Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’

Changing Social Support Networks

SHENGZHI WANG, University of Washington, USA

ADONIAH CARMELINE, University of Washington, USA
BETH KOLKO, University of Washington, USA
SEAN A. MUNSON, University of Washington, USA

Technologies that facilitate communication between older adults and those around them have the potential
to strengthen older adults’ connections with their support networks. In this paper, we present findings from
interviews with 16 older adult participants in the United States about their social network composition and
related technology use during a challenging life event, the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw a decrease of in-
person meetings and increase in communication technology adoption. Using the convoy model of social
relations, we sought to better understand the roles different technologies play in older adults’ social
connections. Participants chose what communication tools to use depending on social and situational
contexts and overcame accessibility issues to adopt new technologies that supported continued engagement
with their support networks. However, when others positioned technologies as ways for the older adults to
receive social support, they resisted. A more comprehensive view of older adults’ evolving social convoys
can help designers and researchers better create technologies that help expand and maintain older adults’
social support networks. Further, to facilitate older adults’ social connectivity, the design of technology
should encourage older adults’ support networks to see those older adults as support providers, not just
potential support recipients.
CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Collaborative and social computing

Additional Key Words and Phrases: Older adult, Aging in place, Social support, Social network, Social
gerontology, COVID-19
ACM Reference format:
Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, and Sean A. Munson. 2024. Understanding the Role of
Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 8, CSCW1,
Article 188 (April 2024), 28 pages, [Link]

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation, under award IIS-1553167 and the University of Washington
Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering.

Author’s addresses: S. Wang, shengzw@[Link], University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; A. Carmeline,
acarme@[Link], University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; B. Kolko, bkolko@[Link], University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; S. Munson, smunson@[Link], University of Washington, Seattle, Washington,
USA

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

© 2024 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).

2573-0142/2024/4 – 188. [Link]

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:2 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

1 INTRODUCTION
The older adult (65+) population in the United States is one of the fastest growing demographics
and is projected to grow from over 56 million in 2020 to over 85 million by 2050 [35]. Aging in
place, or the ability of older adults to live independently in their own homes or retirement
communities, is overwhelmingly preferred by older adults. Aging in place allows people to
maintain their sense of independence, maintain existing community connections, and lessen the
financial burden that is associated with institutionalized care [33,37,49]. In addition to physical
health and autonomy, social participation and support is also an important factor in improving
one’s own perceived ability to live independently [63,81]. Past studies have shown that a lack of
social support can be a significant contributing factor in the entry to nursing facilities [22]. More
generally, changes in older adults’ social networks can often influence their decisions about
changing their living situations [73,81].
Digital technology can be an effective tool for older adults to build and maintain social
connections, providing meaningful support between family members, friends, and others in their
social circle [31]. Compared to analog forms of communication or meeting in-person, technology
can help older adults communicate more instantaneously and with higher frequency. While there
is a digital gap between older and younger age groups in terms of technology adoption and usage,
this gap has been shrinking in recent years as older adults have become an increasingly digital
population [28,96]. This is a positive trend since technology can help aging adults continue to age
in place [77]. However, some technologies created for older adults, such as smart home devices,
are primarily focused on providing physical safety for older adults, which can be at odds with
older adults’ sense of independence [30].
Giving support, and in particular reciprocal support, has been shown to have a relationship
with positive mental health [5,10,26,34,67]. These supportive and/or reciprocal relationships can
be with family or non-family. For older adults seeking to maintain or build social connectedness,
the benefit from relationships that extend beyond their immediate family can be an effective
contributor to their subjective wellbeing and can help alleviate the effect of some negative family
interactions [43,57]. In both existing and new relationships, research has shown that older adults
are both providers and receivers of social support, and technology has been suggested as an easier
way to connect with both family and friends [16]. Researchers have also suggested that these
technologies can increase engagement with community groups and improve social connectedness
[7,75]. These positive effects have the potential to help older adults maintain high levels of mental
health and independence for a longer time.
During the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying social distancing rules, digital technology
use and adoption increased, including among older adults [1,13]. While older adults have been
reported to be less open to adopt new technology [96], the perceived benefits of communication
technology during this period (and, indeed, lack of alternatives) could have provided an increased
incentive for them to include more technology use in their daily lives, especially technologies
aimed to increase social interaction and connectedness [1]. The rapid adoption of technologies
during the pandemic, and older adults’ subsequent uses of those tools, provide a time-bounded
perspective into how they used technology and where they found various technologies could or
could not meet their needs for giving and receiving support.
Our study used this moment in time to further understand the opportunities and limitations
of digital technology as a way for older adults to obtain and provide support, with the goal of
making recommendations on how technology use can be evaluated and how technology can be
designed to better suit the needs of older adults looking to connect with their support networks.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:3

We investigated 1) How do older adults interact with their support network and what motivates
technology use in that process?, and 2) What are the opportunities and limitations of digital
technology used by older adults to connect with their support network? We present results from
a qualitative analysis of interviews with 16 older adults about their experiences connecting with
others in their social networks, both with and without technology. We use the convoy model of
understanding how social relationships change throughout one’s life cycle [36]. This theoretical
framework positions the social circle of a person into a “convoy” of social support. Members of
the convoy can include friends, family members, and persons who are receivers or providers of
social support. We provide a nuanced analysis of how individuals’ social connections cross from
friends to family to acquaintances and how they use technology across those connections. We
conclude with design implications and considerations for creating technology for older adults
that encourage their social support network to see them as providers (rather than exclusively
receivers) of support.

2 RELATED WORK
Social support can include 1) informational support, 2) emotional support, 3) tangible support,
and 4) social integration [12,39,40]. For older adults who are aging in place, the availability of a
support network can provide a number of benefits, including improvement in cognitive function
and wellbeing [12,62] and can contribute to their ability to age independently in their preferred
living environments [31]. Specifically, communication technology use can have a positive effect
on older adults’ ability to age in place by helping them maintain and expand their social support
network. Technology and internet use among older adults has been associated with a decrease in
feelings of loneliness and depression by lessening social isolation [15,16]. Compared to younger
demographics, older adults are also more likely to experience positive effects from technology
mediated social communication [58]. However, people–including technology designers–can be
prone to seeing older adults as needing help, and this can lead to disempowering relationships
and technology designs [71]. In this section, we introduce past work on technology use and
adoption among older adults in a social context and discuss how the convoy model could help us
understand their use of technology in relationship to their evolving social network [36].

2.1 Technology use and adoption among older adults

Despite the shrinking digital divide between older adults and younger demographics in recent
years, older adults’ technology use remains lower than the population in general [96]. Past
examinations of older adults’ technology use suggest that perceived value and the ability of
technologies to improve older adults’ quality of life can be significant factors in predicting how
willing older adults are to adopt a technology or service [9]. Common barriers to the use and
adoption of technology include lower technology literacy among older adults and accessibility
issues that are associated with aging, such as visual or motor impairments. From creating
interventions to enhance older adults’ technology literacy to proposing more accessible
technology design, prior work on this subject has largely focused on the onboarding aspect of
technology adoption [44,45,52]. While this is an important aspect in helping to introduce older
adults to more technology-mediated communication methods, it can limit our understanding of
technology use and design to the older adult user and their end device.
Existing technology adoption models have the potential to help us understand additional
dimensions of older adults’ technology adoption behavior. One early model that explains factors
of technology adoption is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) which posits that perceived

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:4 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

usefulness and the perceived ease of use are the main predictors of an individual’s willingness
and motivation to start using a certain technology [17]. TAM was further extended by Venkatesh
et al. to create the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model, which
uses performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions as
the main constructs that influence the adoption and use of technology [83]. UTAUT also includes
individual-level factors such as age, gender, and education level, and it addresses these factors’
influence in decision making.
However, some researchers argue that the UTAUT model omits technology adoption factors
that are often identified in older adults, such as different perceived needs and technical knowledge
of individuals. Examples of models that are adapted from UTAUT for older users of technology
include the Senior Technology Acceptance Model (STAM), which takes into account the effect of
acceptance factors on different adoption stages by older adults, and the Model for the Adoption
of Technology by Older Adults (MATOA), which adds the considerations of biophysical aging
restrictions and anxiety toward technology, as well as requisite knowledge [69,86]. Other studies
on technology use among older adults have identified accessibility, technology literacy, and social
influence as main adoption factors [1,24,52,60,92]. While the inclusion of factors specific to
technology use by older adults have been shown to be a more useful descriptor of adoption
patterns in this age demographic, more work is needed to understand perceived value and
usefulness after initial adoption.
Previous work has found that existing technology adoption models, including STAM, can fail
to describe ambivalence about adopting a technology, that is, when older adults lack the
inclination to fully adopt or reject a technology, especially when social influence is involved [23].
As technology is increasingly created to extend and increase online social connections, it has
become important to better understand technology use and adoption in the context of who older
adults communicate with to gain insight on ambivalence in technology adoption.
2.1.1 Technology mediated social support for older adults. CSCW and HCI researchers have
examined existing practices and designed novel systems to facilitate social support among older
adults and between older adults and other groups, with the most emphasis on support across
generations and within families.
Examination of communication patterns among adult children and their older parents found
that a greater number of communication channels used correlated weakly with the adult
children’s communication and relationship satisfaction with their parents, but that
communication quality was more predictive of parents’ satisfaction than communication
channels or frequency [98]. The same study found that any given dyad used about three different
channels, which the authors interpreted to indicate that new communication channels either
displace or complement older channels within any particular relationship. Additional studies of
communication between older adults and their adult children found that technologies to support
intergenerational family connection must: facilitate interactions without introducing new
obligations, lower barriers to communication without reducing the meaning of that
communication, balance creating awareness with maintaining privacy, and support use of
preferred media channels [82].
Based on these understandings, researchers have created and deployed systems and
technology probes to facilitate intergenerational social support within families. Vutborg et al.
deployed a technology probe that supported storytelling to identify design principles for
developing close relationships between grandparents and grandchildren over a distance. They
argue for the importance of giving grandparents and grandchildren something to talk about,
facilitating conversations, diversifying interaction to maintain children's attention, and
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:5

supporting grandparents in providing care [85]. Others have explored systems that bridge
synchronous and asynchronous interactions, navigate asymmetries in communication media
preferences, and address mismatches in availability [53,54]. Across studies, photos show potential
catalyzing social interactions (e.g., [25,55,82]) Studies deploying a paper photo album enhanced
with audio snippets [66] and a digital photo frame and digital pen and paper connected to
Facebook [14] have shown the potential for blending familiar and novel technologies in artifacts
to support social interaction.
Research has also considered community settings and structured activities as sites of social
support for older adults. A study of older adults in East York, Canada, found that older adults
incorporated technology to maintain existing relationships and exchange or coordinate a broad
range of social support with friends and family members [68]. They did not, however, use
technologies to create new ties. When researchers have focused on interventions intended to
create new ties, they have tended to focus on structured activities. For example, researchers
examined opportunities for technology to support intergenerational mentorship programs that
bring together older adults (reducing their social isolation) and elementary school students
(creating learning opportunities for them), noting the importance of reducing barriers to mentors,
nurturing supportive and meaningful relationships, and easing the work of organizing such
programs [94]. Other researchers sought to support remote gym classes, both for physical activity
and as a site around which social interactions can occur [6]. While they found the concept feasible,
they noted that, without careful attention to the design of social features, the serendipitous social
encounters that might occur in person would not occur in the online setting.
Research into the role of technology in older adults’ social support continued through the
pandemic. This work found that many older adults adapted to changing circumstances and
disruptions to their social routines, working across multiple–and, in many cases, new–modalities
to stay connected [70,78]. Many group activities, such as religious services, civic participation,
and cultural events [70,95], moved to online settings, while others moved to asynchronous or
hybrid formats, such as adopting Snapchat or Instagram, or using Zoom for either a video call or
to leave a video message [70]. However, older adults experienced much more difficulty creating
new relationships in technology mediated contexts than they did maintaining their existing
relationships and connections [70]. Additional challenges included reduced access to in-person
technology support and reluctance to seek support from friends and family members for fear of
adding another obligation at a difficult time for so many [78]. Further, some older adults described
being excluded from technology mediated experiences in which they would have liked to
participate due to negative assumptions about older adults’ interest in or ability to use
technologies [78].
Across studies, the research describes a combination of older adults as being potentially
unaware of newer communication channels or technologies (e.g., if not introduced to them in the
workplace), but resilient and adaptable to new tools once they learn of them. Though older adults
may adopt many technology tools for communication, each individual relationship tends to use
relatively few (3-4) channels. While some of the research reflects older adults’ roles in giving
support to their networks, others depict older adults as more passive consumers of social content
or recipients of support. We see an opportunity for research to examine how older adults use
different technologies more broadly across their entire, and evolving, social support networks and
how members of their support networks can also influence their technology use. To further this
line of inquiry, our work seeks to understand communication technology used by older adults
through a more comprehensive review of their dynamic social networks.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:6 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

2.2 Understanding older adults’ social networks through the convoy model
Researchers and designers seeking to design to support or facilitate connections among older
adults can benefit from ways to model and understand those connections. In this study, we use
Kahn and Antonucci’s convoy model of social relations as a lens to interpret how the effect on
older adults’ perceived closeness with others in their social circles is affected by technology and
to further evaluate technology in the context of changing social relations [36]. This model of social
relations conceptualizes social support using the hierarchical mapping technique [2], positioning
members of a person’s social support convoy based on the strength of their relationships. Three
concentric circles represent where members of a person’s social network could be categorized,
from the strongest relationships in the center to gradually weaker ties in the outer circles [2]. This
model posits that each person’s convoy is decided by both personal factors like age and gender,
as well as situational factors like lived experiences and environments. The convoy model allows
an individual to define the structure of their own relationships with those in their social network
without traditional social constraints such as familial or social norms [3,20]. Thus, when
evaluating the support convoy, qualitative factors like perceived quality of social relations are
also considered, in addition to structural factors like network composition and means of contact.
The convoy model has previously been used to describe continually evolving social networks
at different life stages, such as the study of child and adolescent social development by Levitt [46]
and the social networks of aging adults [20,42]. Under this model, older adults’ convoys differ
from younger people’s convoys. Although the network size and support given/received remain
similar as a person ages, older adults see a general narrowing in the scope of their convoys as
they get older, generally positioning more family members at the center [4]. These studies
demonstrate the model’s ability to represent social relationships that are in constant development.
Figure 1. shows a hypothetical adult’s social convoy reflecting this pattern as they age. This
visualization could be especially useful when evaluating social connections that are shifting as
technology usage is intermingled with existing and new relationships.

Figure 1. Hypothetical example of an adult’s social convoy transition

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:7

The convoy model places an emphasis on social relationships that are both positive and
avenues for reciprocal support. In this study, we used this model to characterize older adult
participants’ social networks and the role of technologies in maintaining or strengthening
existing relationships and in fostering new connections.
2.2.1 Older adults’ social support networks evolved during the pandemic. The convoy model
posits that a person’s social convoy will evolve with age and life events. The COVID-19 pandemic
was one such event that additionally brought a significant change in older adults’ access to their
support network. The pandemic brought an enormous transition in how older adults were able to
connect with others, and who they were able to connect with, altering their social convoy. We
saw an increase in older adults’ isolation as social distancing rules were enacted [41,76]. As a
population that faced greater risk of severe illness and death resulting from COVID, older adults
experienced increased levels of social isolation and stress factors that led to increased levels of
anxiety and depression [76]. Many organizations sought to introduce older adults to virtual
offerings that took the place of in-person events or meetings [97]. This precipitated an increase
in older adults’ initial adoption of new tools, such as Zoom, to remain connected to others in their
social networks. Despite being increasingly tech-savvy as a population, the pandemic also saw a
widening of the “gray digital divide” due to a lack of technology support or digital exclusion [78].
Smart technology was seen to help with themes of meaningful relations, rewarding activities,
spirituality, health and safety-related support, self-growth, and physical activity [32]. Previous
research showed that while older adults “neither became more support providers nor more
support receivers during the pandemic,” the support roles and methods of older adults changed,
such as seeking tangible support and providing emotional support in new areas [59]. In contrast
to before the pandemic, when family members giving support tended to value older adults’ safety
over their sense of autonomy, older adults also became increasingly safety conscious during the
pandemic [59]. This, in turn, increased the need to access healthcare, food, and other goods and
services in an online or hybrid environment [93].

3 METHODS
We conducted a remote interview study with older adults living independently. We invited people
living in the United States, aged 65 to 80, and were not receiving full-time nursing care (i.e., living
in their own homes or retirement communities), to participate in our study. We sought to
understand their technology use in the context of their social circles and support networks, as
well as to understand the role these technologies play in their support network to maintain strong
and weak social ties. We conducted remote semi-structured interviews with enrolled participants
over video conferencing (Zoom) or phone calls.

3.1 Participants and recruitment

To recruit participants, we used two different methods. The first method posting our call for
participants on a recruitment website and social media. Most participants from this channel were
somewhat familiar with technology and were comfortable using technology to communicate with
their social circles. We used a second recruitment method to diversify our participant pool in
terms of their technology use. For this method, we contacted senior centers in the states of
Washington and Oregon and sent out digital flyers with details of our study. Interested
participants were asked to contact us via email. Both groups were then asked to respond to
screening surveys before being scheduled for interviews. Because this study was conducted
remotely, there are significant limitations in the recruitment and interview formats due to social

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:8 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

distancing rules. The pool of potential participants was restricted to those who could respond
digitally, and although we attempted to reach a more diverse group of participants through semi-
offline recruitment methods such as flyers shared with senior centers, at the time these centers
were largely limited to email newsletters to reach their members. Many participants in this study
were using a range of computing devices such as smartphones, tablets, or laptops that they used
to communicate with others. We interviewed participants through video conference calls.
Participants who preferred phone calls were provided a number that connected them to the
conference call. Consequently, our study may have attracted a participant pool consisting mainly
of older adults who were already relatively comfortable with using technology and online
platforms or had an interest in technology.
Potential participants were sent a document explaining their informed consent over email and
a screening survey to gather eligibility and demographics data. Our study was approved by the
university IRB and followed all COVID-19 related protocols. Verbal consent was obtained before
commencing each interview. Our interview protocol covered participant support networks,
preferred modalities for engaging with others, technology experiences, and how this changed
during the pandemic. We also asked participants about their relationships and communication
modalities with each person they listed in their support network. Each interview lasted between
30 to 45 minutes. We compensated each participant with a $25 electronic gift card for each
session.
We recruited 16 participants, with ages ranging from 65 to 76 (mean age = 70.8 stdev = 3.1, 12
females) as detailed in Table 1. Of the 16 participants, six participants lived alone, and there was
a range of low to high socioeconomic status (Table 1).

Table 1. Participant demographics

Age Gender Race Living Current /
Situation Former Occupation
74 Female Caucasian No data Administrative
67 Female Caucasian Living with a partner Attorney
69 Female African American Living with a partner Program manager
68 Female African American Living alone Not specified
72 Female African American Living alone Teacher
69 Female Asian Living with a partner Letter carrier
67 Male African American Living with a partner Not specified
71 Female Caucasian Living with a partner Registered Nurse
65 Male Pacific islander No data Mathematician
74 Female Caucasian Living with a partner Mental health therapist
74 Female Caucasian Living alone Technical writer
72 Female Caucasian Living with family Environmental Engineer
73 Male Caucasian Living with a partner Computer systems analyst
72 Male Caucasian Living alone Non-profit business manager
69 Female Caucasian Living along Dancer, dance teacher
76 Female Other Living alone Educator

3.2 Analysis
Interviews were recorded and transcribed by members of the research team. Interview transcripts
were analyzed using a grounded theory approach [11]. Two members of the research team
independently conducted open coding focused on technology use with social circles,
communication patterns, and support networks. We wrote memos using the codes we generated
and grouped them into higher-level themes. The research team then conducted iterative coding

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:9

and memoing to refine the high-level themes. To gain a better understanding of older adults’
technology use in the context of older adults’ social support network, we also applied the convoy
model to visualize each participant’s social convoy and technology use. From the interview data,
we mapped participants’ self-identified social networks using the convoy model, with those they
considered in their “inner social circle” mapped to the inner circle, and others mapped according
to their perceptions of closeness. We also included participants’ modalities (e.g., text messaging,
video chat, in-person meeting, etc.) of connecting with their convoy.

4 FINDINGS
Participants used a wide range of technologies, such as smartphones and tablets, with some also
using laptop and desktop computers to communicate with a range of social connections. While
not all participants detailed all apps they used, the overall set of participants used a diverse range
of services and apps for communications. Fifteen participants regularly texted with others. All
used the default texting apps on their phone (SMS or iMessage on iOS, SMS on Android and
feature phones). Three participants also used third-party apps to text, including WhatsApp,
Facebook Messenger, Signal, and direct messaging on Instagram and Twitter. All used email
regularly, with three participants using iPads for email. Participants also reported using different
video calling apps. Participants most often described using Zoom and FaceTime for video calls,
and a few described using other services like Skype, Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts, and
telehealth platforms for video calls. Across their application use, participants described similar
barriers to technology use as in past studies, but these usability issues and other barriers did not
prevent participants from using these technologies. Some participants also used accessibility
features to overcome usability issues.
We also explored the role of technology in older adults' support networks using the convoy
model. Technology-mediated social support among older adults was similar to what was
previously found for in-person support. In-person interactions were highly valued, and
participants preferred meeting with family, friends, and community members in person in most
cases. The pandemic led to a greater reliance on technology for social interactions and was able
to help many participants remain in contact with their support networks. Technology was able
to facilitate some types of communications, such as frequent check-ins and support through
asynchronous communication methods while other types of technology often fell short in
replicating the experiences and connections provided by in-person interactions. Participants
valued technology as a way to augment their existing relationships but preferred in-person
contact for deeper connections and support.

4.1 The expanding role of technology in connecting older adults and their social
networks
Participants reported that technologies had become an increasingly common way to connect with
their social circles, get information, and access online services. While participants recalled
situations where they faced technology adoption barriers, they found these barriers did not
significantly affect their use or adoption of these services or technologies. Participants also, on
the whole, had technology usage patterns that changed over time, both because of the pandemic
and other forces, reinforcing that technology adoption is more of an ongoing process than a static
decision-making moment.
Case 1: P4 was a relatively advanced user of technology compared to other participants. For
P4, using technology to communicate with her social network led to an expansion of her social

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:10 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

circle. P4 had already been regularly using technology as a way to communicate with family and
friends for several years, partially because of her need to connect with her geographically
dispersed social network. Taking advantage of this large technology-mediated network with her
family members, P4 was able to develop additional contacts over the Internet for the non-profit
organization with which she worked. P4 refers to them as “professional colleagues,” and some of
those relationships have become part of her social circle.
Case 2: P11 expanded the range of technologies and platforms she used, adding in tools used
by others in her social network to facilitate connection. As P11 started to use texting more to keep
in touch with her social circle, she found that some people could only be reached using her
smartphone. While P11 preferred typing on her iPad’s large keyboard, this limited her to only
compatible apps, such as iMessage. To message others through her smartphone, P11 started using
the text-to-speech functionality to overcome the limitation the smaller keyboard posed: “I don't
use my thumbs as I think a lot of old people don't, and so I am starting to use … the [dictation] feature
[more and more].” She also used email and text messaging to arrange in-person gatherings with
friends at restaurants, which transitioned to Zoom meetings or outdoor meetups during the
pandemic. However, she noted that despite regular Zoom calls with family members in the
beginning of the pandemic, “it hasn't [been] happen[ing] recently,” suggesting that frequent use of
video calling did not become part of her social interactions with her family in the long term.
Some participants, especially those who adopted technologies after they left the workforce,
reported issues with learning to use their devices and keeping up with changes in the products.
A few participants were cognizant of the limitations of the devices that they owned and used
them selectively depending on the situation. P4, a multilingual user, says that “because our phones
would automatically correct [the] spell[ing], most of the time when we [start] texting we end up
calling one another.” In other cases, their knowledge gap of online communication conventions
caused them to feel less welcome in a digital space. P12 mentioned that their lack of knowledge
of the acronyms and internet slang can hamper their desire to text and use social media, “I know
why [people like to shorten phrases] because there's a limit to how much space you have, but … there's
no place to look those up really … I don't feel comfortable [enough to look them up like how] … I can
look a word up in a dictionary.” In some cases, digital systems are imposed on older adults for vital
services like healthcare or finance when institutions create services that they believe can best
support users. P10 says, “For a surgery there's stuff every week that they need to … [show me] results.
I've told them, ‘please send [it to] me in hard copy’ so I can just get all the results from my labs with
a hard copy, … and they just don't do that. It gets lost in the crunch.” This can be even more
frustrating when these technologies fail to function as designed, as P10 further describes: “[A
technical issue with logging on] has been a huge hassle for me because I have to somehow get through
to Kaiser or the clinic and somebody else will open up MyChart and try and let me know of certain
key things that are happening, and that’s the only way I can access MyChart now.”
When participants encountered these issues, they often struggled to find reliable sources of
support for issues with their digital technology. Usability gaps can place the burden on family
members and friends to provide the needed support. Prior work suggests that peer tutoring can
be an effective means to teaching technology [91], and we saw this with participants like P16,
who played a significant role in helping peers with technology: “I actually help [my friend] with
all of his technology … [For example,] when he was buying his house, … the real estate people here
now have all of their forms and stuff online.” However, other participants also described situations
in which fellow older adults had experienced frustrations with others asking for help with their
technology use. P10 recalls, “… my friend <name> used to teach technology, but … now doesn't like

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:11

technology at all. He … really resents it when people assume that because he taught a lot of technology
that he'll help friends with it. He finds it very tedious and boring.”
Although participants reported ongoing struggles and frustrations with adopting, using, and
learning technologies, most did not find these issues to be a major factor influencing their
communication technology use or their perceptions of it. Participants (P1 - P3, P5, P8 - P13, P16)
often chose their preferred technology or service based on the situational context, such as the
desired brevity of the conversation or when they expected a reply. P13 says, “I think that both
email and texts have allowed me to maintain a more superficial [and] frequent communication …
[However,] meaningful communication for me, very rarely happens via email and never by text …
and I prefer phones with people who are out of town and I have a strong preference to be together in
person with people who are geographically closer to me.” Asynchronous technology, such as texting
and emailing, was a particularly effective way for many participants to provide and receive
support from others without the obligation to respond with immediacy. P16 says, “You send out a
text and … they can reply whenever they have the time … I can send it out, you know, at three in the
morning and they don't necessarily [need to see it immediately] … I don't expect a response right
away.” This behavior points to the importance that this type of low stakes asynchronous
technology can have for strengthening ties among those in the middle circles of older adults’
social convoys, and it shows how choosing modalities can provide different opportunities to
connect that would otherwise have been missing. Some also chose what technology to use based
on what others in their convoy used. P12 became a frequent user of texts during the pandemic
because “it just seemed like that's what people were doing,” while P4 started using FaceTime because
“[my family] was always very pleased when I'm making an effort [to use video calling].” Some
participants also chose to omit certain technology entirely from their lives based on how
connected they wanted to be to others. For example, P15 limited their online communications to
emailing and video calling through a computer and made the decision to not acquire a
smartphone, explaining that “I don't want to be accessible all the time … my life is very, very full …
I know everybody says you can just turn it off … Some of us have a harder time [ignoring
notifications] … we are compelled to look, and I don't want to be compelled.”
For many participants, digital communication in different forms had become an integral part
of how they connected with their social convoy, and the adoption of these channels was further
accelerated by increased technology use during the pandemic both by people around them and
by themselves. These digital ways of connecting socially can facilitate creating new connections
and/or reinforce weaker ties. In some cases, technology-mediated communication was the
primary reason another person was part of an older adult’s social convoy, while in others
technology served a secondary role by facilitating other ways to connect. To better understand
what roles different technologies are playing in helping to construct and maintain older adults’
social networks, we used the convoy model to visualize technology use in the context of
participants’ relationships with others in their social convoy.

4.2 How technology use intersects with older adults’ social support convoys
Similar to offline social support categories described in previous research [12,39,40], technology-
mediated social support among older adults in our study also spanned 1) informational support,
2) emotional support, 3) tangible support, and 4) social integration. Participants commonly used
in-person interactions to provide tangible support to others, such as volunteering at local events
or giving away food or other items to neighbors. P2 says that they used to do “volunteer work just
a little bit, three hours on Saturday at an art center” but found that opportunities to give support

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:12 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

were scarce during the pandemic because “there's not really too much you can do online.” Emotional
and informational support were the most common ways that participants connected with the
inner and middle circles of their convoys through technology. Participants continued to provide
and receive tangible support in their communities during the pandemic, with older adults in some
cases finding contactless ways to do so. Tangible support through online only means was
relatively limited, often serving as a way to coordinate in-person tangible support or to send
financial support. P5 says that when they want to send some money for the grandchildren, they
would use an online service because “everybody uses Cash App or Zelle or …, PayPal, whatever, and
we exchange money that way.” P7 also found it convenient to provide financial support for family
members in need: “It doesn't even take a minute, you know, because I could just transfer money to
her bank [online].”
The convoy model can provide insights into these patterns of providing and receiving support
by representing the closeness of a relationship which can then be compared with the types of
support provided in different directions. Figure 2 presents example mappings of participant social
convoys. Consistent with previous studies, participants had a tendency to consider their family
members, such as their siblings, children, and grandchildren, to be in their inner circle. In the
middle, participants commonly identified friends, neighbors, and others with whom they had a
common interest. In the outer circle, participants identified distant family members, service
providers they rely on, and others at groups/organizations that they were a part of (e.g., book
club members, co-workers, and senior center acquaintances). In our mapping, we also included
the modality of participant interactions with others in their social convoy. Communications and
interaction methods varied greatly among participants. Some participants chose to use similar
modalities across all three circles, while others chose one or more modalities based on the
frequency, length of communication, and needs of the other person. Video calls were largely
reserved for family members who were at the center of participants’ inner circles. Other than
partners or family members who lived with them, in-person support was most commonly seen
between participants and their middle and outer circles. People who participants only contacted
online, often exclusively through social media like Facebook groups, were largely relegated to the
outer circle.
Participants did not always communicate most frequently with those who were at the center
of their social circles. Although a few participants were in touch with their intergenerational
inner circle family members on a near daily basis, many more reported friends and friend groups
as being the people who they are in contact with the most, ranging from daily to a few times each
week via text messaging or phone calls. A similar preference for “intimacy from a distance” has
been shown in previous research, where older adults maintained strong and intimate ties without
being heavily involved in their children’s lives [64,80]. The preference for this type of behavior
could also be explained by previous research indicating a strong relationship between friendships
and positive subjective wellbeing [48,65,89], especially for expressive support.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:13

Figure 2. Examples of the social convoys of participants with associated interaction modalities

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:14 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

4.2.1 Technology became a way to provide and receive support among older adults and their
support networks. Respondents acknowledged that keeping up with relationships and frequently
interacting with others was an important way to feel connected and be an active member of their
social circle. Participants reported both receiving and providing support to different people in
their convoy. Prior to the pandemic, some participants were already regularly interacting with
their support networks through both in-person meetings and online interactions. Digital tools
were useful for facilitating asynchronous but frequent check-ins with friends and neighbors,
while in-person interactions were a key element in strengthening their strong ties. Participants
often provided regular and frequent emotional support to others through asynchronous digital
communication. Many participants' routines included reciprocal check-ins with friends over
asynchronous communication methods such as text messaging or email. This type of support
provided a way for older adults to be a part of each other’s lives, helping to alleviate emotional
burdens or issues with little obligation attached to each interaction. Asynchronous
communication methods were favored by most participants as ways to access and provide more
frequent and casual emotional support, while synchronous methods were used for more in-depth
conversations or those needing more immediate responses. One participant reported playing
online word games with text chatting features to frequently maintain contact with friends who
lived some distance away. The back-and-forth nature of the gameplay coupled with the integrated
texting served as a casual but persistent motivating factor in sparking continuous conversation
about their daily lives.
[My friend and I have] sort of adopted this routine whereby we chat with each other [once]
per day while we're playing Words with Friends. So she'll send me a chat, let me know what's
going on in her life, and then I'll respond. And so it's a way of keeping up with each other
and also checking in with each other. (P11)
Many sought to replicate their support networks entirely through online means during the
pandemic to varying degrees of success. Regular digital interactions with family members and
friends were frequently mentioned as an important way to stay connected. Technology provided
a quick and easy way to hear from each other in the safety of their own homes.
While past research has shown that social media can play a role in connecting older adults to
their social circle [8], participants reported little or no time spent on social media. Social media
was seen by many to have the potential to help them communicate with others and acquire
information on topics of interest. However, despite acknowledging the potential benefits, most
expressed little interest in investing much time to keep up with everything through social media.
Most social media use was limited to private online groups where family and/or friends
congregated to share about their lives. Some also used social media to consume content created
by friends and family who post to the platform. In other words, they do not interact heavily when
they log on.
4.2.2 Older adults’ support convoy encouraged technology uses in ways that cast older adults as
support recipients. Most participants who adopted technology of their own volition had positive
attitudes about how technology helped them stay connected with their support network.
However, participants also recounted instances where they or a peer had family members who
attempted to influence their choice to adopt certain technologies, sometimes even after
participants had evaluated the pros and cons and made a choice about what to adopt or not. Their
choice to refrain from using certain technologies was perceived by some of their support network
as them missing out on opportunities to receive support from others. Members of the social
convoy who pushed for adoption of specific technologies wanted the older adults to have access

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:15

to what they perceived to be important avenues of connection and social support; participants
experienced this as putting them, primarily, in the role of support receivers who are incapable of
making choices about what technologies work best for them.
When asked about their limited social media use, P11 says that they “made a conscious decision
that I just didn't want to use Facebook, because it's such a time sink … I just feel it's too much
information. I don't have to know every little detail, I guess I like to choose.” They made this
choice with awareness of the informational and emotional support they could potentially receive
from social media. “I'm sure that if I would engage in social media, I would have more interactions
with people.” However, some of P11’s family members insisted that social media would be
beneficial and continued to urge P11 to use it: “I know that some family members get upset with
me because I’m not on Facebook and they'd say, ‘well, if you were on Facebook, you would know
this.’” In another example, P3 mentioned that one of their friends had to start using technology
during the pandemic after being persuaded by their family member who wished to better connect
with them during the pandemic: “one of my friends … was at zero technology wise, but during
the pandemic, she had to pull out her laptop and learn how to use it. Her daughter forced her to.”
In this scenario, the older adult’s increased technology use primarily fulfilled their family
member’s desire to provide support – while at the same time potentially disregarding their own
wishes.
P15 had an aversion to constant digital connection and decided not to get a mobile phone. They
instead preferred that their digital connections with their social support network occur
intermittently through a computer. Although they acknowledged that this had drawbacks in the
pandemic when in-person interactions were constrained, P15 still preferred this intermittent
online interaction. Despite this clear preference, P15’s social convoy continued to question the
decision: “Almost everybody has a cell phone. I'm one of the few [who don’t], and I get lectured all
the time by family and friends.”
Participants also described resisting technology when others pitched it as a tool for receiving
support, as adopting it would threaten their sense of independence. P14 noted that their desire
for independence can lead to less connection overall, describing “a tendency, like a lot of men of
my age, to be reluctant to accept a lot of support, which tends to increase isolation of course.” P14
described experiencing significant grief early in the pandemic, but not being willing to give up
independence to access support. In this same way, motivating the introduction of technologies to
older adults by describing them as a way for them to access and receive support will likely face
opposition: to adopt the technology would mean acknowledging reduced autonomy or greater
need.

4.3 In-person interactions remain indispensable for older adults

Most participants preferred in-person interactions over most other forms of connectedness with
their convoy. Multiple participants mentioned that physical interaction with others, regardless of
whether they are the provider or receiver of support, alleviated feelings of loneliness. In-person
support can materialize in the form of interactions with the strong ties in their social network,
such as meeting with family or having food with friends. It can also come from weak ties, such
as interacting with casual acquaintances in their social network such as grocery store staff or
fellow volunteers at community events.
4.3.1 The pause on in-person meeting during the pandemic highlighted its importance. Prior to
the pandemic, in-person social interactions with others in participants’ convoys played a
significant part in providing emotional and tangible support. While technology was widely used

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:16 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

to plan and coordinate with each other for social events, the actual interactions themselves were
devoid of much technology use. In addition to planned activities, most participants recounted
positive experiences from impromptu meetings that created openings for further opportunities to
interact with others. Many used routines such as daily walks or meetups as a means to actively
reach out to others and maintain their existing relationships.
I can walk out on my road and visit good friends. I'll just go over there, and if they are home
I will visit. If they are home and free I will visit and otherwise it's just my daily walk. (P15)
Participants also noted that an important reason for creating opportunities to meet in-person
was the need to hear about what is going on in each other’s lives, a form of emotional support.
While many participants were also communicating with their support network using technology
for the same purpose, the strong desire to meet and talk in person remained. For example, P10
notes that she has three close confidants with whom she meets regularly just so they could talk
with each other: “we kind of call ourselves a squad … we like to talk a lot about political stuff and
everything.” Notably, participants also reflected on the kinds of interactions where they were
provisioning tangible, informational, or emotional support for others. In-person interactions often
involved situations where they stepped into the role of support provider. This kind of interaction
was particularly helpful when other older adults counted on the participants as the primary
source of social support.
I've discovered that for [a friend who was disabled and battling cancer], and I laugh when I
say this, I'm her party friend. I've never been a party person, but she and I will go out for a
martini at three in the afternoon because that makes her feel good, not the alcohol, but [that]
we're out, we're in a bar … [usually] she can hardly leave her house at all. (P8)
Older adults also value the connections they have with people outside the circles in their social
convoys, such as staff at establishments they frequent. While this could be little more than casual
conversations, some participants also mentioned that these meetings provided an avenue to
alleviating loneliness at home.
I know all the checkers [at the nearby grocery store] pretty well … We talk about stuff. We
talk about Trump and, you know, we talk about the climate crisis and stuff like that. I mean,
especially the ones who are, you know, quite a bit younger. They're my favorite people to
talk with. (P14)
Through a diverse range of interaction with family and community, in-person interactions
played an important role in building and maintaining relationships and improving mental
wellbeing. However, the pandemic brought a significant decrease in the frequency of physical
interactions that were available to participants, and while many still tried to carry out similar
activities or continue past routines, many opportunities for social interactions were lost. This
included both intentionally planned gatherings and occasional interactions that would have
otherwise been possible before the pandemic.
I don't feel as comfortable interacting directly with somebody, you know, I'll leave something
somewhere, I'll send a text message and say, uh, come pick this up or I'm gonna drop this
off, or, you know, that sort of thing. (P12)
Despite the health risks presented by the pandemic, study participants still sought to maintain
some physical interactions with others in their social network. These findings emphasize the
importance of in-person support to older adults. Most participants were well aware of the

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:17

disproportionate impact COVID-19 had on older adults, but they still insisted on creating
opportunities to meet with others in person. P14 says, “Even during the height of the pandemic, I
did spend time with each of my sisters and I spent time with my friend <name> downstairs.” Despite
the possibility of communicating via technology, maintaining in-person social support was
perceived to be an essential need.
4.3.2 Technology-mediated experiences often provided unsatisfying replacements for in-person
interactions. During the transition to mostly online events and later in the gradual re-starting of
in-person events, respondents often continued to approach social interactions with the same
levels of expectations and needs regardless of whether they were through technology mediation
or in-person contact. However, while technology was able to provide tools that could facilitate
different forms of communication, it was often inadequate for creating experiences that
approximated what older adults expected for social connectivity. Participants reported using
technology to cultivate existing relationships, although participants generally did not show
interest in meeting new people online or cultivating deeper connections with more casual
acquaintances through technology.
Video conferencing exemplified this dynamic. Some participants were first introduced to video
conferencing as a way to interact with other people due to the onset of the pandemic’s stay-at-
home orders. Participants replaced many in-person social meetings or events with online video
conferencing solutions like Zoom or FaceTime as the pandemic started. Some already had devices
capable of video calling and became familiar with the apps and software needed. However, for
many, video calling did not live up to its promises of creating a more socially connected
atmosphere compared to other technologies. Most felt it was a sub-par experience when it came
to attending social events, especially with people who were not part of their social circle, even
after they were able to overcome the initial technical difficulties. For some, it was even less
pleasant compared to texting, emailing, and audio-only phone calls, with respondents explaining
that it felt like a detached and non-corporeal version of in-person meetings, especially for larger
gatherings.
It's the video. It's distracting to me. I can't really concentrate and focus when there's the TV
going on, right? [Video conferencing] feels like TV to me. (P16)
Technology-based communication also largely removed opportunities to expand older adults’
social circles and support networks. Participants reported several instances where casual in-
person interactions developed into stronger relationships. P8 recounted that a delivery driver who
frequents their house became a friend after getting to know them more: “Because I'm home, we
started chatting. He met my granddaughter one day. He brought her a toy. So it's a funny way to
make friends.” There were many fewer examples of these lightweight social connections being
cultivated through online interaction. P14 reported connecting with and getting to know someone
by meeting through an external program designed to pair up older adults with youths. They
explain, “The most fulfilling thing I've been doing through the pandemic has been once a week. I have
a zoom meeting with a young woman who is in the process of applying to college. She's brilliant.
She's going to be an engineer.” This suggests that more structured formats may be more useful for
developing social connectedness through technology.
Services participants relied on had also become increasingly integrated into digital platforms.
At times, this streamlined interactions or offered more choices in how to access services.
However, in other instances, the shift to digital replaced other ways of accessing services or
reduced access to in-person support. Some participants described frustrations with keeping up
with these changes and feeling like they had to regularly make sure they could still access them.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:18 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

They felt these changes in modalities for accessing services to be disempowering, at least in the
short term as they sought to adapt and learn any new technologies. Additionally, some
participants who valued in-person interactions, including opportunities for connection and
conversation, continued to put in extra time and effort to facilitate these interactions when
possible.
They always want me to do online banking, but I just don't wanna do it. I mean, my partner
does it, but I really like going in and just seeing the tellers, ‘cause there is this really cool
[person] whom I love and it's really fun to see her and we always ask how each other's doing
and I just like the human interaction. (P10)
Across all types of communications technology use, participants used them as an extension of
their existing relationships and social circles. Technology remained most useful for maintaining
established relationships. While past work suggests that older adults’ main barriers to adoption
were a lack of technology literacy and usability concerns [24,87], these results provide an
additional perspective. When technology was used out of necessity to replace an in-person
experience, as during the pandemic, it did not facilitate more than a surface level connection even
after most usability issues were overcome.

5 DISCUSSION
Our goal in this paper is to present an analysis of older adults’ social networks and associated
technology use during a significant life event using the convoy model. Older adults can be
resilient and adapt to challenging life circumstances, and this was the case with new technologies
during the pandemic [21,79]. Our participants adapted their support network during the
pandemic by increasing both the types of technology they used and the frequency with which
they used these technologies to communicate with others. While the pandemic drove the adoption
of some technologies, such as video chatting, many participants in our study were using services
like texting and email before the pandemic. Despite some initial onboarding difficulties, most
learned and adapted to additional channels for virtual communication. While participants
experienced technology adoption barriers such as technology literacy or accessibility issues
similar to those described in previous work [44,45,52], they were not a significant factor in how
communication technology was adopted among our participants.
Instead, perceived value and improvement in quality of life, factors previously identified as
also significant in older adults’ willingness to adopt technologies [9], featured prominently in
participant narratives of why they started to use certain technologies. Our findings show that
digital literacy and accessibility issues were not always the primary barriers to older adults'
adoption of a technology. While these issues were experienced by some participants in our study,
they did not become the primary reason certain technology was selected over others.
That said, we note selection effects in our recruitment and limitations that may have for our
findings. While potential participants could participate either by Zoom or phone call, much of our
recruitment occurred on digital platforms. Consequently, our recruitment likely favored older
adults who had at least some comfort with technology mediated interactions while deterring
potential participants who experienced barriers to video conferencing or who preferred not to
use the phone. Future research should seek out and continue to learn from older adults who
continue to experience barriers with technology use or who more strongly prefer not to engage
in technology-mediated interactions.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:19

In our discussion, we highlight the importance for designers to move away from framing older
adults as primarily recipients of support and toward better understanding their role as both
provider and receivers of reciprocal support in their social network. Using the convoy model, we
can better evaluate technology’s role in facilitating older adults’ social connections, while the
model can also help us understand their social support convoys as they evolve.

5.1 Designing technology to encourage social convoys to see older adults as support
providers in addition to support recipients
In addition to being recipients of support from their social network, participants in our study
were highly motivated to provide support to others in their social network despite the limitations
imposed by the pandemic. Participants such as P8 (Section 4.3.1) provided emotional support
through asynchronous digital communication methods like texting and email, allowing them to
be part of others' lives and alleviate emotional burdens. Informational support was provided to
friends and family through sharing advice, information, and knowledge. Older adults were also
providing tangible support contactlessly. Participants such as P5 and P7 (Section 4.2) sent financial
support to struggling family members, while P12 (Section 4.3.1) left groceries and other items for
neighbors. Later, when restrictions were lifted, they went back to volunteering or helping
organize events in their local communities. Participants were eager to provide support to their
social convoys, even adopting new modalities to deliver support to others. Many also played a
vital part in maintaining the wellbeing and connectedness of members in their social networks,
showcasing the reciprocal nature of support within older adults' social relationships.
This can contrast with how others in older adults’ social convoys see the role of technology,
and even older adults themselves. Participants such as P15 (Section 4.2.2) recounted incidents
wherein their personal technology preferences or choices were overlooked by members of their
support network, who held the belief that adopting those preferences might hinder the receipt of
beneficial support. This approach by family members or others in their support network seemed
to emphasize the notion of older adults as solely being recipients of support. One possible
explanation for this perspective can be attributed to a deficit-based view of successful aging that
has been documented in research. Such a portrayal of aging can contribute to a negative
perception of receiving support and the aging process [61,88], ultimately influencing the way
technology choices are made by older individuals. When technologies are perceived mainly as
tools for providing support, this perspective can deter older adults from embracing them because
of the belief that using such technologies implies a loss of autonomy. This reluctance can in turn
contribute to heightened social and digital isolation, especially during challenging periods like
the pandemic [74]. When an older adult’s support network views them as primarily support
recipients, this can also further reinforce the extent to which they and others see them as having
(only) needs, limit the extent to which they perceive their strengths, and, ultimately, disempower
older adults [71].
As other resources have argued, an asset-based view of aging can enhance the experiences of
older adults, their support networks, and their communities [38,90]. When older adults’ support
networks take a limited view of them as people in need of support, it misses what older adults
can and do contribute to their social networks and communities. HCI has, broadly, noted the need
for asset-based approaches to design [90]. Many of the social support systems we highlighted in
the related work apply this approach, such as by seeing older adults as remote caregivers and
important relationships for children [85] or as potential tutors [94]. However, the experiences of
participants in our study suggest that in many cases this view is not shared by their social convoy.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:20 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

A key issue, then, for designers and researchers is: how can design encourage the social
convoys of older adults to also see and engage with older adults as providers of support, not just
recipients? Designers may find inspiration in the past work that has developed systems to connect
older adults with others as support providers, such as by suggesting potential roles or activities
that draw on the information, emotional, and tangible support older adults might offer, thus
potentially disrupting disempowering relationship dynamics. Additionally, technology designs,
like the virtual gym classes developed by Baez et al. that support people with different abilities in
engaging equally in shared activities [6], may set the stage for further, reciprocally supportive
interactions.

5.2 Using the convoy model to evaluate technology use among older adults
Through the lens of the convoy model, and annotating interactions by modality, we can see that
participants in our study relied on technology for a significant portion of their communications
with their social support convoy during the pandemic. In some cases, technology became, at least
temporarily, the sole way of connecting older adults with members of their support network. For
many participants in our study, technology created new opportunities to give and receive support
from afar, creating new possibilities for forging or rekindling relationships that, prior to the
pandemic, had diminished in favor of more proximate relationships. In line with previous work
on the effect of technology on social relationships, participants were able to use technology to
maintain closer connections with their social convoys, which previous work notes should increase
the positive effect the convoy has on older adults’ subjective wellbeing [51].
In mapping communication modalities to the convoy model, we were able to see how the social
context of technology use affected both older adults’ adoption and use of technologies, as well as
how these technologies shaped social convoys in return. By overlaying technology use patterns
on the convoy model, we were able to see individualized technology usage preferences for each
participant in addition to patterns that appeared for the participants as a group. This supported
not only understanding how support networks can be affected by technology as a whole as
previously suggested by Fuller et al. [20], but also how varying types of technology interactions
could have different effects on the social connections and support networks of older adults.
Through our analysis using the convoy model, we found that perceived value and quality of life
improvement were often deeply rooted in a social context and dependent on with whom they
were communicating. Participants often chose communication modalities based on who they
were contacting and in what context. For example, someone might prefer a video chat for an
hour-long family gathering but prefer text messaging for a quick daily check in with a friend,
while preferring the ability to compose and revise offered by email for thoughtful or high-stakes
communication.
In contrast to their adoption of technologies for communication with existing relationships,
the older adults in our study rarely used platforms built for public conversations and meeting
other people, such as online forums and social media services, or they only used them in a more
private scope (e.g., within private groups of friends or family). The convoy model could be useful
in evaluating what kinds of new connections different technologies and services can facilitate and
how communication patterns evolve with different technology use. Additionally, it has been
previously pointed out that the convoy model could be useful in examining social ties that are
enabled by technology for those who are separated by remote geographical distance [20]; our
findings indicate that the model also can provide insight into relationships that are maintained
by a hybrid of in-person and technology-facilitated social support.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:21

Finally, though our study focused on social support, participants also talked about how services
such as banking, medical care, and retail shifting to technology mediated forms could create
temporary disempowerment, also consistent with previous research [27]. While some participants
put in additional effort to continue accessing these services in-person–in part because of the
incidental social interactions that resulted–those who wanted to access them through technology
mediated platforms could do so, after a period of adjustment. Depending on their previous
experiences with technology, this can involve accessing support from others within their convoy,
and, once they learned the service, also providing support. In this way, organizations planning to
transition to or augment services with technology mediated systems may benefit from using the
convoy model as they develop, rollout, and support programs.
Our study only evaluated the social convoys of participants by interviewing older adults about
their technology use and social networks at a single point in time. However, with the convoy
model’s ability to represent how a person’s social support convoy might transition over time,
further research might include more longitudinal work that evaluates how introducing different
social communication technologies into older adults’ lives might affect their underlying social
support network over time. Future work creating and designing social communication or social
support technologies for older adults could also benefit from evaluating these technologies using
the convoy model. Researchers and designers could compare users’ social convoys before and
after introducing a service or a piece of technology into their lives. This can potentially give
researchers insight beyond how technology affects a single user, putting the emphasis instead on
changes to the social convoy as a whole.

5.3 Designing technology for effective reciprocal support in evolving social convoys
Despite transitioning to digital platforms during the pandemic for many formerly in-person
meetings and events, participants in our study overwhelmingly preferred in-person interactions
over the digital solutions they used to attempt to replace them. Based on the level of participants’
technology use, it seems older adults found digital technologies did not facilitate the kinds of
communication and connection they most needed to restore their sense of social connectedness.
Most wished to maintain some level of support reciprocity that came from face-to-face
interactions, and most participants tried to maintain some level of in-person interactions
throughout the pandemic. Part of the reason in-person meetings remained indispensable for many
participants was because they often led to other spontaneous social interactions that increased
and deepened social ties.
While digital communications can have positive effects on older adults’ mental health,
participants in our study also reported negative experiences after using technology to connect
with others. For example, when participants used video calls to replace previously in-person
encounters, many felt that the digital attempts to replicate real-life experiences on-screen created
a sense of being always connected yet unable to truly have the experience of interacting with
another person face-to-face. Some described feeling even more isolated after a video call with
their friends or acquaintances, especially a call with multiple people. In other words, the virtual
connection sometimes made what was missing more salient, and participants experienced a sense
of loss. Such experiences align with previous work that has shown that increased use of digital
communication during the pandemic was associated with an increase in depressive symptoms
despite a decrease in loneliness [11]. CSCW has long argued for imagining technology mediated
interactions that differ from in-person encounters and that are uniquely suited for the medium
[29], and our study results continue to support this. In contrast to using video calls to replace a

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:22 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

family gathering, participants did not describe feeling the same sense of loss when they engaged
in virtual experiences that were not trying to replace in-person interactions with virtual
facsimiles. For example, a well-structured online course that delivered unique virtual experiences
could be satisfying for older adults, but gathering on zoom for coffee with friends one would have
otherwise met at a local café was not as satisfying. Asynchronous communication that augmented
and enhanced previously established social connections excelled in helping create opportunities
to interact with each other that did not exist previously.
When designing technology-based interventions to connect older adults with their support
networks in meaningful ways, researchers should consider older adults’ evolving social networks
and the social contexts in which these networks exist. Prior work argue that technology design
aimed at older adults can also often embody ageist stereotypes of what technology should look
like when designed for older adults, which can in turn lead to user aversion (because of not
wanting to be associated with aging); this work suggests that co-designing technology with older
adults could help avoid ageist stereotyping in the design process [50,87]. However, even in co-
design workshops, older adults can at times stereotype themselves and others in their age groups,
which can lead to technologies that are less likely to target real needs of older adults [56]. The
sharing of life experiences in co-design sessions in prior work showed that including individual
perspectives could challenge homogenization in how older adults are viewed in the design process
[72]. Researchers in CSCW and HCI have also argued for the necessity of designing with older
adults’ life stage transition in mind [19,47]. Considering the much higher heterogeneity of older
adults compared to other age demographics, Vines et al. argues that researchers must take into
account the “diverse and dynamic qualities of ageing” [84]. The life course perspective argues that
a person’s own social and historical context should be emphasized over a more chronological
view to life stages that is associated with age [18]. The convoy perspective could provide creators
of social support technologies for older users with an additional perspective by helping designers
and co-designers understand the evolving personal and situational context as older adults
experience changes in their social convoy composition.
For the most part, participants who cut back on face-to-face interactions during the pandemic
also did their best to return to in-person interactions as soon as regulations or their own personal
risk tolerance allowed them to do so. Many of these participants adopted technologies that did
not provide more than what was needed at the moment to create an emulation of real-life
experiences online; these changes to participants’ social convoys were likely short term.
However, we also saw many cases where, either due to the use of new technologies or new
services that extended social connectedness, technology filled a gap in older adults’
communication needs effectively. Most participants indicated that they would continue to use
these types of technology even after the pandemic. This was especially true for technologies that
enabled different ways to connect that took full advantage of their digital nature, such as
messaging, accessing online classes, and telehealth for mental health services. Our findings
indicate that when a new use of a technology creates a way to connect with or expand older
adults’ social convoy in a way they perceive to be useful or meaningful, these changes in older
adults’ social support networks can become long-term.
For older adults' social convoys, the pandemic was an event that served as a catalyst for new
technology uses and new digital connections. In this study we were able to see the effects on older
adults’ social support networks and accompanying technology use due to forced remoteness and
its effects. Our findings could help designers imagine technologies built for other situations where
older adults are introduced to environments that require building and maintaining different social
ties, such as moving to a different city or transitioning to assisted living.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:23

6 CONCLUSION
Technology can play a crucial role in connecting older adults with their social networks. Through
interviews conducted with older adults about their experiences using technology during the
COVID-19 pandemic, we explore how older adults experienced technology use with those around
them. We discuss barriers, changes in social support networks, and the evolving dynamics of
providing and accessing support both online and offline. In this study, we use the convoy model
of social relations to contextualize social connections and technology use. Furthermore, we
present design implications and argue that designers and researchers should 1) create technology
for older adults that, in addition to addressing accessibility needs, help emphasize to their social
networks these adults’ roles as both providers and receivers of support; 2) create social
technologies that are meant to provide meaningful digital experiences rather than attempting
merely to replicate in-person experiences; and, 3) utilize the convoy model of thinking to evaluate
new social technologies so they are better situated in the social context in which they are meant
to be used. We urge CSCW and HCI researchers and designers to explore a broader design space
that more closely examines the role technology plays as a tool for providing and receiving support
in a social context.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, under award IIS-1553167 and the
University of Washington Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering.

REFERENCES
[1] Raghad A. Alharbi, Faisal T. Altayyari, Farah S. Alamri, and Sultan A. Alharthi. 2021. Pandemic-Driven Technology
During COVID-19: Experiences of Older Adults. In Companion Publication of the 2021 Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, ACM, Virtual Event USA, 5–9.
DOI:[Link]
[2] Toni C. Antonucci. 1986. MEASURING SOCIAL SUPPORT NETWORKS: Hierarchical Mapping Technique.
Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging 10, 4 (1986), 10–12.
[3] Toni C. Antonucci, Kristine J. Ajrouch, and Kira S. Birditt. 2014. The Convoy Model: Explaining Social Relations
From a Multidisciplinary Perspective. The Gerontologist 54, 1 (February 2014), 82–92.
DOI:[Link]
[4] Toni C. Antonucci and Hiroko Akiyama. 1987. Social Networks in Adult Life and a Preliminary Examination of the
Convoy Model. Journal of Gerontology 42, 5 (September 1987), 519–527. DOI:[Link]
[5] Toni Antonucci and James Jackson. 1990. The role of reciprocity in social support. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology - BASIC APPL SOC PSYCHOL 11, (January 1990).
[6] Marcos Báez, Francisco Ibarra, Iman Khaghani Far, Michela Ferron, and Fabio Casati. 2016. Online Group-Exercises
for Older Adults of Different Physical Abilities. In 2016 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and
Systems (CTS), 524–533. DOI:[Link]
[7] Eric Balki, Niall Hayes, and Carol Holland. 2022. Effectiveness of Technology Interventions in Addressing Social
Isolation, Connectedness, and Loneliness in Older Adults: Systematic Umbrella Review. JMIR Aging 5, 4 (October
2022), e40125. DOI:[Link]
[8] Caroline Bell, Cara Fausset, Sarah Farmer, Julie Nguyen, Linda Harley, and W. Bradley Fain. 2013. Examining social
media use among older adults. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media - HT ’13,
ACM Press, Paris, France, 158–163. DOI:[Link]
[9] Ronald W. Berkowsky, Joseph Sharit, and Sara J. Czaja. 2017. Factors Predicting Decisions About Technology
Adoption Among Older Adults. Innov Aging 1, 3 (November 2017). DOI:[Link]
[10] Stephanie L. Brown, Randolph M. Nesse, Amiram D. Vinokur, and Dylan M. Smith. 2003. Providing social support
may be more beneficial than receiving it: results from a prospective study of mortality. Psychol Sci 14, 4 (July 2003),
320–327. DOI:[Link]
[11] Kathy Charmaz. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:24 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

[12] Sheldon Cohen and Thomas A. Wills. 1985. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological
Bulletin 98, (1985), 310–357. DOI:[Link]
[13] Nicholas Cone and Jeong Eun Lee. 2023. Older adult communication types and emotional well-being outcomes
during COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Geriatrics 23, 1 (March 2023), 178. DOI:[Link]
8
[14] Raymundo Cornejo, Nadir Weibel, Mónica Tentori, and Jesús Favela. 2015. Promoting active aging with a paper-
based SNS application. In 2015 9th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare
(PervasiveHealth), 209–212. DOI:[Link]
[15] Shelia R. Cotten, George Ford, Sherry Ford, and Timothy M. Hale. 2014. Internet Use and Depression Among Retired
Older Adults in the United States: A Longitudinal Analysis. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 69, 5 (September
2014), 763–771. DOI:[Link]
[16] Sara J. Czaja, Walter R. Boot, Neil Charness, Wendy A. Rogers, and Joseph Sharit. 2018. Improving Social Support
for Older Adults Through Technology: Findings From the PRISM Randomized Controlled Trial. Gerontologist 58, 3
(May 2018), 467–477. DOI:[Link]
[17] Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.
MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319–340. DOI:[Link]
[18] Glen H. Elder, Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson, and Robert Crosnoe. 2003. The Emergence and Development of Life
Course Theory. In Handbook of the Life Course, Jeylan T. Mortimer and Michael J. Shanahan (eds.). Springer US,
Boston, MA, 3–19. DOI:[Link]
[19] Rachel Franz, Jacob O. Wobbrock, and Leah Findlater. Lost in Transition: The Importance of Conceptualizing Aging
as a Process in Accessibility Research | Rachel Franz - [Link]. Retrieved July 14, 2023 from
[Link]
[20] Heather R. Fuller, Kristine J. Ajrouch, and Toni C. Antonucci. 2020. The Convoy Model and Later‐Life Family
Relationships. J Fam Theory Rev 12, 2 (June 2020), 126–146. DOI:[Link]
[21] Heather R Fuller and Andrea Huseth-Zosel. 2021. Lessons in Resilience: Initial Coping Among Older Adults During
the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Gerontologist 61, 1 (February 2021), 114–125.
DOI:[Link]
[22] Joseph E. Gaugler, Sue Duval, Keith A. Anderson, and Robert L. Kane. 2007. Predicting nursing home admission in
the U.S: a meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr 7, 1 (December 2007), 1–14. DOI:[Link]
[23] Helene Gelderblom, Tobie Dyk, and Judy Biljon. 2010. Mobile phone adoption: Do existing models adequately capture
the actual usage of older adults? DOI:[Link]
[24] Lynn Gitlow. 2014. Technology Use by Older Adults and Barriers to Using Technology. Physical & Occupational
Therapy In Geriatrics 32, 3 (September 2014), 271–280. DOI:[Link]
[25] Florian Güldenpfennig, Francisco Nunes, Eva Ganglbauer, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2016. Making Space to Engage:
An Open-Ended Exploration of Technology Design with Older Adults. International Journal of Mobile Human
Computer Interaction (IJMHCI) 8, 2 (2016), 1–19. DOI:[Link]
[26] Stephanie Molinda Hansard. 2022. Reciprocal Support within Intimate Relationships: Examining the Association
with Depression and Anxiety. Sociological Perspectives 65, 5 (October 2022), 915–928.
DOI:[Link]
[27] Rowena Hill, Lucy R. Betts, and Sarah E. Gardner. 2015. Older adults’ experiences and perceptions of digital
technology: (Dis)empowerment, wellbeing, and inclusion. Computers in Human Behavior 48, (July 2015), 415–423.
DOI:[Link]
[28] David L. Hogeboom, Robert J. McDermott, Karen M. Perrin, Hana Osman, and Bethany A. Bell-Ellison. 2010.
Internet Use and Social Networking Among Middle Aged and Older Adults. Educational Gerontology 36, 2 (January
2010), 93–111. DOI:[Link]
[29] Jim Hollan and Scott Stornetta. 1992. Beyond being there. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors
in computing systems - CHI ’92, ACM Press, Monterey, California, United States, 119–125.
DOI:[Link]
[30] Nancy R. Hooyman, Kevin Y. Kawamoto, and H. Asuman Kiyak. 2017. Social Gerontology: A Multidisciplinary
Perspective. Pearson Education.
[31] Alexis Hope, Ted Schwaba, and Anne Marie Piper. 2014. Understanding digital and material social communications
for older adults. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14),
Association for Computing Machinery, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 3903–3912.
DOI:[Link]
[32] Sofia von Humboldt, Neyda Ma. Mendoza-Ruvalcaba, Elva Dolores Arias-Merino, Andrea Costa, Emilia Cabras,
Gail Low, and Isabel Leal. 2020. Smart technology and the meaning in life of older adults during the Covid-19 public
health emergency period: a cross-cultural qualitative study. International Review of Psychiatry 32, 7–8 (November
2020), 713–722. DOI:[Link]

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:25

[33] Esther Iecovich. 2014. Aging in place: From theory to practice. Anthropological Notebooks 20, 1 (March 2014).
Retrieved July 10, 2023 from [Link]
[34] Tristen K. Inagaki, Kate E. Byrne Haltom, Shosuke Suzuki, Ivana Jevtic, Erica Hornstein, Julienne E. Bower, and
Naomi I. Eisenberger. 2016. The neurobiology of giving versus receiving support: The role of stress-related and
social reward-related neural activity. Psychosom Med 78, 4 (May 2016), 443–453.
DOI:[Link]
[35] Sandra Johnson. 2020. A Changing Nation: Population Projections Under Alternative Immigration Scenarios. United
States Census Bureau (2020), 21.
[36] R Kahn and Toni Antonucci. 1980. Convoys Over the Life Course: Attachment Roles and Social Support. In Life
Span Development. 253–267.
[37] Hal Kendig, Cathy Honge Gong, Lisa Cannon, and Colette Browning. 2017. Preferences and Predictors of Aging in
Place: Longitudinal Evidence from Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Housing For the Elderly 31, 3 (July 2017), 259–
271. DOI:[Link]
[38] Deborah Klee, Marc Mordey, Steve Phuare, and Cormac Russell. 2014. Asset based community development –
enriching the lives of older citizens. Working with Older People 18, 3 (January 2014), 111–119.
DOI:[Link]
[39] Neal Krause. 1986. Social Support, Stress, and Well-Being Among Older Adults. Journal of Gerontology 41, 4 (July
1986), 512–519. DOI:[Link]
[40] Neal Krause and Kyriakos Markides. 1990. Measuring Social Support among Older Adults. Int J Aging Hum Dev 30,
1 (January 1990), 37–53. DOI:[Link]
[41] Anne C Krendl and Brea L Perry. 2021. The Impact of Sheltering in Place During the COVID-19 Pandemic on Older
Adults’ Social and Mental Well-Being. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 76, 2 (February 2021), e53–e58.
DOI:[Link]
[42] Frieder R Lang and Laura L Carstensen. Close Emotional Relationships in Late Life: Further Support for Proactive
Aging in the Social Domain.
[43] Reed Larson, Roger Mannell, and Jiri Zuzanek. 1986. Daily well-being of older adults with friends and family.
Psychology and Aging 1, 2 (June 1986), 117–126. DOI:[Link]
[44] Chaiwoo Lee and Joseph F. Coughlin. 2015. PERSPECTIVE: Older Adults’ Adoption of Technology: An Integrated
Approach to Identifying Determinants and Barriers. Journal of Product Innovation Management 32, 5 (2015), 747–
759. DOI:[Link]
[45] Rock Leung, Charlotte Tang, Shathel Haddad, Joanna Mcgrenere, Peter Graf, and Vilia Ingriany. 2012. How Older
Adults Learn to Use Mobile Devices: Survey and Field Investigations. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 4, 3 (December
2012), 11:1-11:33. DOI:[Link]
[46] Mary J. Levitt. 2005. Social Relations in Childhood and Adolescence: The Convoy Model Perspective. Human
Development 48, 1–2 (2005), 28–47. DOI:[Link]
[47] Ann Light, Tuck Leong, and Toni Robertson. 2015. Ageing Well with CSCW. DOI:[Link]
20499-4_16
[48] Howard Litwin. 2001. Social Network Type and Morale in Old Age. The Gerontologist 41, 4 (August 2001), 516–524.
DOI:[Link]
[49] Terry Y. S. Lum, Vivian W. Q. Lou, Yanyan Chen, Gloria H. Y. Wong, Hao Luo, and Tracy L. W. Tong. 2016.
Neighborhood Support and Aging-in-Place Preference Among Low-Income Elderly Chinese City-Dwellers. The
Journals of Gerontology: Series B 71, 1 (January 2016), 98–105. DOI:[Link]
[50] Ittay Mannheim, Ella Schwartz, Wanyu Xi, Sandra C. Buttigieg, Mary McDonnell-Naughton, Eveline J. M. Wouters,
and Yvonne van Zaalen. 2019. Inclusion of Older Adults in the Research and Design of Digital Technology.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, 19 (January 2019), 3718.
DOI:[Link]
[51] Shannon T. Mejía and Karen Hooker. 2014. Relationship Processes Within the Social Convoy: Structure, Function,
and Social Goals. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 69, 3 (May 2014), 376–386.
DOI:[Link]
[52] Tracy L. Mitzner, Cara Bailey Fausset, Julie B. Boron, Anne E. Adams, Katinka Dijkstra, Chin Chin Lee, Wendy A.
Rogers, and Arthur D. Fisk. 2008. Older Adults’ Training Preferences for Learning to Use Technology. Proc Hum
Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 52, 26 (September 2008), 2047–2051. DOI:[Link]
[53] Diego Muñoz, Raymundo Cornejo, Francisco J. Gutierrez, Jesús Favela, Sergio F. Ochoa, and Mónica Tentori. 2015.
A social cloud-based tool to deal with time and media mismatch of intergenerational family communication. Future
Gener. Comput. Syst. 53, C (December 2015), 140–151. DOI:[Link]
[54] Diego Muñoz, Raymundo Cornejo, Sergio F. Ochoa, Jesús Favela, Francisco Gutierrez, and Mónica Tentori. 2013.
Aligning intergenerational communication patterns and rhythms in the age of social media. In Proceedings of the

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:26 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

2013 Chilean Conference on Human - Computer Interaction (ChileCHI ’13), Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 66–71. DOI:[Link]
[55] Elizabeth D. Mynatt, Jim Rowan, Sarah Craighill, and Annie Jacobs. 2001. Digital family portraits: supporting peace
of mind for extended family members. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ’01), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 333–340.
DOI:[Link]
[56] Louis Neven. 2010. ‘But obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users.
Sociology of Health & Illness 32, 2 (2010), 335–347. DOI:[Link]
[57] Ann W. Nguyen, Linda M. Chatters, Robert Joseph Taylor, and Dawne M. Mouzon. 2016. Social Support from Family
and Friends and Subjective Well-Being of Older African Americans. J Happiness Stud 17, 3 (June 2016), 959–979.
DOI:[Link]
[58] Rebecca Nowland, Elizabeth A. Necka, and John T. Cacioppo. 2018. Loneliness and Social Internet Use: Pathways
to Reconnection in a Digital World? Perspect Psychol Sci 13, 1 (January 2018), 70–87.
DOI:[Link]
[59] Novia Nurain, Chia-Fang Chung, Clara Caldeira, and Kay Connelly. 2021. Hugging with a Shower Curtain: Older
Adults’ Social Support Realities During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2
(October 2021), 1–31. DOI:[Link]
[60] Sebastiaan T.M. Peek, Katrien G. Luijkx, Maurice D. Rijnaard, Marianne E. Nieboer, Claire S. van der Voort, Sil
Aarts, Joost van Hoof, Hubertus J.M. Vrijhoef, and Eveline J.M. Wouters. 2015. Older Adults’ Reasons for Using
Technology while Aging in Place. Gerontology 62, 2 (June 2015), 226–237. DOI:[Link]
[61] Alexander Peine and Louis Neven. 2019. From Intervention to Co-constitution: New Directions in Theorizing about
Aging and Technology. The Gerontologist 59, 1 (January 2019), 15–21. DOI:[Link]
[62] Sarah C. Pillemer and Roee Holtzer. 2016. The Differential Relationship of Dimensions of Perceived Social Support
with Cognitive Function among Older Adults. Aging Ment Health 20, 7 (July 2016), 727–735.
DOI:[Link]
[63] Sacramento Pinazo-Hernandis, Mauricio Blanco-Molina, and Raúl Ortega-Moreno. 2022. Aging in Place:
Connections, Relationships, Social Participation and Social Support in the Face of Crisis Situations. Int J Environ
Res Public Health 19, 24 (December 2022), 16623. DOI:[Link]
[64] Martin Pinquart and Silvia Sorensen. 2000. Influences of Socioeconomic Status, Social Network, and Competence
on Subjective Well-Being in Later Life: A Meta-Analysis. (2000).
[65] Martin Pinquart and Silvia Sorensen. 2001. Influences on Loneliness in Older Adults: A Meta-Analysis. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology 23, 4 (December 2001), 245–266. DOI:[Link]
[66] Anne Marie Piper, Nadir Weibel, and James Hollan. 2013. Audio-enhanced paper photos: encouraging social
interaction at age 105. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ’13),
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 215–224. DOI:[Link]
[67] Michael J. Poulin, Stephanie L. Brown, Amanda J. Dillard, and Dylan M. Smith. 2013. Giving to others and the
association between stress and mortality. Am J Public Health 103, 9 (September 2013), 1649–1655.
DOI:[Link]
[68] Anabel Quan-Haase, Guang Ying Mo, and Barry Wellman. 2017. Connected seniors: how older adults in East York
exchange social support online and offline. Information, Communication & Society 20, 7 (July 2017), 967–983.
DOI:[Link]
[69] Karen Renaud, Karen, Judy Biljon, and Judy. 2008. Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly:
A qualitative study. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. DOI:[Link]
[70] Olivia K. Richards, Gabriela Marcu, and Robin N. Brewer. 2021. Hugs, Bible Study, and Speakeasies: Designing for
Older Adults’ Multimodal Connectedness. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021, ACM, Virtual Event
USA, 815–831. DOI:[Link]
[71] Yvonne Rogers and Gary Marsden. 2013. Does he take sugar? moving beyond the rhetoric of compassion.
interactions 20, 4 (July 2013), 48–57. DOI:[Link]
[72] Dawn K. Sakaguchi-Tang, Jay L. Cunningham, Wendy Roldan, Jason Yip, and Julie A. Kientz. 2021. Co-Design with
Older Adults: Examining and Reflecting on Collaboration with Aging Communities. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput.
Interact. 5, CSCW2 (October 2021), 362:1-362:28. DOI:[Link]
[73] Lawrence B. Schiamberg and Kathleen G. McKinney. 2003. Factors Influencing Expectations to Move or Age in
Place at Retirement Among 40- to 65-Year-Olds. J Appl Gerontol 22, 1 (February 2003), 19–41.
DOI:[Link]
[74] Alexander Seifert, Shelia R Cotten, and Bo Xie. 2021. A Double Burden of Exclusion? Digital and Social Exclusion
of Older Adults in Times of COVID-19. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 76, 3 (March 2021), e99–e103.
DOI:[Link]

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
Understanding the Role of Technology in Older Adults’ Changing Social Support Networks 188:27

[75] Keya Sen, Gayle Prybutok, and Victor Prybutok. 2021. The use of digital technology for social wellbeing reduces
social isolation in older adults: A systematic review. SSM Popul Health 17, (December 2021), 101020.
DOI:[Link]
[76] W. Sepúlveda-Loyola, I. Rodríguez-Sánchez, P. Pérez-Rodríguez, F. Ganz, R. Torralba, D. V. Oliveira, and Leocadio
Rodríguez-Mañas. 2020. Impact of Social Isolation Due to COVID-19 on Health in Older People: Mental and Physical
Effects and Recommendations. J Nutr Health Aging 24, 9 (September 2020), 938–947.
DOI:[Link]
[77] Ines M. Simbrig, Sanne Van Der Weegen, Felix Piazolo, Manfred Kofler, Nadine Sturm, and Simona Hvalič-Touzery.
2022. Impact of using aging-in-place technologies on quality of life: Results from a randomized controlled trial in
four European countries. Gerontechnology 21, 1 (January 2022), 1–21. DOI:[Link]
[78] Frances Sin, Sophie Berger, Ig-Jae Kim, and Dongwook Yoon. 2021. Digital Social Interaction in Older Adults During
the COVID-19 Pandemic. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2 (October 2021), 380:1-380:20.
DOI:[Link]
[79] Paul A. Strutt, Carly J. Johnco, Jessamine Chen, Courtney Muir, Olivia Maurice, Piers Dawes, Joyce Siette, Cintia
Botelho Dias, Heidi Hillebrandt, and Viviana M. Wuthrich. 2022. Stress and Coping in Older Australians During
COVID-19: Health, Service Utilization, Grandparenting, and Technology Use. Clinical Gerontologist 45, 1 (January
2022), 106–119. DOI:[Link]
[80] Haosen Sun and Markus Schafer. 2022. Close ties, near and far away: patterns and predictors of geographic network
range among older Europeans. Eur J Ageing 19, 3 (September 2022), 699–716. DOI:[Link]
021-00671-1
[81] Fengyan Tang and Yeonjung Lee. 2011. Social Support Networks and Expectations for Aging in Place and Moving.
Res Aging 33, 4 (July 2011), 444–464. DOI:[Link]
[82] Kimberly Tee, A.J. Bernheim Brush, and Kori M. Inkpen. 2009. Exploring communication and sharing between
extended families. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67, 2 (February 2009), 128–138.
DOI:[Link]
[83] Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis. 2003. User Acceptance of
Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly 27, 3 (2003), 425–478.
DOI:[Link]
[84] John Vines, Gary Pritchard, Peter Wright, Patrick Olivier, and Katie Brittain. 2015. An Age-Old Problem: Examining
the Discourses of Ageing in HCI and Strategies for Future Research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 22, 1
(February 2015), 2:1-2:27. DOI:[Link]
[85] René Vutborg, Jesper Kjeldskov, Sonja Pedell, and Frank Vetere. 2010. Family storytelling for grandparents and
grandchildren living apart. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending
Boundaries (NordiCHI ’10), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 531–540.
DOI:[Link]
[86] Kenneth Hsiche Wang, Gong Chen, and Houn-Gee Chen. 2017. A model of technology adoption by older adults.
Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal 45, 4 (May 2017), 563–572.
DOI:[Link]
[87] Shengzhi Wang, Khalisa Bolling, Wenlin Mao, Jennifer Reichstadt, Dilip Jeste, Ho-Cheol Kim, and Camille Nebeker.
2019. Technology to Support Aging in Place: Older Adults’ Perspectives. Healthcare (Basel) 7, 2 (April 2019).
DOI:[Link]
[88] Anna Wanka, Anna Urbaniak, Frank Oswald, and Franz Kolland. 2023. Digital transformations in ageing societies.
Z Gerontol Geriat 56, 3 (May 2023), 177–180. DOI:[Link]
[89] Beverly Rosa Williams, Patricia Sawyer Baker, Richard M. Allman, and Jeffrey M. Roseman. 2007. Bereavement
Among African American and White Older Adults. J Aging Health 19, 2 (April 2007), 313–333.
DOI:[Link]
[90] Marisol Wong-Villacres, Aakash Gautam, Wendy Roldan, Lucy Pei, Jessa Dickinson, Azra Ismail, Betsy DiSalvo,
Neha Kumar, Tammy Clegg, Sheena Erete, Emily Roden, Nithya Sambasivan, and Jason Yip. 2020. From Needs to
Strengths: Operationalizing an Assets-Based Design of Technology. In Conference Companion Publication of the
2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’20 Companion), Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 527–535. DOI:[Link]
[91] Amanda Toler Woodward, Paul P. Freddolino, Dona J. Wishart, Louanne Bakk, Rie Kobayashi, Caitlin Tupper, John
Panci, and Christina M. Blaschke-Thompson. 2013. Outcomes from a peer tutor model for teaching technology to
older adults. Ageing & Society 33, 8 (November 2013), 1315–1338. DOI:[Link]
[92] Ya-Huei Wu, Souad Damnée, Hélène Kerhervé, Caitlin Ware, and Anne-Sophie Rigaud. 2015. Bridging the digital
divide in older adults: a study from an initiative to inform older adults about new technologies. Clinical Interventions
in Aging 10, (June 2015), 193–201. DOI:[Link]

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.
188:28 Shengzhi Wang, Adoniah Carmeline, Beth Kolko, & Sean A. Munson

[93] Bo Xie, Neil Charness, Karen Fingerman, Jeffrey Kaye, Miyong T. Kim, and Anjum Khurshid. 2020. When Going
Digital Becomes a Necessity: Ensuring Older Adults’ Needs for Information, Services, and Social Inclusion During
COVID-19. Journal of Aging & Social Policy 32, 4–5 (July 2020), 460–470.
DOI:[Link]
[94] Ye Yuan and Svetlana Yarosh. 2019. Beyond Tutoring: Opportunities for Intergenerational Mentorship at a
Community Level. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19),
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. DOI:[Link]
[95] Wei Zhao, Ryan M. Kelly, Melissa J. Rogerson, and Jenny Waycott. 2022. Understanding Older Adults’ Participation
in Online Social Activities: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2
(November 2022), 1–26. DOI:[Link]
[96] 2017. Tech Adoption Climbs Among Older Americans. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved
November 25, 2020 from [Link]
adults/
[97] 2020. The ‘New Normal’ for Many Older Adults Is on the Internet. [Link]. Retrieved May 3, 2023 from
[Link]
[98] “Dad Doesn’t Text”: Examining How Parents’ Use of Information Communication Technologies Influences
Satisfaction Among Emerging Adult Children - Jennifer Schon, 2014. Retrieved July 18, 2023 from
[Link]

Received July 2023; revised October 2023; accepted November 2023.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 188, Publication date: April 2024.