key: cord-0470580-y52vbju9
authors: Quan-Haase, Anabel; Harper, Molly-Gloria; Wellmnan, Barry
title: The Role of Communication Technology Across the Life Course: A Field Guide to Social Support in East York
date: 2021-09-28
journal: nan
DOI: nan
sha: 637033b6e6828f227f17cb0d60a94f2cc0a6ec88
doc_id: 470580
cord_uid: y52vbju9

We examine how Canadians living in the East York section of Toronto exchange social support. Just as we have had to deconstruct social support to understand its component parts, we now deconstruct how different types of communication technologies play socially supportive roles. We draw on 101 in-depth interviews conducted in 2013-2014 to shed light on the support networks of a sample of East York residents and discern the role of communication technologies in the exchange of different types of social support across age groups. Our findings show that not much has changed since the 1960s in terms of the social ties that our sample of East Yorkers have, and the types of support mobilized via social networks: companionship, small and large services, emotional aid, and financial support. What has changed is how communication technologies interweave in complex ways with different types of social ties (partners, siblings, friends, etc.) to mobilize social support. We found that with siblings and extended kin communication technologies could boost the frequency of interaction and help exchange support at a distance. With friendship ties, communication technologies provide a continuous, constant flow of interaction. We draw implications for theories of social support and for social policy linked to interventions aimed at helping vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic.

, network structure and composition across the life span (Wellman, Quan-Haase, & Harper, 2020) , and digital skills in older adults (Quan-Haase et al., 2018) . Yet, it is important to compare age groups because it remains unclear if age differences exist in how various forms of communication technologies are used to exchange different types of support. As best as we know, this is the first exploratory field study reporting on how North American adults use communication technology across age groups to mobilize different types of social support from their personal networks. Our study makes an important contribution in that we study the repertoire of communication technologies used to exchange social support rather than focusing on a single technology. This provides a more holistic understanding of how personal networks are activated for exchanging different types of social support. The present study has important policy implications for how communication technologies are implemented during COVID-19 to aid intergenerational communication and also to provide mediated social support to different age groups.

Social support is one of the primary functions of social relations where individuals exchange various types of support (Heaney & Israel, 2008) . Much research has pointed toward the benefits of social support (Uchino, 2009; Umberson, Crosnoe, & Reczek, 2010) , treating COMMUNICATION FORM, THE LIFE COURSE & SOCIAL SUPPORT 6 support as either a single concept or seeing it as a variety of resource exchanges (Berkman, Kawachi, & Glymour, 2014) . Earlier East York studies contributed to the understanding of social support by proposing a typology of support types, including emotional aid, small and large services, companionship, and financial aid (Wellman, 1979; Wellman & Wortley, 1990) . This research showed that the exchange of these types of support depends on the characteristics of a person's network, as different social ties specialize in giving different types and levels of support (Wellman & Wortley, 1990) .

Looking closer at the way social support is exchanged and by whom, research has shown that as individuals move throughout the life course, their needs and circumstances change as well as their social roles and relationships (Heinze et al., 2015) and so does the type and amount of social support they give and receive (Kahn & Antonucci, 1980) . Though individuals rely on certain sources of support consistently throughout the life course, such as family, friends, neighbors, and community ties (Brajsa et al., 2018) , different types of ties take prominence (Heinze et al., 2015) . To better understand these differences, we draw from literature focused on middle-aged and older adults. We follow the premises of the technological affordances theory by examining how not only types of communication technologies, but also their specific features and functions mediate the exchange of social support across different age groups.

When looking at the adoption of communication technologies, there are differences among age groups regarding the exchange of digital forms of support. Young adults (i.e., aged 18 to 35) are more likely to have expansive social networks (Umberson et al., 2010) , suggesting that a larger variety of support is available to them. This is because young adults tend to adopt communication technologies to build and maintain their networks (Field, 2008; Umberson et al., 2010) . In turn, their larger networks influence the level of perceived support available (Cole et al., 2017) . Despite this, studies have suggested young adults do not consider social media to provide tangible and esteem support, rather it provides informational support due to the public nature of some platforms that deter individuals from engaging in more supportive exchanges . This results in less support exchanged than through in-person interactions (Drouin et al., 2018; Liu & Wei, 2018) . For these younger individuals then, the exchange of social support is not necessarily a strong motivation for engaging via communication technologies.

Older adults often face age-related barriers that can cause them to be hesitant in adopting digital devices such as a lack of digital skills, not knowing digital jargon, limited confidence, and the hindrance of small screens and hard to press buttons (Hage et al., 2020; Neves et al., 2019;  adults prefer in-person and traditional forms of communication with digital technologies serving as alternative means of connecting with others, particularly when in-person or telephone communication is limited (Baecker, Sellen, Crosskey, Boscart, & Neves, 2014) .

While needs may differ throughout life stages, the exchange of support has positive effects on well-being for all age groups because there are more people to communicate with in times of need (Cole et al., 2017; Choi & Noh, 2019) . In addition, the exchange of support reduces feelings of loneliness and social isolation by increasing communication and social belongingness among social networks regardless of size (Choi et al., 2012; Choi & Noh, 2019) .

As a result, perceived support and exchanged support through communication technologies leads to positive outcomes for all age groups. However, little is known about the specific types of communication technologies used to exchange what types of support at different life stages.

The data come from the fourth wave of the East York study. East York is part of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), home to approximately 6.3 million residents (City of Toronto, 2018), making it one of the largest metropolitan areas in North America. On its own, East York is home to nearly 120,000 residents living in apartment buildings and small houses (Statistics Canada, 2019 Qualitative methods were used because social support is perceived (Thoits, 2011) ; therefore, it is important to understand the perceptions of participants in their own words. Indepth, semi-structured interviews provided flexibility to explore the complex concept of social support via communication technologies (Yeo et al., 2013) because we were interested in learning the full range of communication technologies employed rather than limiting the study to one type. The flexible nature of the interview guide and use of probes allowed interviewers the chance to ask follow-up questions based on participants' responses (Berg & Lune, 2012) . Since these were in-depth interviews, each lasted approximately 1.5 hours and contained 65 main questions with additional probes and follow-up questions. A wide range of topics were covered including social networks, technology use, and social support (interview guide available at https://sociodigitaltest.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/interview-schedule_ni-project.pdf). After pilot testing and refining the interview guide, data were collected in 2013-2014. With permission from participants, interviews were recorded and transcribed. To ensure accuracy, one-third of the interviews were checked against the original recording by a trained research assistant. To protect confidentiality of participants, we use pseudonyms reflecting both gender identity and ethnicity.

Our sample comprises 101 English-speaking adults ranging in age from 27 to 93 with a mean and median age of 60 (SD = 15), skewing upwards compared to census data on East York, which report a median age of 41. Table 1 depicts participants' demographic information including gender identity, age, employment status, level of education, enrollment as a student, place of birth, and living arrangements. To examine age-based differences, we divided participants into four groups: under 35 (6 participants), age 35-50 (22 participants), 51-64 years of age (32 participants), and age 65 and older (41 participants). We had an even distribution across men and women and no other gender identity was reported. Reflecting the cultural diversity of Toronto (Toronto City Planning, 2018), participants born outside of Canada were from Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and the Caribbean. In our sample, 96% of participants owned a computer, 95% had a landline, 90% owned a mobile phone, and 37% had a tablet.

Ninety-two percent of participants used email, 54% communicated via texting, 46% used video chat like Skype or FaceTime, 57% used Facebook, and 17% used Twitter. 

To stay close to the data, our analysis was guided by thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) . Research assistants met regularly over two years, discussed any coding discrepancies, and refined any codes when necessary to converge on a final list of codes. In the final stage of coding, all team members reviewed the final list of themes for coherence and provided guidance in selecting meaningful quotes that highlighted key findings (Braun & Clarke, 2006) . To enhance the trustworthiness of the data, we used thick description of participants' contexts and everyday life circumstances (Houghton, Casey, Shaw, & Murphy, 2013) .

Participants predominantly exchanged three types of social support: companionship, small services, and emotional aid. Large services and financial aid were exchanged to a much lesser extent. Remarkably, these types of support, as well as the individuals who exchanged them, has been roughly consistent in all East York studies, starting with evidence collected in 1968 (Wellman & Wortley, 1990) . We did, however, notice slight discrepancies between reported giving and receiving, with participants overall reporting more giving than receiving for companionship, small services, emotional aid, and financial aid (see Table 2 ). We found that since a majority of those aged 35 to 50 lived in the same household as their partners and often children, face-to-face was preferred over communication technologies for companionship. By contrast, their friends often lived beyond their neighborhoods throughout the metropolitan area, the province of Ontario, and internationally. This is in stark contrast to earlier East York data (Wellman, 1979) , where distant ties were more likely to be with kin rather than with friends. To stay in touch with friends throughout the metropolitan area of Toronto, both for directly exchanging companionship, but also to coordinate visits.

Many participants exchanged small services-the second most prevalent form of support.

In contrast to companionship, communication technologies scarcely played a role in this form of social support. Rather, exchanging small services was characteristic of participants' face-to-face neighborly ties and consisted of household jobs such as helping with yard work, minor house repairs, and babysitting children and/or pets. These were reciprocal exchanges, with many participants offering help to their neighbors when it was needed because they could count on similar help in return. Those 65+ were more likely to give small services than receive-mostly in-person, which reflected their willingness to help family and friends, as they felt they had the time to engage in altruistic acts. Despite geographic closeness, for some participants phone, email, and texting added onto face-to-face for neighborly support exchange.

Emotional aid was both widely given and received by most participants and was the third most prevalent form of support. In addition to face-to-face contact, participants used a variety of communication technologies to for exchanging emotional aid, especially when they needed or offered an ear or shoulder during difficult times such as illnesses, bereavements, or major troubles. Following in-person encounters, calling--both mobile and landline--were perceived as beneficial, even if not preferred, for exchanging emotional aid because people felt there was more of a connection when they could hear someone's voice and/or see someone's facial expressions. These social affordances facilitated closeness and intimacy, which for participants allowed emotions to be expressed. Many did not see texting or emailing as conducive for providing emotional aid because of the lack of intonation and nonverbal cues. This suggests that social affordances of co-presence provided auditorily or visually through calling or video chatting are critical for the provision of emotional aid. 

We see that communication technologies were used in addition to or in place of phone calling, which led to greater tie closeness by increasing the overall frequency and quality of communication. Both increased frequency of communication and closeness are core elements of tie closeness (Marsden & Campbell, 1984) . In particular, activities such as video chatting and 

In one's network, there are usually more siblings and extended kin (e.g., cousins, aunts/uncles, grandparents) than parents and children, but these ties are often widely dispersed rather than in the same neighborhood (Mok, Wellman, & Carrasco, 2010 For some older adults, however, email's social affordances were valued. As their networks were geographically dispersed, they valued email's ease of use, its low cost, and ability to contact multiple relatives at once.

Older adults also often discussed email's low intrusion as an advantage. The sense of copresence in the exchange of companionship was another major affordance of communication technologies for keeping up with siblings and extended kin, reported across all age groups.

Participants often saw video chat as being the next best thing to physically being there because it afforded participants to see and hear their relatives on the other end compared to just voices on the phone. For example, Aaron Collins (P3, M, 69), who has a brother and a sister who he sees in-person only once a year, told us that he preferred the audiovisual media richness and emotional cues afforded by Skype video chat compared to email which is text-based:

watching. You can tell if they're nervous, or unhappy, or whatever.

East York is not an urban village, rather most participants had friends dispersed through the Greater Toronto Area, Canada, and other parts of the world. While all age groups preferred face-to-face contact, and used it with those nearby, communication technologies complimented their connectivity and made maintaining friendship connections, keeping in touch, and exchanging support--especially emotional support--much easier. It is important to specify, however, that these were usually existing friendships as very few used communication technologies to find new ones online --when they did, it was primarily those who were dating online who wanted to meet new people. Thus, time spent online was a prominent means for friends to engage, communicate, identify needs, and coordinate plans. For instance, Maggie

Bethany (P75, W, 55) said the computer was her most important device because it allowed her to communicate.

Facebook, but I like to hear what my friends are doing, and I really connect with people that way.

Using phone calls, emails, texts, and Facebook as the primary tools used to connect with friends, made planning easier and smoother due to the social affordances that communication technologies provide, such as multi-group emailing and messaging, quickness of texting, and the ability to contact a friend on their mobile phone for last minute plans. For example, Duncan

Robertson (P33, M, 83) said that emailing enabled him to stay in touch easily:

funny stories and they send them, so they just forward them to me…It's a way of keeping in touch…So people who I wouldn't normally communicate with-the contact is enhanced by forwarding these pictures or these jokes or stories. So that helps a lot.

Across age groups, participants used phone calling most often when communicating with friends due to its immediacy and nuance of responses. However, there are some differences worth noting, specifically among younger and older generations. Younger participants expressed their desire to text, valuing its quick and unobtrusive nature, feeling it to be equivalent to phonecalling. They liked the affordance of keeping a communication stream going while engaging in other activities. By contrast, older generations (65+) did not rely on texting (except for 1 participant) because they felt it was not as emotionally fulfilling as a phone call or inperson conversation, for them quality mattered over frequency: For co-workers, participants used a combination of phone calling, texting, emails, and face-to-face to communicate. Aside from in-person contact while at work or attending workrelated social events, participants deemed email the primary and most convenient method of communication with colleagues because of its asynchronicity-the ability to pass along important messages without disturbing one another.

We investigated exchanging diverse types of social support in the 21 st century by examining the role of communication technologies across age groups as well as how type of social tie mediates the exchange. Like earlier East York studies (Wellman & Wortley, 1990) , we

found the same types of support (i.e., companionship, emotional aid, and small services) are relevant as well as the individuals who exchange them. We did notice slight discrepancies between reported giving and receiving, with participants overall reporting more giving than receiving for companionship, small services, emotional aid, and financial aid. There is, however, one notable exception. We found older adults to stand out whereby their giving of small and large services exceeded their receiving. For many older adults, giving support was an important part of their everyday lives, regardless of social tie (i.e., family ties, neighbors). In some ways, they were making deposits into the bank of support, with the hope and expectation that they would receive it in return when needed (Quan-Haase et. al, 2017) . We did find in agreement with past studies that older adults received companionship from their family, friends, and neighbors (Bromell & Cagney, 2014) .

Despite Marshall McLuhan's oracular pronouncement, we found "the medium is [not] the message" (1964, 12) . Rather, the various communication technologies partially shape, facilitate, and hinder the conveyance of various types of support. Communication technologies do not provide support; ties provide support. But communication technology is often the delivery system through which support flows, and is even more often the infrastructure that maintains the ties, both strong and weak, that can be mobilized for support (Hampton, 2016; .

With the partial exception of gamers (Nardi, 2010) , there is no reason for social scientists to study technology-mediated social networks as isolated phenomena. It is the relationships that are important, and supportive ties integrate a range of technologies for connectivity with face-to-face encounters.

Our findings reveal that face-to-face contact is the preferred means for support exchange across all age groups. Yet, we also find that participants are adopting alternative digital ways for a range of reasons, such as how communication technologies lessen geographical barriers, which affords accessibility, reachability, and facilitates more frequent communication across their social connections (Hampton et al., 2011; Liu & Wei, 2018 Past studies have focused extensively on Facebook, showing that Facebook increases the perceived amount of support that is available via one's social network (Lu & Hampton, 2017) .

Our findings support and expand these findings showing that across all age groups Facebook helped exchange support: young adults used it mostly with friends, while middle-aged adults (35-64) used it with children, extended kin, and friends, and older adults-only a few-used it with children, extended kin, and friends. Facebook when examined in relation to other communication technologies, however, only plays a limited role. In fact, East Yorkers across all age groups turn to and prioritize more personal, dyadic communication technologies (e.g., phone and video chat) with their stronger ties like children, partners, siblings, parents, and close friends.

This is because despite the many informational benefits Facebook provides, its asynchronicity and broadcast nature (e.g., lack of privacy) hinder the exchange of companionship and emotional aid.

Even though communication technologies like Facebook expand one's reach into networks of support, Cornwell and Goldman (2020) found local ties are uniquely positioned to provide companionship. While our study supports Cornwell and Goldman's (2020) findings, we also found that for middle-aged adults and older adults communication technologies enhance local ties. This supports findings from Netville (Hampton & Wellman, 2003) , a wired neighborhood, suggesting that communication technologies are not radically transforming communities, nor replacing local, neighborly ties, but rather are adding to in-person communication. East Yorkers use these technologies to reap many benefits from their local ties, including exchanging support, even if used to arrange for in-person support.

Social support studies suggest that the quality of relations is critical for individuals' wellbeing rather than the sheer volume of interaction (Pinquart & Sörensen, 2001) . Our findings suggest that communication technologies with their affordances of co-presence contribute to the enhancement of relations, whereas communication technologies that afford speed and convenience mostly contribute to quantity but not quality. But this finding is more nuanced.

While for all age groups co-presence matters, older adults give this even more prominence when it comes to exchanges of companionship and emotional aid. By contrast, those aged 35 to 64 rely on multiple communication technologies to exchange all types of social support, choosing the type depending on social context and current need. Also, younger age groups see the benefits of frequent exchanges for increasing the resilience of social ties. In that way, technologies and their affordances do not dictate how support is exchanged for younger age groups, rather all types are used flexibly to exchange support with close ties. This suggests that age-related factors like familiarity with technologies and established habits structure how technologies are integrated into support networks.

Social media use in 2021

Technology to reduce social isolation and loneliness

Social media elements, ecologies, and effects

Qualitative research methods for the social sciences

Social epidemiology

The relationship between social support and subjective well-being across the lifespan

Using thematic analysis in psychology

Companionship in the neighborhood context

Virtual community care? Information

The influence of social media use on attitude toward suicide through psychological well-being, social isolation, and social support. Information

Computer and internet interventions for loneliness and depression in older adults

Toronto at a glance

Online social support for young people

Local ties in the social networks of older adults

Internet use and depression among retired older adults in the United States

Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design

How artifacts afford

College students in distress

Learning transitions in adult life course

Distinguishing technologies for social interaction

New rules of engagement

Persistent and pervasive community

Core networks, social isolation, and new media

Neighboring in Netville

Exploring heterogenous ICT use among older adults

Old dogs, new clicks

Social networks and social support

Health behavior and health education

Relationships among disease, social support, and perceived health

Rigor in qualitative case-study research

Aging with technology

Convoys over the life course

Modeling social support on social media

A meta-analysis of social network site use and social support

Beyond the power of networks

Measuring tie strength

Understanding media

Does distance matter in the age of the Internet? Urban Studies

My life as a night priest

Can digital technology enhance social connectedness among older adults

The sociology of social networks

Influences on loneliness in older adults

Connected seniors. Information

Dividing the grey divide

Digital inequalities in time of pandemic

Notification pending

Census Profile

Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health

Toronto and East York. City of Toronto

Understanding the links between social support and physical health

Social relationships and health behavior across the life course

The community question

The networked question in the digital era

Different strokes from different folks

Indepth interview

Research Council of Canada. We highly value the contributions of our interviewers, transcribers, and coders. We are grateful to the East Yorkers who took the time to share their experiences with our team.

As is almost always the case, our study has its limitation. The data were collected in 2013-2014, and thus future research needs to expand the scope by integrating newer technologies like TikTok and also documenting the social impacts of the pandemic. In our interviews, we do not have complete data for participants' race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability information, which are all dimensions of importance for the study of social support and technology use/adoption (Robinson, et al., 2020) . Further, our case study is limited to Toronto, a metropolitan area that is unique in its multicultural composition and high rate of recent immigrants/refugees, and thus research needs to be expanded to other locales.On the positive side, through 101 interviews with East York residents, our case study provided rich data on aspects of the pressing social support questions that the COVID-19 pandemic has further brought to the forefront. We are proud to have followed Bayer, Triệu, and Ellison (2020) by pursuing theoretically-driven research approaches with the aim "to produce enduring knowledge about social technologies" (p. 472).