Internet Use as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Personal Resources and Stress in Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Internet use has dramatically increased worldwide, with over two-thirds of the world's population using it, including the older adult population. Technical resources such as internet use have been shown to influence psychological processes such as stress positively. Following the Conservation of Resources theory by Hobfoll, stress experience largely depends on individuals' personal resources and the changes in these resources. While personal resource loss has been shown to lead to stress, we know little regarding the role that technical resources may play on the relationship between personal resources and stress. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the moderating effect of technical resources (internet use) on the relationship between personal resources and stress in younger and older adults. METHODS: A total of 275 younger adults (aged 18 to 30 years) and 224 older adults (aged ≥65 years) indicated their levels of stress; change in personal resources (ie, cognitive, social, and self-efficacy resource loss and gain); and internet use. Variance analyses, multiple regression, and moderation analyses were performed to investigate the correlates of stress. RESULTS: Results showed that older adults, despite experiencing higher levels of resource loss (questionnaire scores: 1.82 vs 1.54; P<.001) and less resource gain (questionnaire scores: 1.82 vs 2.31; P<.001), were less stressed than younger adults (questionnaire scores: 1.99 vs 2.47; P<.001). We observed that the relationship among resource loss, resource gain, and stress in older adults was moderated by their level of internet use (β=.09; P=.05). Specifically, older adults who used the internet more frequently were less stressed when they experienced high levels of both loss and gain compared to their counterparts who used internet the less in the same conditions. Furthermore, older adults with low resource gain and high resource loss expressed less stress when they used the internet more often compared to those with low internet use. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of internet use in mitigating stress among older adults experiencing resource loss and gain, emphasizing the potential of digital interventions to promote mental health in this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".