Cited by 426Impact of Technology on AdolescentsEducational Technology in LearningCyberloafing and Workplace Behavior

Effect of online social networking on student academic performance

Paul, Jomon Aliyas, Baker, Hope M., Cochran, Justin Daniel·2012·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.016

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D.
Affiliations
Kennesaw State University (US)
Corresponding author
Paul, Jomon Aliyas
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-11
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
2117-2127
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2039983047
Cited by
426
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
67.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Cyberloafing and Workplace Behavior
Keywords
online social networking, academic performance, business students, attention span, time spent on social media, social media in education, Facebook, LinkedIn, student perceptions, ease of use

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