Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionII. Psychodynamic
Theories- Erikson: Post−Freudian
Theory
© The McGraw−Hill^275
Companies, 2009myself and my children” and “It is hard to say what my goals are.” To measure gen-
erativity, the researchers used the LGS previously described and used in most research
on generativity. To see how these two constructs match up to important outcomes,
the researchers selected a broad measure of mental health that included the assess-
ment of symptoms related to various personality disorders such as the inability to
regulate emotions and intimacy issues.
The results of this study supported the new proposition that stagnation and
generativity should be considered independently. For example, stagnation and gen-
erativity did not predict mental health outcomes in the same way. Those who were
high on stagnation tended to be less able to regulate their emotions; yet, at the same
time, generativity was not related to emotion regulation. If only generativity had
been measured (and not stagnation separately), then these researchers would not
have uncovered the important finding that stagnation is related to problems in emo-
tional regulation. The researchers also found that there are individuals who are high
on both generativity and stagnation and that such a personality profile is not healthy
in terms of mental and emotional well-being. Compared to people who are high on
generativity but low on stagnation, people who are high on both dimensions are less
able to regulate their emotions and experience more intimacy difficulties. Both of
these qualities are considered to be components of a maladaptive personality.
Conceptually, this research does not differ a great deal from Erikson’s model
(stagnation and generativity are still included). It does show, however, that for the
practical purposes of research and in order to understand personality in adulthood
more fully, stagnation and generativity can and sometimes do operate separately and
independently in adult development.
Critique of Erikson
Erikson built his theory largely on ethical principles and not necessarily on scientific
data. He came to psychology from art and acknowledged that he saw the world more
through the eyes of an artist than through those of a scientist. He once wrote that he
had nothing to offer except “a way of looking at things” (Erikson, 1963, p. 403). His
books are admittedly subjective and personal, which undoubtedly adds to their ap-
peal. Nevertheless, Erikson’s theory must be judged by the standards of science, not
ethics or art.
The first criterion of a useful theory is its ability to generate research,and by
this standard, we rate Erikson’s theory somewhat higher than average. For example,
the topic of ego identity alone has generated several hundred studies, and other as-
pects of Erikson’s developmental stages, such as intimacy versus isolation (Gold &
Rogers, 1995) and generativity (Arnett, 2000; Pratt, Norris, Arnold, & Filyer, 1999),
as well as the entire life cycle (Whitbourne, Zuschlag, Elliot, & Waterman, 1992),
have stimulated active empirical investigations.
Despite this active research, we rate Erikson’s theory only average on the cri-
terion of falsifiability.Many findings from this body of research can be explained by
theories other than Erikson’s developmental stages theory.
In its ability to organize knowledge,Erikson’s theory is limited mostly to de-
velopmental stages. It does not adequately address such issues as personal traits or
Chapter 9 Erikson: Post-Freudian Theory 269