CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Emerging Technologies and Family Communication: The Case of International Students

Bacigalupe, Gonzalo, Bräuninger, Iris·2017·Contemporary Family Therapy
DOI 10.1007/s10591-017-9437-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10591-017-9437-7

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Aguila, A. P. N. (2009). Living long-distance relationships through computer-mediated communication. Social Science Diliman, 5, 83–106.
  2. Akyıl, Y., Bacigalupe, G., & Üstünel, C. Ö. (2017). Emerging technologies and family: A Cross-National Study of Family clinicians’ views. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 28, 1–19. · DOI
  3. Alonso, A., & Oiarzabal, P. J. (2010). Diasporas in the new media age: Identity, politics, and community. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press.
  4. Aponte, R. (2009). The communications revolution and its impact on the family: Significant, growing, but skewed and limited in scope. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 576–586. doi: 10.1080/01494920903396778 . · DOI
  5. Aquino, R., Counselling, M. E., & Weber, L. (2009). Promoting the wellbeing and safety of international students: Considering how we can better welcome and serve international students. In CBIE Quebec Regional Conference. March 25, 2009.
  6. Bacigalupe, G., & Cámara, M. (2012). Transnational families and social technologies: Reassessing immigration psychology. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38, 1425–1438. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2012.698211 . · DOI
  7. Bacigalupe, G., & Lambe, S. (2011). Virtualizing intimacy: Information communication technologies and transnational families in therapy. Family Process, 50, 12–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01343.x . · DOI
  8. Baldassar, L. (2008). Missing kin and longing to be together: Emotions and the construction of co-presence in transnational relationships. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 29, 247–266. doi: 10.1080/07256860802169196 . · DOI · Paper page
  9. Baron, N. S. (2011). Concerns about mobile phones: A cross–national study. First Monday, 16. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3335/3032 . · DOI
  10. Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., Kunkel, A., Ledbetter, A., & Lin, M. C. (2007). Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society, 9, 735–752. doi: 10.1177/1461444807080339 . · DOI
  11. Bodycott, P. (2009). Choosing a higher education study abroad destination. Journal of Research in International Education, 8, 349–373. doi: 10.1177/1475240909345818 . · DOI
  12. Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2009). Digital diasporas: Identity and transnational engagement. New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  13. Carling, J. (2008). The human dynamics of migrant transnationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31, 1452–1477. doi: 10.1080/01419870701719097 . · DOI · Paper page
  14. Carvalho, J., Fonseca, G., Francisco, R., Bacigalupe, G., & Relvas, A. P. (2016). Information and communication technologies and family: Patterns of use, life cycle and family dynamics. Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy, 6(1), 1–3. · DOI
  15. Cemalcilar, Z., Falbo, T., & Stapleton, L. M. (2005). Cyber communication: A new opportunity for international students’ adaptation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 91–110. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.002 . · DOI
  16. Chen, Y. F., & Katz, J. E. (2009). Extending family to school life: College students’ use of the mobile phone. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 179–191. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.09.002 . · DOI
  17. Dekker, R., & Engbersen, G. (2012). How social media transform migrant networks and facilitate migration. IMI Working Papers Series, 64, 1–21.
  18. Furukama, R., & Driessnack, M. (2012). Video-mediated communication to support distant family connectedness. Clinical Nursing Resarch. doi: 10.1177/1054773812446150 . · DOI
  19. Gentzler, A. L., Oberhauser, A. M., Westerman, D., & Nadorff, D. K. (2011). College students’ use of electronic communication with parents: Links to loneliness, attachment, and relationship quality. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 71–74. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0409 . · DOI
  20. Gora, Y. (2009). Information and communication technologies (ICT) and effects on ‘togetherness’ in family households. In F. Pandrea & M. Armstrong (Eds.), Record of the Communications Policy & Research Forum (pp. 88–105). Sydney: Network Insight Pty Ltd.
  21. Hertlein, K. (2012). Digital dwelling: Technology in couple and family relationships. Family Relations, 61, 374–387. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00702.x . · DOI
  22. Holmes, P., & Janson, A. (2008). Migrants’ communication practices with ICTs: Tools for facilitating migration and adaptation? International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 4, 51–62. · DOI
  23. Holohan, Anne, Chin, Jeanette, Callaghan, Vic, & Muhlau, P. (2011). The digital home: A new locus of social science research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research (pp. 647–666). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  24. Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyperpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 275–280. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0135 . · DOI · Paper page
  25. Jones, C., & Hosein, A. (2010). Profiling university students’ use of technology: Where is the NET generation divide? The International Journal of Technology Knowledge and Society, 6, 43–58. · DOI
  26. Kim, H.-K., & Davis, K. (2009). Toward a comprehensive theory of problematic internet use: Evaluating the role of self-esteem, anxiety, flow, and the self-rated importance of internet activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 490–500. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.11.001 . · DOI
  27. Kline, S. L., & Liu, F. (2005). The influence of comparative media use on acculturation, acculturative stress, and family relationships of Chinese international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(4), 367–390. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.001 . · DOI
  28. Lee, E.-J., Lee, L., & Jang, J. (2011). Internet for the internationals: Effects of internet use motivations on international students’ college adjustment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 433–437. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0406 . · DOI
  29. Li, G., Chen, W., & Duanmu, J. L. (2010). Determinants of international students’ academic performance. A comparison between Chinese and other international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 389–405. doi: 10.1177/1028315309331490 . · DOI
  30. Mesch, G. S., & Frenkel, M. (2011). Family imbalance and adjustment to information and communication technologies. In K. B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 285–301). New York: Peter Lang.
  31. Nguyen, M., Bin, Y. S., & Campbell, A. (2012). Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 103–111. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0277 . · DOI
  32. Niemz, K., Griffiths, M., & Banyard, P. (2005). Prevalence of pathological internet use among university students and correlations with self-esteem, the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), and disinhibition. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 8, 562–570. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2005.8.562 . · DOI
  33. O’Sullivan, B. (2000). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management functions of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication Research, 26, 403–431. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00763.x . · DOI
  34. Sanders, W. S. (2011). Communication competence and apprehension during CMC in online face-to-face relationships. In K. B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 79–97). New York: Peter Lang.
  35. Schiffrin, H., Edelman, A., Falkenstern, M., & Stewart, C. (2010). The associations among computer-mediated communication, relationships, and wellbeing. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13, 299–306. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0173 . · DOI
  36. Smith, M. E., Nguyen, D. T., Lai, C., Leshed, G., & Baumer, E. P. S. (2012). Going to college and staying connected: Communication between college freshmen and their parents. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)’12 Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 789–798. doi: 10.1145/2145204.2145322 . · DOI
  37. Suhail, K., & Bargees, Z. (2006). Effects of excessive internet use on undergraduate students in Pakistan. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 9, 297–307. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.297 . · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bacigalupe, G., & Bräuninger, I.
Venue
Contemporary Family Therapy
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-11-02
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
289-300
ISSN
  • 0892-2764
  • 1573-3335
DOI
10.1007/s10591-017-9437-7
Cited by
21
References
7
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)

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