Emotional support during times of stress: can text messaging compete with in-person interactions?
Open accessAbstract
There has been a recent and dramatic surge in the popularity of text messaging as a means of connecting with our social networks. The current research represents the first randomized controlled studies to directly compare both the social and emotional impact of social support provided in-person versus through text messaging. In two lab-based experiments, emerging adults completed a stressful task and were randomly assigned to receive emotional support either in-person, via text messaging, or no support at all. Support was provided by a close friend in experiment 1 ( n = 64), and by a similar-aged confederate in experiment 2 ( n = 188). In both experiments, in-person support was associated with significantly higher positive affect compared to text messaging. In-person support also led to greater satisfaction with support, but only in experiment 2. Overall, this research suggests that there may be emotional costs to a reliance on digital forms of social communication during times of stress.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Receiving social support via text message is better for well-being than receiving no support at all, though not as impactful as talking with somebody in person.
“While not as impactful as talking with somebody in person, receiving social support via text message is better for well-being than receiving no support at all [38].”
From The effects of smartphones on well-being: theoretical integration and research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as [38]
Receiving social support in-person produces greater benefits for well-being than receiving support via text message.
“For example, receiving social support in-person produces greater benefits for well-being than receiving support via text message [38].”
From The effects of smartphones on well-being: theoretical integration and research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as [38]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 70 · Cited by 106
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Authors
- Holtzman, S., DeClerck, D., Turcotte, K., Lisi, D., & Woodworth, M.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Holtzman, Susan
- Venue
- Computers in Human Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-06
- Volume
- 71
- Pages
- 130-139
- ISSN
- 0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2582983766
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6
- FWCI
- 7.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (430-2013-0976)
- University of British Columbia (F13-01083)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Keywords
- emotional support, text messaging, face-to-face interaction, social support, stress, positive affect, satisfaction with support, emerging adults, digital communication, close friends, confederates
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
