research papers journals difference

Master Your Homework
Do My Homework

Understanding the Difference Between Research Papers and Journals

Research papers and journals are two of the most important forms of academic writing, yet they remain misunderstood by many students. While there are distinct differences between research papers and journals, both share common features that contribute to their overall purpose in academia. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of these two types of written works in order to help professors effectively guide their students through the process of understanding them. It will discuss how each is structured, what kinds of information they contain, as well as provide examples for comparison purposes. In addition, this article will highlight the importance for researchers and instructors alike when considering appropriate methods for evaluating research papers and journals in an educational setting.

I. Introduction

Ii. definition of research papers and journals, iii. difference in content between a research paper and journal article, iv. length of a research paper compared to that of a journal article, v. difference in formatting between research papers and journals, vi. audience for the different types of writing pieces, vii. conclusion.

The Scope of Research

We are witnessing an unprecedented shift in the way research is conducted. With the increased availability of digital tools, researchers have new avenues to explore and harness information from a variety of sources. This shift has necessitated that our understanding of how best to access, analyze, and present data must be continually updated as well. In this paper we will examine one particular form: academic journals. By exploring what constitutes an effective journal article we can understand more about how modern research is disseminated and utilized by practitioners within various disciplines.

Features which Make Journals Special

Academic journals are unique among other forms of research presentation for several reasons; firstly they tend to feature a higher level analysis than popular media such as newspapers or magazines may provide. Journal articles also allow for peer-reviewed content which means topics featured are often discussed at length with multiple perspectives taken into account when forming conclusions or making recommendations related to topics under study . Additionally, due their greater depth and rigor authors who publish in journals can command much larger attention compared to works presented elsewhere thus resulting in potential impact not seen outside these publications.

Extended discussion on topical issues.
Peer review process before publication.

Definition of Research Papers and Journals Research papers are typically scholarly works published in academic journals or as stand-alone documents. They are often based on original research conducted by a student or scientist, providing new insights into an area of study. Generally, they include detailed literature reviews summarizing existing knowledge on the topic being discussed, present new data collected from primary sources such as experiments and surveys, discuss findings from both quantitative and qualitative analysis methods, and offer recommendations for future study.

Journals serve to document developments in science over time by publishing articles with information about experimental procedures used to conduct research studies. Unlike research papers which generally focus only on one particular piece of work at a time; journals publish several different types of content including short reports (‘mini-reviews’) book reviews conference proceedings editorials letters opinions interviews photographs charts diagrams tables etc., all related to advances within their field. So is “research paper” a journal? The answer depends upon how the term “journal” is defined: if it refers simply to any type of periodical publication then yes; however if it more specifically denotes peer reviewed publications that contain empirical data obtained through original investigations than no – because most research papers do not go through the same rigorous review process required for journal submissions.

Research Paper: scholarly works published in academic journals or as stand-alone documents.
Journal: publishes several different types of content including short reports mini reviews books conferences editors letter opinion interviews photos chart diagram table etc.

When considering the distinction between a research paper and journal article, two main points stand out. Firstly, the focus of each publication is different; secondly, there are also differences in content.

Focus : While both publications may contain similar information on an academic topic or area of study, their purpose for existence differs greatly. The primary intent behind writing a research paper , often conducted by students at university level to fulfil certain requirements within a course program, will be directed towards improving understanding of particular theories or concepts and exploring any unresolved issues related thereto. On the other hand, journal articles , which have typically been written after more comprehensive analysis has taken place by experts in that field (and sometimes even over several years), are generally published with the intention of presenting new findings to peers – providing an opportunity for rigorous evaluation before wider acceptance as part of scholarly knowledge base.
Content: The content contained within these types of publications follows along this same path. As such while research papers (especially those completed during undergraduate studies) may offer some basic results alongside general discussion based upon existing literature references; journal articles will include much deeper insights into any experiments performed (including details surrounding methodology used) along with far more comprehensive interpretations and conclusions from actual data generated during such processes – all intended to give greater clarity onto the subject matter being studied.

Length of Scholarly Writing: A research paper typically has longer content than a journal article. It usually covers much more detail and includes a wide range of sources, making it difficult to condense into the same length as an article. Research papers may also contain graphs and charts which can add length to the document too.

The other difference between research papers and journal articles is that journal articles are often written with the intention of being published in academic journals. Journals tend to have strict guidelines on word count or page limits, meaning they require concise writing for publication. In contrast, there is no set limit for how long a research paper should be – though most undergraduate papers will still be shorter than graduate-level work due to fewer resources available at this level.

A common question asked by students researching their topics is whether or not a research paper counts as a journal itself; unfortunately, no! While some student work may end up published one day in academic journals after rigorous review processes conducted by professionals within each field’s respective discipline, until then these works remain classified only as ‘research’ papers – unique pieces of scholarly writing created from personal investigations into specific topics using various resources throughout its development.

Formatting between research papers and journals

Research Papers and Journals have a few differences in terms of formatting, such as style, citation methods, structure etc. These two kinds of academic writing differ from each other based on their intended purpose.

The typeface used for Research Papers is typically 12 point Times New Roman while the font size for Journals can vary.
Another difference is that different citation methods are used; MLA format might be expected to be used with Research Paper whereas AMA or APA may be preferred by Journals.

Furthermore, there are some variations in the structure too. For instance, many Research Papers will include an abstract section which summarises what’s been written about before introducing the author’s findings but it isn’t necessary in a Journal article. It’s also important to note that although both involve using evidence-based information – such as quantitative data – they approach this differently when addressing topics: While almost all journals tend to focus on offering solutions derived through scientific experimentation/data analysis research paper focuses more heavily on critically analysing existing theories & concepts before considering possible solutions or suggestions towards improvement . So essentially when one wonders ‘is a research paper a journal?’ The answer would likely depend upon context & usage since these two types of documents serve distinct purposes despite having certain overlaps depending upon their subject matter

What Are the Different Types of Writing Pieces? Writing pieces come in a variety of forms and genres. We can categorize them into three main categories: academic writing, creative writing, and business/professional writing.

Academic writings are usually essays or research papers written for college classes.
Creative writings include short stories, novels, poetry, plays, etc., that are made up from imagination rather than based on facts or research.
Business/professional writing is used to communicate information such as memos, reports and letters within an organization.

Who Is the Audience for Each Type of Writing Piece?

The audience for each type of piece varies depending on what it is being used for. For example:

In sum, this research paper has discussed the critical role of a journal in one’s learning journey. With its rich and diverse content, a journal can be used to track knowledge learned over time while also providing an invaluable opportunity for reflection on personal experiences. Through analysis of both existing literature and primary data collected from interviews conducted with experienced practitioners, it was found that journals offer individuals greater opportunities to gain deeper understanding of complex topics.

The evidence presented here provides us with valuable insights into how we can maximize our learning potential through the regular use of journals. Ultimately, by embracing this practice as part of our daily routine we will become better equipped to tackle any challenge or difficulty life throws at us; making it easier for us to achieve success in all areas including academic studies.

Self-Awareness: Regularly writing allows people to look back on their thoughts objectively and thereby increase self-awareness.
Creativity: By reflecting upon past ideas written down earlier creativity is unlocked allowing new possibilities.

English: This article has presented an overview of the difference between research papers and journals. By understanding these differences, students can develop strategies for more effectively reading and writing within these contexts. It is important to note that further study into the nuances of each format is needed in order to gain a comprehensive knowledge base. With this information, readers are better equipped to determine which type of document serves their particular needs most effectively.

Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Criminal Justice
Environment
Politics & Government
Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

White papers, working papers, preprints, journal articles: What’s the difference?

In this updated piece, we explain the most common types of research papers journalists will encounter, noting their strengths and weaknesses.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource February 25, 2022

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/media/working-papers-research-articles/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

This tip sheet, originally published in May 2018, has been updated to include preprint research, a type of research featured often in news coverage of the coronavirus pandemic.

Journalists rely most often on four types of research in their work. White papers, working papers, preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles.

How are they different? And which is best?

Below, we explain each, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. As always, we urge journalists to use care in selecting any research to ground their coverage and fact-check claims.

Peer-reviewed article

Peer-reviewed research — the kind that appears in academic journals and that we highlight here at The Journalist’s Resource — has undergone a detailed critique by scholars with expertise in the field. While peer-reviewed research is generally the most reliable, journalists should keep in mind that publication in a prestigious journal is no guarantee of quality and that no single university or research organization always does the best research on a given topic.

It is safe to assume, however, that articles published in top-tier journals have been reviewed and given a stamp of approval by a number of accomplished scholars. For journalists who are uncertain, we’ve put together a list of 13 questions to ask to gauge the quality of a research article.

Keep in mind that not everything that appears in a scholarly journal has been peer reviewed. Journals publish various types of content, including book reviews, editorials, letters to the editor and, sometimes, even poetry.

Working paper

This broad category describes research papers that have not been peer reviewed or published in a journal. Working papers can be in various stages of completion. One might be ready for publication in a prestigious journal while another requires significant editing and other changes that could actually alter its main findings. Sometimes, working paper findings are so preliminary, authors will advise against citing their work .

Even so, working papers are a great way for journalists to gain access to new research quickly. The peer-review and publication process can take months to a year or longer, which means that by the time studies get published, their findings are sometimes not as useful or the data are old.

In choosing working papers, journalists should communicate with scholars about the progress of their research and how confident they are in their findings. It’s a good idea to seek corroboration from peer-reviewed research and to ask other researchers for help assessing a study.

A preprint is similar to a working paper in that it has not been vetted through a formal peer-review process. However, preprints tend to be more complete . Also, preprints submitted to public servers such as the Social Science Research Network and the health sciences server medRxiv get a cursory screening before they’re published online for public view.

Preprints, like academic journal articles, are assigned a Digital Object Identifier , or DOI, and become a permanent part of the scientific record.

White paper

A white paper is a report, often compiled by government agencies, businesses and nonprofit organizations, that outlines an issue and often explores possible solutions to a problem. For example, in November 2021, the federal Office of Community Oriented Policing Services released a white paper looking at factors that help or hinder law enforcement recruitment of Black Americans. Earlier in the year, the Advanced Technology Academic Research Center published a white paper on the American Rescue Plan ‘s widespread implications for government agencies.

In the business world, white papers also are used for marketing purposes — to describe a new product or approach, for instance, or diagnose a problem.

While a white paper can help journalists get up to speed quickly on an issue, it’s important to note some white papers advocate a specific position or policy change. Some rely on incomplete research or research that has not been peer reviewed.

Looking for more guidance on writing about research? Check out our tip sheets on covering biomedical research preprints amid the coronavirus and what journalists should know about peer review .

The Journalist’s Resource would like to thank Matthew Baum , the Marvin Kalb professor of global communications and professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, for his help preparing this tip sheet.

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

Journal Article vs Research Paper: Difference and Comparison

A journal article presents original research findings in a concise format, focusing on a specific topic within a broader field. It undergoes peer review before publication, ensuring quality and validity. On the other hand, a research paper is a comprehensive document that may include multiple experiments, analyses, and discussions, aimed at contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Key Takeaways A journal article is a shorter scholarly writing published in a specific academic journal. A research paper is a more extended, comprehensive academic writing presenting original research. Journal articles are more focused and present specific findings, while research papers are broader and present a more comprehensive study.

Journal Article vs Research Paper

A journal article is a piece of published work that presents the research findings and may include analysis, remark, or discussion. A research paper is a detailed account of the research that may be published or unpublished and includes an introduction, literature review, methods, results, and conclusion.

Comparison Table

What is journal article.

A journal article is a scholarly publication that presents the findings of original research, analysis, or review within a particular academic field. These articles serve as fundamental units of scholarly communication, disseminating new knowledge, theories, and insights to the academic community and beyond. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

Content and Structure

1 Abstract: A journal article begins with an abstract, a concise summary of the study’s objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. The abstract provides readers with a quick overview of the article’s content and findings.

2 Introduction: Following the abstract, the introduction sets the context for the study by reviewing relevant literature, identifying gaps or controversies in existing knowledge, and stating the research objectives or hypotheses.

Peer Review Process:

1 Submission: Authors submit their articles to scholarly journals for publication consideration, adhering to the journal’s guidelines and formatting requirements.

2 Peer Review: Upon submission, the journal’s editor assigns the manuscript to peer reviewers—experts in the field—who evaluate the article’s quality, originality, methodology, and significance. Peer review helps ensure the rigor and credibility of the research.

3 Revision: Based on the reviewers’ feedback, authors may revise their article to address any concerns or criticisms raised. This iterative process of revision and reevaluation continues until the article meets the journal’s standards for publication.

4 Acceptance and Publication: If the article meets the journal’s criteria, it is accepted for publication and undergoes final editing and formatting. Once published, the article becomes part of the journal’s archive and is accessible to readers worldwide.

What is Research Paper?

A research paper is a comprehensive document that presents the findings, analysis, and interpretations of original research conducted by the author(s) within a specific academic discipline. These papers serve as a means for scholars to contribute new knowledge, theories, and insights to their respective fields. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

1. Content and Structure

1 Introduction: The introduction of a research paper provides background information on the topic, reviews relevant literature, and outlines the research objectives or hypotheses. It establishes the context for the study and justifies its significance.

2 Methods: The methods section describes the procedures, materials, and techniques employed in the research. It should provide sufficient detail to enable other researchers to replicate the study and verify its results.

3 Results: This section presents the empirical findings of the research, using tables, figures, or graphs to illustrate data. Authors report their observations or measurements objectively, without interpretation or speculation.

4 Discussion: In the discussion section, authors interpret the results in light of the research questions or hypotheses, comparing them to previous studies and addressing their implications. They may also explore alternative explanations, limitations of the study, and avenues for future research.

5 Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the research and highlights their significance. It may reiterate the study’s contribution to the field, offer final reflections, and suggest directions for further inquiry.

Characteristics and Scope

1 Original Research: Unlike review papers or essays, research papers are based on original research conducted by the authors. They contribute new data, insights, or interpretations to the academic discourse.

2 Rigorous Methodology: Research papers adhere to rigorous scientific or scholarly methodologies, employing systematic approaches to data collection, analysis, and interpretation. They prioritize objectivity, validity, and reliability in their findings.

3 Length and Complexity: Research papers vary in length and complexity, depending on the scope of the study and the requirements of the target publication venue. They may range from concise reports of preliminary findings to comprehensive analyses of multi-year research projects.

4 Contribution to Knowledge: Research papers aim to advance knowledge within their respective fields by addressing research gaps, testing hypotheses, or generating new theories. They contribute to the cumulative growth of scholarship through the dissemination of original research findings.

Main Differences Between Journal Article and Research Paper

Journal articles focus on a specific aspect or finding within a broader topic.
Research papers provide a comprehensive analysis of a research project, including multiple experiments, analyses, and discussions.
Journal articles are concise, containing essential findings, methods, and interpretations in a limited space.
Research papers tend to be longer and more detailed, offering exhaustive exploration of the research topic, methodology, results, and implications.
Journal articles undergo peer review by experts in the field before publication, ensuring quality and validity.
Research papers may or may not undergo formal peer review, depending on the publication venue or academic requirements.
Journal articles present findings objectively, without extensive interpretation or speculation.
Research papers include in-depth interpretation of results, discussion of implications, and exploration of potential limitations or biases.
Journal articles contribute to the scholarly conversation by presenting new findings, analyses, or reviews within a specific topic area.
Research papers advance knowledge within a field by offering comprehensive analyses, testing hypotheses, or generating new theories through original research.

Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper

https://gssrr.org/index.php/gssrr/How-to-Publish-Research-Paper
https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/types-of-journal-manuscripts/1356
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/research_papers/index.html

Last Updated : 05 March, 2024

I’ve put so much effort writing this blog post to provide value to you. It’ll be very helpful for me, if you consider sharing it on social media or with your friends/family. SHARING IS ♥️

Emma Smith holds an MA degree in English from Irvine Valley College. She has been a Journalist since 2002, writing articles on the English language, Sports, and Law. Read more about me on her bio page .

Share this post!

21 thoughts on “journal article vs research paper: difference and comparison”.

The characteristics of a journal article outlined in the article shed light on the structured nature of these scholarly publications. It’s important to understand the components that make up a journal article to effectively communicate research findings.

Agreed, knowing the key components of a journal article is essential for researchers aiming to publish their work in reputable academic journals.

Absolutely, the detailed breakdown of the characteristics of a journal article provides valuable insights for aspiring authors.

This article provides a clear and concise comparison between journal articles and research papers. It’s informative and well-structured. I appreciate the detailed explanation of the characteristics of each type of publication.

I agree, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the differences between journal articles and research papers. It’s a valuable resource for researchers and academics.

The characteristics of a journal article and a research paper are clearly delineated in the article, providing an insightful comparison between the two types of scholarly publications.

Absolutely, the article offers a comprehensive comparison that highlights the unique features of journal articles and research papers.

The article effectively differentiates between journal articles and research papers, offering a comprehensive understanding of the distinct characteristics and purposes of each type of scholarly publication.

I concur, the article serves as an illuminating guide for researchers and scholars navigating the intricacies of academic writing and publication.

The article offers a thorough understanding of the significance of journal articles and research papers in the academic and professional spheres. It serves as a valuable resource for individuals engaged in scholarly writing and research.

I find the comparison table provided in the article particularly helpful. It offers a quick reference for distinguishing between journal articles and research papers based on publication outlet, content, target audience, peer review, length, structure, emphasis, and impact.

Yes, the comparison table is a useful tool for researchers to understand the key differences between journal articles and research papers at a glance.

The comparison table and detailed explanations in the article provide a nuanced understanding of the unique features of journal articles and research papers, making it a valuable resource for the academic community.

Absolutely, the article offers a comprehensive analysis that elucidates the differences and similarities between journal articles and research papers.

The distinction between journal articles and research papers is crucial for academic writing. This article does a great job of highlighting those differences and their respective characteristics.

Absolutely, understanding the nuances between these two types of publications is essential for academic and scholarly work. This article does an excellent job of breaking it down.

The structure of a research paper outlined in the article serves as a helpful guide for researchers looking to compose comprehensive and well-organized scholarly documents. It offers a clear framework for presenting original research findings.

I found the breakdown of the structure of a research paper to be particularly enlightening. It offers a roadmap for researchers to follow when crafting their academic work.

Yes, understanding the structure of a research paper is essential for effectively communicating the results of a study. This article provides a detailed overview of what to include in a research paper.

The detailed explanation of the structure and content of a journal article and a research paper is beneficial for researchers seeking to refine their academic writing skills and publish their work.

Indeed, the article provides valuable insights into the components and organization of journal articles and research papers, aiding researchers in producing high-quality scholarly publications.

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

Journal Article vs. Research Paper — What's the Difference?

Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper

Table of contents, key differences, comparison chart, review process, length & scope, publication, compare with definitions, journal article, research paper, common curiosities, what's the main difference between a journal article and a research paper, are journal articles always peer-reviewed, who reads journal articles, can a research paper become a journal article, who typically writes journal articles, why are citations important in both journal articles and research papers, do journal articles have a word limit, are all journal articles based on experimental research, where can i find journal articles, is a thesis the same as a research paper, can i use a journal article as a reference for my research paper, do all research papers get published, why is it essential for a journal article to be peer-reviewed, do all academic journals charge to publish journal articles, how long can a research paper be, share your discovery.

Author Spotlight

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

New Comparisons

Trending Terms

Health Sciences Research Strategies
The research process
Defining your topic and crafting your research question
Identifying search terms from your question
Broaden or narrow your search
Research methods
Find articles in health science databases
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Interlibrary loan
Find background information
Find books and ebooks
Types of Sources
How to distinguish between types of journal articles
Components of a scholarly article, and things to consider when reading one
Critically evaluating articles & other sources
Evidence Based Practice Portal (opens a new guide) This link opens in a new window
Literature reviews (opens a new guide) This link opens in a new window
Annotated bibliographies
Writing tools
Citing sources (opens a new guide) This link opens in a new window
Understanding & Avoiding Plagiarism (opens a new guide) This link opens in a new window

Contact me for research assistance

Distinguishing between different types of journal articles

When writing a paper or conducting academic research, you’ll come across many different types of sources, including periodical articles. Periodical articles can be comprised of news accounts, opinion, commentary, scholarly analysis, and/or reports of research findings. There are three main types of periodicals that you will encounter: scholarly/academic, trade, and popular. The chart below will help you identify which type of periodical your article comes from.

Text and chart adapted from the WSU University Libraries' How to Distinguish Between Types of Periodicals and Types of Periodicals guides

What makes information peer-reviewed vs. scholarly vs. non-scholarly? Which type of source should I use?

What makes information peer-reviewed vs. scholarly vs. non-scholarly?
Which type of source should I use?

There is a nuanced distinction between peer-review and scholarship, which typically doesn't matter when evaluating sources for possible citation in your own work. Peer-review is a process through which editors of a journal have other experts in the field evaluate articles submitted to the journal for possible publication. Different journals have different ways of defining an expert in the field. Scholarly works, by contrast have an editorial process, but this process does not involve expert peer-reviewers. Rather, one or more editors, who are themselves often highly decorated scholars in a field, evaluate submissions for possible publication. This editorial process can be more economically driven than a peer-review process, with a greater emphasis on marketing and selling the published material, but as a general rule this distinction is trivial with regard to evaluating information for possible citation in your own work.

What is perhaps a more salient way of thinking about the peer-review / scholarship distinction is to recognize that while peer-reviewed information is typically highly authoritative, and is generally considered "good" information, the absence of a peer-review process doesn't automatically make information "bad." More specifically, the only thing the absence of a peer-review process means is that information published in this manner is not peer-reviewed. Nothing more. Information that falls into this category is sometimes referred to as "non-scholarly" information -- but again, that doesn't mean this information is somehow necessarily problematic.

Where does that leave you in terms of deciding what type of information to use in producing your own work? That is a highly individual decision that you must make. The Which type of source should I use? tab in this box offers further guidance on answering this question, though it is important to be aware that many WSU instructors will only consider peer-reviewed sources to be acceptable in the coursework you turn in . You can ask your instructor for his or her thoughts on the types of sources s/he will accept in student work.

Image: Martin Grater. (2017, Nov. 1). Deep Thought. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/152721954@N05/24304490568/. Used under the Creative Commons License.

Your topic and research question or thesis statement will guide you on which resources are best. Sources can be defined as primary, secondary and tertiary levels away from an event or original idea. Researchers may want to start with tertiary or secondary source for background information. Learning more about a topic will help most researchers make better use of primary sources.

While articles from scholarly journals are often the most prominent of the sources you will consider incorporating into your coursework, they are not the only sources available to you. Which sources are most appropriate to your research is a direct consequence of they type of research question you decide to address. In other words, while most university-level papers will require you to reference scholarly sources, not all will. A student in an English course writing a paper analyzing Bob Dylan's lyrics, for example, may find an interview with Dylan published in Rolling Stone magazine a useful source to cite alongside other scholarly works of literary criticism.

The WSU University Libraries' What Sources Should I Use? handout, as well as the other sub-tabs under the Evaluating information section of this guide (which is indeed the section you are currently viewing) offer further guidance on understanding and identifying scholarly resources, and comparing them against different criteria to evaluate if they will be of value to your research. How many non-scholarly works (if any) you are at liberty to cite alongside scholarly ones is often a question to ask of your professor. Some may not want you to cite any, whereas others may be ok with some non-scholarly works cited alongside scholarly ones.

Image: Brett Woods. (2006, Jan. 6). Deep Thoughts. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/brettanicus/87653641/. Used under the Creative Commons License.

<< Previous: Types of Sources
Next: Components of a scholarly article, and things to consider when reading one >>
Last Updated: Dec 13, 2023 4:36 PM
URL: https://libraries.wichita.edu/health-research

Difference Between A Journal and Conference Papers

Every upcoming researcher, scientist and scholar has wondered about the differences between journals and conference papers. The confounding nature of this subject has only risen in this digital age, where admittance to journals and conferences is readily available online. Whether you are someone who is writing a conference paper or a journal, you’re on the correct path. You not only acquire critical knowledge from academia, but you also share in a positive and active way you may be the reason why development in a given field can be achieved.

What Is A Journal and Conference Paper?

To being with, it is important to surmise what a journal is and what a conference is. A journal is a publication based on a specific discipline. It contains a number of peer-reviewed studies that are usually considered trustworthy and derived from very reliable sources. A conference, on the other hand, is a gathering point for academics, researchers, educators, and scholars to discuss the various research and development activities being carried out in a given field. In most university conferences, people come together to present their most advanced research, while others frequent these stages. Experimentation outcomes are often presented verbally with visualization.

Differences Between A Journal and Conference Paper

Studies presented at conferences are usually evaluated over a period of time and scholars receive their letters of approval or rejection at the same time. Conference papers are ordinarily compact and concise, with a limit on the number of pages permitted. For journals, the time expected for publication is highly adaptable. If your article seems promising to the publishers but modifications are needed, there could be a lot of intermittent discussion between you and your publisher until your report is ready for publication.

The review method of a journal article is subjected to a very honorable peer-review process, which is far more complicated than conference reviews which take a very long time. For some journals, the review period may not even be fixed, but open until the document is ready. This ordinarily depends on the repetition of communication of the publication. At the same time, a journal that issues reports twice a year will be likely to have a less adaptable inspection period than a journal that publishes several papers per year.

Other publications have prominent issues where a number persists to be open and innovative articles are published in the same issue when they are ready. If you encounter a number comprising one or two articles, this is presumably an obvious enigma. If you go back a few weeks later, odds are that you will find a few additional items added to the puzzle.

How To Submit Upcoming Journals and Conference Papers?

Despite the fact that you are now aware of the distinctions between the two, the issue of where every class of article could be published still remains. In general, a journal article will only be issued in an open or closed log and will not be combined in a conference brochure or online proceedings catalog. Nevertheless, when it comes to convention papers, although they are frequently published in a convention book or directory of proceedings online, it could perhaps be published in a journal. This normally also depends on the organizers of the conference.

If the organizer of your conference grants you the possibility to get your research paper published, it is highly likely that you will be published in a repository of documents or a conference brochure of some sort. However, if your article has something of substance and is considered a high-quality work, you may be admitted to publishing it in a journal. Find top-level Journal Papers provided by various organizations from our portal.

The Best Conference Info Portal Out There!

At Conference Next, you will find all high-level international conferences that are scheduled to take place near you in Virtual Conference, Online, and Webinars provided by the leading organizations. Here, you will find all the details in the form of huge conference lists that have information on all upcoming conferences. There is also the provision to subscribe to incredibly convenient conference alerts, that are sent to subscribers via email. In further if you have any further suggestions in differentiating Journal and Conference papers leave a comment below.

How To Publish Research Paper? Step-by-Step Procedure

Upcoming scopus indexed conferences in india 2023, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

CONFERENCE ALERTS

Difference Between Journal and Research Paper?

By Conference Alerts

It is an absolute confusion and worry in some ways for a wannabe or a first-time researcher or a research scholar especially if you are still a student trying to work on a research project with your professor. Many of us get often confused when we hear the words research paper or a journal for the first time. The reason is that we have no or little idea what the words mean or we never looked into them even though we keep hearing them every once in a while. So, here are a few differences between a “ JOURNAL” and a “RESEARCH PAPER ”

A Journal is collection of articles on various topics. There are various types of journals such as personal journal, academic journal , creative journals etc. But in terms of academic we need to learn more about an academic journal. It is book that comprises articles on different variety of topics. It is an anthology of different work collections. Unlike a research paper it consists of articles on various topics. It is often used as a reference to write a research paper. It is a periodical publication based various topics and contexts are related or co-related to each other. The information provided in a journal is not as deep as it is in a paper. As already said, a journal acts as a reference point to various individuals or organizations who are carrying out a research.

A research paper is basically a sheet of information on a specific topic. If we look at the standard definition it says, “It is a descriptive context in the form of words or text”. It provides detailed and relevant information on a specific topic to its readers. It is a study on a specific problem and it intends to provide a possible practical solution at the end of it. It is a team work of two or three individuals mostly. It can be up to 20 pages long or even more and it is an extensive study on one specific topic. Nevertheless, it should be understood that its length depends on the context of the study.

However, the key difference between a journal and a research paper is that a journal is limited to 5,000 – 10,000 words unlike a research paper. A journal can provide you with a list of national and international conferences as it is a periodical publication. It also provides you with conference alerts as it is a periodical publication like already said. Journal publication is a dream to many students and research scholars especially if it is their first ever research paper.

In conclusion, a journal is a collection of articles on a various academic related topics with limited words whereas a research paper is extensive and detailed study on a specific topic. If you are one of those wannabe research scholars looking to get your first journal publications then conference alerts here have a list of journals and their details waiting for you.

Conference Alerts helps you to provide latest conference information's ,updates, seminars and online webinars. Follow our blog to know the latest conference information's.

How to publish a research paper, upcoming conferences in india 2024 with journal publication, the 5 important reasons to attend international conference, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

International Conferences In Canada 2024-2025 With Invitation Letter

International conferences in lithuania 2024 with invitation letter, monthly published scopus indexed journals, upcoming international medical conferences 2024.

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What are the Different Types of Research Papers?

There is a diverse array of research papers that one can find in academic writing. Research papers are a rigorous combination of knowledge, thinking, analysis, research, and writing. Early career researchers and students need to know that research papers can be of fundamentally different types. Generally, they combine aspects and elements of multiple strands or frameworks of research. This depends primarily on the aim of the study, the discipline, the critical requirements of research publications and journals and the research topic or area. Specifically, research papers can be differentiated by their primary rationale, structure, and emphasis. The different types of research papers contribute to the universe of knowledge while providing invaluable insights for policy and scope for further advanced research and development. In this article, we will look at various kinds of research papers and understand their underlying principles, objectives, and purposes.

Different types of research papers

Argumentative Research Paper: In an argumentative paper, the researcher is expected to present facts and findings on both sides of a given topic but make an extended and persuasive argument supporting one side over the other. The purpose of such research papers is to provide evidence-based arguments to support the claim or thesis statement taken up by the researcher. Emotions mustn’t inform the building up of the case. Conversely, facts and findings must be objective and logical while presenting both sides of the issue. The position taken up by the researcher must be stated clearly and in a well-defined manner. The evidence supporting the claim must be well-researched and up-to-date, and the paper presents differing views on the topic, even if these do not agree or align with the researcher’s thesis statement.
Analytical Research Paper: In an analytical research paper, the researcher starts by asking a research question, followed by a collection of appropriate data from a wide range of sources. These include primary and secondary data, which the researcher needs to analyze and interpret closely. Critical and analytical thinking skills are therefore crucial to this process. Rather than presenting a summary of the data, the researcher is expected to analyze the findings and perspectives of each source material before putting forward their critical insights and concluding. Personal biases or positions mustn’t influence or creep into the process of writing an analytical research paper.
Experimental Research Paper: Experimental research papers provide a detailed report on a particular research experiment undertaken by a researcher and its outcomes or findings. Based on the research experiment, the researcher explains the experimental design and procedure, shows sufficient data, presents analysis, and draws a conclusion. Such research papers are more common in fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Experimental research involves conducting experiments in controlled conditions to test specific hypotheses. This not only allows researchers to arrive at particular conclusions but also helps them understand causal relationships. As it lends itself to replicating the findings of the research, it enhances the validity of the research conducted.

Some more types of research papers

In addition to the above-detailed types of research papers, there are many more types, including review papers, case study papers, comparative research papers and so on.

Review papers provide a detailed overview and analysis of existing research on a particular topic. The key objective of a review paper is to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the latest research findings on a specific subject.
Case study papers usually focus on a single or small number of cases. This is used in research when the aim is to obtain an in-depth investigation of an issue.
Comparative research papers involve comparing and contrasting two or more entities or cases that help to identify and arrive at trends or relationships. The objective of relative research papers is to increase knowledge and understand issues in different contexts.
Survey research papers require that a survey be conducted on a given topic by posing questions to potential respondents. Once the survey has been completed, the researcher analyzes the information and presents it as a research paper.
Interpretative paper s employ the knowledge or information gained from pursuing a specific issue or research topic in a particular field. It is written around theoretical frameworks and uses data to support the thesis statement and findings.

Research papers are an essential part of academic writing and contribute significantly to advancing our knowledge and understanding of different subjects. The researcher’s ability to conduct research, analyze data, and present their findings is crucial to producing high-quality research papers. By understanding the different types of research papers and their underlying principles, researchers can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields and provide invaluable insights for policy and further research.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!

Plagiarism Checkers vs. AI Content Detection: Navigating the Academic Landscape

You may also like, ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., how to avoid plagiarism when using generative ai..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai..., types of plagiarism and 6 tips to avoid..., quillbot review: features, pricing, and free alternatives, authorship in academia: ghost, guest, and gift authorship, what is an academic paper types and elements , publish research papers: 9 steps for successful publications .

International Journal of Research (IJR)

IJR Journal is Multidisciplinary, high impact and indexed journal for research publication. IJR is a monthly journal for research publication.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESEARCH PAPER AND JOURNAL ARTICLE

Difference between research paper and journal article.

Research Paper

Research writing and publication services

Argumentative Research Paper

Analytical research paper, journal article, the differences, research paper:, journal article:.

Share on Tumblr

Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Subscribe Subscribed
Copy shortlink
Report this content
View post in Reader
Manage subscriptions
Collapse this bar

Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper

Edited by Diffzy | Updated on: April 30, 2023

Why read @ Diffzy

Our articles are well-researched

We make unbiased comparisons

Our content is free to access

We are a one-stop platform for finding differences and comparisons

We compare similar terms in both tabular forms as well as in points

Introduction

Reading material that is directly related to one's field of study is a highly useful tool that may be used to improve one's knowledge. Reading books, papers, and articles that are pertinent to a topic holds a whole notion for elevating one's level of knowledge as well as aggregating one's grades. Some of the vehicles that are utilized in professional and academic learning include journals, articles published in journals, and research papers.

It is possible to refer to as a "journal article" any piece of writing that has been accepted for publication in a journal. However, journals publish a variety of papers, and while some of those pieces require original research to be submitted, others do not.

However, the term "research article" is reserved exclusively for those types of articles that call for their original research. This category comprises, most frequently, empirical studies as well as pieces based on original research. Review articles, articles presenting opinions and points of view, comments, letters, and other types of writing do not normally fit within the category of research papers.

Journal Article vs Research Paper

The main difference between a research paper and a journal article is that journal articles are intended for an academic audience and are comprehensive, well researched, and conceptual. On the other hand, research papers focus on and investigate a single viewpoint in-depth, substantiating their claims with relevant theories, scientific standpoints, and evaluations supported by the extensive study.

A compilation of articles on a variety of subjects is known as a journal. There are many different kinds of journals, including personal journals, academic journals, art journals, and so on. Regarding the academic side of things, however, we have a lot more to learn about scholarly journals. It is a collection of papers covering a wide range of subject areas in one volume. It is a compilation of several various work compilations into one volume. In contrast to a research paper, it is made up of articles on a variety of subjects.

When writing research papers, a reference to this source is frequently required. It is a magazine that comes out regularly and is based on the concept that many different subjects and situations are related or correlated to one another. When compared to the information presented in a paper, the depth of coverage supplied in a journal is shallower. As was just mentioned, a journal serves as a point of reference for a variety of people and organizations who are engaged in research.

A research paper can be thought of as essentially a sheet of information on a particular subject. According to the conventional definition, "it is a descriptive context in the form of words or text," which we may find if we search it up. It gives its readers knowledge that is both in-depth and pertinent regarding a particular subject matter. This is an investigation into a particular issue, and by the time it's finished, the authors hope to have proposed a workable solution to that issue.

The majority of the work is done by teams consisting of two or three people. It might be as long as twenty pages or even more, and it consists of a comprehensive study of a single distinct subject. Having said that, one thing that needs to be made clear is that the length of it is contingent on the setting of the study.

However, a research paper can be anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 words long, whereas a journal can only be between 5,000 and 10,000 words long at most. This is the primary distinction between the two types of writing. Because it is a periodic publication, a magazine can supply you with a list of regional, national, and even international conferences.

Because it is a periodic publication, as was previously said, it also notifies you of upcoming conference events. Publication in a scholarly journal is a goal for many students and young researchers, particularly if the work being submitted is their very first research paper.

Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper in Tabular Form
What is a Journal Article?

Articles published in journals are significantly shorter than novels and are focused on a narrow range of subjects.

A compilation of articles (much like a magazine) that is published consistently during the year is known as a journal. The most recent research is published in journals, and the articles published in journals are produced by specialists for other experts. They could be printed, published online, or published in both mediums simultaneously.

If you have a writing assignment and your instructor asks you to use "journal articles" in your research, you might find yourself wondering if she means articles from popular magazines and newspapers. If you do find yourself wondering this, the answer is yes, she does mean articles from popular magazines and newspapers. On the other hand, papers published in journals are substantially dissimilar to those published in periodicals. For one thing, the primary objective of journal articles is research. In most cases, these are scholarly publications that have been vetted by other experts in the field and were written by experts specifically for other professionals.

Journal articles are published regularly, and each article may have anywhere from one to several authors who contributed to its completion.

A journal article is an experiential piece that can take on a variety of forms. For instance, a journal article may have started as an analysis of a piece that was published in a newspaper, a review, a proposal, or any number of other academic and research-based contributions.

In a nutshell, an article published in a journal can either be scholarly or non-academic.

An article published in a journal can also serve as a research paper, which can then be presented in a variety of settings.

It is beneficial to become familiar with the various kinds of papers that are published in journals. Although there might be a large number of different types of articles published due to the wide variety of names that they are published under, the majority of the articles that are published fall into one of the following categories: original research, review articles, short reports or letters, case studies, and methodologies.

What is a Research Paper?

Writing assignments in academia frequently take the shape of research papers. Students and academics are required to locate knowledge on a topic (also known as conducting research), take a stance on the topic, and present support (or evidence) for that viewpoint within the context of a structured report to complete a research paper.

The word "research paper" can also be used to refer to an academic publication that presents the findings of one's original study or provides an analysis of the findings of research carried out by others. Before they can be approved for publishing in an academic journal, the vast majority of scholarly works are subjected to a procedure known as peer review.

A research paper can be defined as any type of document that requires the author to research a specific topic. Research papers, in contrast to essays, which are frequently and frequently based substantially on the author's viewpoint and are written from the author's point of view, are based on facts.

To write a research paper, you are required to first think of anything you have an opinion about, then do study and become an expert on that issue, and finally, support your thoughts and statements with facts discovered through your extensive research.

A research paper is the result of the author spending time collecting and analyzing data, as well as thinking for themselves. When academics are looking for solutions to questions, the first thing they do is begin searching for material that can be used to either expand, utilize, approve or refute the findings.

To put it another way, research papers are the end products of processes that involve taking into consideration written works and adhering to certain specifications. In addition, scientists do study to build and expand a variety of hypotheses, which might lead to the development of social or technological aspects of human science. To be able to create papers that are relevant to the research, however, they need to have a definition of the research, as well as its structure, characteristics, and types.

Quite frequently, students are tasked with writing research papers. Students, scholars, and scientists eventually find themselves in a scenario in which they are required to answer particular questions by referencing sources. In its most fundamental form, a research paper is one of the forms of papers that can be written by academics in which they investigate questions or subjects, search for secondary sources, and compose papers on predetermined topics.

For instance, if a person is given the task of writing a research paper on certain causes of global warming or any other subject, they are required to first compose a research proposal on the subject, during which they must evaluate significant aspects and reputable sources. Writing an essay tends to center on the author's own experiences and observations, but writing a research paper requires covering sources and adhering to academic norms.

In addition to this, researchers are obligated to follow the format of research papers. Therefore, those who write research papers need to conduct a study on their themes, cover important features of those issues, process reputable articles, and appropriately structure their final studies.

Main Differences Between Journal Article and Research Paper in Points
A research paper is an in-depth investigation into 'A' particular question, which may again have multiple other sub-questions that need to be re-found or revisited. On the other hand, journal articles are typically written to enhance one's knowledge in a particular field, domain of learning, or related to a professional approach that is helpful in field-specific understanding.
A research paper is an in-depth investigation of something that has already been presented, whereas journal articles are based on the author's perspective.
According to the prior notion, a journal or paper could be a research paper or a current trending news article based on any beliefs that involve personal experience and learnings. On the other hand, a research paper is an in-depth investigation into the readability of conceptual information through the presentation of data in the form of graphs, diagrams, case studies, and so on.
It takes some time to finish the research paper because it requires the study of a case, a sample of individuals, a demographic area, etc., all of which take some time.
whereas the effort involved in producing a journal paper can be completed in as little as a week or as much as a few months. However, it is not as in-depth as a research article.
If a research paper is written and extensively worked on by, for example, a department, domain, or organization, then the research paper will be patented. On the other hand, a journal article is open to the public and can be read, shared, reviewed, and presented without violating any copyright mandates or policies that are in place. A journal article cannot be protected by a patent.
The presentation of the content can be made to flow naturally and can be written in a short amount of time. On the other hand, a research paper needs to include considerable rough work, as well as a paper that is written methodically and includes appropriate citations in the appropriate locations.
A research paper is not driven through any type of ratings and is primarily concerned with its presentation and discoveries to be made known, however, a journal article does run after ratings because, in today's world, everything is moving to digitalization.

It is important to be aware that a journal article and a research paper each have their distinct audience, purpose, reach out, and most importantly – worth as a medium of knowledge. This can be shown by connecting the dot of the specifically demarcated six-pointers that have been presented above.

https://gssrr.org/index.php/gssrr/How-to-Publish-Research-Paper
https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/types-of-journal-manuscripts/1356

Cite this article.

Use the citation below to add this article to your bibliography:

MLA Style Citation

"Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper." Diffzy.com , 2024. Thu. 04 Apr. 2024. < https://www.diffzy.com/article/difference-between-journal-article-and-research-paper-318 >.

Chicago Style Citation

Diffzy.com , 2024. "Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper." Accessed April 04, 2024. https://www.diffzy.com/article/difference-between-journal-article-and-research-paper-318 .

APA Style Citation

Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper. (n.d.). diffzy.com , Retrieved April 04, 2024, from https://www.diffzy.com/article/difference-between-journal-article-and-research-paper-318 .

Edited by Diffzy

Share this article

Difference between Journal Article and Research Paper

Specific education reading is an important tool that will enhance your academic excellence. To keep excelling, you will need to read relevant articles, papers, documents, and books. Journals, Journal articles, and research papers are important mechanisms for professional and academic learning.

Journal Article Vs. Research Paper

The difference between a journal article and a research paper is that the journal article is well researched and extensive. It is also conceptual and well-suited for the academic audience. Research papers on the other hand focus on a specific viewpoint and substantiate the viewpoint with relevant theories. Research papers require many extensive studies to ensure the viewpoint is fully supported.

Comparison between the Journal Article and the Research Paper

The journal article is an overall publication while a research paper can be cited.
Journal articles are written based on knowledge and experience while research papers require an in-depth study of the specific topic.
Journal articles are short while research papers are long and always ongoing.
You cannot patent a journal article but you can patent a research paper.
While a research paper does not have a specific domain, journal articles have a broader spectrum.
There is an impact rating needed for journal articles while no specific rating is needed for the research paper.

What is a Journal Article?

When publishing a journal article, more than one author can be used to give their specific conclusions. Journal articles are of different natures and they can be experiential. Journal articles can be academic or non-academic.

Journal articles can be presented differently as research papers and on different platforms.

What is a Research Paper?

Writing a research paper can take a lot of time. This is because it involves something that has already been published but needs to be reopened again. The first step to writing a research paper is sitting with the thought and why exactly you want to research it. The research will involve the timeframe, type of data collection method to use, and most importantly, in-depth research.

To write a research paper, you will need to do a literature review. This includes the reading of various case studies, findings, newspapers, all containing the topic of research or question to be answered.

Journal articles are written to show special or enhanced knowledge in a certain field. It is useful to bring understanding to a particular field. Journals cannot be written by just anyone. Instead, they are written by experts. A research paper on the other hand revolves around a particular topic or question. The question may contain other questions within it that need to be researched on, re-found, or re-visited. The research paperwork is done using a specific format and supports every point with tactical findings. In short, a research paper is written to answer a question or get findings of something that was already initially researched and written about.

Journals can be a paper written based on something that is currently trending or new ideologies that could be personal experiences and learnings. Research papers on the other hand are more extensive. They involve a particular topic and questions that can be presented using diagrams, graphs, and case studies.

Due to the level of research needed to write a research paper, a lot of time is needed. The findings need to be factual, totally supporting the topic or question in place. Journal papers on the other hand take a short time. That is, they can be completed within a week. A journal can go to a month but does not take as much time as a research paper.

When an organization, department, or domain writes a research paper, it needs to be patented. What this means is that it cannot be published without due permission. A journal paper on the other hand does not require rights or permissions. It is open for people and can be reviewed, shared, and presented without necessarily touching the copyrights. Journals do not need to be patented.

Writing a journal requires generality and broad visibility. While a journal paper can be a research paper, it does not always apply to be one. A journal’s content can be written within a short period and needs to flow to be understood. A research paper on the other hand needs to have extensive rough work on the side. It is a paper that is written systematically and with relevant citations. A literature review is an important aspect of the research paper. You need to have proof of the data collection method that includes raw data collection, interview transcripts and so much more.

While everything going digital in today’s world and rating is required for everything, a journal article will not require ratings. What journals need are views as the ones most viewed get the best footage. A research paper, being a component of the journal, can be limited as to who gets access to the same. It also does not require ratings but its presentations and findings are what make it known to the audience.

In conclusion, we can see that both the journal papers and research papers have different audiences. That makes them different in terms of research, language used, and the kind of presentation in the end.

It is also good to understand the purpose of both papers. While a journal is mainly open to the masses and does not have restrictions as to who gets access, research papers have their specific audience. This is because it entails answering certain questions that audiences would love to know and discussing certain topics in depth.

As such, it takes a longer time to research and write a research paper than it does to write a journal. A research paper is systematic and requires various citations that help to support your facts. A journal paper on the other hand is writing thoughts and explaining that particular thought in depth.

Research papers require skills in doing research. A journal mostly requires a creative mind.

Research guidance, Research Journals, Top Universities

Difference b/w journal paper, conference paper & Book chapter

This blog post aims to explain the difference between a journal paper, a conference paper, and a book chapter .

In the academic world, there are different ways of publishing research findings and results: journal papers , book chapters, and conference proceedings . Generally, both conference papers and journal papers undergo a peer-review process before being accepted for publication. Book chapters are written by new researchers. It does not include many research findings and results.

Also, read:

How to start a Ph.D. research program in India?
Tips for publishing in high-impact factor journals

Before understanding the difference between a journal paper, a conference paper, and a book chapter, let’s understand all individually.

Page Contents

Journal Paper

Research articles can be published on any subject, in any discipline, covering a wide range of topics. Usually, journals are published quarterly, bi-annually, or annually. The authors have to follow a specific format for submitting to the journal . Different journals, such as Elsevier , Springer , and Wiley , have different formats for presenting their articles. The review process for a journal may take a few weeks to a few months. The journals are ranked based on research metrics like impact factor, h-index , and the number of citations received by the journal in a particular year. Generally, journal papers are long pieces of writing ranging between 20-25 pages. It should include an abstract, an introduction, methodology, results and discussion, and conclusions. The researchers/authors can write either a review paper or an original research article for the journal.

Conference Paper

The research articles published through conference proceedings are short, precise, and contain a smaller number of pages. It is usually between 4-10 pages. Generally, conference proceedings are a collection of research papers presented at various conferences at the national and international levels. Conferences provide a great platform for interaction and exchange of ideas between fellow students, faculty members, scholars, and speakers. The researchers present only a part of their research study.

Book Chapters

They usually cover the details of the research study in brief. Book chapters can be written in 3000–4000 words. It is a summary of published research results on any particular topic. Each book chapter is given a title and a number that is easily citable by the readers. Generally, it improves the writing skills of new researchers.

The next section will be explaining the difference between journal papers, conference papers, and book chapters.

The difference between journal papers, conference papers, and book chapters

The major difference between a journal paper, a conference paper, and a book chapter lies in the length of writing articles. The journal paper is usually 20–25 pages, while the conference paper is usually less than 12 pages. On the other hand, book chapters should be written in a range of 3000-4000 words.

Research articles that are accepted for journal publication undergo a peer-review process. On the other hand, articles for publication in book chapters and conference proceedings undergo a general review process. Generally, the acceptance rate for conference papers and book chapters is comparatively higher than for journal papers. The conference papers have acceptance rates of between 40 and 60%.

Conference proceedings cover a wide range of subjects. They are generally multi-disciplinary in nature. On the other hand, book chapters should be written according to the title of a book given by the editor. It focuses on a particular topic.

The journal papers should be written in a systematic manner following strict guidelines as per the format. Secondly, journal papers are published in either open-access or closed-access categories. The open-access category involves article processing charges for each article. Journal papers are not collected in any conference proceedings books. whereas all the conference papers have online repositories and are collected in conference books. The authors need to pay registration fees for the conference. Only the registered authors will be allowed to submit the full conference paper upon acceptance.

Furthermore, the difference also lies in review speed and the number of revisions needed before acceptance. Generally, book chapters and conference papers ask for one or two changes before publication. The conference papers get fast review responses. But journal papers are asked to be revised multiple times, depending on the scope of the research. Sometimes, it may take anywhere from 6 months to a year to get published in a journal. The authors are asked to submit their research articles within a given deadline for both conference papers and book chapters. Book chapters and conference papers can be easily published. On the other hand, journal papers can be submitted throughout the year.

The journal paper requires more headings, subheadings, and sub-sections. The authors need to mention the abstract, keywords, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, and discussions in detail. The book chapters and conference papers require only an introduction, the purpose of the research, the body of the paper, and conclusions. Apart from that, these book chapters are written without citations in the text, unlike journal papers. The review journal papers require 70-80 citations. On the other hand, conference papers are written with 20–30 citations.

The conference papers, upon selection, are allowed for oral presentations. Any one of the authors gets an opportunity to present his/her research paper at conferences. It is open to group discussions. It provides a platform for correcting or improving the researchers’ papers. The journal papers, upon acceptance, are directly published in high-quality journals.

Once the author has published a research article in a book chapter or conference proceedings, the same cannot be published in a journal. Sometimes the author may be asked for submitting extended versions of conference proceedings after getting selected. It increases the acceptance rate for publication in the journal.

Lastly, book chapters and conference proceedings get less recognition from academicians. Faculty and research scholars prefer to read published research articles rather than book chapters. It has been observed that journal articles get more citations than conference papers. Many universities do not accept conference proceedings for publication. Whereas journals are widely accepted and recognized worldwide. The journal papers have a high impact factor compared to the conference proceedings. However, writing book chapters increases the profile of the authors. Having a good ratio between book chapters and journal papers publications provides good job opportunities.

Thanks for visiting PhDTalks. We hope that the blog post helped you to understand the difference between journal papers, conference papers, and book chapters.

Frequently Asked Questions

Most of the conference papers are published in conference proceedings. However, many conferences publish their good research papers in specific journals.

Research articles that are accepted for journal publication undergo a peer-review process. On the other hand, articles for publication in book chapters and conference proceedings undergo a general review process. Generally, the acceptance rate for conference papers and book chapters is comparatively higher than the journal papers. The conference papers have acceptance rates between 40-60%.

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

Cort w. rudolph.

1 Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO USA

Rachel S. Rauvola

2 Department of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, IL USA

David P. Costanza

3 Department of Organizational Sciences & Communication, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C., USA

Hannes Zacher

4 Institute of Psychology – Wilhelm Wundt, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany

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.

People commonly talk about generations and like to make distinctions between them. Purported differences between generations have been blamed for everything from declining interest in baseball (Keeley, 2016 ) to changing patterns of processed cheese consumption (Mulvany & Patton, 2018 ). In the workplace, generations and generational differences have been credited for everything from declining levels of work ethic (e.g., Cenkus, 2017 ; cf. Zabel, Biermeier-Hanson, Baltes, Early, & Shepard, 2017 ), to higher rates of “job-hopping” (e.g., Adkins, 2016 ; cf. Costanza, Badger, Fraser, Severt, & Gade, 2012 ). Despite their ubiquity, a consensus is coalescing across multiple literatures that suggests that all the attention garnered by generations and generational differences (e.g., Lyons & Kuron, 2014 ; Twenge, 2010 ) has been “much ado about nothing” (see Rudolph, Rauvola, & Zacher, 2018 ; Rudolph & Zacher, 2017 ). That is to say, the theoretical assumptions upon which generational research is based have been questioned and there is little empirical evidence that generations exist, that people can be reliably classified into generational groups, and, importantly, that there are demonstrable differences between such groups that manifest and affect various work-related processes (Heyns, Eldermire, & Howard, 2019 ; Jauregui, Watsjold, Welsh, Ilgen, & Robins, 2020 ; Okros, 2020 ; Rudolph & Zacher, 2018 ; Stassen, Anseel, & Levecque, 2016 ). Indeed, a recent consensus study published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) concluded that “Categorizing workers with generational labels like ‘baby boomer’ or ‘millennial’ to define their needs and behaviors is not supported by research, and cannot adequately inform workforce management decisions…” (NASEM, 2020a ; see also NASEM, 2020b ).

Of equal importance to the theoretical limitations, common research methodologies used to study generations cannot unambiguously identify the unique effects of generations from other time-bound sources of variation (i.e., chronological age and contemporaneous period effects). Given all of this, some have argued that there has never actually been a study of generations (Rudolph & Zacher, 2018 ), and thus, the entire body of empirical evidence regarding generations is, to a large extent, wrong. Still, it is easy to find examples of empirical research that claim to find evidence in favor of generational differences (e.g., Dries, Pepermans, & De Kerpel, 2008 ; Twenge & Campbell, 2008 ; Twenge, 2000 ; see Costanza et al., 2012 , for a review) and theoretical advancements that aim to direct such empirical inquiries (e.g., Dencker, Joshi, & Martocchio, 2008 ). Moreover, some see generations as a useful heuristic in the process of social sensemaking: generations are recognized as social constructions, which help give meaning to the complexities and intricacies of aging and human development in the context of changing societies (e.g., Campbell, Twenge, & Campbell, 2017 ; Lyons, Urick, Kuron, & Schweitzer, 2015 ).

Considering all of this, we are faced with a variety of competing and contradictory issues when trying to sort out what bearing, if any, generations have on organizational science and practice. On the one hand, evidence for the existence of generations and generational differences is limited. On the other hand, the idea of generations is pervasive and is used to explain myriad patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that we observe day-to-day, especially in the workplace. Thus, there exists a tension between what science “says” about generations and what people “do” with the idea of generations. Given this, the continued popularity of generations as a means of understanding work-related processes is worthy of closer investigation. This popularity begs the question, “What accounts for the ubiquity of generations, despite a lack of evidence for their existence and impact?” This manuscript explores two answers to this question.

One answer to this question is a lack of knowledge about what the science of generations tells us, leading to misunderstandings of the evidence about generations, their existence, and their purported impact. Thus, the first goal of this article will be to review and debunk ten common myths about generations and generational differences at work and beyond. A second answer to this question is a lack of knowledge regarding, and exposure to, alternative theoretical explanations for understanding (a) the role of age and aging at work and (b) the persistence of generations as a tool for social sensemaking. More specifically, we argue that, owing to a lack of knowledge about alternative explanations and supported by their ubiquity and popular acceptance (e.g., in the popular business and management press; see Howe & Strauss, 2007 ; Knight, 2014 ; Shaw, 2013 ), generations are more often than not the “default” mode of explanation for complex age-related phenomena observed in the workplace and beyond (e.g., because they are familiar and comfortable explanations, which are easy to adopt, and seem legitimate on their face).

Accordingly, the second goal of this paper is to further advance two alternative models for understanding age and aging at work that do not rely on generational explanations and that can explain their existence and popularity—the social constructionist perspective and the lifespan development perspective. This is an important contribution, because simply pointing out the obvious pitfalls of generations and generational explanations can only go so far toward changing the way that people think about, talk about, study, and enact practices that involve generations. Just advising people to drop the idea of generations without providing alternative models would be counterproductive to the goal of enhancing the credibility of organizational science and practice. Thus, our hope is that by providing workable alternatives to generations, researchers and practitioners will be encouraged to think more carefully about the role of age and the process of aging when enacting the work that they do.

The social constructionist perspective offers that generations and differences between them are constructed through both the ubiquity of generational stereotypes and the socially accepted nature of applying such labels to describe people of different ages (e.g., consider the recent “OK Boomer” meme; Hirsch, 2020 ). The social constructionist perspective helps address and explain the question of why generations are so ubiquitous. Complementing this, the lifespan perspective is a well-established alternative to thinking about the process of aging and development that does not require one to think in terms of generations. The lifespan perspective frames human development as a lifelong process which is affected by various influences—not including generations—that predict developmental outcomes. Despite its longstanding role in research on aging at work (e.g., Baltes, Rudolph, & Zacher, 2019 ), the lifespan perspective has been infrequently considered as an alternative model to generations, perhaps because it has not often been treated in accessible terms.

These complementary approaches—the social constructionist and the lifespan development perspective—offer alternative paths forward for studying age and age-related processes at work that do not require a reliance on generational explanations. Thus, as described further below, these perspectives by-and-large circumvent the logical and methodological deficiencies of the generations perspective. They also offer actionable theoretical and practical guidance for identifying the complexities involved in understanding age and aging at work.

First, we outline and “bust” ten myths about generations and generational differences (see Table Table1 1 for a summary). These myths were chosen in particular, because we deemed them to be the most pressing for research and practice in the organizational sciences, broadly defined, in that they reflect commonly highlighted topics, and bear potential risks if not properly addressed. Then, we introduce and outline the core tenets of the social constructionist and lifespan development perspectives, giving examples of how their applications can complement each other in supplanting generational explanations in both science and practice. Finally, we conclude by drawing lines of integration between these two perspectives, in the hopes that these alternative ways of thinking will inspire researchers and practitioners to adopt alternatives to thinking about aging at work in generational terms.

Summary of ten myths about generations and generational differences

Debunking Ten Myths About Generations in Organizational Science and Practice

Myth #1: generational “theory” was meant to be tested.

The sheer number of empirical studies purporting to test generational “theory” would suggest that such theory was intended for testing. However, this is far from the case. The concept of generations as we know it stems from early functionalist sociological thought experiments, derived from foundational work by Mannheim (1927/ 1952 ) and others (e.g., Ortega y Gasset, 1933 ; see also Kertzer, 1983 ). Adopting the term in a largely historical, rather than familial or genealogical, sense, these authors offered “generations” as social units that account for broad societal and cultural change. Generations were suggested to emerge through “shared consciousness,” which developed across individuals (e.g., those at similar life stages) after common exposure to formative events (e.g., political shifts, war, disaster; see Ryder, 1965 ). This consciousness, in turn, was theorized to shape unique values, attitudes, and behaviors that characterize a given generation’s members, especially to distinguish one generation from its predecessor. These attributes subsequently impact how these individuals interact with and influence society.

Here, a tautology emerges: culture begets generations and generations beget culture. This is a potentially useful perspective for describing macro-scale interactions between social groups and the social environments in which they live—that is, it is useful as a functionalist sociological mechanism, as the concept of generations was intended. However, this perspective also implies that culture, and the generational groups it forms and is formed by, cannot be disentangled. Generational “theory” is not falsifiable, nor was it intended to be. Attempts to empirically study generations have extended these ideas into positivist and deterministic practices for which they were not intended. Even life course research (e.g., Elder, 1994 ), which centers on the impact of social change and forces on individuals’ lives as opposed to societal change, does not directly “test” for generational differences, per se. Instead, it uses generations conceptually in explicating the roles that historical, biological, and social time play in life trajectories.

In fact, Mannheim’s (1927/ 1952 ) work was partly a critique of the overemphasis on absolutist/biological perspectives in the study of social and historical development, including the objective treatment of time (Pilcher, 1994 ). This makes it all the more puzzling and problematic that generational “theory” has been applied to discrete quantitative increments (i.e., age and year ranges to define cohorts), and in a fashion that ignores the “non-contemporaneity of the contemporaneous” (i.e., the fact that being alive at the same time, or even being alive and of a similar age at the same time, does not mean history is experienced uniformly; Troll, 1970 , p. 201). When considering the roots of “generations,” it is apparent that the concept has been re-characterized and misappropriated.

Myth #2: Generational Explanations Are Obvious

One appealing, if overstated, quality of generations is that there are unique characteristics that are (assumed to be) associated with various cohorts. Moreover, it is assumed that lines can be drawn between generations to distinguish them from one another on the basis of such characteristics. These characteristics, which are said to be influenced by the various events that supposedly give rise to generations in the first place, “make sense” in a way that give generations an air of face validity. For example, it seems very rational and indeed quite self-evident to many that living through the Great Depression made the Silent Generation more conservative and risk-avoidant and that helicopter parents and the rise of social media made Millennials narcissistic and cynical. These and other observed social phenomena such as job-hopping and materialism are frequently ascribed to generations. However, looking more deeply into the identification of these critical events, as well as the mechanisms by which generations supposedly emerge, reveals a far more complex, nuanced picture than a generational explanation would have us believe.

In order to understand why the events that created generations may, or may not, have been impactful, it is important to understand how the critical events purported to give rise to them are identified. As one example, in their popular book, Strauss and Howe ( 1991 ) offer a taxonomy of generations, developed by tracing historical records in search of what they called “age-determined participation in epochal events…” (p. 32). To Strauss and Howe, such events were deemed to be so critical that they contributed to the creation of a unique generation. This post hoc historical demographic approach benefits from the passage of time: it is far easier to identify critical events retrospectively, rather than when they are actually occurring. Although major events like economic depressions and wars likely qualify as epochal, dozens of other events have been proposed to be critical in the formation of generations, only to fade into historical oblivion within a matter of a few years.

For example, in defining supposedly seminal events in the development of the Millennial generation, Howe and Strauss ( 2000 ) cite the case of “Baby Jessica” (n.b. on October 14, 1987, 18-month-old Jessica McClure Morales fell into a well in her aunt’s backyard in Midland, Texas. After 56 h, rescue workers eventually freed her from the 8-in. well casing 22 ft below the ground; Helling, 2017 ). Why this event should help form a generation is uncertain, as is whether or not Millennials were or have been systematically impacted by her saga and subsequent rescue.

Rather than being obviously generational, explanations for many social phenomena are more likely to be associated with age or period effects, both of which are other time-based sources of variation that are often conflated with generational cohorts. Specifically, there are three sources of time-based variation that need to be accounted for to make claims about generations: age, period, and cohort effects (see Glenn, 1976 , 2005 ). Age effects refer to variability due to time since birth, in that chronological age is simply an index of “life lived” (e.g., Wohlwill, 1970 ). Period effects refer to variability due to contemporaneous time and refer to the effects of a specific time and place (i.e., the year 2020). Finally, cohort effects are those that are typically taken as evidence for generations, referring to the year of one’s birth. To make claims about generations, therefore, it is necessary to rule out the effect of age (i.e., developmental influences) and period (i.e., contemporaneous contextual influences).

There are numerous examples of how these sources of variability are conflated and confused with one another. Consider that popular press accounts of Millennials have until recently painted them to be dedicated urban dwellers who favored ride-sharing services and eschewed traditional families (e.g., Barroso, Parker, & Bennet, 2020 ; Godfrey, 2016 ). However, adults in this age range have more recently been observed moving to the suburbs, buying houses and cars, and having children (e.g., Adamczyk, 2019 ). This is not a generational effect but rather a phenomenon attributable to the fact that Millennials are reaching the normative age where people get married, start families, and purchase houses. This is a product of age and context, not generation or period. The picture becomes even more complex given other contextual factors not necessarily bound to time, for example, when considering that the average age of first conception is higher in urban, compared to rural, areas (Bui & Miller, 2018 ).

Another example comes from data showing that high school and college students are less likely to hold summer jobs today than 20 years ago (Desilver, 2019 ). This is not a generational effect, but rather is attributable to contemporaneous economic conditions. As a final example, after 9/11, there was a modest increase in the number of people enlisting in the United States Army, which is an example of a period effect (Dao, 2011 ). However, this change has also been misattributed in various ways to a generational effect (e.g., Graff, 2019 ). Notably, in ~ 2019 (i.e., when those born in ~ 2001 turned ~ 18 and were eligible to join the army), there were historically low rates of enlistment (Goodkind, 2020 ). If this rate had been particularly high, one might conclude evidence for a generational effect, such that people born in 2001 grew up in a time and place that demanded enlistment. However, this is not the case—growing up in a post 9/11 world did not make this cohort more likely than others to join the army.

In summary, whereas certain historical events might be easily identifiable as epochal, the extent to which recent events are defined as such might not be known for some time. Moreover, this idea assumes that epochal events actually matter for the formation of distinct generations, a key argument in generations theory that is by-and-large untested, and indeed untestable. Moreover, consider that “global” events (i.e., those that affect all members of a population regardless of age, not just those born in a particular time and place, like a global pandemic) almost certainly manifest as period, not generational cohort effects (Rudolph & Zacher, 2020a , 2020b ). Generations and the events that are purported to give rise to them are far from obvious and to attribute current individual characteristics to the occurrence of specific events is misguided. Furthermore, many of the “obvious” generational effects often attributed to such events are much more likely due to other factors associated with age and/or period.

Myth #3: Generational Labels and Associated Age Ranges Are Agreed Upon

Whereas generational labels are well-known and widely recognized, the specific birth year ranges that define each generational grouping and the consistency with which such groupings are applied across time, studies, and location, vary substantially. For example, Smola and Sutton ( 2002 , p. 364) identified a great deal of variation in the start and end years that define different generational groups and the names used to describe various generations, noting “generations…labels and the years those labels represent are often inconsistent” (p. 364).

In their meta-analysis, Costanza et al. ( 2012 ) found similar discrepancies with variations in start and end dates ranging from 3 to 9 years depending on the study, the variables of interest, and the source of the generational year ranges being used. Similar conclusions were reached by Rudolph et al. ( 2018 ) in their review of generations in the leadership literature.

Beyond these definitional inconsistencies, there are notable differences in the way researchers address cross-cultural variability in generational research. The ubiquity of the labels and their pervasiveness in the literature has led researchers from countries other than the USA to use labels (e.g., “Baby Boomers”) when doing so does not make sense, as the events that supposedly influenced individuals and gave rise to these generations in the first place clearly differ from country to country. Moreover, consider that the term “Millennials” is not meaningful in countries that use Chinese, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Sakka, or Kolla Varsham calendars (Deal, Altman, & Rogelberg, 2010 ) and that generations are often labeled based on political or cultural events and epochs. For instance, members of the Greek workforce have been categorized into the Divided Generation, the Metapolitefsi Generation, and the Europeanized Generation (Papavasileiou, 2017 ). In Israel, generations are identified by wars and thus have shorter ranges (Deal et al., 2010 ). The German media has variously labeled younger people as Generation C64, Generation Golf, or Generation Merkel. In China, generations are pragmatically called the Post-50s generation, Post-60s Generation, and so on, whereas in India, the three main generational groups are labeled Conservatives, Integrators, and Y2K (Srinivasan, 2012 ).

One approach researchers have adopted for dealing with the complexities of cross-cultural variation in generational labeling is to ignore the issue and simply use US-based generational labels and years when studying individuals in other countries. For example, Yigit and Aksay ( 2015 ) looked at Turkish Gen X and Gen Y health professionals, roughly using US date ranges for these groups. A second approach has been to use the date ranges associated with US generations but assign country-specific labels to those same periods. Utilizing this approach, Weiss and Zhang ( 2020 ) picked birth year ranges and adopted or developed generational labels in three different countries. For example, for the years 1946–1965, they labeled the generations as the “68er Generation” in Germany, “Baby Boomer” in the USA, and the “New China Generation” in China. A third approach has been to develop country-specific generational groups based on local events that impacted people in that county, a strategy used by To and Tam ( 2014 ) who identified four distinct post-WWII generations in China.

Inconsistencies in labeling have significant conceptual and computational implications for the study and understanding of generations and especially so if one wishes to conduct comparative cross-national and/or cross-cultural research. Importantly, we would argue that the validity of the generations concept and its utility for understanding individual, group, and organizational phenomena is very limited due to a number of factors, including (a) researchers’ inability to agree on the start and end dates for different generations; (b) inconsistencies in the classification and labeling systems that characterize them; (c) disagreement on the specific significant influencing events that supposedly gives rise to them, such as the extent to which the timing of events plays a role, including the length of time that is associated with their influence, and the lag required to observe such influences; and (d) the issue of cross-cultural equivalencies. As such, defining generations represents a moving target, which is a significant liability for science and evidence-based practice.

Myth #4: Generations Are Easy To Study

Although there have been numerous attempts to study generations and generational differences, it is clear that these phenomena have not been studied very well. Indeed, it is not only difficult to study generations as they have been framed in the literature but also impossible. As noted above, research on generations is typically based upon birth year ranges, which is to say that they are derived from information about birth cohorts. A common problem emerges when one tries to study cohort effects in cross-sectional (i.e., single time point) research designs, which are the most commonly applied designs used to make inferences about generations (see Costanza et al., 2012 ). Namely, age, period, and cohort effects are confounded with each other in such designs.

This confounding is best understood through an example. Let us assume that a hypothetical cross-sectional study is conducted in the year 2020 (i.e., the year constitutes the “period effect” in this case). If we reduce the logic of generations a bit and define a cohort effect in terms of a single birth year (e.g., those born in 1980), then the effect of age (i.e., time since birth; 40 years) is completely confounded with cohort. This is because:

In this example, any differences that researchers observe as a function of assumed cohort variability may instead be due to the age of the individuals when they were studied. This pattern would likewise be extrapolated to any age–cohort combinations studied in a single period. The linear dependency among the three effects means that unique effects of age cannot be separated from whatever cohort effect might exist and vice versa.

One common attempt to circumvent this confounding is to artificially group members of different cohorts together to form generational groups. However, this practice is likewise fraught with the same issues raised just above. Another hypothetical cross-sectional study helps to illustrate why: in this study, let us assume that we want to define two arbitrary groupings of birth cohorts, representing people born between 1981 and 1990 (“Generation A”) and those 1991–2000 (“Generation B”), to disentangle age and cohort effects from one another. The variability due to birth cohort in each generation is 10 years; however, as in our previous example, the age range within cohorts is likewise 10 years. Thus, this approach does little to solve the dependency other than shifting the scaling of age. As the rank order of cohort versus age has not changed (relatively older people are in “Generation A” and relatively younger people are in “Generation B”), there is still a correlation between age and generational groups in this study. Moreover, this approach has other limitations, including the loss of statistical power to detect age effects (see Rudolph, 2015 ) and a confusing logic of cohort versus age effect interpretations (e.g., the oldest members of “Generation A” are closer in age to the youngest members of “Generation B” than to the average age of their own generational group).

From a research design standpoint, this issue of confounding represents an unresolvable problem, which has long been known and lamented in the literature (e.g., Glenn, 1976 , 2005 ). Other research designs are unfortunately no better geared than cross-sectional designs to address this issue, or they do not address variability in cohort effects at all. For example, in typical longitudinal designs, cohort effects are held constant (i.e., from the first time point, people’s birth year does not vary) and period is allowed to vary (i.e., as data are collected from the same people across multiple time points). However, in such designs, period effects are conflated with age (i.e., as people “get older” across time). Expanded longitudinal approaches, such as cohort sequential designs (e.g., sampling 20-year-olds at each time point, T 1 − T k , adding successive cohorts of 20-year-olds at each time point) may be able to separate age/aging from period and cohort effects, depending on how “cohort” is defined. However, such studies require immense resources and time (e.g., 20+ years or more of data collection, including long-term data management and subject retention efforts; see Baltes & Mayer, 2001 ). As such, and perhaps not surprisingly, we are unaware of any applications of such designs to the study of generations at work.

An alternative that has been employed by some researchers (e.g., Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008 ) is a cross-temporal approach, often employing time-lagged panels or cross-temporal meta-analyses (discussed further below). Cross-temporal approaches use data collections from members of different cohort groups, collected during different periods, holding age constant (e.g., data from panels of 25-year-olds and 50-year-olds collected in 2000, 2010, and 2020 or research done on college students every year from 1990 to the present). The logic of cross-temporal methods is to compare groups of similarly aged individuals (i.e., to “control” for age by holding its value constant) across time and then argue that cohort effects are more likely the cause of any observed differences than period effects. Among other issues, cross-temporal approaches have been criticized for their reliance on ecological correlations (i.e., correlations among variables that represent group means) and design assumptions (see Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010 ; Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins, 2008 ) raising significant concerns about them as a way to study generations. Specifically, ecological correlations can misrepresent relationships when contrasted with correlations among individual observations (see Robinson, 1950 ).

Overall, the methodological and design challenges associated with studying generations are substantial and the conceptualization of generations as the intersection of age and period makes them impossible to study. Thus, studying generations is only “easy” to the extent that one is willing to ignore the issues raised here. Given these concerns, we echo the recommendations of Rudolph and Zacher ( 2017 ), who suggest that “…both research and practice would benefit from a moratorium on time-based operationalizations of generations as units for understanding complex dynamics in organizational behavior” (p. 125).

Myth #5: Statistical Models Can Help Disentangle Generational Differences

Given the design challenges noted above, it is perhaps not surprising that researchers have tried a variety of statistical techniques to resolve the age, period, and cohort confounding problem. Unfortunately, the great majority of generational studies to date have employed the least useful approach to doing so, pairing cross-sectional designs with comparisons of generational cohort means (e.g., typically via linear models, such as t tests or other variants of ANOVA-type models). As noted, cross-sectional approaches control for period effects but confound cohort and age effects with one another and this confounding cannot be resolved statistically through any means. To be clear, this is not a function of a lack of innovation regarding statistical modeling techniques. On the contrary, as long as age, period, and cohort are defined in time-related terms, they will be inextricably confounded with one another in cross-sectional research designs.

With respect to cross-temporal approaches, some researchers have implemented a specific technique referred to as “cross-temporal meta-analysis” (CTMA). CTMA shares certain features with traditional meta-analysis (e.g., studies assumed to be representative of a population of all possible studies on a given phenomenon are taken from the literature and synthesized). In a typical CTMA, age is more or less held constant by narrowing the sampling frame of studies included (e.g., by only considering studies of college age students). By holding age constant and looking at the effects of time on outcomes (i.e., by considering the relationship between year of publication and mean levels of a given phenomenon derived from contributing studies), CTMA models change over time in a phenomenon. However, although age is to some extent held constant, recall that cross-temporal methods inherently confound period and cohort effects with one another. Thus, any identified cohort effect cannot be unambiguously separated from period effects in CTMA. Although research employing CTMA has argued that generations are more likely than period effects to explain observed differences, such work also recognizes that period effects are equally likely explanations for any results derived therefrom (e.g., Twenge & Campbell, 2010 ). Furthermore, a recent paper by Rudolph, Costanza, Wright, and Zacher ( 2019 ) used Monte Carlo simulations to test the underlying assumptions of CTMA, finding that it may misestimate cohort effects by a factor of three to eight times, raising questions about both the source and magnitude of any differences identified.

A final analytic technique that has been occasionally employed to disentangle age, period, and cohort effects is cross-classified hierarchical linear modeling (CCHLM; Yang & Land, 2006 , 2013 ). Applying CCHLM to generational research, age is treated as a fixed effect and period and cohort are allowed to vary as random effects. Importantly, however, decisions about how such effects should be specified are somewhat arbitrary, because it is also possible that cohort and period could be fixed and age random in the population, resulting in different outcomes and conclusions from such models that are largely dependent on analytic decisions rather than reflecting “true” population effects. Thus, without generally unknowable insights into “what” to hold constant in estimating such models, CCHLM results in ambiguous parameter estimates for age, period, and cohort effects.

To this end, a series of simulation studies by Bell and colleagues (Bell & Jones, 2014 ; see also Bell & Jones, 2013 , for further commentaries) has shown that the Yang and Land methodology for separating age, period, and cohort effects simply does not “work.” Even ignoring this issue, CCHLM does little to solve the problem of age, period, and cohort confounding, because the three variables are still linearly dependent upon each other and hence computationally inseparable. Something (typically age) has to be held constant in such models to separate these variables from one another, and even then, ambiguities in how to interpret confounded effects of period and cohort still abound. In short, none of the statistical techniques that have been used to study generations can fully separate age, period, and cohort effects (see Costanza, Darrow, Yost, & Severt, 2017 , for a full discussion) and cannot solve the conceptual or design problems noted earlier. This known issue has befuddled social scientists for quite some time. For example, more than 40 years ago Glenn ( 1976 ) referred to this problem as “a futile quest.”

Myth #6: Generations Need To Be Managed at Work

Given the proliferation of research and popular press articles identifying generational differences, it is not surprising that practitioners and academics have suggested that people in different generations need to be managed differently at work (e.g., Baldonado, 2013 ; Lindquist, 2008 ). There are two main problems with these recommendations.

First, as has been noted, research generally does not and cannot support the existence of generational differences. Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and statistical issues abound in this literature, and absent clear, convincing, and valid evidence for the existence of generational differences, there is no justification for managing individuals based on their supposed generational membership (NASEM, 2020a , 2020b ; Rudolph & Zacher, 2020c ). Eschewing the notion of generations does not mean that one must ignore that individuals change over the course of their lifespan or that their needs at different stages in their careers will vary. However, it is important to note that there is not a credible body of evidence to suggest that such changes are generational or that they should be managed as “generational differences” at work.

Indeed, as already noted, much of what lay people observe as “generational” at work is likely more accurately attributed to either age or career stage effects masquerading as generational differences. There is a broad and well-supported literature on best practices for HR, leadership, and management (e.g., Kulik, 2004 ) and customizing policies and practices based on those recommendations rather than generational stereotypes makes much more sense. Furthermore, there is a burgeoning literature on the positive influence that age-tailored policies (e.g., age-inclusive human resource practices that foster employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities, motivation, effort, and opportunities to contribute, irrespective of age) for building positive climates for aging at work and supporting worker productivity and well-being (see Böhm, Kunze, & Bruch, 2014 ; Rudolph & Zacher, 2020d ). For example, research suggests that workers of all ages benefit from flexible work policies that allow for autonomy in choosing the time and place where work is conducted (see Rudolph & Baltes, 2017 ).

Second, as alluded to earlier, management strategies that are based on generations have the potential to raise legal risks for organizations. For example, in the USA, provisions of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991 disallow the mistreatment of individuals from certain groups based on a variety of characteristics. Although generational membership is not directly covered by such legislation, under the ADEA, age is a protected class for workers aged 40+. Given the conflation of generational effects with age, life, and career stage, employment-related decisions tied to generations could be interpreted as prima facie evidence of age-related discrimination (e.g., Swinick, 2019 ). Indeed, organizations that market themselves to and build personnel practices around generations and generational differences have been implicated in age discrimination lawsuits (e.g., Rabin vs. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2017 ). Combined with the absence of valid studies supporting generationally based differences, organizations open themselves up to an unnecessary liability if they manage individuals based on generational membership (Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015 ; for a related discussion of various policy implications of managing generations, see Rudolph, Rauvola, Costanza, & Zacher, 2020 ).

Recently, Costanza, Finkelstein, Imose, and Ravid ( 2020 ) reviewed the applied psychology, HR, and management literatures looking for studies about how organizations should manage generations in the workplace. They identified a range of inappropriate inferences and unsupported practical recommendations and systematically refuted them based on legal, conceptual, practical, and theoretical grounds. We echo their conclusion here, regarding advice from managing based on generational membership (p. 27): “Instead of customizing HR policies and practices based on such [generational] differences, organizations could use information about their overall workforce and its characteristics to train recruiters, develop and refine policies, and offer customizable benefits packages that appeal to a broad range of employees, regardless of generation.”

That said, we do not think that the idea of generations should be ignored altogether in the development of management strategies. Instead, the focus should be shifted away from managing assumed differences between members of different generations and toward managing perceptions of generations and generational differences. Considering evidence that people’s beliefs and expectations about age and generations feed into the establishment of stereotypes that interfere with work-relevant processes (e.g., King et al., 2019 ; Perry, Hanvongse, & Casoinic, 2013 ; Raymer, Reed, Spiegel, & Purvanova, 2017 ; Van Rossem, 2019 ), this is a particularly important consideration and is, in and of itself, a topic worthy of further study.

Myth #7: Members of Younger Generations Are Disrupting Work

While it may feel “new” to blame members of younger generations for changes in the work environment, this is a form of uniqueness bias: we think our beliefs and experiences are new, when in reality similar complaints have been levied against relatively younger and older people for millennia. Indeed, generationalized beliefs about the inflexibility and “out of touch” nature of older generations, or the laziness, self-centeredness, and entitlement of younger generations, have repeated with remarkable consistency across recorded history (Rauvola, Rudolph, & Zacher, 2019 ). One of the more obvious examples is in referring to generations with self-referent terminology: New York Magazine wrote about youth in the so-called “Me” Decade (Wolfe, 1976 ) over 30 years prior to Twenge’s ( 2006 ) work on “Generation Me,” Time Magazine’s (Stein, 2013 ) publication on the “Me Me Me” generation, and even the British Army’s recent use of the phrase “Me Me Me Millennials…Your Army needs you and your self belief” in recruitment ads (Nicholls, 2019 ).

Lamentations about young people “killing things” are far from radical as well. Modern claims are made about youth ending an absurd number of facets of life, ranging from institutions such as marriage and patriotism to household products like napkins, bar soap, and “light” yogurt (Bryan, 2017 ). Moreover, similar concerns have been voiced throughout the years regarding the rise and fall of consumer preferences, including concerns about young people upending and revolutionizing romantic relationships and transportation (e.g., Thompson, 2016 ), or being corrupted by new forms of popular media like the radio in the 1930s (Schwartz, 2015 ).

A more realistic explanation exists for both shifts in consumer preferences as well as changes and disruptions in the nature of work: the contemporaneous environment, and innovations and unexpected changes therein. To take a recent example, the global COVID-19 pandemic has tremendously impacted and transformed how and where work is conducted (Kniffin et al., 2020 ; Rudolph et al., 2020 ). While “non-essential” workers are conducting more work virtually and with more flexible hours, other workers deemed “essential” are working in environments with new health and safety protocols and often with different demands and resources in place (e.g., with respect to physical equipment, coworker and customer contact). Even more workers have been furloughed or laid off altogether, with the need to turn to alternative forms of work to maintain income or, when feasible, resorting to early retirement (see Bui, Button, & Picciotti, 2020 ; Kanfer, Lyndgaard, & Tatel, 2020 ; van Dalen & Henkens, 2020 ).

These changes have led to a dramatic pivot for many organization, managers, and individual workers, far surpassing the speed and degree to which more gradual, “generational” workplace changes have supposedly occurred. Not only this, but such changes have had outcomes for workers and society that contradict what generational hypotheses would predict. For example, generational stereotypes suggest that relatively older workers would struggle with technological changes at work while relatively younger workers would thrive. However, the move to work-from-home arrangements has resulted in positive benefits for some, including helpful and flexible accommodations, or health and safety protections, as well as new challenges for others, such as the need to balance childcare or eldercare with work while at home, while still others face newfound isolation and lack of in-person social support coupled with great uncertainty (Alon, Doepke, Olmstead-Rumsey, & Tertilt, 2020 ; Douglas, Katikireddi, Taulbut, McKee, & McCartney, 2020 ). These changes create a diverse set of advantages and disadvantages for individuals of all ages. Rather than blaming those of younger generations for disrupting work and life more generally, societal trends and events are a more appropriate, fitting, and ultimately addressable explanation (i.e., through non-ageist interventions and policies).

Myth #8: Generations Explain the Changing Nature of Work (and Society)

Generations are an obvious and convenient explanation for the changing nature of work and societies. However, as discussed previously, convenience and breadth in applying generational explanations does not translate into validity. Because they can easily and generally be applied to explain age-related differences, generations give a convenient “wrapper” to the complexities of age and aging in dynamic environments (i.e., both within and outside of organizations). However, this wrapper restricts and obscures the complexities inherent to both individuals and the environments in which they operate. Generations are highly deterministic, suggesting that individuals “coming of age” at a particular time (i.e., members of the same cohort) all experience aging and development uniformly (i.e., cohort determinism; Walker, 1993 ). With so many other demonstrable age-related and person-specific factors (e.g., social identities, personality, socioeconomic status) that have bearing on individuals’ attitudes, values, and behaviors, as well as how these interact with contextual and environmental influences, the prospect of generations overriding all such explanations is implausible. Assuming otherwise wipes away a tremendous amount of potentially useful detail and heterogeneity.

Moreover, this perspective stipulates that events in a given time period impact younger people and not older people, such that historical context only influences individuals up to a certain (early) point in their development. This aligns with the idea that identity is “crystallized” or “ratified” at a certain age and development or change is more or less halted thereafter (Ryder, 1965 ). However, ample evidence suggests that this is far from the case, with age-graded dynamics in such areas as personality emerging across the breadth of the lifespan (e.g., Bianchi, 2014 ; Donnellan, Hill, & Roberts, 2015 ; Staudinger & Kunzmann, 2005 ) and alongside external forces (e.g., economic recessions). Our ability to dismiss crystallization claims is not merely empirical: although current methods and analyses used cannot fully disentangle age from cohort, lifespan development theory promotes the ideas of lifelong development, multiple intervening life influences, and individuals’ agency in shaping their identity and context (e.g., Baltes, 1987 ). Accordingly, it is more rational and defensible to suggest that individuals’ age, life stage, social context, and historical period intersect across the lifespan. These intersections, in turn, produce predictable as well as unique effects that translate into different attitudes, values, and behaviors, but not as a passive and predetermined function of an individual’s generation.

Myth # 9: Studying Age at Work Is the Antidote to the Problems with Studying Generations

Age and aging research are neither remedies for nor equivalent approaches to the study of generations. First, there are a broad range of phenomena encompassed in both research on “age at work” and “aging at work” (e.g., see discussion of “successful aging” research components in Zacher, 2015a ). These two areas are related but distinct, spanning the study of age as a discrete or sample-relative sociodemographic (i.e., age as a descriptive device, especially between person), age as a compositional unit property (e.g., age diversity in a team, organization), and age as a proxy for continuous processes and development over time (i.e., age representing the passage of time, especially within-person in longitudinal research). Each of these forms has a multitude of potential contributions to our understanding of the workplace, and these contributions should not (and cannot) be reduced to generational cohort-based generalizations. Second, and as noted earlier, although aging research is confounded by cohort effects, it draws on sound theories, research designs, and statistical modeling approaches (Bohlmann, Rudolph & Zacher, 2018 ). The study of generations at work, however, relies upon theories unintended for formal testing and flawed data collection methods and analyses (Costanza et al., 2017 ).

Moreover, whereas both age and aging research treat time continuously, generational research groups people into cohort categories. This results in a loss of important nuance and information about individuals, with results prone to either over- or underestimated age effects. The practice of cohort grouping also creates a “levels” issue in generational research to which age and aging research are not subject: studying aging focuses on the individual level of analysis, whereas (sociological) generational research “groups” individuals into aggregates and then incorrectly draws inferences about individual outcomes. This mismatch of levels can produce ecological or atomistic fallacies (i.e., assumptions that group-level phenomena apply to the individual level and vice versa), depending on whether group- or individual-level data are used to draw conclusions (Rudolph & Zacher, 2017 ). Thus, although age and aging research present robust opportunities for understanding how to support the age-diverse workforce, generational research provides incomplete conclusions about, and unclear implications for, understanding trends in the workplace. Studying age alone is not a substitute for generational research; rather, it transcends generational approaches and engenders more useful and tenable conclusions for researchers and practitioners alike.

Myth #10: Talking About Generations Is Largely Benign

Talking about generations is far from benign: it promotes the spread of generationalism, which can be considered “modern ageism.” Just as “modern racism” is characterized by more subtle and implicit, yet no less discriminatory or troubling, racist beliefs about black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC; e.g., McConahay, Hardee, & Batts, 1981 ), generationalism is defined by sanctioned ambivalence and socially acceptable prejudice toward people of particular ages. These beliefs are normalized and pervasive, reiterated across various forms of popular media and culture to the point that they seem innocuous. However, generationalism leads to decisions at a variety of levels (e.g., individual, organizational, institutional) that are harmful, divisive, and potentially illegal.

Media outlets play a large role in societal tolerance and acceptance of generationalism (Rauvola et al., 2019 ). New “generations” are frequently proposed in light of current events, and age stereotyping becomes further trivialized with each iteration. Adding to this, an abundance of generational labels “stick” while others do not—“iGen,” “Generation Wii,” “Generation Z,” and “Zoomers” all vie to define the “post-Millennial” generation (Raphelson, 2014 ), and “Generation Alpha” (a name inspired in part by naming conventions during the 2005 hurricane season; McCrindle & Wolfinger, 2009 ) now faces competition from “Gen C” to define the next generation. “Gen C” (or “Generation Corona;” see Rudolph & Zacher, 2020a , 2020b ) has gained traction in the media alongside the recent COVID-19 pandemic, with some suggesting that “coronavirus has the potential to create a generation of socially awkward, insecure, unemployed young people” (Patel, 2020 ). These labels differ markedly by country as well, as noted earlier, adding to the trivialization and confusion. More and more, these labels are also used to add levity, and/or to avoid blatant ageism, to deep-seated sociopolitical divides and conflicts portrayed in the media. Take, for example, the rise of “OK Boomer” alongside resentment toward conservatism (Romano, 2019 ), or the labeling of the “Karen Generation” to encapsulate white privilege and entitlement, especially among middle- to upper-class suburban women (Strapagiel, 2019 ).

Although often treated as harmless banter, this lexicon filters into influential research and policy-based organizations (e.g., “Gen C” in The Lancet, 2020 ), legitimizing the use of generational labels and associated age stereotypes in discourse and decision-making. As suggested above, in many countries, age is a protected class and the use of generations to inform differential practices and policies in organizations (e.g., hiring, development and training, benefits) poses great risk to the age inclusivity, and the legal standing, of workplaces (see also Costanza et al., 2020 ). Whether a generational label is new and catchy or accepted and seemingly mundane, it is built on the back of modern ageism, and generationalism—just like other “isms”—is far from benign.

Moving Beyond Generations: Two Alternative Models

With the preceding ten myths serving as a backdrop, we next introduce two models—the social constructionist perspective and the lifespan development perspective—that serve as alternative and complementary ways of thinking about, and understanding thinking about, generations and generational differences. Indeed, we propose that these are complementary models. Specifically, whereas the social constructionist perspective serves as a way of understanding why people tend to think about age and aging in generational terms , the lifespan development perspective serves as an alternative to thinking about age and aging in generational terms .

The Social Constructionist Perspective

Considering the ten myths reviewed above, it is clear that the evidence for the existence of generations and generational differences is lacking. Moreover, when applying a critical lens, what little evidence does exist does not hold up to theoretical and empirical scrutiny. What, then, are we left to do with the idea of generations? That is to say, how can we rationalize the continued emphasis that is placed on generations in research and practice despite the lack of a solid evidence base upon which these ideas rest? On the surface, this may seem to be a conceptually, rather than a practically, relevant question. However, there is a booming industry of advisors, gurus, and entire management consulting firms based around the idea of generations (e.g., Hughes, 2020 ). In whatever form it takes, generationally based practice is built upon the rather shaky foundations of this science, putting organizations and their constituents at risk—not only of wasted money, resources, and time, but of propagating misplaced ideas based on a weak, arguably non-existent evidence base (Costanza et al., 2020 ). As the organizational sciences move toward the ideals of evidence-based practice, generations and assumed differences between them are quickly becoming yet another example of a discredited management fad (see Abrahamson, 1991 , 1996 ; Røvik, 2011 ).

Borrowed from sociological theoretical traditions, the social constructionist perspective focuses on understanding the nature of various shared assumptions that people hold about reality, through understanding the ways in which meanings develop in coordination with others, and how such meanings are attached to various lived experiences, social structures, and entities (see Leeds-Hurwitz, 2009 )—including generations. Comprehensive treatments of the core ideas and tenets of the sociological notion of social constructionism can be found in Burr ( 2003 ) and Lock and Strong ( 2010 ). The social constructionist perspective on generations, which is based upon the idea that generations exist as social constructions, has been advanced as a means of understanding why people often think about age and aging in discrete generational, rather than continuous, terms (e.g., Rudolph & Zacher, 2015 , 2017 ; see also Lyons & Kuron, 2014 ; Lyons & Schweitzer, 2017 ; Weiss & Perry, 2020 ). The social constructionist perspective has utility as a model for understanding various processes that give rise to generations and for understanding the ubiquity and persistence of generations and generationally based explanations for human behavior. In an early conceptualization of this perspective, Zacher and Rudolph ( 2015 ) proposed that two processes reinforce each other to support the social construction of generations. Specifically, (1) the ubiquity and knowledge of generational stereotypes drive (2) the process of generational stereotyping, which is by-and-large socially sanctioned. These two processes fuel the social construction of generational differences, which have bearing on a variety of work-related processes, not least of which is the development of “generationalized” expectations for work specific attitudes, values, and behaviors. Such generationalized expectations set the stage for various forms of intergenerational conflicts and discrimination (i.e., generationalism; Rauvola et al., 2019 ) at work.

The social constructionist perspective on generations is grounded in three core principles: (1) generations are social constructs that are “willed into being”; (2) as social constructs, generations exist because they serve a sensemaking function; and (3) the existence and persistence of generations can be explained by various processes of social construction. The social constructionist perspective is gaining traction as a viable alternative to rather rigid, deterministic approaches of conceptualizing and studying generations, even among otherwise staunch proponents of these ideas. For example, Campbell et al. ( 2017 ) offer that “…generations might be best conceptualized as fuzzy social constructs” (p. 130) and Lyons et al. ( 2015 ) echo similar sentiments about the role and function of generations. To further clarify this perspective, we next expand upon these three core ideas that are advanced by the social constructionist perspective, providing more details and examples of each, and offering supporting evidence from research and theory.

First, the social constructionist perspective advances the idea that generations and generational differences do not exist objectively (see Berger & Luckman, 1966 , for a classic treatment of this idea of the “socially constructed” nature of reality). Rather, generations are “willed into being” as a way of giving meaning to the complex, multicausal, multidirectional, and multidimensional process of human development that we observe on a day-to-day basis, especially against the backdrop of rapidly changing societies. Adopting a social constructionist framework motivates an understanding of the various ways in which groups of individuals actively participate in the construction of social reality, including how socially constructed phenomena develop and become known to others, and how they are institutionalized with various norms and traditions. To say that generations are “social constructs,” or that generations reflect a process of “social construction,” implies that our understanding of their meanings (e.g., the “notion” of generations; the specific connotations of implying one generation versus another) exists as an artifact of a shared understanding of “what” generations “are,” and that this is accepted and agreed upon by members of a society.

Moreover, and to the second core principle, the social constructionist perspective suggests that generations serve as a powerful, albeit flawed, tool for social sensemaking. Generations provide a heuristic framework that greatly simplify people’s ability to quickly and efficiently make judgments in social situations, at the risk of doing so inaccurately. In other words, generations offer an easy, yet overgeneralized, way to give meaning to observations and perceptions of complex age-related differences that we witness via social interactions. This idea is borrowed from social psychological perspectives on the development, formation, and utility of stereotypes. When faced with uncertainty, humans have a natural tendency to seek out explanations of behavior (i.e., their own, but also others’; see Kramer, 1999 ). This process reflects an inherent need to makes sense of one’s world through a process of sensemaking. An efficient, albeit often flawed, strategy to facilitate sensemaking is the construction and adoption of stereotypes (Hogg, 2000 ). Stereotypes are understood in terms of cognitive–attitudinal structures that represent overgeneralizations of others—in the form of broadly applied beliefs about attitudes, ways of thinking, behavioral tendencies, values, beliefs, et cetera (Hilton & Von Hippel, 1996 ).

Applying these ideas, the adoption of generations, and the accompanying prescriptions that clearly lay out how members of such generations ought to think and behave, helps people to make sense of why relatively older versus younger people “are the way that they are.” Additionally, generational stereotypes can be enacted as an external sensemaking tool, as described, but also for internal sensemaking (i.e., making sense of one’s own behavior). Indeed, there is emerging evidence that people internalize various generational stereotypes and that they enact them in accordance with behavioral expectations (i.e., a so-called Pygmalion effect, see Eschleman, King, Mast, Ornellas, & Hunter, 2016 ).

Third, the social constructionist perspective offers that generations are constructed and supported through different mechanisms. The construction of generations can take various forms, for example, in media accounts of “new” generations that form as a result of major events (e.g., pandemics; Rudolph & Zacher, 2020a , 2020b ), political epochs (e.g., “Generation Merkel” Mailliet & Saltz, 2017 ; “Generation Obama,” Thompson, 2012 ), economic instability (e.g., “Generation Recession,” Sharf, 2014 ), and even rather benign phenomena, such as growing up in a particular time and place (e.g., “Generation Golf,” Illies, 2003 ).

A major source of generational construction can be traced to various “think tank”-type groups that purport to study generations. From time to time, such groups proclaim the end of one generation and the emergence of new generational groups (e.g., Dimock, 2019 ). These organizations legitimize the idea of generations in that they are often otherwise trusted and respected sources of information and their messaging conveys an associated air of scientific rigor. Relatedly, authors of popular press books likewise tout the emergence of new generations. For example, Twenge has identified “iGen” (Twenge, 2017 ) as the group that follows “Generation Me” (Twenge, 2006 ), although neither label has found widespread acceptance outside of these two texts. Importantly, all generational labels, including these, exist only in a descriptive sense, and it is not always clear if the emergence of the generation precedes their label, or vice versa. For example, consider that Twenge has suggested that the term “iGen” was inspired by taking a drive through Silicon Valley, during which she concluded that “…iGen would be a great name for a generation…” (Twenge, as quoted in Horovitz, 2012 ), a coining mechanism far from Mannheim’s original conceptualization of what constitutes a generation.

The contemporary practice of naming new generations has its own fascinating history (see Raphelson, 2014 ). Indeed, the social constructionist perspective recognizes that the idea of generations is not a contemporary phenomenon; there is a remarkable historical periodicity or “cycle” to their formation and to the narratives that emerge to describe members of older versus younger generations. As discussed earlier, members of older generations have tended to pan members of younger generations for being brash, egocentric, and lazy throughout history, whereas members of younger generations disparage members of older generations for being out of touch, rigid, and resource-draining (e.g., Protzko & Schooler, 2019 ; Rauvola et al., 2019 ). Likewise, the social constructionist perspective underlines that generations are supported through both the ubiquity of generational stereotypes and the socially accepted nature of applying such labels to describe people of different ages.

In summary, the social constructionist perspective offers a number of explanations for the continued existence of generations, especially in light of evidence which speaks to the contrary. Specifically, by recognizing that generations exist as social constructions, this perspective helps to clarify the continued emphasis that is placed on generations in research and practice, despite the lack of evidence that support their objective existence. Moreover, the social constructionist perspective offers a framework for guiding research into various processes that give rise to the construction of generations and for understanding the ubiquity and persistence of generations and generationally based explanations for human behavior. Next, we shift our attention to a complementary framework—the lifespan perspective—which likewise supports alternative theorizing about the role of age and the process of aging at work that does not require the adoption of generations and generational thinking. Then, we will focus on drawing lines of integration between these two perspectives.

The Lifespan Development Perspective

The lifespan development perspective is a meta-theoretical framework with a rich history of being applied for understanding age-related differences and changes in the work context (Baltes et al., 2019 ; Baltes & Dickson, 2001 ; Rudolph, 2016 ). More recently, the lifespan perspective has also been advanced as an alternative to generational explanations for work-related experiences and behaviors (see Rudolph et al., 2018 ; Rudolph & Zacher, 2017 ; Zacher, 2015b ). Contrary to generational thinking and traditional life stage models of human development (e.g., Erikson, 1950 ; Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978 ), the lifespan perspective focuses on continuous developmental trajectories in multiple domains (Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 1998 ). For instance, over time, an individual’s abilities may increase (i.e., “gains,” such as accumulated job knowledge), remain stable, or decrease (i.e., “losses,” such as reduced psychomotor abilities).

Baltes ( 1987 ) outlined seven organizing tenets to guide thinking about individual development ( ontogenesis ) from a lifespan perspective. Specifically, human development is (1) a lifelong process that involves (2) stability or multidirectional changes, as well as (3) both gains and losses in experience and functioning. Moreover, development is (4) modifiable at any point in life (i.e., plasticity); (5) socially, culturally, and historically embedded (i.e., contextualism); and (6) determined by normative age- and history-graded influences and non-normative influences. Regarding the final tenet, normative age-graded influences include person and contextual determinants that most people encounter as they age (e.g., decline in physical strength, retirement), normative history-graded influences include person and contextual determinants that most people living during a certain historical period and place experience (e.g., malnutrition, recessions), and non-normative influences include determinants that are idiosyncratic and less “standard” to the aging process (e.g., accidents, natural disasters). Finally, Baltes ( 1987 ) argued that (7) understanding lifespan development requires a multidisciplinary (i.e., one that goes beyond psychological science) approach. In summary, the lifespan perspective recognizes that individuals’ development is continuous, malleable, and jointly influenced by both normative and non-normative internal (i.e., those that are genetically determined; specific decisions and behaviors that one engages in) and external factors (i.e., the sociocultural and historical context).

A generational researcher may ask research questions like (a) “How does generational membership influence employee attitudes, values, and behaviors?” or (b) “What differences exist between members of different generations in terms of their work attitudes, values, or behaviors?” Then, likely based on the results of a cross-sectional research design that collects information on age or birth year and work-related outcomes, a generational researcher would likely categorize employees into two or more generational groups and take mean-level differences in outcomes between these groups as evidence for the existence of generations and differences between them. Contrary to this, a lifespan researcher would be more apt to ask research questions like (a) “Are there age-related differences or changes in work attitudes, values, and behaviors?” or (b) “What factors serve to differentially modify employees’ continuous developmental trajectories?” They would seek out cross-sectional or longitudinal evidence for age-related differences or changes in attitudes, values, and behaviors, as well as evidence for multiple, co-occurring factors, including person characteristics (e.g., abilities, personality), idiosyncratic factors (e.g., job loss, health problems), and contextual factors (e.g., economic factors, organizational climate) that may predict these differences or changes.

The lifespan perspective generally does not operate with the generations concept, but does distinguish between chronological age, birth cohort, and contemporaneous period effects. As described earlier, generational groups are inevitably linked to group members’ chronological ages, as they are based on a range of adjacent birth years and typically examined at one point in time. Accordingly, tests of generational differences involve comparisons between two or more age groups (e.g., younger vs. older employees). In contrast to tenets #1, #2, and #3 of the lifespan perspective, generational thinking is static in that differences between generations are assumed to be stable over time. The possibility that members of younger generations may change with increasing age, or whether members of older generations have always shown certain attitudes, values, and behavior, are rarely investigated. Moreover, generational thinking typically adopts a simplistic view of differences between generational groups (e.g., “Generation A” has a lower work ethic than “Generation B”) as compared to the more nuanced lifespan perspective with its focus on stability or multidirectional changes, as well as the joint occurrence of both gains and losses across time.

With regard to the lifespan perspective’s tenet #4 (i.e., plasticity), generational researchers tend to treat generational groups as immutable (i.e., as they are a function of one’s birth year) and their influences as deterministic (i.e., all members of a certain generation are expected to think and act in a certain way; so-called cohort determinism). In contrast, the lifespan perspective recognizes that there is plasticity, or within-person modifiability, in individual development at any age. Changes to the developmental trajectory for a given outcome can be caused by person factors (e.g., knowledge gained by long-term practice), contextual factors (e.g., organizational change), or both. For instance, lifespan researchers assume that humans enact agency over their environment and the course of their development. Development is not only a product of the context in which it takes place (e.g., culture, historical period) but also a product of individuals’ decisions and actions. This notion underlies the principle of developmental contextualism (Lerner & Busch-Rossnagel, 1981 ), embodied within the idea that humans are both the products and the producers of their own developmental course.

Research on generations and intergenerational exchanges originated and still is considered an important topic in the field of sociology (Mayer, 2009 ), which emphasizes the role of the social, institutional, cultural, and historical contexts for human development (Settersten, 2017 ; Tomlinson, Baird, Berg, & Cooper, 2018 ). In contrast, the lifespan perspective, which originated in the field of psychology, places a stronger focus on individual differences and within-person variability. Nevertheless, the lifespan perspective’s tenet #5 (i.e., contextualism) suggests that individual development is not only influenced by biological factors but also embedded within the broader sociocultural and historical context. This context includes the historical period, economic conditions, as well as education and medical systems in which development unfolds. Even critics have acknowledged that these external factors are rather well-integrated within the lifespan perspective (Dannefer, 1984 ). That said, most empirical lifespan research has not distinguished between birth cohort and contemporaneous period effects.

For example, studies in the lifespan tradition have suggested that there are birth cohort effects on cognitive abilities and personality characteristics (Elder & Liker, 1982 ; Gerstorf, Ram, Hoppmann, Willis, & Schaie, 2011 ; Nesselroade & Baltes, 1974 ; Schaie, 2013 ). Possible explanations for these effects may be improvements in education, health and medical care, and the increasing complexity of work and home environments (Baltes, 1987 ). An important difference to generational research is that these analyses focus on individual development and outcomes and not on group-based differences.

In contrast to research in the field of sociology, the lifespan perspective generally does not make use of the generations concept and associated generational labels. Instead, in addition to people’s age, lifespan research sometimes focuses on birth year cohorts (Baltes, 1968 ). However, the lifespan perspective does not assume that all individuals born in the same birth year automatically share certain life experiences or have similar perceptions of historical events (Kosloski, 1986 ). According to Baltes, Cornelius, and Nesselroade ( 1979 ), researchers interested in basic developmental processes (e.g., child developmental psychologists) that were established during humans’ genetic and cultural evolution may treat potential cohort effects as error or as transitory, historical irregularities. In contrast, other researchers (e.g., social psychologists, sociologists) may focus less on developmental regularities and treat cohort effects as systematic differences in the levels of an outcome, with or without explicitly proposing a substantive theoretical mechanism or process variable that explains these cohort differences (e.g., poverty, access to high-quality education). Empirical research on generations is typically vague with regard to concrete theoretical mechanisms of assumed generational differences (i.e., beyond the notion of “shared life events and experiences,” such as the Vietnam war, 9/11, or the COVID-19 pandemic) and typically does not operationalize and test these mechanisms.

In proposing the general developmental model, Schaie ( 1986 ) suggested decoupling the “empty variables” of birth cohort and time period from chronological age and re-conceptualizing them as more meaningful variables. Specifically, he re-defined cohort as “the total population of individuals entering the specified environment at the same point in time” and period as “historical event time,” thereby uncoupling period effects from calendar time by identifying the timing and duration of the greatest influence of important historical events (Schaie & Hertzog, 1985 , p. 92). Thus, the time of entry for a cohort does not have to be birth year and can include biocultural time markers (e.g., puberty, parenthood) or societal markers (e.g., workforce entry, retirement; Schaie, 1986 ). Similarly, the more recent motivational theory of lifespan development has discussed cohort-defining events as age-graded opportunity structures (Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010 ). Thus, from a lifespan perspective, cohorts are re-defined as an interindividual difference variable, whereas period is re-defined as an intraindividual change variable (Schaie, 1986 ).

Tenet #6 of the lifespan perspective suggests that individuals have to process, react to, and act upon normative age-graded, normative history-graded, and non-normative influences that co-determine developmental outcomes (Baltes, 1987 ). The interplay of these three influences leads to stability and change, as well as multidimensionality and multidirectionality in individual development (Baltes, 1987 ). Importantly, the use of the term “normative” is understood in a statistical–descriptive sense here, not in a value-based prescriptive sense; it is assumed that there are individual differences (e.g., due to gender, socioeconomic status) in the experience and effects of these influences (Baltes & Nesselroade, 1984 ). Moreover, the relative importance of these three influences can be assumed to change across the lifespan (Baltes, Reese, & Lipsitt, 1980 ). Specifically, normative age-graded influences are assumed to be more important in childhood and later adulthood than in adolescence and early adulthood (i.e., due to biological and evolutionary reasons). In contrast, normative history-graded determinants are assumed to be more important in adolescence and early adulthood than in childhood and old age (i.e., when biological and evolutionary factors are less important). Finally, non-normative influences are assumed to increase linearly in importance across the lifespan (Baltes et al., 1980 ; see also Rudolph & Zacher, 2017 ). Indeed, the assumed differential importance of these influences across the lifespan differs markedly from the cohort deterministic approach implied in generational theory and research.

According to Baltes et al. ( 1980 ), idiosyncratic life events become more important predictors of developmental outcomes with increasing age due to declines in biological and evolutionary-based genetic control over development and the increased heterogeneity and plasticity in developmental outcomes at higher ages. Despite the assumed relative strengths of these normative and non-normative influences across the lifespan, they are at no point completely irrelevant to individual development. For example, in the work context, the theoretical relevance of history-graded influences on work-related outcomes may be a factor that determines the strength of potential effects (Zacher, 2015b ). For instance, experiencing a global pandemic is more likely to influence the development of individuals’ attitudes—not an entire generations’ collective attitudes—toward universal health care than it is to influence their job satisfaction. Moreover, individuals’ level of job security may not only be influenced by the pandemic but also by their profession and levels of risk tolerance.

In summary, the lifespan development perspective offers a number of alternative explanations for the role of age and the process of aging at work that do not rely in generational explanations. Specifically, by recognizing that development is a lifelong process that is affected by multiple influences, this perspective helps to clarify the complexities of development, particularly the processes that lead to inter- and intraindividual changes over time. With a clearer sense of these two alternative perspectives, we next shift our attention to outlining various points of integration between them.

Integrating the Social Constructionist and Lifespan Development Perspectives

With a clearer sense of the core tenets of the social constructionist and lifespan development perspectives, we now turn our attention to clarifying lines of integration between these two approaches. While seemingly addressing different “corners” of the ideas presented here, there are a number of complementary features of the social constructionist and lifespan development perspectives to be noted. First, both perspectives generally eschew the idea that generations exist objectively and are meaningful units of study for explaining individual and group differences. Second, both perspectives offer that the complexities that underlie the understanding of age and the process of aging at work cannot be reduced to rather simple mean-level comparisons. Third, both perspectives are generative, in that they encourage research questions that go beyond common ways of thinking. Fourth, and relatedly, both perspectives provide frameworks for more “directly” studying aging and development—whether in the form of how we collectively understand and conceptualize these processes (the social constructionist perspective), or how individuals continuously and interactively shape their own life trajectory (the lifespan development perspective). Together, rather than relying on determinism, these perspectives capitalize on the subjective, dynamic, and agentic aspects of life in organizations and society, allowing for more rigorous and representative research into meaning, creation, stability, and change in context.

Commonalities Between Social Constructionist and Lifespan Development Perspectives

Beyond these complementary features, we propose six additional commonalities that serve as the basis for a more formal integration of these two perspectives with one another (see Table Table2 2 for a summary). First, both perspectives recognize the role of context, in that both development (the lifespan development perspective) and sensemaking (the social constructionist perspective) occur within social contexts. Second, both perspectives describe processes of action, creation, negotiation, and/or codification. Whereas the lifespan perspective focuses on how these processes create identity, beliefs, and habits or behaviors that emerge over time through active self-regulatory, motivational processes, discovery, and (self)acceptance/selectivity, the social constructionist perspective focuses more so on the development of truths and meaning that emerge from collective dialogues, understandings, and traditions through acceptance and institutionalization. Third, both perspectives acknowledge the fundamental roles of internal and external comparisons. For example, the lifespan perspective offers that successful development is judged both externally (e.g., in comparison with important others, normative age expectations, or timetables) and internally (e.g., in comparison with younger or desired state selves). Similarly, social constructions can be focused externally (e.g., in the form of stereotypes) as well as internally (i.e., to make sense of one’s own behavior or identity).

Commonalities between the social constructionist and lifespan perspectives

Fourth, both perspectives highlight learning and reinforcement processes that are derived from environmental sources. The lifespan perspective offers that adaptiveness (e.g., how successfully someone is developing/aging) and the self (as well as identities, values, behaviors, etc.) are learned from and reinforced by feedback from various aspects of the environment. Similarly, social constructions are derived from and reinforced by multiple environmental sources, including those with perceived status, “weight,” and legitimacy. Fifth, by offering that development is a modifiable, discontinuous process (the lifespan development perspective) and that social constructions are constantly re-defined and re-emerge into public consciousness (the social constructionist perspective), both perspectives focus on continuous evolution, revision, and change. The final commonality to be drawn across these two perspectives is that they both focus on predictable influences that characterize certain spans of time, especially around significant events or “turning points.” The lifespan perspective offers that, although complex and plastic, development does have some predictable aspects and influences due to their significance in the life course (e.g., age-graded events). Complimenting this, many social constructions, although in constant flux and redefinition, fall back on the same key concepts due to their pervasiveness in public consciousness (e.g., the laziness of youth) at certain “key moments” in history (e.g., to explain or cope with societal change).

Limitations of These Alternative Perspectives

Beyond the benefits of considering alternative models to generations, and integrations thereof, it is important to mention the limitations of these alternative perspectives. For example, it could be argued that, because it does not provide formalized predictions, the social constructionist perspective is “hard to study.” Additionally, the lifespan perspective can be criticized, just as it is lauded, for its focus on individual agency: as noted earlier, psychological perspectives often place a premium on studying individual-level mechanisms rather than other levels of influence (Rauvola & Rudolph, 2020 ). Thus, without directed efforts on the part of researchers to attend to these aspects of lifespan development theory in their work, it can be easy to fall into the “trap” of ignoring structural factors (e.g., socioeconomic status, governmental policy, institutionalized discrimination) that have bearing on and may constrain individuals’ agentic influence on their life trajectory (for an integration of the psychological lifespan perspective and the sociological life course perspective in the context of vocational behavior and career development, see Zacher & Froidevaux, 2020 ). Still, and for the many reasons noted throughout this manuscript, we do not contend that generational cohort membership is one of these structural factors, and a generational approach ignores these other forces even more flagrantly.

Recommendations for Adopting Alternative Theoretical Perspectives on Generations

Overall, we argue that organizational researchers and practitioners should move beyond the notion of generations for understanding the complexities of age at work. To do so, we urge the adoption of the alternative theoretical models we have outlined here, as well as considerations of their integration. To this end, those interested in studying the role of age at work should adopt a lifespan, rather than a generational, perspective, whereas those interested in studying the persistence of generational thinking would be well served to consider the adoption of a social constructionist perspective. Moreover, to understand more holistically the role of age and the construction of aging at work, it may be useful to adopt an integrative view on these two perspectives, embodied within the six commonalities between them that we have outlined above (see also Table Table2 2 ).

Generational thinking is problematic because it assumes that aggregate social phenomena can explain individual-level attitudes, values, and behavior. In contrast, adopting a lifespan perspective means taking a multidisciplinary lens to understanding age-related differences and changes at work by specifically focusing on how the interplay between person characteristics and contextual variables serve to modify individual development. Moreover, the social constructionist perspective offers guidance for unpacking the meanings people attach to assumptions that are made about these aggregate social phenomena, further aiding in understanding the complexities at play here. We consider recommendations for research and practice adopting these perspectives, next.

Recommendations for Adopting the Social Constructionist Perspective

The social constructionist perspective on generations highlights a number of potential areas for research and practice. Given their longstanding and culturally/historically embedded nature, the social constructionist perspective recognizes that the idea of generations is not likely to go away, even with a lack of empirical methods or evidence to support their existence. Instead, this perspective calls for a paradigm shift in generational research and practice, away from the rather positivist notion of “seeking out” generational differences and instead toward a focus on studying and understanding those processes that support the social construction of generations to begin with. Considering research, the focus could be on those antecedents (e.g., intergroup competition and discrimination; North & Fiske, 2012 ; i.e., to address the question, “Why do these social constructions emerge?”) and outcomes (e.g., self-fulfilling prophecies—i.e., to address the question, “What are the consequences of willing generations into being?”) of socially constructed generations.

Conducting research from a social constructionist perspective requires adopting methodologies that may not be common in organizational researchers’ “tool kits.” For example, Rudolph and Zacher ( 2015 ) used sentiment analysis, a natural language processing methodology, to analyze the content of Twitter dialogues concerning various generational groups to understand the relative sentiment associated with each. Indeed, it would arguably be difficult to study generations from this perspective by adopting a typical frequentist approach to hypothesis testing. This perspective is less about gathering evidence “against the null hypothesis” that generations or differences between them exist in a more or less “objective” (i.e., measurable) way. Instead, it is more about understanding, phenomenologically, the various processes that give rise to people’s subjective construction of generations, the systems that facilitate attaching meaning to generational labels, and the structures that support our continued reliance on generations as a sensemaking tool in spite of logical and empirical arguments against doing so.

More practically, understanding why people think in terms of generations can help us to develop interventions that are targeted at helping people think less in terms of generations and more in terms of individuating people on the basis of the various processes outlined in our description of the lifespan perspective (i.e., personal characteristics; idiosyncratic and contextual factors). The social constructionist perspective also encourages changing the discourse among practitioners, shifting the focus away from managing generations as discrete groups and toward developing more age-conscious personnel practices, policies, and procedures that support workers across the entirety of their working lifespans (e.g., Rudolph & Zacher, 2020c ). We thus urge practitioners to adopt a social constructionist perspective and shift focus away from promoting processes to manage members of different generations to a focus on managing the perceptions of generations and their differences. By recognizing the constructed nature of generations, the social constructionist perspective decouples beliefs about generations from these broad and overgeneralized assumptions about their influence on individuals.

Recommendations for Adopting the Lifespan Perspective

Just as the social constructionist perspective highlights a number of potential areas for research and practice, so too does the lifespan perspective. To this end, and to move research on the lifespan perspective on generations forward, Rudolph and Zacher ( 2017 ) argued that, at the individual level of analysis, the influence of age-graded and historical/contextual influences are inherently codetermined and inseparable. Accordingly, in their lifespan perspective on generations, they proposed that the influence of historically graded and sociocultural context variables occurs at the individual level of analysis only, and not as a manifestation of shared generational effects (proposition 1). They suggested that future research should focus on individual-level indicators of historical and sociocultural influences. Furthermore, they argued that age, period, and cohort effects are both theoretically and empirically confounded and, thus, inseparable (proposition 2). Finally, consistent with Schaie’s ( 1986 ) general developmental model, they suggested that cohorts should be operationalized as interindividual differences, whereas period effects should be defined in terms of intraindividual changes (proposition 3).

In terms of more practical implications of the lifespan perspective, we urge practitioners to adopt principles of lifespan development in the design of age-conscious work processes, interventions, and policies that do not rely on generations as a means of representing age. Indeed, researchers and practitioners alike should take steps to avoid the pitfalls of “generational thinking,” which yields several dangers that can be overcome by lifespan thinking (Rauvola et al., 2019 ; Rudolph et al., 2018 ; Rudolph & Zacher, 2020c ). First, generational thinking categorizes individuals into arbitrary generational groups based on a single criterion (i.e., birth year) and is therefore socially exclusive rather than inclusive; in contrast, the lifespan perspective conceptualizes and operationalizes age directly as a continuous variable (Baltes, 1987 ). Second, generational thinking reduces complex age-related processes into a simplistic dichotomy at a single point in time; the lifespan perspective adopts a multidimensional, multidirectional, and multilevel approach to represent the complexities of aging more appropriately. Third, generational thinking overemphasizes the role of (ranges of) birth cohorts in influencing work outcomes; in contrast, the lifespan perspective emphasizes interindividual differences and intraindividual development (as well as interindividual differences in intraindividual development). Finally, generational thinking is dangerous because it assumes that generational group membership determines individual attitudes, values, and behavior. In contrast to this, the lifespan perspective, which entails the notion of plasticity, suggests that intraindividual changes in developmental paths are possible at any age and that individuals can enact control and influence their own development.

Conclusions

This manuscript sought to achieve two goals, related to helping various constituents better understand the complexities of age and aging at work, and dissuade the use of generations and generational differences as a means of understanding and simplifying such complexities. First, we aimed to “bust” ten common myths about generations and generational differences that permeate various discussions in organizational sciences research and practice and beyond. Then, with these debunked myths as a backdrop, we offered two complementary alternative models—the social constructionist perspective and the lifespan perspective—with promise for helping organizational scientists and practitioners better understand and manage age and the process of aging in the workplace and comprehend the pervasive nature of generations as a means of social sensemaking. The social constructionist perspective calls for a shift in thinking about generations as tangible and demonstrable units of study, to socially constructed entities, the existence of which is in-and-of-itself worthy of study. Supplementing these ideas, the lifespan perspective offers that rather than focusing on simplified, rather deterministic groupings of people into generations, development occurs in a continuous, multicausal, multidirectional, and multidimensional process. Our hope is that this manuscript helps to “redirect” talk about generations away from their colloquial use to a more critical and informed perspective on age and aging at work.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abrahamson E. Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review. 1991; 16 :586–612. doi: 10.2307/258919. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Abrahamson E. Management fashion, academic fashion, and enduring truths. Academy of Management Review. 1996; 21 :616–618. doi: 10.2307/258636. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Adamczyk, A. (2019, September 29). Millennials are fleeing big cities for the suburbs. CNBC. Retrieved from: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/29/millennials-are-fleeing-big-cities-for-the-suburbs.html
Adkins, A. (2016, May 12) Millennials: The job-hopping generation. Gallup. Retrieved from: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/231587/millennials-job-hopping-generation.aspx
Alon, T. M., Doepke, M., Olmstead-Rumsey, J., & Tertilt, M. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality (No. w26947). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w26947
Baldonado AM. Motivating Generation Y and virtual teams. Open Journal of Business and Management. 2013; 1 :39–44. doi: 10.4236/ojbm.2013.12006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baltes BB, Dickson MW. Using life-span models in industrial-organizational psychology: The theory of selective optimization with compensation. Applied Developmental Science. 2001; 5 :51–62. doi: 10.1207/S1532480XADS0501_5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baltes BB, Rudolph CW, Zacher H, editors. Work across the lifespan. London: Academic Press; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
Baltes PB. Longitudinal and cross-sectional sequences in the study of age and generation effects. Human Development. 1968; 11 :145–171. doi: 10.1159/000270604. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baltes PB. Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology. 1987; 23 :611–626. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.23.5.611. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baltes, P. B., Cornelius, S. W., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1979). Cohort effects in developmental psychology. In J. R. Nesselroade & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Longitudinal research in the study of behavior and development (pp. 61–87). Academic Press.
Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (1998). Life-span theory in developmental psychology. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 1029–1143). Wiley.
Baltes, P. B., & Mayer, K. U. (Eds.). (2001). The Berlin aging study: Aging from 70 to 100 . Cambridge University Press.
Baltes PB, Nesselroade JR. Paradigm lost and paradigm regained: Critique of Dannefer’s portrayal of life-span developmental psychology. American Sociological Review. 1984; 49 :841–847. doi: 10.2307/2095533. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baltes PB, Reese HW, Lipsitt LP. Life-span developmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology. 1980; 31 :65–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.000433. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barroso, A., Parker, K., & Bennet, J. (2020, May 27). How millennials approach family life. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. Retrieved from: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/05/27/as-millennials-near-40-theyre-approaching-family-life-differently-than-previous-generations/
Bell A, Jones K. The impossibility of separating age, period and cohort effects. Social Science & Medicine. 2013; 93 :163–165. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.029. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bell A, Jones K. Another ‘futile quest’? A simulation study of Yang and Land’s hierarchical age-period-cohort model. Demographic Research. 2014; 30 :333–360. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2013.30.11. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Berger PL, Luckman T. The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Penguin Books; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
Bianchi EC. Entering adulthood in a recession tempers later narcissism. Psychological Science. 2014; 25 :1429–1437. doi: 10.1177/0956797614532818. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bohlmann C, Rudolph CW, Zacher H. Methodological recommendations to move research on work and aging forward. Work, Aging and Retirement. 2018; 4 (3):225–237. doi: 10.1093/workar/wax023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Böhm SA, Kunze F, Bruch H. Spotlight on age-diversity climate: The impact of age-inclusive HR practices on firm-level outcomes. Personnel Psychology. 2014; 67 :667–704. doi: 10.1111/peps.12047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bryan, C. (2017, Jul 31). RIP: Here are 70 things millennials have killed. Mashable. Retrieved from https://mashable.com/2017/07/31/things-millennials-have-killed/
Bui, Q., & Miller, C. C. (2018, August 4). The age that women have babies: How a gap divides America. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/04/upshot/up-birth-age-gap.html .
Bui, T. T. M., Button, P., & Picciotti, E. G. (2020). Early evidence on the impact of COVID-19 and the recession on older workers (No. w27448). National Bureau of Economic Research. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Burr V. Social constructionism. London: Routledge; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
Campbell SM, Twenge JM, Campbell WK. Fuzzy but useful constructs: Making sense of the differences between generations. Work, Aging and Retirement. 2017; 3 :130–139. doi: 10.1093/workar/wax001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cenkus, B. (2017, November 19). Millennials will work hard, just not for your crappy job. Medium. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/swlh/millennials-will-work-hard-just-not-for-your-crappy-job-82c12a1853ed
Costanza DP, Badger JM, Fraser RL, Severt JB, Gade PA. Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2012; 27 :375–394. doi: 10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Costanza DP, Darrow JB, Yost AB, Severt JB. A review of analytical methods used to study generational differences: Strengths and limitations. Work, Aging and Retirement. 2017; 3 :149–165. doi: 10.1093/workar/wax002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Costanza DP, Finkelstein LM. Generationally-based differences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Sciences and Practice. 2015; 8 :308–323. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.15. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Costanza DP, Finkelstein LM, Imose RA, Ravid DM. Inappropriate inferences from generational research. In: Hoffman B, Shoss M, Wegman L, editors. The Cambridge handbook of the changing nature of work. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
Dannefer D. Adult development and social theory: A paradigmatic reappraisal. American Sociological Review. 1984; 49 :100–116. doi: 10.2307/2095560. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dao, J. (2011, September 6). They signed up to fight. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/us/sept-11-reckoning/troops.html
Deal JJ, Altman DG, Rogelberg SG. Millennials at work: What we know and what we need to do (if anything) Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010; 25 :191–199. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9177-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dencker JC, Joshi A, Martocchio JJ. Towards a theoretical framework linking generational memories to workplace attitudes and behaviors. Human Resource Management Review. 2008; 18 :180–187. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Desilver, D. (2019, June 27). In the U.S., teen summer jobs aren’t what they used to be. Pew Research. Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/27/teen-summer-jobs-in-us/
Dimock, M. (2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research. Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
Donnellan MB, Hill PL, Roberts BW. Personality development across the lifespan: Current findings and future directions. In: Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Cooper ML, Larsen RJ, editors. APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 4: Personality processes and individual differences . 2015. pp. 107–126. [ Google Scholar ]
Douglas, M., Katikireddi, S. V., Taulbut, M., McKee, M., & McCartney, G. (2020). Mitigating the wider health effects of COVID-19 pandemic response. BMJ, 369 . 10.1136/bmj.m1557. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Dries N, Pepermans R, De Kerpel E. Exploring four generations’ beliefs about career: Is “satisfied” the new “successful”? Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2008; 23 :907–928. doi: 10.1108/02683940810904394. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Elder GH. Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1994; 57 :4–15. doi: 10.2307/2786971. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Elder GH, Liker JK. Hard times in women’s lives: Historical influences across forty years. American Journal of Sociology. 1982; 88 :241–269. doi: 10.1086/227670. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Erikson EH. Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton; 1950. [ Google Scholar ]
Eschleman, K. J., King, M., Mast, D., Ornellas, R., & Hunter, D. (2016). The effects of stereotype activation on generational differences. Work, Aging and Retirement , 1–9. 10.1093/workar/waw032.
Gerstorf D, Ram N, Hoppmann C, Willis SL, Schaie KW. Cohort differences in cognitive aging and terminal decline in the Seattle Longitudinal Study. Developmental Psychology. 2011; 47 :1026–1041. doi: 10.1037/a0023426. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Glenn ND. Cohort analysts’ futile quest: Statistical attempts to separate age, period and cohort effects. American Sociological Review. 1976; 41 :900–904. doi: 10.2307/2094738. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Glenn ND. Cohort analysis. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
Godfrey, N. (2016, May 22) Will millennials just uber their life? Forbes. From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nealegodfrey/2016/05/22/will-millennials-just-uber-their-life/
Goodkind, N. (2020, February 20). Facing falling enlistment numbers, the U.S. Army takes a new approach to recruitment: Mom and dad. Fortune. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/2020/02/20/army-military-enlistment-recruitment-ads/
Graff, G. M. (2019, September 11). The 9/11 generation comes of age. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-9-11-generation-comes-of-age-11568213715
Heckhausen J, Wrosch C, Schulz R. A motivational theory of life-span development. Psychological Review. 2010; 117 :32–60. doi: 10.1037/a0017668. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Helling, S. (2017, October 16). Baby Jessica on the 30 year anniversary of her rescue from a well: Her life as a wife and mom. People Magazine. From: https://people.com/human-interest/baby-jessica-on-the-30-year-anniversary-of-her-rescue-from-a-well-her-life-as-a-wife-and-mom/
Heyns EP, Eldermire ER, Howard HA. Unsubstantiated conclusions: A scoping review on generational differences of leadership in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2019; 45 (5):102054. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102054. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hilton JL, Von Hippel W. Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology. 1996; 47 :237–271. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.237. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hirsch PB. Follow the dancing meme: Intergenerational relations in the workplace. Journal of Business Strategy. 2020; 41 (32):67–71. doi: 10.1108/JBS-02-2020-0034. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hogg MA. Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology. 2000; 11 :223–255. doi: 10.1080/14792772043000040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Horovitz, B. (2012, May 4). After Gen X, Millennials, what should next generation be? USA Today. From http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/advertising/story/2012-05-03/naming-the-next-generation/54737518/1
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. Vintage.
Howe N, Strauss W. The next 20 years: How customer and workforce attitudes will evolve. Harvard Business Review. 2007; 85 :41–52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hughes, J. (2020, February 20). Need to keep Gen Z workers happy? Hire a ‘generational consultant’. New York Times Magazine. From https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/19/magazine/millennials-gen-z-consulting.html .
Illies, F. (2003). Generation Golf zwei. Munich, Germany: Blessing.
Jauregui J, Watsjold B, Welsh L, Ilgen JS, Robins L. Generational ‘othering’: The myth of the Millennial learner. Medical Education. 2020; 54 (1):60–65. doi: 10.1111/medu.13795. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kanfer, R., Lyndgaard, S. F., & Tatel, C. E. (2020). For whom the pandemic tolls: a person-centric analysis of older workers. Work, Aging and Retirement . 10.1093/workar/waaa014.
Keeley, S. (2016, May 25). Derek Jeter has had it with millennials and their lack of interest in baseball. The Comeback. Retrieved from https://thecomeback.com/mlb/derek-jeter-millennials.html
Kertzer DI. Generation as a sociological problem. Annual Review of Sociology. 1983; 9 :125–149. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.001013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
King, E., Finkelstein, L., Thomas, C., & Corrington, A. (2019). Generational differences at work are small. Thinking they’re big affects our behavior. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/08/generational-differences-at-work-are-small-thinking-theyre-big-affects-our-behavior .
Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S.P., Bakker, A.B., Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D.P., Choi, V.K., Creary, S.J., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F.J., Gelfand, M.J., Greer, L.L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P.G., Lee, S.Y., Ozcelik, H., Petriglieri, J.L., Rothbard, N.P., Rudolph, C.W., Shaw, J.D., Sirola, N., Wanberg, C.R., Whillans, A., Wilmot, M.P., & Van Vugt, M. (2020, In press). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist . [ PubMed ]
Knight R. Managing people from 5 generations. Harvard Business Review. 2014; 25 (9):1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
Kosloski K. Isolating age, period, and cohort effects in developmental research: A critical review. Research on Aging. 1986; 8 :460–479. doi: 10.1177/0164027586008004002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kramer MW. Motivation to reduce uncertainty: A reconceptualization of uncertainty reduction theory. Management Communication Quarterly. 1999; 13 :305–316. doi: 10.1177/0893318999132007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kulik, C. T. (2004). Human resources for the non-HR manager . Psychology Press.
Leeds-Hurwitz W. Social construction of reality. In: Littlejohn SW, Foss KA, editors. Encyclopedia of communication theory. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2009. pp. 891–894. [ Google Scholar ]
Lerner RM, Busch-Rossnagel NA. Individuals as producers of their development: A life-span perspective. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life . Ballantine Books.
Lindquist TM. Recruiting the millennium generation: The new CPA. The CPA Journal. 2008; 78 :56–59. [ Google Scholar ]
Lock A, Strong T. Social constructionism: Sources and stirrings in theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
Lyons S, Kuron L. Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2014; 35 :S139–S157. doi: 10.1002/job.1913. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lyons S, Urick M, Kuron L, Schweitzer L. Generational differences in the workplace: There is complexity beyond the stereotypes. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2015; 8 :346–356. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.48. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lyons ST, Schweitzer L. A qualitative exploration of generational identity: Making sense of young and old in the context of today’s workplace. Work, Aging and Retirement. 2017; 3 :209–224. doi: 10.1093/workar/waw024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mailliet, A. & Saltz, J. (2017, September 22). ‘Generation Merkel’ yearns for continuity and stability. France 24. From: https://www.france24.com/en/20170922-focus-germany-angela-merkel-youth-generaion-afd-vote-elections
Mannheim K. The problem of generations. In: Kecskemeti P, editor. Essays in the sociology of knowledge. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1952. pp. 276–322. [ Google Scholar ]
Mayer KU. New directions in life course research. Annual Review of Sociology. 2009; 35 :423–424. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134619. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McConahay JB, Hardee BB, Batts V. Has racism declined in America? It depends on who is asking and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1981; 25 :563–579. doi: 10.1177/002200278102500401. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCrindle M, Wolfinger E. The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the global generations. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd.; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
Mulvany, L. & Patton, L. (2018, October 10). Millennials kill again. The latest victim? American cheese. Time Magazine. Retrieved from: https://time.com/5420369/millennials-kill-american-cheese/
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2020a). Categorizing workers’ needs by generation such as Baby Boomers or Millennials is not supported by research or useful for workforce management. National Academies. Retrieved from: https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2020/07/categorizing-workers-needs-by-generation-such-as-baby-boomers-or-millennials-is-not-supported-by-research-or-useful-for-workforce-management
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . Are generational categories meaningful distinctions for workforce management? Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
Nesselroade JR, Baltes PB. Adolescent personality development and historical change: 1970-1972. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1974; 39 :1–80. doi: 10.2307/1165824. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nicholls, D. (2019, Jan 3). British Army targets ‘snowflakes, binge gamers and me, me, me millennials’ in new recruitment drive. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/03/army-targets-snowflakes-binge-gamers-millennials-new-recruitment/
North MS, Fiske ST. An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. Psychological Bulletin. 2012; 138 :982–997. doi: 10.1037/a0027843. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Okros A. Generational theory and cohort analysis. In: Okros A, editor. Harnessing the potential of digital post-Millennials in the future workplace. Cham: Springer; 2020. pp. 33–51. [ Google Scholar ]
Ortega y Gasset J. The modern theme. New York, NY: Norton; 1933. [ Google Scholar ]
Papavasileiou EF. Age-based generations at work: A culture-specific approach. In: Parry E, McCarthy J, editors. The Palgrave handbook of age diversity and work. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017. pp. 521–538. [ Google Scholar ]
Patel, J. (2020, Mar 4). “Generation Corona” will miss out on life’s opportunities. New creative spaces can help. Euronews. Retrieved from https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/03/generation-corona-will-miss-out-on-life-s-opportunities-new-creative-spaces-can-help-view .
Perry EL, Hanvongse A, Casoinic DA. Making a case for the existence of generational stereotypes: A literature review and exploratory study. In: Field J, Burke RJ, Cooper CL, editors. The SAGE handbook of aging, work and society. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2013. pp. 416–442. [ Google Scholar ]
Pilcher J. Mannheim’s sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy. British Journal of Sociology. 1994; 45 :481–495. doi: 10.2307/591659. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Protzko, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2019). Kids these days: Why the youth of today seem lacking. Science Advances, 5 , eaav5916. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav5916. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Rabin v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1126 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
Raphelson, S. (2014, Oct 6). From GIs to Gen Z (or is it iGen?): How generations get nicknames. National Pubic Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2014/10/06/349316543/don-t-label-me-origins-of-generational-names-and-why-we-use-them .
Rauvola, R. S., & Rudolph, C. W. (2020). On the limits of agency for successful aging at work. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice .
Rauvola RS, Rudolph CW, Zacher H. Generationalism: Problems and implications. Organizational Dynamics. 2019; 48 :100664. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.05.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Raymer M, Reed M, Spiegel M, Purvanova RK. An examination of generational stereotypes as a path towards reverse ageism. The Psychologist-Manager Journal. 2017; 20 (3):148–175. doi: 10.1037/mgr0000057. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Robinson WS. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review. 1950; 15 (3):351–357. doi: 10.2307/2087176. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Romano, A. (2019, November 19). “OK boomer” isn’t just about the past, it’s about our apocalyptic future. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2019/11/19/20963757/what-is-ok-boomer-meme-about-meaning-gen-z-millennials
Røvik KA. From fashion to virus: An alternative theory of organizations’ handling of management ideas. Organization Studies. 2011; 32 :631–653. doi: 10.1177/0170840611405426. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rudolph CW. A note on the folly of cross-sectional operationalizations of generations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2015; 8 :362–366. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.50. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rudolph CW. Lifespan developmental perspectives on working: A literature review of motivational theories. Work, Aging and Retirement. 2016; 2 :130–158. doi: 10.1093/workar/waw012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rudolph, C. W., Allan, B., Clark, M., Hertel, G., Hirschi, A., Kunze, F., Shockley, K., Shoss, M., Sonnentag, S., & Zacher, H. (2020). Pandemics: Implications for research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice .
Rudolph CW, Baltes BB. Age and health jointly moderate the influence of flexible work arrangements on work engagement: Evidence from two empirical studies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2017; 22 (1):40–58. doi: 10.1037/a0040147. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rudolph, C. W., Costanza, D. P., Wright, C., & Zacher, H. (2019). Cross-temporal meta-analysis: A conceptual and empirical critique. Journal of Business and Psychology , 1–18. 10.1007/s10869-019-09659-2.
Rudolph CW, Rauvola RS, Zacher H. Leadership and generations at work: A critical review. The Leadership Quarterly. 2018; 29 :44–57. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.09.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, S., Costanza, D. P., & Zacher, H. (2020). Answers to 10 questions about generations and generational differences in the workplace. Public Policy & Aging Report , praa010. 10.1093/ppar/praa010.
Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2015). Intergenerational perceptions and conflicts in multi-age and multigenerational work environments. In L. M. Finkelstein, D. M. Truxillo, F. Fraccaroli, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), SIOP organizational frontiers series. Facing the challenges of a multi-age workforce: A use-inspired approach (pp. 253–282). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Rudolph CW, Zacher H. Considering generations from a lifespan developmental perspective. Work, Aging and Retirement. 2017; 3 :113–129. doi: 10.1093/workar/waw019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rudolph CW, Zacher H. The kids are alright: Taking stock of generational differences at work. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist. 2018; 55 :1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2020a). “The COVID-19 Generation”: A cautionary note. Work, Aging and Retirement .
Rudolph CW, Zacher H. COVID-19 and careers: On the futility of generational explanations. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2020; 119 :103433. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103433. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rudolph CW, Zacher H. Managing employees across the working lifespan. In: Hoffman B, Shoss M, Wegman L, editors. The Cambridge handbook of the changing nature of work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020. pp. 425–445. [ Google Scholar ]
Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2020d). Age inclusive human resource practices, age diversity climate, and work ability: Exploring between-and within-person indirect effects. Work, Aging and Retirement. 10.1093/workar/waaa008.
Ryder NB. The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review. 1965; 30 :843–861. doi: 10.2307/2090964. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schaie KW. Beyond calendar definitions of age, time, and cohort: The general developmental model revisited. Developmental Review. 1986; 6 :252–277. doi: 10.1016/0273-2297(86)90014-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schaie KW. Developmental influences on adult intelligence: The Seattle Longitudinal Study. 2. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
Schaie KW, Hertzog C. Measurement in the psychology of adulthood and aging. In: Birren JE, Schaie KW, editors. Handbook of the psychology of aging. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1985. pp. 61–92. [ Google Scholar ]
Schwartz, B. A. (2015, Dec 15). American children faced great dangers in the 1930s, none greater than “Little Orphan Annie”. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/american-children-faced-great-dangers-1930s-none-greater-little-orphan-annie-180957544/
Settersten RA. Some things I have learned about aging by studying the life course. Innovation in Aging. 2017; 1 :1–7. doi: 10.1093/geroni/igx014. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sharf, S. (2014, July 30). The Recession Generation: How millennials are changing money management forever. Forbes. From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/07/30/the-recession-generation-how-millennials-are-changing-money-management-forever/#774ab150344f
Shaw, H. (2013). Sticking points: How to get 4 generations working together in the 12 places they come apart . Tyndale House Publishers.
Smola KW, Sutton CD. Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2002; 23 :363–382. doi: 10.1002/job.147. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Srinivasan V. Multi generations in the workforce: Building collaboration. IIMB Management Review. 2012; 24 :48–66. doi: 10.1016/j.iimb.2012.01.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stassen L, Anseel F, Levecque K. Generatieverschillen op de werkvloer: ‘What people believe is true is frequently wrong.’ [Generational differences in the workplace: ‘What people believe is true is frequently wrong.’] Gedrag en Organisatie. 2016; 29 (1):87–92. [ Google Scholar ]
Staudinger UM, Kunzmann U. Positive adult personality development: Adjustment and/or growth? European Psychologist. 2005; 10 :320–329. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.10.4.320. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stein, J. (2013, May 20). Millennials: The me me me generation. Time . Retrieved from https://time.com/247/millennials-the-me-me-me-generation/
Strapagiel, L. (2019, Nov 14). Gen Z is calling Gen X the “Karen Generation”. Buzzfeed News. Retrieved from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/laurenstrapagiel/gen-z-is-calling-gen-x-the-karen-generation
Strauss W, Howe N. Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
Swinick, C. (2019, December 12). “Ok Boomer”… from internet meme to workplace age discrimination. JDSupra. Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ok-boomer-from-internet-meme-to-99279/
The Lancet Generation coronavirus? The Lancet. 2020; 395 :1949. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31445-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Thompson, D. (2016, Feb 11). America in 1915: Long hours, crowded houses, death by trolley. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/america-in-1915/462360/
Thompson, K. (2012, June 16). Generation Obama: Pursuing their dreams through four years of hard times. The Washington Post. From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/generation-obama-pursuing-their-dreams-through-four-years-of-hard-times/2012/06/16/gJQAQqgthV_story.html
To SM, Tam HL. Generational differences in work values, perceived job rewards, and job satisfaction of Chinese female migrant workers: Implications for social policy and social services. Social Indicators Research. 2014; 118 :1315–1332. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0470-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tomlinson J, Baird M, Berg P, Cooper R. Flexible careers across the life course: Advancing theory, research and practice. Human Relations. 2018; 71 :4–22. doi: 10.1177/0018726717733313. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Troll LE. Issues in the study of generations. Aging and Human Development. 1970; 1 :199–218. doi: 10.2190/ag.1.3.c. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Trzesniewski KH, Donnellan MB. Rethinking “Generation Me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976–2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2010; 5 :58–75. doi: 10.1177/1745691609356789. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Trzesniewski KH, Donnellan MB, Robins RW. Is “Generation Me” really more narcissistic than previous generations? Journal of Personality. 2008; 76 :903–917. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00508.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Twenge JM. The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952–1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 79 :1007–1021. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.1007. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Twenge JM. Generation Me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled--and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Free Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
Twenge JM. A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010; 25 :201–210. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9165-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Twenge JM. iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy--and completely unprepared for adulthood--and what that means for the rest of us. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
Twenge JM, Campbell SM. Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2008; 23 :862–877. doi: 10.1108/02683940810904367. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Twenge JM, Campbell WK. Birth cohort differences in the monitoring the future dataset and elsewhere: Further evidence for generation me—commentary on Trzesniewski & Donnellan (2010) Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2010; 5 :81–88. doi: 10.1177/1745691609357015. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Twenge JM, Konrath S, Foster JD, Campbell WK, Bushman BJ. Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality. 2008; 76 :875–902. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00507.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for financially fragile and aging societies. Work, Aging and Retirement. 10.1093/workar/waaa011.
Van Rossem AH. Generations as social categories: An exploratory cognitive study of generational identity and generational stereotypes in a multigenerational workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2019; 40 (4):434–455. doi: 10.1002/job.2341. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Walker A. Intergenerational relations and welfare restructuring: The social construction of an intergenerational problem. In: Bengtson VL, Achenbaum WA, editors. The changing contract across generations. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1993. pp. 141–165. [ Google Scholar ]
Weiss D, Perry EL. Implications of generational and age metastereotypes for older adults at work: The role of agency, stereotype threat, and job search self-efficacy. Work, Aging and Retirement. 2020; 6 (1):15–27. doi: 10.1093/workar/waz010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Weiss D, Zhang X. Multiple sources of aging attitudes: Perceptions of age groups and generations from adolescence to old age across China, Germany, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2020; 51 :407–423. doi: 10.1177/0022022120925904. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wohlwill JF. The age variable in psychological research. Psychological Review. 1970; 77 :49–64. doi: 10.1037/h0028600. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wolfe, T. (1976, Aug 23). The “Me” Decade and the third great awakening. New York Magazine. Retrieved from https://nymag.com/news/features/45938/
Yang Y, Land KC. A mixed models approach to the age- period-cohort analysis of repeated cross-section surveys, with an application to data on trends in verbal test scores. Sociological Methodology. 2006; 36 :75–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2006.00175.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yang Y, Land KC. Age-period-cohort analysis: New models, methods, and empirical applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
Yigit S, Aksay K. A comparison between generation X and generation Y in terms of individual innovativeness behavior: The case of Turkish health professionals. International Journal of Business Administration. 2015; 6 :106. doi: 10.5430/ijba.v6n2p106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zabel KL, Biermeier-Hanson BB, Baltes BB, Early BJ, Shepard A. Generational differences in work ethic: Fact or fiction? Journal of Business and Psychology. 2017; 32 :301–315. doi: 10.1007/s10869-016-9466-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zacher H. Successful aging at work. Work, Aging and Retirement. 2015; 1 :4–25. doi: 10.1093/workar/wau006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zacher H. Using lifespan developmental theory and methods as a viable alternative to the study of generational differences at work. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2015; 8 :342–346. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.47. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zacher, H., & Froidevaux, A. (2020). Life stage, lifespan, and life course perspectives on vocational behavior and development: A theoretical framework, review, and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior .

Download PDF
Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
Permissions

Prediction Models and Clinical Outcomes—A Call for Papers

1 Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
2 Deputy Editor, JAMA Network Open
3 Epidemiology, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick
4 Statistical Editor, JAMA Network Open
5 Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
6 Editor, JAMA Network Open

The need to classify disease and predict outcomes is as old as medicine itself. Nearly 50 years ago, the advantage of applying multivariable statistics to these problems became evident. 1 Since then, the increasing availability of databases containing often-complex clinical information from tens or even hundreds of millions of patients, combined with powerful statistical techniques and computing environments, has spawned exponential growth in efforts to create more useful, focused, and accurate prediction models. JAMA Network Open receives dozens of manuscripts weekly that present new or purportedly improved instruments intended to predict a vast array of clinical outcomes. Although we are able to accept only a small fraction of those submitted, we have, nonetheless, published nearly 2000 articles dealing with predictive models over the past 6 years.

The profusion of predictive models has been accompanied by the growing recognition of the necessity for standards to help ensure accuracy of these models. An important milestone was the publication of the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis ( TRIPOD ) guidelines nearly a decade ago. 2 TRIPOD is a reporting guideline intended to enable readers to better understand the methods used in published studies but does not prescribe what actual methods should be applied. Since then, while the field has continued to advance and technology improve, many predictive models in widespread use, when critically evaluated, have been found to neither adhere to reporting standards nor perform as well as expected. 3 , 4

There are numerous reasons why performance of models falls short, even when efforts are made to adhere to methodologic standards. Despite the vast amounts of data that are often brought to bear, they may not be appropriate to the task, or they may have been collected and analyzed in ways that are biased. Additionally, that some models fall short may simply reflect the inherent difficulty of predicting relatively uncommon events that occur as a result of complex biological processes occurring within complex clinical environments. Moreover, clinical settings are highly variable, and predictive models typically perform worse outside of the environments in which they were developed. A comprehensive discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this article, but as physicist Neils Bohr once remarked, “it is very difficult to predict—especially the future.” 5

Although problems with accuracy are well documented, hundreds of predictive models are in regular use in clinical practice and are frequently the basis for critically important decisions. Many such models have been widely adopted without subsequent efforts to confirm that they actually continue to perform as expected. That is not to say that such models are without utility, because even a suboptimal model may perform better than an unaided clinician. Nevertheless, we believe that a fresh examination of selected, well-established predictive models is warranted if not previously done. JAMA Network Open has published articles addressing prediction of relatively common clinical complications, such as recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding. 6 We think there remains considerable opportunity for research in this vein. In particular, we seek studies that examine current performance of commonly applied clinical prediction rules. We are particularly interested in studies using data from a variety of settings and databases as well as studies that simultaneously assess multiple models addressing the same or similar outcomes.

We also remain interested in the derivation of new models that address a clear clinical need. They should utilize data that are commonly collected as part of routine care, or in principle can be readily extracted from electronic health records. We generally require that prediction models be validated with at least 1 other dataset distinct from the development dataset. In practice, this means data from different health systems or different publicly available or commercial datasets. We note that internal validation techniques, such as split samples, hold-out, k -fold, and others, are not designed to overcome the intrinsic differences between data sources and, therefore, are not suited to quantifying performance externally. While the population to which the models apply should be described explicitly, ideally any such models should be applicable to patients from the wide range of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds commonly encountered in clinic practice. Most importantly, we are interested in examples of models that have been evaluated in clinical settings, assessing their feasibility and potential clinical benefit. This includes studies with negative as well as positive outcomes.

Please see the journal’s Instructions for Authors for information on manuscript preparation and submission. 7 This is not a time-limited call for studies on this topic.

Published: April 12, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.9640

Corresponding Author: Stephan D. Fihn, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Ave, Box 359780, Seattle, WA 98104 ( [email protected] ).

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Berlin reported receiving consulting fees from Kenvue related to acetaminophen outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

See More About

Fihn SD , Berlin JA , Haneuse SJPA , Rivara FP. Prediction Models and Clinical Outcomes—A Call for Papers. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(4):e249640. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.9640

Manage citations:

Select Your Interests

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

Academic Medicine
Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
Allergy and Clinical Immunology
American Indian or Alaska Natives
Anesthesiology
Anticoagulation
Art and Images in Psychiatry
Artificial Intelligence
Assisted Reproduction
Bleeding and Transfusion
Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
Climate and Health
Climate Change
Clinical Challenge
Clinical Decision Support
Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Consensus Statements
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Critical Care Medicine
Cultural Competency
Dental Medicine
Dermatology
Diabetes and Endocrinology
Diagnostic Test Interpretation
Drug Development
Electronic Health Records
Emergency Medicine
End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
Environmental Health
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Facial Plastic Surgery
Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Genetics and Genomics
Genomics and Precision Health
Global Health
Guide to Statistics and Methods
Hair Disorders
Health Care Delivery Models
Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Care Safety
Health Care Workforce
Health Disparities
Health Inequities
Health Policy
Health Systems Science
History of Medicine
Hypertension
Images in Neurology
Implementation Science
Infectious Diseases
Innovations in Health Care Delivery
JAMA Infographic
Law and Medicine
Leading Change
Less is More
LGBTQIA Medicine
Lifestyle Behaviors
Medical Coding
Medical Devices and Equipment
Medical Education
Medical Education and Training
Medical Journals and Publishing
Mobile Health and Telemedicine
Narrative Medicine
Neuroscience and Psychiatry
Notable Notes
Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Occupational Health
Ophthalmology
Orthopedics
Otolaryngology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Care
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Patient Care
Patient Information
Performance Improvement
Performance Measures
Perioperative Care and Consultation
Pharmacoeconomics
Pharmacoepidemiology
Pharmacogenetics
Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Physical Therapy
Physician Leadership
Population Health
Primary Care
Professional Well-being
Professionalism
Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Public Health
Pulmonary Medicine
Regulatory Agencies
Reproductive Health
Research, Methods, Statistics
Resuscitation
Rheumatology
Risk Management
Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
Shared Decision Making and Communication
Sleep Medicine
Sports Medicine
Stem Cell Transplantation
Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
Surgical Innovation
Surgical Pearls
Teachable Moment
Technology and Finance
The Art of JAMA
The Arts and Medicine
The Rational Clinical Examination
Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
Translational Medicine
Trauma and Injury
Treatment Adherence
Ultrasonography
Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
Vaccination
Venous Thromboembolism
Veterans Health
Women's Health
Workflow and Process
Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Get the latest research based on your areas of interest.

Others also liked.

Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
Access PDFs of free articles
Manage your interests
Save searches and receive search alerts

Relationship Between Directly Observed Sensory Reactivity Differences and Classroom Behaviors of Autistic Children

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data
Peer Review
Get Permissions
Cite Icon Cite
Search Site

Hannah Marcham , Teresa Tavassoli; Relationship Between Directly Observed Sensory Reactivity Differences and Classroom Behaviors of Autistic Children. Am J Occup Ther May/June 2024, Vol. 78(3), 7803345010. doi: https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2024.050345

Download citation file:

Ris (Zotero)
Reference Manager

Importance: Differences in sensory reactivity are a core feature of autism; however, more remains to be learned about their role in classroom learning.

Objective: To use direct observational measures to investigate whether there is a link between sensory reactivity differences and classroom behaviors of autistic children.

Design: Correlational study.

Setting: Two special educational needs schools.

Participants: Children with a clinical diagnosis of autism, ages 5 to 18 yr ( N = 53).

Outcomes and Measures: Sensory reactivity differences were assessed with the Sensory Assessment for Neurodevelopmental Differences. Classroom behaviors were measured using the Behavior Assessment for Children–Second Edition Student Observation System.

Results: Total sensory reactivity differences were correlated positively with behaviors that impede learning ( r = .31, p < .05) and negatively with behaviors that facilitate learning ( r = −.38, p < .05). Hyporeactivity differences were correlated positively with behaviors that impede learning ( r = .28, p < .05) and negatively with behaviors that facilitate learning ( r = −.31, p < .05). Hyperreactivity and sensory-seeking differences were not significantly correlated with behavior.

Conclusions and Relevance: Results suggest a link between sensory reactivity differences and classroom behaviors, highlighting a need for further research using observational measures in special education settings.

Plain-Language Summary: Differences in hyporeactivity for children with autism may play a bigger role in classroom behavior and learning than previous literature has suggested. This has implications in occupational therapy practice for how to tailor support for children with hyporeactivity differences.

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

Special Collections
Conference Abstracts
Browse AOTA Taxonomy
AJOT Authors & Issues Series
Online ISSN 1943-7676
Print ISSN 0272-9490
Author Guidelines
Permissions
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Accessibility
Terms of Use

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Academic Research: Differences between MLA and APA Formats

This essay about the distinctions between MLA and APA formats offers a clear guide on when and why to use each in academic writing. It explains that MLA format is preferred in humanities and liberal arts for its focus on authorship and streamlined in-text citations, whereas APA format is favored in the social sciences, emphasizing recent research through citations that include the publication year. Structural differences in title pages, headings, and reference details are highlighted to show how each format caters to the specific needs of its discipline. The essay underscores the importance of choosing the correct format based on the academic field, assignment requirements, or publication standards, illustrating how these formats facilitate clear, organized scholarly communication within their respective areas of study.

How it works

In the world of academic writing, adhering to a specific formatting style is not just about preference but a necessity for clarity, consistency, and scholarly integrity. Among the most widely used styles are the Modern Language Association (MLA) and the American Psychological Association (APA) formats. Each serves its unique purpose and is tailored to the requirements of different fields of study. This comparison seeks to demystify the primary distinctions between MLA and APA formats, guiding students and researchers in choosing the appropriate style for their work.

At the heart of the MLA format is the liberal arts and humanities discipline. It emphasizes authorship because these fields prioritize individual ideas and interpretations. The MLA format uses parenthetical in-text citations with the author’s last name and the page number from which the information was taken, alongside a Works Cited page at the end of the document. This approach facilitates a direct, seamless integration of sources, allowing readers to engage with the text without interruption.

Conversely, the APA format is predominantly used in the social sciences. It focuses on the date of publication, reflecting the importance of recent research in these fields. APA citations include the author’s last name and the year of publication within the text and a reference list at the document’s end. This method underscores the timeliness of the information, which is crucial in disciplines where knowledge constantly evolves.

The structural differences between the two formats extend to the title page, headings, and layout. MLA does not require a title page for most student papers, whereas APA typically requires a title page that includes the paper’s title, the author’s name, and the institutional affiliation. APA also has specific guidelines for headings that help organize the paper into sections and sub-sections, making it easier to navigate through complex studies. MLA’s approach is more straightforward, with fewer requirements for section division, reflecting the often more narrative nature of humanities writing.

Another notable difference lies in the presentation of the reference list. MLA’s Works Cited page is concerned primarily with ensuring readers can find the sources. In contrast, APA’s References page offers more detailed publication information, including the city of publication and the publisher for books, and even the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) for journal articles. This comprehensive approach in APA is designed to facilitate the replication of research, a core aspect of the scientific method.

Choosing between MLA and APA formats ultimately depends on the disciplinary context and the specific requirements of the assignment or publication. Educators and journals usually specify the preferred format, but understanding the rationale behind each style can enhance the writer’s ability to engage with the academic community more effectively.

In conclusion, while MLA and APA formats share the common goal of promoting clear and organized scholarly communication, their differences are tailored to the needs of their respective disciplines. MLA’s streamlined, author-focused approach supports the interpretive nature of the humanities, whereas APA’s detailed, date-focused style is designed to highlight the evolution of knowledge in the social sciences. Recognizing these distinctions not only aids in proper citation but also in appreciating the diverse ways in which knowledge is constructed and shared across the academic landscape. As students and researchers navigate the complex world of academic writing, an understanding of these formats becomes a critical tool in their scholarly arsenal, enabling them to contribute their voices to the ongoing dialogue within their fields.

Cite this page

Academic Research: Differences Between MLA and APA Formats. (2024, Mar 25). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/academic-research-differences-between-mla-and-apa-formats/

"Academic Research: Differences Between MLA and APA Formats." PapersOwl.com , 25 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/academic-research-differences-between-mla-and-apa-formats/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Academic Research: Differences Between MLA and APA Formats . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/academic-research-differences-between-mla-and-apa-formats/ [Accessed: 12 Apr. 2024]

"Academic Research: Differences Between MLA and APA Formats." PapersOwl.com, Mar 25, 2024. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/academic-research-differences-between-mla-and-apa-formats/

"Academic Research: Differences Between MLA and APA Formats," PapersOwl.com , 25-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/academic-research-differences-between-mla-and-apa-formats/. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 12.4.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

The Effectiveness of a Digital App for Reduction of Clinical Symptoms in Individuals With Panic Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors of this article:

Original Paper

KunJung Kim, MD ;
Hyunchan Hwang, MD, PhD ;
Sujin Bae, PhD ;
Sun Mi Kim, MD, PhD ;
Doug Hyun Han, MD, PhD

Chung Ang University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Corresponding Author:

Doug Hyun Han, MD, PhD

Chung Ang University Hospital

102 Heucsock ro

Seoul, 06973

Republic of Korea

Phone: 82 2 6299 3132

Fax:82 2 6299 3100

Email: [email protected]

Background: Panic disorder is a common and important disease in clinical practice that decreases individual productivity and increases health care use. Treatments comprise medication and cognitive behavioral therapy. However, adverse medication effects and poor treatment compliance mean new therapeutic models are needed.

Objective: We hypothesized that digital therapy for panic disorder may improve panic disorder symptoms and that treatment response would be associated with brain activity changes assessed with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS).

Methods: Individuals (n=50) with a history of panic attacks were recruited. Symptoms were assessed before and after the use of an app for panic disorder, which in this study was a smartphone-based app for treating the clinical symptoms of panic disorder, panic symptoms, depressive symptoms, and anxiety. The hemodynamics in the frontal cortex during the resting state were measured via fNIRS. The app had 4 parts: diary, education, quest, and serious games. The study trial was approved by the institutional review board of Chung-Ang University Hospital (1041078-202112-HR-349-01) and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Results: The number of participants with improved panic symptoms in the app use group (20/25, 80%) was greater than that in the control group (6/21, 29%; χ 2 1 =12.3; P =.005). During treatment, the improvement in the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS) score in the app use group was greater than that in the control group ( F 1,44 =7.03; P =.01). In the app use group, the total PDSS score declined by 42.5% (mean score 14.3, SD 6.5 at baseline and mean score 7.2, SD 3.6 after the intervention), whereas the PDSS score declined by 14.6% in the control group (mean score 12.4, SD 5.2 at baseline and mean score 9.8, SD 7.9 after the intervention). There were no significant differences in accumulated oxygenated hemoglobin (accHbO 2 ) at baseline between the app use and control groups. During treatment, the reduction in accHbO 2 in the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC; F 1,44 =8.22; P =.006) and the right orbitofrontal cortex (OFC; F 1,44 =8.88; P =.005) was greater in the app use than the control group.

Conclusions: Apps for panic disorder should effectively reduce symptoms and VLPFC and OFC brain activity in patients with panic disorder. The improvement of panic disorder symptoms was positively correlated with decreased VLPFC and OFC brain activity in the resting state.

Trial Registration: Clinical Research Information Service KCT0007280; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?seq=21448

Introduction

Panic disorder is a common and important disease in clinical practice that leads to a reduction of individual productivity and increased use of health care [ 1 ]. The lifetime prevalence of panic disorder in the general population is 4.8%, and 22.7% of people experience panic attacks [ 2 ]. The most common symptoms of panic disorder include palpitations, shortness of breath, chest pain, numbness of the hands and feet, and cardiorespiratory-type symptoms, in addition to fear of dying, sweating, tremors, dizziness, nausea, and chills [ 3 ]. The US Food and Drug Administration has currently only approved selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for the treatment of panic disorder [ 4 ]. However, it is clinically difficult to expect an improvement in symptoms using SSRIs alone in the acute phase; thus we treat patients with benzodiazepine, which can lead to dependence and withdrawal symptoms [ 5 , 6 ]. The most common side effects of SSRIs reported by patients are reduced sexual function, drowsiness, and weight gain [ 7 ], and clinicians may hesitate to use benzodiazepines due to dependence and withdrawal symptoms [ 8 ]. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the most widely used nonpharmaceutical treatment for anxiety disorders [ 9 ]. Additional nonpharmaceutical treatments, such as group therapy and supportive psychotherapy, are also available for patients with panic disorder [ 10 , 11 ]. However, these treatments have the disadvantage of requiring face-to-face contact; therefore, other therapeutic alternatives should be offered to patients during pandemics such as COVID-19.

The definition of a digital therapeutic (DTx) is a therapeutic that delivers evidence-based interventions to prevent, manage, or treat a medical disorder or disease; DTxs are currently used in many areas [ 12 ]. This kind of medical and public health use of smartphones and digital technologies is also known as mobile health (mHealth). DTxs related to mental health medicine are actively used in various psychiatric disorders, such as insomnia, substance abuse, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and anxiety and depression, among others [ 13 ]. In particular, the use of Freespira, a panic disorder DTx, reduced panic symptoms, avoidance behaviors, and treatment costs in patients with panic disorder [ 14 ].

As brain imaging technology advances, a great deal of functional mapping information on the human brain has been accumulated from positron emission tomography (PET), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). Among these technologies, fNIRS can measure brain activity in a noninvasive and safe manner through measuring changes in the hemoglobin oxygenation state of the human brain [ 15 ]. Various studies have been conducted using fNIRS and fMRI to reveal correlations between panic disorder and brain regions. For example, patients with panic disorder show increased activity in the inferior frontal cortex, hippocampus, cingulate (both anterior and posterior), and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) [ 16 ]. Previously, we confirmed that patients with panic disorder during rest periods showed increased activity in the OFC [ 17 ].

In this study, we determined whether an app for panic disorder would improve panic disorder symptoms. In addition, we used fNIRS to confirm the association between changes in panic disorder symptoms and changes in activity in specific brain regions.

Participants

Patients who had experiences of panic attacks were recruited between March 1 and July 30, 2022, through billboard advertisements at our hospital. The inclusion criteria for the study were as follows: (1) age between 20 and 65 years, (2) diagnosis of panic disorder based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition and (3) ability to use apps without problems. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) a history of other psychiatric disorders, except for anxiety disorder, or substance dependence, except for habitual alcohol and tobacco use; and (2) a history of head trauma and chronic medical conditions. The research clinician assessed whether patients fulfilled the inclusion or exclusion criteria. Written informed consent was acquired from all participants at the first visit. This study has been registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0007280).

Assessment Scales for Anxiety Symptoms

The severity of panic symptoms was assessed using the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS). The PDSS was developed by Shear et al [ 18 ] in 1997. It is a 7-item instrument used to rate the overall severity of panic disorder and was validated in Korea by Lim et al [ 19 ] in 2001.

The anxiety symptoms of all participants were assessed using the clinician-based Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) questionnaire and the participant-based Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire. The HAM-A was developed by Hamilton in 1969 [ 20 ]. The 14-item version remains the most used outcome measure in clinical trials of treatments for anxiety disorders and was validated in Korea by Kim [ 21 ] in 2001.

The GAD-7 questionnaire, developed by Spitzer et al [ 22 ], is a 7-item self-report anxiety questionnaire designed to assess the patient’s health status during the previous 2 weeks. The GAD-7 was translated into the Korean language and is freely downloadable on the Patient Health Questionnaire website [ 23 ].

Hemodynamic Response of the Prefrontal Cortex

The hemodynamics in the frontal cortex during the resting state were measured using the fNIRS device (NIRSIT; OBELAB Inc). The NIRSIT has 24 laser diodes (sources) emitting light at 2 wavelengths (780 nm and 850 nm) and 32 photodetectors with a sampling rate of 8.138 Hz [ 24 ]. The distance between the source and photodetector is 15 mm. Based on the suggested suitable sensor-detector separation distance for measuring cortical hemodynamic changes, only 30-mm channels were analyzed in this study [ 25 ].

For our study, we used the 48-channel configuration ( Figure 1 ). The detected light signals in each wavelength were filtered with a band-pass filter (0.00 Hz-0.1 Hz) to reduce the effect of environmental noise–related light and body movements. In addition, channels with low-quality information (signal-to-noise ratio <30 dB) were removed from the hemodynamic analysis. The accumulated oxygenated hemoglobin (accHbO 2 ) values in the resting state represent the activation of the prefrontal cortex. In accordance with the theory that oxygenated hemoglobin has superior sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio compared to deoxygenated hemoglobin data, only oxygenated hemoglobin were used for this analysis [ 26 - 28 ].

The means and SDs for accHbO 2 were calculated from regions of interest (ROIs) in the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (DLPFCs), right and left ventrolateral prefrontal cortices (VLPFCs), right and left frontopolar cortices (FPCs), and right and left orbitofrontal cortices (OFCs), based on Brodmann area 46. The right and left DLPFCs comprise channels 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 17, and 18 and channels 19, 20, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, and 43, respectively. The right and left VLPFCs comprise channels 4, 9, and 10 and channels 40, 44, and 45, respectively. The right and left FPCs comprise channels 7, 8, 12, 13, 21, 22, 25, and 26 and channels 23, 24, 27, 28, 36, 37, 41, and 42, respectively. The right and left OFCs comprise channels 14, 15, 16, 29, and 30 and channels 31, 32, 46, 47, and 48, respectively ( Figure 1 ).

Digital App for Panic Disorder

The app for panic disorder is a smartphone-based app for treatment of clinical symptoms of panic disorder. The mobile app has 4 categories: diary, education, quest, and serious games. The diary category has three items: (1) assessment of daily psychological status, including mood and anxiety; (2) assessment of panic symptoms, including frequency and severity; and (3) consumption of medication, including regular medication and pro re nata medications. The education category has three items: (1) knowledge about panic disorders, (2) knowledge about medications for panic disorder, and (3) knowledge about panic disorder treatment, including CBT, breathing therapy, and positive thinking therapy. The quests include two treatments: (1) eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy and (2) positive thinking therapy. The serious games include two games: (1) a breathing game and (2) an exposure therapy game.

The diary, education, and serious games (ie, the breathing game and exposure therapy game) are important parts of CBT for panic disorder [ 29 - 32 ]. The efficacy of CBT for panic disorder has been examined in various randomized controlled trials [ 33 , 34 ]. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy are also known to help reduce panic symptoms [ 35 , 36 ]. We confirmed that the replacement of worry with different forms of positive ideation shows beneficial effects [ 37 ], so a similar type of positive thinking therapy can also be expected to show benefits. Multimedia Appendix 1 provides additional information on the app.

Ethical Considerations

The study trial was approved by the institutional review board of Chung-Ang University Hospital (1041078-202112-HR-349-01) and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants received an explanation from the researchers that included an overview of the study and a description of the methodology and purpose before deciding to participate. Additionally, they were informed that participation was voluntary, informed about our confidentiality measures, given the option to withdraw, and informed about potential side effects and compensation. Participants in this study received ₩100,000 (US $75.50) as transportation reimbursement. Additionally, the various scales and fNIRS assessments were offered at no cost to the participants. The participants received the results of the tests in the form of a report via postal mail or email after the conclusion of the study. They also receive an explanatory document and consent form from the researchers that included contact information for any inquiries. If the participant agreed to take part in the study after understanding the consent form, the research proceeded. The participants’ personal information was not collected. Instead, a unique identifier was assigned to the collected data for the sole purpose of research management.

Study Procedure

A randomized and treatment-as-usual–controlled design was applied in this study. After screening, all participants with panic disorder were randomly assigned to the app use group or the control group. The randomization sequence in our design was generated using SPSS (version 24.0; IBM Corp), with a 1:1 allocation between groups. At baseline and after intervention, all patients with panic disorder were assessed with the PDSS for panic symptoms, the HAM-A for objective anxiety symptoms, and the GAD-7 for subjective anxiety symptoms. At baseline and after intervention, the hemodynamic response in all patients with panic disorder was assessed using NIRSIT. The app use group was asked to use the app for panic disorder 20 minutes per day, 5 times per week, for 4 weeks. The control group was asked to read short educational letters that were delivered via a social network service 5 times per week for 4 weeks. The short letters contained information about panic disorder and its treatment.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

After recruitment, 56 patients underwent eligibility assessments. A total of 6 individuals were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The remaining patients were divided into 2 groups: 25 were assigned to the app use group and 21 to the control group, as 4 patients were excluded; contact was suddenly lost with 1 patient contact and 1 dropped out for personal reasons. In addition, 2 patients in the control group quit the study after reporting poor benefits from the short educational letters. Therefore, 25 people in the app use group and 21 people in the control group were analyzed. Figure 2 shows the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flowchart for participant flow through the trial.

There were no significant differences in age, sex ratio, years of education, marital status, employment status, or substance habits, including smoking and alcohol use, between the app use group and the control group ( Table 1 ).

b Chi-square.

There were no significant differences in HAM-A score, GAD-7 score, or PDSS score at baseline between the app use group and control group ( Table 1 ).

Comparison of Changes in Clinical Scales Between App Use Group and Control Group

The number of participants with improved panic symptoms in the app use group (20/25, 80%) was greater than in the control group (6/21, 29%; χ 2 1 =12.3; P =.005).

During the treatment period, the app use group showed greater improvement in PDSS score than the control group ( F 1,44 =7.03; P =.01). In the app use group, the PDSS score decreased by 42.5% (mean score 14.3, SD 6.5 at baseline and mean score 7.2, SD 3.6 after the intervention), while the score decreased by 14.6% in the control group (mean score 12.4, SD 5.2 at baseline and mean score 9.8, SD 7.9 after intervention) ( Figure 3 ).

During the treatment period, there were no significant differences in the change in HAM-A scores ( F 1,44 =2.83; P =.09) and GAD-7 scores ( F 1,44 =0.22; P =.64) between the app use group and control group ( Figure 3 ).

Comparison of Changes in accHbO 2 Values Between App Use Group and Control Group

There were no significant differences in accHbO 2 in the right (t 45 =0.84; P =.40) or left (t 45 =0.73; P =.46) DLPFCs, right (t 45 =1.04; P =.31) or left (t 45 =0.88; P =.39) VLPFCs, right (t 45 =-0.18; P =.86) or left (t 45 =1.85; P =.07) FPCs, or right (t 45 =0.33; P =.74) or left (t 45 =1.89; P =.07) OFCs in the app use and control groups at baseline.

During the treatment period, the app use group showed a greater reduction in accHbO 2 in the right VLPFC ( F 1,44 =8.22; P =.006) and right OFC ( F 1,44 =8.88; P =.005) compared to the control group ( Figure 1 ). During the treatment period, there were no significant differences in the change in accHbO 2 in the other ROIs between the app use and control groups.

Correlations Between the Changes in PDSS Scores and the Changes in accHbO 2

In all participants (ie, the app use group plus the control group), there was a positive correlation between the change in PDSS score and the change in accHbO 2 in the right VLPFC ( r =0.44; P =.002). In the app use group, there was a positive correlation between the change in PDSS score and the changes in accHbO 2 in the right VLPFC ( r =0.42; P =.04). However, in the control group, there was no significant correlation between the change in PDSS score and the change in accHbO 2 in the right VLPFC ( r =0.22; P =.16).

In all participants, there was a positive correlation between the change in PDSS score and the change in accHbO 2 in the right OFC ( r =0.44; P =.002). In both the app use group ( r =0.34; P =.09) and control group ( r =0.33; P =.13), there was no significant correlation between the change in PDSS score and the change in accHbO 2 in the right OFC ( Figure 4 ).

Principal Findings

This study showed that a digital app was effective for symptom reduction, as well as decreasing brain activity in the VLPFCs and OFCs, in patients with panic disorder. In addition, the panic disorder symptom improvement was positively correlated with decreased brain activity in the VLPFCs and OFCs in the resting state.

The digital app used in this trial proved to be effective in reducing panic symptoms when compared to the control group, as demonstrated by the reduction in the PDSS score. We believe that this is due to the combined effect of the 4 parts of the program, namely the diary, education, quest, and serious games. The diary component helps identify and correct faulty perceptions and enables cognitive reconstruction. The education component provides information about the nature and physiology of panic disorder. The breathing game helps the participant return to a relaxed condition, while the exposure therapy game allows the participant to experience agoraphobic situations in a safe environment, which helps cognitive restructuring. These are the important parts of CBT for panic disorder and have shown efficacy, as reported earlier [ 29 - 32 ]. The control group also received educational data, including the importance of keeping a diary of one’s panic symptoms and how to do it, as well as self-guided direction on breathing exercises, but failed to show a significant reduction of symptoms compared to the app use group. We think this is due to lack of proper feedback in the control group. The app shows real-time feedback on breathing exercises using breathing sounds, and a message was sent if the user of the program failed to use the program for more than 2 days. We know that the therapeutic effect is better when immediate feedback is provided to patients undergoing CBT treatment [ 38 ]. Therefore, we think that the decrease in PDSS score was smaller because the control group did not receive feedback from the app.

The control group also received educational data on diary recording, panic disorder information, and how to execute breathing therapy and exposure therapy. We measured their reduction in the PDSS score, but we found it was less than in the app use group due to a lack of proper daily management.

However, the app failed to lead to a difference in the reduction in anxiety, as defined by the HAM-A and GAD-7 scales, between the 2 groups. This is most likely due to a lack of power, as the trial was conducted as a pilot study. Other studies using CBT techniques or serious games have demonstrated reductions in anxiety symptoms in patients with panic disorder [ 14 ]. Likewise, this study showed a trend toward a reduction in anxiety symptoms, although this was not statistically significant, and future research with more participants may show that these kinds of programs are also effective in controlling anxiety.

Two major changes in brain activity were noted in the app use group, namely reductions in VLPFC and OFC activation. The functions of the OFC are varied and include control of inappropriate behavior and emotional responses, decision-making, and solving problems [ 39 , 40 ]. Abnormalities in the function of the OFC can cause problems in dealing with anxiety and show that it is deeply involved in the increasing the sense of fear in the fear response [ 17 ]. The results of this study confirm that OFC activity decreases as treatment progresses. This reinforces the results of a previous study, which showed that patients with panic disorder had increased OFC activity and that when the panic disorder was treated, the activity of the OFC was reduced, as indicated by decreased cerebral glucose metabolic rates [ 17 , 41 ].

The VLPFC is known to be associated with the amygdala and to maintain flexible attention and responses to environmental threats [ 42 , 43 ]. The amygdala is the backbone of the fear network, and the VLPFC is also known to be deeply involved in the processing of fear [ 43 - 45 ]. Several studies have shown increased activity in patients with panic disorder in the inferior frontal gyrus, which envelops the VLPFC, and other related regions, including the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and OFC [ 16 , 46 , 47 ]. After panic disorder treatment, such as with CBT, decreased amygdala and inferior frontal gyrus activation in fear situations was confirmed [ 48 , 49 ]. Through panic disorder treatment, inferior frontal gyrus activation decreased to a normal level; this happened because the treatment reduced fear cognition related to harm expectancy or attention to threats [ 49 - 51 ]. We consider that VLPFC activation increases to modulate the amygdala and decreases with treatment for panic disorder.

We believe that these reductions of brain activity in the VLPFC and OFC reflect how the app affected the patients. We know that overprediction of fear or panic is an important feature of anxiety disorders [ 52 ]. The app for panic disorder, including diary, education, quest, and serious game components, allowed users to correct their faulty perceptions about fear. As mentioned earlier, the VLPFC and OFC are related to fear management, so we can expect that activity of the VLPFC and OFC will be reduced through repeated app use as users learn how to deal with fear.

Limitations

This study has the following limitations: Most of the patients were effectively treated with alprazolam or other anxiolytics, such as SSRIs. Thus, treatment with antianxiety drugs may have influenced our results. Moreover, this study assessed changes immediately after app use. A long-term follow-up to evaluate the sustainability of the observed improvements would provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of the intervention over time. App use time could be easily tracked for the app use group; however, it was challenging to independently monitor the time the control group spent reading educational materials. Due to the limitations of available research tools, no investigation has been conducted on deep brain structures such as the amygdala, which is most closely related to panic disorders.

Conclusions

We believe that this app for panic disorder effectively reduces symptoms and noticeably impacts brain activity in specific areas. We observed a positive link between improvement in panic symptoms and decreased brain activity in the VLPFCs and OFCs in a resting state. These findings support the use of targeted interventions to determine the brain’s contribution to symptom relief. Further research should explore the duration of these positive effects and make digital therapy accessible to more individuals, thus unlocking its full potential in mental health care.

Data Availability

The data sets generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available as they contain information that could compromise the privacy and consent of the research participants. However, the transformed data are available upon reasonable request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Digital app for panic disorder.

CONSORT-eHEALTH checklist (V 1.6.1).

Roy-Byrne PP, Craske MG, Stein MB. Panic disorder. Lancet. Sep 16, 2006;368(9540):1023-1032. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Jin R, Ruscio AM, Shear K, Walters EE. The epidemiology of panic attacks, panic disorder, and agoraphobia in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. Apr 2006;63(4):415-424. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Meuret AE, White KS, Ritz T, Roth WT, Hofmann SG, Brown TA. Panic attack symptom dimensions and their relationship to illness characteristics in panic disorder. J Psychiatr Res. Sep 2006;40(6):520-527. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Locke A, Kirst N, Shultz CG. Diagnosis and management of generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder in adults. Am Fam Physician. May 01, 2015;91(9):617-624. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Bruce SE, Vasile RG, Goisman RM, Salzman C, Spencer M, Machan JT, et al. Are benzodiazepines still the medication of choice for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia? Am J Psychiatry. Aug 2003;160(8):1432-1438. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Owen R, Tyrer P. Benzodiazepine dependence. A review of the evidence. Drugs. Apr 1983;25(4):385-398. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Cascade E, Kalali AH, Kennedy SH. Real-world data on SSRI antidepressant side effects. Psychiatry (Edgmont). Feb 2009;6(2):16-18. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
Breilmann J, Girlanda F, Guaiana G, Barbui C, Cipriani A, Castellazzi M, et al. Benzodiazepines versus placebo for panic disorder in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Mar 28, 2019;3(3):CD010677. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Schuurmans J, Comijs H, Emmelkamp PMG, Weijnen IJC, van den Hout M, van Dyck R. Long-term effectiveness and prediction of treatment outcome in cognitive behavioral therapy and sertraline for late-life anxiety disorders. Int Psychogeriatr. Dec 2009;21(6):1148-1159. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Rufer M, Albrecht R, Schmidt O, Zaum J, Schnyder U, Hand I, et al. Changes in quality of life following cognitive-behavioral group therapy for panic disorder. Eur Psychiatry. Jan 2010;25(1):8-14. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Shear MK, Houck P, Greeno C, Masters S. Emotion-focused psychotherapy for patients with panic disorder. Am J Psychiatry. Dec 2001;158(12):1993-1998. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Digital health, digital medicine, digital therapeutics (DTx): What’s the difference. HealthXL. Oct 23, 2023. URL: https://www.healthxl.com/blog/digital-health-digital-medicine-digital-therapeutics-dtx-whats-the-difference [accessed 2023-03-19]
Cho C, Lee H. Could digital therapeutics be a game changer in psychiatry? Psychiatry Investig. Feb 2019;16(2):97-98. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Kaplan A, Mannarino AP, Nickell PV. Evaluating the impact of Freespira on panic disorder patients' health outcomes and healthcare costs within the Allegheny Health Network. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. Sep 2020;45(3):175-181. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Hoshi Y. Functional near-infrared optical imaging: utility and limitations in human brain mapping. Psychophysiology. Jul 2003;40(4):511-520. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Bystritsky A, Pontillo D, Powers M, Sabb FW, Craske MG, Bookheimer SY. Functional MRI changes during panic anticipation and imagery exposure. Neuroreport. Dec 21, 2001;12(18):3953-3957. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Milad MR, Rauch SL. The role of the orbitofrontal cortex in anxiety disorders. Ann N Y Acad Sci. Dec 2007;1121(1):546-561. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Shear MK, Brown TA, Barlow DH, Money R, Sholomskas DE, Woods SW, et al. Multicenter collaborative Panic Disorder Severity Scale. Am J Psychiatry. Nov 1997;154(11):1571-1575. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Lim YJ, Yu BH, Kim JH. Korean Panic Disorder Severity Scale: construct validity by confirmatory factor analysis. Depress Anxiety. 2007;24(2):95-102. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Maier W, Buller R, Philipp M, Heuser I. The Hamilton Anxiety Scale: reliability, validity and sensitivity to change in anxiety and depressive disorders. J Affect Disord. 1988;14(1):61-68. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Kim CY. Psychiatric Assessment Instruments. Seoul, South Korea. Hana Psychiatric Publishing; 2001;99-101.
Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. May 22, 2006;166(10):1092-1097. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Screener overview. PHQ Screeners. URL: https://www.phqscreeners.com/select-screener [accessed 2024-03-27]
Choi J, Kim J, Hwang G, Yang J, Choi M, Bae H. Time-divided spread-spectrum code-based 400 fw-detectable multichannel fNIRS IC for portable functional brain imaging. IEEE J Solid-State Circuits. Feb 2016;51(2):484-495. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
Yamamoto T, Maki A, Kadoya T, Tanikawa Y, Yamad Y, Okada E, et al. Arranging optical fibres for the spatial resolution improvement of topographical images. Phys Med Biol. Sep 21, 2002;47(18):3429-3440. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Cui X, Bray S, Bryant DM, Glover GH, Reiss AL. A quantitative comparison of NIRS and fMRI across multiple cognitive tasks. Neuroimage. Feb 14, 2011;54(4):2808-2821. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Miyai I, Tanabe HC, Sase I, Eda H, Oda I, Konishi I, et al. Cortical mapping of gait in humans: a near-infrared spectroscopic topography study. Neuroimage. Nov 2001;14(5):1186-1192. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Strangman G, Culver JP, Thompson JH, Boas DA. A quantitative comparison of simultaneous BOLD fMRI and NIRS recordings during functional brain activation. Neuroimage. Oct 2002;17(2):719-731. [ Medline ]
Barlow DH, Craske MG, Cerny JA, Klosko JS. Behavioral treatment of panic disorder. Behav Ther. 1989;20(2):261-282. [ CrossRef ]
Clark D, Salkovskis PM, Hackmann A, Wells A, Ludgate J, Gelder M. Brief cognitive therapy for panic disorder: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. Aug 1999;67(4):583-589. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Telch MJ, Lucas JA, Schmidt NB, Hanna HH, LaNae Jaimez T, Lucas RA. Group cognitive-behavioral treatment of panic disorder. Behav Res Ther. Mar 1993;31(3):279-287. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Bouchard S, Gauthier J, Laberge B, French D, Pelletier M, Godbout C. Exposure versus cognitive restructuring in the treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia. Behav Res Ther. Mar 1996;34(3):213-224. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Barlow D, Gorman JM, Shear MK, Woods SW. Cognitive-behavioral therapy, imipramine, or their combination for panic disorder: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. May 17, 2000;283(19):2529-2536. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Gould RA, Ott MW, Pollack MH. A meta-analysis of treatment outcome for panic disorder. Clin Psychol Rev. Jan 1995;15(8):819-844. [ CrossRef ]
Faretta E. EMDR and cognitive behavioral therapy in the treatment of panic disorder: a comparison. J EMDR Prac Res. Jan 01, 2013;7(3):121-133. [ CrossRef ]
Goldstein AJ, Feske U. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for panic disorder: a case series. J Anxiety Disord. 1994;8(4):351-362. [ CrossRef ]
Eagleson C, Hayes S, Mathews A, Perman G, Hirsch CR. The power of positive thinking: pathological worry is reduced by thought replacement in generalized anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther. Mar 2016;78:13-18. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Shapiro JR, Bauer S. Use of short message service (SMS)-based interventions to enhance low intensity CBT. Oxford guide to low intensity CBT interventions. In: Bennett-Levy J, editor. Oxford Guide to Low Intensity CBT Interventions. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press; 2010;281-286.
Schoenbaum G, Roesch M. Orbitofrontal cortex, associative learning, and expectancies. Neuron. Sep 01, 2005;47(5):633-636. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
O'Doherty J. Can't learn without you: predictive value coding in orbitofrontal cortex requires the basolateral amygdala. Neuron. Aug 28, 2003;39(5):731-733. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Nordahl TE, Stein MB, Benkelfat C, Semple WE, Andreason P, Zametkin A, et al. Regional cerebral metabolic asymmetries replicated in an independent group of patients with panic disorders. Biol Psychiatry. Nov 15, 1998;44(10):998-1006. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Monk CS, Nelson EE, McClure EB, Mogg K, Bradley BP, Leibenluft E, et al. Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex activation and attentional bias in response to angry faces in adolescents with generalized anxiety disorder. Am J Psychiatry. Jun 2006;163(6):1091-1097. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Hariri AR, Mattay VS, Tessitore A, Fera F, Weinberger DR. Neocortical modulation of the amygdala response to fearful stimuli. Biol Psychiatry. Mar 15, 2003;53(6):494-501. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Gorman J, Kent JM, Sullivan GM, Coplan JD. Neuroanatomical hypothesis of panic disorder, revised. Am J Psychiatry. Apr 2000;157(4):493-505. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Tian S, Huang F, Gao J, Li P, Ouyang X, Zhou S, et al. Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex is required for fear extinction in a modified delay conditioning paradigm in rats. Neuroscience. Aug 25, 2011;189:258-268. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Ball TM, Ramsawh HJ, Campbell-Sills L, Paulus MP, Stein MB. Prefrontal dysfunction during emotion regulation in generalized anxiety and panic disorders. Psychol Med. Jul 2013;43(7):1475-1486. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Dresler T, Hindi Attar C, Spitzer C, Löwe B, Deckert J, Büchel C, et al. Neural correlates of the emotional Stroop task in panic disorder patients: an event-related fMRI study. J Psychiatr Res. Dec 2012;46(12):1627-1634. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Beutel M, Stark R, Pan H, Silbersweig D, Dietrich S. Changes of brain activation pre-post short-term psychodynamic inpatient psychotherapy: an fMRI study of panic disorder patients. Psychiatry Res. Nov 30, 2010;184(2):96-104. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Kircher T, Arolt V, Jansen A, Pyka M, Reinhardt I, Kellermann T, et al. Effect of cognitive-behavioral therapy on neural correlates of fear conditioning in panic disorder. Biol Psychiatry. Jan 01, 2013;73(1):93-101. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Hofmann S. Cognitive processes during fear acquisition and extinction in animals and humans: implications for exposure therapy of anxiety disorders. Clin Psychol Rev. Feb 2008;28(2):199-210. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Bishop SJ. Neural mechanisms underlying selective attention to threat. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1129(1):141-152. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Rachman S. The overprediction of fear: a review. Behav Res Ther. Sep 1994;32(7):683-690. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 03.08.23; peer-reviewed by M Aksoy; comments to author 01.09.23; revised version received 11.09.23; accepted 08.03.24; published 12.04.24.

©KunJung Kim, Hyunchan Hwang, Sujin Bae, Sun Mi Kim, Doug Hyun Han. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 12.04.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

IMAGES

What is the Difference Between Article and Journal
Research Paper vs. Review Paper: Differences Between Research Papers
Journal Article vs. Research Paper
Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper
Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper
Difference Between Journal and Research Paper?

VIDEO

Difference between Research paper and a review. Which one is more important?
How to find Q1 Journals and Research Papers for Thesis
Difference between Survey paper Vs Review Article Vs Research Paper
How I Published 50+ Research Papers as an Undergraduate Student
Peer Review of Open Access Journals
Conference vs Journal for publishing Research papers

COMMENTS

Understanding the Difference Between Research Papers and Journals
The typeface used for Research Papers is typically 12 point Times New Roman while the font size for Journals can vary. Another difference is that different citation methods are used; MLA format might be expected to be used with Research Paper whereas AMA or APA may be preferred by Journals.
White papers, working papers, preprints: What's the difference?
Preprints, like academic journal articles, are assigned a Digital Object Identifier, or DOI, and become a permanent part of the scientific record. White paper. A white paper is a report, often compiled by government agencies, businesses and nonprofit organizations, that outlines an issue and often explores possible solutions to a problem.
Journal Article vs Research Paper: Difference and Comparison
A journal article is a shorter scholarly writing published in a specific academic journal. A research paper is a more extended, comprehensive academic writing presenting original research. Journal articles are more focused and present specific findings, while research papers are broader and present a more comprehensive study. Summary.
Types of journal articles
Original Research: This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies.
Journal Article vs. Research Paper
A Journal Article is a scholarly piece often written by experts in a particular field, intended for a specialized audience, while a Research Paper is an in-depth study or argument about a specific topic, crafted by students or researchers.
Health Sciences Research Strategies
Peer-review is a process through which editors of a journal have other experts in the field evaluate articles submitted to the journal for possible publication. Different journals have different ways of defining an expert in the field. Scholarly works, by contrast have an editorial process, but this process does not involve expert peer-reviewers.
Full article: "Doing Research": Understanding the Different Types of
1. A) Peer-reviewed articles are the most academic and scholarly in the journal; these articles create new ideas and drive the academic literature forward. These articles are often cross-disciplinary, using theories or research methodologies to explore an element of the voice field or voice pedagogy.
Difference between Journal and Research papers
This ordinarily depends on the repetition of communication of the publication. At the same time, a journal that issues reports twice a year will be likely to have a less adaptable inspection period than a journal that publishes several papers per year. Other publications have prominent issues where a number persists to be open and innovative ...
Difference Between Journal and Research Paper?
However, the key difference between a journal and a research paper is that a journal is limited to 5,000 - 10,000 words unlike a research paper. A journal can provide you with a list of national and international conferences as it is a periodical publication. It also provides you with conference alerts as it is a periodical publication like ...
What are the Different Types of Research Papers?
The objective of relative research papers is to increase knowledge and understand issues in different contexts. Survey research papers require that a survey be conducted on a given topic by posing questions to potential respondents. Once the survey has been completed, the researcher analyzes the information and presents it as a research paper.
Difference Between Research Paper and Journal Article
While both forms utilize the same techniques, a research paper gets done under the evaluation of a teacher or instructor. Another small difference is the extent of the references used. Most often in a journal article, a reader can expect to find an extensive bibliography, whereas a research paper won't warrant as extensive of a reference list.
Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper
Having said that, one thing that needs to be made clear is that the length of it is contingent on the setting of the study. However, a research paper can be anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 words long, whereas a journal can only be between 5,000 and 10,000 words long at most. This is the primary distinction between the two types of writing.
Difference between Journal Article and Research Paper
The difference between a journal article and a research paper is that the journal article is well researched and extensive. It is also conceptual and well-suited for the academic audience. Research papers on the other hand focus on a specific viewpoint and substantiate the viewpoint with relevant theories. Research papers require many extensive ...
What Is the Difference Between Conference Papers, Journal Papers, Term
Almost all scholars who perform research come across this basic question. And if you are in this field, you should know the basic differences among the various manuscript of research work. Things are readily available at one click today and that is why, it is more important to know the difference between conferences, journal, patents, proceedings, etc. so that you refer the right piece of work ...
Content and form of original research articles in general major medical
Reviewer #2: The paper titled "Title Content and Form of Original Research Articles in High-Ranked Medical Journals" investigates the differences of title content and form between papers in the medical field and their changes over time. Overall, the paper is well-written and well-argued.
Difference b/w journal paper, conference paper & Book chapter
The major difference between a journal paper, a conference paper, and a book chapter lies in the length of writing articles. The journal paper is usually 20-25 pages, while the conference paper is usually less than 12 pages. On the other hand, book chapters should be written in a range of 3000-4000 words. Research articles that are accepted ...
Generations and Generational Differences: Debunking Myths in
An important difference to generational research is that these analyses focus on individual development and outcomes and not on group-based differences. In contrast to research in the field of sociology, the lifespan perspective generally does not make use of the generations concept and associated generational labels.
Prediction Models and Clinical Outcomes—A Call for Papers
The need to classify disease and predict outcomes is as old as medicine itself. Nearly 50 years ago, the advantage of applying multivariable statistics to these problems became evident. 1 Since then, the increasing availability of databases containing often-complex clinical information from tens or even hundreds of millions of patients, combined with powerful statistical techniques and ...
Relationship Between Directly Observed Sensory Reactivity Differences
Importance: Differences in sensory reactivity are a core feature of autism; however, more remains to be learned about their role in classroom learning. Objective: To use direct observational measures to investigate whether there is a link between sensory reactivity differences and classroom behaviors of autistic children. Design: Correlational study. ...
Academic Research: Differences between MLA and APA Formats
In contrast, APA's References page offers more detailed publication information, including the city of publication and the publisher for books, and even the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) for journal articles. This comprehensive approach in APA is designed to facilitate the replication of research, a core aspect of the scientific method.
Journal of Medical Internet Research
This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue: eHealth Literacy / Digital Literacy (328) Focus Groups and Qualitative Research for Human Factors Research (700) Adoption and Change Management of eHealth Systems (639) Health Care Quality and Health Services Research (211) Health Literacy, Health Numeracy, and Numeracy (14) Demographics of Users, Social & Digital Divide (651)
Journal of Medical Internet Research
This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue: Digital Health Reviews (1108) Mobile Health (mhealth) (2614) Theoretical Frameworks and Concepts (215) Adoption and Change Management of eHealth Systems (639) Knowledge Translation and Implementation Science (341) Evaluation and Research Methodology for mHealth (185) Development and Evaluation of Research Methods, Instruments and Tools ...
Journal of Medical Internet Research
This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue: Mobile Health (mhealth) (2614) e-Mental Health and Cyberpsychology (1316) Anxiety and Stress Disorders (966) Formative Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions (2062) mHealth for Wellness, Behavior Change and Prevention (2632) Panic Disorder (18) mHealth for Rehabilitation (216) mHealth for Symptom and Disease Monitoring, Chronic ...
Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction
A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any ...
How to Hit a Golf Ball Farther, According to Research
Golfers are constantly trying all sorts of things to improve their golf game. They try new clubs, new grips, new stance, new attitude. But they often ignore the one thing that is most effective ...

Understanding the Difference Between Research Papers and Journals

I. Introduction

White papers, working papers, preprints, journal articles: What’s the difference?

Republish this article

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

Journal Article vs Research Paper: Difference and Comparison

Journal Article vs Research Paper

Comparison Table

Content and Structure

Similar Reads

Peer Review Process:

What is Research Paper?

1. Content and Structure

Characteristics and Scope

Main Differences Between Journal Article and Research Paper

Share this post!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Types of journal articles

Journal Article vs. Research Paper — What's the Difference?

Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper

Author Spotlight

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

New Comparisons

Trending Terms

Contact me for research assistance

Distinguishing between different types of journal articles

What makes information peer-reviewed vs. scholarly vs. non-scholarly? Which type of source should I use?

Difference Between A Journal and Conference Papers

Related Posts

How To Publish Research Paper? Step-by-Step Procedure

CONFERENCE ALERTS

Difference Between Journal and Research Paper?

By Conference Alerts

Related Post

International Conferences In Canada 2024-2025 With Invitation Letter

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

What are the Different Types of Research Papers?

Different types of research papers

Some more types of research papers

Related Reads:

Plagiarism Checkers vs. AI Content Detection: Navigating the Academic Landscape

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESEARCH PAPER AND JOURNAL ARTICLE

Research Paper

Argumentative Research Paper

Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper

Table of Contents

MLA Style Citation

Chicago Style Citation

APA Style Citation

Share this article

Difference between Journal Article and Research Paper

Journal Article Vs. Research Paper

What is a Journal Article?

What is a Research Paper?

Difference b/w journal paper, conference paper & Book chapter

Journal Paper

Conference Paper

Book Chapters

The difference between journal papers, conference papers, and book chapters

Frequently Asked Questions

Share this:

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

Rachel S. Rauvola

David P. Costanza

Hannes Zacher

Debunking Ten Myths About Generations in Organizational Science and Practice

Myth #2: Generational Explanations Are Obvious

Myth #3: Generational Labels and Associated Age Ranges Are Agreed Upon

Myth #4: Generations Are Easy To Study

Myth #5: Statistical Models Can Help Disentangle Generational Differences

Myth #6: Generations Need To Be Managed at Work

Myth #7: Members of Younger Generations Are Disrupting Work

Myth #8: Generations Explain the Changing Nature of Work (and Society)

Myth # 9: Studying Age at Work Is the Antidote to the Problems with Studying Generations

Myth #10: Talking About Generations Is Largely Benign

Moving Beyond Generations: Two Alternative Models

The Social Constructionist Perspective

The Lifespan Development Perspective