ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Crisis management in Korean Generation Z's leadership expectations: a robustness analysis.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generational expectations of leaders are typically inferred from competency importance ratings, but such ratings are difficult to interpret when they are subject to strong ceiling effects. We examine this methodological challenge in South Korean Generation Z, using crisis management as a focal test case. Drawing on a June 2024 nationwide quota sample of 1,000 South Koreans aged 14-28, we measured the importance respondents assigned to eighteen twenty-first-century leadership competencies and analyzed the ratings with paired comparisons, bootstrap resampling, and within-person centering. Crisis management received the highest mean rating, and its first place was highly stable under resampling, yet strong ceiling compression left it statistically indistinguishable from communication skills; its top position therefore indicates high salience within broadly shared expectations, not a singular priority. Women reported higher raw ratings for crisis management, but the difference was no longer significant after within-person centering, and an equivalence test rejected effects as large as the conventional small-effect benchmark, a pattern consistent with a difference in scale use rather than in priorities. Women's stronger emphasis on social skills remained robust after the same correction, in line with social role theory. The cross-sectional design supports neither causal nor generational claims. What the study does establish is twofold: top-ranked means and raw demographic gaps in compressed ratings cannot be interpreted without corrections for ceiling effects and scale use, and crisis management is robustly salient in a cohort where prior research had placed it at the periphery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.