| Literature DB >> 24785540 |
Shu-Man Chang1, Yung-Hsiu Lin2, Chi-Wei Lin3, Her-Kun Chang4, Ping Pete Chong5.
Abstract
This study explores the potential of promoting college students' positive psychological development using popular online social networks. Online social networks have dramatically changed the ways college students manage their social relationships. Social network activities, such as checking Facebook posts dominates students' Internet time and has the potential to assist students' positive development. Positive psychology is a scientific study of how ordinary individuals can apply their strength effectively when facing objective difficulties and how this capability can be cultivated with certain approaches. A positive message delivery approach was designed for a group of new college entrants. A series of positive messages was edited by university counselors and delivered by students to their Facebook social groups. Responses from each posted positive messages were collected and analyzed by researchers. The responses indicated that: (1) relationships of individual engagement and social influence in this study can partially explain the observed student behavior; (2) using class-based social groups can promote a positive atmosphere to enhance strong-tie relationships in both the physical and virtual environments, and (3) promoting student's positive attitudes can substantially impact adolescents' future developments, and many positive attitudes can be cultivated by emotional events and social influence.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24785540 PMCID: PMC4053902 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110504652
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1An illustration of positive messages.
Responses of messages by content type.
| cType | N | Likes | Comments | Likes on Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| emotional | 20 | 661 (352/309) | 92 (40/52) | 165 (107/58) |
| cognitive | 18 | 559 (308/251) | 64 (45/19) | 92 (67/25) |
| Total | 38 | 1,220 (660/560) | 156 (85/71) | 257 (174/83) |
Note: Numbers are presented as: Subtotal (Med School/Mgmt School).
Responses of messages by presentation mode.
| pMode | N | Likes | Comments | Likes on Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 17 | 566 (295/271) | 88 (39/49) | 146 (98/48) |
| 2 | 7 | 219 (123/96) | 14 (14/0) | 37 (37/0) |
| 3 | 14 | 435 (242/193) | 54 (32/22) | 74 (39/35) |
| Total | 38 | 1,220 (660/560) | 156 (85/71) | 257 (174/83) |
Note: pMode types: 1 = graphic with directive short messages; 2 = graphic with motivational short messages; 3 = graphic or motion picture with long messages. Numbers are presented as: Subtotal (Med School/Mgmt School)
The average engagements and influence by 3-week interval.
| Interval (week) | Likes | Comments | Likes on Comments | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical school | Management school | Medical school | Management school | Medical school | Management school | |
| 1–12 | 17.37 | 14.61 | 2.24 | 1.87 | 4.58 | 2.18 |
| 1–3 | 18.09 | 17.90 | 2.91 | 4.12 | 6.55 | 3.91 |
| 4–6 | 16.22 | 14.78 | 1.56 | 1.77 | 5.56 | 3.67 |
| 7–9 | 19.00 | 12.38 | 2.13 | 1.25 | 2.38 | 0.88 |
| 10–12 | 16.30 | 12.60 | 2.20 | 0.00 | 3.30 | 0.00 |
The treatment ANOVA summary.
| Variable | Medical School | Management School | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likes | Comments | Likes on Comments | Likes | Comments | Likes on Comments | |||||||
| F | P | F | P | F | P | F | P | F | P | F | P | |
| Interval | 0.383 | 0.766 | 1.185 | 0.330 | 1.175 | 0.333 | 5.632 | 0.003 ** | 2.167 | 0.100 * | 1.717 | 0.181 |
| cType | 0.063 | 0.803 | 0.421 | 0.520 | 0.486 | 0.490 | 1.130 | 0.294 | 1.012 | 0.321 | 0.613 | 0.438 |
| pMode | 0.005 | 0.994 | 0.041 | 0.959 | 0.699 | 0.503 | 1.182 | 0.318 | 0.964 | 0.391 | 0.584 | 0.562 |
Note: * Significant at 0.1 level; ** Significant at 0.01 level.
Figure 2The level of agreements. (PEOU = Perceived Ease Of Use; PU = Perceived Usefulness).
Correlation matrix.
| Construct | Mean | SD | Range | PEOU | PU | Intension to Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEOU | 5.05 | 0.93 | 2 to 6 | 1.000 | ||
| PU | 5.48 | 0.85 | 1 to 6 | 0.413 ** | 1.000 | |
| Intention to use | 5.37 | 0.94 | 1 to 6 | 0.227 * | .675 ** | 1.000 |
Note: * Significant at 0.05 level; ** Significant at 0.01 level; (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = somewhat disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 = agree; 6 = strongly agree).