Social interactions today expand beyond in-person interactions. Therefore, it is important to recognize that social interactions can occur with social network members across multiple communication modes (in-person, phone, and online). The current study explored the role that social support plays in the relationship between mode frequency (in-person, phone, and online), network communication mode diversity (breadth and evenness of communicating with network members via different communication modes), and well-being (positive affect, stress, and loneliness) from the 3-year UCNET (UC Berkley Social Networks Study, N = 1159) dataset. The study contained samples for two age groups (cohorts) – 21–31 year-olds and 50–70 year-olds, which also allowed for an exploration of age differences in these relationships. Longitudinal random-intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPM) showed a high degree of stability over the 3 years for all variables. Cross-sectional structural equation mediation models showed that social support mediated the relationships of mode frequency (in-person, phone, and online) and network communication mode diversity with well-being (more positive affect and less loneliness and stress). Age differences were found in the relationship between frequency of communication modes and social support, in that the frequency of communication mode was positively related to social support for younger adults, but not for middle-aged/older adults. Current findings provided future research directions geared toward further understanding of the mode frequency and network communication mode diversity constructs and how they relate to various psychosocial outcomes.
AhnD.ShinD.-H. (2013). Is the social use of media for seeking connectedness or for avoiding social isolation? Mechanisms underlying media use and subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2453–2462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.022
2.
AjrouchK. J.AbdulrahimS.AntonucciT. C. (2013). Stress, social relations, and psychological health over the life course: A focus on Lebanon. GeroPsych, 26(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000076
3.
AlmeidaD. M.HornM. C. (2004). Is daily life more stressful during middle adulthood In. How Healthy Are We? A national study of well-being at midlife (pp. 425–451). University of Chicago Press.
4.
AndersonE. S.WojcikJ. R.WinettR. A.WilliamsD. M. (2006). Social-cognitive determinants of physical activity: The influence of social support, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and self-regulation among participants in a church-based health promotion study. Health Psychology, 25(4), 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.4.510
5.
BerrymanC.FergusonC. J.NegyC. (2018). Social media use and mental health among young adults. Psychiatric Quarterly, 89(2), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-017-9535-6
6.
Bruine de BruinW.ParkerA. M.StroughJ. (2020). Age differences in reported social networks and well-being. Psychology and Aging, 35(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000415
7.
BurkeM.KrautR. E. (2016). The relationship between facebook use and well-being depends on communication type and tie strength. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(4), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12162
8.
CarstensenL. L. (2021). Socioemotional selectivity theory: The role of perceived endings in human motivation. The Gerontologist, 61(8), 1188–1196. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab116
9.
CarstensenL. L.IsaacowitzD. M.CharlesS. T. (1999). Taking time seriously. A theory of socioemotional selectivity. The American Psychologist, 54(3), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.54.3.165
ChanM.LiX. (2020). Smartphones and psychological well-being in China: Examining direct and indirect relationships through social support and relationship satisfaction. Telematics and Informatics, 54, 101469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101469
12.
CharlesS.RöckeC.ZadehR. S.MartinM.BokerS.ScholzU. (2021). Leveraging daily social experiences to motivate healthy aging. The journals of gerontology: Series B, 76(Supplement_2), S157–S166. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbab028
13.
ChopikW. J. (2016). The benefits of social technology use among older adults are mediated by reduced loneliness. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 19(9), 551–556. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0151
14.
CohenS.BrissetteI.SkonerD.DoyleW. (2000). Social integration and health: The case of the common cold. Journal of Social Structure, 1(3), 1–7.
15.
CohenS.UnderwoodL. G.GottliebB. H. (2000). Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. Oxford University Press.
16.
CornwellB.MarcumC.SilversteinM. (2015). The social network approach in gerontological research. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 70(1), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu157
17.
CornwellB.SchummL. P.LaumannE. O.KimJ.KimY.-J. (2014). Assessment of social network change in a national longitudinal survey. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 69(Suppl 2), S75–S82. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu037
18.
CourtinE.KnappM. (2017). Social isolation, loneliness and health in old age: A scoping review. Health and Social Care in the Community, 25(3), 799–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12311
19.
FischerC. S. (2018). UC berkeley social networks study (UCnets), san Francisco Bay Area, 2015-2018: Version 2 (Version v2) [Data set]. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36975.V2
20.
GellN. M.RosenbergD. E.DemirisG.LaCroixA. Z.PatelK. V. (2015). Patterns of technology use among older adults with and without disabilities. The Gerontologist, 55(3), 412–421. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt166
21.
GilmourJ.MachinT.BrownlowC.JeffriesC. (2020). Facebook-based social support and health: A systematic review. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000246
22.
GonzalesA. L. (2014). Text-based communication influences self-esteem more than face-to-face or cellphone communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.026
23.
GrieveR.IndianM.WitteveenK.Anne TolanG.MarringtonJ. (2013). Face-to-face or facebook: Can social connectedness be derived online?Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 604–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.017
HülürG.MacdonaldB. (2020). Rethinking social relationships in old age: Digitalization and the social lives of older adults. The American Psychologist, 75(4), 554–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000604
HuntM. G.MarxR.LipsonC.YoungJ. (2018). No more FOMO: Limiting social media decreases loneliness and depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 37(10), 751–768. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2018.37.10.751
28.
HuttoC. J.BellC.FarmerS.FaussetC.HarleyL.NguyenJ.FainB. (2015). Social media gerontology: understanding social media usage among older adults (13). 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3233/WEB-150310
KafetsiosK.ChatzakouD.TsigilisN.VakaliA. (2017). Experience of emotion in face to face and computer-mediated social interactions: An event sampling study. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.033
31.
KhooS. S.YangH. (2020). Social media use improves executive functions in middle-aged and older adults: A structural equation modeling analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106388
32.
KofferR. E.RamN.ConroyD. E.PincusA. L.AlmeidaD. M. (2016). Stressor diversity: Introduction and empirical integration into the daily stress model. Psychology and Aging, 31(4), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000095
33.
KoyamaY.FujiwaraT.IsumiA.DoiS. (2020). Degree of influence in class modifies the association between social network diversity and well-being: Results from a large population-based study in Japan. Social Science and Medicine, 260, 113170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113170
34.
LachmanM. E.TeshaleS.AgrigoroaeiS. (2015). Midlife as a pivotal period in the life course: Balancing growth and decline at the crossroads of youth and old age. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414533223
35.
LeeS.KofferR. E.SpragueB. N.CharlesS. T.RamN.AlmeidaD. M. (2018). Activity diversity and its associations with psychological well-being across adulthood. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 73(6), 985–995. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw118
36.
LeeY.KoY. (2018). Feeling lonely when not socially isolated: Social isolation moderates the association between loneliness and daily social interaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(10), 1340–1355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517712902
37.
LevineD. M.LipsitzS. R.LinderJ. A. (2016). Trends in seniors’ use of digital health technology in the United States, 2011-2014. JAMA, 316(5), 538–540. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.9124
38.
LinX. Y.LachmanM. E. (2021). Daily stress and affect across adulthood: The role of social interactions via different communication modes. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 1(3). No Pagination Specified-No Pagination Specifiedhttps://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000026
39.
LiuD.BaumeisterR. F.YangC.HuB. (2019). Digital communication media use and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 24(5), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz013
40.
MooreJ. L. (2018). Exploring healthy connection: Communication, social networks, and wellbeing. [Chapter]. Novel Applications of Virtual Communities in Healthcare Settings; IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2958-3.ch007
41.
PalfreyJ.GasserU. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives (p. vii, 381). Basic Books.
42.
PerissinottoC. M.Stijacic CenzerI.CovinskyK. E. (2012). Loneliness in older persons: A predictor of functional decline and death. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172(14), 1078–1083. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1993
QuintanaD.CervantesA.SáezY.IsasiP. (2018). Internet use and psychological well-being at advanced age: Evidence from the English longitudinal study of aging. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(3), 480. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030480
48.
QuoidbachJ.GruberJ.MikolajczakM.KoganA.KotsouI.NortonM. I. (2014). Emodiversity and the emotional ecosystem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2057–2066. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038025
49.
RascheP.WilleM.BröhlC.TheisS.SchäferK.KnobeM.MertensA. (2018). Prevalence of health app use among older adults in Germany: National survey. JMIR MHealth and UHealth, 6(1), Article e26. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.8619
50.
ReineckeL.AufenangerS.BeutelM. E.DreierM.QuiringO.StarkB.WölflingK.MüllerK. W. (2017). Digital stress over the life span: The effects of communication load and internet multitasking on perceived stress and psychological health impairments in a German probability sample. Media Psychology, 20(1), 90–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1121832
51.
ScharkowM. (2016). The accuracy of self-reported internet use — a validation study using client log data. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2015.1118446
SiedleckiK. L.SalthouseT. A.OishiS.JeswaniS. (2014). The relationship between social support and subjective well-being across age. Social Indicators Research, 117(2), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0361-4
54.
SimsT.ReedA. E.CarrD. C. (2017). Information and communication technology use is related to higher well-being among the oldest-old. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 72(5), 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw130
StoneA. A.SchwartzJ. E.BroderickJ. E.DeatonA. (2010). A snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(22), 9985–9990. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003744107
57.
SzaboA.AllenJ.StephensC.AlpassF. (2019). Longitudinal analysis of the relationship between purposes of internet use and well-being among older adults. The Gerontologist, 59(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny036
58.
TalhaA.NilssonC. J.WeuveJ.RajanK. B.LeonC. F. M. de. (2018). Effects of social network diversity on mortality, cognition and physical function in the elderly: A longitudinal analysis of the chicago health and aging project (CHAP). Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 72(11), 990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2017-210236
59.
ten BruggencateT.LuijkxK. G.SturmJ. (2019). Friends or frenemies? The role of social technology in the lives of older people. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 4969. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16244969
60.
Urban-WojcikE. J.LeeS.GrupeD. W.QuinlanL.GreshamL.HammondA.CharlesS. T.LachmanM. E.AlmeidaD. M.DavidsonR. J.SchaeferS. M. (2021). Diversity of daily activities is associated with greater hippocampal volume. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 25(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-021-00942-5
61.
Vera-VillarroelP.Celis-AtenasK.PavezP.LilloS.BelloF.DíazN.LópezW. (2012). Money, age and happiness: Association of subjective wellbeing with socio-demographic variables. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(2), 155–163.
62.
WangX.LiY.FanH. (2019). The associations between screen time-based sedentary behavior and depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1524. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7904-9
63.
WilsonJ.HeinschM.BettsD.BoothD.Kay-LambkinF. (2021). Barriers and facilitators to the use of e-health by older adults: A scoping review. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1556. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11623-w
64.
WrzusC.HänelM.WagnerJ.NeyerF. (2012). Social network changes and life events across the life span: a meta-analysis (Vol. 139). Psychological bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028601
65.
YoonS.KleinmanM.MertzJ.BrannickM. (2019). Is social network site usage related to depression? A meta-analysis of facebook–depression relations. Journal of Affective Disorders, 248, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.01.026
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
