Interpersonal Media and Face-to-Face Communication: Relationship with Life Satisfaction and Loneliness

Abstract

Framed by need to belong theory, this study considers the role of communication modality, geographic proximity, and the number of close relationship partners to predict life satisfaction and loneliness. A quota sample of American adults (N = 1,869) completed four name generation tasks to identify up to 16 alters, resulting in four alters per participant (n = 7,471). Participants reported the frequency with which they communicated with each alter in the past year in person and through eight interpersonal media. Results suggest that number of relationship partners and frequency of face-to-face interaction were robust predictors of life satisfaction and loneliness. Those living alone faced significant threats to well-being. Video chat and voice call frequency were also associated with greater life satisfaction. Mediation analyses showed voice call frequency was indirectly associated with less loneliness through greater relationship maintenance satisfaction, while lean media was indirectly associated with greater loneliness through relationship maintenance frustration.

Meaning in Life and Loneliness as Mediators between COVID-19 Anxiety and Life Satisfaction in the Post-Pandemic among the General Population in Turkey: A Serial Mediation Model

“…For example, loneliness mediated the relationship between the negative impact of COVID-19 and quality of life [56]. Likewise, studies showed that those who perceived themselves as at risk of contracting COVID-19 had higher loneliness scores [57], and those who felt lonely faced significant threats to their well-being [58]. In a longitudinal study, after 12 months of follow-up, anxiety symptoms continued at high levels, depressive symptoms and loneliness increased, and life satisfaction decreased [59].…”

A Study of Online Relationships: A Sociocultural Perspective

“…Participants highlight limitations while discussing how technology opens up new relationship possibilities. This process is vividly demonstrated in Alejandro's (23) experience, whose relationship initially developed online, transitioned to face-to-face, and then reverted online: I can't really think of many positive things about being in an online relationship. Well, we wouldn't have met, which is already out here; so that it wouldn't have happened.…”

“…They also view computer-mediated communication as less valuable and ful lling for maintaining close relationships compared to in-person interactions (e.g. Cummings et al, 2002;Hall et al, 2023;Lee et al, 2011;Schiffrin et al, 2010). Moreover, individuals engaged in online dating are often negatively stereotyped as unattractive, creepy, or desperate (Johanis et al, 2023).…”

“…In face-to-face interactions, individuals bene t from a richer array of cues to understand someone's personality and character. However, online, where such cues may be limited, Fiona (23) Individuals seek the unintentional appearances of others online, aiming to understand them beyond intentional self-presentation. This tension is complex, stemming from the interplay of creating identities, strategic relationship planning, societal discourses, and the genuine pursuit of authenticity.…”

What we do in the shadows: The consumption of mobile messaging by social media mobile apps in the twilight of the social networking era

“…In my analysis of 4,434 interactions of 243 people from 2015 and 2018, interactive messaging occurred mainly with friends and family, rarely with acquaintances, and not at all (0%) with strangers (Hall, 2020). In a quota sample of Americans in 2021, texting was the most popular modality for keeping in touch with close relationship partners (Hall, Dominguez, et al, in press). Among Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z, texting was used to communicate in ∼90% of all relationships.…”