| Course | NU145 Psychology Across the Lifespan |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Theory comparison |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BSN (prelicensure) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU145 Unit 8
Her Father's Pill Box on Sunday, Her Daughter's Applications on Monday: A Theory Comparison of Erikson's Generativity and Elder's Linked Lives for a Composite Fifty-One-Year-Old, Judged by Rules Set in Advance
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU145: Psychology Across the Lifespan
Unit 8 Theory Comparison
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The person and family are composite; the paper compares theories and makes no judgment about the choices described.
The Case
[Denise], composite, 51, manages a dental office. Her father, 79, had a stroke eight months ago and lives alone two miles away; she fills his weekly pill box on Sundays and drives him to appointments. Her daughter, 17, is applying to colleges, and Denise helps with essays and financial aid forms on weeknights. Her son, 22, lives on his own. This year she turned down a promotion to regional manager, argued with her brother about who should do more for their father, and kept her Thursday evenings volunteering with an adult literacy program.
How the Theories Will Be Judged
A theory explains the case better if it accounts for more of the three scenes, predicts her choices rather than describing them afterward, and fits her own explanation of why she made them.
The Two Theories Side by Side
1. Unit of analysis. Erikson: the individual and her inner conflict. Elder: the person within a web of connected lives across time.
2. What drives change. Erikson: a stage-based conflict, generativity versus stagnation, typical of middle adulthood (Erikson, 1963). Elder: events in the lives of others, timing, historical setting and the person's own choices (Elder, 1994).
3. What counts as success in midlife. Erikson: generativity, care for the next generation and for what will outlast oneself, rather than self-absorption. Elder: no single success; outcomes depend on how linked lives and timing fit together.
4. What each predicts for her next five years. Erikson: continued investment in guiding others, perhaps a turn toward mentoring at work once her children are launched. Elder: her path will follow her father's health and her daughter's choices, and could change sharply with either.
Scene One: The Promotion She Turned Down
Erikson's reading: turning down a promotion to care for her father and daughter could be generativity, care for the next generation. But caring for her father is not care for the next generation; it is care for the previous one, which Erikson's concept does not easily include. Elder's reading: the promotion would have meant travel across three offices. Her father's stroke, eight months earlier, and her daughter's senior year made the timing impossible. Linked lives explains the decision directly: another person's crisis changed her course.
Erikson asks what she is building for those who come after her; Elder asks whose lives are pulling on hers this year, and the promotion answers Elder's question.
Scene Two: The Argument With Her Brother
Erikson offers little here, since the conflict is between siblings over a parent's care. Elder's principle fits: her brother lives three hours away and has young children, so his life is linked to their father's differently. The argument is about how linked lives distribute obligations across a family.
Scene Three: Thursday Evenings
Here Erikson is stronger. Volunteering with adult learners is care for others beyond her family and for something that will outlast her, which is generativity in its fullest sense. Later work described generativity as including concern for the next generation, commitment and action, which her weekly teaching shows (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). Elder's principle has less to say about a choice she protects despite her family's demands.
Applying the Rules
Accounting for scenes: Elder explains two of three, Erikson one well and one partly. Prediction: Elder's principle predicts her choices from the events in others' lives, while Erikson's describes them afterward in terms of what she values. Her own explanation: she said, "This year isn't about me; it's about everybody else," which fits linked lives more closely.
A Popular Idea Checked
The "sandwich generation" is often described as a crisis for people caught between aging parents and children. Denise's account fits the timing, but she does not describe a crisis; she describes a full year. The phrase may describe the structure of her life better than how it feels to her.
What Each Theory Misses
Each theory has a blind spot that Denise's year exposes. Erikson's stages describe one person's inner work and say little about how family members bargain over care, which is much of her week. Elder's principle describes the bargaining well but says little about why she guards Thursday evenings, a choice that serves no family member. A fuller account of midlife needs both: the pull of other lives and the person's own sense of what she wants to leave behind. Her brother's view would also change the picture, since linked lives are seen differently from each position in a family.
Conclusion
By the rules set at the start, Elder's linked lives explains more of Denise's year: the promotion, the argument and her own account of her choices. Erikson's generativity explains her volunteering and what she may turn to once her father and daughter need less from her. The two theories answer different questions, and her life asks both.
References
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786971
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). Norton.
McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 1003-1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.1003
What the NU145 Unit 8 assignment asks for
Unit 8 commonly asks students to compare two theories of adult development using a case, often in middle adulthood. Prompts usually want each theory explained, a structured comparison on several dimensions, application of both to the case and a conclusion about which explains it better. Instructors look for a comparison organized point by point rather than two separate summaries, a fair hearing for each theory, criteria for judging stated before the verdict and evidence from the case behind every claim. Popular ideas about midlife, such as the midlife crisis or the sandwich generation, may be examined critically. Papers usually run about five pages in APA style, citing original or authoritative sources.
How this NU145 Unit 8 example is built
The paper opens with the case as given, then states three rules for judging: how many scenes each theory explains, whether it predicts or only describes, and fit with her own explanation. A numbered side-by-side comparison covers the unit of analysis, what drives change, what counts as success and predictions for five years. Three scenes follow, each read through both theories, with a highlighted line on the promotion. Erikson wins the volunteering scene, with a margin note and a generativity study cited. A section on what each theory misses, a check of the sandwich generation idea and a verdict applying the rules complete the paper, citing Elder's life course article.
Where the points sit in the NU145 Unit 8 rubric
Theory comparison rubrics in NU 145 tend to assign points for accurate explanation of both theories, a structured comparison, application to the case, critical evaluation and APA writing. Explanation points depend on fair, sourced summaries. Comparison points reward dimensions that genuinely separate the theories. Application points go to reading the same events through both lenses and showing where each fits. Evaluation points are earned by stating criteria in advance and applying them honestly, including scenes where the favored theory loses. Writing points cover organization, headings and citations that match the reference list. A comparison that ends by acknowledging what each theory misses usually earns the highest marks for evaluation.
NU145 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points
Comparison papers often lose points by summarizing one theory, then the other, and adding a short paragraph of differences at the end. Another frequent mistake is choosing a winner first and then reading the case to fit it. Some students treat generativity as care for anyone, missing that Erikson meant the next generation and what outlasts the self. Others accept popular ideas about midlife without checking them against the case. Set your criteria first, compare point by point, run the same scenes through both theories, let each win where the evidence says it should and state what both leave out. Quote the person's own explanation where you can. Her words are evidence too, and a theory that cannot account for them has a problem the paper should name.
Get an NU145 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Midlife comparisons change with the pair of theorists named and with where the case comes from, a supplied vignette or a person known to the writer. Forward the Unit 8 assignment as written, the case or a disguised description, and the rubric. The comparison comes back table first, criteria stated, free as a first custom sample in 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More NU145 papers and BSN samples
- NU145 Unit 1: Piaget vs Vygotsky Discussion Post
- NU145 Unit 2: Infant Stage Analysis
- NU145 Unit 3: Erikson Initiative vs Guilt Application
- NU145 Unit 4: Middle Childhood Case Analysis
- NU145 Unit 5: Toddler Observation Paper
- NU145 Unit 6: Adolescent Sleep Seminar Reflection
- NU145 Unit 7: Emerging Adulthood Interview
- NU145 Unit 9: Case Analysis
- NU145 Unit 10: Final Lifespan Paper
- NU144CL Unit 8: Post-Conference Ethics Post
- NU144 Unit 8: Burn Seminar Reflection
- NU143CL Unit 8: Case Study Analysis
- NU143 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
NU145 Unit 8 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NU145 Unit 8 sample paper?
The complete NU145 Unit 8 theory comparison is on this page, weighing Erikson's generativity against Elder's linked lives for a composite fifty-one-year-old, with criteria, three scenes, a verdict and three sources. Send us your prompt if it pairs different theories.
What is generativity?
Erikson's term for the midlife concern with guiding the next generation and creating something that outlasts oneself. Its opposite, stagnation, is self-absorption and a sense of standing still.
What does linked lives mean in NU145 Unit 8?
Elder's life course principle that people's lives are interdependent, so events in one person's life, such as a parent's stroke, reshape the paths of others.
Why set judging criteria before comparing theories?
Stating the rules first prevents choosing a favorite and then reading the case to fit it, which makes the verdict more credible.
Is the sandwich generation always a crisis?
Not necessarily. The term describes caring for parents and children at once, but the person in this case describes a full year rather than a crisis.