However, practical wisdom is not merely a matter of thinking complexly, because complex thinking can be selfish or otherwise egoistic. Practical wisdom also involves thinking humanely, that is, thinking complexly about the experiential welfare of the self and others in balance—as opposed to thinking complexly in ways that merely benefit the self (Bauer et al.
2019). Humane thinking itself has a well-established tie to well-being, notably in the research on self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan
2012; e.g. Kasser and Ryan
1996). Thinking complexly and humanely is more typically called
psychological maturity,
psychosocial maturity, or
personal maturity (Staudinger et al.
2005). Kegan’s (
1982,
1994) developmental theory of meaning making captures this combination of thinking complexly and thinking humanely and is used to operationalize psychological maturity of written narratives in this study. In the present study, we examine the role of two of Kegan’s constructs—the socialized and self-authoring mind—among noted features of a good life in predicting subjective well-being (SWB).
1.1 Psychological Maturity and Well-Being in Kegan’s Model
The organizing structure of meaning making from a developmental perspective is a key feature of wisdom and is often referred to as psychological maturity (Staudinger et al.
2005). The term includes many different developmental theories such as the humanistic approaches to personality development of Maslow (
1968,
1970) and Rogers (
1961), the psychosocial developmental theory of Erikson and Erikson (
1982/1997), ego development (Loevinger and Blasi
1976), moral reasoning (Kohlberg
1969), and meaning-making system (Kegan
1982,
1994). According to Fossas (
2019), the conceptual and structural similarities between different theories of development “suggest that a common maturational process underlies an array of critical psychological dimensions (e.g., cognitive, affective, reflective, and personality-related) across the human lifespan” (p. 1934). These different theories focus on the development of an increasing capacity to think complexly and integrative about the welfare and experience of both oneself and others (which in the present study we are calling
psychological maturity). This developmental focus is by some labeled constructive-developmental (Vincent
2014), which holds that we construct our understanding of our world, as opposed to stumble upon it (constructivism), and the how the way we construct evolve through qualitatively more complex stages (developmentalism) (Kegan
1982,
1994). Although such development is often framed as ‘more’ or ‘higher’, it is important to note that the stages of development “is not simply an index of mental health or well-being” (Duffy et al.
2017, p. 41). That is, level of psychological maturity has often been found as unrelated to measures of well-being (Bauer et al.
2015; Bonnett
2016; Noam
1998). However, a recent study by Fossas (
2019) found a significant positive relation between well-being and psychological maturity.
In the present study, we employ Kegan’s (
1982,
1994) constructive developmental theory of adult development, to guide our process of operationalizing psychological maturity. In this theory, Kegan describes five qualitatively different levels of psychological maturity, where the first two levels (impulsive and instrumental mind) are primarily limited to childhood and adolescents while the following three are in adulthood: the socialized, self-authoring and self-transforming mind. Each successive level of maturity reflects an increasing capacity for more complex perspective taking at a cognitive (what is knowledge), intrapersonal (who am I) and an interpersonal (how do I relate to others) level (Kegan
1994). In this study, we focus on the socialized and the self-authoring maturity and propose that the distinction between the two could be associated with SWB. The two levels of maturity also appear to be the most common levels in adulthood. According to Kegan and Lahey (
2009) approximately 80–90% of adults make meaning between the socialized and self-authoring maturity level, while the self-transforming mind is seldom seen (less than 1%).
Kegan’s theory is concerned with perspective-taking and each of the levels of psychological maturity are defined by the subject-object balance, where subject refers to what one is embedded in and unable to take a perspective on, while object refers to those aspect that one is able to have a perspective and act upon (Berger
2005). I.e. “[w]e
have object; we
are subject” (Kegan
1994, p. 32, emphasis in original). In the gradual development from one level of maturity to the next (the journey includes several in-between levels), one is “able to
look at what the prior way of knowing could only
look through” (Kegan and Lahey
2010, p. 438, emphasis in original). At the maturity level of the socialized mind, one can have a perspective on one’s desires and interests and accommodate these to those of others. Here one’s sense of self is fused with the values and expectations of one’s surrounding (Helsing and Howell
2014). At this level of maturity, it can be a challenge if the surrounding people (e.g. parents, friends, society) expect different things, since one has not yet developed an independent internal system that can mediate or resolve such a divide. At the self-authoring level of maturity, one has a more “integrative” self that expands on and incorporates the capacities from the socialized level (indeed each level is more complexly integrative than the previous level). The capacity for self-authorship can be defined as “the internal capacity to define one’s beliefs, identity and social relations” (Baxter Magolda
2008, p. 269). Here one has developed an internal system that is no longer solely dependent on others, which makes it possible to discriminate between others and one’s own opinion (Kegan and Lahey
2010). Individuals at this level do not value relationships with others any less than at the preceding socialized level, but one is able to have a perspective on the relationships. This contrasts with being “within” the subjective perspective where one’s interpretations of the relationship are not “interpretations” at all but rather are in fact the only extant reality of that relationship.
The concept of self-authorship in Kegan’s theory draws similarities with the construct of autonomy, which is an important aspect of eudaimonic accounts of both maturity and well-being. However, “autonomy” means many things. For Kegan, autonomy has more to do with a kind of individuation that develops after one has wrestled with the ways in which one is both independent of others and dependent on others—a kind of interdependence that generally does not emerge until young adulthood at the earliest (Loevinger and Blasi
1976). This is certainly not the basic autonomy in Erikson’s (
1968) stage of autonomy versus shame and doubt in the second year of life. Autonomy here is also not the same as in Ryff’s (Ryff
1989; Ryff and Keyes
1995) dimension of psychological well-being, where autonomy refers to a sense of being independent. Autonomy here is closer to the autonomy of self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci
2000), where autonomy is not about merely adolescent strivings for independence but rather, at higher forms of development, about a matter of cherishing the principle of autonomy, not just for oneself but for others as well (as in “autonomy support”; Weinstein and Ryan
2010). The emergence of autonomy as well as other similar constructs such as agency, authenticity and self-actualization are argued to be one of the characteristics of the transition from the socialized to the self-authoring level of maturity (Fossas
2019).
In Kegan’s (
1994) analysis of what modern society demands of adults’ level of psychological maturity, he argues that for most of the tasks in adulthood, modern society demand the capacity for self-authorship. The demand in modern society on individuals’ capacity to be self-authoring presents a conflict for many, as data indicate that that about half of the adult population have yet to develop such a capacity for self-authorship (Kegan
1994), and instead make-meaning in terms of socialized mind, relying on external perspectives in forming one’s belief about oneself and the world. This dissonance between capacity and demand, lead Kegan to describe people as “in over their heads” (Kegan
1994). In this paper, we predict that psychological maturity is a significant predictor of a person’s SWB, where the psychological maturity level of the self-authoring mind would be positively associated with SWB, compared with the socialized mind. This prediction is in line with Fossas’ (
2019) findings of well-being peaking at the self-authoring level of maturity.
In addition to this overall positive relation between SWB and psychological maturity, we propose that the period of old age can entail an extra demand for the self-authoring mind. With old age being a period of substantial heterogeneity, some differentiate between a third and fourth age (Laslett
1996). Where the onset of the third age cluster around 60–65 years and the usual cut-off point between third and fourth age for research purposes is 85 years (Robinson
2013). In our study, old age corresponds with this understanding of the third age, which can be characterized by retirement from working life and a period with relatively good health, active and social engagement and personal fulfillment (Laslett
1996). We are particularly interested in exploring old age in relation to psychological maturity, as this period is “characterized by fewer social norms and expectations guiding the setting, pursuing, and maintaining of goals, as well as the disengagement from them” (Freund et al.
2009, p. 28). With the socialized mind being reliant on the surroundings for regulation and creation of the self and one’s values, this level of maturity appears ill-equipped (compared to the self-authoring mind) when there is fewer expectations from the surroundings. There are also some indications that self-authorship is important for elder’s well-being, e.g. in a recent qualitative study, self-authorship was one of constituting elements in retirees’ experiences of well-being (Bauger and Bongaardt
2016).
Kegan (
1994) emphasizes that how levels of psychological maturity relate to well-being depends on how they match with individuals’ daily life requires of them. For instance, if a person consistently finds themself in situations that require them to have a more mature way of thinking than they have developed the capacity for, then their well-being may suffer. To illustrate the point Kegan (
1994, pp. 100–101) uses the analogy of driving a car, where he compares the capacity to drive a car with stick-shift transmission (more complex) and the capacity to drive a car with automatic transmission (less complex). In this case, one cannot necessarily say that stick-shift or automatic drivers are better or safer drivers, but there is a difference in the two capacities. Namely, that the capacity to drive a stick-shift also includes driving an automatic car, which is not necessarily the case for automatic drivers. If there is plentiful supply of automatic cars and the circumstances do not require one to drive a stick-shift, then the more complex capacity to drive a stick-shift is unnecessary. However, if most of the world consisted of manual transmission cars, not having this capacity would be a serious hindrance to your car driving abilities. In other words, Kegan is claiming that if we have developed a level of maturity in our thinking, matching or exceeding the actual, lived experience of the person or persons in question, then we are more likely to adapt satisfactorily to life’s situations.
1.3 Meaningfulness, Growth Motivation, and Authenticity
As mentioned above, psychological maturity is one of several aspects of eudaimonia (Bauer
2016). Most measures of eudaimonia in psychology (including Kegan’s) address questions of fulfillment, satisfaction, and meaningfulness (i.e., well-being, as typically modeled). In contrast, developmental, psychological maturity in Kegan’s model also involves a dimension of integrative complexity in thinking about the self and others, which is unique among those measures (Bauer et al.
2019). In this article, we are interested in exploring how levels of psychological maturity predict SWB, while also controlling for three eudaimonic factors that are established predictors of SWB: meaning in life, growth motivation, and authenticity. Kegan’s maturity includes elements of each of these but also the unique, developmental factors just mentioned, allowing for a test of maturity’s incremental validity in predicting SWB.
One factor that has been considered a key factor of eudaimonia is meaningfulness in life (i.e., “having meaning in life”), in addition to also being associated with SWB (Steger et al.
2013). Meaning in life is argued to consist of feeling that your life matters, makes sense and has purpose (Martela and Steger
2016). Considerable empirical evidence has found positive effects of meaning in life on several aspects of physical and psychological well-being and have been argued as a flagship indicator of well-being (Steger et al.
2013).
The development of eudaimonia over time has been called
eudaimonic growth and can be considered as increases in both psychological maturity and well-being (Bauer and McAdams
2010). The desire for growth in both these areas has been coined growth motivation (Bauer et al.
2015) and can be characterized as experiential and reflective. Whereas experiential growth motivation is the desire to cultivate personally meaningful activities and relationships, reflective growth motivation concerns the desire toward developing one capacity for complex thinking, deeper conceptual understanding and intellectual development, and wisdom (Bauer
2016). An important distinction here is that this construct is not concerned with the presence of either maturity or well-being, but to what degree a person is motivated towards these two aspects of eudaimonia (Bauer et al.
2015). Nevertheless, they, are positively associated with measures of maturity and well-being respectively (Wayment and Bauer
2018). In narrative meaning-making, motivational themes for reflective growth have predicted increases in demonstrated maturity 3 years later, whereas motivational themes for experiential growth have predicted increases in well-being over that time (Bauer and McAdams
2010; also see Lilgendahl and McAdams
2011).
Inspired by humanistic/existential psychology (e.g. Maslow
1968; Rogers
1961), the concept of authenticity can be considered as an important aspect for individuals well-being. Here authenticity is understood as the degree to which a person is experiencing congruence between one’s behaviors, emotions and deeply held values and beliefs (Wood et al.
2008). In research, overall authenticity has been associated with both eudaimonic and hedonic measures of well-being (Di Fabio and Palazzeschi
2015). In Wood et al. (
2008) much used conception of authenticity, the concept is tripartite: self-alienation, accepting external influences and authentic living. Self-alienation is the degree to which one feels in contact with or in touch with one’s ‘true self’, authentic living is the degree to which your behavior is consistent with your ideals and values, and accepting external influences is the degree to which one conforms to the expectations of others. Within this conceptualization of authenticity, authentic living has a positive relation with hedonic and eudaimonic measures, while the two others are negatively associated with both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Wood et al.
2008).
Personality traits have been proposed as an important part in understanding why levels of well-being are relatively stable, and research into the relation between the two factors have been substantial (Anglim and Grant
2016). In meta-analyses (DeNeve
1999; Steel et al.
2008), the traits neuroticism and extraversion have emerged with the highest correlations with SWB. Where extraversion is positively associated with SWB, while neuroticism is negatively associated.