RU mad @ me? Social anxiety and interpretation of ambiguous text messages
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?
Due to cue absence in online environments, adolescents may be more likely to misinterpret social stimuli online regardless of social anxiety.
“Although preliminary, this finding provides initial evidence that, due to the cue absence of online environments, adolescents may be more likely to misinterpret social stimuli online, regardless of whether they experience social anxiety.”
From Transformation of Adolescent Peer Relations in the Social Media Context: Part 1—A Theoretical Framework and Application to Dyadic Peer Relationships (2018) · cites this paper as Kingsbury and Coplan 2016
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 66 · Cited by 54
- Authors
- Kingsbury, M., & Coplan, R. J.
- Affiliations
- Carleton University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Kingsbury, Mila
- Venue
- Computers in Human Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 54
- Pages
- 368-379
- ISSN
- 0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1251021684
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 6.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Keywords
- social anxiety, interpretation bias, text messaging, computer-mediated communication, self-disclosure, young adults
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
