) and the communal desire to be needed.
3. Generative Concern: The conscious, cognitive-affective prioritization of generative goals—the core construct captured by the LGS.
4. Generative Belief: A foundational faith in the species; the philosophical conviction that human life is worthwhile and improvable.
5. Generative Commitment: Personal goals and behavioral decisions structured to channel concern into action.
6. Generative Action: Tangible behaviors, such as creating, teaching, mentoring, parenting, and volunteering.
7. Narrative Identity: The construction of redemptive life stories wherein suffering is transformed into generative growth and societal contribution.

Under this theoretical model, the LGS assesses the conscious cognitive crystallization of inner desires and cultural demands. It acts as the motivational engine that drives generative action and informs the adult’s narrative identity.

Validity

The Loyola Generativity Scale has undergone extensive empirical validation, documenting high levels of construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across varied developmental and cultural populations.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In their initial validation study, McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992) evaluated the LGS alongside multi-method indicators of generativity across samples of college students and community-dwelling adults (ages 19–68). The LGS demonstrated substantial positive correlations with:

• Generative Behavior Checklist (GBC): Correlations between the LGS and the GBC ranged from r = .40 to r = .59 (p < .001), indicating that self-reported generative concern translates into concrete generative acts (e.g., tutoring, planting trees, donating blood, attending town meetings).
• Generative Personal Strivings: Analysis of open-ended personal strivings using McAdams’s thematic coding system revealed that higher LGS scores significantly predicted generative thematic content in daily personal goals (r = .34 to r = .47, p < .01).
• Eriksonian Psychosocial Inventories: The LGS correlated robustly with established measures of Erikson’s seventh stage, such as the Ochse and Plug (1986) Generativity Subscale (r = .70 to .75, p < .001), confirming conceptual concordance.
• Psychological Well-Being: The LGS exhibits consistent positive correlations with Carol Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-Being, specifically Purpose in Life (r = .50 to .62), Positive Relations with Others (r = .45 to .55), and Self-Acceptance (r = .35 to .48).

Discriminant Validity

To establish that the LGS does not merely measure non-specific positive affect, social desirability, or general personality traits, McAdams and de St. Aubin examined divergent patterns:

• Social Desirability: Correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale were non-significant or weak (r = .12 to .18), showing that scores are not an artifact of impression management.
• Five-Factor Model (Big Five): When examined against the NEO Personality Inventory, the LGS correlates moderately with Extraversion (r ≈ .30 to .40), Agreeableness (r ≈ .35 to .45), and Openness to Experience (r ≈ .25 to .35), but demonstrates near-zero or weak negative associations with Neuroticism (r ≈ -.10 to -.25). Hierarchical regression analyses show that the LGS accounts for significant unique variance in behavioral outcomes after controlling for the Big Five dimensions.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Extensive lifespan studies confirm the predictive power of the LGS. Longitudinal data indicate that adults with elevated LGS scores demonstrate significantly higher rates of community volunteerism, civic engagement, voting behavior, and leadership in social institutions (Hart et al., 1998). In parenting studies, high LGS parents demonstrate greater authoritative parenting behaviors, more direct involvement in their children’s schooling, and produce adolescents with higher academic competence and social maturity.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Loyola Generativity Scale has been evaluated through estimations of internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

In the initial instrument development study by McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992), the LGS exhibited strong internal consistency across both student and adult community cohorts:

• Community adult sample (N = 169): Cronbach’s alpha (α) was .84.
• College student sample (N = 78): Cronbach’s alpha (α) was .83.

Subsequent investigations across diverse socioeconomic, ethnic, and international populations have verified this stability. In large-scale national studies, such as the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study and follow-up cohorts, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely fall within the .82 to .89 range. McDonald’s omega total (ω_t) values reported in structural modeling studies mirror these findings, consistently exceeding .85.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments have confirmed that generative concern behaves as an enduring personality disposition throughout adulthood:

• Over a 3-week retest interval among young adults, the test-retest reliability coefficient was r = .84 (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992).
• Longitudinal evaluations spanning multiple years during midlife demonstrate moderate-to-high rank-order stability coefficients (ranging from r = .60 to .75 over 5-to-10-year periods), consistent with the stability of broad personality traits while reflecting predictable developmental maturation.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the Loyola Generativity Scale has been examined using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original factor extraction conducted by McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992) utilizing principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations, the scree plot and eigenvalue criteria (eigenvalue > 1.0) revealed a strong, dominant primary factor accounting for the largest proportion of total common variance (approximately 28% to 32% of unrotated variance). Although minor auxiliary factors emerged with eigenvalues marginally exceeding unity, their item loadings cross-loaded significantly, and the scree inflection distinctly supported an essentially unidimensional model of general generative concern.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Alternative Models

Subsequent psychometric researchers (e.g., Hofer et al., 2008; McAdams et al., 1998) tested both unidimensional and multidimensional models via CFA:

• Unidimensional Model: A single general latent trait of Generative Concern accounts for the covariance among all 20 items. Fit indices in community samples demonstrate adequate fit: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≈ .052 to .064, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≈ .90 to .93, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≈ .89 to .92, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≈ .048 to .058.
• Multidimensional Sub-Facet Models: Several investigators have identified viable four- or five-factor solutions mapping onto specific generative facets:
  1. Passing Knowledge / Teaching: Items 1, 3, 12, 18.
  2. Legacy / Symbolic Immortality: Items 8, 10, 20.
  3. Social / Neighborhood Responsibility: Items 11, 15.
  4. Perceived Social Utility / Being Needed: Items 2, 4, 13, 16, 17.
• Bifactor Model: Recent psychometric evaluations suggest that a bifactor model—comprising one dominant general generativity factor alongside narrow facet factors—yields superior statistical fit (CFI > .95, RMSEA < .05). However, because the general factor accounts for more than 75% of the common variance (Explained Common Variance; ECV > .75), researchers continue to recommend scoring the LGS as a single composite index of generative concern.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS)
• Authors: Dan P. McAdams and Ed de St. Aubin
• Original Publication: 1992
• Construct Measured: Generative concern (Eriksonian psychosocial generativity vs. stagnation)
• Test Format: 20-item self-report questionnaire
• Administration Mode: Paper-and-pencil, computerized survey, or clinical interview
• Completion Time: 5 to 10 minutes
• Target Population: Adults (emerging, middle, and late adulthood; ages 18+)
• Response Scale: 4-point Likert scale (0 to 3):
  • 0 = This statement does not apply to me at all (or is completely false for me)
  • 1 = This statement applies only slightly (or is seldom true for me)
  • 2 = This statement applies to me moderately (or is often true for me)
  • 3 = This statement applies to me very often (or is almost always true for me)
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Reverse Scored Items: Items 2, 5, 7, 13, 14, and 16 must be reverse-coded prior to summing (i.e., 0 becomes 3, 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 1, and 3 becomes 0).
  • Total Score Calculation: Sum all 20 items (after reversing specified items).
  • Possible Score Range: 0 to 60.
• Interpretation: Higher aggregate scores indicate greater levels of generative concern, prosocial intergenerational commitment, and perceived social contribution. Lower scores reflect relative psychosocial stagnation, alienation, self-absorption, or low perceived efficacy regarding social impact.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Development: 1992.
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: © 1992 Dan P. McAdams and Ed de St. Aubin; © 2009 Northwestern University (School of Education and Social Policy).
• Usage Rights and Permissions: The Loyola Generativity Scale is freely accessible for non-commercial academic, clinical, and scholarly research purposes. The authors and the Foley Center for the Study of Lives at Northwestern University provide the scale in the public domain for research use without licensing fees.
• Commercial Applications: Any commercial deployment, inclusion in proprietary corporate consulting batteries, or for-profit clinical distribution requires formal permission from the primary author or the Northwestern University School of Education and Social Policy.

References

• Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Erikson, E. H. (1963). Youth: Change and challenge. Basic Books.
• Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed: A review. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Hart, H. M., McAdams, D. P., Hirsch, B. J., & Bauer, J. J. (1998). Generativity and social involvement among African Americans and White adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(2), 208–230. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2314
• Hofer, J., Busch, H., Chasiotis, A., Kärtner, J., & Campos, D. (2008). Concern for generativity and basic need satisfaction in older adults: A cross-cultural study in Germany, Hong Kong, and Cameroon. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(6), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025408095551
• 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(6), 1003–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.1003
• McAdams, D. P., Hart, H. M., & Maruna, S. (1998). The anatomy of generativity. In D. P. McAdams & E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development: How and why we care for the next generation (pp. 7–43). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10288-001
• Ochse, R., & Plug, C. (1986). Cross-cultural investigation of the validity of Erikson’s theory of personality development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1240–1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1240
• Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)