Cited by 19

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

You’ve got mail: does workplace telepressure relate to email communication?

Cambier, Ruben, Vlerick, Peter·2020·Cognition, Technology & Work

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10111-019-00592-1

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Bandura A (1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol 44:1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Barber LK, Conlin AL, Santuzzi AM (2019) Workplace telepressure and work–life balance outcomes: the role of work recovery experiences. Stress Health. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2864 (Advanced online publication) · DOI · Paper page
  3. Berghel H (1997) E-mail—the good, the bad, and the ugly. Commun ACM 40:11–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/248448.248450 · DOI
  4. Cambier R, Derks D, Vlerick P (2019) Detachment from work: a diary study on telepressure, smartphone use and empathy. Psychologica Belgica 59:227–245. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.477 · DOI
  5. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2010) Microeconometrics using stata, Rev edn. Stata Press, College Station, Texas
  6. Credé M, Harms PD, Niehorster S, Gaye-Valentine A (2012) An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the big five personality traits. J Pers Soc Psychol 102:874–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027403 · DOI
  7. Dabbish LA, Kraut RE, Fussel S, Kiesler S (2005) Understanding email use: predicting action on a message. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, Oregon, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055068 · DOI
  8. Duan N (1983) Smearing estimate: a nonparametric retransformation method. J Am Stat Assoc 78:605–610 · DOI
  9. Good PI, Hardin JW (2012) Common errors in statistics (and how to avoid them), 4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118360125 · DOI
  10. Grawitch MJ, Werth PM, Palmer SN, Erb KR, Lavigne KN (2017) Self-imposed pressure or organizational norms? Further examination of the construct workplace telepressure. Stress and Health 34:306–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2792 · DOI
  11. Hu X, Santuzzi AM, Barber LK (2019) Disconnecting to detach: the role of impaired recovery in negative consequences of workplace telepressure. J Work Org Psychol 35:9–15. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a2 · DOI
  12. Kalman YM, Ravid G (2015) Filing, piling, and everything in between: the dynamics of E-mail inbox management. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol 66:2540–2552. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23337 · DOI
  13. Kalman YM, Ravid G, Raban DR, Rafaeli S (2006) Pauses and response latencies: a chronemic analysis of asynchronous CMC. J Comput Mediat Commun 12:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00312.x · DOI
  14. Kalman YM, Scissors LE, Gill AJ, Gergle D (2013) Online chronemics convey social information. Comput Hum Behav 29:1260–1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.036 · DOI
  15. Kruyen PM, Emons WHM, Sijtsma K (2013) On the shortcomings of shortened tests: a literature review. Int J Test 13:223–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2012.703734 · DOI
  16. Mackay WE (1988) Diversity in the use of electronic mail: a preliminary inquiry. J ACM Trans Inform Syst (TOIS) 6:380–397. https://doi.org/10.1145/58566.58567 · DOI
  17. Mazmanian M, Yates J, Orlikowski WJ (2006) Ubiquitous email: Individual experiences and organizational consequences of blackberry use. Best Paper Proceedings of the 65th Academy of Management Meeting, Atlanta, GA. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2006.27169074 · DOI
  18. Rammstedt B, Beierlein C (2014) Can’t we make it any shorter? J Individ Differ 35:212–220. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000141 · DOI
  19. Rosenberg RS (1999) The workplace on the verge of the 21st century. J Bus Ethics 22:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006133732667 · DOI
  20. Sainani KL (2012) Dealing with non-normal data. PM R 4:1001–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.10.013 · DOI
  21. Santuzzi AM, Barber LK (2018) Workplace telepressure and worker well-being: the interventing role of psychological detachment. Occup Health Sci 2:337–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-018-0022-8 · DOI
  22. Towers I, Duxbury L, Higgings C, Thomas J (2006) Time thieves and space invaders: technology, work and the organization. J Org Change Manag 19:593–618. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810610686076 · DOI
  23. Van Laethem M, van Vianen AEM, Derks D (2018) Daily fluctuations in smartphone use, psychological detachment, and work engagement: the role of workplace elepressure. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01808 · DOI
  24. Vanden Abeele M, Beullens K, Roe K (2013) Measuring mobile phone use: gender, age and real usage level in relation to the accuracy and validity of self-reported mobile phone use. Mobil Media Commun 1:213–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157913477095 · DOI
  25. Whittaker S, Sidner C (1996) Email overload: Exploring personal information management of email. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1145/238386.238530 · DOI
  26. Whittaker S, Bellotti V, Gwizdka J (2006) Email in personal information management. Commun ACM 49:68–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/1107458.1107494 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Cambier, R., & Vlerick, P.
Venue
Cognition, Technology & Work
Published
2019-08-27
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
633-640
ISSN
  • 1435-5558
  • 1435-5566
Cited by
19
References
5
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review