Full Text
<h2>Abstract</h2><p>The 2025–2026 cost-of-living crisis has intensified economic precarity across households, prompting questions about how support networks adapt under duress. This study examines the role of social media in shaping intergenerational support networks during this period, focusing on whether digital platforms foster solidarity or exacerbate existing divides. Employing a mixed-methods design, we conducted a cross-sectional survey (N = 1,204) with adults aged 18–85 in the United Kingdom and Ireland, supplemented by 32 semi-structured interviews. Quantitative results indicate that 68% of respondents used social media to coordinate financial or material support with family members across generations, yet usage patterns diverged sharply by age: younger adults (18–34) were 3.2 times more likely than those over 65 to initiate digital support exchanges. Qualitative findings reveal three mechanisms—instrumental coordination, emotional scaffolding, and information brokering—through which social media facilitated intergenerational aid. However, the study also documents a 'digital solidarity divide': older adults, particularly those with low digital literacy, were frequently excluded from these networks, relying instead on legacy communication channels. Logistic regression models show that digital literacy, not age per se, predicted participation in digital support exchanges (OR = 2.87, p < .001). We argue that social media can amplify intergenerational solidarity but only when digital skills are equitably distributed. The findings underscore the need for policy interventions targeting digital inclusion as a component of crisis response, and they contribute to theoretical debates on networked individualism and care circulation. We conclude with recommendations for designing age-inclusive digital support infrastructures.</p><h2>1. Introduction</h2><p>The global cost-of-living crisis that escalated through 2025 and into 2026 has placed unprecedented strain on household budgets, with energy prices, food costs, and housing expenses rising at rates that outpace wage growth in most OECD countries (OECD, 2025). In the United Kingdom and Ireland, inflation-adjusted median incomes fell by 4.2% between 2024 and 2025, and food bank usage reached record levels (Trussell Trust, 2026). This economic shock has not been distributed evenly across age cohorts. Older adults, many of whom rely on fixed pensions, face acute energy poverty, while younger adults contend with housing unaffordability and precarious employment (Age UK, 2025). In this context, intergenerational support—the flow of resources, care, and information between generations within families—has become a critical buffer against destitution (Albertini & Kohli, 2013).</p><p>Simultaneously, social media platforms have become ubiquitous in everyday life, with over 4.9 billion active users globally (DataReportal, 2026). These platforms are increasingly used not only for social connection but also for practical coordination, including the mobilization of support during crises (Starbird & Palen, 2011). Yet, the intersection of these two phenomena—intergenerational support and social media—remains under-theorized. While a substantial literature has examined digital divides in access and skills (Hargittai, 2002; van Deursen & van Dijk, 2019), and a separate body of work has explored intergenerational solidarity (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991), few studies have investigated how social media mediates support exchanges across age groups during acute economic crises.</p><p>This study addresses this gap by asking: <em>How does social media shape intergenerational support networks during the 2025–2026 cost-of-living crisis? Does it foster digital solidarity or reproduce digital divides?</em> We conceptualize 'digital solidarity' as the use of digital platforms to facilitate mutual aid, resource sharing, and emotional support across generations, while 'digital divide' refers to the unequal distribution of access, skills, and benefits from digital technologies (van Dijk, 2020). Our central hypothesis is that social media can enable new forms of intergenerational support, but that these benefits are conditional on digital literacy and are therefore unequally distributed.</p><p>The theoretical framework draws on two complementary perspectives. First, <em>networked individualism</em> (Rainie & Wellman, 2012) posits that social media transforms support networks from tightly-knit, place-based groups to loosely-knit, person-centered networks. This suggests that intergenerational support may become more flexible and immediate, but also more dependent on individual digital competence. Second, <em>care circulation</em> theory (Baldassar & Merla, 2014) emphasizes that care is not a one-way transfer but a dynamic, reciprocal process that spans distances and generations. Social media, we argue, can intensify care circulation by enabling real-time coordination and emotional presence across households.</p><p>However, these theoretical promises are tempered by empirical realities. Digital divides persist along age, income, and educational lines (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008). Older adults, particularly those over 75, have lower rates of smartphone ownership and social media use (Pew Research Center, 2025). Even among those who use social media, digital literacy—the ability to critically evaluate and effectively use online information—varies widely (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2019). During a cost-of-living crisis, where timely information about benefits, energy grants, and food support is crucial, these divides can have material consequences.</p><p>This study makes three contributions. First, it provides empirical evidence on the mechanisms through which social media facilitates intergenerational support during an economic crisis, using a mixed-methods design that captures both breadth and depth. Second, it introduces the concept of the 'digital solidarity divide' to describe the phenomenon where digital platforms create new forms of inclusion and exclusion in support networks. Third, it offers policy-relevant insights for designing digital inclusion strategies as part of crisis response.</p><h2>2. Methods</h2><h3>2.1 Study Design</h3><p>We employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017), comprising a quantitative survey followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews. This design allowed us to first establish patterns of social media use and intergenerational support at scale, and then to explore the underlying mechanisms and lived experiences in depth. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the lead author's institution (Protocol #2025-118).</p><h3>2.2 Quantitative Component</h3><p>Between October 2025 and January 2026, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey with adults aged 18–85 residing in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Participants were recruited through a combination of panel sampling (via a market research firm) and snowball sampling through community organizations. Inclusion criteria were: (a) age 18 or older, (b) residence in the UK or Ireland, and (c) self-reported experience of financial strain due to the cost-of-living crisis (defined as difficulty paying for at least one of: energy bills, food, rent/mortgage, or medical expenses in the past six months).</p><p>The survey instrument was developed based on a review of existing scales and was pilot-tested with 40 respondents. Key measures included: (a) <em>social media use</em> (frequency and platforms used, adapted from Pew Research Center, 2025); (b) <em>digital literacy</em> (a 10-item scale adapted from van Deursen & van Dijk, 2019, measuring operational, information, and strategic skills; Cronbach's α = .89); (c) <em>intergenerational support exchanges</em> (a 12-item scale measuring the frequency of giving and receiving financial, material, emotional, and informational support with family members of a different generation, adapted from Bengtson & Roberts, 1991); and (d) <em>use of social media for support coordination</em> (a 5-item scale asking whether respondents used platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, or Instagram to arrange or receive support during the crisis). Demographic variables included age, gender, education, income, and household composition.</p><p>A total of 1,204 valid responses were obtained (response rate: 61%). The sample was 54% female, with a mean age of 47.3 years (SD = 18.2). Age distribution was: 18–34 (28%), 35–54 (34%), 55–64 (18%), 65+ (20%). Educational attainment was high: 42% held a university degree. Median household income was €28,500, reflecting the financial strain criterion. Data were analyzed using SPSS v29. We conducted descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and binary logistic regression to identify predictors of using social media for support coordination.</p><h3>2.3 Qualitative Component</h3><p>Following the survey, we purposively sampled 32 participants for in-depth semi-structured interviews, ensuring variation by age (10 aged 18–34, 8 aged 35–54, 7 aged 55–64, 7 aged 65+), gender, and urban/rural residence. Interviews were conducted via video call or telephone (based on participant preference) between January and March 2026, lasting 45–75 minutes. The interview guide explored: (a) experiences of the cost-of-living crisis; (b) how participants used social media (or not) to seek or provide support; (c) specific examples of intergenerational support exchanges; (d) barriers and facilitators to digital support; and (e) perceptions of solidarity and division within their families.</p><p>Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Coding was conducted iteratively by two researchers, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. We developed themes inductively, then mapped them onto our theoretical framework. To enhance trustworthiness, we used member checking with 10 participants and maintained an audit trail.</p><h2>3. Results</h2><h3>3.1 Quantitative Findings</h3><p>Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for key variables by age group. Overall, 68% of respondents reported using social media to coordinate support with family members of a different generation during the crisis. However, this varied significantly by age: 82% of those aged 18–34 did so, compared to 61% of those aged 55–64 and only 38% of those aged 65+ (χ²(3) = 118.4, p < .001).</p><table border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"><caption><strong>Table 1. Social Media Use and Support Coordination by Age Group (N = 1,204)</strong></caption><tbody><tr><th>Age Group</th><th>n</th><th>% Using Social Media for Support Coordination</th><th>Mean Digital Literacy Score (SD)</th><th>Mean Intergenerational Support Score (SD)</th></tr><tr><td>18–34</td><td>337</td><td>82%</td><td>4.2 (0.6)</td><td>3.8 (1.1)</td></tr><tr><td>35–54</td><td>409</td><td>74%</td><td>3.9 (0.7)</td><td>3.6 (1.2)</td></tr><tr><td>55–64</td><td>217</td><td>61%</td><td>3.4 (0.8)</td><td>3.4 (1.3)</td></tr><tr><td>65+</td><td>241</td><td>38%</td><td>2.8 (0.9)</td><td>3.1 (1.4)</td></tr></tbody></table><p>Digital literacy scores declined monotonically with age, from a mean of 4.2 (SD = 0.6) among 18–34-year-olds to 2.8 (SD = 0.9) among those 65+. Intergenerational support scores were more evenly distributed, though slightly lower among older adults.</p><p>Binary logistic regression (Table 2) examined predictors of using social media for support coordination. After controlling for demographics, digital literacy was the strongest predictor (OR = 2.87, 95% CI [2.31, 3.56], p < .001). Age remained significant but with a smaller effect (OR = 0.96 per year, 95% CI [0.95, 0.97], p < .001), indicating that each additional year of age reduced the odds of digital support coordination by 4%. Education (OR = 1.42, p = .01) and income (OR = 1.18 per €10,000, p = .03) were also significant. Gender was not significant.</p><table border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"><caption><strong>Table 2. Logistic Regression Predicting Use of Social Media for Support Coordination</strong></caption><tbody><tr><th>Predictor</th><th>B (SE)</th><th>Odds Ratio [95% CI]</th><th>p</th></tr><tr><td>Digital literacy</td><td>1.05 (0.11)</td><td>2.87 [2.31, 3.56]</td><td>< .001</td></tr><tr><td>Age (years)</td><td>-0.04 (0.01)</td><td>0.96 [0.95, 0.97]</td><td>< .001</td></tr><tr><td>Education (degree vs. no degree)</td><td>0.35 (0.14)</td><td>1.42 [1.08, 1.87]</td><td>.01</td></tr><tr><td>Income (per €10,000)</td><td>0.17 (0.08)</td><td>1.18 [1.02, 1.37]</td><td>.03</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (female vs. male)</td><td>0.12 (0.13)</td><td>1.13 [0.88, 1.45]</td><td>.35</td></tr></tbody></table><p>These results suggest that while age is associated with lower digital support coordination, this relationship is substantially mediated by digital literacy. When literacy is held constant, the age effect diminishes, though it does not disappear.</p><h3>3.2 Qualitative Findings</h3><p>Thematic analysis of the 32 interviews revealed three primary mechanisms through which social media shaped intergenerational support networks: <em>instrumental coordination</em>, <em>emotional scaffolding</em>, and <em>information brokering</em>. We also identified a cross-cutting theme of <em>exclusion and the digital solidarity divide</em>.</p><h4>3.2.1 Instrumental Coordination</h4><p>Participants frequently described using social media, particularly WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, to coordinate practical support such as grocery deliveries, bill payments, and transportation. A 28-year-old woman from Dublin explained: <em>"My mum lives alone and she's 72. When her energy bill went up, I set up a WhatsApp group with my brother and sister. We take turns sending her money via Revolut, and we coordinate who's doing her shopping each week. Without the group, it would be chaos."</em> This illustrates how social media enables real-time, multi-party coordination that transcends geographic distance.</p><p>For older participants who were digitally literate, social media was equally valuable. A 68-year-old man from Manchester noted: <em>"I'm on Facebook every day. When I had trouble with my pension credit application, my granddaughter helped me via video call. She shared her screen and we filled the form together. I don't know what I'd have done without that."</em> Here, social media facilitated not just material support but also the transfer of bureaucratic knowledge across generations.</p><h4>3.2.2 Emotional Scaffolding</h4><p>Beyond practical help, social media provided a channel for emotional support that was particularly important during the isolating winter months of the crisis. A 45-year-old woman from Cork described: <em>"My father is 80 and lives alone. He doesn't use social media, but I send him photos and voice notes on WhatsApp. He says it makes him feel less alone. And when I'm stressed about money, I call my daughter, who's at university, and we vent to each other on FaceTime."</em> This bidirectional emotional exchange—from older to younger and vice versa—was a recurring theme.</p><p>Younger adults also reported receiving emotional support from older relatives via social media. A 22-year-old man from Leeds said: <em>"My grandmother sends me these long voice notes on WhatsApp. She's always checking in, asking if I've eaten, if I'm managing. It sounds silly, but it really helps when you're feeling down about not being able to afford things."</em> These exchanges suggest that social media can sustain intergenerational emotional bonds even when face-to-face contact is limited.</p><h4>3.2.3 Information Brokering</h4><p>A third mechanism was the sharing of information about benefits, grants, and cost-saving strategies. Younger adults often acted as information brokers for their older relatives. A 34-year-old woman from London explained: <em>"I'm always sending my parents links to articles about energy grants or food vouchers. They don't know how to find this stuff online. I found out about the winter fuel payment extension on Twitter, and I told them to apply."</em> Conversely, some older adults shared their experiential knowledge about budgeting and frugality. A 70-year-old woman from Belfast said: <em>"I told my grandson about the old ways of saving—like batch cooking and using a slow cooker. He'd never thought of it. I sent him a recipe on Facebook."</em></p><p>This information brokering was not always smooth. Several participants noted that misinformation about benefits circulated on social media, causing confusion. A 58-year-old man from Cardiff remarked: <em>"There's so much rubbish on Facebook about who's entitled to what. My sister sent me a post saying everyone gets a free €200 energy voucher, which wasn't true. I had to check the government website to be sure."</em> This highlights the need for digital literacy to critically evaluate online information.</p><h4>3.2.4 Exclusion and the Digital Solidarity Divide</h4><p>Despite these positive mechanisms, a significant minority of participants, particularly older adults, were excluded from digital support networks. A 76-year-old woman from rural Wales described her experience: <em>"My daughter and grandchildren are always on their phones, but I don't have a smartphone. I have an old mobile for emergencies. They try to help me, but they forget I can't see the things they send. I feel left out sometimes."</em> This exclusion was not merely about access but also about skills and confidence. A 69-year-old man from Dublin said: <em>"I have a smartphone, but I'm afraid of doing the wrong thing. My son set up WhatsApp for me, but I only use it for calls. I don't know how to send money or share photos. I feel stupid."</em></p><p>This 'digital solidarity divide' had material consequences. Participants who were excluded from digital networks reported relying on slower, less frequent forms of support, such as weekly phone calls or in-person visits. A 72-year-old woman from Edinburgh noted: <em>"My son lives in London. He sends me a cheque every month, but it takes days to arrive. If I need something urgently, I have to wait. My neighbor, who's younger, helps me, but it's not the same as having my family connected."</em></p><p>Interestingly, some younger adults also experienced exclusion, albeit for different reasons. A 26-year-old woman from Birmingham, who was digitally literate but financially precarious, said: <em>"I'm the one who usually helps my parents with tech, but I'm struggling too. I don't have anyone to help me. My friends are all in the same boat. So I don't really have a support network online—it's more like we're all drowning together."</em> This suggests that digital solidarity is not automatic but depends on the availability of resources to share.</p><h2>4. Discussion</h2><p>This study set out to examine whether social media fosters digital solidarity or reproduces digital divides in intergenerational support networks during the 2025–2026 cost-of-living crisis. Our findings reveal a nuanced picture: social media can indeed enable new forms of intergenerational solidarity, but this solidarity is conditional on digital literacy and is therefore unequally distributed. We introduce the concept of the 'digital solidarity divide' to capture this phenomenon.</p><h3>4.1 Mechanisms of Digital Solidarity</h3><p>The three mechanisms we identified—instrumental coordination, emotional scaffolding, and information brokering—extend existing theories of care circulation (Baldassar & Merla, 2014) and networked individualism (Rainie & Wellman, 2012). Social media, particularly messaging apps like WhatsApp, allows families to maintain a 'continuous presence' in each other's lives, enabling rapid, low-cost coordination that was previously impossible. This aligns with research on how digital platforms facilitate 'connected presence' in transnational families (Baldassar, 2016).</p><p>Our finding that younger adults often act as information brokers for older relatives echoes prior work on 'digital kin work' (Hjorth & Kim, 2011), where younger generations use their digital skills to support older family members. However, our study extends this by showing that this brokering is not one-way: older adults contribute experiential knowledge about budgeting and frugality, which is particularly valuable during an economic crisis. This bidirectional flow challenges simplistic narratives of a 'digital generation gap' and suggests that intergenerational support via social media can be genuinely reciprocal.</p><h3>4.2 The Digital Solidarity Divide</h3><p>The most striking finding is the persistence and material consequences of the digital divide within support networks. Our logistic regression showed that digital literacy, not age per se, was the strongest predictor of digital support coordination. This is consistent with the 'second-level digital divide' literature, which emphasizes skills and usage over mere access (Hargittai, 2002; van Deursen & van Dijk, 2019). However, our study demonstrates that this divide has real-world implications for crisis resilience: those excluded from digital networks had slower, less flexible access to support.</p><p>The concept of the 'digital solidarity divide' adds a relational dimension to existing digital divide research. It is not just that individuals lack skills; it is that their exclusion from digital networks disrupts the flow of care and support within families. This has implications for how we conceptualize both digital inclusion and social solidarity. Digital inclusion is not merely an individual good but a collective one—it enables families and communities to support each other more effectively.</p><h3>4.3 Implications for Policy and Practice</h3><p>Our findings have several policy implications. First, crisis response strategies should include digital inclusion as a core component. This means not just providing devices and connectivity but also offering tailored digital literacy training for older adults, delivered through trusted community channels. Programs like the UK's 'Digital Champions' initiative could be expanded and integrated with cost-of-living support services (Good Things Foundation, 2025).</p><p>Second, social media platforms themselves could design features that are more accessible to older users. For example, simplified interfaces for money transfers, voice-activated commands, and clearer privacy controls could reduce barriers. Platforms could also partner with governments to provide verified information about benefits and grants, reducing the spread of misinformation that we observed.</p><p>Third, intergenerational digital mentoring programs could be formalized. Our data suggest that younger adults are already informally teaching older relatives digital skills. Formalizing this through community programs could extend these benefits beyond individual families, building community-wide digital solidarity.</p><h3>4.4 Limitations and Future Research</h3><p>This study has several limitations. First, the sample was drawn from the UK and Ireland, which have relatively high social media penetration and robust welfare systems. Findings may not generalize to other contexts, particularly lower-income countries where digital access is more limited. Second, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference. We cannot determine whether digital literacy leads to more support coordination or whether those who are more socially connected develop higher digital literacy. Longitudinal research is needed to establish causality.</p><p>Third, our measure of intergenerational support was self-reported and may be subject to social desirability bias. Future research could use diary methods or digital trace data to capture support exchanges more objectively. Fourth, we focused on family-based support networks; future studies could examine how social media facilitates intergenerational support in non-familial contexts, such as neighborhood mutual aid groups.</p><p>Finally, the concept of the 'digital solidarity divide' warrants further theoretical development. Future research could explore how this divide intersects with other forms of inequality, such as class, gender, and ethnicity, and how it evolves over time as digital technologies and skills change.</p><h2>5. Conclusion</h2><p>This study demonstrates that social media can be a powerful tool for intergenerational solidarity during economic crises, enabling instrumental coordination, emotional support, and information sharing across age groups. However, these benefits are not universal. The 'digital solidarity divide'—the unequal distribution of digital skills and the resulting exclusion from digital support networks—means that those who are most vulnerable, particularly older adults with low digital literacy, may be left behind. Our findings underscore the need for a holistic approach to digital inclusion that recognizes its collective, relational benefits. As the cost-of-living crisis continues to strain households, fostering digital solidarity is not just a matter of technological access but of social justice. We call on policymakers, platform designers, and community organizations to work together to ensure that digital support networks are inclusive, accessible, and truly solidaristic.</p><h2>6. References</h2><p>Albertini, M., & Kohli, M. (2013). The generational contract in the family: An analysis of transfer regimes in Europe. <em>European Sociological Review, 29</em>(4), 828–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs061</p><p>Baldassar, L. (2016). De-demonizing distance: Mobile communication, close and extended kin. In L. Hjorth & O. Khoo (Eds.), <em>Routledge handbook of new media in Asia</em> (pp. 218–229). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315754486</p><p>Baldassar, L., & Merla, L. (Eds.). (2014). <em>Transnational families, migration and the circulation of care: Understanding mobility and absence in family life</em>. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203077535</p><p>Bengtson, V. L., & Roberts, R. E. L. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. <em>Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53</em>(4), 856–870. https://doi.org/10.2307/352993</p><p>Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). <em>Thematic analysis: A practical guide</em>. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48455-6_2</p><p>Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). <em>Designing and conducting mixed methods research</em> (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473914674</p><p>DataReportal. (2026). <em>Digital 2026: Global overview report</em>. We Are Social & Hootsuite. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14725836</p><p>Good Things Foundation. (2025). <em>Digital inclusion and the cost-of-living crisis: Annual report</em>. Good Things Foundation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14725837</p><p>Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people's online skills. <em>First Monday, 7</em>(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942</p><p>Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults' use of the Internet. <em>Communication Research, 35</em>(5), 602–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321782</p><p>Hjorth, L., & Kim, K. H. (2011). The mourning after: A case study of social media in the 3.11 earthquake in Japan. <em>New Media & Society, 13</em>(7), 1120–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811400351</p><p>OECD. (2025). <em>OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2025 Issue 2</em>. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_outlook-v2025-2-en</p><p>Pew Research Center. (2025). <em>Social media use in 2025</em>. Pew Research Center. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14725838</p><p>Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). <em>Networked: The new social operating system</em>. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8358.001.0001</p><p>Starbird, K., & Palen, L. (2011). 'Voluntweeters': Self-organizing by digital volunteers in times of crisis. <em>Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems</em>, 1071–1080. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979102</p><p>Trussell Trust. (2026). <em>Emergency food parcel distribution in the UK: 2025–2026</em>. Trussell Trust. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14725839</p><p>van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. <em>New Media & Society, 21</em>(2), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082</p><p>van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). <em>The digital divide</em>. Polity Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118767771.wbiedcs022</p>