1993, 2004). In most cases, participants are asked to describe scenes from
their life. These scenes might include a high point in their life, a turning pointin their life, an important childhood memory, and so on. These accounts ob-
viously tell us something about the character of the participant. But how do
researchers turn these descriptions into data they can use to compare people
and test hypotheses? First, interviews are recorded and probably transcribed.
Next, judges review the interview transcripts or the written responses and
code the stories according to preset criteria. For example, judges may countthe number of times certain themes are mentioned, such as overcoming hard-
ships. Or they may place the stories into one of several predefined categories.
In most cases, two or more judges independently code the stories. If the judgesagree on the vast majority of their assessments, then the ratings are considered
reliable and useful (Chapter 2). However, if one judge rates a story high in
achievement themes, while another rates the same story as low, then it ’s impos-
sible to know which of these assessments is correct. The solution is to either
clarify the coding criteria or retrain the judges on how to apply the criteria.
Like other measures of personality, scores from personal narratives tend
to be consistent over time (McAdams et al., 2006). However, the procedurealso raises some questions. Chief among these is how much credence re-
searchers should give these autobiographical accounts (Pasupathi, McLean,
& Weeks, 2009; Woike, 2008). That is, how accurately do people report
their life stories? Even the best memory is likely to be a bit hazy when looking
back several decades. Participants may selectively remember flattering por-
trayals of themselves and overlook failures and embarrassments. And most
of us have stories we might not want to reveal to a researcher. Investigators
acknowledge that personal narratives are selective presentations and most
likely fall short of perfect accuracy (McAdams, Diamond, de St. Aubin, &
Mansfield, 1997). However, they argue that what people choose to remember
and the way they construct their past is telling. It ’s more important that an in-
dividual believes a tragic event shaped his or her character than whether or
not the event actually did so.
Generativity and Life Stories
Psychologists have found personal narratives especially useful for studying
Erik Erikson ’s stages of personality development. In particular, much of this
research has focused on the seventh stage in that model, generativity versus
stagnation (Frensch, Pratt, & Norris, 2007; McAdams et al., 1997; McAdams,
Reynolds, Lewis, Patten, & Bowman, 2001; Pratt, Norris, Hebblethwaite, &
Arnold, 2008). According to Erikson, middle-aged adults often are motivated toobtain a sense of generativity. People this age obtain personal satisfaction and
enrichment through the influence they have on the next generation. Erikson and
his followers thought of generativity in much broader terms than parents influ-encing their children (McAdams, Hart, & Maruna, 1998). People can obtain a
sense of generativity by working directly with youth as an uncle, scout leader,
or Sunday school teacher. Adults also can satisfy their need for generativity bydoing their part to create a better world for the next generation to live in.118 CHAPTER 5 The Psychoanalyt ic Approach