IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v8y2015i03p362-366_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Note on the Folly of Cross-Sectional Operationalizations of Generations

Author

Listed:
  • Rudolph, Cort W.

Abstract

Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) have justly argued that cross-sectional operationalizations of generational groups represent a confound that constrains the ability to unequivocally separate the effects of age and period. A related statistical argument against this practice bears consideration as well. Namely, cross-sectional operationalizations of generations have the potential to unduly inflate type two-error rates when compared with the analysis of simple age effects. This is a problem because true age effects can be erroneously ignored in studies where age is artificially split into assumed generational groups. Indeed, the argument against artificially bifurcating continuous data is not new (e.g., Cohen, 1983), however past attempts to make inferences about generational effects in cross-sectional designs present an opportunity to investigate the particularly insidious nature of this practice and its implications. To demonstrate the problem at hand, let us consider a brief empirical example by virtue of a simulation study.

Suggested Citation

  • Rudolph, Cort W., 2015. "A Note on the Folly of Cross-Sectional Operationalizations of Generations," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 362-366, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:8:y:2015:i:03:p:362-366_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942615000504/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wilczyńska Kinga & Wieczorkowska Grażyna, 2022. "Generational Differences in the Labour Market – Three Confounded Effects," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 54-86, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:8:y:2015:i:03:p:362-366_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.