For the for each and every circumstances, all the questions concerned about one another deal with-to-face an internet-based relationship

For the for each and every circumstances, all the questions concerned about one another deal with-to-face an internet-based relationship

For the for each and every circumstances, all the questions concerned about one another deal with-to-face an internet-based relationship


To measure the measurements of the new circle regarding deal with-to-face family, things on the Happiness Questionnaire Screen (Helliwell and you may Huang, 2013) were utilized: “Whenever just how many members of the family do you have?.” Which concern was replied on the a measure of 1 lower than 5 household members to 5 more than 50 nearest and dearest. The question to evaluate the size of on line buddy channels is actually equivalent (Helliwell and you can Huang, 2013): “Around exactly how many relatives do you have with the Myspace?” although effect size are some other, anywhere between step 1 below fifty to eight more a lot of.

All the questions towards quality of matchmaking used in the fresh Western european Societal Questionnaire have been adjusted to evaluate top-notch deal with-to-face and online friendships. The questions was basically: “Just how many individuals do you have which have who you can be explore sexual and private things?” and you may “Exactly how many of them people is their Myspace household members?.” The fresh new impulse scale varied in one (none) so you’re able to seven (10 or more).

A principle components analysis with an oblique rotation was performed on the four friendship items. Examination of the Kaiser–Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.511) and of the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (? 2 (6) = , p 2 (30) = ; p = 0.001) and Facebook friends’ observed variables (? 2 (49) = ; p = 0.003) are related to each other. Factor scores were used as indexes of friendship in the analyses.


To help you determine physical health, also the recognized health items tend to utilized in worldwide surveys (e.g., Eriksson ainsi que al., 2001 – “How can you price your wellbeing generally” with solutions toward a beneficial 5-section size, between decent to help you terrible) the fresh five pieces of the brand new health dimension of County out-of Fitness Survey SF-thirty six (Ware and you may Sherbourne, 1992) had been provided. An example of all the questions is actually: “We seem to get sick a small simpler than many other anyone.” These items had been responded into a good 5-area size, between 1 absolutely not the case so you’re able to 5 undoubtedly correct. The five things demonstrated an adequate reliability (? = 0.72) additionally the average of one’s four points are determined since the indicator from self-stated physical health.

Mental health was analyzed via five points throughout the SF-thirty-six (Ware and Sherbourne, 1992). A good example was “How frequently perhaps you have sensed most worried over the past cuatro days?.” Such issues had been answered towards the an excellent 5-section level, ranging from not to usually. Because level of internal feel of the items try good (? = 0.80), the fresh indication away from psychological state try computed, averaging the brand new responses to these four concerns.

The assessment of subjective well-being was performed with two items (r = 0.722; p 2 (5) = ; p 2 (25) = ; p 2 (30) = ; p 2 (30) = ; p 2 (35) = ; p 1 (Figure 1). More specifically, we tested whether bridging and bonding social capital mediated the relationships among face-to-face friendship and health, as the direct pathway between Facebook friends and health proved not to be significant, ? = 0.09, p = 0.192. Age, gender, education, subjective SES, self-esteem, and living alone effects were controlled. Missing data were handled with listwise deletion.

The direct pathway between face-to-face friendship and health was totally mediated by bonding and bridging social capital. For the mediation of bonding, we found significant paths between friendship and bonding, ? = 0.18, t = 5.59, p 2 (6) = , p 2 (64) = ; p 2 (64) = ; p 2 /DF 0.95; CFI > 0.95; RMSEA 2 (5) = ; p 2 (25) = ; p = 0.039] and close friends [? 2 (30) = ; p = 0.028] than the older participants. The other side of the coin reveals that 9.8% of the respondents claimed to have less than five friends and around 8% affirmed having no close friends at all. Regarding older participants, aged 55 years or above, 8.3% referred to not having anyone to speak to about intimate issues and 9.9% indicated having only one intimate friend.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *