Understanding Facebook use and the psychological affects of use across generations
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Adolescents and young adults are more sensitive than older age groups to the benefits and harms of social media use.
“Both adolescents and young adults are more sensitive than older age groups to the benefits and harms of SMU (Crone and Konijn, 2018; Hayes et al., 2015).”
From Social media use, mental health and sleep: A systematic review with meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as Hayes et al., 2015
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 133
- Authors
- Hayes, M., van Stolk-Cooke, K., & Muench, F.
- Affiliations
- Northwell Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hayes, Marie
- Venue
- Computers in Human Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 49
- Pages
- 507-511
- ISSN
- 0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1967793107
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 49.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2016-03-01)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- Facebook use, social networking sites, age differences, older adults, well-being, body image, emotional impact, social media addiction, generational 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
