What makes locked-down students happy: The sense of mattering and subjective well-being
Hao Wang¹,
Kususanto Ditto Prihadi2
1Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral Science, HELP University, Shah Alam, Malaysia
2Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social
Science and Liberal
Arts, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
|
Article Info |
|
ABSTRACT |
|
Article history: |
|
Subjective well-being (SWB)
of university students who had to study off-
campus due to the pandemic was investigated in this current study.
Studies had reported that one of
the most robust factors of SWB is the sense of mattering. While the sense of mattering is built upon social
feedback, being locked down limited
their source of social feedback to they can only develop their
interpersonal mattering through
their significant others
whom they shared the dwelling place and their
societal mattering through the ‘society’ they
found in the social media. We purposively selected 82 participants to respond to our scales of mattering types
and SWB. Among our inclusion criteria
was to have a limited number of living partners (0-3) to make sure that their mattering was predominantly
built from the social media feedback. The
result of the multiple regression analysis suggested that despite their interpersonal mattering having a weaker
contribution to their SWB, it was still
a significant predictor of SWB when controlling for societal mattering. Thus,
both types of mattering are still considered salient and robust
predictors of SWB. Further
limitations and suggestions are
discussed. |
|
Received Jul 20,
2021 Revised Dec 26, 2021 Accepted Jan 10, 2022 |
||
|
Keywords: |
||
|
Happiness Interpersonal
mattering Lockdown Societal mattering Subjective wellbeing |
||
|
|
|
This is an open
access article under
the CC BY-SA license.
|
|
Corresponding Author: Kususanto Ditto Prihadi Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social
Science and Liberal Arts, UCSI University 56000 Cheras, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia |
||
1.
INTRODUCTION
This current study aims to investigate whether our happiness is more
contingent on our perception that we
matter to society or our significant others. Firstly, it is important to
understand happiness refers to subjective
well-being (SWB), which is defined as a self-evaluation of own life [1], as
opposed to objective well-being,
which refers to the tangible indicators such as material resources and social
attributes [2]. The concept of SWB
includes many domains such as life satisfaction [3] and quality in life [4].
SWB includes perceptions of
psychological well-being, physical health, and social relationships [5].
Studies have revealed that SWB is an important factor of happy marriage
[6], meaningful social relationships [7],
and good performance at work [8].
Additionally, SWB is a culture-sensitive concept, because of the discrepancy between western and eastern cultures’
concepts of happiness [9]; in the individual culture, happiness tends to be attributed to the positive feeling
related to individual or peer’s causes, while in the collectivist culture, related to the cause of more general society [10].
There are three distinguished aspects of SWB, evaluative wellbeing (or
life satisfaction), hedonic wellbeing (feelings of anger, sadness, happiness,
stress, and pain), and eudemonic
wellbeing (sense of acceptance, mindfulness, purpose in life)
respectively [11]. Recent studies in the context of Malaysia, where this study was conducted, reported that
life satisfaction is predicted by the sense of interpersonal mattering, partially
mediated by state self-esteem [12], and perceived
social inclusion [13]. The latter studies reported
partial
mediation of other variables, which suggested that interpersonal mattering is a
robust predictor of the eudemonic
wellbeing aspect of SWB. It can be explained because interpersonal mattering,
the sense that we matter to our
significant others [14] can be extended to the sense that we matter to people
we know in person, including
relatives and friends in social media that often offer social supports that led
people to feel that their lives are satisfying [15], [16].
On the other hand, societal mattering defined as the sense that we
matter to the general society [17], was
reported to be significantly related to the hedonic aspect of SWB. For
instance, the extreme sadness that leads to suicide ideation
among adults in Australia, Malaysia,
and Indonesia is reported to be predicted
by low societal mattering
[18]–[20]. Similarly, studies on Malaysian, American, and Turkish university
students advocated that the feelings
of happiness were significantly predicted
by societal mattering
[21]–[23]. The link between
societal mattering and the hedonic aspect of SWB can be explained by the
sociometer theory [24], which
advocated that our perception of how the society treated us predicts the way we
evaluate ourselves. Thus, our feelings
are the reflection of our perception of how
society treated us.
The eudemonic aspect of SWB has been reported to be predicted by
societal mattering. A study by Kam
and Prihadi [25] stated that there is a strong and significant positive relationship
between societal mattering and
unconditional self-acceptance among Malaysian young adults. Furthermore,
research by Jong- un and Nam-Hee [26]
reported that societal mattering significantly predicted mindfulness among
Korean adults. Additionally, a study
on the other element of eudemonic SWB stated that societal mattering positively predicted the sense of meaning in life,
whereby individuals can only find their life meaningful when they believe they matter to their society in
general [27]. Studies discussed in this paragraph suggested that societal mattering plays a significant role in
developing the eudemonic part of SWB. It is supported by the theory of meaning in life [28], which explained that
eudemonic SWB focuses: i) Connection to a long-term concept of self; ii) Emotional
richness; and iii) Realization of deep personal
values; which means that eudemonic
SWB is experienced at the very personal level, although it was built upon the societal
sense of mattering.
Our studied population is the university students in Malaysia who had
to study off-campus (online) due to
the pandemic-related lockdown. Being locked down and studying off-campus had
exposed students to different social
circumstances from when they were studying on campus [29], because they had limited
access to their social environment and developed higher reliance on
social media [30], [31]. Furthermore, because
as mentioned in the sociometer theory [24],
individuals assess themselves based on the social feedback they retrieve, the lockdown situation drove our
population to rely heavily on the feedback from social media to evaluate themselves [32], [33].
Nevertheless, while social feedback from familiar figures in the
social media, such as friends, might work
the same way in predicting mattering [34], feedback from social media society
might work differently from the
‘in-person’ society, because they were solely based on the content that the
students posted in their respective
pages [35]. Because most of the social media posts are altered and designed to
gain desirable feedback [36], [37]
there should be a positive shift in the way students develop their sense of
societal mattering, which eventually
alters their development of SWB. Apart from that, the increase in social media reliance
might also increase
the possibility of being exposed
to negative feedback
such as undesired judgment
[37], verbal aggression [38] or cancel culture [39], [40] and the impact of
negative self-evaluation from social
media is significantly stronger due to the access, intensity, and repetition
[41]. Furthermore, such social
feedback tends to push the societal mattering level down [42] and brings
negative effects to their SWB. Based
on the aforementioned studies in the previous sections, this current study
attempted to seek further understanding of whether the SWB of the locked-down students is more contingent on the sense of interpersonal or societal mattering.
2.
RESEARCH METHOD
The sample size was calculated through G*Power analysis with the
criterion of f2=.15, α error probability=.05,
power=.80, and the sample size of 68 was suggested. However, 82 university students between 18 and 33 years of age (M=21.05, SD=2.48) were
purposively sampled from a private university in Malaysia. Included in the inclusion criteria are that they must
be from the program that was not allowed to study
on-campus due to no necessities of lab or facilities using, active users of
social media and that they live with the minimum number (0-3) of people at their
respective living space at the time the data was collected.
College Mattering Inventory [43] was used to measure participants’
interpersonal mattering. The questionnaire
consists of 29 items, phrased as a statement. Examples of items include “I
often feel my instructor(s) care more
about other things than me as a student” and “There are people at the college
that sincerely appreciate my involvement
as a student”. The written instruction directed participants to indicate how much the statement applied
to them in their college experience. Responses
were recorded on a 5-point
Likert scale,
with 1 (Not at all) and 5 (Very much), and a higher total score on College
Mattering Inventory indicated higher interpersonal mattering.
Societal Mattering Scale [42] was used to measure participants’ societal mattering. The questionnaire
consists of 9 items, phrased as a statement. Examples of items include “The
people in my university value me as a
person” and “I feel I help meet the needs of my university”. The written
instruction directed participants to indicate how much the statement applied
to them in their college
experience. Responses were
recorded on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 (Strongly disagree) and 5 (Strongly
agree), and a higher total score on
Societal Mattering Scale indicated higher societal mattering. No item was
reverse scored on this scale.
BBC subjective well-being scale [5] was used to measure participants’
subjective well-being. The questionnaire consists
of 24 items, phrased as questions. Examples
of items include
“Are you happy with your friendships and personal
relationships?” and “Are you able to ask someone for help with a problem?” The written instruction directed
participants to how happy they feel generally in most parts of their life. Responses were recorded on a 5-point
Likert scale, with 1 (Not at all) and 5 (Extremely), and a higher total score on BBC-SWB indicated higher
subjective well-being. All scales were composed on the Google Form to be responded to by the participants
after they signed the informed consent and responded to our demographic items.
3.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Data collation and descriptive statistics
The standard residuals were analyzed, which showed the data did not
contain any outliers (Std. Residual Min=-3.25, Std. Residual Max=2.18). The assumption of collinearity was tested, and the assumption was met (Interpersonal
mattering, Tolerance=.51, VIF=1.95; Societal mattering, Tolerance=.51, VIF=1.95). Moreover, the assumption of independent errors was met for current
data (Durbin-Watson value=2.13). Assumption of homogeneity of variance and linearity was also tested,
the scatterplot of standardized
predicted values showed the assumption was met. The data has also met the
assumption of non- zero variances (interpersonal mattering,
Variance=152.98; societal mattering, variance=50.14; subjective well-being,
variance=264.42). The normality test of both predictors, interpersonal
mattering (Shapiro-Wilk (82)=.99, p=.765),
societal mattering (Shapiro-Wilk (82)=.99, p=.595) are normally distributed but the outcome
variable, subjective well-being was not normally distributed (Shapiro-Wilk (82)=.97, p=.030).
3.2. The main data analyses
Hierarchical multiple linear regression was conducted with SPSS and
interpersonal mattering was tested first as Model 1. The result shows that the model
of interpersonal mattering
significantly predicts SWB, F
(1, 80)=40.07, p<.001. Interpersonal mattering explained 33.4% of the
variance in SWB, R2=.33. Interpersonal
mattering is also a significant predictor of SWB, b=0.76, 95% CI [0.52, 1.00],
t (80)=6.33, p<.001.
|
Table 1. Summary of the results
|
|
B |
t |
Sig. |
95% CI |
sr |
|
|
Lower bound |
Upper bound |
|||||
|
Interpersonal mattering |
.357 |
2.298 |
.024 |
.048 |
.667 |
.195 |
|
Societal mattering |
1.007 |
3.706 |
.000 |
.466 |
1.548 |
.314 |
Interpersonal mattering significantly predicted SWB when controlling for societal mattering, b=0.36, 95% CI [0.05, 0.67],
t (79)=2.30, p=.024,
sr=.20. Societal mattering
also significantly predicted SWB when controlling for interpersonal mattering, b=1.01, 95%
CI [0.47, 1.55], t (79)=3.71, p<.001, sr=.31. Both interpersonal and societal mattering
significantly predicted SWB, hence hypothesis 1 and 2 are supported. The semi-partial correlation coefficient of societal
mattering was higher than interpersonal mattering which means that societal mattering was a better
predictor of SWB and hypothesis 3 was also supported.
3.3.
Discussion
Our findings indicated that societal mattering is a stronger predictor
of SWB among locked-down university students
than interpersonal mattering. In other words,
our participants tend to be happier when
they feel they matter to the general society than their significant
others. First of all, as all of our participants are of Asian collectivistic culture,
our finding supported
the statement of a previous
study [10], that collectivistic
culture tend to attribute happiness as a collective process derived from the
society; one will be happier when they matter
to the society than to themselves or their
peers.
Nevertheless, a more detailed explanation can be given through the fact
that our participants were locked-down
with very limited in-person contact. Furthermore, their sense of mattering
tends to be derived from the feedback
from the virtual society of the social media [32], [33]. Therefore, they tend
to develop a stronger sense of
societal mattering than interpersonal. Because their societal mattering was a
stronger predictor, it is safe to
assume that the scores of their SWB were dominated by the score of life
satisfaction (evaluative wellbeing) and eudemonic wellbeing.
This finding is consistent with the other studies among locked-down
Malaysian on hedonic SWB, such as
happiness [23], where societal mattering was considered a robust significant
predictor. Furthermore, our finding
also shed more light on a previous study in Malaysian and Indonesian context [20] that utilized the regress of the scores of eudemonic factors like depression
and suicide ideation to general mattering scale; we can offer a further explanation that the increment in life
satisfaction in their studies was due to the
increment of the societal aspects of mattering. Similarly, this finding
is also consistent with the finding of Kam
and Prihadi [25] on the eudemonic SWB construct of unconditional
self-acceptance. Results of the studies
on evaluative SWB, such as life satisfaction in Malaysian locked-down
population, such as the previous studies
[12], [13] were also consistent with our findings,
that interpersonal mattering
was a significant predictor.
3.4.
Implication
Another interesting thing from our finding is that when we control for
the societal mattering, the interpersonal
mattering still significantly predicted SWB. Thus, the happiness of our
participants relied on both types of
mattering; they need to feel they matter to society, and they need to feel they
matter to the people they know.
Because both interpersonal and societal mattering is important to develop the
entirety of a person [42],
contextually SWB, it is expected that our findings develop the further understanding
that it is significant to make others
feel they matter, both to their significant others and to the society, to
increase other psychological
constructs related to SWB, such as satisfaction at work, happiness at school,
unconditional self-acceptance, and better relationships.
3.5. Limitation and suggestion
We realized that we did not analyze the aspects of SWB separately to
see which one of them was affected
each of the mattering constructs. Therefore, it is suggested for future
research to do so. Another limitation
of this study is that we did not include any other intervening variables that
have been evident as the significant factors
of SWB, such as perceived
social support, resilience, psychological wellbeing, or contextually
social media usage. Fact that the prevalence of both types of mattering was
relatively low (R²=.33 for
interpersonal and R²=.43 for societal), we realized that there could have been
other variables that explained their
effects; thus, it is also suggested for future studies to hypothesize some
mediation models to obtain deeper understanding.
4.
CONCLUSION
The study has achieved its aim and researchers are content to obtain the knowledge that both types of mattering
were significant predictors for SWB and that societal
mattering was stronger
and more significant. While it is interesting to
know the further implication of being locked down and higher reliance on social media. The researchers do not
wish that this condition should be prolonged or repeated in the future.
REFERENCES
[1]
E. Diener, J. J. Sapyta, and E. Suh, “Subjective Well-Being Is Essential
to Well-Being,” Psychological Inquiry, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 33–37, Jan. 1998, doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0901_3.
[2]
M. Western and W. Tomaszewski, “Subjective Wellbeing, Objective
Wellbeing and Inequality in Australia,” PLOS
ONE, vol. 11, no. 10, p. e0163345, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163345.
[3]
J. E. Maddux, Ed., Subjective Well-Being and Life Satisfaction, 1st ed. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group,
2018.
[4]
O. N. Medvedev and C. E. Landhuis, “Exploring constructs of well-being,
happiness and quality of life,” PeerJ,
vol. 6, p. e4903, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.7717/peerj.4903.
[5]
E. Pontin, M. Schwannauer, S. Tai, and P. Kinderman, “A UK validation
of a general measure of subjective well-being: the modified BBC subjective well-being scale (BBC-SWB),” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,
vol. 11, no. 1, p. 150, 2013, doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-150.
[6]
M. Luhmann, R. E. Lucas, M. Eid, and E. Diener,
“The Prospective Effect of Life
Satisfaction on Life Events,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 39–45,
Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1177/1948550612440105.
[7]
S. M. Moore, E. Diener, and K. Tan, “Using multiple methods to more
fully understand causal relations: Positive affect enhances social
relationships,” in Handbook of well-being, E. Diene, S. Oishi, and L. Tay, Eds. Salt Lake City, UT:
DEF Publishers, 2018.
[8]
E. R. Tenney, J. M. Poole, and E. Diener,
“Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we don’t know,”
Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 36, pp. 27–46, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002.
[9]
M. Joshanloo, “Eastern Conceptualizations of Happiness: Fundamental
Differences with Western Views,” Journal
of Happiness Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 475–493, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s10902-013-9431-1.
[10]
C. Moon, G. A. Travaglino, and A. K. Uskul, “Social
Value Orientation and Endorsement of Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism: An
Exploratory Study Comparing Individuals From North America and South Korea,” Frontiers
in Psychology, vol. 9, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02262.
[11]
A. Steptoe, A. Deaton, and A. A. Stone, “Subjective wellbeing, health,
and ageing,” The Lancet, vol. 385,
no. 9968, pp. 640–648, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0.
[12]
P. P. T. Sim and K. D. Prihadi, “Social comparison and life
satisfaction in social media: The role of mattering and state self- esteem,”
International Journal
of Public Health Science (IJPHS), vol. 9, no. 3, p. 245, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.11591/ijphs.v9i3.20509.
[13]
K. D. Prihadi, E. S. Z. Lim, E. Sim, and K. Y. Chong, “Mattering and
life satisfaction among the quarantined adults in Malaysia during the COVID-19 pandemic,” International Journal of Public Health
Science (IJPHS), vol. 10, no. 1, p. 189, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijphs.v10i1.20684.
[14]
M. Rosenberg and B. C. McCullough, “Mattering: Inferred significance
and mental health among adolescents,” Research
in Community & Mental Health, vol. 2, pp. 163–182, 1981.
[15] D. Smith, T. Leonis, and S.
Anandavalli, “Belonging and loneliness in cyberspace: impacts of social media
on adolescents’ well- being,” Australian Journal
of Psychology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 12–23, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1080/00049530.2021.1898914.
[16] E. A. Vogel, J. P. Rose, B.
M. Okdie, K. Eckles, and B. Franz, “Who compares and despairs? The effect of
social comparison orientation on
social media use and its outcomes,” Personality
and Individual Differences, vol. 86, pp. 249–256, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.026.
[17]
G. Elliott, S. Kao, and A.-M. Grant, “Mattering: Empirical Validation of a Social-Psychological Concept,” Self and Identity, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 339–354, Oct. 2004, doi: 10.1080/13576500444000119.
[18] M. Drabenstott, “A Matter of Life and Death: Integrating Mattering
into the Interpersonal–Psychological Theory of Suicide,”
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 1006–1018, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1111/sltb.12504.
[19]
A. Milner, K. M. Page, and A. D. LaMontagne, “Perception of Mattering
and Suicide Ideation in the Australian Working
Population: Evidence from a Cross-Sectional Survey,” Community Mental Health Journal, vol.
52, no. 5, pp. 615–621, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10597-016-0002-x.
[20]
K. D. Prihadi, C. Y. S. Wong, E. Y. V Chong, and K. Y. X. Chong,
“Suicidal thoughts among university students: The role of mattering, state self-esteem and depression
level,” International Journal of Evaluation
and Research in Education (IJERE), vol. 9, no. 3, p. 494, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20587.
[21]
M. Demir, A. Özen, A. Doğan, N. A. Bilyk, and F. A. Tyrell, “I Matter
to My Friend, Therefore I am Happy: Friendship, Mattering, and Happiness,” Journal
of Happiness Studies, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 983–1005, Dec. 2011, doi:
10.1007/s10902-010- 9240-8.
[22]
M. Demir, A. Özen, and A. Doğan, “Friendship, Perceived Mattering and
Happiness: A Study of American and Turkish College Students,” The Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 152, no. 5, pp. 659–664, Sep. 2012, doi: 10.1080/00224545.2011.650237.
[23]
Z. Foo and K. D. Prihadi, “Happiness of university students in new
normal Malaysia: The role of mattering, optimism, and social support,” International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE),
vol. 10, no. 2, p. 448, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v10i2.21138.
[24]
M. R. Leary, E. S. Tambor, S. K. Terdal,
and D. L. Downs, “Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis.,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 518–530, 1995,
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518.
[25]
S.-Y. Kam and K. D. Prihadi, “Why students tend to compare
themselves with each other? The role of mattering and unconditional
self-acceptance,” International Journal
of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), vol. 10, no. 2, p. 441, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v10i2.21238.
[26]
J.-U. Kim and N.-H. Kim, “The Effects of
University Student’s Adult Attachment on Interpersonal Relationship Ability:
Mediating Effects of Mindfulness and Mattering,” Korean Association For Learner-Centered Curriculum
And Instruction, vol. 19, no. 20, pp. 529–551, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.22251/jlcci.2019.19.20.529.
[27]
L. S. George and C. L. Park, “Meaning
in Life as Comprehension, Purpose, and Mattering: Toward Integration and New Research
Questions,” Review of General
Psychology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 205–220,
Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1037/gpr0000077.
[28] J. Iwry, “Toward a Psychological Theory
of Meaning in Life,” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3497017.
[29]
S. Casale and G. L. Flett, “Interpersonally-based fears during the
covid-19 pandemic: Reflections on the fear of missing out and the fear of not mattering
constructs,” Clinical Neuropsychiatry, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 88–93, 2020, doi: 10.36131/CN20200211.
[30]
A. Cordoș and S. D. Bolboacă, “Lockdown, Social Media exposure
regarding COVID‐19 and the relation with self‐assessment depression and anxiety. Is the medical staff different?” International Journal of Clinical Practice,
vol. 75, no. 4, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13933.
[31] O. A. Bolarinwa, O. Olagunju,
T. Babalola, and B. Q. Saeed, “Socio-demographic predictors of adherence to
2019 coronavirus prescribed
recommendations and lockdown psychological impacts: Perspectives of Nigerian
social media users,” Journal of Public Health Research, vol. 9, no. 4, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.4081/jphr.2020.1864.
[32]
L. Billingham and K. Irwin-Rogers, “The terrifying abyss of
insignificance: Marginalisation, mattering and violence between young people,” Oñati Socio-Legal Series, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1222–1249, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1178.
[33]
D. Marengo, C. Montag, C. Sindermann, J. D. Elhai, and M. Settanni,
“Examining the links between active Facebook use, received likes, self-esteem and happiness: A study using objective social
media data,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 58, p. 101523, May 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2020.101523.
[34] H. Taniguchi, “Interpersonal
Mattering in Friendship as a Predictor of Happiness in Japan: The Case of
Tokyoites,” Journal of Happiness
Studies, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1475–1491, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10902-014-9570-z.
[35] M. Tsay-Vogel, J. Shanahan,
and N. Signorielli, “Social media cultivating perceptions of privacy: A 5-year
analysis of privacy attitudes and
self-disclosure behaviors among Facebook users,” New Media & Society, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 141–161, Jan. 2018,
doi: 10.1177/1461444816660731.
[36]
T. M. Dumas, M. Maxwell-Smith, J. P. Davis, and P. A. Giulietti, “Lying
or longing for likes? Narcissism, peer belonging, loneliness and normative
versus deceptive like-seeking on Instagram in emerging adulthood,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 71, pp. 1–10, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.037.
[37]
M. Tiggemann, S. Hayden, Z. Brown, and J. Veldhuis, “The effect of
Instagram ‘likes’ on women’s social comparison and body dissatisfaction,” Body Image, vol. 26, pp. 90–97,
Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.07.002.
[38]
C. P. Barlett, D. A. Gentile, and C. Chew, “Predicting cyberbullying from anonymity,” Psychology of Popular Media Culture, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 171–180, Apr. 2016, doi: 10.1037/ppm0000055.
[39]
M. D. Clark, “DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called ‘cancel
culture,’” Communication and the Public,
vol. 5, no. 3–4, pp. 88–92,
Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1177/2057047320961562.
[40] E. Ng, “No Grand
Pronouncements Here...: Reflections on Cancel Culture and Digital Media
Participation,” Television & New Media, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 621–627, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1177/1527476420918828.
[41] K. D. Prihadi, Y. L. Hui, M.
J. Chua, and C. K. W. Chang, “Cyber-victimization and perceived depression:
Serial mediation of self-esteem and learned-helplessness,” International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), vol. 8, no. 4, p. 563, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v8i4.20266.
[42]
C. Schmidt, “Examining the Role of Interpersonal and Societal Mattering
in the Health and Wellbeing of Rural Adolescents,” University of Michigan, 2018.
[43]
E. Tovar, M. A. Simon, and H. B. Lee, “Development and Validation of
the College Mattering Inventory With Diverse Urban College Students,” Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 154–178,
Oct. 2009, doi: 10.1177/0748175609344091.
BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS
|
|
Wang Hao is a research assistant intern in the department of Psychology, Faculty
of Behavioral Science, HELP University Subang 2. This citizen of China
has been involved in many studies
regarding mental health
in his internship. He can be reached at fosslaresearch@gmail.com. |
|
|
Kususanto Ditto Prihadi is the Head of Research and Postgraduate Studies
in the Faculty of Social Science
and Liberal Arts, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. His research area is in mattering and
interpersonal relationship in any setting. He can be contacted at: prihadi@ucsiuniversity.edu.my. |
Post a Comment