The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage
Open accessOverview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For instance, studies looking at similarities and differences among social platforms found differences with respect to user personalities (Hughes et al., 2012), news spreading (Lerman and Ghosh, 2010), or content sharing (Ottoni et al., 2014).”
From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as Hughes et al., 2012
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, people high in openness to experience have been observed to frequently find and share information (Hughes, Rowe, Batey, & Lee, 2012), but negative (e.g., Andreassen et al., 2013; Błachnio et al., 2017) or non-significant (e.g., Bodroža & Jovanović, 2016; Tang et al., 2016) associations have been found between this trait and PFU.”
From A comprehensive meta-analysis on Problematic Facebook Use (2018) · cites this paper as Hughes, Rowe, Batey, & Lee, 2012
In the citing paper
“In addition to the factors in the TPB, previous studies have shown that personality traits may be associated with SNSs excessive use and addiction (Amichai-hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010;Hughes, Rowe, Batey, & Lee, 2012;Jenkins-Guarnieri, Wright, & Hudiburgh, 2012).”
From Till logout do us part? Comparison of factors predicting excessive social network sites use and addiction between Singaporean adolescents and adults (2017) · cites this paper as Hughes et al., 2012
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
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 20,015
Structural Equations with Latent Variables
Bollen, K. A. (1989) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118619179 · Cited by 17,944
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x · Cited by 9,939
Testing Structural Equation Models.
Clogg, C. C., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1995) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2580595 · Cited by 8,246
(1999) · Cited by 7,995
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Amichai-Hamburger, 2007, The effects of need for cognition on internet use, Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 880, 10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.002 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kıcıman, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00013 · Cited by 763
“9 For instance, studies looking at similarities and differences among social platforms found differences with respect to user personalities (Hughes et al., 2012), news spreading (Lerman and Ghosh, 2010), or content sharing (Ottoni et al., 2014).”
BackgroundA Survey of Recommendation Systems: Recommendation Models, Techniques, and Application Fields
Ko, H., Lee, S., Park, Y., & Choi, A. (2022) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics11010141 · Cited by 772
Kircaburun, K., Alhabash, S., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-018-9940-6 · Cited by 594
Aichner, T., Grünfelder, M., Maurer, O., & Jegeni, D. (2020) · Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2020.0134 · Cited by 633
Fox, J., & Rooney, M. C. (2015) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.017 · Cited by 465
Metadata
- Authors
- Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hughes, David John
- Venue
- Computers in Human Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 561-569
- ISSN
- 0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2105543408
- Cited by
- 1,011
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 109 · 2020: 105 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 104 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 88 · 2015: 94 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 42.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
- Pure (University of Bath) (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
- The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion)
- Coventry University Open Collections (Coventry university) (submittedVersion)
- Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- The Open Collections (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- personality, social networking sites, Facebook, Twitter, Big Five personality traits, need for cognition, sociability, information seeking, social media use, age differences, gender differences
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
