Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Jan 12;76:101235. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101235

An empirical study on cyber ostracism and students' discontinuous usage intention of social networking sites during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mediated and moderated model

Muddassar Sarfraz a,⁎, Kausar Fiaz Khawaja b, Larisa Ivascu c, Mahmoona Khalil d
PMCID: PMC9834173

Abstract

A sudden change in a person's social life, such as the adjustments caused by COVID-19, can raise social and psychological issues, with people's loneliness and boredom affecting their physical and mental well-being. Cyber ostracism (CO) refers to scenarios in which people feel that others are ignoring them over the internet, e.g., on social networking sites (SNSs) (such as Facebook and Twitter), and placing little importance on their thoughts. The study investigates the mediating role of anger between CO and discontinuous usage intention (DUI) and the moderating role of growth belief. Data were collected during three different periods from 517 Pakistani university students. Statistical procedures were conducted using a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS). The study results reveal that anger mediates the relationship between CO and DUI of SNSs; moreover, growth belief moderates the relationship.

Keywords: Cyber Ostracism, Anger, Students’ Performance, Social Networking Sites, Social Media, COVID-19

1. Introduction

The world has been dealing with a serious global health catastrophe since December 2019 due to the coronavirus. A rapid increase in cases and fatalities occurred, and Pakistan imposed a strict country-wide lockdown to prevent its spread. The sudden change in a person's social life due to these measures has raised socio-economic and psychological issues. People’s loneliness and boredom have affected their physical and mental well-being (Hwang et al., 2020). To deal with loneliness and boredom, individuals who engage in social and physical separation report an increase in their usage of social networking sites (SNSs) (Laato et al., 2020, Naidoo, 2020). There is an insufficient study on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals’ mental health (Shi et al., 2020), though how this social isolation affects users’ behaviour on SNSs is yet to be investigated. Previously, a study on cyberbullying reported the influence of an individual’s offline psychological and emotional distress on online behaviour. For adolescents, feeling deprived, lonely, and socially isolated may affect their tendency to be targeted by or perpetrate cyberbullying (Brewer & Kerslake, 2015). Cyberbullying during the COVID-19 pandemic has caused considerable health problems (i.e., physical and psychological), leading to negative consequences for people’s well-being (Rosli et al., 2021). The study demonstrates that cyberbullying significantly harms the mental well-being of cyber users (Dreßing et al., 2014), and thus higher distress is recorded among the individuals.

Zhang and Shi (2017) explored the relationship between subjective well-being and social exclusion. They found that individuals with high life dissatisfaction, emotional distress, and negative moods are vulnerable to various psychosocial problems, such as a higher risk of feeling ostracised and trust issues. Hence, we can say that a sudden halt to one’s social life due to lockdowns or the closing of offices/institutes may cause emotional distress and dissatisfaction among adolescents, resulting in psychosocial problems like ostracism feelings.

In 2020, as many regions declared an emergency and implemented strict measures to stop the spread by imposing lockdowns, most educational institutes were closed. In some areas, the internet was the major or only channel through which students could interact with their friends/peers and teachers. However, studies report that when students connect online with their class fellows/peers, there are high chances of ostracism that may lead to negative emotions (Ellis et al., 2020). Meter and Bauman (2015) found that there is a risk of “co-rumination” when interacting with close friends online—whereby friends constantly revisit and rehash old problems—which may lead to ostracism (Rose, 2002), resulting in distress, anger, and frustration that may end in some users quitting a virtual group or social media. Hence, a virtual group environment may intensify existing interpersonal struggles that may cause negative emotions among students.

Even though a great deal of study has been undertaken on adopting and using information systems (ISs), there is still much to learn. This study will concentrate on the factors that influence discontinuous usage intention (DUI) from the perspective of SNSs. Undoubtedly, ample literature is available on the acceptance and success of ISs, but literature about the termination phase is scarce. This study enriches the IS literature by providing variables that lead to building users’ DUI (Berger et al., 2014).

Educational institutes started functioning virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic, with students attending classes online at home via the help of a learning management system. SNSs and virtual group apps were the only means by which they could interact and communicate with their friends and peers. Despite the connections created, studies reported that this might lead to high levels of ostracism (Ellis et al., 2020), resulting in negative emotions and behaviours.

By employing affective event theory (AET)—which states that events affect an individual’s emotions and that ultimately influence their behaviour (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996)—this research explains that a student’s anger (negative emotions) is a response or answer to an event (i.e., cyber ostracism) that may lead to their quitting intention (behaviour) (Lam & Chen, 2012). The theory also suggests that the events-emotional reaction association can be arbitrated or moderated by the individual’s personality and mood traits. Similarly, this study asserts that growth belief, which is deeply ingrained and depicts a stable personality trait (Knee, 1998), may moderate the event-emotional reaction relationship, i.e., between CO and anger. Thus, the following research objectives are proposed:

  • •

    To investigate a significant association between CO and DUI.

  • •

    To determine whether anger mediates the association between CO and DUI.

  • •

    To determine whether growth belief moderates the association between CO and anger.

2. Study theoretical framework

2.1. Cyber ostracism

While past research has focused on ostracism in the face-to-face workplace, recent research considers ostracism in cyberspace, known as CO. This is when people feel that others ignore them over the internet, e.g., on SNSs (such as Facebook (FB)), due to not receiving any comments about the views they've shared or the feeling that others do not value their thoughts online. Consequently, such individuals feel that they are overlooked by others in cyberspace (Ferris et al., 2007, Wu et al., 2012). Ostracism or social exclusion is one of the major causes of pain, hurt and negative experiences among humans (Gruter & Masters, 1986). Ostracism frightens humans and endangers their need for self-control, self-respect, and significant presence. Ostracism has been explored in various contexts, from face-to-face confrontations to cell phone texting and chatrooms. One study showed that adverse encounters trigger severe disturbing responses, like anxiety at work (Taylor, 1991). Notably, confronting a traumatic work atmosphere alone can reduce job accomplishment. Maertz Jr and Campion (2004) suggest that workplace ostracism causes workers to select alternate tasks or jobs with less stress or pressure due to the decline of their substantial assets due to confronting social stressors in their current tasks.

2.2. Anger

Anger is a negative emotion linked to hostile thoughts and behavioural issues. It is usually developed in response to another person's unwanted actions that are considered to be disrespectful, humiliating, or threatening (Wollebæk et al., 2019). According to Lambert et al. (2019), anger is the emotion that alerts us to the fact that something unfair has happened. It indicates that something about the self is (or previously has been) hurt and that a reaction is needed. Similarly, in the case of cyberspace, studies report SNSs as emotional places (Del Vicario et al., 2017, Zollo et al., 2015), i.e., when participants are exposed to good news, they give positive comments, and the reverse tendency emerges when they are exposed to more unfavorable messages (Lambert et al., 2019). Hence, anger and stress may result in aggressive or deviant behavior. According to Williams (2007a), the instantaneous impacts of being excluded involve a strong adverse feeling that motivates people towards negative emotions, leading to a decrease in social acceptance and likely rejection (Schuster, 2001). Being ostracised or omitted diminishes a person's optimistic temper. Instead, they develop an adverse temper with a lesser sense of being in the right place, self-respect, control and expressive survival (Williams, 2007b, Williams, 2009), resulting in harmful counteractive behaviour (Baumeister et al., 2005).

2.3. Discontinuous usage intention

SNSs (like FB or Twitter) are connected platforms that intend to develop relationships between persons who share social circles, hobbies, and events. People interpret these electronic communication tools as “serious tools for their public life” (Kowalski et al., 2008). However, irregular use depicts a person's intention to change their behaviour, such as quitting technology (Maier et al., 2015). This might be due to a user's unpleasant experience that caused them to develop the intention not to use technology (Beaudry and Pinsonneault, 2005, Hu and Yu, 2021). From the SNS perspective, DUI may be defined as a person's intention to reduce SNS usage, discontinue using SNSs completely, only use them momentarily or occasionally, or shift to other SNS options (Maier et al., 2015).

2.4. Growth belief

Growth belief is the confidence that a relationship may endure and overcome problems (Franiuk et al., 2002, Knee, 1998), and it involves the stability in a person's personality when conflicts arise. Growth belief assists people in acting less violently and helps them cope with negative emotions better (Crum et al., 2013). People with a sense of growth take problems as opportunities to understand others in a better way. For instance, people’s ideas regarding interaction flexibility determine how they see relationships. It includes the certainty that relations can be held and barriers can be overcome (Franiuk et al., 2002, Knee, 1998). So, it can be assumed that a growth attitude could protect a person from the adverse effects of ostracism and reinforce their strength when confronting unpleasant circumstances.

2.5. Hypothesis development

2.5.1. The relationship between cyber ostracism, anger, and discontinuous usage intention

SNSs are connected platforms that seek to develop public relationships between people with common interests. Communicating with one another in the public domain or through personal connections is the primary purpose of SNS (Krasnova et al., 2010).

SNS usage increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to statistics from insights and consulting firm Kantar. The social media app WhatsApp has experienced the most significant gain due to COVID-19. Further, facebook (FB) recently shared its data, noting that its platform's total messaging increased by more than 50 % over the last month. It includes FB Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp combined. SNS usage increased most among the 18–34-year-old age group (Perez, 2020). However, some technology-based usage can have detrimental effects (Ågerfalk et al., 2020), leading users to discontinue their use. The reasons behind this decision may include stress caused by the overuse of SNS (Lee et al., 2016, Xiao et al., 2019); information overload (Bright et al., 2015, Niu et al., 2020); motivation for self-improvement (Cramer et al., 2016); and conflicts and privacy concerns (Fan et al., 2020). Interestingly, the role of perceived CO in discontinuing usage intention during lockdown is yet to be investigated.

CO involves feeling that others ignore them over the internet, e.g., on SNSs (such as FB and Twitter), and that they give no importance to their thoughts shared online. Such an averse and distressing feeling usually precedes recession and high turnover intent (Ferris et al., 2007). According to D’Arcy et al. (2014), while using a SNS, people sometimes feel ignored or excluded, causing them to feel angry and leading such users to stop using technology (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005). Chen et al. (2012) found that when people are ignored, they become angry and less satisfied with basic psychological needs; in response, they eliminate themselves from distressing public connections and seek isolation. Chow et al. (2008) studied the effect of anger in mediating social exclusion and misbehavior. They confirmed the mediating effect of anger in ostracism-induced violence. They argued that previously anger had never been studied as a mediator specifically, whereas negative emotions were used as a general (Zhang et al., 2019). Hales et al. (2016) also reported that anger mediates the role between ostracism and less prosocial behavior. Similarly, Svetieva et al. (2016) studied the mediating effect of anger between ostracism and risk-taking.

Williams (2007a) devised the most prevalent model for predicting ostracism consequences. This paradigm is predicated on the notion that exclusion might threaten social assets and be considered a stressor. This model contains three stages. The first one is the reflexive stage. Williams (2007a) argues that ostracism's immediate reaction is reflexive; participants report negative moods, particularly sadness and anger. Once people identify the signs of isolation in this phase, they feel grief, depression, resentment and lower contentment regarding four fundamental emotional desires (i.e., fitting in, self-respect, self-control and significant survival). Succeeding this instant response to exclusion, people enter the second, contemplative phase. In this phase, people attempt to understand the exclusion experience and recoup from the communal damage. Ostracised people frequently react with emotional patterns or responses known as "retirement." In this response, ostracised persons can remove themselves from distressing social relations and seek isolation or the intent to isolate (quitting or intent to quit SNS).

According to AET, events produce individuals’ emotional reactions that subsequently influences their behaviour (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Eisenberger (2012) reported that ostracism has similar detrimental effects as physical harm; when hospital employees are stigmatized, they are more likely to experience emotional stress (Wu et al., 2012), which increases their misconduct. Ellis et al. (2020) argued that stressful virtual group environments formulate negative emotions, which is a psychological problem that further leads to misbehavior. Hence, in the context of cyberspace, when a user feels cyber ostracised, this may cause them to develop anger that ultimately leads to SNS quitting or DUI. Thus, the following hypotheses are put out in light of the aforementioned arguments:

H1: Cyber ostracism is positively related to discontinuous usage intention.

H2. Anger is positively and significantly impacted by Cyber ostracism.

H3. Anger has a positive and significant impact on discontinuous usage intention.

H3(a): Anger acts as a mediator in the relationship between cyber ostracism and discontinuous usage intention.

2.5.2. Moderating role of growth belief

As explained above, growth belief is the confidence that relations can be sustained and overcome obstacles (Franiuk et al., 2002, Knee, 1998). It assists people to act less violently and cope with negative emotions better (Crum et al., 2013). Thus, it can be assumed that a growth attitude could protect a person from the adverse effects of CO and reinforce an individual's strength when confronting these difficult scenarios (Franiuk et al., 2002, Knee, 1998).

Previous research has found that having growth beliefs might help people adjust to stresses and disappointments (Hong et al., 1999). Recently, researchers have added that people have healthier mental and social outcomes (e.g., better time organization, better educational accomplishment, less detrimental intake) if they possess growth beliefs (Job et al., 2015). Additionally, a study comparing colleagues shows that those with growth attitudes manage to survive cognitively under pressure more effectively than those who do not (Crum et al., 2013). Enhanced awareness and better relationship excellence can assist such people in developing more dedication and intention to resolve controversies (Knee et al., 2004). Likewise, while facing personal disagreements with friends (Chen et al., 2012), such people believe that the dispute should be overcome for a healthy long-term relationship.

Consequently, they become more considerate towards others (Cobb et al., 2013), reducing their stress or negative emotions such as anger. Barrick and Mount (2000) examined the relationship between negative emotions and negative events in the workplace and how a personality trait of an employee weakened this relationship. Similarly, Chi et al. (2013) investigated the moderating role of employee extraversion and neuroticism traits among customer negative events and employee state hostility. Based on this research, we may conclude that students are more sensitive (more or less) towards unfavourable events than others with specific personalities. Growth belief is an individual’s trait about having confidence on relationships, if a person's confidence in their relationship is shaken or broken, the correlation between CO and anger will be strengthen.

AET suggests that the relationship between events and emotional reactions is depended on their personality traits. In relation to this assumption of AET, Mischel and Shoda (1998) reveal that an individual’s cognitive-affective system is reflected by their personality characteristics, i.e., through which they can encrypt and process situational stimuli. Hence, one’s personality can affect their emotional response (Chi et al., 2013). Based on this assumption of AET, we will examine the moderating role of growth belief between CO and anger in the current study. As such, we propose our fourth hypothesis (see Fig. 1):

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Study theoretical model.

H4: Growth belief acts as a moderator in the relationship between cyber ostracism and anger.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study participants

In this study, data was gathered from Pakistani university students. Google Docs, a Public Platform approved by Google INC was used to create the online questionnaire, and students were provided the survey link. Students who are members of official/unofficial university SNS pages/groups were contacted for data collection. The survey link and an introductory text were sent to their account using Messenger. A confidentiality declaration promised participants that their personal information would be protected and responses would be used solely for research purpose. The study participants gave informed consent in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration, and the department's ethics committee approved all the study procedures.

A time-lagged study was conducted to control common method biases, and data were collected at three different periods. Respondents were asked about CO and growth belief at time 1, anger at time 2 and discontinuous usage behaviour at time 3, with a gap of one to two weeks each. Harman's single-factor method also shows no common bias because single-factor variance is 17.9 %, less than 50 % (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Approximately 640 respondents were contacted at time 1 and were requested to fill the online survey, out of which 590 responses received were in a usable form, making a response rate of about 92.18 % at time 1. Given a gap of around two weeks, 590 respondents who responded with the complete questionnaire at time 1 was contacted again for the time 2 survey, out of which 560 responses were received back, with a response rate of about 94.91 %. The questionnaire's last part was distributed to 560 respondents after a time-lag of one week, out of which 535 responses were received. Lastly, using SPSS, outliers were removed, making 517 usable data for conducting statistical analysis. Hence, the final responses used to conduct statistical analysis were 517, with an overall response rate of 80 % for the current study.

3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. Cyber ostracism

The study used the 12-item Gonsalkorale and Williams (2007) scale to assess cyber ostracism Cronbach's alpha was 0.93 in the original study by Gonsalkorale and Williams, while in this study, the Cronbach's alpha value was 0.853. Sample items include “I felt like an outsider”; “I felt rejected” and “I felt disconnected.” The construct items were assessed on the five-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree).

3.2.2. Anger

The study used the ten-item anger scale developed by Forgays et al. (1997). Cronbach's alpha value was 0.925 in the current study. Sample items include “I am furious” and “Feel like swearing.” The construct items were assessed on the five-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree).

3.2.3. Growth belief about relationship

The study adopted the five-item scale developed by Knee (1998) and used by Canevello and Crocker (2011) to measure the growth belief about relationships. The Cronbach's alpha value for the scale in this study was 0.823. Sample items include: “The ideal friendship develops gradually over time” and “Without conflict from time to time, friendships cannot improve”. The construct items were assessed on the five-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree).

3.2.4. Discontinuous usage intention

To determine the DUI, the study adopted the six-item discontinuous using the intention scale constructed by Maier et al. (2015). The Cronbach's alpha in the original study by Maier et al. (2015) was 0.90, while Cronbach's alpha value was 0.932 in the current study. Sample items include: “I will unregister from Facebook”; “In the future, I will use another social network site,” and “In the future, I will use Facebook far less than today.” The construct items were assessed on the five-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree).

3.3. Statistical procedure

This study utilized two software programs for analysis: SPSS 24 and AMOS 22. AMOS was used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis. In contrast, SPSS was used to check the missing data, reliability analysis, descriptive statistics, correlations analysis, and mediation and moderation analysis using the Hayes Macro process. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to test the discriminant and convergent validity of the study variables, as suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988).

4. Results

Table 1 depicts students’ characteristics concerning age, gender, number of friends on SNS, frequency of using SNS, and purpose of using SNS. Statistics revealed that about 49 % were male and 51 % were female. In this study, 92 respondents were aged 16–18; 168 were 19–21; 181 were 22–24, and 76 were 25–27. Of the respondents, 67 % reported joining SNS to get information, and 29 % joined SNS to make friends. Table 1 contains information on various demographic statistics.

Table 1.

Participants' characteristics.

Gender Male 257
Female 260
Age 16–18 92
19–21 168
22–24 181
25–27 76
Numbers of friends on SNS 0–100 8 %
101–200 18 %
201–300 45 %
Above 300 29 %
Frequency of using SNS Less than 5 h/week 11 %
About 10 h/week 30 %
About 15 h/week 24 %
More than 15 h/week 35 %
Purpose of using SNS Making friends 29 %
Getting information 67 %
Sharing information 4 %
Open in a new tab

4.1. Measurement model

Table 2 displays the results of factor loadings, composite reliability, and average variance. All the variables’ items have a factor loading value of more than 0.7. According to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), the average variance extracted (AVE) should be more than 0.5. Cronbach's alpha for cyber ostracism is 0.968. Anger has a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.918 and an AVE value of 0.528. DUI has a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.795 and an AVE value of 0.564. Growth believe has a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.926 and an average variance extracted AVE value of 0.714.

Table 2.

Confirmatory factor analyses.

Fit Index Reference Criteria Outcome Fit (Yes/No)
X2 867.252
DF 813
X2/DF (Kline, 2010) 1.00 − 5.00 1.067 Yes
RMSEA (Steiger, 1990) < 0.08 0.011 Yes
SRMR (Hu & Bentler, 1999) < 0.08 0.0274 Yes
NFI (Bentler & Bonett, 1980) > 0.80 0.940 Yes
IFI (Bollen, 1990) > 0.90 0.996 Yes
TLI (Tucker & Lewis, 1973) > 0.90 0.996 Yes
CFI (Byrne, 2016) > 0.90 0.996 Yes
Alpha, Composite Reliability & Validity Analysis
Variables Items Loading Alpha CR AVE
>0.704 >0.7 >0.7 >0.5
Cyber Ostracism CO_1 0.695 * ** 0.968 0.968 0.561
CO_2 0.649 * **
CO_3 0.770 * **
CO_4 0.773 * **
CO_5 0.740 * **
CO_6 0.749 * **
CO_7 0.775 * **
CO_8 0.731 * **
CO_9 0.751 * **
CO_10 0.777 * **
CO_11 0.772 * **
CO_12 0.727 * **
CO_13 0.757 * **
CO_14 0.761 * **
CO_15 0.756 * **
CO_16 0.714 * **
CO_17 0.759 * **
CO_18 0.761 * **
CO_19 0.768 * **
CO_20 0.750 * **
CO_21 0.758 * **
CO_22 0.757 * **
CO_23 0.745 * **
CO_24 0.769 * **
Anger ANG_1 0.718 * ** 0.918 0.918 0.528
ANG_2 0.668 * **
ANG_3 0.677 * **
ANG_4 0.747 * **
ANG_5 0.750 * **
ANG_6 0.713 * **
ANG_7 0.768 * **
ANG_8 0.714 * **
ANG_9 0.754 * **
ANG_10 0.752 * **
Discontinuous DUI_1 0.742 * ** 0.795 0.795 0.564
Usage Intention DUI_2 0.774 * **
DUI_3 0.736 * **
Growth belief GB_1 0.853 * ** 0.926 0.926 0.714
GB_2 0.838 * **
GB_3 0.851 * **
GB_4 0.843 * **
GB_5 0.841 * **
Open in a new tab

AVE = average variance extracted; CR = construct reliability; ***p < 0.001

The latent constructs' HTMT values were less than 0.90, which indicates that each latent construct measurement was discriminating to each other (Henseler et al., 2015). Table 3 displays the research variables' mean, standard deviation, and correlation. Furthermore, the same respondents' variables evaluated at a similar period were tested against their one-factor models. In every case, the multiple-factor-unconstrained models fit better than the single-factor models, indicating the acceptable discriminant validity of the existing study variables. Fig. 2.

Table 3.

Discriminant validity analysis.

Constructs Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1. Cyber Ostracism 3.59 0.82 0.749
2. Anger 3.67 0.81 0.625 0.727
3. Discontinuous Usage Intention 3.61 0.90 0.602 0.661 0.751
4. Growth belief 3.78 0.79 -0.572 -0.493 -0.512 0.845
Open in a new tab

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Measurement model.

4.2. Structural model

Table 4 shows that all of the direct hypotheses were determined to be significant. H1 states that CO is positively related to DUI. H1 had a t-value of 6.913 and a p-value of less than 0.05. The standardized path coefficient was 0.318, indicating a positive association. According to H2, CO positively impacts anger, and the hypothesis was accepted at the t-value of 12.130 and p-value less than 0.05. The standardized path coefficient was 0.655, indicating a positive association. H3 demonstrated that anger positively and significantly affects DUI. H3 was statistically accepted, having a t-value of 12.667 and a p-value less than 0.05. The standardized path coefficient was 0.532, indicating a positive association.

Table 4.

Direct effect hypothesis testing.

Predictor Beta SE t-value p-value
H1 CO → DUI 0.318 0.046 6.913 * **
H2 CO → ANG 0.655 0.054 12.130 * **
H3 ANG → DUI 0.532 0.042 12.667 * **
Open in a new tab

Note: n = 516; CO= cyber ostracism; ANG= Anger; DUI= discontinuous usage intention; SE= standard error. * **p < 0.001

The bootstrapping approach was utilized to conduct the mediation analysis, as suggested by Hayes (2013). Hypothesis H3(a) illustrates that anger mediates the relationship the link between CO and DUI, as it was fully supported with CI [β = 0.348, T-value = 7.909, p < 0.001.], as shown in Table 5. The mediation is approved because no opposite was found with the estimations of LLCI and ULCI, as suggested by Hayes (2017). Hypothesis H3(a) was fully supported with CI [β = 0.348, T-value = 7.909, p < 0.001.], as shown in Table 5. The graphical depiction of the structural model is shown in Fig. 3.

Table 5.

Mediated regression analysis results.

Predictor Beta SE T-value P-Value
H3(a) CO → ANG → DUI 0.348 0.044 7.909 **
Open in a new tab

Note: n = 516; CO= cyber ostracism; ANG= Anger; DUI= discontinuous usage intention; SE= standard error. **p < 0.01

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Structural model graphical representation.

MACRO Process was used for moderation analysis, and the results revealed that growth belief moderates the relationship between CO and anger (β = −0.188***, t = 3.481), supporting H4 (See Table 6). These findings were also confirmed by the two-tailed significance test (Effect= 0.829***, Boot SE= 0.082).

Table 6.

Moderated regressions analysis for GB.

Sr# Predictor Beta SE T P
H4 Interaction CO*GB → ANG -0.188 0.054 3.481 ***
Conditional direct effects of X on Y
Moderator Effects Boot SE LLCI ULCI
H4 + 1 Std Dev 0.512 * ** 0.042 0.430 0.594
Mean 0.670 * ** 0.051 0.570 0.770
-1 Std Dev 0.829 * ** 0.082 0.671 0.986
Open in a new tab

Note: n = 517; Control Variables are Age, Gender. CO= cyber ostracism; ANG= Anger; GB= Growth Belief. Bootstrap Sample Size= 5000. LL=Lower Limit, CI= Confidence Interval, UL= Upper Limit. *p < 0.05, * *p < 0.01, * **p < 0.001.

In this study, Anger has an R2 value of 0.478, and discontinuous usage intention’s R2 value is 0.607.

5. Discussion

COVID-19 has turned our world upside down, as millions of people have experienced lockdowns, and there is a possibility that many businesses will not survive (Ågerfalk et al., 2020). This pandemic will have enduring effects on individuals worldwide and has played a crucial part in altering how people see the world (Doyle & Conboy, 2020). During COVID-19 in Pakistan, the authorities restricted people and university students to their houses to prevent the disease from spreading. The statistics given by Perez (2020) illustrate that the number of SNS users increased to 50 % in March 2020, as it was the only means for everyone to communicate. Based on the literature and the assumptions of AET, this study looked into the effect of anger in mediating the relationship between CO and DUI and the moderating role of growth belief.

Recently, with the development of the internet, CO and anger have become the foremost concern of today’s scholars. However, in the COVID-19 era, communication channels such as SNSs have accelerated feelings of boredom and loneliness, leading to a progression in mental health issues (Catedrilla et al., 2020). Studies show that the pandemic outbreak led to extreme distress and anger among students (Wilson et al., 2021), who blame themselves for the intended consequences (Beran et al., 2012). Consequently, results revealed that CO positively influences anger.

Social media usage during COVID-19 has drastically affected individuals’ behaviour. The extensive use of the internet and other electronic communication channels has led to an increase in anger. The research shows that excessive social media exposure during COVID-19 has potentially escalated the underlying mechanism of negative emotion and violence (i.e., anger and frustration) (Theofilidis, 2021), thus making youth leave SNSs. Accordingly, the study findings show anger has a positive influence on DUI.

CO prompts the feeling of anger, and the current study illustrates the underlying moderating effect of growth belief on the connection between CO and anger. Growth belief is adaptive to facing adverse experiences. The research shows that growth belief minimizes the destructive nature of anger-related ostracism. It guides people to adopt effective strategies in combating negative situations (Niu et al., 2020). Therefore, it can be concluded that an individual’s response in the form of emotions (anger, frustration, etc.) is developed because of a negative event, and the person’s personality influences this relationship (Bowling et al., 2005). The statistical results supported the moderating role of growth belief between CO and anger. Thus, the association is weakened when users have a low growth belief. Hence, all the study proposed hypotheses were verified (H1, H2, H3, H3(a), and H4).

Students may be particularly at risk of facing online ostracism and anger. Previously, a study on cyberbullying reported the influence of an individual’s offline psychological and emotional distress on online behaviour. The study found that adolescents may have an increased tendency to be targeted or perpetrate cyberbullying if they feel deprived, lonely, or socially isolated (Brewer & Kerslake, 2015).

Undergraduate and graduate students experienced this challenge due to the absence of a routine and necessary assistance needed to provide a sense of stability and coherence throughout the pandemic. Cao et al. (2020) found that the COVID-19 outbreak in China caused anxiety in almost one-fourth (24.9 %) of college students. Therefore, practitioners should pay extra attention to students. They might be at higher risk of social isolation and mental health problems; however, it was generally assumed that the elderly were mainly considered more vulnerable and affected.

5.1. Study implication

The current study provides recommendations for social media practitioners who seek to discourage discontinuation intentions and encourage active engagement. Our study suggests that students who experience CO tend to think about quitting SNSs because of anger. Practitioners should prevent users from generating negative emotions like anger by providing social ties, friendship, interaction, and social support.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, rigorous public health measures were imposed, including social distancing, institution closures, and limited social activity. Students have been found to increase SNS use to deal with boredom and loneliness. Positive use of SNSs can significantly promote mental health at the individual, community, and population levels, including those experiencing the greatest vulnerability or risk, as opposed to adverse use of SNSs. Promoting positive mental health through SNSs comprises growth belief, self-esteem, and a sense of well-being that can help those experiencing the most significant vulnerability.

5.2. Study contributions

Our research contributes to the DUI literature by offering empirical evidence of variables like CO that could instigate this intention among SNS users. Similarly, this is the first study to provide empirical findings on the connection between anger and DUI. The research also uncovered significant findings regarding incorporating growth belief as a moderator in the relationship between CO and anger. Individuals who practiced social and physical distancing increased their SNS use to deal with loneliness and boredom during lockdowns. These online platforms can support students experiencing ostracism and anger through digital study groups. They can also provide them with information on thinking positively in a crisis (Duan & Zhu, 2020). However, if students experience CO, they tend to think about quitting SNS because they feel angry, and they could lose their only way to seek relief from loneliness. The results of our research indicate that growth belief may be used as a moderator mechanism for those individuals’ facing CO and anger.

Universities have begun offering courses exclusively online rather than continuing with traditional classroom instruction. University leadership and teachers should explore using the internet medium to promote social relationships among students through interaction and social support. Instead of experiencing painful events and feelings like online ostracism and anger, students would experience positivity in situations like this. Evaluating and mitigating the potential negative impacts of isolation and SNS usage on individuals’ social networks and mental health is critical.

5.3. Study limitations

A few limitations need to be addressed and could lead to new directions for future research. First, this study's sample size was more significant than the sample used in the prior research. However, the findings can be replicated with more diverse data collection in future studies. Second, our study results are context specific. The study focused on cyber ostracism and students' discontinuous usage intention of social networking sites during COVID-19. Thus, our results may not fully correspond to the pre-and post-COVID-19 environments. Further research is needed to shed light on this topic to achieve more profound clarity. Third, according to the study's demographic data, the average age of the current participants is in their twenties; therefore, future research is needed to investigate cyber-ostracism among different age groups and those unfamiliar with online communication.

6. Conclusion

This study aimed to give a comprehensive knowledge of the effect of CO on DUI, with anger as mediating variable and growth belief as a moderating variable. According to AET, a small act of ignoring, regardless of many past healthy and interactive social connections, can make one feel ignored or excluded, resulting in creating negative emotions such as anger. That ultimately leads a person to a state where they may shun or terminate that connection. This study extends past studies on CO from the perspective of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study demonstrates that individuals may be highly dissatisfied with their lives, emotional distress, and anxiety because of social distancing, social exclusion, and social ostracism in real life. This may increase their distrust of others and start feeling ostracized, resulting in negative emotions and behaviour. Therefore, the findings reveal that individuals exposed to ostracism display negative emotions due to the changes in their situation and behaviour (Hales & Williams, 2018).

The study results indicated that when the government-imposed lockdown confined students to their homes, they started experiencing heightened CO because SNSs were the only means to communicate with friends and family. This excessive use of social media has led individuals to bear unintended consequences (i.e., personal and social), such as their health. Previous research showed that individuals engaging in excessive social media usage had recorded increased feelings of boredom, anxiety, and revenge (Kircaburun et al., 2018). During the COVID-19 pandemic, undesirable social media behavior revealed the dark side of such individuals’ personalities.

In conclusion, during the COVID-19 crisis, anger has harmed individuals' cognitive thinking and mental status, ultimately causing fluctuating mood transitions (Oh et al., 2021). The research results revealed that, during the pandemic, individuals felt embarrassed and insulted after being rejected from social groups, leading to CO and the individual exhibiting anger. This anger led to the DUI of SNSs among such students. The findings also revealed that students with high growth beliefs could control their negative emotions, i.e., anger, leading to a healthy and long-term relationship with others on SNSs.

Funding

This study is supported by the Scientific Research Start-up Fund of Zhejiang Shuren University, PR China (KXJ0122604).

References

  1. Ågerfalk P.J., Conboy K., Myers M.D. Taylor & Francis; 2020. Information systems in the age of pandemics: COVID-19 and beyond. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson J.C., Gerbing D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. 1988;103(3):411. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barrick M.R., Mount M.K. Select on conscientiousness and emotional stability. Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior. 2000;15:28. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baumeister R.F., DeWall C.N., Ciarocco N.J., Twenge J.M. Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;88(4):589. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Beaudry A., Pinsonneault A. Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly. 2005:493–524. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bentler P.M., Bonett D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin. 1980;88(3):588. [Google Scholar]
  7. Beran T.N., Rinaldi C., Bickham D.S., Rich M. Evidence for the need to support adolescents dealing with harassment and cyber-harassment: Prevalence, progression, and impact. School Psychology International. 2012;33(5):562–576. doi: 10.1177/0143034312446976. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Berger K., Klier J., Klier M., Probst F. A review of information systems research on online social networks. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2014;35(1):8. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bollen K.A. Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin. 1990;107(2):256. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bowling N.A., Beehr T.A., Wagner S.H., Libkuman T.M. Adaptation-level theory, opponent process theory, and dispositions: an integrated approach to the stability of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005;90(6):1044. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brewer G., Kerslake J. Cyberbullying, self-esteem, empathy and loneliness. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015;48:255–260. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bright L.F., Kleiser S.B., Grau S.L. Too much Facebook? An exploratory examination of social media fatigue. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015;44:148–155. [Google Scholar]
  13. Byrne B.M. Routledge; 2016. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. [Google Scholar]
  14. Canevello A., Crocker J. Changing relationship growth belief: Intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of compassionate goals. Personal Relationships. 2011;18(3):370–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01296.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cao W., Fang Z., Hou G., Han M., Xu X., Dong J., Zheng J. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Research. 2020;287 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Catedrilla J., Ebardo R., Limpin L., De La Cuesta J., Ching M.R., Trapero H., Leano C. November). Loneliness, boredom and information anxiety on problematic use of social media during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computers in Education. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. 2020:52–60. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen Z., DeWall C.N., Poon K.-T., Chen E.-W. When destiny hurts: Implicit theories of relationships moderate aggressive responses to ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2012;48(5):1029–1036. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chi N.-W., Tsai W.-C., Tseng S.-M. Customer negative events and employee service sabotage: The roles of employee hostility, personality and group affective tone. Work &. Stress. 2013;27(3):298–319. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chow R.M., Tiedens L.Z., Govan C. Excluded feelings: Emotional responses to social ostracism predict aggressive reactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2008;44(3):896–903. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cobb R.A., DeWall C.N., Lambert N.M., Fincham F.D. Implicit theories of relationships and close relationship violence: Does believing your relationship can grow relate to lower perpetration of violence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2013;39(3):279–290. doi: 10.1177/0146167212473159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cramer E.M., Song H., Drent A.M. Social comparison on Facebook: Motivation, affective consequences, self-esteem, and Facebook fatigue. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016;64:739–746. [Google Scholar]
  22. Crum A.J., Salovey P., Achor S. Rethinking stress: the role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2013;104(4):716. doi: 10.1037/a0031201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. D’Arcy J., Gupta A., Tarafdar M., Turel O. Reflecting on the “dark side” of information technology use. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2014;35(1):5. [Google Scholar]
  24. Del Vicario M., Zollo F., Caldarelli G., Scala A., Quattrociocchi W. Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks. 2017;50:6–16. [Google Scholar]
  25. Doyle R., Conboy K. The role of IS in the covid-19 pandemic: A liquid-modern perspective. International Journal of Information Management. 2020;55 doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dreßing H., Bailer J., Anders A., Wagner H., Gallas C. Cyberstalking in a large sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2014;17(2):61–67. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Duan L., Zhu G. Psychological interventions for people affected by the COVID-19 epidemic. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(4):300–302. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30073-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Eisenberger N.I. The neural bases of social pain: evidence for shared representations with physical pain. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2012;74(2):126. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182464dd1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ellis W.E., Dumas T.M., Forbes L.M. Physically isolated but socially connected: Psychological adjustment and stress among adolescents during the initial COVID-19 crisis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Délután Comportement. 2020;52(3):177. [Google Scholar]
  30. Fan X., Jiang X., Deng N., Dong X., Lin Y. Does role conflict influence discontinuous usage intentions? Privacy concerns, social media fatigue and self-esteem. Information Technology & People. 2020;34(3):1152–1174. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ferris L.T., Williams J.S., Shen C.-L. The effect of acute exercise on serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels and cognitive function. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2007;39(4):728. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e31802f04c7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Forgays D.G., Forgays D.K., Spielberger C.D. Factor structure of the state-trait anger expression inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1997;69(3):497–507. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6903_5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Franiuk R., Cohen D., Pomerantz E.M. Implicit theories of relationships: Implications for relationship satisfaction and longevity. Personal Relationships. 2002;9(4):345–367. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gonsalkorale K., Williams K.D. The KKK won’t let me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2007;37(6):1176–1186. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gruter M., Masters R.D. Elsevier; 1986. Ostracism as a social and biological phenomenon: An introduction. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hales A.H., Kassner M.P., Williams K.D., Graziano W.G. Disagreeableness as a cause and consequence of ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2016;42(6):782–797. doi: 10.1177/0146167216643933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hales A.H., Williams K.D. Marginalized individuals and extremism: The role of ostracism in openness to extreme groups. Journal of Social Issues. 2018;74(1):75–92. doi: 10.1111/josi.12257. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hayes A.F. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications. 2017 [Google Scholar]
  39. Henseler J., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2015;43(1):115–135. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hong Y., Chiu C., Dweck C.S., Lin D.M.-S., Wan W. Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: a meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;77(3):588. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hu J., Yu R. The effects of ICT-based social media on adolescents’ digital reading performance: A longitudinal study of PISA 2009, PISA 2012, PISA 2015 and PISA 2018. Computers & Education. 2021;175 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hu L., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1–55. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hwang T.-J., Rabheru K., Peisah C., Reichman W., Ikeda M. Loneliness and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Psychogeriatrics. 2020;32(10):1217–1220. doi: 10.1017/S1041610220000988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Job V., Walton G.M., Bernecker K., Dweck C.S. Implicit theories about willpower predict self-regulation and grades in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2015;108(4):637. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kircaburun K., Jonason P.K., Griffiths M.D. The Dark Tetrad traits and problematic social media use: The mediating role of cyberbullying and cyberstalking. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018;135:264–269. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kline R.B. New York, NY: Guildford Press; 2010. Principles and practice for structural equation modelling (3rd Eds) [Google Scholar]
  47. Knee C.R. Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998;74(2):360. [Google Scholar]
  48. Knee C.R., Patrick H., Vietor N.A., Neighbors C. Implicit theories of relationships: Moderators of the link between conflict and commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2004;30(5):617–628. doi: 10.1177/0146167203262853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Kowalski, R.M., Limber, S.P., & Agatston, P.W. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in the digital age. malden, massachusetts. Blackwell Publishing. Li, Q.(2006). Cyber Bullying in Schools: A Research of Gender Differences. School Psychology International, 27(2), 157–170.
  50. Krasnova H., Spiekermann S., Koroleva K., Hildebrand T. Online social networks: Why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology. 2010;25(2):109–125. [Google Scholar]
  51. Laato S., Islam A.K.M.N., Islam M.N., Whelan E. What drives unverified information sharing and cyberchondria during the COVID-19 pandemic? European Journal of Information Systems. 2020;29(3):288–305. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lam W., Chen Z. When I put on my service mask: Determinants and outcomes of emotional labor among hotel service providers according to affective event theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2012;31(1):3–11. [Google Scholar]
  53. Lambert A.J., Eadeh F.R., Hanson E.J. Anger and its consequences for judgment and behavior: Recent developments in social and political psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2019;59:103–173. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lee A.R., Son S.-M., Kim K.K. Information and communication technology overload and social networking service fatigue: A stress perspective. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016;55:51–61. [Google Scholar]
  55. Maertz C.P., Jr, Campion M.A. Profiles in quitting: Integrating process and content turnover theory. Academy of Management Journal. 2004;47(4):566–582. [Google Scholar]
  56. Maier C., Laumer S., Weinert C., Weitzel T. The effects of technostress and switching stress on discontinued use of social networking services: a study of Facebook use. Information Systems Journal. 2015;25(3):275–308. [Google Scholar]
  57. Meter D.J., Bauman S. When sharing is a bad idea: The effects of online social network engagement and sharing passwords with friends on cyberbullying involvement. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2015;18(8):437–442. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Mischel W., Shoda Y. Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology. 1998;49:229–258. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Naidoo R. A multi-level influence model of COVID-19 themed cybercrime. European Journal of Information Systems. 2020;29(3):306–321. [Google Scholar]
  60. Niu G., He J., Lin S., Sun X., Longobardi C. Cyberbullying victimization and adolescent depression: The mediating role of psychological security and the moderating role of growth mindset. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(12):4368. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Nunnally J.C., Bernstein I.H. Validity Psychometric Theory. 1994;3:99–132. [Google Scholar]
  62. Oh S.-H., Lee S.Y., Han C. The effects of social media use on preventive behaviors during infectious disease outbreaks: The mediating role of self-relevant emotions and public risk perception. Health Communication. 2021;36(8):972–981. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1724639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Podsakoff P.M., MacKenzie S.B., Lee J.-Y., Podsakoff N.P. Podsakoff Mackenzie Lee Podzakoff JAP 2003 common method biases. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88(5):879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Perez (2020), Twitter has a record-breaking week as users looked for news of protests and COVID-19TechCrunch (2020) June 4.https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/04/twitter-has-a-record-breaking-week-as-users-looked-for-news-of-protests-and-covid-19/, (Accessed 11 July 2021).
  65. Rose A.J. Co–rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development. 2002;73(6):1830–1843. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Rosli W.R., Ya’cob S.N., Abu Bakar M.H., Mohd Bajury M.S. Governing the risks of cyber bullying in the workplace during the era of Covid-19. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH) 2021;6(10):334–342. doi: 10.47405/mjssh.v6i10.1079. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Schuster B. Rejection and victimization by peers. Peer Harassment in School: The Plight of the Vulnerable and the Victimized. 2001:290–309. [Google Scholar]
  68. Shi L., Lu Z.-A., Que J.-Y., Huang X.-L., Liu L., Ran M.-S., Gong Y.-M., Yuan K., Yan W., Sun Y.-K. Prevalence of and risk factors associated with mental health symptoms among the general population in China during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. JAMA Network Open. 2020;3(7) doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.14053. e2014053–e2014053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Steiger J.H. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1990;25(2):173–180. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Svetieva E., Zadro L., Denson T.F., Dale E., O’Moore K., Zheng W.Y. Anger mediates the effect of ostracism on risk-taking. Journal of Risk Research. 2016;19(5):614–631. [Google Scholar]
  71. Taylor S.E. Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin. 1991;110(1):67. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Theofilidis A. Mind’s Selective Attention to Previous Experience. Journal of Psychiatry Research Reviews & Reports. 2021:1–8. doi: 10.47363/JPSRR/2021(3)129. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Tucker L.R., Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973;38(1):1–10. [Google Scholar]
  74. Weiss H.M., Cropanzano R. Affective events theory. Research in Organizational Behavior. 1996;18(1):1–74. [Google Scholar]
  75. Williams K.D. Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007;58:425–452. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Williams K.D. Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007;58:425–452. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Williams K.D. Ostracism: A temporal need‐threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2009;41:275–314. [Google Scholar]
  78. Wilson O.W.A., Holland K.E., Elliott L.D., Duffey M., Bopp M. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US College Students’ physical activity and mental health. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 2021;18(3):272–278. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2020-0325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Wollebæk D., Karlsen R., Steen-Johnsen K., Enjolras B. Anger, fear, and echo chambers: The emotional basis for online behavior. Social Media. Society. 2019;5(2) 2056305119829859. [Google Scholar]
  80. Wu L., Yim F.H., Kwan H.K., Zhang X. Coping with workplace ostracism: The roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee psychological distress. Journal of Management Studies. 2012;49(1):178–199. [Google Scholar]
  81. Xiao L., Mou J., Huang L. Exploring the antecedents of social network service fatigue: a socio-technical perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 2019;119(9):2006–2032. [Google Scholar]
  82. Zhang D., Li S., Shao L., Hales A.H., Williams K.D., Teng F. Ostracism increases automatic aggression: The role of anger and forgiveness. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:2659. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Zhang S., Shi Q. The relationship between subjective well-being and workplace ostracism: The moderating role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2017;30(6):978–988. [Google Scholar]
  84. Zollo F., Novak P.K., Del Vicario M., Bessi A., Mozetič I., Scala A., Caldarelli G., Quattrociocchi W. Vol. 10. 2015. Emotional dynamics in the age of misinformation. (PloS One). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Studies in Educational Evaluation are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES