CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Supporting Teens' Intentional Social Media Use Through Interaction Design: An Exploratory Proof-of-Concept Study

Davis, Katie, Slovak, Petr, Landesman, Rotem, Pitt, Caroline, Ghajar, Abdullatif, Schleider, Jessica Lee, Kawas, Saba, Perez Portillo, Andrea Guadalupe, Kuhn, Nicole S.·2023·Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference
DOI 10.1145/3585088.3589387
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3585088.3589387

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Theory of change model, outlining intervention, mechanism of change, proximal outcome, and distal outcome. The distal outcome is not a focus of the current investigation, which focuses on the intervention design and its acceptability and potential effectiveness among adolescents.
Figure 1 Theory of change model, outlining intervention, mechanism of change, proximal outcome, and distal outcome. The distal outcome is not a focus of the current investigation, which focuses on the intervention design and its acceptability and potential effectiveness among adolescents.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Screenshots of the Locus app. A: The application landing page where users access their social media apps; B: An app-entry prompt that appears after clicking on a social media app; C: A general end-of-day prompt received every day at 9pm.
Figure 2 Screenshots of the Locus app. A: The application landing page where users access their social media apps; B: An app-entry prompt that appears after clicking on a social media app; C: A general end-of-day prompt received every day at 9pm.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Distribution of responses to the post-deployment survey question asking participants to rate how annoying they found it to receive the end-of-day and app-entry prompts ( N = 54).
Figure 3 Distribution of responses to the post-deployment survey question asking participants to rate how annoying they found it to receive the end-of-day and app-entry prompts ( N = 54).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 Distribution of participants' responses when asked if Locus helped them think about their goals and feel more in control.
Figure 4 Distribution of participants' responses when asked if Locus helped them think about their goals and feel more in control.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 5 Raincloud plots showing distributions of the raw data, means, and confidence intervals for the three pre- and postdeployment measures used in the field deployment ( N = 53). Left to right: BSCS, SUQ-A, TENS-Life.
Figure 5 Raincloud plots showing distributions of the raw data, means, and confidence intervals for the three pre- and postdeployment measures used in the field deployment ( N = 53). Left to right: BSCS, SUQ-A, TENS-Life.CC-BY · From the PDF

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. 10.2196/40726 · DOI
  2. 10.1145/3491101.3503563 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.05.008 · DOI
  4. Albert Bandura. 1991. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 50 2: 248–287. · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1145/2930674.2930705 · DOI
  6. Elliot T. Berkman. 2016. Self-Regulation Training. In Handbook of Self-Regulation (3rd Edition). The Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA, 417–439.
  7. 10.1145/3311927.3325352 · DOI
  8. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore and Trevor W. Robbins. 2012. Decision-making in the adolescent brain. Nature neuroscience 15, 9: 1184–1191.
  9. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative research in psychology 18 3: 328–352. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Kirk Warren Brown and Richard M. Ryan. 2015. A self-determination theory perspective on fostering healthy self-regulation from within and without. Positive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life 2: 139–157.
  11. 10.1145/3491102.3517478 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1145/3479600 · DOI
  13. Sarah M. Coyne, Emily Schvaneveldt, and Jane Shawcroft. 2022. An Overview of Social Media and Mental Health. In The Social Media Debate, Devan Rosen (ed.). Routledge, 152–169.
  14. 10.1145/3491102.3502135 · DOI
  15. Katie Davis. 2023. Technology's Child: Digital Media's Role in the Ages and Stages of Growing Up. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; London, England.
  16. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1145/2362394.2362400 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.09.007 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Jonathan St BT Evans and Keith E. Stanovich. 2013. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on psychological science 8, 3: 223–241.
  20. 10.1145/2851581.2892398 · DOI
  21. Manuel J. Galvan Keith Payne Jason Hannay Alexis Georgeson and Keely Muscatell. 2022. What does the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Measure? Separating Economic Circumstances and Social Status to Predict Health. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/e9px3 · DOI
  22. Alexis Hiniker, Sungsoo Hong, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. MyTime: designing and evaluating an intervention for smartphone non-use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4746–4757.
  23. 10.1145/2307096.2307109 · DOI
  24. Carrie James, Weinstein, Emily, and Mendoza, Kelly. 2019. Teaching Digital Citizens in Today's World: Research and Insights Behind the Common Sense K–12 Digital Citizenship Curriculum. Common Sense Media, San Francisco, CA.
  25. 10.1145/3123024.3123165 · DOI
  26. 10.1145/3314403 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1145/3290605.3300927 · DOI
  28. 10.5765/jkacap.2018.29.2.73 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1145/2858036.2858568 · DOI
  30. 10.1145/2675133.2675244 · DOI
  31. 10.1145/2541831.2541870 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.007 · DOI
  33. K. Lukoff, ULRIK Lyngs, and LIZE Alberts. 2022. Designing to support autonomy and reduce psychological reactance in digital self-Control tools. In Self-Determination Theory in HCI: Shaping a Research Agenda. Workshop at the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’22), 6.
  34. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102869 · DOI
  35. 10.1145/3290605.3300361 · DOI
  36. 10.1145/3313831.3376672 · DOI
  37. 10.3390/ijerph16203877 · DOI
  38. 10.1037/cns0000131 · DOI
  39. Megan McClelland, John Geldhof, Fred Morrison, Steinunn Gestsdóttir, Claire Cameron, Ed Bowers, Angela Duckworth, Todd Little, and Jennie Grammer. 2018. Self-regulation. In Handbook of life course health development. Springer, 275–298.
  40. 10.1007/s10802-015-0020-0 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1145/3229434.3229463 · DOI
  42. Dorian Peters, Rafael A. Calvo, and Richard M. Ryan. 2018. Designing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Frontiers in psychology 9: 797.
  43. Anthony T. Pinter, Pamela J. Wisniewski, Heng Xu, Mary Beth Rosson, and Jack M. Caroll. 2017. Adolescent online safety: Moving beyond formative evaluations to designing solutions for the future. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 352–357.
  44. 10.1145/3411764.3445541 · DOI
  45. 10.1145/3392063.3394429 · DOI
  46. 10.1145/3411764.3445239 · DOI
  47. 10.1145/3411764.3445694 · DOI
  48. Samira Rasouli Garima Gupta Moojan Ghafurian and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2022. Proposed Applications of Social Robots in Interventions for Children and Adolescents with Social Anxiety. In Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’22). https://doi.org/10.1145/3490149.3505575 · DOI
  49. Janet Read and Matthew Horton. 2016. Future directions for quality TeenCI research. In Perspectives on HCI research with teenagers. Springer, Berlin, 269–278.
  50. Victoria Rideout and Micheal B Robb. 2018. Social media, social life: Teens reveal their experiences. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.
  51. Pedro Rodrigues Marija Mitic Ina Krammer João Dias Rui Prada and Beate Schrank. 2022. The HUB: Designing an Interactive Social Space for Pre-Adolescents’ Well-being. In Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’22) 551–556. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501712.3535282 · DOI
  52. Alberto Monge Roffarello and Luigi De Russis. 2022. Achieving Digital Wellbeing Through Digital Self-Control Tools: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Julian B Rotter. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs: general and applied. 80 1. · DOI · Paper page
  54. 10.1080/15374416.2019.1683852 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.1016/j.pedn.2021.10.011 · DOI
  56. 10.1145/3569898 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Laurence Steinberg. 2005. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in cognitive sciences 9 2: 69–74. · DOI · Paper page
  58. 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.1145/3532106.3533575 · DOI
  60. 10.1145/3290605.3300542 · DOI
  61. 10.1556/2006.5.2016.085 · DOI
  62. 10.1080/23727810.2019.1586419 · DOI
  63. Emily Weinstein and Carrie James. 2022. Behind their screens: What teens are facing (and adults are missing). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US.
  64. 10.1145/3388767.3407355 · DOI
  65. Pamela Wisniewski, Arup Kumar Ghosh, Heng Xu, Mary Beth Rosson, and John M. Carroll. 2017. Parental control vs. teen self-regulation: Is there a middle ground for mobile online safety? In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 51–69.
  66. Xuhai Xu, Tianyuan Zou, Han Xiao, Yanzhang Li, Ruolin Wang, Tianyi Yuan, Yuntao Wang, Yuanchun Shi, Jennifer Mankoff, and Anind K. Dey. 2022. TypeOut: Leveraging Just-in-Time Self-Affirmation for Smartphone Overuse Reduction. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–17.
  67. Jason C. Yip, Elizabeth Foss, and Mona Leigh Guha. 2012. Co-designing with adolescents. In Designing Interactive Technology for Teens Workshop, NordiCHI, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from: http://www. chici. org/ditt2012/papers. html.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Davis, K., Slovak, P., Landesman, R., Pitt, C., Ghajar, A., Schleider, J. L., Kawas, S., Perez Portillo, A. G., & Kuhn, N. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington, United States
  • Department of Informatics, King's College London, United Kingdom
  • Information School, University of Washington, United States
  • Hasso Plattner Institute, Germany
  • Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, United States
  • Computer Science and Engineering | GroupLens, University of Minnesota, United States and Information School I DUB Group, University of Washington, United States
  • School of Social Work, University of Washington, United States
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-06-19
Pages
322-334
DOI
10.1145/3585088.3589387
Cited by
37
References
18
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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