Cited by 167Impact of Technology on AdolescentsDigital Media and PhilosophyPersonality Traits and Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social media, texting, and personality: A test of the shallowing hypothesis

Annisette, Logan E., Lafreniere, Kathryn D.·2017·Personality and Individual Differences

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.043

Cites

14 of 14 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 15 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Annisette, L. E., & Lafreniere, K. D.
Affiliations
University of Windsor (CA)
Corresponding author
Annisette, Logan E.
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-09
Volume
115
Pages
154-158
ISSN
0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2288901345
Cited by
167
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7
FWCI
17.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Digital Media and Philosophy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
social media use, reflective thinking, Big Five personality traits, life goals

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