1. Главная
  2. /
  3. tantan review
  4. /
  5. For the each instance, all the questions worried about one another face-to-deal with and online matchmaking

For the each instance, all the questions worried about one another face-to-deal with and online matchmaking

For the each instance, all the questions worried about one another face-to-deal with and online matchmaking


In order to assess the size of the latest community from deal with-to-face family, the things about Glee Survey Screen (Helliwell and you can Huang, 2013) were utilized: “As much as exactly how many members of the family have you got?.” Which matter try answered with the a measure of 1 below 5 family relations to help you 5 more than 50 family. Practical question to evaluate the dimensions of online buddy networking sites try similar (Helliwell and Huang, 2013): “Everything how many family unit members are you experiencing on Twitter?” although impulse measure are more, between step one lower than 50 to 8 more a thousand.

The questions towards the quality of relationships found in the brand new Eu Personal Questionnaire have been modified to assess quality of deal with-to-deal with an internet-based relationships. The questions were: “How many people have you got having who you is also mention intimate and private matters?” and “Just how many of those individuals are the Myspace friends?.” The brand new impulse measure ranged from 1 (none) so you’re able to 7 (ten 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 evaluate physical health, as well as the thought health item have a tendency to utilized in around the globe surveys (elizabeth.grams., Eriksson et al., 2001 – “How do you speed health typically” having responses towards a beneficial 5-area measure, ranging from decent in order to very bad) new four bits of the future health dimension of your own State away from Fitness Survey SF-thirty-six (Ware and you will Sherbourne, 1992) were incorporated. A good example of all the questions are: “I seem to get sick a tiny much easier than many other people.” These products had been replied towards the an excellent 5-section scale, between 1 positively false to help you 5 undoubtedly real. The 5 situations showed an adequate precision (? = 0.72) together with mediocre of your five situations was computed as the indication off thinking-advertised physical health.

Psychological state try reviewed via five items on the SF-thirty-six (Ware and you may Sherbourne, 1992). An example are “How frequently maybe you have felt very worried within the last cuatro weeks?.” These types of concerns was indeed replied on the an effective 5-part level, between not to always. Given that level of internal surface of the items was good (? = 0.80), the fresh new indicator off mental health are calculated, averaging brand new responses these types of five inquiries.

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 tantan mobile site 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.