Children and Youth Services Review 119 (2020) 105694

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

The COVID 19 pandemic and digital higher education: Exploring the impact
of proactive personality on social capital through internet self-efficacy and
online interaction quality
Fengjiao Zheng a, *, Naseer Abbas Khan b, *, Sabir Hussain c
a
Center for Environment and Sustainability, University of Surrey, United Kingdom
b
Department of Industrial Economics and Project Management, South Ural State University, Russia Federation
c
International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the crisis of COVID-19, traditional learning suddenly changed to digital learning, which finally posed chal­
Proactive personality lenges to students and teachers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the influence of personality factors on student
Internet self-efficacy social networks seems to be an overlooked area of research. In this study, we aim to explore the relationship
Online interaction quality
between proactive personality and social capital through underlying mechanisms (such as internet self-efficacy
Perceived social support
Social capital
and online interaction quality), especially to obtain data during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition,
COVID-19 pandemic this study also aims to examine the moderating role of perceived social support in the association between
proactive personality and Internet self-efficacy and the association between proactive personality and online
interaction quality. Similarly, the moderating influence of perceived social support also investigated the medi­
ating effects of internet self-efficacy & online interaction quality. This study used online survey tools to collect
data from 332 respondents, including students and teachers from Islamabad, the federal capital of Pakistan. In
this study, we found that the proactive personality of students strengthened their social capital through online
interaction quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, perceived social support strengthened the medi­
ating effect of online interaction quality in the association between proactive personality and social capital
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the implications and future research directions are also discussed.

1. Introduction
The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the
World Health Organization on March 11, 2020 (Cucinotta & Vanelli,
2020). As a result, many countries in the world instruct their citizens to
stay at home, avoid very close physical contact, and take measures of
social or physical distancing. Similar instructions were issued to all
educational institutions and these institutions were instructed to arrange
online classes. Therefore, virtual learning is the sole option for students
and teachers to communicate with each other. Similar to previous epi­
demics, the COVID-19 pandemic has also affected the student’s per­
sonality and mental health (Bao et al., 2020). In a recent survey, it was
reported that during the COVID-19 crisis, 8.1% of the general public in
China were under moderate to severe stress (Guan et al., 2020). Several
scholars have found that the intensity of stress may vary from person to
person, depending on their personality characteristics (Linn & Zeppa,
1984). Personality is one of the factors that affect stress assessment and
response. In particular to the pandemic situation, different personality
traits (such as proactiveness, conscientiousness, and extroversion) are
closely related to stress (Afshar et al., 2015). Students are severely
affected by this pandemic in different ways; on the one hand, the
pandemic is life-threatening, on the other hand, the closure of educa­
tional institutions is disrupting their studies. In this difficult period, the
virtual learning platform has been encouraged by educational in­
stitutions around the world. In developed countries, virtual learning is
considered a very effective alternative to traditional learning (Sife et al.,
2007). In developing countries, digital learning remains a challenge
because of the limited scope of Internet services and related
technologies.
Many scholars have conducted investigations and pointed out the
poor Internet infrastructure (Shapiro et al., 2017), the acceptability of
smartphones in education (Jurkovič, 2019), and the unfriendly digital

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: fengjiaozheng95@163.com (F. Zheng), naseer@mail.ustc.edu.cn (N.A. Khan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105694
Received 22 August 2020; Received in revised form 5 November 2020; Accepted 5 November 2020
Available online 10 November 2020
0190-7409/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Zheng et al.
classroom environment (Cao et al., 2019) during the COVID-19
pandemic. In the context of a pandemic, there is scant literature to
examine the impact of personality factors on social capital in a virtual
setting. In this study, we tried to bridge the academic gap by studying
the underlying mechanisms that influence the connection between
proactive personality and student social capital, especially in the
COVID-19 crisis.
Social capital is an emerging concept in digital education literature,
which provides a basis for describing various relationships in social
networks (Rice et al., 2020). According to Coleman (1988), social capital
refers to the relationship between parents and children, and these re­
lationships can promote their children’s academic success. Many
scholars have studied different personality traits and social networks
and found that personality shapes social networks. For example, Tulin
et al. (2018) found that openness and extroversion are significantly
related to instrumental social capital, while agreeableness and extro­
version are significantly related to expressive social capital. In the online
learning experience, a significant focus is not only on the formation of
social capital but also on determining the role of personality traits in the
formation of social capital. In challenging situations (such as COVID-
19), people with strongly personality traits are in a better position to
deal with stress and challenges. According to Bateman & Crant (1993),
people with proactive personality show initiative, look for opportu­
nities, take action instead of waiting and reacting, and persevere until
the change is achieved. Similarly, Kim and Park (2017a,b) argued that
proactivity is an influencing factor that affects students’ proactive
learning behavior under uncertain circumstances. Students with a pro­
active personality are believed to be able to adopt digital modes in
higher education by establishing online learning communities and social
networks (Spitzmuller et al., 2015). Scholars believe that personality
factors have an important impact on online education, and also express
different views when describing personality traits and online learning
tools (Park & Choi, 2009; Thompson, 2005). The COVID-19 pandemic
has triggered the need for further investigations to explore potential
mechanisms (such as internet self-efficacy and online interaction qual­
ity) that can link proactive personality to social capital in digital higher
education. Some past studies have argued that the impact of internet
self-efficacy is significant in student participation in online learning
(Major et al., 1990; Zhu et al., 2018). Wang and Newlin, (2002) found
that self-efficacy can help students interact online and is expected to
succeed in the exam. On the other hand, Wellman, Haase, Witte, and
Hampton, (2001) studied the impact of online interaction quality on
social capital and found that the online interaction quality significantly
affected social capital gains. However, the impact of a proactive per­
sonality on social capital is not straightforward.
Therefore, the first aim of this study is to explore the direct influence
of students’ proactive personality and social capital as well as the in­
direct influence through indirect self-efficacy and online interaction
quality. The second aim is to examine the contingent effect of perceived
Fig. 1. Hypothetical Study Model.
2
Children and Youth Services Review 119 (2020) 105694
social support on the influence of proactive personality on Internet self-
efficacy and online interaction quality. The third aim is to explore the
moderating effect of perceived social support on mediators (network
self-efficacy and online interaction quality) in the relationship between
proactive personality and social capital (see Fig. 1). Perceived social
support from peers and teachers has spurred proactive students to
benefit from social capital through online interaction. Major et al.
(1990) found that perceived social support positively influences the
personality traits that help in strengthening psychological well-being in
challenging circumstances (such as COVID-19 pandemic).
2. Theory and hypothesis development
The social capital theory is a valuable theoretical framework for
addressing students’ concerns related to social network interactions,
especially in the online education system (Bele & Rugelj, 2007). The
focus of this theory is on identifying online resources embedded in social
networks and how to access and use these resources to shape student
personality behaviors (Nordin, 2001; Wang & Newlin, 2002). In online
interaction, computer and smartphone applications are important tools
to meet the diverse needs and interests of online learners. Jacobs (1965)
first came up with the term “social capital” in community research. It is
believed that social capital can enhance interpersonal networks by
providing a basis for collaboration and group activities. Putnam (2000)
argued that social capital pays attention to the interaction among
members of the community, mutual trust, mutual assistance, and
behavioral norms, thereby improving the overall performance of the
community. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented
disruption to social activities. A large part of the world’s population is in
some form of isolation or blockade, unable to participate in social ac­
tivities normally. This has had a serious impact on social capital, and
social capital is mainly established, maintained, and realized through
social interaction. This pandemic has affected the education sector
(Franchi, 2020). It is necessary to build social capital through the self-
efficacy of the Internet and online interaction to actively respond to
this crisis so that this sector can move towards digital education.
In this study, we regard social capital as the outcome of stu­
dent–teacher interactions. Students have demonstrated the ability of
individuals to use Internet resources and develop relationships through
digital and Internet tools including social media. The relative advan­
tages of social capital may affect the impact of students’ proactive per­
sonality, thus improving the quality of online interaction (Soh, 2017).
Therefore, the social capital theory emphasizes that there are two types
of social interactions in the establishment of social capital: homogenous
and heterogeneous interactions (Kobayashi, 2010). The former de­
scribes the interaction between participants with similar resources,
while the latter describes the interaction between individuals with
different resources (Aaltio & Huang, 2018). Social capital satisfies the
purpose of homogeneous interaction among students, which is to share
F. Zheng et al.
and communicate for appreciation and consultation, while actors (i.e.
online students) seek heterogeneous interaction to obtain information
(Suvonova et al., 2019). Similarly, Thompson (2005) found that a pro­
active personality is expected to improve the performance of workers in
the organization. In a crisis scenario, social capital provides many
benefits, and higher social capital communities respond more effectively
(Pitas & Ehmer, 2020). In the United States, preliminary research sup­
ports the importance of social capital in the response to COVID-19 and
found that the growth rate of new COVID-19 cases is negatively corre­
lated with the amount of social capital (Wong & Kohler, 2020). How­
ever, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented disruption to
social activities. In this study, we emphasized the benefits of Internet-
based social capital from students’ proactive personality
2.1. Proactive personality and internet self-efficacy
Bateman and Crant (1993) argue that proactive personality refers to
the trend associated with individual differences in personal preferences,
from which individuals can actively influence their environment in a
variety of activities and situations. The psychological impact of COVID-
19 affects different personality types, and students with strong person­
alities take the initiative to cope with the psychological stress caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic. Proactive behavior is a significant element in
high-quality decision-making in crises (Brzozowski & Cucculelli, 2016),
and effectiveness, especially in educational systems with increased
technology and competitive work structures (Han, Lee, & Yoon, 2008;
Wang & Kim, 2013). Parker, Williams, & Turner (2006) argue that
proactive personality significantly influences proactive behavior at work
through self-efficacy. The proactive personality motivates students to
enhance their technology-based knowledge, while self-efficacy en­
hances their social network. In a crisis, students’ proactive personality is
an effective stimulator of internet self-efficacy in digital learning. Social
capital theory and social cognition theory emphasize that self-efficacy
and social networks are the accelerators for individual behavior, moti­
vation, emotion, and decision-making processes (Min, 2019; Reb et al.,
2017). Kim and Park (2017a,b) studied the link between proactive
personality and career self-efficacy and found that proactive personality
can help enhance career self-efficacy. Moreover, Wang, Jackson, Wang,
& Gaskin (2015) argue that personality is an important predictor of
internet self-efficacy and social networking sites. Therefore, this hy­
pothesis can be proposed as:
H1: Proactive personality increases internet self-efficacy
2.2. Proactive personality and online interaction quality
Interaction quality refers to the perceived quality level of the rela­
tionship between students and the system, especially in a computer-
supported learning environment (Spitzmuller et al., 2015). In this
study, the online interaction quality means that students in an online
learning environment are more willing to interact with others virtually
from a different perspective, rather than developing existing relation­
ships. Oztok et al. (2015) found that proactive behavior can stimulate
social presence and conceptualize the way and the dynamics of inter­
action quality in a technology-supported education system. Lu, Yang,
and Yu (2013) argue that in the learning environment, there are various
types of interaction actors (i.e. students to students, students to teachers,
students to family, and students to systems). Among social and online
interactions, the interaction of people with proactive personality is
particularly noteworthy. Rapanta et al. (2020) believe that online
interaction in academic activities has become a challenge during the
COVID-19 crisis, which can be solved by improving and enhancing the
quality of online interaction to achieve the expected goals in digital
education. Overall, few studies have examined the link between per­
sonality factors and online interaction quality. For example, Ekinci &
Dawes (2009) found that personality traits such as extroversion,
3
Children and Youth Services Review 119 (2020) 105694
conscientiousness, and agreeability have a great influence on online
interaction. Therefore, the association between proactive personality
and online interaction quality can be assumed as:
H2: Proactive personality increases online interaction quality
2.3. The mediating role of internet self-efficacy and online interaction
quality
In social cognitive theory, Bandura (1997) argue that self-efficacy
provides a set of beliefs that motivate achievement behavior and also
influence individual choice (or avoidance) and effort to achieve the
stated goals. In digital education, students depend on their abilities and
show perseverance in any obstacle or difficulty (Spitzmuller et al.,
2015). Hu and Hui (2012) studied the role of self-efficacy in students’
personality and computer use and found that self-efficacy affects stu­
dents’ behavior in digital education. Several scholars have studied and
found significant mediating effects of self-efficacy, especially in the
impact of personality on behavioral outcomes (Kim & Park, 2017a,b).
Internet self-efficacy beliefs satisfy internet-related abilities, demon­
strating that these beliefs contribute to the success of students involved
in digital education (Wang & Newlin, 2002). Vayre & Vonthron (2017)
found that academic self-efficacy mediates the influence of students’
proactive personality on students’ behavior towards digital learning.
Different scholars have emphasized the significance of online interaction
in stressful situations (Okan et al., 2020). During COVID-19 pandemic,
social distancing has become a binding necessity for everyone, thus
recognizing the importance of online interaction quality. Moreover,
Prabhu, McGuire, Drost, & Kwong (2012) also found that self-efficacy
mediates the association between proactive personality and entrepre­
neurial intent. In this regard, the mediating role of internet self-efficacy
in the relationship between proactive personality and social capital can
be proposed:
H3: Internet self-efficacy mediates the association between proactive
personality and social capital.
The coronavirus pandemic has forced educational institutions to
focus on online courses, thereby widely replacing traditional programs
in which the quality of online interaction is crucial in digital education.
Wellman et al., (2001) found that online interaction affects students’
social capital, especially in the online learning environment. Personality
factors influence students to enhance their skills and abilities to enhance
their social networks. Proactive people have a high commitment to
learning and demonstrate effective online interaction to achieve their
learning goals (Kim & Park, 2017a,b). Proactive students have the
confidence to overcome technological limitations and have the ability to
ensure high-quality interaction with others in the context of online
learning environments (Kim & Park, 2017a,b).
Wellman et al. (2001) found that online interaction affects students’
social interactions and social capital in online learning. In the COVID-19
pandemic crisis, teachers and students are alienated from each other, so
building social connections becomes even more critical. Wellman et al.
(2001) also argued that exposure to negative experiences during online
interactions sometimes affects the online interaction quality and reduces
the motivation and commitment of people to participate in the online
learning community. Therefore, this hypothesis is assumed as follows:
H4: Online interaction quality mediates the association between
proactive personality and social capital.
2.4. Moderating role of perceived social support
According to the definition of Yildirim (2008), social support can be
defined as the socio-psychological support that individuals receive from
their surroundings. Social support is known as exchanging resources or
F. Zheng et al.
providing assistance between individuals through interpersonal ties
(Cohen & Hoberman, 1983), and it provides benefits for students who
use computer-supported learning in online social networks (Valenzuela
et al., 2009). The concept of perceived social support is considered to be
one of the most widely used concepts in all areas of the social sciences
and extends its scope to computer-supported educational environments
to explain the positive consequences of social capital (Lu et al., 2013).
Perceived social support is subjective support, which refers to an
individual’s recognition and evaluation of the support of family mem­
bers, peers, and important others. Cognitive behavior theory argues that
without social support, a person tends to spend more time on the mobile
or computer-based Internet, spend too much time there, and become
addicted (Lattie et al., 2019). Therefore, students need social support
during the difficult period of the coronavirus pandemic (Yang et al.,
2020). Several scholars have studied social support affecting online in­
teractions in virtual communities (Cocquyt, Diep, Zhu, De Greef, &
Vanwing, 2017; Lu et al., 2013). Moreover, Kim, Liu, & Bonk (2005)
argued that teachers can provide instant support and information to
students, as well as improve their internet self-efficacy and reduce their
dropout intentions in the online learning process. Social support in the
form of counselling, technology, and emotion (Ma et al., 2018) that can
be obtained from family members and others (teachers and academic
peers) is an important factor in promoting persistent students’ proactive
participation in online courses. Social support helps improve physical
and mental health. Many studies have been conducted on the relation­
ship between social support and stress during outbreaks of diseases such
as Ebola (Mohammed et al., 2015), influenza (Pressman et al., 2005),
SARS (Liu et al., 2020) and COVID-19 (Xiao et al., 2020). The COVID-19
pandemic can be regarded as one of the greatest crises of the 21st
century.
The previously announced pandemic did not cause global health
problems. For example, in the past 30 years, the HIV/AIDS pandemic has
developed and has a greater impact on marginalized communities. So­
cial support was found to be an effective mechanism to reduce the stress
level of people with serious health problems (Widows et al., 2005).
Perceived social support acts as a catalyst for computer-supported
learning, where personality factors demonstrate student’s social net­
works, creating a desire to expand social networks to learn and achieve
higher academic achievement (Thompson, 2005). Bahar (2010) found
that perceived social support, especially family support and sociometric
status, has predicted the academic success of students in online educa­
tion. Hence, this study assumes hypotheses as follows:
H5: Perceived social support moderates the association between
proactive personality and internet self-efficacy in this way that this
association becomes stronger by increasing perceived social support
and vice versa.
H6: Perceived social support moderates the association between
proactive personality and online interaction quality in this way that
this association becomes stronger by increasing perceived social
support and vice versa.
Social support not only affects self-efficacy, personality factors, and
network interaction but also affects social capital (Kim & Park, 2017a,
b). Thus, the moderated mediation hypotheses can be predicted as:
H7: Perceived social support moderates the mediating effect of
internet self-efficacy in the association between proactive personal­
ity and social capital in this way that this mediating effect becomes
stronger by increasing perceived social support and vice versa.
H8: Perceived social support moderates the mediating effect of on­
line interaction quality in the association between proactive per­
sonality and social capital in this way that this mediating effect
becomes stronger by increasing perceived social support and vice
versa.
4
Children and Youth Services Review 119 (2020) 105694
3. Method
3.1. Data collection procedure
This study sample includes graduates and postgraduate students in
business administration, economics, computer science, and law from six
universities in Islamabad. In COVID-19 pandemic, Pakistan is chosen as
the location for this study because it is included in under-researched
geographical areas. The survey was conducted during the peak of the
COVID-19 pandemic from April 2020 to July 2020. During the COVID-
19 pandemic, it was difficult to make physical contact with students, so
we collected data from survey participants online.
For this purpose, we designed a questionnaire using software called
google docs. Before distributing the questionnaire online, we recruited
student volunteers from different universities in Islamabad. Most of the
volunteers were the students of these universities and were also mem­
bers of different social media groups formed by the class teachers. These
social media groups were not official university groups. The purpose of
these groups is to share class information, course material, class updates,
and maintain regular contact with students. Teachers used different
social media platforms (such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Zoom) to form
online groups for educational activities. With the permission of the
group administrator, we used these groups formed on different social
media platforms and sent online questionnaires to students through our
student volunteers. The online questionnaire was developed in English,
and the respondents’ responses were measured using a five-point Likert
scale (ranging from 1′ strongly disagree to 5′ strongly agree).
In this study, we use the time lag approach (Salkind, 2010), where
data is collected in two- time waves, and the time interval between the
two waves was two months. In the first wave of data collection, the
questionnaire was sent to 510, and 372 students’ responses were
received. In the first wave, the data on proactive personality, internet
self-efficacy, perceived social support, and demographics were obtained
from students. Two months later, we collected data for the second wave
of surveys. We collected data from students who recorded their re­
sponses in the first wave of surveys. We collected data on the online
interaction quality from students and matched data on social capital
from their respective teachers. In the second round of data collection,
172 students and 164 teachers recorded their responses, and a total of
336 matching responses were received. After deleting the missing and
unmatched answers, the final sample was 332 respondents. The
response rate is about 65%, most of the respondents were women (67%),
and most of the respondents (37.5%) were between 21 and 25 years old
(see Table 1).
3.2. Measurement
3.2.1. Proactive personality
In this study, we used a shortened version of the self-reported 10
items proactive personality scale adapted by Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer
(1999) to measure proactive personality. Considering the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic, we have made slight changes to the statement of
each item of this scale. The sample is ‘Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, I
excel at identifying opportunities’.
Table 1
Demographics.
Variables N Percentage Variables N Percentage
Gender Qualification
Female 223 67.17 Under Graduate 69 20.78
Male 109 32.83 Graduate 97 29.22
Age Masters/PhD 166 50.00
Up to 20 6 01.81
Up to 21–25 124 37.35
Up to 26–31 97 29.22
Above 31 105 31.62
F. Zheng et al. Children and Youth Services Review 119 (2020) 105694

3.2.2. Internet self-efficacy be greater than 0.9 (Bentler, 1990). Furthermore, to obtain a good
To measure self-efficacy, we used the seven items advanced Internet model fit, the root means square error of the approximation (RMSEA)
self-efficacy scale adopted by Kao, Wu, and Tsai (2011). Advanced should be greater than 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1998). In the CFA test of the
Internet self-efficacy can satisfy the educational and social needs of users full model, all items were loaded with their latent factors (Anderson &
related to internet use. The sample item is “ I feel confident of talking to Gerbing, 1988). As shown in Table 3, the psychometric characteristics of
others one to one in an online chatroom.” the measurement model were good. To test common method biases, we
used Harman, (1976) single factor test to consider CFA, where all of the
3.2.3. Online interaction quality study variables were allowed to load into one factor, so the study model
To measure online interaction quality, we used the 12-item Cognitive showed a poor fit. According to the results of single factors, there was no
Presence Scale developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008). In the context of the significant difference in the data of this study (Alfes et al., 2013). The
COVID-19 pandemic, we made minor changes to the scale item. The novelty of the study variables was tested by applying a series of nested
sample item is “ During the COVID-19 crisis, the online interaction with the model comparisons. This study compared the full measurement of all
classmates provides me with a variety of information sources to explore latent variables with the range of alternative models as shown in
problems posed in this course”. Table 3. The results of the different tests indicate that the five different
variables mentioned in the study model make the model more reason­
3.2.4. Perceived social support able than the other models. Therefore, these results provide vivid evi­
To measure perceived social support, we used a six-item scale dence that this study model with five variables is distinctive and
developed by Vayre & Vonthron (2017). This scale emphasizes the appropriate.
support of classmates, teachers and family members. The scale items
were slightly modified in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. The
sample item is “ During the COVID-19 crises, I get the emotional help and 4.2. Hypothesis testing
support I need from my family.”
This study used hierarchical multiple regression to test the hypoth­
3.2.5. Internet based social capital esis from H1 to H4. While hierarchical moderation regression was used
To measure internet based social capital, we used a ten-item scale to test hypotheses from H5 to H8. To test a moderated mediation, this
adopted by by Ellison et al. (2011). In this scale, the teacher rated the study followed the steps recommended by Preacher & Hayes (Preacher
social capital of his/her matched student. In the context of the COVID 19 et al., 2007). To carry out interaction testing, the independent variable
pandemic, this scale was changed slightly. The sample item is “Despite (i.e. proactive personality) was standardized in all analyses while the
using a social distancing measure, my student is skilful in collaborating with dependent variable (i.e. social capital) was unstandardized to curtail the
other students to diagnose and solve study problems. likelihood of multicollinearity which might affect the study outcome
(Aiken & West, 1991).
4. Data analysis and results
Table 3
First, this study calculated the reliability, mean, and standard devi­ Results of confirmatory factor analyses.
ation of each scale and Cronbach alpha, as shown in Table 2. If the Models χ2 (df) χ2diff χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA
correlation coefficient in the regression analysis is usually above 0.70, (dfdiff)
the probability of multicollinearity increases (Tabachnick & Fidell, Five Factors 2523 – 2.63 0.930 0.935 0.069
1996). The current study results show that the correlation coefficient is Model (960)
lower than the standard benchmark, which means that all current Four Factors 5622 3099 5.83 0.774 0.806 0.12
Model-1 PP and (964) (4***)
measures can be included in the research analysis. ISE combined
Four Factors 6054 3531 6.28 0.773 0.787 0.13
Model-2 PP and (964) (4***)
4.1. Measurement model OIQ combined
Three Factors 7873 5350 8.14 0.692 0.711 0.15
Model PP, OIQ (967) (7***)
In the time-lag method, the data comes from different periods and
and ISE
different responders, thereby reducing the occurrence of common combined
method bias as recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Lee (2003). Two Factors 8672 6149 8.94 0.656 0.678 0.16
In this study, we collected data in two-time waves, so there is no serious Model PP, PSS, (969) (9***)
problem of common method bias. Moreover, we performed a series of OIQ and ISE
combined
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tests on the data set using statistical
Single Factor 11,219 8696 11.57 0.543 0.572 0.18
remedies to reduce the risks of common method bias, and we also Model (970) (10***)
calculated fit induces to understand the model fit in our data set (Hair
Note: ISE = Internet Self Efficacy, PP = Proactive Personality, OIQ = Online
et al., 2009).
Interaction Quality, PSS = Perceived Social Support; TLI Tucker-Lewis index;
To calculate a good model fit, the value of x2/df must be less than
CFI Comparative fit index; RMSEA Root-mean-square error of approximation
2.5, the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tuck-Lewis index (TLI) must

Table 2
Descriptive statistics, Alpha and correlation matrix.
Constructs Mean SD SC ISE PP OIQ PSS

SC 3.39 0.94 (0.97)

ISE 3.48 1.06 0.405** (0.96)
PP 3.59 0.93 0.318** 0.392** (0.97)
OIQ 3.69 1.06 0.512** 0.469** 0.508** (0.90)
PSS 3.65 1.10 0.439** 0.122* 0.036 0.149* (0.93)

Note: (1) SC = Social Capital, ISE = Internet Self Efficacy, PP = Proactive Personality, OIQ = Online Interaction Quality, PSS = Perceived Social Support, (2) Cor­
relation is significant at the 0.01 level (3) Cronbach α values appear in parentheses on the diagonal

5
F. Zheng et al. Children and Youth Services Review 119 (2020) 105694

To test the mediation effects, this study applied Baron & Kenny
(1986) approach. The study results indicated that there is an insignifi­
cant association between proactive personality and internet self-efficacy
(β = 0.39, p ≤ 0.001, Model 1, Table 4), and between proactive per­
sonality and online interaction quality (β = 0.50, p ≤ 0.001, Model 1,
Table 5). Thus H1 and H2 are accepted. From the perspective of the
above conditions for mediation, there is a significant association be­
tween proactive personality and social capital as shown in the M4 col­
umn of Table 4.
The first condition of Baron & Kenny (1986) approach fulfilled.
There is a significant association between internet self-efficacy and so­
cial capital as shown in M5 in Table 4 and also a significant association
between online interaction quality and social capital as shown in M5 in
Table 5. Three conditions of mediation have been met. In the final
condition, when we put independent variable along with mediators such
as internet self-efficacy and online interaction into the model simulta­
neously, an independent variable such as proactive personality remain
significant as shown in M6 of Table 4, which means that H3 is not
supported, while independent variable such as proactive personality
became insignificant as shown in M6 of Table 5, which means that there
is online interaction quality has mediation. Thus, H4 is supported.
4.3. Moderating analysis
(2004) argued that in indirect relationships, the bootstrapping method
can be used to test the influence of the moderator on different levels of
mediations. This method facilitates to adjust normality to distribute the
mediation effect through confidence interval depends on bootstrapping
(Preacher et al., 2007). Moreover, predicting effects on outcome vari­
ables can be produced through this testing technique. Similarly, the
moderator can test the indirect influence between the predictor variable
and the outcome variable (through mediator) (MacKinnon et al., 2004).
This study produced 95% bootstrap of confidence intervals (CIs) for
indirect effects conditioned by perceived social support depending on
5000 bootstrapping samples. Results in Table 6 shows that confidence
intervals for bootstrapping test on the values of perceived social support
include 1 SD below mean, mean, and 1 SD above the mean. If the value
between low CIs and high CIs do not include zero, the effect is significant
(Hayes, 2013). It has been already mentioned that the mediation effect
of internet self-efficacy was insignificant. Therefore, this study did not
test the moderation of this insignificant mediation. Thus, H7 is not
supported.
As shown in Table 6, the moderator (perceived social support) affects
the mediating effect of online interaction quality in this way the values
of the perceived social support are 1 SD above mean (0.2458–0.5479)
mean (0.1333–0.3209) and 1 SD below the mean (0.0192–0.1426);
lower and upper CIs values do not have zero. Thus, H8 is supported.

To analyze the moderating impact of perceived social support on the
relationship between proactive personality and internet self-efficacy,
the results in M3 of Table 4 indicated that the interaction between
proactive personality and perceived social support on internet self-
efficacy is insignificant. Thus, H5 is not supported.
On the other hand, the interaction of perceived social support on the
connection between proactive personality and online interaction quality
is shown in M3 of Table 5. The results indicated that this perceived social
support interaction is significant with online interaction quality. This
means that perceived social support moderated the relationship between
proactive personality and online interaction quality, thereby accepting
H6. As shown in Fig. 2, we used the procedure recommended by Aiken
and West (1991) for plotting to assess these interaction effects.
Fig. 2 shows that the interaction pattern and it specifies that proac­
tive personality has a positive relationship with online interaction
quality when perceived social support status was high (r = 0.50, p ≤
0.001), while the relationship of proactive personality was negative and
significant with online interaction quality when perceived social support
was low (r = − 0.14, p ≤ 0.01).
4.4. Moderated influence of perceived social support on mediation effect
5. Discussion and implications
In this study, we tested eight hypotheses to examine the moderated
mediation model between student proactive personality and internet-
based social capital by collecting data during the peak of the COVID-
19 pandemic. Among the eight hypotheses, our findings did not sup­
port three hypotheses. Our study shows that students’ proactive per­
sonality has a significant impact on internet self-efficacy and online
interaction quality. Similarly, our study results supported that online
interaction quality significantly mediated the connection between stu­
dents’ proactive personality and social capital. Our results validate the
previous findings by arguing that higher social capital depends on pro­
activeness and a higher sense of social responsibility, but it is well
known that areas with higher social capital have higher social partici­
pation, vitality, and close ties (Nannicini et al., 2010). However, we
have obtained some distinctive results in our analysis, especially as a
mediating role of self-efficacy. This different finding may be due to our
choice of an advanced internet self-efficacy scale rather than the com­
mon self-efficacy scale (Kim & Beehr, 2017). Similarly, our results may
also differ from previous studies due to the COVID pandemic situation
and the arrangement of online learning by ensuring social distancing.

To analyze moderated mediation analysis, this study used the process

macro method proposed by Preacher et al. (2007). MacKinnon et al.

Table 4
Mediating role of Internet Self-Efficacy and moderating role of Perceived Social Support.
Predictors Dependent variables

Internet Self-Efficacy Social Capital

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6

Age 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.01 0.02

Gender 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.05
Education − 0.01 0.01 0.02 − 0.10 − 0.11 − 0.12
Experience 0.10 0.11 0.12* 0.01 − 0.05 − 0.06
Proactive Personality (PP) 0.39*** 0.38*** 0.37*** 0.31*** 0.18**
Perceived Social Support (PSS) 0.11* 0.13*
PPxPSS 0.11
Internet Self Efficacy 0.41*** 0.34***
R2 0.18*** 0.19* 0.20 0.16*** 0.22*** 0.25****
ΔR2 0.18*** 0.01* 0.01 0.16*** 0.06*** 0.03****
F 59.24*** 4.75* 3.94 12.28*** 19.07*** 40.76***

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

6
F. Zheng et al. Children and Youth Services Review 119 (2020) 105694

Table 5
Mediating role of Online Interaction Quality and moderating role of Perceived Social Support.
Predictors Dependent variable

Online Interaction Quality Social Capital

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6

Age 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.10

Gender − 0.01 − 0.03 − 0.04 − 0.06 − 0.04 − 0.05
Education − 0.11 − 0.10 − 0.11 − 0.11 − 0.06 − 0.07
Experience 0.03 0.02 0.04 − 0.10 − 0.12 − 0.12
Proactive Personality (PP) 0.50*** 0.51*** 0.45*** 0.13* 0.01
Perceived Social Support (PSS) 0.12* 0.17***
PPxPSS 0.38***
Online Interaction Quality 0.28*** 0.29***
R2 0.27*** 0.28* 0.43*** 0.05* 0.11*** 0.12****
ΔR2 0.27*** 0.01* 0.15*** 0.05* 0.11*** 0.07****
F 24.91*** 5.85* 78.69*** 2.84* 6.869*** 19.025***

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

personality strive to establish a supportive social network by complying

with the containment policy to create an effective digital learning
environment. Crant (2000) emphasized that in the learning process, a
proactive personality leads to proactive behavior.
Third, this study advances the debate about the mediating role of
self-efficacy. In this study, we found that the insignificant mediating role
of self-efficacy that links proactive personality with social capital.
Although this finding makes previous scholars’ findings into question.
Our results may be different from previous studies’ results because we
used advanced Internet self-efficacy rather than basic self-efficacy and
common scale of self-efficacy (Kim & Beehr, 2017). This finding pro­
vides distinctive insight for scholars to further study the mediating role
of advanced Internet self-efficacy to validate our research results.
Finally, this research shows the significant impact of perceived social
support by testing the connection between proactive personality and
online interaction quality. In addition, it is also found that people’s role
Fig. 2. Interaction effects of Perceived Social Support (PSS) with Proactive in social support is also important for checking the indirect connection
Personality (PP) on Online Interaction Quality (OIQ). between proactive personality and social capital through the quality of
network interaction. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the results of the
moderated mediation analysis provided a guide for scholars to conduct
Table 6 further research under stable conditions and validate our study findings.
Moderated mediation results for OIQ across levels of PSS on SC.
Perceived Social Boot indirect Boot Boot Lower Boot Upper 5.2. Managerial implications
Support effects SE limit 95% CI limit 95% CI

− 1 SD 0.047 0.0402 0.0192 0.1426
Mean 0.216 0.0474 0.1333 0.3209
+1 SD 0.395 0.0770 0.2458 0.5479
Note: CI = Confidence Interval; Bootstrap sample size = 5000.
5.1. Theoretical implications
First, this study investigated the untested link between student pro­
active personality and internet-based social capital in digital education
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proactive personality has previously
been associated with objective measures of career success (Seibert et al.,
2001). This study is important for educational decision-makers because
it shows that proactive personality measurably affects student social
capital. It is worth noting that the acquisition of social capital in digital
learning depends on the student’s personality, internet self-efficacy, and
online interaction quality. This study advances the findings of Seibert
et al. (2001) by identifying the basic mechanisms (such as Internet self-
efficacy and online interaction quality) that link proactive personality
with social capital under the COVID19 crisis.
Second, social capital theory and personality perspective together
reveal the connection between proactive personality and social capital
through the quality of online interaction. Our results show that online
interaction quality is a significant medium for strengthening this
connection in an effective digital education. Students with a proactive
This study suggests several managerial implications. First, this study
emphasizes that personality factors (i.e. proactive personality) have a
significant impact on the social capital of students in crisis (i.e. COVID-
19) in online higher education. Moreover, internet-based social capital
benefits from proactive personality, which supports digital interaction
between students and teachers. The results show that digital learning is
particularly valuable for students seeking to change their will and per­
ceptions during a pandemic crisis. Second, in the context of the COVID-
19 pandemic where physical contact is restricted, students’ only option
is to use internet services to enhance their academic social networks.
Based on our study results, it is suggested that the quality of virtual
interactions can help proactive students to enhance their web-based
social capital.
Third, the sample of this study is based on students who took online
classes. All educational institutions, including universities, have been
closed due to the life-threatening risks associated with the COVID-19
pandemic. This digital learning experience provides an opportunity for
universities to determine the effectiveness of online classes and
emphasize student personality factors (i.e. proactiveness) in web-based
interaction and networking. It is recommended that teachers and ad­
ministrators should establish an effective online classroom learning
mechanism by encouraging students to proactively participate in digital
learning. Proactive students that help improve social interaction quality
and self-efficacy in digital learning. Compared with the enrolment rate

7
F. Zheng et al.
of online courses in developing economies, the proportion of proactive
students is low (Fouad et al., 2016), especially in the formal education
system.
Finally, this study shows that perceived social support significantly
enhances the influence of proactive personality on online interaction
and internet self-efficacy. In terms of student personality, the support of
parents, teachers, colleagues, and family members is effective and stu­
dents can benefit from it, thereby enhancing internet-based self-efficacy,
online interaction, and social capital. Therefore, parents, teachers, and
family members are advised to provide physical and virtual support to
students in digital learning.
5.3. Limitation and avenues of future research
In this study, the sample size was not large enough to notice the small
effects on the proactive personality, which is an independent variable in
the proposed research model. Although the data was collected from
different universities, the multi-level analysis was not feasible due to the
uneven distribution of questionnaires. Future researchers can replicate
similar or different research models with larger sample sizes and vali­
date our study results. Scholars can consider cultural differences in
future research to understand whether proactive personality and social
capital are closely related to the values and beliefs associated with a
particular culture and socio-economic status of certain races, societies,
and countries (Fukuyama, 1995). Our study sample is based on students
who attended online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study
results may be different from those based on traditional learning sam­
ples. This study used matched student–teacher data, not group level. In
future research, scholars can collect data from groups instead of in­
dividuals to test similar model or different models, and can verify our
study results. In this study, we collected data from students at the peak of
the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results may differ from other studies
conducted under stable conditions. In this study, we use the Internet-
based social capital scale instead of other social capital scales (e.g.
Holtom et al., 2006; Tulin et al., 2018). By using alternative social
capital scales, our results may differ from other studies.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be
made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any
qualified researcher.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Aaltio, I., & Huang, J. (2018). The guanxi ties of managers in mainland China – a critical
analysis based on gender. Gender in Management, 33(7), 577–599.
Afshar, H., Roohafza, H. R., Keshteli, A. H., Mazaheri, M., Feizi, A., & Adibi, P. (2015).
The association of personality traits and coping styles according to stress level.
Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 20(4), 353.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions
(2nd ed.). Sage.
Alfes, K., Shantz, A. D., Truss, C., & Soane, E. C. (2013). The link between perceived
human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A
moderated mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24(2), 330–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.679950
Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C.,
& Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a
measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample.
The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iheduc.2008.06.003
Bahar, H. H. (2010). The effects of gender, perceived social support and sociometric
status on academic success. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2),
3801–3805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.593
8
Children and Youth Services Review 119 (2020) 105694
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bao, Y., Sun, Y., Meng, S., Shi, J., & Lu, L. (2020). 2019-nCoV epidemic: Address mental
health care to empower society. The Lancet, 395(10224), e37–e38. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30309-3
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational
behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2),
103–118.
Bele, J., & Rugelj, J. (2007). Blended learning-an opportunity to take the best of both
worlds. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 2(3).
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Brzozowski, J., & Cucculelli, M. (2016). Proactive and reactive attitude to crisis:
Evidence from European firms. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(1),
181–191.
Cao, X., Khan, A. N., Ali, A., & Khan, N. A. (2019). Consequences of cyberbullying and
social overload while using SNSs: A study of users’ discontinuous usage behavior in
SNSs. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–14.
Cocquyt, C., Diep, N. A., Zhu, C., De Greef, M., & Vanwing, T. (2017). Examining social
inclusion and social capital among adult learners in blended and online learning
environments. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 8
(1), 77–101.
Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of
life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(2), 99–125.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3),
435–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304
Cucinotta, D., & Vanelli, M. (2020). WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Bio-
Medica: Atenei Parmensis, 91(1), 157–160.
Ekinci, Y., & Dawes, P. L. (2009). Consumer perceptions of frontline service employee
personality traits, interaction quality, and consumer satisfaction. The Service
Industries Journal, 29(4), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060802283113
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital
implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13
(6), 873–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389
Fouad, N. A., Singh, R., Cappaert, K., Chang, W.-H., & Wan, M. (2016). Comparison of
women engineers who persist in or depart from engineering. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 92, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.002
Franchi, T. (2020). The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on current anatomy education
and future careers: A student’s perspective. Anatomical Sciences Education, 13(3),
312–315.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press
Paperbacks.
Guan, W. J., Ni, Z. Y., Hu, Y., Liang, W. H., Ou, C. Q., He, J. X., & Du, B. (2020). Clinical
characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. New England Journal of
Medicine, 382(18), 1708–1720.
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análise
multivariada de dados. Bookman Editora.
Han, J.-H., Lee, J.-D., & Yoon, B.-S. (2008). An empirical study on the network properties
of innovation in clusters: The social capital aspect. Asian Journal of Technology
Innovation, 16(2), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2008.9668656
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.
Guilford Press.
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2006). Increasing human and social capital
by applying job embeddedness theory. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), 316–331.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling:
Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3
(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424
Hu, P.-H., & Hui, W. (2012). Examining the role of learning engagement in technology-
mediated learning and its effects on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Decision
Support Systems, 53(4), 782–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.014
Jacobs, A. H. (1965). The traditional political organization of the pastoral Masai. University
of Oxford.
Jurkovič, V. (2019). Online informal learning of English through smartphones in
Slovenia. System, 80, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.10.007
Kao, C.-P., Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). Elementary school teachers’ motivation
toward web-based professional development, and the relationship with Internet self-
efficacy and belief about web-based learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2),
406–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.010
Kim, H. S., & Park, I.-J. (2017a). Influence of proactive personality on career self-
efficacy. Journal of Employment Counseling, 54(4), 168–182. https://doi.org/
10.1002/joec.12065
Kim, K.-J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online
learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8
(4), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.09.005
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2017). Self-efficacy and psychological ownership mediate the
effects of empowering leadership on both good and bad employee behaviors. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(4), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1548051817702078
Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017b). Examining structural relationships between work
engagement, organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative
F. Zheng et al.
work behavior for sustainable organizations. Sustainability, 9(2), 205. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su9020205
Kobayashi, T. (2010). Bridging social capital in online communities: Heterogeneity and
social tolerance of online game players in Japan. Human Communication Research, 36
(4), 546–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01388.x
Lattie, E. G., Kashima, K., & Duffecy, J. L. (2019). An open trial of internet-based
cognitive behavioral therapy for first year medical students. Internet Interventions, 18,
100279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2019.100279
Linn, B. S., & Zeppa, R. (1984). Stress in junior medical students: Relationship to
personality and performance. Journal of Medical Education.
Liu, X., Shao, L., Zhang, R., Wei, Y., Li, J., Wang, C., & Zhou, F. (2020). Perceived social
support and its impact on psychological status and quality of life of medical staffs
after outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: a cross-sectional study. Available at SSRN,
3541127.
Lu, J., Yang, J., & Yu, C.-S. (2013). Is social capital effective for online learning?
Information & Management, 50(7), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
im.2013.07.009
Ma, Z., Wang, L., & Cheung, K. (2018). The paradox of social capital in China: Venture
capitalists and entrepreneurs’ social ties and public listed firms’ technological
innovation performance. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 26(3), 306–324.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2018.1548288
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the
indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Sciacchitano, A. M., Cooper, M. L., Testa, M., & Mueller, P. M.
(1990). Perceived social support, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59(3), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.59.3.452
Min, M. (2019). School culture, self-efficacy, outcome expectation, and teacher agency
toward reform with curricular autonomy in South Korea: A social cognitive
approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1–17.
Mohammed, A., Sheikh, T. L., Gidado, S., Poggensee, G., Nguku, P., Olayinka, A., &
Uzoma, O. (2015). An evaluation of psychological distress and social support of
survivors and contacts of Ebola virus disease infection and their relatives in Lagos,
Nigeria: A cross sectional study – 2014. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1–8.
Nannicini, T., Stella, A., Tabellini, G., & Troiano, U. (2010). Social capital and political
accountability. Economics of Culture, Institution, and Crime, 1–45.
Nordin, M. S. (2001). Sense of efficacy among secondary school teachers in Malaysia.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 21(1), 66–74.
Okan, O., Bollweg, T. M., Berens, E. M., Hurrelmann, K., Bauer, U., & Schaeffer, D.
(2020). Coronavirus-related health literacy: A cross-sectional study in adults during
the COVID-19 infodemic in Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 17(5).
Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Makos, A., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2015). Capitalizing on social
presence: The relationship between social capital and social presence. The Internet
and Higher Education, 26, 19–24.
Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out
or persist in online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4).
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of
proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636.
Pitas, N., & Ehmer, C. (2020). Social capital in the response to COVID-19. American
Journal of Health Promotion.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Lee, J. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Prabhu, V. P., McGuire, S. J., Drost, E. A., & Kwong, K. K. (2012). Proactive personality
and entrepreneurial intent: Is entrepreneurial self-efficacy a mediator or moderator?
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 18(5), 559–586.
Preacher, K., Rucker, D., & Hayes, A. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42
(1), 185–227.
Pressman, S. D., Cohen, S., Miller, G. E., Barkin, A., Rabin, B. S., & Treanor, J. J. (2005).
Loneliness, social network size, and immune response to influenza vaccination in
college freshmen. Health Psychology, 24(3), 297–304.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
Simon and Schuster.
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university
teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and
learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 1–23.
Reb, J., Narayanan, J., Chaturvedi, S., & Ekkirala, S. (2017). The mediating role of
emotional exhaustion in the relationship of mindfulness with turnover intentions
and job performance. Mindfulness, 8(3), 707–716.
Children and Youth Services Review 119 (2020) 105694
Rice, S., O’Bree, B., Wilson, M., McEnery, C., Lim, M. H., Hamilton, M., & Valentine, L.
(2020). Leveraging the social network for treatment of social anxiety: Pilot study of a
youth-specific digital intervention with a focus on engagement of young men.
Internet Interventions.
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications Inc.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career
success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A
longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel
Psychology, 54(4), 845–874.
Shapiro, H. B., Lee, C. H., Roth, N. E. W., Li, K., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., & Canelas, D. A.
(2017). Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience:
An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Computers & Education, 110,
35–50.
Sife, A., Lwoga, E., & Sanga, C. (2007). New technologies for teaching and learning:
Challenges for higher learning institutions in developing countries. International
Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 3(2), 57–67.
Soh, K. (2017). Fostering student creativity through teacher behaviors. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 23, 58–66.
Spitzmuller, M., Sin, H. P., Howe, M., & Fatimah, S. (2015). Investigating the uniqueness
and usefulness of proactive personality in organizational research: A meta-analytic
review. Human Performance, 28(4), 351–379.
Suvonova, H., Lee, J. Y., & Park, T. (2019). Organizational preparedness for corporate
entrepreneurship and psychological capital: Does the managerial level matter? Asian
Journal of Technology Innovation, 27(3), 359–376.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 8, Issue 1).
Harper Collins.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1011.
Tulin, M., Lancee, B., & Volker, B. (2018). Personality and social capital. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 81(4), 295–318.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network
site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 875–901.
Vayre, E., & Vonthron, A. M. (2017). Psychological engagement of students in distance
and online learning: Effects of self-efficacy and psychosocial processes. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 197–218.
Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2002). Predictors of web-student performance: The role of
self-efficacy and reasons for taking an on-line class. Computers in Human Behavior, 18
(2), 151–163.
Wang, J., & Kim, T. Y. (2013). Proactive socialization behavior in China: The mediating
role of perceived insider status and the moderating role of supervisors’ traditionality.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(3), 389–406.
Wang, J. L., Jackson, L. A., Wang, H. Z., & Gaskin, J. (2015). Predicting social
networking site (SNS) use: Personality, attitudes, motivation and internet self-
efficacy. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 119–124.
Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase,
decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and
community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436–455.
Widows, M. R., Jacobsen, P. B., Booth-Jones, M., & Fields, K. K. (2005). Predictors of
posttraumatic growth following bone marrow transplantation for cancer. Health
Psychology, 24(3), 266–276.
Wong, A. S., & Kohler, J. C. (2020). Social capital and public health: Responding to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Globalization and Health, 16(1), 1–4.
Xiao, H., Zhang, Y., Kong, D., Li, S., & Yang, N. (2020). The effects of social support on
sleep quality of medical staff treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) in January and February 2020 in China. Medical Science Monitor:
International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research, 26,
e923549–e923551.
Yang, D., Tu, C. C., & Dai, X. (2020). The effect of the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic
on college students in Wuhan. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Policy, 12, S1–S5.
Yildirim, I. (2008). Relationships between burnout, sources of social support and
sociodemographic variables. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,
36(5), 603–616.
Zhu, J., Kuang, X., Kennedy, K. J., & Mok, M. M. C. (2018). Previous civic experience and
Asian adolescents’ expected participation in legal protest: Mediating role of self-
efficacy and interest. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(3), 414–431.