Navigating,Selecting,and Engaging: A Multi-Method Study of Social Media Information Use Practices Among Older Adults

Abstract

Older adults—individuals aged 60 and above—are increasingly integrating social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram into their everyday information repertoires. Yet, little is known about how they actually interact with information encountered on these platforms. To address this gap, the present study examines which navigation, selection, and engagement practices are prevalent among older adults when using social media for information. We employed a within-method triangulated qualitative design that combined stimulus-based observations with self-confrontation and semi-structured interviews. Specifically, we recruited n = 41 German social media users aged 60 and above, who were observed interacting with a personalized social media feed and subsequently reflected on their behavior. Our findings reveal a diverse range of information practices: while some mirror those observed among younger adults—such as information snacking—others differ notably, including a general tendency toward passivity. We discuss how these practices are shaped by older adults’ media socialization, thus offering broader implications for research at the intersection of digital technology and aging. Our study enriches the conceptual vocabulary for describing (older) adults’ social media practices and highlights a methodological approach well suited to studying usage behavior in personalized media environments.

Keywords

information use news use observation older adults self-confrontation interviews social media

Introduction

Older adults are increasingly incorporating social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram into their everyday information repertoires (Kakulla, 2024; Tippelt, 2025). In response, researchers have begun investigating this demographic’s social media use (e.g., Yachin & Nimrod, 2021; Zhao et al., 2023). While existing studies offer valuable insights into adoption and general usage motives, more fine-grained insights into older adults’ interaction with social media remain anecdotal or secondary. Consequently, we know relatively little about what older adults actually do on these platforms—that is, their information use practices.

This gap in understanding is problematic given that social media—defined as disentrained, persistent channels of masspersonal communication (Carr & Hayes, 2015)—constitute unique environments where information use is more personalized and dynamic than in traditional media environments. Affordances such as algorithmic curation or the social embeddedness of information (Kümpel, 2022) enable a range of interactions with a single piece of information. These information usage practices, in turn, shape how older adults process the information they encounter (e.g., Wieland & Kleinen-von Königslöw, 2020). Hence, a binary lens of use versus non-use is insufficient.

To achieve a more profound understanding of older adults’ usage practices, one cannot simply infer from findings from younger populations, which have been the focus of the vast majority of existing research. Following Bolin and Skogerbø (2013), it can be argued that individuals belong to media generations shaped by shared media experiences and socialization which influence how individuals perceive and interact with media—including those they only begin to use later in life (Gumpert & Cathcart, 1985). Consequently, it can be assumed that older adults, as members of the “mass media generation” (Hepp et al., 2017) socialized with linear media such as radio, newspapers, and television, approach social media differently than “digital natives” (Hepp et al., 2017) who grew up with these information environments (see also Mitzner et al., 2010).

At the same time, we acknowledge that older adults are a heterogeneous group (Jaul & Barron, 2021) with varying relationships to digital technologies (Coelho, 2024; Selwyn et al., 2003). For instance, “young-olds” under the age of 70—who may still be working or have only recently retired—often possess more advanced digital literacy and, consequently, exhibit more diverse internet behaviors than those aged 70 and above (Hunsaker & Hargittai, 2018).

To uncover such nuances and achieve a fine-grained understanding of older adults’ social media practices, we depart from an audience-centered research approach that focuses on how they experience social media and what they do with the information encountered there (Costera Meijer, 2016; Swart et al., 2022). Specifically, we explore three key dimensions of information use practices and pose the following research question: what navigation, selection, and engagement practices are prevalent among older adults when using social media for information? In answering this question, we pay particular attention to the role of post-related cues such as the source or the topic of the post.

Employing an innovative, within-method triangulated qualitative design combining stimulus-based observations with self-confrontation and semi-structured interviews, we exposed 41 older German social media users (aged 60–89) to an individually personalized social media feed, observed their behavior, and jointly reflected on their practices. Our findings reveal that older adults exhibit diverse navigation, selection, and engagement practices—some mirroring those of younger users, others differing substantially. We discuss how these practices are shaped by media socialization, while also enriching the conceptual vocabulary for investigating older adults’ social media interactions.

Older Adults’ Information Use Practices on Social Media

As social media become more central in the lives of older adults, research into their usage has expanded. However, existing studies mainly focus on general usage motives, thereby implying a binary understanding of “use” versus “non-use” (Anter et al., 2025a). This reduction is problematic, as it prevents a holistic understanding of older adults’ actual internet practices and obscures insights into how age and aging are co-constructed in relation to technology (Wanka & Gallistl, 2018). Thus, we aim to provide a systematic assessment of older adults’ information use practices. In what follows, we define practices and introduce the key dimensions examined in this study, which together offer a comprehensive understanding of older adults’ platform behavior.

Practices of Social Media Information Use

Social media are unique information environments that differ from traditional media. Characteristics such as personalization and the non-linear, granular nature of information use shape how users access, engage with, and interpret content (Kümpel, 2022). In these personalized and dynamic environments, users interact with information in varied ways—from quickly scanning a feed at a bus stop to carefully reading a post at home. We understand practices as routinized activities of information use that result from an individual configuration of usage contexts and intentionality (Kümpel, 2020; Van Damme et al., 2015). Contexts may differ temporally (e.g., time of day), spatially (e.g., at home or on the go), and socially (e.g., alone or in public). Intentionality ranges from active information seeking to passive, incidental exposure. Practices also vary by content—users may engage differently with news than with posts related to their hobbies (Couldry, 2011). Crucially, such practices are shaped by media technologies and embedded in perceptions of platform and post characteristics (Kümpel, 2019b; Raetzsch & Lünenborg, 2020).

While information practices are diverse—for instance, also including curating feeds by following or blocking accounts (e.g., Merten, 2021)—we focus on three core dimensions conceptualized at a high level of abstraction to maintain analytical openness: feed navigation, content selection, and engagement (i.e., active interaction with content). These directly observable dimensions represent key stages of information use and offer a holistic view of older adults’ practices.

Navigation Practices

Navigation practices refer to users’ browsing behavior within the social media feed that precedes selecting or engaging with specific posts. These practices vary in rhythm—such as linear scrolling versus jumping back and forth—and in dwell time, ranging from brief encounters to extended reading sessions.

Among younger adults, navigation is often fast-paced and unintentional, driven by general interest without deep engagement (e.g., Bergström & Belfrage, 2018). In contrast, initial research suggests that older adults tend to navigate more calmly and deliberately. They often use social media to stay updated on family and friends (e.g., Caliandro et al., 2021) and may engage in monitoring (Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink, 2015)—following specific people or visiting profiles to stay updated. Given that they are generally less mobile (Ferrand et al., 2014), older users may access social media more often from home, contributing to “lengthier reading sessions” (Groot Kormelink, 2019: 61) marked by slow, linear scrolling. At the same time, a study on older internet users shows that they prefer online media for quick information seeking, while relying on traditional media such as newspapers or books when they want to explore topics more deeply (Quan-Haase et al., 2016).

Selection Practices

Selection practices refer to how users choose individual pieces of content while browsing social media (Groot Kormelink, 2019; Kümpel, 2019b). We define selection narrowly, excluding profile-level decisions (e.g., following or blocking) and focusing on the selection of individual posts.

Studies on younger users have identified various selection modes. At one end is scanning—superficial skimming, often under time constraints or limited interest (e.g., Lin et al., 2023). Scanning is encouraged by the granularity of social media, where short, apparently digestible posts dominate (Kümpel, 2022). At the other end is reading, marked by sustained attention and effortful processing (Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink, 2015; Lin et al., 2023). On platforms like Facebook, which allow for hyperlinking, clicking on external links may complement either mode (Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink, 2015). Research on older adults’ internet use indicates that they are highly selective when choosing specific pages and services (e.g., Berkowsky et al., 2017), suggesting that they may only occasionally transition from scanning to deliberate reading or clicking on posts.

Selection practices are also shaped by post characteristics. Expectably, topic relevance is central, with (older) users preferring content they find interesting or useful (e.g., Yachin & Nimrod, 2021; Zhao et al., 2023). Regarding the source, younger users often prefer trusted media brands in news contexts (e.g., Oeldorf-Hirsch & DeVoss, 2020). Since older adults’ social media use is often socially motivated (e.g., Quan-Haase et al., 2017; Yachin & Nimrod, 2021), they might attribute more attention to posts from friends and family. Likewise, they might be particularly receptive to content personally recommended by their social contacts, while research suggests they pay less attention to aggregated metrics such as the number of likes than younger adults (Peterson et al., 2026).

Finally, formal features such as visual and textual cues can affect selection. Research on younger adults shows that visually rich posts that include links or images are more likely to be selected (Vraga et al., 2016). For older adults in particular, health impairments may result in a preference for directly accessible (audio-)visual cues over small, potentially more cognitively demanding textual elements (Berkowsky & Czaja, 2018).

Engagement Practices

Engagement practices refer to visible interactions with content, such as liking, commenting, or sharing posts (Oeldorf-Hirsch, 2018). Research distinguishes between active use, marked by regular engagement, and passive use, where users scroll through feeds without visibly engaging (Godard & Holtzman, 2023). These modes often coexist: depending on the topic or its personal relevance, users may be active in one context and passive in another.

Earlier studies on older adults’ internet use show that they are often passive users, for instance, rarely commenting on content (Schehl et al., 2019). Likewise, many prefer a more reserved approach on social media, as these platforms are often perceived as unsafe or inappropriate for self-disclosure (e.g., Caliandro et al., 2021; Quan-Haase et al., 2017). However, some older adults actively share personal updates, for example, about their travels or hobbies, or comment on others’ posts (Coelho, 2024; for example, Zhao et al., 2023). Such engagement is often socially motivated, used to express appreciation and foster connection (e.g., Karaoglu et al., 2021).

These findings already indicate that engagement is also shaped by post-related cues. Not only might older adults be more likely to engage with posts from sources they know personally, but the topic might also be relevant. For instance, a study on older adults’ Facebook use shows that although they are mostly passive, they do comment on or share posts that they find personally interesting (Yachin & Nimrod, 2021).

As shown, existing studies provide initial insights into older adults’ information use on social media. However, a more integrated and in-depth perspective is lacking. To address this gap, we ask the following research question:

RQ: What navigation, selection, and engagement practices are prevalent among older adults when using social media for information?

We pay particular attention to the role of post-related cues—such as the source of the information, the person who shared it, and post characteristics like topic or popularity metrics—as prior research suggests these factors shape user behavior.

Method: Personalized Stimulus-Based Qualitative Observations With Self-Confrontation Interviews

This study follows an audience-centered approach that emphasizes everyday practices, perceptions, and experiences over normative expectations of media behavior (Swart et al., 2022).¹ Given the complex and contextual nature of practices, standardized surveys or conventional interviews that rely on retrospective, self-reported data would not have been sufficient. We therefore implemented a triangulated qualitative design, aimed at generating deeper insights into older adults’ information use practices on social media. It combined qualitative observations—using a personalized social media feed as a stimulus—with self-confrontation (Kümpel, 2019a; Schmid et al., 2023) and semi-structured interviews (for a detailed overview, see the Supplementary Material). While the semi-structured interviews primarily examined older adults’ perceptions and information use needs on social media and messenger apps—which are elaborated in the broader context of our research project—they also prompted discussions about participants’ practices on platforms such as Facebook or Instagram.

Design

Self-confrontation interviews originate in psychotherapy and action-oriented research (e.g., Bailey & Sowder, 1970) and encourage participants to reflect on their own behavior in response to recorded or observed activities (Lim, 2002). In our study, we used a personalized social media feed, created with the Mock Social Media Website Tool (Jagayat et al., 2021), tailored to participants’ expressed interests based on a prior screening survey (see below). The feed contained 30 posts in various formats (e.g., links, photos, videos), simulating a hybrid of Facebook and Instagram (see the Supplementary Material for an example). Participants were asked to scroll through the feed and interact with it as they normally would. Researchers observed and documented their behavior in the feed (e.g., scrolling, clicking, commenting), using a structured observation protocol with predefined categories and fields for open-ended notes. These observations served as entry points for immediate self-confrontation interviews, prompting participants to reflect on their moment-to-moment reactions and decision-making processes. The self-confrontation element was embedded within a broader semi-structured interview, which also included questions on general patterns of social media information use and engagement.

Informed consent and scheduling information were obtained through the screening survey. Interviews were conducted between June and December 2024, either in person or via Zoom, using the screen-sharing feature for observations, and lasted 45 to 75 min. Participants received €50 in compensation for completing both components.

To reduce potential reactivity, all interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Posts that participants interacted with or discussed were included in the transcripts and supplemented by the corresponding notes from the observation protocols.

Instruments

While the semi-structured interviews yielded broader insights, this section focuses on the instruments most relevant to capturing participants’ information use practices: the screening survey, the personalized feed, and the structured observation protocol.

The self-administered online screening survey served to identify eligible participants and personalize the feed. Participants rated the relevance of four types of information needs (group-, topic-, problem-related, and undirected) and indicated how frequently they encountered corresponding content (e.g., family updates, gardening, local news).

These responses formed the basis for creating individualized feeds using the Mock Social Media Website Tool (Jagayat et al., 2021). A continuously updated post database included both real and researcher-generated posts across formats (text-image, text-image-link, text-video), sources (media, companies, institutions, placeholders “friend” and “acquaintance”), and all four information types. News posts were updated weekly to ensure topicality. A script randomly selected 30 posts per participant, weighted by their screening survey responses.

Participants’ general and post-specific usage practices were documented using a structured observation protocol with six theoretically derived categories, reflecting previously identified usage dimensions (Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink, 2015; Groot Kormelink, 2019; Kümpel, 2019b): selection (clicking on or reading posts), dwell time (overall and on individual posts), rhythm (scrolling dynamic), (non-)verbal reactions (noticeable reactions to individual posts or the feed), active engagement (e.g., liking or sharing posts), and passive engagement (i.e., reading comments).

Following the feed exposure, the interview resumed using a flexible guideline consisting of three sets of follow-up questions, which were adapted based on the observations: (1) general impressions of the feed, (2) reflections on specific practices (not) shown during the feed interaction (e.g., “I noticed that you . . .”, “Could you explain what prompted that?”), and (3) evaluation of post characteristics and cues previously identified as influential (e.g., role of engagement metrics in their selection decisions).

Participants

We recruited individuals aged 60 and above who reported using at least one social media platform at least once a month. Recruitment took place via senior-focused newsletters, educational and cultural organizations, community bulletin boards, and personal networks. To capture the full diversity of older adulthood, we intentionally recruited both “young-olds” (aged 60–70) and “old-olds” (aged 71 and above) (Jaul & Barron, 2021; López et al., 2020).

The final sample included 41 participants, split between young-olds (aged 60–70, n = 20) and old-olds (aged 71 and above, n = 21), and with a near-balanced gender distribution (23 women, 18 men). While we aimed for a mix of frequent and infrequent users, only 10 participants identified as low-frequency users—likely due to lower identification with the study topic. Nevertheless, the sample reflects considerable variation in age, gender, and platform experience.

Data Analysis

Because practices became apparent only through the combination of observations, interview data, and post references, we used paraphrasing as a form of data condensation (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019). Specifically, we described participants’ actions related to selection, engagement, and navigation, and their interactions with specific cues as apparent from the transcripts and observation protocols. These paraphrases were then synthesized into generalized descriptions, supported by illustrative examples from individual cases.

To analyze interviews and paraphrases, we applied qualitative content analysis, combining deductive and inductive category development (Mayring, 2014). The resulting codebook captured both participants’ practices (i.e., selection, engagement, navigation) and relevant post characteristics and cues (e.g., topic, visualization, engagement cues). The codebook was developed iteratively, starting with close readings of a small subset of contrasting interviews. The codebook was then tested, refined, and applied to the full dataset. Finally, the coded material was compared across individual (e.g., age, usage frequency) and contextual factors (e.g., preferred platform) to synthesize patterns. The first author conducted all paraphrasing and coding. Throughout data analysis, the authors engaged in regular exchanges and consensus-building discussions to ensure analytic validity.

To promote transparency and reproducibility, we preregistered our analysis strategy after data collection but before inspecting the data, using the Qualitative Preregistration Form (Haven et al., 2020). It was frozen on December 20, 2024, and is available via Open Science Framework (OSF) registries: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6VA83. All study materials, instruments, and an overview of participants’ demographics and platform use are available in the project’s OSF repository: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CSWQD.

Results

To structure our analysis, we draw on the overarching practices introduced above and present the specific navigation, selection, and engagement practices of older adults as identified through the (self-confrontation) interviews and structured observations.

Navigation Practices

Navigation practices refer to users’ browsing behavior in the social media feed before selecting or engaging with specific posts. Most participants scrolled through the feed in a linear and fast manner (e.g., P6, P8, P15). They also spent little time on individual posts, rapidly scanning text and images and deciding whether to continue reading. As became evident during the subsequent interviews, this behavior was not driven by disinterest, but by participants’ self-perception as “very quick viewers, quick to grasp the gist” (P9; see also P2, P33, P40). Thus, in line with findings on younger adults, “information snacking”—analogous to the concept of news snacking (Molyneux, 2018)—appears to be a common practice among older users.

However, a few participants also showed a practice we describe here as “hesitating”: they frequently scrolled back and forth (e.g., P10, P23, P26) and often also lingered longer on each post. These participants often considered social media a valuable information source and therefore felt it was important to understand the general topic and fully comprehend the content before deciding whether to select the post (e.g., P10, P11, P39). Moreover, they tended to be among older or less frequent users, suggesting they lacked established navigation routines and were more easily distracted or unsettled by certain posts or features.

Selection Practices

Selection practices refer to how users choose individual pieces of content while browsing social media. In our study, this included both (skim) reading a post within the feed and clicking on external links, indicating deeper involvement with the respective post (Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink, 2015).

We observed a broad spectrum of selection practices, depending on participants’ perceptions of social media and the information needs they address on these platforms. Some participants fulfill a broad range of information needs on social media and are open to incidentally encountering new topics. Consequently, they clicked on and read many diverse posts (e.g., P10, P13, P30). Others selected nothing, quickly scrolled through the 30 posts, and ended exposure after a few minutes—often because the feed did not match their highly specific information needs, as became apparent during the interviews (e.g., P19, P30). For example, one participant uses social media solely to collect and share photographs of 19th-century Berlin (P30).

Many participants fell between these extremes (e.g., P5, P6, P33), choosing only posts on specific topics (e.g., news, travel) while ignoring other content categories (e.g., posts with social information). This targeted selection stems from perceiving social media as an appropriate environment for certain information needs, while deeming the platforms ill-suited for others.

Interestingly, some participants limited their selection to reading the post without clicking links. These participants often said they perceive social media as a source of entertainment rather than serious information and expressed skepticism about the credibility of content (e.g., P5, P16, P29). As one participant put it, “If I want reliable information about politics or something like that, I need to turn to other media—not this muddy Facebook stuff” (P39). Others view social media as a tool for quick news updates, finding the captions sufficient and preferring brief overviews (e.g., P3, P17), another expression of news snacking (Molyneux, 2018).

Among post-related cues, the topic was clearly the strongest driver of selection. During the interviews, it became clear that nearly all participants based their decision to engage with a post primarily on whether they found the topic interesting (e.g., P6, P9, P28). Some also referenced criteria aligned with journalistic news values, such as geographical proximity or personal relevance (e.g., P13, P23, P41). Many also emphasized novelty, even skipping posts on interesting topics if they assumed no new information (e.g., P25, P36, P37).

Visual and textual elements are secondary, as participants use them mainly to infer the topic. We observed three tendencies. Some participants shifted flexibly between text and visuals, focusing on whichever drew their attention first—a striking image or a compelling lead sentence (e.g., P3, P8, P24). Others said that they prioritize text, quickly “pulling out the keywords” (P1), and partly viewed images with suspicion, seeing them as potentially manipulative (e.g., P10, P25, P33). Both behaviors are driven by an instrumental view of information use, as they prioritize cues that subjectively enable the most efficient decision-making. Only a few—mainly Instagram users—explained that visuals are their main focus when deciding what to select (P2, P7). This suggests that platform characteristics also shape selection practices.

The source of a post plays a more nuanced role. Some participants deliberately ignored it, preferring to rely on their own judgment of a topic rather than the identity of the source (e.g., P16, P31, P32). A common rationale for this behavior was the desire for autonomy: “for me, the information matters more than who posted it” (P17).

Next to autonomy, source credibility is a decisive factor for older adults when considering posts’ sources. Most participants, therefore, do utilize source-based heuristics for specific accounts, which mainly fall into two categories. First, many prefer original or shared posts from friends and family, driven by both personal interest and a sense of trust, as one participant explained: “I try to read selectively—definitely not from every random guy who thinks he has something to post” (P1, see also P10, P20, P24). Others said that they avoid (certain) contacts’ (shared) posts altogether, being annoyed by or skeptical toward their content (e.g., P2, P9, P15). Second, many participants employ heuristics when dealing with media accounts, considering it particularly important to rely on trusted outlets for societally relevant information. During the feed exposure, this manifested as a preference for legacy-quality outlets and skepticism toward tabloids (e.g., P8, P13, P33), while some were critical of “mainstream media” (P4, P5, P12). Similarly, participants skipped posts on other topics if they distrusted the source (e.g., P2, P20, P29). As one participant said about a history blog’s post that she had ignored during the exposure, “I do not need to know what that blogger has made up about world history” (P29).

The role of engagement cues is more clear-cut. In line with existing research (e.g., Haim et al., 2018), our participants—across age groups and usage frequencies—pay little attention to aggregated metrics such as likes, shares, or count of comments. The interviews revealed that they find these indicators either uninformative or difficult to interpret (e.g., P19, P22, P37). Again, participants also expressed a strong need for autonomy, viewing engagement cues as intrusive: “I do not care whether there is a crowd behind it or not. I stick to my own judgment” (P14, see also P20, P25).

Engagement Practices

“If more people used Facebook the way I do, Facebook would starve” (P17). This quote encapsulates the engagement practices—referring to visible interactions with content, such as liking, commenting, or sharing posts—observed among most participants. Across age groups, usage frequencies, and platforms, the majority engaged rarely, if at all, during the feed exposure (e.g., P5, P6, P18). A central reason is privacy concerns, as the interviews emphasized: participants fear that engagement might expose their opinions (potentially misunderstood) to an uncontrollable audience. As one participant put it, “you do not even know who you are actually reaching” (P23). Others are concerned about judgment within their social circles, worrying that friends or family might take issue with them liking or commenting on an inappropriate or controversial post (e.g., P15, P19, P38).

Some participants also feel that engagement is unnecessary or unproductive. They believe their opinions or input would not add value—“I think there is already enough written on social media” (P28; see also P6, P15, P32). Others mentioned that engagement simply would not occur to them: “we come from a different time” (P22; see also P38, P30, P20).

Nevertheless, engagement is not entirely absent and is also shaped by post-specific cues. The topic plays a major role: some—younger and more literate—participants like posts to “train” the algorithm to reflect their interests (P13, P29), or when content genuinely resonates and contains “something that really excites me” (e.g., P7, see also P17, P28, P37). A few, more frequent users who view social media as an important information source, also comment on posts, particularly “when I feel I have something to say” (P24). This includes correcting information or contributing personal experience (e.g., P12, P35, P37).

The posts’ source also matters. Participants explained during the interviews that they are more likely to engage with content posted or shared by people they know, as this reduces privacy concerns and fosters greater trust in the content (e.g., P4, P26, P39). Especially participants who use social media for updates about their social environment also see engagement as an interpersonal gesture—expressing care or attention to friends and family. However, they sometimes perceive engagement as an obligation. One participant explained, “If I look at her [a friend] post, I always feel I have to give it a like—otherwise she gets upset” (P24; see also P9, P10, P11).

Passive engagement, such as reading comment sections, is also important for some participants, particularly for posts on polarizing (political) topics. Some participants who use social media as a news source reported regularly reading comments to explore a range of opinions (e.g., P2, P35, P12). As one explained, “I want to see if others share my opinion. I am also interested in different views. It is like a conversation” (P41). In contrast, participants who perceive social media as hostile or overly contentious avoid comment sections altogether. “I do not read the discussion—it is just irritating” (P22; see also P13, P31, P33). These patterns reinforce the influence of information needs and platform characteristics on engagement practices—a point we now return to in the concluding discussion.

Discussion

In light of the growing use of social media and messenger apps among older adults (Kakulla, 2024; Tippelt, 2025), this study aimed to better understand how they use information on these platforms. Adopting an audience-centered approach (Swart et al., 2022), we examined older adults’ navigation, selection, and engagement practices—and how these practices are shaped by post characteristics, such as topic or source.

Similar to previous studies on older adults’ broader internet use (Coelho, 2024; Quan-Haase et al., 2016), we identified a diverse set of practices. Some of them mirror those observed among younger adults: for instance, many participants scrolled quickly through the personalized feed, rarely clicking links or engaging deeply with posts. This behavior was often a deliberate strategy, known as information snacking—also common among younger users (e.g., Molyneux, 2018). Participants attributed this to the brevity and variety of posts, which they view more as an overview than in-depth coverage. This underscores the interplay between practices and platform affordances: information snacking is facilitated by the granularity of content on social media—short, varied posts within a feed (Kümpel, 2022)—and further supported by personalization and incidental exposure, as users rely on curated feeds to surface relevant content without active search (Bergström & Belfrage, 2018). This influence of platform affordances on older adults’ practices also underscores their adaptability to the technologies they interact with (Quan-Haase et al., 2016).

However, we also identified practices that differ from those typically observed among younger adults. While some older adults scrolled quickly and made rapid decisions, others navigated more slowly and reflectively—a practice we term hesitating. This behavior may indicate literacy-related challenges (e.g., some participants were unsure how to access external links), but it likely also reflects platform perceptions, as these participants view social media as a genuine and valuable source of information and thus want to take the time to fully grasp individual posts.

Our findings illustrate how technology use of the mass media generation is shaped by ingrained media routines (LaRose, 2010), leading to what Quan-Haase and colleagues (2016) call “hybrid practices” that “seamlessly combine traditional habits with new ones emerging from ICT use” (p. 702). Information snacking, for example, can be read as an adaptation of flipping through a newspaper or channel surfing on television—habits that many older adults developed long ago. Likewise, having grown up with one-way mass media such as newspapers and television, older adults may not naturally adopt participatory practices, but instead mainly remain passive viewers on social media.

Regarding the influence of post characteristics, and in line with findings on younger adults (e.g., Karnowski et al., 2021), the topic of a post clearly emerged as the most decisive factor, especially for selection and engagement practices. Older adults primarily engage with content they consider personally relevant or likely to offer something useful or new. By contrast, the source was mainly relevant in specific contexts, such as news. Many participants selected news only from (legacy) outlets they knew and trusted to avoid misinformation. This challenges the common assumption that older adults are particularly vulnerable to online misinformation due to limited digital or media literacy (e.g., Cotter & Reisdorf, 2020). Instead, our findings support the view that older adults seek to transfer their existing knowledge and experiences into social media environments (Quan-Haase et al., 2016).

Next to news and posts from friends and family, however, the source was often disregarded, as were engagement cues, such as the number of likes, comments, or shares. A key reason was their strong desire for autonomy: older adults often strive for self-directed, independent information use (Anter et al., 2025b) and tend to reject cues suggesting their decisions should be shaped by others’ evaluations or a source’s popularity.

In sum, these findings align with a broader pattern in older adults’ digital behavior: autonomy and agency are central motives shaping their usage (Quan-Haase et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2023), and their practices are highly instrumental and purpose-oriented (Coelho, 2024; Melenhorst et al., 2001). Differences emerged less between age groups—likely because those “oldest-olds” who use social media are particularly motivated and interested—and more in relation to usage frequency and information needs. Older adults use these platforms purposefully to gain added value; for instance, if engagement promises no clear benefit, it is avoided. By doing so, they also prevent experiences of frustration or helplessness and actively co-create an image of self-determined aging through their interactions with social media (Gallistl et al., 2021).

Next to these empirical insights, our study expands the conceptual vocabulary for analyzing older adults’ social media use. Binary distinctions between use and non-use often oversimplify their online behavior (Costera Meijer, 2016; Wanka & Gallistl, 2018). In contrast, the practices identified in this study—such as information snacking, hesitating, or passivity—offer a more nuanced understanding of how older adults engage with information and news online. Moreover, they help create a shared understanding among researchers and participants of what “using information” actually entails (Costera Meijer, 2016; Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink, 2015).

Importantly, these practices are not tied to any specific platform. Although our mock feed resembled a hybrid between Facebook and Instagram, behaviors such as fast-paced navigation or limited engagement appear across platforms, regardless of feed structures or interaction features. In fact, participants who primarily used Twitter/X or TikTok reported and exhibited comparable behaviors during both the interviews and observations. This analytical flexibility also makes the practices valuable for addressing the “moving target” problem of platform research (Valkenburg et al., 2016), that is, the dynamic and ever-changing nature of social media.

Consequently, the practices identified here provide a robust starting point for future research, such as large-scale quantitative studies to assess their prevalence and effects. Not only do our findings serve as a foundation for developing platform-adaptable research instruments, but they also provide a basis for initial propositions regarding variations across user groups and platforms.

While reactivity was evident in a few cases (e.g., some participants treated the feed exposure as an “exercise,” engaging more actively to signal cooperation), the multi-method approach proved highly valuable. It enabled direct observation of how older adults navigate social media feeds and interact with posts. The self-confrontation interviews added depth by prompting participants to explain and reflect on their behavior, resulting in “thick data” (Latzko-Toth et al., 2017) that captured not only what they did but also why. As such, this approach offers a promising framework for studying user behavior in personalized media environments.

In conclusion, our study shows that older adults engage in diverse information practices on social media, often grounded in informed platform perceptions, while yet shaped simultaneously by ingrained, long-standing media habits. These findings underscore the importance of approaching older adults with openness and avoiding reductive assumptions—such as seeing them primarily as digitally illiterate—which risk reinforcing ageist stereotypes (Wanka & Gallistl, 2018). With older adults playing an ever-greater role in digital life, such inclusive research approaches are crucial to understanding the complexity of their information behaviors and preventing their needs from being overlooked.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sms-10.1177_20563051261464421 – Supplemental material for Navigating, Selecting, and Engaging: A Multi-Method Study of Social Media Information Use Practices Among Older Adults

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sms-10.1177_20563051261464421 for Navigating, Selecting, and Engaging: A Multi-Method Study of Social Media Information Use Practices Among Older Adults by Luise Anter, Martin Fischer and Anna Sophie Kümpel in Social Media + Society

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Generative AI tools, specifically ChatGPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 4.5, were employed during the writing process to enhance language and support proofreading. All AI-suggested changes were carefully reviewed and revised prior to incorporation into the manuscript.

ORCID iDs

Luise Anter

Martin Fischer

Anna Sophie Kümpel

Ethical Considerations

The hosting university’s ethics committee does not require an IRB approval for an interview study.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was conducted within a project funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)/German Research Foundation (Project Number: 515673040).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

All instruments, study materials, and a detailed overview of participants’ demographics and usage patterns are available via the project’s OSF repository: . To protect the privacy of individuals who participated in the study, the data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Luise Anter, MA, is a researcher and PhD student in the Department of Media and Communication at LMU Munich. Her research focuses on the production, perception, and use of news and information within algorithmically curated environments, particularly social media, as well as qualitative research methods.

Martin Fischer, MA, is a researcher and PhD student at the Department of Media and Communication at LMU Munich. His research focuses on the use of (dis-)information on social media, computational methods, and online propaganda.

Anna Sophie Kümpel is a Full Professor of Communication in the Department of Media and Communication at LMU Munich, where she leads the Media Uses and Effects research unit. Her research explores the dynamics of (political) information use in digital and algorithmically driven environments, particularly within social media.

References

Anter

Fischer

Kümpel

A. S.

(2025a). Information and news use by older adults in social media and messenger apps: A systematic literature review. Information, Communication & Society, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2598049

Anter

Fischer

Kümpel

A. S.

(2025b). Older adults’ information use on social media: The role of psychological needs and personality traits. Research on Aging, 47(9–10), 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/01640275251341447

Bailey

K. G.

Sowder

W. T.

(1970). Audiotape and videotape self-confrontation in psychotherapy. Psychological Bulletin, 74(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029633

Bergström

Belfrage

M. J.

(2018). News in social media. Incidental consumption and the role of opinion leaders. Digital Journalism, 6(5), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1423625

Berkowsky

R. W.

Czaja

S. J.

(2018). Challenges associated with online health information seeking among older adults. In Pak

McLaughlin

A. C.

(Eds.), Aging, technology and health (pp. 31–48). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811272-4.00002-6

Berkowsky

R. W.

Sharit

Czaja

S. J.

(2017). Factors predicting decisions about technology adoption among older adults. Innovation in Aging, 1(3), igy002. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igy002

Bolin

Skogerbø

(2013). Age, generation and the media. Northern Lights, 11(1), 3–14.

Caliandro

Garavaglia

Sturiale

Di Leva

(2021). Older people and smartphone practices in everyday life: An inquire on digital sociality of Italian older users. The Communication Review, 24(1), 47–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2021.1904771

Carr

C. T.

Hayes

R. A.

(2015). Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2015.972282

10.

Coelho

A. R.

(2024). Modes of relating to the new ICTs among older internet users: A qualitative approach. Ageing & Society, 44(4), 963–987. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X22000605

11.

Costera Meijer

. (2016). Practicing audience-centred journalism research. In Witschge

Anderson

C. W.

Domingo

Hermida

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of digital journalism (pp. 546–561). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957909

12.

Costera Meijer

Groot Kormelink

. (2015). Checking, sharing, clicking and linking. Digital Journalism, 3(5), 664–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.937149

13.

Cotter

Reisdorf

B. C.

(2020). Algorithmic knowledge gaps: A new horizon of (digital) inequality. International Journal of Communication, 14, 745–765.

14.

Couldry

(2011). The necessary future of the audience. . . and how to research it. In Nightingale

(Ed.), The handbook of media audiences (pp. 213–231). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444340525.ch10

15.

Ferrand

Martinent

Durmaz

(2014). Psychological need satisfaction and well-being in adults aged 80 years and older living in residential homes: Using a self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Aging Studies, 30, 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2014.04.004

16.

Gallistl

Rohner

Hengl

Kolland

(2021). Doing digital exclusion – technology practices of older internet non-users. Journal of Aging Studies, 59, 100973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2021.100973

17.

Godard

Holtzman

(2023). Are active and passive social media use related to mental health, wellbeing, and social support outcomes? A meta-analysis of 141 studies. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 29(1), zmad055. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad055

18.

Groot Kormelink

. (2019). Capturing and making sense of everyday news use. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

19.

Gumpert

Cathcart

(1985). Media grammars, generations, and media gaps. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295038509360059

20.

Haim

Kümpel

A. S.

Brosius

H.-B.

(2018). Popularity cues in online media: A review of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and general effects. SCM Studies in Communication and Media, 7(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2018-2-58

21.

Haven

T. L.

Errington

T. M.

Gleditsch

K. S.

van Grootel

Jacobs

A. M.

Kern

F. G.

Piñeiro

Rosenblatt

Mokkink

L. B.

(2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920976417

22.

Hepp

Berg

Roitsch

(2017). A processual concept of media generation: The media-generational positioning of elderly people. Nordicom Review, 38(s1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0395

23.

Hunsaker

Hargittai

(2018). A review of internet use among older adults. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3937–3954. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818787348

24.

Jagayat

Gurkaran

Pun

Choma

B. L.

(2021). Mock social media website tool (1.0) [Computer software]. https://docs.studysocial.media

25.

Jaul

Barron

(2021). Characterizing the heterogeneity of aging: A vision for a staging system for aging. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, Article 513557. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.513557

26.

Kakulla

(2024). Older adults embrace tech but are skeptical of AI. AARP Research. https://doi.org/10.26419/res.00772.001

27.

Karaoglu

Hargittai

Hunsaker

Nguyen

M. H.

(2021). Changing technologies, changing lives: Older adults’ perspectives on the benefits of using new technologies. International Journal of Communication, 15, 3887–3907. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-207350

28.

Karnowski

Leiner

D. J.

Kümpel

A. S.

Leonhard

(2021). Worth to share? How content characteristics and article competitiveness influence news sharing on social network sites. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020940340

29.

Kuckartz

Rädiker

(2019). Working with paraphrases and summaries, creating case overviews. In Kuckartz

Rädiker

(Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA: Text, audio, and video (pp. 135–149). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8_11

30.

Kümpel

A. S.

(2019a). The issue takes it all? Incidental news exposure and news engagement on Facebook. Digital Journalism, 7(2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1465831

31.

Kümpel

A. S.

(2019b). Nachrichtenrezeption auf Facebook: Vom beiläufigen Kontakt zur Auseinandersetzung [News reception on Facebook: From incidental exposure to engagement]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-24229-9

32.

Kümpel

A. S.

(2020). Nebenbei, mobil und ohne Ziel? Eine Mehrmethodenstudie zu Nachrichtennutzung und -verständnis von jungen Erwachsenen [All casual, mobile, and aimless? A multi-method study of young adults’ news definitions and everyday use and consumption of news]. M&K Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 68(1–2), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2020-1-2-11

33.

Kümpel

A. S.

(2022). Social media information environments and their implications for the uses and effects of news: The PINGS framework. Communication Theory, 32(2), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtab012

34.

LaRose

(2010). The problem of media habits. Communication Theory, 20(2), 194–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01360.x

35.

Latzko-Toth

Bonneau

Millette

(2017). Small data, thick data: Thickening strategies for trace-based social media research. In Sloan

Quan-Haase

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media research methods (pp. 199–214). Sage.

36.

Lim

S. S.

(2002). The self-confrontation interview: Towards an enhanced understanding of human factors in web-based interaction for improved website usability. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3(3), 162–173.

37.

Lin

C.-C.

Huang

P.-J.

Lai

Y.-H.

Y.-T.

Chung

C.-C.

Chang

Y.-J.

(2023). Scanning or simply unengaged in reading? Opportune moments for pushed news notifications and their relationship with smartphone users’ choice of news-reading modes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction, 7, Article 221. https://doi.org/10.1145/3604268

38.

López

Perez-Rojo

Noriega

Carretero

Velasco

Martinez-Huertas

J. A.

López-Frutos

Galarraga

(2020). Psychological well-being among older adults during the COVID-19 outbreak: A comparative study of the young-old and the old-old adults. International Psychogeriatrics, 32(11), 1365–1370. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220000964

39.

Mayring

(2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/39517/ssoar-2014-mayring-Qualitative_content_analysis_theoretical_foundation.pdf

40.

Melenhorst

A.-S.

Rogers

W. A.

Caylor

E. C.

(2001). The use of communication technologies by older adults: Exploring the benefits from the user’s perspective. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 45(3), 221–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120104500305

41.

Merten

(2021). Block, hide or follow—personal news curation practices on social media. Digital Journalism, 9(8), 1018–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1829978

42.

Mitzner

T. L.

Boron

J. B.

Fausset

C. B.

Adams

A. E.

Charness

Czaja

S. J.

Dijkstra

Fisk

A. D.

Rogers

W. A.

Sharit

(2010). Older adults talk technology: Technology usage and attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1710–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.020

43.

Molyneux

(2018). Mobile news consumption. Digital Journalism, 6(5), 634–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1334567

44.

Oeldorf-Hirsch

(2018). The role of engagement in learning from active and incidental news exposure on social media. Mass Communication and Society, 21(2), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1384022

45.

Oeldorf-Hirsch

DeVoss

C. L.

(2020). Who posted that story? Processing layered sources in Facebook news posts. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(1), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019857673

46.

Peterson

D. J.

Price

J. M.

McKinley

G. L.

Brauer

Guo

Branes-Huff

Coughlin

DeSousa

Epstein

Kayser

Lawrence

Richards

(2026). Fake news on social media: Examining how social endorsement cues impact credibility assessments in younger and older adults. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 15, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000239

47.

Quan-Haase

Martin

Schreurs

(2016). Interviews with digital seniors: ICT use in the context of everyday life. Information, Communication & Society, 19(5), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1140217

48.

Quan-Haase

G. Y.

Wellman

(2017). Connected seniors: How older adults in East York exchange social support online and offline. Information, Communication & Society, 20(7), 967–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1305428

49.

Raetzsch

Lünenborg

(2020). Practicing media—Mediating practice| Anchoring practices for public connection: Media practice and its challenges for journalism studies. International Journal of Communication, 14, 2868–2886. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/11213

50.

Schehl

Leukel

Sugumaran

(2019). Understanding differentiated internet use in older adults: A study of informational, social, and instrumental online activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.031

51.

Schmid

U. K.

Kümpel

A. S.

Rieger

(2023). The remote self-confrontation interview method: Gaining insights into users’ perceptions of digital media content from a distance. American Behavioral Scientist, 69(10), 1221–1237. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642231205768

52.

Selwyn

Gorard

Furlong

Madden

(2003). Older adults’ use of information and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing & Society, 23(5), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X03001302

53.

Swart

Groot Kormelink

Costera Meijer

Broersma

(2022). Advancing a radical audience turn in journalism. Fundamental dilemmas for journalism studies. Digital Journalism, 10(1), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.2024764

54.

Tippelt

(2025). Social Media zwischen Wachstum und Sättigung: Nutzungsmuster und Plattformdynamiken in Deutschland [Social media between growth and saturation: Usage patterns and platform dynamics in Germany]. Media Perspektiven, 31, 1–16.

55.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

Walther

J. B.

(2016). Media effects: Theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033608

56.

Van Damme

Courtois

Verbrugge

De Marez

(2015). What’s APPening to news? A mixed-method audience-centred study on mobile news consumption. Mobile Media & Communication, 3(2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157914557691

57.

Vraga

Bode

Troller-Renfree

(2016). Beyond self-reports: Using eye tracking to measure topic and style differences in attention to social media content. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(2–3), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.1150443

58.

Wanka

Gallistl

(2018). Doing age in a digitized world—A material praxeology of aging with technology. Frontiers in Sociology, 3, Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2018.00006

59.

Wieland

Kleinen-von Königslöw

(2020). Conceptualizing different forms of news processing following incidental news contact: A triple-path model. Journalism, 21(8), 1049–1066. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915353

60.

Yachin

Nimrod

(2021). Innovation in later life: A study of grandmothers and Facebook. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 92(4), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415020940200

61.

Zhao

Kelly

R. M.

Rogerson

M. J.

Waycott

(2023). Older adults using technology for meaningful activities during COVID-19: An analysis through the lens of self-determination theory. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–17). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580839

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.16 MB