| Course | PS 105 Developmental Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Theorist comparison |
| Length | About 940 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 105 Unit 6
Stages or Trajectories After Thirty: Erikson and Baltes Compared on One Question, Whether Adult Development Unfolds in an Ordered Sequence
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 105: Developmental Psychology
Instructor Name
April 20, 2026
Stages or Trajectories After Thirty: Erikson and Baltes Compared on One Question, Whether Adult Development Unfolds in an Ordered Sequence
The Two Accounts and the Question
This comparison sets two frameworks that attempt the whole of life against each other on one question: does development after early adulthood unfold as an ordered sequence of stages tied to age, or as a set of continuous, multidirectional changes that differ from person to person? Erikson (1950) and Baltes (1987) both address adulthood directly, and they answer this question differently. The paper states each account on this question alone, compares them point by point, reports the evidence bearing on each and ends with a judgment.
Erikson on Adult Development
Erikson (1950) described three adult stages. In young adulthood the central tension is intimacy versus isolation, the capacity to form close commitments without losing oneself. In middle adulthood it is generativity versus stagnation, a concern with guiding and contributing to the next generation through children, work or community. In late adulthood it is integrity versus despair, the acceptance of one's life as it has been lived. The stages are ordered, each builds on the outcomes of earlier ones, and each is linked, roughly, to a period of life. Erikson presented the sequence as rooted in the meeting of human maturation with the demands of society, and he expected it to hold broadly across cultures, while allowing that the timing and form would vary.
Baltes on Adult Development
Baltes (1987) proposed a different picture. Development across the whole of life is multidirectional, meaning that different abilities can rise, hold steady or fall at the same time, and every period brings some gains alongside some losses. It is shaped by three kinds of influence: those tied to age, those tied to historical period, and events unique to a person, such as an illness or a job loss. And people show plasticity, the capacity to change, at every age, within limits. Baltes did not propose stages. In his account, the order and timing of adult change depend heavily on history and on individual circumstance.
The Two Side by Side
| Point of comparison | Erikson (1950) | Baltes (1987) |
|---|---|---|
| What drives adult development | Maturation meeting social expectations at each period | Age-graded, historical and individual influences acting together |
| Staged or gradual | Staged, in a fixed order | Continuous and multidirectional |
| How far across life it reaches | Whole life, adult stages sketched briefly | Whole life, adulthood treated in detail |
| What is treated as fixed | The order of the central tensions | Little; plasticity persists, within limits |
| What counts as development | Resolving each stage's tension favorably | Any change in adaptive capacity, including losses |
The Evidence for Each Position
Evidence consistent with Erikson
McAdams et al. (1993) compared young, midlife and older adults on several measures of generativity, including self-reported concern for the next generation and generative themes in personal accounts. Midlife adults scored higher than young adults on several of these measures, which is broadly what Erikson's ordering predicts. Whitbourne et al. (1992) measured psychosocial development in college alumni several times over 22 years using a sequential design that separated age from the period of measurement. They found evidence that people continued to develop on Erikson's dimensions during adulthood, which supports his central claim that development does not stop after adolescence.
Evidence consistent with Baltes
The same studies also show what Baltes would predict. The generativity differences between age groups were modest, and older adults did not simply move on to a different concern, so the stages look less like a sequence that people pass through than like overlapping concerns of varying strength. And the sequential design of Whitbourne et al. (1992) was valuable precisely because some changes in scores appeared across age groups at the same point in time, which reflects historical period rather than age. That is the kind of influence Baltes placed at the center of his account and Erikson's stages do not easily accommodate.
How Each Account Reads One Midlife Turn
A brief composite shows how differently the two accounts would read the same events. Denise is fifty-two. Over three years she was laid off from a bookkeeping job when her firm automated its accounts, returned to school to train as a medical coder, began coaching her niece's softball team and started to notice that she tires more quickly and needs reading glasses. Erikson's account would focus on the coaching and read it as generativity, a midlife turn toward guiding the young, and might read the career change as a threat of stagnation successfully met. Baltes's account would describe all four changes at once: a loss imposed by a historical shift in her industry, a gain in new skills that shows plasticity at fifty, a social gain through coaching, and physical losses that are age-graded. Erikson's reading explains why the coaching feels meaningful to her. Baltes's reading explains more of what actually happened, including the parts no stage predicts, such as a layoff caused by technology arriving when it did.
Judgment
The evidence does not show that Erikson was wrong about the content of adult development. Generativity, intimacy and integrity are real concerns, and they tend to be more prominent at some ages than others. What the evidence questions is the structure: a fixed sequence of stages tied to age. The research fits better with Baltes's view that adult change is continuous, varies across people and is shaped heavily by the times a person lives through. The fairest judgment is that Erikson identified important themes of adulthood, and Baltes offered the better account of how those themes are arranged across a life.
A Limit on the Comparison
The comparison is limited by the evidence available. Most studies of Erikson's adult stages used samples of educated Americans, often college alumni, measured during a particular slice of the twentieth century. Baltes's propositions are broad enough that almost any pattern of change can be described in their terms, which makes them harder to disprove than Erikson's more specific claims. A stage theory that makes risky predictions and partly fails may be more useful to a researcher than a framework flexible enough never to fail, and a balanced judgment should keep that in view.
References
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 611-626. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.23.5.611
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. Norton.
McAdams, D. P., de St. Aubin, E., & Logan, R. L. (1993). Generativity among young, midlife, and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 8(2), 221-230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.221
Whitbourne, S. K., Zuschlag, M. K., Elliot, L. B., & Waterman, A. S. (1992). Psychosocial development in adulthood: A 22-year sequential study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 260-271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.260
Reading the PS 105 Unit 6 instructions
Unit 6 of PS 105 asks students to compare two developmental frameworks on one question. Expect to name the two accounts and the question, chosen because both address it directly and answer it differently, then state each account on that question alone, credited and in its author's terms. A comparison section runs the two side by side on the same points, such as what drives development, whether change is staged and how far across life each reaches. Evidence is reported for both positions, and the paper usually ends with a judgment. You are generally expected to say which account the evidence favors, with reasons. Settling the comparison with a family example would substitute anecdote for evidence.
Inside the PS 105 Unit 6 example
The sample opens by naming Erikson and Baltes and the question of ordered adult stages. Each account is then stated narrowly: Erikson's three adult stages and Baltes's propositions on multidirectional change and plasticity. A comparison table sets them side by side on five points. Evidence is reported under two run-in headings, the generativity comparison by age group and the 22-year sequential study, each read for what supports Erikson and what supports Baltes. A composite midlife case shows how each account would interpret the same years. The judgment credits Erikson with the themes and Baltes with the structure, and a final section notes why falsifiability complicates that verdict. Both studies are read twice, once for each account.
Where the points sit in the PS 105 Unit 6 rubric
The rubric for the theorist comparison generally rewards a single well-chosen question, faithful statements of both accounts, a point-by-point comparison, evidence reported for both positions and a reasoned judgment, plus APA. The question earns credit when both frameworks address it and disagree. Faithful statements score when each account is described in its author's terms, not textbook shorthand. Comparison is often the largest criterion and rewards the same points applied to both. Evidence earns points when it is reported fairly, including findings that cut both ways. The judgment scores highest when it is qualified and when the writer notes limits such as how testable each account is.
PS 105 Unit 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Comparison papers lose points by covering everything each theorist said instead of one question. Another frequent weakness is summarizing each account in turn without ever setting them side by side. Students often report evidence only for the account they prefer. Some avoid a judgment altogether. Others declare one theorist simply right, ignoring that the evidence usually supports parts of both. A family story used to settle the question carries little weight. If you are unsure which pair or question to choose, our writers can help you find a genuine disagreement and build the comparison. A comparison that ends by saying both theorists have strengths, with no position taken, usually misses the top band.
Get a PS 105 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Tell us which two frameworks your section pairs and send the Unit 6 instructions with your PS 105 rubric. We write a custom example that fixes the question first, states each account from its source, compares on shared points including span, and closes on a verdict with its reversal condition. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 105 papers and psychology samples
- PS 105 Unit 1: Developmental theory overview
- PS 105 Unit 2: Prenatal and infancy paper
- PS 105 Unit 3: Early childhood observation
- PS 105 Unit 4: Middle childhood application
- PS 105 Unit 5: Adolescence paper
- PS 105 Unit 7: Adulthood and aging paper
- PS 105 Unit 8: Lifespan case analysis
- PS 101 Unit 6: Development or personality paper
- PS 130 Unit 6: Graduate program comparison
- PS 350 Unit 6: Language or knowledge paper
- PS 360 Unit 6: Personality or substance disorder case
PS 105 Unit 6 questions, answered
Which two theorists make the best pairing?
A pair that disagrees about something specific. Two accounts that both attempt the whole of life give you a comparable span and a real argument, while pairing a lifespan account with one built from early childhood forces you to spend the paper explaining why they are not comparable. Your instructions may set the pair, in which case work with what they name.
Do I have to say which theorist is right?
Most rubrics want a position, but the position can be narrow. Saying that one account explains this particular question better, for these reasons, while the other handles a different question well, is a defensible conclusion and much stronger than declaring a whole framework superior. What loses points is a closing that lists strengths on both sides and stops.
Can I settle the comparison with an example from my family?
One family cannot settle a framework, and a graded paper is the wrong place to put them. Relatives written up in coursework are identifiable, did not consent, and anything from their medical, school or counseling records is theirs. If you want an illustration, construct a composite and mark it, then keep the verdict resting on the published evidence rather than on the example.
Where can I find a free PS 105 Unit 6 sample paper?
The whole PS 105 Unit 6 theorist comparison is free above, with both accounts, the comparison table, the evidence and margin notes. Comparing a different pair? Forward the assignment and a comparison on your question is drafted free, usually within 48 hours.
Do I have to say which theorist is right in PS 105 Unit 6?
You should say which account the evidence favors on your question. The sample concludes that Erikson identified real adult themes while Baltes better describes how adult change is arranged.