As this 47-year-old man suggests, realizing that one has reached midlife can be difficult. In many Western societies, age 40 undeniably marks one as middle-aged—at least in the public eye—and suggests that one is on the threshold of a “midlife crisis.” How true this view is, as we’ll see, depends on your perspective.

Traditional views of adult personality development have suggested that people move through a fixed series of stages, each tied closely to age. These stages are related to specific crises in which an individual undergoes an intense period of questioning and psychological turmoil. This perspective is a feature of the normative-crisis models of personality development. 
 Normative-crisis models see personality development as universal stages of sequential, age-related crises. For example, Erik Erikson’s psychosocial theory predicts that people move through a series of stages and crises throughout their life span.

Some critics suggest that normative-crisis approaches may be outmoded. They arose at a time when society had fairly rigid and uniform roles for people. Traditionally, men were expected to work and support a family; women were expected to stay at home and take care of the children. These roles played out at relatively uniform ages.

Today, there is considerable variety in both the roles and the timing. Some people marry and have children at 40. Others have children and marry later. Others never marry and live with a partner of the same or opposite sex and perhaps adopt a child or forgo children altogether. In sum, social changes have called into question the normative-crisis models closely tied to age (Fugate & Mitchell, 1997; Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Fraenkel, 2003).

Because of this variation, some theorists, such as Ravenna Helson, focus on life events models, which suggest that particular events, rather than age per se, determine how personality develops. For instance, a woman who has her first child at age 21 may experience similar psychological forces as a woman who has her first child at age 39. These two women, despite their very different ages, share certain commonalities of personality development (Helson & Srivastava, 2001; Roberts, Helson, & Klohnen, 2002; Luhmann et al., 2013).

It is not clear whether the normative-crisis view or the life events perspective more accurately depicts personality development and change in adulthood. What is clear is that developmental theorists all agree that midlife is a time of continuing, significant psychological growth.

As we discussed earlier, psychoanalyst Erik Erikson characterized midlife as a period of 
 generativity-versus-stagnation. One’s middle adulthood, according to Erikson, is either spent in generativity—making a contribution to family, community, work, and society—or in stagnation. Generative people strive to guide and encourage future generations. Often, people find generativity through parenting, but other roles can fill this need, such as working directly with young people, acting as mentors. Or the need for generativity may be satisfied through creative and artistic output, seeking to leave a lasting contribution. The focus of generativity, then, is beyond the self, as one looks toward the continuation of one’s own life through others (Clark & Arnold, 2008; Penningroth & Scott, 2012; Schoklitsch & Baumann, 2012).

A lack of psychological growth in this period results in stagnation. Focusing on their own trivial activities, people may feel they have contributed little to the world, that their presence has counted for little. Some people find themselves floundering, still seeking new, potentially more fulfilling careers. Others become frustrated and bored.

Erikson provides a broad overview, but some psychologists suggest that we need a more precise look at midlife changes in personality. We’ll consider three alternative approaches.

Building on Erikson’s Views: Vaillant, Gould, and Levinson. Developmentalist George Vaillant (1977) argues that an important period between ages 45 and 55 centers on “keeping the meaning” versus rigidity. Seeking to extract meaning from their lives, adults also seek to “keep the meaning” by accepting the strengths and weaknesses of others. Although they realize it is not perfect, they strive to safeguard their world, and they are relatively content. The man quoted at the beginning of this section, for example, appears content with the meaning he has found in his life. People who are unable to achieve this risk becoming rigid and in creasingly isolated from others.

Psychiatrist Roger Gould (1978) offers an alternative to Erikson’s and Vaillant’s views. He agrees that people move through a series of stages and potential crises, but he suggests that adults pass through seven stages associated with specific age periods (see Table 8-2). According to Gould, people in their late 30s and early 40s begin to feel a sense of urgency about attaining life’s goals as they realize that their life is finite. Coming to grips with this reality can propel people toward maturity.

Gould based his model of development on a small sample and relied heavily on his own clinical judgments. Little research has supported his description of the various stages, which was heavily influenced by the psychoanalytic perspective.

Another alternative to Erikson’s work is psychologist Daniel Levinson’s seasons of life theory. According to Levinson (1986, 1992), who intensively interviewed men, the early 40s are a period of transition and crisis. He suggests that adult men pass through a series of stages beginning with early adulthood, around age 20, and continuing into midlife. The beginning stages center on leaving one’s family and entering the adult world.

However, at around age 40 or 45, people move to what Levinson calls the midlife transition. The midlife transition is a time of questioning, a focus on the finite nature of life. People begin to question some of their fundamental assumptions. They experience the first signs of aging, and they confront the fact that they will not accomplish all their aims before they die.

In Levinson’s view, this assessment may lead to a midlife crisis, a stage of uncertainty and indecision. Facing signs of physical aging, men may also discover that even the accomplishments of which they are proudest have brought them less satisfaction than they expected. They may try to define what went wrong and seek ways to correct past mistakes. The midlife crisis is a painful and tumultuous period of questioning.

Levinson’s view is that most people are susceptible to a fairly profound midlife crisis. Before accepting his perspective, we need to consider some critical drawbacks in his research. First, his initial theory was based on 40 men, and his work with women was conducted years later and, again, on a small sample. Levinson also overstated the consistency and generality of the patterns he found. In fact, the notion of a universal midlife crisis has come under considerable criticism (McFadden & Swan, 2012; Cousins, 2013).

The Midlife Crisis: Reality or Myth? Central to Levinson’s model is the concept of midlife crisis, a period in the early 40s presumed to be marked by intense psychological turmoil. The notion has taken on a life of its own: There is a general expectation in U.S. society that age 40 is an important psychological juncture.

Such a view is problematic: The evidence is simply lacking. In fact, most research suggests that most people pass into middle age with relative ease. The majority regard midlife as a particularly rewarding time. If they are parents, the physically demanding period of childrearing is usually over, and in some cases children have left the home, allowing parents the opportunity to rekindle their intimacy. Many people find that their careers have blossomed, and they feel quite content with their lives. Focusing on the present, they seek to maximize their involvement with family, friends, and other social groups. Those who regret the course of their lives may be motivated to change directions, and those who do change end up better off psychologically. Furthermore, most people feel younger entering midlife than they actually are (Wethington, Cooper, & Holmes, 1997; Stewart & Vandewater, 1999; Willis, Martin, & Rocke, 2010).

The evidence for the inevitability of midlife crisis is no more compelling than was the evidence for a stormy adolescence, discussed earlier. Yet, the notion of a universal midlife crisis seems well entrenched in “common wisdom.” Why?

One reason may be that turmoil in middle age is both obvious and easily remembered by observers. A 40-year-old man who divorces his wife, trades his Ford Taurus station wagon for a red Saab convertible and marries a much younger woman makes a greater impression than a happily married man who remains with his spouse (and Taurus) through middle adulthood. We are more likely to notice and recall marital difficulties than the lack of them. In this way the myth of a blustery and universal midlife crisis is perpetuated. For most people, though, a midlife crisis is more the stuff of fiction than of reality. In fact, for some people midlife brings few, if any, changes. As we consider in the “Cultural Dimensions” segment, in some cultures, middle age is not even considered a separate period of life.

Harry Hennesey, age 53 and a vice president of an investment banking firm, says he still feels like a kid. Many middle-aged adults would agree. Although most people say they have changed a good deal since adolescence—and mostly for the better—many also perceive important similarities in basic personality traits between their present and younger selves.

The degree to which personality is stable across the life span or changes as we age is a major issue of personality development in middle adulthood. Theorists such as Erikson and Levinson clearly suggest that substantial change occurs over time. Erikson’s stages and Levinson’s seasons describe set patterns of change. The change may be predictable and age related, but it is substantial.

An impressive body of research, however, suggests that for individual traits, personality is quite stable and continuous over the life span. Developmental psychologists Paul Costa and Robert McCrae find remarkable stability in particular traits. Even-tempered 20-year-olds are even-tempered at age 75; affectionate 25-year-olds become affectionate 50-year-olds; and disorganized 26-year-olds are still disorganized at age 60. Similarly, self-concept at age 30 is a good indication of self-concept at age 80. In fact, traits may become more ingrained as people age (Terracciano, Costa, & McCrae, 2006; Terracciano, McCrae, & Costa, 2009; Mõttus, 
Johnson, & Deary, 2012) (also see Figure 8-6).

Figure 8-6

The Stability of Personality

Stability and Change in the “Big Five” Personality Traits. Quite a bit of research has centered on the personality traits known as the “Big Five”—because they represent the five major clusters of personality characteristics. These are:

• Neuroticism, the degree to which a person is moody, anxious, and self-critical

• Extraversion, how outgoing or shy a person is

• Openness, a person’s level of curiosity and interest in new experiences

• Agreeableness, how easygoing and helpful a person tends to be

• Conscientiousness, a person’s tendencies to be organized and responsible

The majority of studies find that the Big Five traits are relatively stable past the age of 30, although variations exist for specific traits. In particular, neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience decline somewhat from early adulthood, while agreeableness and conscientiousness tend to increase—findings that are consistent across cultures. The basic pattern, however, is one of stability through adulthood (McCrae & Costa, 2003; Srivastava et al., 2003; Renner, 2010; Hahn, Gottschling, & Spinath, 2012).

Does evidence for the stability of traits contradict the theories of personality change championed by Erikson, Gould, and Levinson? Not necessarily, for the contradictions may be more apparent than real.

People’s basic traits do show continuity over the course of their adult lives. But, people are also susceptible to changes, and adulthood is packed with major changes in family status, career, and even the economy. The physical changes of aging, illness, the death of a loved one, and an increased awareness of life’s finite span also can spur changes in how people view themselves and the world at large (Krueger & Heckhausen, 1993; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006).

In support of this view, new research on a group of baby boomers that stretches back to their college years traces changes in their personality that extend over the course of their adult lives.

Happiness Across the Life Span. Suppose you hit it big winning the Powerball lottery. Would you be a happier person? For most people, the answer would be no. A growing body of research shows that adults’ subjective well-being or general happiness remains stable over their lives. Even winning the lottery increases subjective well-being only temporarily; one year later, people’s happiness tends to return to pre-lottery levels (Diener, 2000; Stone et al., 2010).

The steadiness of subjective well-being suggests that most people have a general “set point” for happiness, a level of happiness that is relatively consistent despite the day-to-day ups and downs of life. Although specific events may temporarily elevate or depress a person’s mood (e.g., a surprisingly high job evaluation or being laid off from work), people eventually return to their general level of happiness.

On the other hand, happiness set points are not completely fixed. Under some conditions, set points can change as a result of particular life events, such as divorce, death of a spouse, unemployment, and disability. Furthermore, people differ in the extent to which they can adapt to events (Lucas, 2007; Diener, Lucas, & Scollon, 2009).

Most people’s happiness set points seem to be fairly high. Some 30 percent of people in the United States rate themselves as “very happy,” while only 10 percent rate themselves as “not too happy.” Most people say they are “pretty happy.” These findings are similar across different social groups. Men and women rate themselves as equally happy, and African Americans rate themselves as “very happy” at only slightly lower rates than whites. Regardless of their economic situation, residents of countries across the world have similar levels of happiness (Diener, 2000; Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003; Kahneman et al., 2006; Delle Fave et al., 2013). The conclusion: Money doesn’t buy happiness.

• In normative-crisis models, people pass through age-related stages of development; life events models focus on how people change in response to various life events.

• Levinson argues that the transition to middle age can lead to a midlife crisis, but there is little evidence for this in the majority of people.

• Broad, basic personality characteristics are relatively stable. Specific aspects of personality do seem to change in response to life events.

• How do you think the midlife transition is different for a middle-aged person whose child has just entered adolescence versus a middle-aged person who has just become a parent for the first time?