Analysis of Chronological and Subjective Age in Emerging Adulthood: The Crossover Effect - Research Paper Example

The focus of this analysis is to analyse the research paper “Chronological and ive age in emerging adulthood: The crossover effect” by Nancy Galambos, Pamela Turner and Lauree Tilton-Weaver (2005). Firstly, I shall provide an overview of the study and its claims and evaluate the claims made in context of other literature pertaining to emerging adulthood. The research paper explores the relationship between chronological age and subjective age in emerging adulthood. Galambos, Turner and Tilton-Weaver (2005) utilised predictors of variability in subjective age among a sample of 190 university students (which comprised 140 females and 50 males) aged 17 to 29. The sample completed questionnaires assessing their subjective age, psychosocial maturity, number of role transitions, financial dependence, economic pressure and alcohol abuse. The results of the study extrapolated that there is a negative relationship between subjective age and chronological age, with older individuals feeling younger than their chronological age and younger individuals feeling older than their subjective age. It was further posited, that the crossover from older to a younger subjective age occurred at about 25.5 years. The paper further concluded that psychosocial maturity is the only significant predictor of subjective age, with the higher maturity related to feeling older. They further discuss the younger subjective age correlation in context of a transition linked turning point in which emerging adults redefine who they are in the context of changing reference groups and the perceived novelty of their recently acquired autonomy. Before considering the results of the study, it is first important to consider the literature pertaining to the transition from childhood to adulthood. Rindfuss (1991) has defined the crossover effect as being “demographically dense” because it is defined by a larger number of transitions in and out of varying roles in a short period of time (Rindfuss, 1991). Moreover, it has been argued that these transitions are pivotal points during which individuals will experience most key turning point life events involving family and relationships, education and work (Elnick, Magrett, Fitzgerald & Labouvie-Vief, 1999). Moreover, there appear to be diverging views regarding the dominance socio-economic background factors in the crossover effect, which is indicated by the detailed discussion in the research study itself. Indeed, it is submitted at the outset that the transition will inherently be subjective and dependent on the transition of various roles. As such, it is submitted that the results of any sample is intrinsically limited by the operation of a multiplicity of background causal factors and therefore any results in this research paper should be evaluated in that context. For example, one line of argument posits that in general terms transition to adulthood and crossover is achieved when an individual completes school, moves out from their parent’s home, establishes employment, gets married and becomes a parent (Settersten, Furstenberg & Rumbaut, 2005). Conversely, it is submitted that the transition points themselves are shaped by multifarious factors beyond mere macroeconomic forces; including shifts in the roles of social institutions, social norms and social values, which further can constrain role opportunities (Schwartz, Cote & Arnett, 2005). As such, Schwartz, Cote & Arnett propound that the variation in transition is inherently dependent on subjective circumstances (Schwartz, Cote & Arnett, 2005). To this end, the role-based definition of transition to adulthood reflects sociological and demographic perspectives outside parochial microeconomic theory. As such, it is submitted that the interrelationship between these factors must be considered in any contemporary research regarding the relationship between subjective and chronological age and the crossover effect. The positive aspect of the research study is that it refers to the extensive body of literature pertaining to emerging adulthood and expressly acknowledges the interplay of complex socio-economic and psychosocial factors in emerging adulthood. Moreover, the diverging views are evident in the research study’s literature review, whereby the paper refers to Arnett’s (2004) view that: “Emerging adulthood is characterised by a diversity of life situations with respect to education, work, and romance: experimentation with different behaviours and identities; and subjective perceptions of oneself as not having reached adulthood” (p.539). The research study further refers to Shanahan’s (2000) view of increased variability in the life course trajectory and that the traditional micro-economic view of transition has been reshaped by the shifting dynamic in social trends of the contemporary western societies (Shanahan, 2000). To this end, Arnett argues that the multifarious background factors effectively prolong the transition from childhood to adulthood (Arnett, 2004) and Shanahan (2000) submits that subjective studies of adult status is therefore important going forward in determining an understanding of transition, which is what the research paper utilises as part of its method in questioning the study sample. However, it is submitted that the composition limitations of the study sample arguably undermine the efficacy of the study in continuing the work and theorem propounded by Shanahan (2000) and Arnett (2004). This will be discussed in further detail below. Galambos, Turner & Tilton Weaver (2005) further submit that the literature review in this field indicates “one potentially important subjective marker that is interesting to consider in emerging adults is called subjective age” (p.539). They specifically refer to the Settersten & Mayer’s (1997) view that “subjective or self-perceived age is generally defined as how old one feels” (p.539). Moreover, the research study makes references to the complex nuances in perceptions of age being dependent on social and autobiographical reference points, identity and the desire to be younger or older (Galambos, Kolaric, Sears & Maggs, 1999). This further highlights the importance of the research question in any research study intended to evaluate emerging adulthood, perception of “self” and crossover effect. Indeed, the research study itself refers expressly to early research where “subjective age is assessed relative to one’s chronological age, as when individuals rate how old they feel on a scale from “a lot younger than my age” to “a lot older than my age” (p.539). The research study points to the fact that notwithstanding the complex interrelationship of various factors, there have been some common and consistent findings and the research study refers expressly to Montepare & Lachman’s (1989) research which indicated that in a cross-sectional study of individual ages from 14 to 83, “adolescence was identified as the only period of the life span during which the majority of individuals had subjective ages that were older than their chronological ages. Conversely, beginning at about age 30 and extending to old age, many individuals report feeling younger than the chronological ages” (p.540). The wide age range in Montepare and Lachman’s research is in stark contrast to the research study, therefore whilst the research study is important in bringing together various theorem relating to emerging adulthood and the crossover effect; it is arguably a missed opportunity in testing the interrelationship of these various subjective factors in a wider demographic. The study further refers to the work of Barnes-Farrell & Piotrowski (1996), whereby individuals in their 20s feel about the same age or slightly older than their chronological age (Barnes-Farrell & Piotrowski, 1996). The research study uses these results to support its view that “between adolescence and adulthood, there is a transition from feeling older than one’s chronological age to feeling younger” as a consistent underlying thread in emerging adulthood studies (p.540). Moreover, the research study uses this as a basis from which to justify limiting its study of subjective age and crossover effect to the late teen through to the twenties. However, it is submitted that whilst the literature review points to a consistent theme at this point in emerging adulthood, the study sample in the research sample is inherently limited in ignoring the wider issues of the crossover effect in context of the shifting dynamic in socio-economic factors in contemporary western culture as propounded by Schwartz, Cote & Arnett, (2005). To this end, it is submitted that the research study should be viewed in context of the focused issue of the crossover from an older to younger subjective age in emerging adulthood. Indeed, the research study refers to the fact that in considering emerging adulthood existing “studies including emerging adults in their samples tend to group together participants in their 20s rather than examining chronological age as a continuous variable” (p.540). Moreover, the study argues that “this practice obscures age differences in subjective age within this importance decade of transition and may miss theoretically and empirically interesting findings that could emerge from a closer consideration of variability associated with chronological age” (p.540). However, the mean age in the research study sample is 21, which appears to contradict the authors’ own assertions that “this practice obscures age differences in subjective age within this importance decade of transition” (p.540); along with their reference to Montepare and Lachman’s extrapolations that crossover takes place in men at around 23 and 24 for women. Indeed, the research study highlights the fact that it is: “important to identify the turning point because it may be a useful measure by which to compare the experience of the transition to adult from sample to sample” (p.540). This arguably further undermines the results of the research study in light of the limitations of the sample itself, which will be considered further below. Indeed, this is further arguably disappointing in light of the reference to Arnett & Galambos’ (2003) assertions that self perception will clearly differ across samples and is intrinsically linked to individual subjective variables such as ethnicity and social status (Arnett & Galambos, 2003). This is further evidenced, by the recent work of Arnett & Brody in “A Fraught Passage: The Identity Challenges of African American Emerging Adults” (2008), where it is submitted that the transition is further complicated and difficult for African American emerging adults than for emerging adults per se, with multiple variables operating in respect of the “racial crossover effect” (Arnett & Brody, 2008). Moreover, the literature review in the research study refers to Arnett’s work in 2003 indicating that African Americans and Latinos were more likely than their white counterparts and Asian Americans to feel like adults, which directly correlates with socio-economic and psychosocial factors such as lower family status and greater frequencies of early parenthood (Arnett, 2003). This further supports the view that whilst the research study’s points are not without importance in this area of study, the inherent limitations of the composition of the study sample highlight the need for simultaneous comparative research into diverse study samples going forward, particularly in light of the literature review and the varying degrees of “turning points”. In continuing the literature review, the research paper poses the question: “As chronological age increases during the period of emerging adulthood, does subjective age decrease in linear or non-linear fashion?” (p.541). In posing this question, the research study refers to cross sectional studies that have been undertaken on an assumption of a linear function between subjective and chronological age (Barrnes-Farrell & Piotrowski, 1989; Heckhausen, 1997; Montepare & Lachman, 1989). However, the research study utilises the literature review regarding linearity as a basis from which to focus its study and arguments regarding the variances in subjective age. For example, they refer to the point that subjective age can increase in the late teens or 20s based on increased independence, which could then be impacted by a “decline in subjective age as young people being to compare themselves to the adults they will become and identify less with the adolescents they left behind” (p.541). The research study further considers this in the study sample and refer to the fact that whilst there is clearly a significant relationship between chronological age period and subjective age (Barnes-Farrell & Piotrowski, 1989; Montepare, 1996, Montepare & Lachman, 1989), it is nevertheless impacted by nuances and significant individual differences therefore “it is important to ask “what variables predict interindividual differences in subjective age in emerging adults?” (p.541). The research study refers expressly to Galambos et al’s study of adolescents with an older subjective age being linked to pubertal status and problem behaviours and involvement with opposite sex (2003). This is important in highlighting the correlation of physical factors in causality and indeed the research study refers directly to Baum & Boxley (1983) and Hubley & Hultsch’s (1996) assertions that older subjective ages in older adults “has been associated with poor psychological and physical health, as well as with pessimism, life dissatisfaction, and lower levels of extraversion, characteristics that likely reflect important stage of life issues for these adults”(p.542). In considering the variety of literature in informing the research questions in the study, the research study is important in considering multiple inter-individual effects and the correlation between the results and views propounded in the literature review in this area. The research study refers expressly to Montepare’s (1989) extrapolations that inter-individual differences in subjective ages of emerging adults will intrinsically be correlated to the circumstance of life transitions and to this end the research study assert that “thus, we should expect major role transitions, objective markers traditionally associated with entrance into adulthood (e.g., leaving home, obtaining a job, marrying, physicality, having children) to be related to an older subjective age” (p.542). Moreover, the research study is important in critically evaluating existing literature and the variances in this area as a starting point for formulating research questions and doesn’t blindly accept posited theories, which further contributes to the continuing evolvement of research in a complex and inherently subjective area. For example, the study refers expressly to Arnett and Arnett & Galambos’(2004) arguments that “adults do not generally consider such role transitions to be salient markers of the transition to adulthood Rather, intangible and individualistic characteristics such as taking responsibility for one’s actions, making decisions on one’s own, and becoming financially independent are more often viewed in White majority cultures to be associated with the attainment of adult status” (p.542). Furthermore, the research study propounds that the “psychological markets of adulthood identified by Arnett and others fit under the rubric of a concept called psychosocial maturity” (p.543), which refers to the individual’s general level of adapting functioning and social competence (Galambos & Costigan, 2003). Moreover, the study expressly acknowledges Greenberger’s (1974) argument that psychosocial maturity encompasses attainments in various domains of development; “which include the ability to function independently, the ability to communicate and interact well with others, and the capacity for social responsibility” (p.543). To this end, the study is arguably implicit in its understanding of the inherent limitations of the research study sample. As such, it is submitted that the research study should be viewed contextually as mere cross section of a limited part of western society as opposed to providing a microcosm of the crossover effect in a wider context. Indeed, the research study expressly make the point that “Merging the literatures on perceived criteria for reaching adulthood and on inter-individual differences in subjective age, we hypothesised that net of the effects of chronological age, an individual’s psychosocial maturity is likely to be related to an older subjective age in emerging adulthood. Moreover, we expected role transitions to be less important than psychosocial maturity as predictors of subjective age in emerging adults” (p.543). As such the research study again makes an important point in acknowledging the variances in criteria in emerging adulthood and expressly refers to the economic factor of financial dependence, refering to Arnett’s (1994) notion of financial independence as an established sign of maturity (Arnett, 1994) and Conger et al’s argument that economic pressure is a further barrier to subjective age (Conger, Rueter, & Conger, 2000). In referring to this aspect of the literature, the research study further posits that “higher economic pressure in emerging adults would be associated with feeling younger because it might be a sign that financial independence has not been achieved” (p.544) and refers to the impact of alcohol use and levels. As such, the research study attempts what it refers to as a cross sectional study posing the following research questions: “1. At what chronological age in emerging adulthood does crossover to a younger subjective age occur, and is the relationship between chronological age and subjective age a linear or non-linear function? 2. After accounting for the relationship between chronological and subjective age, to what extent do two possible markers of movement towards adulthood, psychosocial maturity and role transitions, explain variation in the subjective ages of emerging adults? 3. To what extent are possible barriers to the achievement of adulthood – that is, financial dependence on parents, economic pressure, and alcohol use- associated with a younger subjective age in emerging childhood?”(p. 544). On this basis, the research questions highlight the interaction of multiple background causal factors. However, if we consider the methodology, as discussed above, the inherent limitation of the study is that all participants were enrolled in same subject areas and are predominantly white. Additionally, whilst from a varied socio-economic background, the research study excluded the operation of important other background factors to consider the crossover effect in a truly inter-individual sense. The measures involved two possible markers of adulthood, namely; psychosocial maturity and the number of role transitions with a limitation of potential barriers; namely dependence, economic pressure and alcohol use were measured. They further utilised 5 items means of how old participants perceived themselves relative to chronological age. With regard to psychosocial maturity, the research study utilised 35 items from the Erikson social inventory scale (Rosenthal et al, 1981). Darling-Fisher (1995) argues that this inventory is a relatively simple measure designed to assess the strength of psychosocial attributes through the progression of Erikson’s eight stages of development (Darling, 1995). Moreover, Darling undertook a study to test the reliability and validity of the model through four diverse samples including healthy young adults, haemophilic men, healthy older adults and older adults with chronic pulmonary disease (1995). Darling’s study found that the validity of the text was supported across the diverse samples and that operated as a useful instrument for “operationalising and testing Eriksonian developmental theory in adults” (Darling-Fisher, 1995). Therefore the measures paradigm utilised in the research study was arguably appropriate in evaluating the multifarious background factors and consideration of the role of transitions and financial dependence. Additionally, the research study utilised Pearlin and Schooler’s (1978) four item standard of living model to measure economic pressure as a variable. The results of the research study indicated a correlation among the variables, which meant that according to the study “subjective age was inversely associated with chronological age, reflecting the trend toward an increasingly younger subjective age as chronological age increases” (p.546). The study further concluded in support of previous literature that subjective age was associated with psychosocial maturity and correlated with multifarious variables, showing that role transitions, financial dependence and relationship. It was additionally highlighted that there was “a hierarchical linear regression” (p.546) and that there was a linear negative relationship between subject and chronological age whereby younger individuals felt older than chronologically older individuals. This clearly supports the concept of inter-individual variability in subjective age in the crossover effect. However, in considering causality the research study’s methodology: “centred predictors were entered into the hierarchical regression, after the linear and quadratic terms for chronological age with possible markers of adulthood and barriers for adulthood” (p.548). On this basis, the research study argued that that role transitions were not as important an indicator of subjective age as psychosocial maturity (p.549) The results were similar to Montepare and Lachman’s 1989 study and highlighted how autonomy, independence and identity experimentation particularly in context of University life, can make one feel younger. To this end the research study argues that the negative linear relationship between the chronological and subjective age indicates that “the crossover process is a relatively continuous and gradual one. The shape of the relationship between chronological and subjective age is important to consider because a better understanding of the crossover process can be obtained by learning more about how subjective age varies along the chronological age dimension” (p.551). Whilst the questions and methodology of the study ostensibly acknowledged the interrelationship of various factors in causality, it is submitted that the study nevertheless fails to account for other variables and is therefore limited in its applicability to emerging adulthood and the crossover effect. Indeed, a major analytical challenge facing efficacy of such studies is the variances in the “motivated sample”. The motivations of each sample in giving their answers to the research study questions will ultimately differ and must be factored in when considering the results of the study in literature pertaining to emerging adulthood. The research study argues that its results are in line with Arnett’s arguments regarding individualistic characteristics, however it is submitted that this is questionable in light of the very narrow section of society reviewed in the research study. To this extent, the study expressly acknowledges the inherent limitations of its research and states that “the composition of the sample is a serious limitation of this study, as university students do not represent all emerging adults” (p.552). Furthermore, there were more females and it refers to the cultural differences “for example, recent research shows that although individualistic criteria for adulthood are similarly endorsed across many cultural and ethnic groups, there are some unique differences” (p.552). For example, the research study refers expressly to Mayseleless & Scharf 2003 study indicating that two thirds of young Israelis view military service as important for adulthood (2003). Conversely, in Argentina, view family capabilities as vital for adulthood transition (Faccio & Miccoci, 2003). Therefore, “cultural difference in what it means to be an adult could well affect the turning point from an older to a younger subjective age and perhaps even whether the turning points exists at all”(p.553). Nevertheless, it raises important wider issues for future research, for example the research study poses the question: “For instance, is the denial of a youth phenomenon stronger earlier in emerging adulthood? What are the psychological and social correlates of this pattern?” (p.551) and that “understanding the sources of interindividual differences in subjective age at various chronological ages in emerging adulthood holds many possibilities for future research” (p.551). BIBLIOGRAPHY Arnett, J. J. (1994). Are college students adults? Their conceptions of the transition to adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 1 213-224 Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging Adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist. 55, 469-480. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging Adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York Oxford University Press. Arnett, J. J., & Galambos, N. L (Eds) (2003).New Directions for child and adolescent development: Exploring cultural conceptions of the transition to adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Arnett, J. J., & Brody, G. H. (2008). A Fraught Passage: The Identity Challenges of African American Emerging Adults. Human Development Volume 51 No 5-6- Baum , S. K, & Boxley, R. L. (1983). Age identification in the elderly. The Gerontologist 23, 532-537. Conger, K. J., Rueter, M. A., & Conger, R. A. (2000). The role of economic pressure in the lives of parents and their adolescents: The family stress model. In L. J. Crockett & R. K. Silbereisen (Eds). Negotiating Adolescence in times of social change (pp. 201-223). Cambridge University Press. Darling-Fisher, C. S. (1995). Reliability and Validity of the Modified Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory in Diverse Samples. Western Journal of Nursing Research. Volume 17, 2: 168-187. Facio, A., & Micocci, F. (2003). Emerging Adulthood in Argentina. In J. J. Arnett & N. L. Galambos (Eds). New directions for child and adolescent development: Exploring cultural conceptions of the transition to adulthood (pp.21-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Galambos, N. L., Barker, E.T., & Tilton-Weaver, L. C. (2003a). Canadian adolescents implicit theories of immaturity: What does childish mean? In J. J. Arnett & N. L. Galambos (Eds). New directions for child and adolescent development: Exploring cultural conceptions of the transition to adulthood (pp.78-89). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Galambos, N. L., Barker, E.T., & Tilton-Weaver, L. C. (2003b). Who gets caught at maturity gap? A study of pseudomature, immature and mature adolescents. International Journal of Behavioural Development. 27, 253-263. Galambos, N. L., Turner, P. K., & Tilton-Weaver, L. C. (2005). Subjective Age in Emerging Adulthood: The Crossover Effect. Journal of Adolescent Research. 20: 538. Greenberger, E., & Sorenson, A. B. (1974). Toward a concept of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 3, 329-358. Hubley, A. M. & Hultsch, D. F. (1996). Subjective age traits. Research on Aging, 18, 494-496. Mayseless, O., & Scharf, M. (2003). What does it mean to be an adult? The Israeli experience. In J. J. Arnett & N. L. Galambos (Eds). New directions for child and adolescent development: Exploring cultural conceptions of the transition to adulthood (pp.345-371). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Montepare, J.M., & Lachman, M. E., (1989). You are only as old as you feel: Self Perceptions of age, fears of aging, and life satisfaction from adolescence to old age. Psychology and Aging, 4. 73-78. Pearling, L. I. & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 19, 2-21. Rindfuss, R. R. (1991). The Young adult years: Diversity, structural change and fertility. Demography, 28, 411-438. Rosenthal D. A., (1981). From Trust and Intimacy: A new inventory for examining Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 10, 525-537. Shanahan, M. J (2000). Pathways to adulthood in changing societies. Variability and mechanisms in life course perspective. Annual review of Sociology, 26, 667-692. . Schwartz, S. J., Cote, J.E., & Arnett, J. J. (2005). Identity and agency in emerging adulthood. Youth & Society, 37(2), 201-29. Settersten, R. A., (2007) Passages to adulthood: Linking demographic change and human development. European Journal of Population, 23, 251-272. Read More