Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32901173›Full record

ArticleJournal of business and psychology2021

Generations and Generational Differences: Debunking Myths in Organizational Science and Practice and Paving New Paths Forward.

Cort W Rudolph, Rachel S Rauvola, David P Costanza, Hannes Zacher

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of business and psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06495060 (The Correlation Between Psychological Capital, Intention to Leave, Work Job and Environment Satisfaction, and Political Skills Among Different Generations Nurses), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06495060 completednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

The Correlation Between Psychological Capital, Intention to Leave, Work Job and Environment Satisfaction, and Political Skills Among Different Generations Nurses

TypeobservationalSponsorMackay Memorial HospitalRan2024 to 2025Enrolled646ConditionsGeneration GapArmsNo intervention (Only observation)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Cort W RudolphDepartment of Psychology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0536-9638
Rachel S RauvolaDepartment of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, IL USA.
David P CostanzaDepartment of Organizational Sciences & Communication, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C., USA.
Hannes ZacherInstitute of Psychology - Wilhelm Wundt, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Talk about generations is everywhere and particularly so in organizational science and practice. Recognizing and exploring the ubiquity of generations is important, especially because evidence for their existence is, at best, scant. In this article, we aim to achieve two goals that are targeted at answering the broad question: "What accounts for the ubiquity of generations despite a lack of evidence for their existence and impact?" First, we explore and "bust" ten common myths about the science and practice of generations and generational differences. Second, with these debunked myths as a backdrop, we focus on two alternative and complementary frameworks-the social constructionist perspective and the lifespan development perspective-with promise for changing the way we think about age, aging, and generations at work. We argue that the social constructionist perspective offers important opportunities for understanding the persistence and pervasiveness of generations and that, as an alternative to studying generations, the lifespan perspective represents a better model for understanding how age operates and development unfolds at work. Overall, we urge stakeholders in organizational science and practice (e.g., students, researchers, consultants, managers) to adopt more nuanced perspectives grounded in these models, rather than a generational perspective, to understand the influence of age and aging at work.

Indexed as

Constructionist perspectivesGenerational differencesGenerationsLifespan development

Identifiers

PMID32901173
PMCPMC7471586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.