| Literature DB >> 36231387 |
Yang Yang1, Dan Zeng1, Fan Yang1.
Abstract
At present, the Internet has a profound impact on the lifestyle and ideas of the elderly and has an important impact on the subjective well-being of the elderly. Based on the data of 2020 China Family Panel Studies (CFPS), 4463 elderly people aged 60 years and above were selected in the empirical research, including 2321 males and 2142 females. The average age was 68.07 (SD = 5.75). The ordinary least square regression (OLS) model was used to test the effect of Internet use on the subjective well-being of the elderly; the structural equation model was used to analyze the influence path of social capital in the process of Internet use affecting the subjective well-being of the elderly, and the Sobel test is used to further verify the mediating effect of social capital. The results indicated the important positive effect of Internet use on the improvement of the subjective well-being of the elderly and confirms the mediating role of social capital in the process of Internet use affecting the subjective well-being of the elderly. Among them, the mediating effects of bonding social capital and bridging social capital accounted for 18.69% and 28.17%, respectively. It can be seen that the mediating effect of bridging social capital is significantly higher than that of bonding social capital. Marital status moderates the latter half of the mediation mechanism of "Internet use-bridging social capital-subjective well-being of the elderly", that is, "bridging social capital-subjective well-being of the elderly."Entities:
Keywords: Internet use; elderly; mediation effect; social capital; subjective well-being
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231387 PMCID: PMC9564528 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912087
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Theoretical schematic diagram of the core variable.
Descriptive statistics of relevant variables.
| Category | Variables | Variable Definition and Assignment | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explanatory variables | Use the Internet | Yes = 1; no = 0 | 0.23 | 0.42 |
| Explained variable | Subjective well-being | 0–10, continuous variable | 7.79 | 2.13 |
| Intervening variable | Bonding social capital | Frequency of contact with children: 0–5, continuous variable | 4.48 | 1.75 |
| Bridging social capital | Popularity: 0–10, continuous variable | 7.41 | 2.03 | |
| Control variables | Gender | Male = 1; female = 0 | 0.52 | 0.50 |
| Age group | 60–69 = 1; 70–79 = 2; | 1.40 | 0.57 | |
| Place of residence | Urban and rural property of residence: urban = 1; rural = 0 | 0.50 | 0.50 | |
| The degree of education | Illiterate or semi-illiterate = 1; primary school = 2, junior high school = 3; senior high school = 4; junior college and above = 5 | 2.17 | 1.17 | |
| Marital status | Unaccompanied by spouse (including unmarried, divorced, widowed) = 0; accompanied by spouse (including cohabitation and spouse in marriage) = 1 | 0.85 | 0.36 | |
| Relative income level | 1–5, continuous variable; the higher the value, the higher the relative income status | 3.20 | 1.15 | |
| Self-assessment of social status | 1–5, continuous variable; the higher the value, the higher the self-rated social status | 3.49 | 1.10 | |
| Self-reported health | 1–5, continuous variable; the higher the value, the better the self-rated health status | 2.65 | 1.25 |
Figure 2Types of Internet use among the elderly.
Figure 3Internet use and subjective well-being scores of the elderly.
OLS regression model of the influence of Internet use on the subjective well-being of the elderly.
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Using or not using the Internet | 0.307 *** | 0.327 *** | 0.266 *** | 0.235 *** | 0.194 *** |
| Gender | −0.102 | −0.081 | 0.000 | 0.013 | |
| Age group | 0.290 *** | 0.321 *** | 0.246 *** | 0.267 *** | |
| Education level | 0.053 * | 0.040 | 0.026 | 0.017 | |
| Marital status | 0.364 *** | 0.349 *** | 0.350 *** | 0.341 *** | |
| Urban or rural area | 0.164 *** | 0.166 *** | 0.182 *** | 0.183 *** | |
| Relative income level | 0.203 *** | 0.199 *** | 0.187 *** | 0.184 *** | |
| Self-assessment of social status | 0.360 *** | 0.355 *** | 0.185 *** | 0.183 *** | |
| Self-reported health | 0.271 *** | 0.271 *** | 0.203 *** | 0.203 *** | |
| Convergent social capital: Frequency of contact with children | 0.289 *** | 0.197 *** | |||
| Bridging social capital: kinship | 0.437 *** | 0.434 *** | |||
| Constant | 7.715 *** | 4.228 *** | 3.860 *** | 1.919 *** | 1.685 *** |
|
| 4463 | 4463 | 4463 | 4463 | 4463 |
| 0.004 | 0.125 | 0.130 | 0.286 | 0.289 | |
|
| 16.48 | 70.71 | 66.69 | 178.74 | 164.37 |
Note: *** p < 0.01, * p < 0.1. The values in parentheses are t values.
Endogeneity test.
| Variables | Model 6 | Model 7 |
|---|---|---|
| Using or not using the Internet | 0.223 ** (2.26) | 0.188 * (1.92) |
| Gender | −0.179 ** (2.53) | 0.119 * (1.71) |
| Age group | 0.256 *** (4.34) | 0.257 *** (4.40) |
| Education level | 0.070 ** (2.12) | 0.044 (1.36) |
| Marital status | 0.422 *** (4.40) | 0.410 *** (4.34) |
| Urban or rural area | 0.165 ** (2.36) | 0.147 ** (2.13) |
| Relative income level | 0.207 *** (5.88) | 0.199 *** (5.73) |
| Self-assessment of social status | 0.390 *** (10.66) | 0.336 *** (9.22) |
| Self-reported health | 0.265 *** (9.74) | 0.245 *** (9.11) |
| Bridging social capital: Popularity | 0.167 *** (10.10) | |
| Convergent social capital: Frequency of contact with children | 0.193 *** (3.10) | |
| Constant | 4.152 *** (22.27) | 2.968 *** (13.67) |
| Observations | 3618 | 3618 |
| 0.128 | 0.156 | |
|
| 58.94 | 60.63 |
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. The values in parentheses are t values.
Analysis of the mediating effect of social capital.
| M | X | Y = Subjective Well-Being | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sobel Test | Mediating Effect Coefficient | Direct Effect Coefficient | Overall Effect Coefficient | Proportion of Mediating Effect (%) | ||
| Bonding Social Capital | Internet use | 0.061 *** | 0.061 *** | 0.266 *** | 0.327 *** | 18.69 |
| Bridging Social Capital | Internet use | 0.092 *** | 0.092 *** | 0.234 *** | 0.327 *** | 28.17 |
Note: M, mediation variable; X, independent variable; Y, dependent variable. *** p < 0.01.
Figure 4Path analysis of the influence of Internet use on the subjective well-being of the elderly. Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05. The coefficients in the abovementioned model are standardized path coefficients.
The moderating effect of marital status on the influence path of the intermediary mechanism.
| Variables | Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explained Variable: Bonding Social Capital | Explained Variable: Bridging Social Capital | Explained Variable: Subjective Well-Being | Explained Variable: Subjective Well-Being | |
| Use the Internet | 0.249 *** | −0.047 | ||
| Convergent social capital: Frequency of contact with children | 0.164 | |||
| Bridging social capital: Kinship | 0.365 *** | |||
| Gender | −0.071 *** | −0.234 *** | −0.087 | −0.005 |
| Age group | −0.107 *** | 0.099 * | 0.303 *** | 0.231 *** |
| Education level | 0.044 *** | 0.063 ** | 0.075 *** | 0.057 ** |
| Marital status | 0.014 | 0.268 | 0.105 | −0.308 |
| Urban or rural area | −0.007 | −0.041 | 0.197 *** | 0.209 *** |
| Relative income level | 0.015 * | 0.037 | 0.195 *** | 0.185 *** |
| Self-assessment of social status | 0.018 ** | 0.401 *** | 0.351 *** | 0.180 *** |
| Self-reported health | 0.002 | 0.155 *** | 0.274 *** | 0.207 *** |
| Using or not using the Internet × marital status | 0.043 | −0.293 | ||
| Marital status × bonding social capital (unaccompanied as the reference group) | ||||
| Accompanied by a spouse | 0.184 | |||
| Marital status × bridging social capital (unaccompanied as the reference group) | ||||
| Accompanied by a spouse | 0.089 ** | |||
| Constant | 1.266 *** | 5.325 *** | 4.035 *** | 2.466 *** |
|
| 4463 | 4463 | 4463 | 4463 |
| 0.070 | 0.072 | 0.128 | 0.286 | |
|
| 33.44 | 34.69 | 65.63 | 178.12 |
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1; t values are in parentheses.
Figure 5Marital status adjustment of the influence of bridging social capital on the subjective well-being of the elderly.