Mối quan hệ giữa việc thường xuyên sử dụng mạng xã hội với hành vi và thành tựu sáng tạo ở sinh viên

predict more creative behavior of users. As we found a contrasting result to our H3 hypothesis, it is possible that entertainment on SM did not guarantee a better mood for users, not to mention it can result in a worsened mood. The four items in the entertainment subscale of the SNUQ capture “sharing photos”, “looking at funny sharing”, “watching movies” and “relieving stress”. We suspect that some of these activities do not warrant a better mood and can instead negatively affect users’ moods. For example, “watching movies” might involve sad-ending or stress-inducing films, or “sharing photos” might involve graphically disturbing contents. Moreover, viewing photos, liking, or commenting on others’ posts have been shown to reduce one’s self-esteem, increase social comparison, and subsequently increase social anxiety in users (Jiang & Ngien, 2020). Although our study did not examine mood directly, it is possible that while the initial purpose for using SM is to entertain, users might have encountered negative occurrences on SM that are not very pleasing to their moods, which then result in reduced motivation and effort to perform other creative activities. Our study did not only quantify creative behaviors but also measured the socially recognized creative achievements of the participants, which are the final products of creativity that are judged and evaluated by other people. Although the number of creative achievements (measured with CAQ) was positively (and also weakly) correlated with the frequencies of SM usage across all four purposes, all of them were non-significant predictors of creative achievements when included in our multivariate regression model. This shows that the use of SM is indirectly related to creative achievement but is not a direct factor that can lead to these outcomes. We speculate that frequent SM usage is positively correlated 289 with creative achievement possibly through a third variable, which is the formation of new ideas (or also called ideational behavior). SM and a participatory culture have created an interactive, accessible and completely free-of-charge environment for the creation and exchange of ideas, thereby motivating individuals to synthesize existing concepts to create new ideas. In other words, SM facilitates ideational behavior (Acar et al., 2009), and the more effort one spends on forming new ideas, the more likely he or she will subsequently put those ideas into production and achieve more creative outcomes. However, the process from developing an initial idea to finalizing it into final products requires a lot of effort, cognitive skills, and implementation. Thus, having solely formed a new idea does not always lead to the successful outcome that the idea will be transformed into a product, let alone successful achievement. This is the explanation that although regular use of SM is positively correlated with creative achievement, SM is not a direct predictor of it because there are many other important factors that can influence the final creative outcome of an individual. Drawing on our results, we would like to discuss some limitations and suggestions for future research on this topic. Since this is a survey- based cross-sectional study, we need to be careful with causal conclusions. It is not yet clear whether the frequent use of SM has a causal link, either positively or negatively, to creativity. To answer this question, we need more experimental studies or multi-factorial studies that investigate possible mediators and moderators of this relationship. In addition, both measures of creativity used in our study, the CBI and CAQ, are subjective self-report scales, which may not objectively measure creativity. Thus, we suggest that future studies on Vietnamese participants should not only use self-report measures but also administer some cognitive testing to measure creativity, such as divergent thinking tests and convergent thinking tests, as these are the two cognitive processes that have been shown to be central in demonstrating creative abilities and can be objectively measured (Lubart, 2016; Mumford, 2003). Lastly, all the participants in our study were approached and recruited via SM, which means that the participants themselves might already have a high level of SM usage. Therefore, our results cannot be generalized to the group of people who 290 use SM less frequently, as this group might not have been proportionally sampled in this study. Therefore, we suggest that future studies should pay attention to recruiting participants through a variety of platforms other than SM. We also suggest that it is necessary to conduct similar studies to examine this relationship between frequent SM usage and creativity on other groups of students who are often underrepresented, such as students with learning disorders. Davis and Braun (2010), in their book “the gift of dyslexia”, argue that there are some cognitive skills that dyslexic students may perform better than their non-dyslexic counterparts thanks to their nonverbal ways of thinking that can include picture thinking, intuition, and multi-dimensional thoughts. These cognitive strategies, the authors argue, can contribute to dyslexic children’s creative process. Other researchers such as Cockcorft and Hartgill (2004) also noticed that children with dyslexia did a better job than the control group at creating more ideas on Torrance’s Tests of Creative Thinking. On the other hand, Asuncion et al. (2012) suggest that learning disabled students also have similar needs as students without learning disorders in terms of using SM for studying and personal purposes, although they are more susceptible to cyber-bullying, which can be one factor hindering the benefits users can get from using SM. For example, Rasheed et al. (2020) found that cyber- bullying significantly moderated the relationship between SM usage and knowledge sharing, which then mediated normally developed, research student’s creativity as the outcome. This means that for those facing with higher cyber-bullying, the triadic relationship of SM usage-knowledge sharing-creativity becomes weakened. Putting together, these findings imply that the relationship between SM usage and creativity of those with learning disorders can be sophisticated that warrant further studies. V. CONCLUSION Regular use of SM for academic, information exchange, and social interaction purposes are all correlated with university students’ creativity. This can either mean that those who are highly creative are more attracted to SM, or SM is a platform of information freedom that encourages users to generate more creative ideas and actions. However, using SM frequently for the above purposes is not a direct predictor of creative behavior and 291 creative achievements. In contrast, the heavy use of SM for entertainment purpose is shown to be a hindering factor of creative behavior. Based on these results, SM users, especially young adults such as university students, should actively limit the frequencies of using SM for entertainment to instead engage in other high-quality activities that require creative activities. REFERENCES Asuncion, J. V., Budd, J., Fichten, C. S., Nguyen, M. N., Barile, M., & Amsel, R. (2012). Social media use by students with disabilities. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 16(1), 30-35. Baten, R. A., Bagley, D., Tenesaca, A., Clark, F., Bagrow, J. P., Ghoshal, G., & Hoque, E. (2020). Creativity in temporal social networks: How divergent thinking is impacted by one’s choice of peers. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 17(171), 20200667. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.0667 Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2017). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210- 230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x Caughron, J., Peterson, D., & Mumford, M. (2011). Creativity Training. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 311-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12- 375038-9.00226-0 Cockcorft, K., & Hartgill, M. (2004). Focusing on the abilities in learning disabilities: Dyslexia and creativity. Education as Change, 8(1), 61-79. Davis, R. D. & Braun, E. M. (2010). The gift of dyslexia: Why some of the smartest people can’t read...and how they can learn. Perigee Books. Doğan, D., & Gulbahar, Y. (2018). Using Facebook as social learning environment. Informatics in Education, 17(2), 207-228. https://doi.org/10.15388/ infedu.2018.11 Dollinger, S. J., Burke, P. A., & Gump, N. W. (2007). Creativity and values. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 91-103. https://doi. org/10.1080/10400410701395028 Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and Openness: Further Validation of Two Creative Product Measures. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1601_4 292 Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media as participatory culture. In  Social media: A critical introduction,  52-68. SAGE Publications. https://www.doi. org/10.4135/9781446270066.n3 Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gupta, S. & Bashir, L. (2018). Social networking usage questionnaire: Development and validation in an Indian higher education context. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19 (4) , 214-227. https://doi.org/10.17718/ tojde.471918 Hargadon, A. B. & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem-solving at work. Organization Science, 17, 484-500. Hocevar D. (1979). The development of the creative behavior inventory. In: Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association. Jiang, S., & Ngien, A. (2020). The effects of Instagram use, social comparison, and self-esteem on social anxiety: A survey study in Singapore. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120912488 Kemp, S. (2021, February 11). Digital in Vietnam: All the Statistics You Need in 2021. DataReportal – Global Digital Insights. Retrieved from https:// datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-vietnam Lubart, T. (2016). Creativity and convergent thinking: Reflections, connections and practical considerations. RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics (4), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2016-4-7-15 Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 107-120. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403 Paulus, P.B., & Nijstad, B.A. (Eds.) (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press. Peppler, K. A. (2013). Social Media and Creativity. In D. Lemish (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of children, adolescents, and media, 193- 200. Routledge. Purvis, A., Rodger, H., & Beckingham, S. (2016). Engagement or distraction: The use of social media for learning in higher education. Student Engagement and Experience Journal, 5(1). https://www.doi.org/10.7190/seej.v5.i1.104 Rasheed, M. I., Malik, M. J., Pitafi, A. H., Iqbal, J., Anser, M. K., & Abbas, M. (2020). Usage of social media, student engagement, and creativity: The role of knowledge sharing behavior and cyberbullying. Computers & Education, 159, 104002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104002 293 Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 19-34. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0024071 Simonton, D. K. (1984). Artistic creativity and interpersonal relationships across and within generations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1273-1286. Snyder, A., Mitchell, J., Bossomaier, T., & Pallier, G. (2004) The creativity quotient: An objective scoring of ideational fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 415-419. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534552 Subramaniam, K., Kounios, J., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). A brain mechanism for facilitation of insight by positive affect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(3), 415-432. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21057 Steinsbekk, S., Wichstrøm, L., Stenseng, F., Nesi, J., Hygen, B. W., & Skalická, V. (2021). The impact of social media use on appearance self-esteem from childhood to adolescence – A 3-wave community study. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106528 Sturgeon, C. M., & Walker, C. (2009). Faculty on Facebook: Confirm or Deny?. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Instructional Technology Conference, March 29th – 31st, 2009, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The jamovi project (2021). jamovi. (Version 1.8) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org. Tu, C., Dilley, A. E., & Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Do we create what we watch? Creativity and entertainment preferences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 394-404. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000032 Watson, D., Clark, L.A. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.