arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Generational Differences Under Scrutiny: Issues and Implications for HRD

Hyerim Cho et al.

Advances in Developing Human Resources2025https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223251337115article
AJG 2ABDC C
Weight
0.44

What the paper says

Problem Despite the longstanding popularity of generational analysis, its validity is still questionable, and potential methodological flaws, such as conflating age and life cycle effects, remain unresolved. In HRD research, there is a tendency to unquestioningly adopt established generation-based thinking, which imposes risks of oversimplification and stereotyping. Solution HRD researchers and practitioners should be mindful of the dangers and difficulties associated with generalization and stereotyping based on generation. They should apply generational categories with greater caution, understanding the confounding influence of age and life cycle and preserving the original aim of generational research: to understand individual differences. Stakeholders Human resource development researchers and practitioners, and broadly, scholars from other disciplines who research topics related to generation.

3 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223251337115

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{hyerim2025,
  title        = {{Generational Differences Under Scrutiny: Issues and Implications for HRD}},
  author       = {Hyerim Cho et al.},
  journal      = {Advances in Developing Human Resources},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223251337115},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Generational Differences Under Scrutiny: Issues and Implications for HRD

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.44

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.32 × 0.4 = 0.13
M · momentum0.57 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.