Does living alone mean being alone? Personal networks of solo-living adults in midlife

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2023-11-08 DOI:10.1177/01650254231206329
Philipp Kersten, Marcus Mund, Franz J. Neyer
{"title":"Does living alone mean being alone? Personal networks of solo-living adults in midlife","authors":"Philipp Kersten, Marcus Mund, Franz J. Neyer","doi":"10.1177/01650254231206329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"People living alone are often depicted as prone to social isolation and poor well-being. Since previous research largely focused on comparisons between the living arrangements of older adults, evidence on differences within middle-aged adults living alone remains sparse. The present study used a person-centered approach to allow for a comprehensive understanding of the heterogeneity of living alone in midlife. Middle-aged adults ( N = 389; aged 35–60 years) reported on their personal networks, personality, and well-being and completed diaries on daily network interactions. Using latent class analysis, we constructed a network typology and examined differences in social motives, well-being, daily interaction quantity, and daily relationship quality. We found four structural network types: Individuals with diverse networks (highest in size, contact, proximity, and heterogeneity) felt less lonely than individuals with restricted (lowest in size, contact, proximity, and heterogeneity) or loose-knit networks (low in contact). Individuals with loose-knit networks reported poorer well-being than those in diverse or partner-focused networks (all partnered). We found little support for differences in social motives. All network types differed in daily interaction quantity but did not differ in daily relationship quality. The study highlights the heterogeneity of personal networks in middle-aged adults living alone. Possible implications for the social embeddedness and psychological adaptation of people living alone in midlife are discussed.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254231206329","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People living alone are often depicted as prone to social isolation and poor well-being. Since previous research largely focused on comparisons between the living arrangements of older adults, evidence on differences within middle-aged adults living alone remains sparse. The present study used a person-centered approach to allow for a comprehensive understanding of the heterogeneity of living alone in midlife. Middle-aged adults ( N = 389; aged 35–60 years) reported on their personal networks, personality, and well-being and completed diaries on daily network interactions. Using latent class analysis, we constructed a network typology and examined differences in social motives, well-being, daily interaction quantity, and daily relationship quality. We found four structural network types: Individuals with diverse networks (highest in size, contact, proximity, and heterogeneity) felt less lonely than individuals with restricted (lowest in size, contact, proximity, and heterogeneity) or loose-knit networks (low in contact). Individuals with loose-knit networks reported poorer well-being than those in diverse or partner-focused networks (all partnered). We found little support for differences in social motives. All network types differed in daily interaction quantity but did not differ in daily relationship quality. The study highlights the heterogeneity of personal networks in middle-aged adults living alone. Possible implications for the social embeddedness and psychological adaptation of people living alone in midlife are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
独自生活就意味着孤独吗?中年独居成年人的人际网络
独居的人往往被描述为容易被社会孤立,生活状况不佳。由于之前的研究主要集中在老年人生活安排的比较上,关于独居中年人之间差异的证据仍然很少。本研究采用以人为本的方法,对中年独居的异质性有了全面的了解。中年人(N = 389;年龄在35-60岁之间),报告了他们的个人网络、个性和幸福感,并完成了日常网络互动的日记。使用潜在阶级分析,我们构建了一个网络类型,并检查了社会动机、幸福感、日常互动数量和日常关系质量的差异。我们发现了四种结构网络类型:拥有多样化网络(规模、联系、接近度和异质性最高)的个体比拥有受限网络(规模、联系、接近度和异质性最低)或松散网络(联系度低)的个体更少感到孤独。人际网络松散的人比那些拥有多样化或以伴侣为中心的人际网络(都有伴侣)的人幸福感更差。我们发现很少有证据支持社会动机的差异。所有网络类型在日常互动数量上存在差异,但在日常关系质量上没有差异。该研究强调了独居中年人人际网络的异质性。讨论了社会嵌入性和中年独居者心理适应的可能含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1