Modeling Structural Relationships of Self-efficacy with Tendency to Virtual Networks through the Mediating Role of Social Adjustment in Gifted Students

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Psychology, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 Department of Psychology, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran

Abstract

Abstract

Introduction: Cyberspace covers many aspects of human’s life and this tendency to cyberspace can be influenced by self-efficacy and emotional aspects. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to model the structural relationship of self-efficacy with the tendency to virtual networks through the mediation of social adjustment in gifted students.
Method: The research method was correlational-descriptive and in particular structural equations modeling. The statistical population of the present study was all 300 gifted students of Sampad High School in 11th course in the academic year of 2019 in Gorgan city. These students were selected as samples through census method and were evaluated using the virtual networks questionnaire (2014), Scherer Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (1982) and California Compatibility Questionnaire (CCP).
Results: The results showed that there is a significant negative relationship between self-efficacy and social adjustment with tendency to virtual networks. The research model was well-fit and confirmed and 0.39 of the variance of tendency to virtual networks was explained by self-efficacy and social adjustment. Also, social adaptability played a mediating role in the relationship between self-efficacy and the tendency to virtual networks.
Conclusion: Changes in tendency to cybersecurity can be directly explained based on self-efficacy and indirect social adjustment states in gifted students and this study has practical implications for school counselors.

Keywords

References

1.   Paul N GM. Relationship between internet self-efficacy and internet anxiety: A nuanced approach to understanding the connection. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2017;31;33(4), 42-53.
2.   Ozturk FO EM, Ozturk O, Canan F. . The relationship of affective temperament and emotional-behavioral difficulties to internet addiction in Turkish teenagers. ISRN psychiatry. 2013;28; 23-37.
3.   Li D ZW, Li X, Zhou Y, Zhao L, Wang Y. Stressful life events and adolescent Internet addiction: The mediating role of psychological needs satisfaction and the moderating role of coping style. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016;1;63:408-415.
4.   Chou C LY. The moderating effects of internet parenting styles on the relationship between Internet parenting behavior, Internet expectancy, and Internet addiction tendency. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2017;1;26(3-4):137-146.
5.   Tahmassian K GM. The relationship between self-efficacy and peer rejection in adolescents. Modern Psychological Research. 2009;4, 14, 107-123.
6.   Allen A K-DL, Katsikitis M. . Problematic internet pornography use: The role of craving, desire thinking, and metacognition. Addictive behaviors. 2017;1;70:65-71.
7.   Fergus TA SM. Cyberchondria: Examining relations with problematic Internet use and metacognitive beliefs. Clinical psychology & psychotherapy. 2017;24(6):1322-1330.
8.   Duman B SÇ. The Effect of a Metacognition-Based Instructional Practice on the Metacognitive Awareness of the Prospective Teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2019;7(3):720-728.
9.   Garrison DR AZ. Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education. 2015;1;24:66-71.
10. Imuta K HJ, Slaughter V, Selcuk B, Ruffman T. . Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review. Developmental psychology. 2016;52(8):1192-1201.
11. Soto C dBA, Jacovina M, McNamara D, Benson N, Riffo B. . Reading comprehension and metacognition: The importance of inferential skills. Cogent Education. 2019;1;6(1):156-167.
12. Izadi S HM, Ahmadabadi NM. . Explaining the Attitude towards Mathematics in Students on the Basis of Goal Adjustment Strategies and Metacognitive Beliefs. Creative Education. 2018;5;9(07):10-42.
13. Baptista J OA, Martins EC, Verissimo M, Martins C. . Does social–behavioral adjustment mediate the relation between executive function and academic readiness?. . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2016;1;46:22-30.
14. Pham YK MC. Social relationships among adolescents with disabilities: Unique and cumulative associations with adjustment. Exceptional Children. 2016;82(2):234-250.
15. Przybylski AK MA. How the quantity and quality of electronic gaming relates to adolescents’ academic engagement and psychosocial adjustment. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. 2016;5(2):145-152.
16. Yang CC RA. Not necessarily detrimental: Two social comparison orientations and their associations with social media use and college social adjustment. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018;1;84:49-57.
17. Dehghanpour N TG, Masihie, F. . Predicting the Use of Virtual Networks Based on Social Adjustment and Emotion Control in Adolescents. Media Studies. 2018;13, 1 (40), 40-49.
18. S. K. Gender differences and relationship between internet addiction and perceived social self-efficacy among adolescents. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing. 2018;1;9(1), 69-73.
19. Spada MM MC. Metacognitions and emotion regulation as predictors of problematic internet use in adolescents. Clinical Neuropsychiatry. 2017;1;14(1):59-63.
20. Chuang SC LF, Tsai CC. . An exploration of the relationship between Internet self-efficacy and sources of Internet self-efficacy among Taiwanese university students. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015;1;48:147-155.
21. Lavrijsen J SB, Verschueren K. . Perfectionism, school burnout and engagement: a comparison of gifted and non-gifted students. In16th conference of the European Association for Research on Adolescence 2018.
22. DH. J. Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments: Routledge; 2010.
23. J. H. The impact of teachers' perceptions and their instructionalpractices on reading engagement of typical and giftedstudents in grades 3-5. St. John's University (New York). School of Education and Human Services. 2016.
24. Beckmann E MA. Non-cognitive characteristics of gifted students with learning disabilities: An in-depth systematic review. Frontiers in psychology. 2018;20;9:504-515.
25. Worrell FC SR, Olszewski-Kubilius P, Dixson DD. . Gifted students. Annual review of psychology. 2019;4;70:551-576.
26. Kohan-Mass J TL. Differences in self-efficacy beliefs between girls in the top 1.5% and the top 3% in general cognitive ability who participate in gifted programs. Gifted Education International. 2019;35(1):20-36.
27. Agaliotis I KE. Motivational Differences of Greek Gifted and Non-Gifted High-Achieving and Gifted Under-Achieving Students. International Education Studies. 2019;12(2):45-56.
28. RB. K. Promise and pitfalls of structural equation modeling in gifted research. 2010.
29. Mojardi V IA, Jamal S. . Investigating the Status of Using Virtual Social Networks among Students of North Khorasan Province. North Khorasan Police Knowledge Quarterly. 2014;1 (4): 99-85.
30. Sherer M AC. Construct validation of the self-efficacy scale. Psychological reports. 1983;53(3):899-902.
31. Barati Bakhtiari S. Investigating the simple and multivariate relationship between self-efficacy, self-efficacy and self-esteem with academic performance in students, Master Thesis in Psychology 1997.
32. Thorpe LP, Clark, W. W., & Tiegs, E. W. . Manual: California test . Los Angeles: California Test Bureau1953.
33. Khodayari Fard M NM, Ghobari Bona, B. . Final report of the research project under the auspices of the Oppressed and Veterans of the Islamic Revolution. 2002.
34. Hajloo N. The relationship of perfectionism, self-efficacy, conscientiousness and stress with procrastination. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2013;6(4): 307-314.
35. Koohsali M. comparison of social adjustment in mothers with and without of educable mentally retarded daughter. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2008;2(2): 165-172.
International Journal of Behavioral Sciences
Volume 14, Issue 3
November 2020
Pages 155-160

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics