This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Family communication is central to the family and its functioning. It is a mutual process in which family members create, share, and regulate meaning. Advancement and proliferation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) continues to change methods of family communication. However, little is known about the use of different methods for family communication and the influence on family well-being.
We investigated the sociodemographic factors associated with different methods of family communication and how they are associated with perceived family harmony, happiness, and health (3Hs) among Chinese adults in Hong Kong.
Data came from a territory-wide probability-based telephone survey using the Family and Health Information Trend survey (FHInTs). Frequency of family communication using different methods (ie, face-to-face, phone, instant messaging [IM], social media sites, and email) were recoded and classified as frequent (always/sometimes) and nonfrequent (seldom/never) use. Family well-being was measured using 3 questions of perceived family harmony, happiness, and health with higher scores indicating better family well-being. Adjusted odds ratios for family communication methods by sociodemographic characteristics and adjusted beta coefficients for family well-being by communication methods were calculated.
A total of 1502 adults were surveyed. Face-to-face (94.85%, 1408/1484) was the most frequent means of communication followed by phone (78.08%, 796/1484), IM (53.64%, 796/1484), social media sites (17.60%, 261/1484), and email (13.39%, 198/1484). Younger age was associated with the use of phone, IM, and social media sites for family communication. Higher educational attainment was associated with more frequent use of all modes of communication, whereas higher family income was only significantly associated with more frequent use of IM and email (
Socioeconomic disparities in using these information and communication technologies (ICT) methods for family communication were observed. Although traditional methods remain as the main platform for family communication and were associated with better family well-being, a notable proportion of respondents are using new ICT methods, which were not associated with perceived family well-being. Because ICTs will continue to diversify modes of family communication, more research is needed to understand the impact of ICTs on family communication and well-being.
Family communication through both verbal and nonverbal interactions plays a central role in maintaining family relationships and enhancing family well-being [
Family communication comprises an important part of several Western theories and models (eg, Family System Theory, Social Learning Theory, Olson’s Circumplex Model, and McMaster Model of Family Functioning). Olson’s Circumplex model [
In addition to the traditional means of communication, such as face-to-face and phone, new forms of information and communication technologies (ICTs), such as instant messaging (IM), social media sites (eg, Facebook, Twitter), and email, allow individuals to communicate and interact with one another [
Although a growing number of studies have examined communication behaviors (eg, pattern, frequency, and usage of ICTs) and interpersonal relationships and family functioning [
Hong Kong, the most Westernized and urbanized city in China, is one of the most technologically advanced and connected cities in the world with ICTs readily integrated into the daily lives of Chinese people. Most households (78%) have personal computers at home connected to the Internet [
As part of the FAMILY Project, the Hong Kong Family and Health Information Trends Survey (FHInTs) was conducted from August 2012 to October 2012 using probability-based telephone surveys to collect information on general public opinions and behaviors on family health, information use, and health communication. Details of the survey design have been reported elsewhere [
The definition of families (family members who are related through biological, marital, cohabitation, and/or emotional bonding) was explained to the respondents before asking questions about family communication and family well-being. The prevalence of different methods of communication was assessed by asking respondents how often each method (ie, face-to-face, phone, IM, social media sites, and email) was used to communicate with family with responses of “very often,” “sometimes,” “seldom,” and “never.” Perceived family harmony, happiness, and health (3Hs) are regarded as the main component of family well-being in Chinese society [
All data were weighted by sex and age using Hong Kong 2013 census data. Descriptive statistics were used to report prevalence of different methods of family communication. Associations of different methods to communicate with family by sex, age, marital status, and SES indicators (ie, income and educational attainment) were assessed by logistic regression, which yielded adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of family communication methods. Associations between perceived Family 3Hs (harmony, happiness, and health), family well-being, and different family communication methods were analyzed in a separate binary logistic regression model adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. All analyses were conducted with SPSS 20 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA).
Of 1502 respondents, 54.51% (819/1502) were female, 73.39% (1103/ 1500) were aged between 25 and 64 years, and 63.33% (950/1500) were married or cohabitating (
Sociodemographic characteristics of sample (N=1502).
Demographics | Unweighted, n (%) | Weighted, % | |
|
|
|
|
|
Male | 573 (38.15) | 45.59 |
|
Female | 929 (61.85) | 54.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
18-24 | 126 (8.40) | 9.94 |
|
25-34 | 146 (9.73) | 17.76 |
|
35-44 | 153 (10.20) | 18.55 |
|
45-54 | 312 (20.80) | 20.60 |
|
55-64 | 387 (25.80) | 16.49 |
|
≥65 | 376 (25.07) | 16.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
Single | 328 (21.88) | 30.57 |
|
Married/cohabitating | 1038 (69.25) | 63.33 |
|
Other (divorced/widowed) | 133 (8.87) | 6.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
Primary or below | 318 (21.17) | 14.40 |
|
Secondary | 733 (48.80) | 47.68 |
|
Tertiary or above | 451 (30.03) | 37.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
Full-time | 548 (36.48) | 47.49 |
|
Part-time | 135 (8.99) | 8.77 |
|
Self-employed | 38 (2.53) | 3.09 |
|
Unemployed | 781 (52.00) | 40.66 |
|
|
|
|
|
≤9999 | 302 (23.65) | 17.25 |
|
10,000-19,999 | 269 (21.06) | 19.51 |
|
20,000-29,999 | 214 (16.76) | 18.31 |
|
30,000-39,999 | 172 (13.47) | 15.18 |
|
40,000-59,999 | 168 (13.16) | 15.48 |
|
≥60,000 | 152 (11.90) | 14.27 |
a Missing (unweighted=2, weighted=2).
b Missing (unweighted=3, weighted=2).
c Missing (unweighted=225, weighted=202).
The most frequent means of communication was through face-to-face (94.85%, 1408/1484) followed by telephone (78.08%, 1159/1484) and IM (53.64%, 796/1484) (
Prevalence (weighted) of different methods to communicate with family (N=1484).
Means of communication | Prevalence, n (%) | |||
|
Very often | Sometimes | Seldom | Never |
Face-to-face | 1199 (80.77) | 209 (14.08) | 64 (4.30) | 13 (0.85) |
Mobile phone/phone | 637 (42.91) | 522 (35.18) | 219 (14.74) | 107 (7.18) |
Instant messaging instruments (eg, WhatsApp, WeChat [WeiXin], LINE) | 458 (30.84) | 338 (22.80) | 183 (12.31) | 505 (34.05) |
Social media sites (eg, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, WeiBo) | 95 (6.43) | 166 (11.17) | 338 (22.75) | 885 (59.65) |
53 (3.59) | 145 (9.80) | 348 (23.44) | 938 (63.18) |
Compared with males, females used IM more frequently (AOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.19-2.03) (
Associations of sociodemographic characteristics and use of different methods to communicate with family.a
Demographics | Face-to-face | Phone | Instant messaging | Social media sites | |||||||
|
AOR (95% CI) |
|
AOR (95% CI) |
|
AOR (95% CI) |
|
AOR (95% CI) |
|
AOR (95% CI) |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Male | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
|
Female | 0.68 (0.39, 1.20) | .19 | 1.29 (0.96, 1.73) | .10 | 1.56 (1.19, 2.03) | .001 | 1.11 (0.81, 1.51) | .52 | 1.28 (0.88, 1.87) | .19 |
|
|
.02b |
|
.001b |
|
<.001b |
|
<.001b |
|
.03b | |
|
18-24 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
|
25-34 | 1.50 (0.45, 5.02) | .51 | 0.89 (0.46, 1.71) | .73 | 0.65 (0.39, 1.10) | .11 | 1.50 (0.84, 2.68) | .17 | 1.42 (0.49, 4.13) | .52 |
|
35-44 | 1.26 (0.34, 4.64) | .73 | 0.48 (0.24, 0.96) | .04 | 0.61 (0.34, 1.08) | .09 | 0.98 (0.51, 1.88) | .94 | 1.51 (0.49, 4.69) | .48 |
|
45-54 | 0.73 (0.20, 2.70) | .64 | 0.42 (0.21, 0.87) | .02 | 0.39 (0.21, 0.71) | .002 | 0.66 (0.33, 1.35) | .26 | 2.81 (0.91, 8.66) | .07 |
|
55-64 | 0.61 (0.16, 2.29) | .46 | 0.32 (0.15, 0.67) | .003 | 0.28 (0.15, 0.53) | <.001 | 0.62 (0.29, 1.32) | .21 | 3.83 (1.21, 12.09) | .02 |
|
≥65 | 0.44 (0.11, 1.71) | .24 | 0.30 (0.14, 0.65) | .002 | 0.09 (0.04, 0.18) | <.001 | 0.29 (0.12, 0.73) | .009 | 1.74 (0.49, 6.12) | .39 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
Single | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
|
Married/cohabitating | 2.83 (1.17, 6.86) | .02 | 1.68 (1.05, 2.68) | .03 | 1.94 (1.28, 2.93) | .002 | 1.03 (0.66, 1.61) | .90 | 3.52 (1.86, 6.65) | <.001 |
|
Others | 0.93 (0.32, 2.68) | .90 | 2.28 (1.08, 4.83) | .03 | 1.38 (0.67, 2.82) | .38 | 0.63 (0.23, 1.70) | .36 | 2.24 (0.75, 6.67) | .15 |
|
|
.005b |
|
.03b |
|
<.001b |
|
.43b |
|
<.001b | |
|
Primary or below | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
|
Secondary | 3.54 (1.80, 6.97) | <.001 | 2.04 (1.35, 3.09) | .001 | 3.03 (1.90, 4.84) | <.001 | 1.60 (0.84, 3.04) | .15 | 1.78 (0.89, 3.57) | .11 |
|
Tertiary or above | 3.21 (1.32, 7.78) | .01 | 1.84 (1.12, 3.04) | .02 | 3.39 (2.00, 5.77) | <.001 | 1.12 (0.55, 2.27) | .76 | 4.52 (2.12, 9.66) | <.001 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
Full-time | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
|
Part-time | 1.00 (0.36, 2.81) | .99 | 0.73 (0.43, 1.26) | .26 | 0.88 (0.55, 1.42) | .60 | 0.86 (0.47, 1.57) | .63 | 1.02 (0.52, 2.03) | .95 |
|
Self-employed | 0.71 (0.13, 4.06) | .70 | 0.71 (0.34, 1.52) | .38 | 0.98 (0.48, 2.00) | .95 | 1.07 (0.48, 2.39) | .88 | 1.04 (0.45, 2.41) | .93 |
|
Unemployed | 0.96 (0.46, 2.03) | .92 | 0.82 (0.56, 1.21) | .32 | 0.79 (0.57, 1.11) | .18 | 0.94 (0.63, 1.41) | .76 | 0.87 (0.55, 1.39) | .57 |
|
|
.53b |
|
.38b |
|
<.001b |
|
.02b |
|
.001b | |
|
≤9999 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
|
10,000-19,999 | 1.24 (0.58, 2.67) | .58 | 1.24 (0.77, 2.01) | .38 | 1.28 (0.80, 2.03) | .31 | 0.86 (0.46, 1.61) | .64 | 1.83 (0.85, 3.95) | .12 |
|
20,000-29,999 | 2.13 (0.79, 5.75) | .14 | 0.67 (0.41, 1.10) | .11 | 1.48 (0.91, 2.40) | .11 | 0.95 (0.50, 1.80) | .89 | 1.76 (0.79, 3.91) | .16 |
|
30,000-39,999 | 2.61 (0.82, 8.32) | .10 | 0.94 (0.55, 1.62) | .82 | 2.29 (1.37, 3.82) | .002 | 1.14 (0.59, 2.19) | .70 | 1.81 (0.80, 4.13) | .16 |
|
40,000-59,999 | 0.85 (0.33, 2.14) | .73 | 1.31 (0.74, 2.32) | .36 | 2.84 (1.68, 4.81) | <.001 | 1.64 (0.86, 3.13) | .13 | 2.71 (1.22, 5.99) | .01 |
|
≥60,000 | 2.68 (0.67, 10.60) | .16 | 1.43 (0.77, 2.68) | .26 | 3.63 (2.05, 6.40) | <.001 | 1.39 (0.70, 2.76) | .35 | 2.94 (1.31, 6.59) | .009 |
aAll variables were mutually adjusted. Frequency of use of communication methods was dichotomized as “very often/sometimes” and “seldom/never.”
b
Frequent use of face-to-face communication was strongly associated with perceived family harmony (AOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45-1.19), family happiness (AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.22-0.96), family health (AOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.16-0.91), and overall family well-being (AOR 0.65, 95% CI 0.33-0.97) (
Association between family 3Hs and the use of different methods to communicate with family.a
Means of communication | Family harmony | Family happiness | Family health | Family well-being | |||||
|
Mean (SD) | Beta (95% CI)b | Mean (SD) | Beta (95% CI)b | Mean (SD) | Beta (95% CI)b | Mean (SD) | Beta (95% CI)b | |
|
|
||||||||
|
Seldom/never | 7.04 (2.31) | 0 | 6.76 (2.32) | 0 | 6.87 (2.17) | 0 | 6.89 (2.01) | 0 |
|
Always/sometimes | 7.78 (1.48) | 0.82 (0.45, 1.19)e | 7.39 (1.52) | 0.59 (0.22, 0.96)d | 7.39 (1.50) | 0.54 (0.16, 0.91)d | 7.52 (1.29) | 0.65 (0.33, 0.97)e |
|
|
||||||||
|
Seldom/never | 7.58 (1.77) | 0 | 7.08 (1.92) | 0 | 7.27 (1.72) | 0 | 7.32 (1.55) | 0 |
|
Always/sometimes | 7.78 (1.46) | 0.22 (0.02, 0.43)c | 7.44 (1.45) | 0.36 (0.15, 0.56)d | 7.39 (1.49) | 0.06 (–0.14, 0.27) | 7.54 (1.27) | 0.20 (0.02, 0.38)c |
|
|
||||||||
|
Seldom/never | 7.70 (1.55) | 0 | 7.32 (1.61) | 0 | 7.37 (1.56) | 0 | 7.47 (1.36) | 0 |
|
Always/sometimes | 7.98 (1.40) | 0.14 (–0.10, 0.39) | 7.62 (1.31) | 0.11 (–0.15, 0.36) | 7.35 (1.39) | –0.20 (–0.45, 0.05) | 7.66 (1.18) | 0.02 (–0.20, 0.23) |
|
|||||||||
|
Seldom/never | 7.70 (1.67) | 0 | 7.28 (1.76) | 0 | 7.29 (1.66) | 0 | 7.43 (1.46) | 0 |
|
Always/sometimes | 7.77 (1.41) | 0.01 (–0.17, 0.19) | 7.43 (1.39) | 0.06 (–0.13, 0.24) | 7.43 (1.43) | –0.01 (–0.19, 0.17) | 7.55 (1.22) | 0.02 (–0.14, 0.17) |
|
|||||||||
|
Seldom/never | 7.72 (1.57) | 0 | 7.36 (1.62) | 0 | 7.37 (1.57) | 0 | 7.49 (1.38) | 0 |
|
Always/sometimes | 7.80 (1.35) | 0.17 (–0.05, 0.38) | 7.35 (1.32) | 0.03 (–0.19, 0.24) | 7.38 (1.36) | 0.00 (–0.22, 0.21) | 7.52 (1.11) | 0.07 (–0.11, 0.26) |
aFrequencies of use of communication methods were dichotomized as “very often/sometimes” and “seldom/never;” Family 3Hs ranged from 0 (totally unhealthy/unhappy/inharmonious) to 10 (very healthy/happy/harmonious), with 5 indicating “half-half.”
b Adjusting for sex, age, education attainment, monthly household income, and marital status.
c
d
e
Although research on the interplay between technological advancements and family functioning are needed [
Overall, the findings are consistent with studies elsewhere [
Of significance is that traditional methods of communication (face-to-face and phone) were strongly associated with higher levels of perceived family well-being. This finding is especially important given that recent studies suggested a transformative trend toward more frequent use of ICTs than traditional methods of communication, particularly in the younger age group [
Given the importance of face-to-face communication, our findings support the notion that ICTs should not replace traditional methods of communication, but rather should be utilized as a supplement. Studies also found when ICTs were used as a substitute, the effects on interpersonal relationships were negative [
One of the limitations of this study is the broad categories used in assessing the different mediums of communication. For example, we did not differentiate between fixed-line residential phone and mobile phone. We also did not incorporate videoconference services, such as Skype and Jaber, which at the time were seldom used. Another limitation is that we did not assess the geographical distance between family members, which can have an influence on the choice of communication methods [
This study suggests several avenues for future research. The quality of communication has rarely been measured [
Although traditional methods remained as the main platform for communication within the family and were associated with better family well-being, a notable proportion were using new ICT methods (ie, IM, social media sites, and email). Socioeconomic disparities in using these ICT methods for family communication were observed. Because ICTs will continue to diversify modes of family communication, more research is needed to understand the impact of ICTs on family communication and well-being.
perceived family harmony, happiness, and health
adjusted odds ratio
Family and Health Information Trend
information and communication technologies
instant messaging
The project was funded by the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust. We would like to thank the participants who participated in the telephone surveys and Public Opinion Programme (HKU) for conducting the surveys.
None declared.