Passing Down Local Memories: Generativity and Photo Donations in Preservation Institutions

1 Introduction

Photographs captured by various individuals have the potential to be invaluable research and cultural assets, documenting various aspects of society at the time of recording (Shevchenko 2014). However, the more private the content, the greater the legal and ethical challenges that third parties face in collecting and preserving it (Bingham and Byrne 2021; Ryan, Keating and Finegan 2022). Previous research has discovered that some people support user-generated content stored by a preservation institution, such as a national library (Hegarty 2023), while others oppose it (Shiozaki 2022a, 2024). However, these analyses are primarily about the intentions of the current generation. Digital preservation efforts, particularly those funded by public expenditure, are inherently multigenerational projects that encompass different groups of individuals over time. Future generations’ perspectives may shape how people perceive these efforts.

However, intergenerational justice is rarely discussed in the context of digital preservation (Schüller-Zwierlein 2015). The author posits that discussions of intergenerational justice are relevant to this field. As an initial step towards developing theoretical research in this area, this study aims to explore whether intergenerational factors influence preservation preferences. Specifically, it examines Erik Erikson’s concept of generativity (Erikson 1963; McAdams and de St. Aubin 1998) which emphasises the transmission of knowledge and values to the next generation. If it is demonstrated that individuals with higher levels of generativity are more inclined to donate it would imply that an intergenerational perspective can effectively support preservation efforts. This could lead to practical discussions on increasing generativity among those with lower levels. In the future, we may foster a greater propensity towards preservation activities by identifying ways to improve generativity, thereby promoting intergenerational justice in the realm of digital preservation.

In terms of monetary donations, the absence of contributions from certain segments of the population is unlikely to directly introduce bias into the collection, assuming that donations are not specifically aimed at acquiring specific types of materials. However, in the context of preservation institutions’ photo-collection initiatives there could be a risk of bias if only specific types of materials or contributions from specific groups are collected. This could result in a collection of primarily noncontroversial items or those unlikely to be refused at the present time. Therefore, it is crucial to have mechanisms that allow future users to identify and account for potential biases in the data collection (Carter 2006), ensuring reliability and completeness over time.

Research on donations to nonprofit organisations often focuses on monetary contributions (Sargeant and Shang 2024). Studies typically aim to increase donations by identifying effective targets based on factors such as gender (Sargeant and Hilton 2005), age (Hoskins and Hoskin 2024), income and whether the donor has children (James 2009). Numerous studies have been conducted to better understand donors’ motivation and the context of their contributions (Ha, Pham, and Le 2022; Sargeant, Hilton, and Wymer 2006). While there have been investigations into the motivations for participation in community-driven archiving projects (Cushing 2018) as well as more recent studies examining the reasons for participating in data donation within the framework of research ethics (Skatova and Goulding 2019), research on the relationships between archival donors and preservation institutions is still limited (Carbajal 2021).

This preliminary study aimed to elucidate public awareness of the preservation of personal photos as community artefacts. Specifically, it investigates whether individuals identify the hypothetical scenario of donating their photo collections to preservation institutions as acceptable and aims to identify the factors influencing their reactions.

Photographs were selected for the analysis for several reasons. First, photographs span generations, with many individuals likely creating or owning them in some form, enabling cross-generational comparisons of birth cohorts. In addition, photographs can provide a diverse range of materials for study (Sontag 1977). They often contain images of people and aspects of private life, making them significant for sociocultural research and raising privacy concerns. Moreover, photographs exist in various formats, including physical prints, digital-only versions and digitised copies, which shed light on the impact of recording formats and capture years on the willingness to donate. In practice, there have been public initiatives in which individuals have been asked to donate their personal photographs to regional libraries and archives (Aisou 2016).

The next section provides an overview of donations within the context of preservation institutions and the motivations behind them, as well as a summary of the concept of generativity. It also discusses the relationship between donation behaviour in preservation institutions and generativity. Section 3 details the research methodology and Section 4 presents the survey results. In Section 5 the findings are discussed, followed by the conclusions and future perspectives.

2 Literature Review

Photography is a method of visually capturing identifiable subjects in static images, and photo collections can be considered valuable historical resources (Caswell 2014). In recent years, the proliferation of digital photo tools has significantly increased individual photo holdings, and sharing these images via social media has become common (Geismar 2017; Serafinelli and Cox 2019). Despite preservation institutions such as public libraries encouraging the donation of photographs as local records (Aisou 2016), there are no established mechanisms for socially preserving personal photos, particularly digital ones, at least in Japan. According to research on personal information management (PIM) and personal digital archiving (PDA), a significant portion of personal documents may be dispersed or lost if institutions such as archives and libraries do not intervene proactively (Marshall 2008).

Extensive research on PIM and PDA has explored individuals’ motivations for archiving digital content, including personal photographs. Kaye et al. (2006) identified five key factors: the need to retrieve information, the desire to build a legacy, the willingness to share resources, the fear of losing content, and the desire to create a personal identity. While individuals generally recognise the benefit of PDA for themselves, their close counterparts and society, the primary emphasis is on personal values (Zhao, Wu, and Li 2024). Eventually, self-fulfilment appears to be the primary goal of digital content creators and managers, with a focus on their own content.

However, empirical research on the motivations and reactions of individuals whose content is collected by organisations, as well as studies on motivations to participate in community-based archiving projects, is limited (Condron 2019). Roeschley (2024) described how individuals contributed to community-based participatory archives by sharing private memories with the community (self-fulfilment), thereby shaping the collective memory of the community. Some argue that donations cannot be fully explained by self-interested motives alone, emphasising the importance of exploring donor motivations through an empathetic relational approach based on the ethics of care (Carbajal 2021).

In addition, Purcell (2015, 11–17) highlighted the scarcity of empirical research in this area. However, based on his experience, he identified several incentives for individuals to manage personal documents to donate or deposit collections, including the belief that it is the right thing to do (has value for others), a sense of immortality, attachment to affiliated institutions, tax deductions, fulfilment of certain obligations and the inability to discard materials. Understanding donors’ intentions is challenging unless they are documented, however, sensitive information is frequently protected from third parties.

Similarly, a few empirical studies have investigated the acceptance or rejection of preservation institutions archiving user-generated content. Previous research has highlighted that a certain number of individuals disapproved of third parties collecting and preserving personal posts on the Web (Shiozaki 2022a, 2024), suggesting that privacy sensitivity and social media experience were key factors distinguishing acceptance from rejection.

However, these studies are limited to current generational perspectives. The primary reasons for rejecting third-party collection and preservation were information privacy concerns and instinctive aversion, reflecting the respondents’ present-day reactions (Shiozaki 2022a, 2024). Another study identified that older individuals valued preserving traditional media (e.g., books) as cultural heritage more highly and were less inclined to preserve new media (e.g., social media content) (Shiozaki 2022b). This may have affected the participants’ willingness to donate. If this pattern holds true for photos, we hypothesise that older individuals may have preservation preferences for printed digital photos.

This study examines whether generativity influences donation behaviour in the context of archival materials. Donations can be viewed as a manifestation of generativity, aimed at preserving one’s legacy for future generations. Erikson’s theory of generativity, a psychosocial concept, emphasised the process of passing knowledge and values onto the next generation (Erikson 1963; McAdams and de St. Aubin 1998). In contrast to stagnation, generativity indicates personal growth and a desire to contribute to society. However, this concept is not straightforward, and remains a topic of debate. While some studies have reported that generativity peaks during midlife rather than in youth or old age (Nelson and Bergeman 2021), others have suggested that generativity increases with age and remains high in older adulthood (Newton, Stewart, and Vandewater 2019). Individual differences were also reported (Reinilä et al. 2023).

Numerous empirical studies of generativity have used different personality scales to measure and assess this trait (McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992). Some scales have been adapted for the Japanese context (Tabuchi et al. 2015), considering cultural differences, and simplified surveys have been designed to ease the burden on respondents, particularly the elderly (Tabuchi et al. 2012).

However, few examples of using the generativity theory exist in the context of donations to preservation institutions. The relationship between donation behaviour in preservation institutions and generativity should be explored. If individuals with a high sense of generational continuity are more likely to donate to archival institutions, then targeting them may be effective. Of course, the other factors including the content of donations, such as photographs depicting anonymous cityscapes, may influence the willingness to donate, as these may be more readily accepted.

As an exception, a study conducted at the Louvre Museum empirically explored the relationship between generativity and donation behaviour (Krebs, Rieunier, and Urien 2015). The survey, involving 486 art and culture consumers, discovered that respondents with higher generativity scores were more likely to consider making a bequest than those with lower scores. This finding suggests that generativity is a significant variable in donation research. However, its study focuses on monetary donations to devise effective fundraising strategies. The relationship between generativity and the donation of materials requires further investigation.

3 Methodology

This study aimed to elucidate public awareness of the preservation of personal photos as community artefacts by investigating the acceptability of a hypothetical scenario in which individuals donate their photo collections to preservation institutions. To identify factors influencing individual reactions, a questionnaire survey was conducted using probability sampling. To obtain reliable responses in a short period of time, the survey was outsourced to the Nippon Research Centre, which used a paper-based questionnaire in a drop-off and pick-up format. Respondents were selected through stratified random sampling to reflect demographic compositions by age (ranging from 15 to 79 years of age) and sex based on recent census data, with six respondents drawn from each of the 200 sampling points.

This study investigated background factors such as experiences of sharing and losing photographs as well as the degree of generativity. It also examined whether the respondents were willing to donate photos of various subjects, in both print and digital formats, to public libraries. To measure generativity, the “short version of the generativity scale” developed by Tabuchi et al. (2012) was used, because it is easily applicable to elderly Japanese individuals and is based on the Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS) developed by McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992). While other psychological scales exist, this study did not aim to develop new scales but to explore the potential connection between the motivation to donate and generativity, making the aforementioned scale an appropriate choice. The five scales measured were “Transmission of Knowledge (I try to pass on my experiences and knowledge to others)”, “Contribution (I feel as though my contributions will exist after I die)”, “Legacy (I think that others will remember me even after I die)”, “Creativity (I feel like I am moving forward towards something meaningful)”, and “Care (I want to donate within my means)”.

The analysis consisted of summarising descriptive statistics on the types of photos deemed acceptable or unacceptable for donation. This study used binominal logistic regression, with acceptability/non-acceptability as the dependent variable and factors such as age and degree of generativity as independent variables. In addition, this study examined the differences in acceptability trends between analogue (printed) and digital photos.

4 Results

This survey received 1,176 valid responses, with the descriptive statistics listed in Table 1. The majority of respondents (69.9 %) reported sharing photographs, with only a small percentage (31.5 %) experiencing photo loss. In terms of willingness to donate photographs, responses included those who found it acceptable, those who did not and those who did not own any photographs. The majority of those who owned photographs (whether physical or digital), were willing to accept donations. Some of those who reported not owning photographs may have previously owned them but deemed them unworthy of sharing or preserving. Generativity was measured using five scales, with responses converted into points: 3 points for “very applicable”, 2 points for “somewhat applicable”, 1 point for “slightly applicable”, and 0 points for “not applicable”. The combined score for the five scales had a maximum of 15 points. The average total score for generativity was 4.55 points (standard deviation: 3.12).

Respondents selected multiple options for their photosharing experiences. As listed in Table 2, a significant number of individuals shared digital photos with a select few, accounting for slightly more than half of the total respondents. The survey revealed that only approximately 15 % of the participants had shared physical photos or shared photos with a broad audience via social media or the public web. These findings suggest that collecting personal photos online would likely result in a limited representation of individuals.

The respondents also selected multiple options regarding their experiences with photo loss, as listed in Table 3. As aforementioned, the majority of respondents (68.5 %) had no experience with losing important photos. This could be influenced by the phrasing of the question, which specifically asks about the loss of “important” photos to aid recall. The most common cause of photograph loss was accidental deletion or disposal (19.8 %), followed by damage to the storage medium (11.5 %). Other reasons, such as photos becoming untraceable or the cessation of photo-sharing services, were mentioned less frequently. Only a few respondents reported losses owing to disasters or theft.

In terms of willingness to donate photographs, this survey presented participants with hypothetical scenarios for both physical and digital photos and asked them to select from multiple options which types of photos they would be willing to donate.

Question about physical photos: Suppose you receive a request from a public library in your area to provide copies of your personal paper photographs to preserve local records. The library then digitises and returns the photographs. What type of photographs would you be willing to provide? Please select all that apply.

Question about digital photos: Even photographs taken recently can be valuable historical records. Suppose you receive a request from a public library in your area to provide copies of your personal digital photographs for the purpose of preserving such records. What type of photographs would you be willing to provide? Please select all that apply.

The results are listed in Table 4. For both physical and digital photos, the highest willingness to donate was observed for photographs depicting local streets and buildings, followed by photographs of local nature and wildlife, community events and daily life, local disasters and recovery and local residents. The willingness to donate photographs decreased when the photos included ancestors (deceased individuals) and it was the lowest when the photos featured the participants themselves. Photos of identifiable people were less likely to be donated, particularly those with personal connections to the respondents.

The highest acceptance rate was observed for photos of local streets and buildings, which could be attributed to the question’s emphasis on “preserving local records”. These findings suggest that, while consent is required to obtain donated materials, photographs featuring people, particularly those with personal connections to donors, are less likely to contribute.

Interestingly, while there were slight variations across each scale, the overall trend showed that the generativity scores decreased with age (Table 5). The highest generativity scores were observed among teenagers. Previous research on generativity has shown that while individual differences certainly exist (Reinilä et al. 2023) they peak during middle adulthood (Nelson and Bergeman 2021), after which they continue to grow with advancing age and remain elevated well into late adulthood (Newton, Stewart, and Vandewater 2019). However, this finding differs from previous results. Although further validation of the five simplified scales used in this study may be required, the results suggest that increasing age does not always correlate with a stronger desire to pass something down to the next generation.

To explore the determinants of accepting a request for photo donations from a preservation institution (in this case, a public library), we conducted a binomial logistic regression analysis. The independent variables were generativity, photo-sharing experience, photo-loss experience, age (median for each group), sex and residence (metropolitan versus non-metropolitan areas). The variance inflation factor (VIF) for each independent variable was <2, indicating no significant multicollinearity. Table 6 lists the results. The analysis excluded individuals who reported not having any photos, resulting in 834 participants for printed photos and 929 participants for digital photos.

The results suggest that for both print and digital photos, generativity, shared experiences, and loss experiences tended to increase the willingness to donate photos. Specifically, for printed photos, a one-unit increase in generativity was associated with a 0.162 increase in the odds of willingness to donate printed photos. For digital photos, a one-unit increase in generativity corresponded to a 0.154 increase in the odds of willingness to donate digital photos. In terms of shared and lost experiences, the beta coefficients for print photographs were 1.088 and 1.044, respectively, whereas those for digital photographs were 0.964 and 0.843, respectively. This indicates that the odds of the willingness to donate photos were higher for those with shared and lost experiences than for those with generativity.

5 Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the factors that influenced individuals’ willingness to donate personally owned photographs to preservation institutions. A minority of photograph owners expressed an unwillingness to donate whether the photographs were in physical (29.5 %) or digital form (27.0 %), and a certain proportion of individuals were reluctant to make such donations.

Furthermore, a significant number of respondents reported not owning any photographs, either physical (342) or digital (247). This result highlights the limitations of preservation institutions in their efforts to comprehensively collect photographs from individuals. This underscores the inherent bias in assuming that almost all events and objects are recorded in photographic form and the practical challenges in acquiring a complete photographic archive.

A regression analysis conducted to identify the determining factors revealed that individuals with prior experience of sharing and losing photographs were more likely to consent to donation requests. This aligns with existing research (Shiozaki 2022a, 2024), suggesting that familiarity with a medium enhances its perceived value, thereby increasing the willingness to preserve it. This indicates that until new types of media gain widespread acceptance, their preservation significance may not be widely recognised within society.

In addition to sharing and losing experiences, generativity emerged as a factor influencing attitudes towards photograph donation, albeit to a lesser extent. This suggests that preservation institutions should strategically target individuals with higher generativity traits for donation requests. However, this approach may introduce bias, as discussed previously.

If effective strategies to enhance generativity can be identified, fostering this trait in the general population could significantly enrich archival collections. Erikson’s theory defined generativity as a key psychosocial developmental task in middle adulthood, with stagnation characterised by self-absorption (Erikson 1963; McAdams and de St. Aubin 1998). This crisis could negatively affect the quantity and quality of archival materials preserved for future generations.

Enhancing generativity could mitigate these risks and ensure a richer and more diverse cultural legacy. This suggests that, by being conscious of future generations, we can identify greater significance in the preservation of different types of documents. In other words, the intergenerational perspective and discourse on intergenerational justice could be applied in the context of preserving personal digital documents.

Schüller-Zwierlein (2015) analysed relevant discourses on justifications for the existence of preservation institutions. According to him, common justifications – cultural treasures, cultural heritage and cultural memory – emphasised the historical and cultural significance of objects from the perspectives of national identity and economic value. However, he highlighted that these justifications inherently turned the gaze to the past, limiting the scope of what was preserved and who benefited from it.

Instead, Schüller-Zwierlein advocated for the underexplored discussions within the preservation community, such as the concept of intergenerational justice, Hans-Georg Gadamer’s notion of “tradition as an ongoing conversation” and “keeping the present accessible”. This approach justified the preservation of various information objects (documents), not merely as past treasures, heritage or memories but also as a method to ensure their accessibility for future generations. By combining synchronic and diachronic principles, these alternatives promoted a dynamic approach that emphasised the interconnectedness of the present, future, and past, thereby enhancing the relevance of information in contemporary and future contexts.

Information is (putatively, potentially) relevant. Relevant is what I can infer from. What I infer from I need to be able to refer to: Inference needs reference (and entitlement). And what I refer to needs to be permanent, otherwise my claims cannot be challenged. Preservation institutions guarantee the permanence of reference – this is their fundamental reason for existence. (Schüller-Zwierlein 2015, 119)

Although this is a highly compelling discussion, it primarily focuses on text-based information objects. The introduction of intergenerational justice discussions mainly relies on John Rawls’ (1999) “just savings” principle which posits that each generation should preserve enough resources to maintain institutions for future generations. However, there are theories of justice beyond the contractarian view and the discourse on intergenerational justice has a substantial body of work in different contexts, including future pensions and climate change (Gosseries 2023; Gosseries and Meyer 2012). With the increasing reference to nontextual content on the web, the proliferation of misinformation, disinformation, and malicious content, and the anticipated rise in AI-generated content, a more robust theoretical framework is necessary to determine what should be preserved, by whom, and to what extent it can be justified.

In addition to theoretical research, it is crucial to create social mechanisms that incorporate the perspectives of future generations. Specifically, I propose applying research methods that virtually introduce future generations to the realm of digital preservation. For instance, because it is impossible to gather opinions from future generations who do not yet exist, we can adopt the concept of “virtual future generations” as proposed by Saijo (2020) and others. Practically, this involves creating a “virtual future generations” group that responds as if they were from the future, and a “current generations” group that responds without such a prompt to experimentally examine any differences in digital document preservation preferences.

If differences were observed between the two groups this would suggest that the value placed on such documents could change over time. Moreover, if the virtual future generation group showed a stronger tendency to support the preservation of digital documents, it indicates that the value of these documents might increase over time. This implies that discussions based solely on the perspective of the current generation may be insufficient and that institutional designs considering ultra-long-term perspectives would be desirable. This is an important topic for future studies.

Finally, this study had several limitations that must be acknowledged. While this study identified generativity and experiences of sharing and loss as key factors influencing individuals’ willingness to donate photographs, other unexamined variables may also play a significant role. In addition, the measure of generativity, though simplified, yielded results that differed from those of previous studies, particularly in showing higher generativity scores among younger respondents. This discrepancy raises questions regarding the validity of the generativity measures used in the present study. Although this research did not focus on the concept of generativity or its measurement scales, future studies should employ more robust and validated scales to reinforce the findings.

Moreover, this study did not explore the detailed reasons why individuals chose to accept or reject donation requests. Understanding these motivations requires qualitative research to gain deeper insight into the factors influencing donation behaviour. Such qualitative studies are essential to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the nuances involved in individuals’ decisions regarding the donation of personal photographs to preservation institutions.

6 Conclusions

In line with an argument presented by Derek Parfit (1986), the choices made by the current generation (whether to preserve them) influence the nature of future records of humanity. However, because it is impossible to identify future people at this point in time, the problem of non-identity arises: regardless of what documents are preserved they cannot be definitively said to be better or worse for any future generation. However, because we are confident in the existence of future generations (Scheffler 2018), we identify contemporary significance in the act of preserving human records. The question arises: what justifies the preservation of documents for future generations based on public expenditure, and what are the arguments supporting this?

To address this question, a discussion of intergenerational justice appears useful, although there has been minimal discussion in this field. As a preliminary step in developing such theoretical research, this study focuses on the concept of generativity, which pertains to individual traits. Specifically, it examines the factors influencing people’s choice to respond to requests to donate personal photographs to preservation institutions.

The investigation revealed that among those who owned photographs, a minority of individuals, whether in paper or digital form, did not accept donation requests regardless of the content. In addition, some individuals did not own photographs at all, either in paper or digital form. Regression analysis conducted to explore the influencing factors showed that individuals with shared or lost experiences were more likely to agree to donation requests.

Furthermore, although not as strong as shared or lost experiences, generativity also affected attitudes towards photo donation acceptance or rejection. This implies that targeting individuals with generativity traits for donation requests could be effective if preservation institutions collected materials from these individuals. This suggests that an intergenerational perspective is relevant in the context of digital preservation. The next step is to systematically organise the discussion of intergenerational justice in the context of digital preservation.