Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:21:32.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

When your world gets smaller: how older people try to meet their social needs, including the role of social technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2018

TINA TEN BRUGGENCATE*
Affiliation:
Department of Tranzo, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, The Netherlands. Institute for HRM and Psychology, Fontys University of Applied Science, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
KATRIEN G. LUIJKX
Affiliation:
Department of Tranzo, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
JANIENKE STURM
Affiliation:
Institute for HRM and Psychology, Fontys University of Applied Science, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
*
Address for correspondence: Tina ten Bruggencate, Fontys Hogescholen – Fontys, Emmasingel 28, Eindhoven Noord Brabant 5611 AZ, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Social needs are important basic human needs. When social needs are not fulfilled, it can lead to mental and physical health problems. In an ageing society, meeting the social needs of older adults is important to sustain their wellbeing and quality of life. Social technology is used by younger people attempting to fulfil social needs. The aim of this study is to understand the social needs of older people and the role of social technology in fulfilling these needs. Using this information we will uncover opportunities for (technological) interventions. We conducted a qualitative explorative field study by interviewing 19 community-dwelling older adults. The participants were selected by professional care-givers with the help of a list of criteria for people at risk of social isolation or loneliness. Semi-structured interviews were held, using a topic list covering the following topics: social networks, social support, connectedness, neighbourhood, activities and hobbies, as well as use of and experiences with social technology. After thematic analysis, inductive codes were attached to quotations relevant to the research question. The results were described in four sections: (a) social needs and relationships; (b) the influence of life history and personality; (c) possibilities and barriers to meet social needs; and (d) use of and attitude towards social technology. The results indicate that the group of participants is heterogeneous and that their social needs and the way they try to meet these are diverse. The Social Production Functions Theory of Successful Aging (SPF-SA) was found to be a useful basis for interpreting and presenting the data. Social needs such as connectedness, autonomy, affection, behavioural confirmation and status are important for the wellbeing of older people. Although the need for affection is most easy to fulfil for older people, it looks like satisfaction of the need for behavioural confirmation and status are in some cases preferred, especially by the male participants. Resources such as relationships, activities, personal circumstances and social technology can help meet social needs. Where there is a lack of (physical) resources such as health problems, reduced mobility, death of network members, fear of rejection and gossip, and poor financial circumstances, meeting social needs can be more difficult for some older people. Social technology now plays a modest role in the lives of older people and in fulfilling their social needs. Because of its potential and its role in the lives of younger people, social technology can be seen as a promising resource in the satisfaction of social needs. However, since it is yet unknown how and to what extent the use of social network technologies, such as Facebook, can be beneficial for older people, more research in this area is needed. Based on our findings, we conclude that the world of older individuals is getting smaller. The loss of resources, e.g. the loss of one's health and mobility, may make it more difficult for an older person to connect with the world outside, which may result in a smaller social network. We therefore suggest that interventions to support older adults to meet their social needs may focus on two aspects: supporting and improving the world close by and bringing the world outside a little bit closer.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, S., Peek, S. and Wouters, E. 2015. The relation between social network site usage and loneliness and mental health in community-dwelling older adults. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 30, 9, 942–9.Google Scholar
Al-Kandari, Y. Y. and Crews, D. E. 2014. Social support and health among elderly Kuwaitis. Journal of Biosocial Science, 46, 4, 518–30.Google Scholar
Antonucci, T. C. 2001. Social relations: an examination of social networks, social support, and sense of control. In Birren, J. E. and Schaie, K. W. (eds), Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. Fifth edition, Academic Press, San Diego, California, 427–53.Google Scholar
Archer, J. 1996. Sex differences in social behavior: are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible? American Psychologist, 51, 9, 909–17.Google Scholar
Avlund, K., Lund, R., Holstein, B. E. and Due, P. 2004. Social relations as determinant of onset of disability in aging. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 38, 1, 8599.Google Scholar
Bell, C., Fausset, C., Farmer, S., Nguyen, J., Harley, L. and Fain, W. B. 2013. Examining social media use among older adults. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. ACM, Paris, 158–63.Google Scholar
Berkman, L. F. and Syme, S. L. 1979. Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology, 109, 2, 186204.Google Scholar
Best, P., Manktelow, R. and Taylor, B. 2014. Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: a systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 2736.Google Scholar
Boeije, H. R. 2005. Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek: denken en doen. Boom Koninklijke Uitgevers, Meppel, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 2, 77101.Google Scholar
Buz, J., Sanchez, M., Levenson, M. R. and Aldwin, C. M. 2014. Aging and social networks in Spain: the importance of pubs and churches. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 78, 1, 2346.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C. and Berntson, G. G. 2003. The anatomy of loneliness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 3, 71–4.Google Scholar
Carstensen, L. L. 1993. Motivation for social contact across the life span: a theory of socioemotional selectivity. In Jacobs, J. (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Volume 40, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, 209–54.Google Scholar
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek 2017. Steeds meer ouderen gebruiken sociale media. Available online at https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2017/52/steeds-meer-ouderen-op-sociale-media [Accessed 8 January 2018].Google Scholar
Cohen, S. and Janicki-Deverts, D. 2009. Can we improve our physical health by altering our social networks? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 4, 375–8.Google Scholar
Cohen-Mansfield, J. and Perach, R. 2015. Interventions for alleviating loneliness among older persons: a critical review. American Journal of Health Promotion, 29, 3, e10925.Google Scholar
D'Antona, R., Kevorkian, M. and Russom, A. 2010. Sexting, texting, cyberbullying and keeping youth safe online. Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 4, 523–8.Google Scholar
De Jong Gierveld, J. and Van Tilburg, T. 2008. De ingekorte schaal voor algemene, emotionele en sociale eenzaamheid. Tijdschrift voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie, 39, 1, 415.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. 2013. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role Interpretation. Psychology Press, Hove, UK.Google Scholar
Gartner 2017. IT Glossary. Available online at https://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/social-technologies [Accessed 30 October 2017].Google Scholar
Gierveld, J. D. J. 1998. A review of loneliness: concept and definitions, determinants and consequences. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 8, 1, 7380.Google Scholar
Gierveld, J. D. J. and Van Tilburg, T. 2006. A 6-item scale for overall, emotional, and social loneliness confirmatory tests on survey data. Research on Aging, 28, 5, 582–98.Google Scholar
Golden, J., Conroy, R. M., Bruce, I., Denihan, A., Greene, E., Kirby, M. and Lawlor, B. A. 2009. Loneliness, social support networks, mood and wellbeing in community-dwelling elderly. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24, 7, 694700.Google Scholar
Hobbs, W. R., Burke, M., Christakis, N. A. and Fowler, J. H. 2016. Online social integration is associated with reduced mortality risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 46, 12980–4.Google Scholar
Holt-Lundstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T. and Stephenson, D. 2015. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 2, 227–37.Google Scholar
Hortulanus, R., Machielse, A. and Meeuwesen, L. 2006. Social Isolation in Modern Society. Volume 10, Routledge, Oxford.Google Scholar
Iecovich, E., Jacobs, J. M. and Stessman, J. 2011. Loneliness, social networks, and mortality: 18 years of follow-up. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 72, 3, 243–63.Google Scholar
Kim, J. and Lee, J.-E. R. 2011. The Facebook paths to happiness: effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 6, 359–64.Google Scholar
Knop, K., Öncü, J. S., Penzel, J., Abele, T. S., Brunner, T., Vorderer, P. and Wessler, H. 2016. Offline time is quality time. Comparing within-group self-disclosure in mobile messaging applications and face-to-face interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, part B, 1076–84.Google Scholar
Leist, A. K. 2013. Social media use of older adults: a mini-review. Gerontology, 59, 4, 378–84.Google Scholar
Luijkx, K., Peek, S. and Wouters, E. 2015. ‘Grandma, you should do it – it's cool.’ Older adults and the role of family members in their acceptance of technology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 12, 15470–85.Google Scholar
Maslow, A. H., Frager, R., Fadiman, J., McReynolds, C. and Cox, R. 1970. Motivation and Personality. Volume 2, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Michael, Y. L., Berkman, L. F., Colditz, G. A. and Kawachi, I. 2001. Living arrangements, social integration, and change in functional health status. American Journal of Epidemiology, 153, 2, 123–31.Google Scholar
Peek, S., Luijkx, K., Vrijhoef, H., Nieboer, M., Aarts, S., Voort, C., Rijnaard, M. and Wouters, E. 2017. Origins and consequences of technology acquirement by independent-living seniors: towards an integrative model. BMC Geriatrics, 17, 1, 189.Google Scholar
Peek, S. T., Wouters, E. J., van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K. G., Boeije, H. R. and Vrijhoef, H. J. 2014. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83, 4, 235–48.Google Scholar
Portero, C. F. and Oliva, A. 2007. Social support, psychological well-being, and health among the elderly. Educational Gerontology, 33, 12, 1053–68.Google Scholar
Redcay, E., Dodell-Feder, D., Pearrow, M. J., Mavros, P. L., Kleiner, M., Gabrieli, J. D. and Saxe, R. 2010. Live face-to-face interaction during fMRI: a new tool for social cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimage, 50, 4, 1639–47.Google Scholar
Seeman, T. E. 1996. Social ties and health: the benefits of social integration. Annals of Epidemiology, 6, 5, 442–51.Google Scholar
Smith, N., Young, A. and Lee, C. 2004. Optimism, health-related hardiness and well-being among older Australian women. Journal of Health and Psychology, 9, 6, 741752.Google Scholar
Steptoe, A., Wright, C., Kunz-Ebrecht, S. R. and Iliffe, S. 2006. Dispositional optimism and health behaviour in community-dwelling older people: associations with healthy ageing. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 1, 7184.Google Scholar
Steverink, N. and Lindenberg, S. 2006. Which social needs are important for subjective well-being? What happens to them with aging? Psychology and Aging, 21, 2, 281–90.Google Scholar
Steverink, N., Lindenberg, S. and Ormel, J. 1998. Towards understanding successful ageing: patterned change in resources and goals. Ageing & Society, 18, 4, 441–67.Google Scholar
Sum, S., Mathews, R. M., Hughes, I. and Campbell, A. 2008. Internet use and loneliness in older adults. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 2, 208–11.Google Scholar
ten Bruggencate, T., Luijkx, K. G. and Sturm, J. 2017. Social needs of older people: a systematic literature review. Ageing & Society, 38, 9, 1745–70.Google Scholar
Turpijn, L., Kneefel, S. and Van der Veer, N. 2015. Nationale social media onderzoek 2015. Newcom Research & Consultancy, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, P. 2014. Schermgaande jeugd. Prometheus, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J. and Schouten, A. P. 2006. Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9, 5, 584–90.Google Scholar
Victor, C. R., Scambler, S. J., Bowling, A. and Bond, J. 2005. The prevalence of, and risk factors for, loneliness in later life: a survey of older people in Great Britain. Ageing & Society, 25, 6, 357–75.Google Scholar
Von Faber, M., Bootsma-van der Wiel, A., van Exel, E., Gussekloo, J., Lagaay, A. M., van Dongen, E. and Westendorp, R. G. 2001. Successful aging in the oldest old: who can be characterized as successfully aged? Archives of Internal Medicine, 161, 22, 2694–700.Google Scholar
Wurm, S. and Benyamini, Y. 2014. Optimism buffers the detrimental effect of negative self-perceptions of ageing on physical and mental health. Psychology & Health, 29, 7, 832–48.Google Scholar