| Literature DB >> 35082723 |
Yingying Han1, Wenhao Pan1, Jinjin Li2, Ting Zhang3, Qiang Zhang4, Emily Zhang5.
Abstract
Currently, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic experienced by the international community has increased the usage frequency of borderless, highly personalized social media platforms of all age groups. Analyzing and modeling texts sent through social media online can reveal the characteristics of the psychological dynamic state and living conditions of social media users during the pandemic more extensively and comprehensively. This study selects the Sina Weibo platform, which is highly popular in China and analyzes the subjective well-being (SWB) of Weibo users during the COVID-19 pandemic in combination with the machine learning classification algorithm. The study first invokes the SWB classification model to classify the SWB level of original texts released by 1,322 Weibo active users during the COVID-19 pandemic and then combines the latent growth curve model (LGCM) and the latent growth mixture model (LGMM) to investigate the developmental trend and heterogeneity characteristics of the SWB of Weibo users after the COVID-19 outbreak. The results present a downward trend and then an upward trend of the SWB of Weibo users during the pandemic as a whole. There was a significant correlation between the initial state and the development rate of the SWB after the COVID-19 outbreak (r = 0.36, p < 0.001). LGMM results show that there were two heterogeneous classes of the SWB after the COVID-19 outbreak, and the development rate of the SWB of the two classes was significantly different. The larger class (normal growth group; n = 1,229, 93.7%) showed a slow growth, while the smaller class (high growth group; n = 93, 6.3%) showed a rapid growth. Furthermore, the slope means across the two classes were significantly different (p < 0.001). Therefore, the individuals with a higher growth rate of SWB exhibited stronger adaptability to the changes in their living environments. These results could help to formulate effective interventions on the mental health level of the public after the public health emergency outbreak.Entities:
Keywords: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); latent growth curve model (LGCM); latent growth mixture model (LGMM); online text analysis; subjective well-being
Year: 2022 PMID: 35082723 PMCID: PMC8785322 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.779594
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
A sample of random Weibo users’ personal information.
FIGURE 1Key nodes and phases of the COVID-19 in the Chinese mainland.
FIGURE 2A flow chart of this study.
Descriptive statistics on the number of the SWB of Weibo users in different phases of the “epidemic” (M ± SD).
| Variables | Phases |
| |||
| Phase 1 | Phase 2 | Phase 3 | Phase 4 | ||
| LS | 16.89 ± 20.99 | 13.84 ± 16.86 | 17.09 ± 20.92 | 24.95 ± 34.92 | 50.01 |
| PA | 21.73 ± 29.57 | 17.56 ± 23.59 | 23.17 ± 31.69 | 33.40 ± 49.20 | 49.29 |
| NA | 12.16 ± 16.65 | 11.37 ± 15.05 | 12.63 ± 15.53 | 18.04 ± 24.00 | 36.93 |
| SWB | 38.73 ± 44.53 | 30.98 ± 35.53 | 39.48 ± 44.74 | 58.24 ± 74.31 | 65.83 |
***p < 0.001. LS refers to life satisfaction; PA refers to positive affect; NA refers to negative affect; SWB refers to subjective well-being.
Model fit for unconditional and covariant latent growth curve models.
| Models | χ2/ | CFI | TLI | AIC | BIC | aBIC | RMSEA | SRMR |
| SWB (unconditional model) | 4.02 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 40043.57 | 40090.25 | 40061.66 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| SWB (covariant model) | 4.54 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 40040.90 | 40082.77 | 40061.00 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
CFI refers to Comparative Fit Index; TLI refers to Tucker–Lewis Index; AIC refers to Akaike Information Criterion; BIC refers to Bayesian Information Criterion; aBIC refers to Sample-Size Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion; RMSEA refers to Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR refers to Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.
Fit indexes for determining optimal number of latent classes.
| Class | K | Log(L) | AIC | BIC | aBIC | Entropy | LMR( | BLRT( | Conditional probabilities |
| C1 | 9 | -20010.134 | 40038.27 | 40084.95 | 40056.36 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
|
|
| - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| C3 | 15 | -19329.220 | 38688.44 | 38766.24 | 38718.60 | 0.99 | 0.58 | <0.001 | 0.059/0.010/0.931 |
| C4 | 18 | -19160.985 | 38357.97 | 38451.34 | 38394.16 | 0.98 | 0.24 | <0.001 | 0.044/0.911/0.042/0.004 |
| C5 | 21 | -19064.019 | 38170.04 | 38278.96 | 38212.26 | 0.99 | 0.22 | <0.001 | 0.005/0.906/0.032/0.053/0.003 |
K refers to a number of freely estimated parameters; Log (L) refers to Loglikelihood; LMR refers to Lo–Mendell–Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test; BLRT refers to Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test. The bold values represent those of the best fitting model.
Average ascription probability (column) of participants in each latent class (row).
| C1 (%) | C2 (%) | |
| C1 | 95.2 | 0.3 |
| C2 | 4.8 | 99.7 |
Intercept and slope mean values of each latent class.
| Intercept | Slope | |||||
| Estimate | S.E. |
| Estimate | S.E. |
| |
| C1 | 14.49 | 8.50 | 0.09 | 2.88 | 0.81 | <0.001 |
| C2 | 2.60 | 1.44 | 0.07 | 0.57 | 0.14 | <0.001 |
FIGURE 3Two latent classes of a developmental trend of subjective well-being (SWB) after the COVID-19 outbreak.