nihms226103.pdf

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

1/25

Older Adults Talk Technology: Technology Usage and Attitudes

Tracy L. Mitzner 1,*, Julie B. Boron 2, Cara Bailey Fausset 1, Anne E. Ad ams 1, NeilCharness 3, Sara J. Czaja 4, Katinka Dijkstra 5, Arthur D. Fisk 1, Wendy A. Rogers 1, andJoseph Sharit 6

1 School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0170 2 PsychologyDepartment, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH, 44555 3 Psychology Department,Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4301 4 Department of Psychiatry and BehavioralSciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136 5 Department of Psychology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands 6 Department of IndustrialEngineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124-0623

AbstractOlder adults (n = 113) participated in focus groups discussing their use of and attitudes abouttechnology in the context of their home, work, and healthcare. Participants reported using a widevariety of technology items, particularly in their homes. Positive attitudes (i.e., likes) outnumbered negative attitudes (i.e., dislikes), suggesting that older adults perceive the benefits of technologyuse to outweigh the costs of such use. Positive attitudes were most frequently related to how thetechnology supported activities, enhanced convenience, and contained useful features. Negativeattitudes were most frequently associated with technology creating inconveniences, unhelpfulfeatures, as well as security and reliability concerns. Given that older adults reported more positivethan negative attitudes about the technologies they use, these results contradict stereotypes thatolder adults are afraid or unwilling to use technology. These findings also highlight the importanceof perceived benefits of use and ease of use for models of technology acceptance. Emphasizing the

benefits of technology in education and training programs may increase future technologyadoption.

Keywords

Technology; Older Adults; Work; Healthcare; Home

Technology adoption is becoming imperative to function in modern day society because it is pervasive across all domains of life. Moreover, technology can facilitate everyday tasksenabling older adults (i.e., 65 years of age or older) to remain independent longer. Over 90%of adults over the age of 65 live independently (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), and most of theolder population prefers to remain in their own homes as long as they are able (AARP,

1996). The majority of older adults activities occur within the home environment (Baltes,Maas, Wilms, Borchelt, & Little, 1999), and technology can support aging in place.Technology can support many home-based tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and yard

*Corresponding author: Tracy L. Mitzner, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0170, Phone:404-385-0798, [email protected]'s Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may bediscovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

NIH Public AccessAuthor ManuscriptComput Human Behav . Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1.

Published in final edited form as:Comput Human Behav . 2010 November 1; 26(6): 17101721. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.020.NI H

-P A A u

t h or Manus c r i pt

NI H-P A A ut h or Manus c r i pt

NI H-P A A ut h or M

anus c r i pt

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

2/25

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

3/25

the multidimensional and complex set of factors that influence technology adoption and thestrong impact of certain beliefs and attitudes (i.e., perceived ease of use and usefulness) haveon that relationship.

In a sample of 1,204 participants Czaja et al. (2006a) investigated factors that predicted technology use and found that older adults were less likely than younger adults to usecomputers, the Internet, and other technology items (e.g., cellular phone, automated teller

machine, microwave oven). The following factors predicted general technology use: age,education, race, fluid and crystallized intelligence, computer self-efficacy, and computer anxiety. Greater technology use was associated with younger ages and those who were

better educated, and White/European Americans and Hispanic/Latino Americans used moretypes of technology than Black/African Americans. Higher fluid and crystallized intelligence, higher computer self-efficacy, and lower computer anxiety were also associated with greater technology use. Moreover, the relationship between age and technology usewas mediated by cognitive abilities, computer self-efficacy, and computer anxiety.

Large-scale surveys, such as Czaja et al. (2006a), are useful in identifying general patternsof older adults technology use and informing models of technology acceptance about higher order factors. Other studies have revealed important information about older adults usageand acceptance of specific technologies and perceptions about specific factors in models of

technology acceptance. Many of these studies explored acceptance of assistive technologies(e.g., McGreadie & Tinker, 2005; Tinker & Lansley, 2005), including smart hometechnologies (Demiris, Oliver, Dickey, Skubic, & Rantz, 2008), and some focused onspecific technologies such as video Uniform Commercial Codes (UCC) services (Ryu, Kim,& Lee, 2009), automatic teller machines (ATMs; Smither & Braun, 2001), E-commercewebsites (Smith, 2008), E-government services (Phang, Sutanto, Kankanhalli, Li, Tan, &Teo, 2006), online shopping (Li & Huang, 2009) and personal digital assistants (PDAs;Arning & Ziefle, 2007). However, less is known about the reasons that influence older adults attitudes about the wide range of technologies available to them in their everydaylives. A thorough understanding of such attitudes can also contribute to the specification of models of technology acceptance which can increase their predictive ability.

The goal of this study was to explore the details of older adults attitudes about technology

broadly to better understand trends that may be generalizable across different contexts, typesof technology, and diverse groups of older adults. In this study we examined 1) the range of technologies older adults use in their homes, for work, and for healthcare, 2) their attitudesabout those technologies, and 3) the degree to which the range of technology use and attitudes toward technology vary as a function of domain. We employed a focus groupmethodology because this approach affords a relatively open and exploratory method for collecting qualitative data on technology use, providing insight into the details of actualusage, as well as perceived advantages and disadvantages of technology in different domains(Krueger, 1994). Although this study is not designed to directly test models of technologyacceptance (e.g., TAM), our results can contribute to their specification by providinginformation about the reasons that drive the factors of these models.

Method

Participants

A total of 113 community-dwelling older adults participated in 18 focus groups, ranging insize from 4 to 9 participants in each group ( M = 6; SD = 1.65). The focus groups wereconducted at local senior centers and university conference rooms at three sites: GeorgiaInstitute of Technology, Florida State University, and University of Miami. Male (42% of

Mitzner et al. Page 3

Comput Human Behav . Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1.

NI H-P A A

ut h or Manus c r i pt


NI H-P A A ut h or

Manus c r i pt

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

4/25

participants) and female participants ranged in age from 65 to 85 years ( M = 73; SD = 5.50).All participants reported English as their primary language.

Race/ethnicity varied between sites ensuring a diverse sample: 33% African Americanseniors from Atlanta, GA, 30% Caucasian seniors from Tallahassee, FL, and 37% Hispanicseniors from Miami, FL. For each testing location, education level varied between focusgroups. Participants in the low education groups had less than a college degree (46% of

participants), whereas those in the high education groups had obtained a college degree or higher (54% of participants).

Most participants reported living in a house, apartment, or condominium (76%) or independent senior housing (19%); the remaining 5% reported living with relatives, in low-income housing, or in assisted living. As expected for this age range, the majority of

participants were retired (74%); the remaining participants reported occupational status as part-time (9%), full-time (4%), homemaker (4%), or volunteer (3%); the remaining 6% did not specify. Most participants (82%) rated their general health to be good or excellent (1 =Poor and 5 = Excellent), M = 3.26, SD = .92. In sum, participants varied with respect toeducation level and race/ethnicity, however most reported living independently and beinggenerally healthy.

MaterialsGeneral materials Standard CREATE materials (Czaja et al., 2006a) were used for assessing study eligibility and for collecting demographic, health, and technologyexperience information. These materials included a telephone prescreening interview,Background Questionnaire, and Technology Experience Questionnaire (available in Czaja etal., 2006b).

Focus group script

The script was designed to facilitate discussion about the range of older adults technologyuse and their attitudes about technology in the domains of home, work, and health (fullscript is available from the first author). The script was pilot tested with two groups of older adults (n= 10) to ensure that the discussion questions were clear and prompted discussion

relevant to the issues of immediate interest. Technology was defined as electronic or digital products and services.

We first asked, What technologies do you use [in the context of home, work, or health]?which was followed by discussion prompts tailored to each domain. For the home domain,

participants were given a strategy of doing a mental walk through their homes to think aboutthe technologies in each room and were instructed to think about occasions when they used technology items. For the work domain, participants were instructed to consider work in a

broad sense, including volunteer work and past work experiences. Participants were asked tothink about technologies they use for performing their jobs, communicating with other

people while at work, or learning new job skills or training. For the health domain, participants were asked to think about technology broadly and not be limited totechnologically advanced items. Participants were instructed to think about occasions when

they used technology for healthcare, such as using medical devices, communicating withhealthcare professionals, or gathering information about diseases.

The second discussion question, For those of you who have used [each technology item],what do you like and dislike about using this technology [in the context of each domain]?was designed to encourage participants to discuss their attitudes about technologies. These



NI H-P A A



NI H-P A A ut h or

Manus c r i pt

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

5/25

questions were followed by a discussion of training, which is not the focus of the present paper (see Mitzner et al., 2008).

Procedure

Prior to participation, participants completed the telephone prescreening interview. Wheneligible participants reported to the focus group site, they first provided informed consent.

Next, the moderator summarized the general goals of the study and outlined rules for the

discussion (e.g., to speak one at a time and contribute their own unique ideas and experiences). Each group discussed technology use in the context of two of the threedomains (domain order was counterbalanced). Following an icebreaker question duringwhich participants provided their first name and favorite hobby, the moderator introduced the first domain of discussion. After completing discussion of the first domain, participantswere given a five minute break and then asked to complete the Background Questionnaire.

Next, the moderator introduced the second domain for discussion. When discussion wascompleted, participants were given another five minute break and then asked to complete theTechnology Experience Questionnaire. Participants were debriefed and paid $25 for

participation. Discussions were audio recorded for later transcription.

Results

Overview of Coding and Analyses for Focus Group Discussion DataThe audio recordings were professionally transcribed verbatim with personal informationomitted. Transcripts were segmented into units of analysis by four independent coders. Asegment was defined as a unique idea in a single, uninterrupted speaker turn, related to anattitude toward technology (i.e., an association between technology and a valenced evaluation) with which the speaker has had personal experience. The segmenting processwas calibrated by conducting an initial round of independent segmenting of one randomlyselected transcript followed by discussion of discrepancies between coders. A second round of independent segmenting on a different transcript yielded reliability estimates rangingfrom r = .79 .87. The remaining transcripts were divided among the four coders to segmentindependently.

The coding scheme was developed by reviewing a random sample of the transcripts fromeach domain and extracting common themes, as well as incorporating the experiences older adults reported having with technology (Czaja et al., 2006a). Every attitude segment wascoded on each of three dimensions: the technology item that was discussed, the attitudevalence (i.e., like, dislike, or unclear), and the attitude reason (see Table 1 for the attitudecoding scheme). Coders were calibrated by conducting three rounds of independent codingon the same three randomly selected transcripts followed by discussion of discrepancies and revisions to the coding definitions. The final round of reliability yielded estimates rangingfrom r = .79 .92. The remaining transcripts were divided among the four coders to codeindependently.

Chi-square tests of homogeneity were conducted to determine if there were significantdifferences between category frequencies (frequencies less than one were excluded from all

analyses). Analyses of residuals were conducted to confirm which categories accounted for the significant effects (i.e., a residual greater than 2.00 indicates the factor was a major influence for the significant chi-square test statistic). Education differences were minimal atthe attitude category level; therefore we collapsed across education for the remaininganalyses.



NI H-P A A



NI H-P A A ut h or

Manus c r i pt

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

6/25

Range of Technologies Reported

Responses to the question, What technologies do you use [in the context of each domain]?ranged from 3 to 32 items per focus group (see Table 2). Significantly more technologieswere reported in the context of the home ( M = 19 per group) compared to work ( M = 13 per group). A greater number of technologies were reported in the context of work compared tohealth ( M = 7 per group). These data suggest that older adults are willing to use varioustypes of technology in different facets of their lives, particularly in their homes.

Atti tudes about Technologies

A primary goal of this study was to gain a better understanding of older adults attitudesrelated to using different technologies. The following analyses include responses to thequestion: What do you like and dislike about using [each technology in the context of eachdomain]?

Number of attitudes A total of 2360 segments were coded as attitudes. The number of attitude segments varied by domain: home (n = 1119), work (n = 785), and health (n = 560).That is, more attitudes were produced when discussing technology use in the home ascompared to work, and more attitudes were elicited when discussing technology use for work compared to health. Older adults may have more attitudes about technologies used in

their homes compared to work and health because they use a wider variety of technologiesin the home and spend most of their time there.

Attitude segments were coded for the technology item to which they were referring.Technology items associated with 5% or more of the total attitude segments within a domainare listed in Table 3. These technologies represent those most commonly mentioned, servingas the basis for the discussions and, therefore, provide the specific context for the followingdata.

Relative proportion of likes and dislik es Of particular interest was the relative proportion of like and dislike attitudes. Excluded from further analyses were attitudesegments coded as unclear (4%), such as I cant think of any [likes or dislikes].and Idont know whether its a like or dislike. Counter to the stereotype that older adults hold

negative opinions about technology, participants expressed significantly more likes thandislikes when discussing technologies used in the home (60% vs. 36% of the total segments, 2(1) = 69.07, p < .01), for work (59% vs. 37%, 2(1) = 40.88, p < .01) and for health (60%vs. 35%, 2(1) = 37.79, p < .01). Note that due to the phrasing of the question it is possiblethat participants were primed to produce more likes because the word like preceded theword dislike. Nonetheless, the majority of older adults attitudes were positive, suggestingthat they perceived the benefits of using technology to outweigh the costs, regardless of domain. This finding is consistent with the results of Melenhorst, Rogers, and Bouwhuis(2006), which showed that perception of benefit was more indicative of acceptance than

perception of cost.

Reasons Asso ciated with Attitud es

We were also interested in the reasons provided for having positive or negative attitudesabout technology. Some responses only contained an attitude without an additional reason(e.g., I like using the computer ). This was true for 8% of the like segments for the homedomain, 4% for work, and 6% for health. These segments were excluded from the followinganalyses.

Why people liked technology With respect to the reasons mentioned for having positive attitudes about technology, the specific category frequencies differed within each of



NI H-P A A



NI H-P A A ut h or

Manus c r i pt

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

7/25

the three domains (see Fig. 1). However, across all domains older adults consistentlyfocused on support for activities, convenience, and features as the top three reasons for whythey like technology. Segments in these three categories were also coded on a subcategorylevel (see Tables 46 for percentages and example quotes).

Like: Support for activities When discussing what they liked about technology, participants frequently mentioned its ability to provide support for activities. Some activities

were mentioned significantly more than others in the home, 2(10) = 105.40, p < .01, for work, 2(8) = 189.50, p < .01, and for health, 2(7) = 186.30, p < .01. In the context of the

home, older adults focused on communication (e.g., emailing, calling friends and family),cooking (e.g., microwaves), leisure, hobby, and entertainment activities (e.g., VCRs,computer games), and research (e.g., searching for information on the Internet) whichtogether accounted for 68% of the support for activities data.

In the work domain, the most frequently reported activities for which participants reported liking to use technology were communication (e.g., conference calls, exchangingdocumentation), administrative tasks (e.g., copying, executing mass mailings), and research(e.g., finding information on the Internet, profession-specific research tasks), accounting for 79% of the data.

In the health domain, research (e.g., finding information about physicians, health conditions,and medications) and health monitoring and maintenance (e.g., checking blood pressure and monitoring weight) were the most frequently reported activities for which participantsreported liking to use technology, accounting for 73% of the data.

These data show clearly that older adults perceived technology that can support their research activities to be a significant benefit, regardless of domain. In addition, older adults

perceived technological support for administrative tasks and communication as importantadvantages in the home and at work. These data reveal that the activities for which

participants liked to use technology were more varied in the home than at work or for health,which may reflect that the home is a broader domain encompassing a wider range of activities.

Like: Convenience Convenience was another frequently reported benefit of technologyuse. Significant differences emerged between the convenience subcategory frequencies for home, 2(7) = 75.50, p < .01, work, 2(5) = 102.30, p < .01, and health, 2(6) = 46.83, p < .01. In the home domain, effort and unspecified convenience were most frequentlymentioned (50% of convenience data). Effort is analogous to ease of use and was defined toinclude physical and mental forms of effort. Participants reported liking technology (e.g.,dishwasher or sprinkler system) because it reduced their own effort in performing household tasks. Unspecified convenience refers to general statements about convenience withoutspecifying a type or form of convenience.

In the work domain, effort and time (70% of convenience data) were the most frequentlymentioned convenience-related reasons for liking a technology. Older adults expressed

positive attitudes about using technology to reduce effort in their work tasks, which varied

greatly (e.g., using a computer instead of writing by hand and using electric instead of manual hair clippers), as well as to increase work performance by reducing the time it takesto perform tasks (e.g., scanning barcodes rather than typing item numbers).

In the context of health, the effort and home-based categories (63% of convenience data)accounted for the significant effect. Participants expressed positive statements abouttechnology reducing their own effort for performing health-related tasks, such as using



NI H-P A A



NI H-P A A ut h or

Manus c r i pt

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

8/25

automatic medication refill telephone systems rather than going to the pharmacy.Participants also liked that technology afforded them the ability to perform health-related tasks at home, such as checking their blood pressure.

These convenience data demonstrate that older adults appreciated that technology can maketheir lives easier in general, as well as make specific tasks less effortful in their homes.Older adults also perceived the importance of being an efficient worker and understood that

technology can facilitate efficiency. In sum, across all domains, the reduction of physical or mental effort was a major contributing factor to older adults positive perceptions about theconvenience introduced by technology.

Like: Features Participants expressed positive attitudes about many properties and characteristics of technology. Some features were discussed significantly more frequentlythan others in all domains: home, 2(11) = 324.70, p < .01, work, 2(9) = 130.70, p < .01,and health, 2(9) = 20.90, p < .01. Specific features, speed, and number of featuresaccounted for the significant effect in the home domain (69% of feature data). Examples of specific features were the water and ice dispenser (refrigerator); the timer and sleep mode(television); and the redial button, caller id, and voicemail features (telephone). Speed referred to the technologys ability to perform operations quickly, and the number categoryencompassed comments about number of features, quantity, or amount, including the

number of programming options.

In the context of work, specific features, speed, and access, storage and retrieval made thegreatest contribution to the significant effect (72% of feature data). As seen in the homedomain, participants reported liking specific features such as speakerphone and spell check.Again, older adults expressed positive attitudes about technologies performing operationsquickly, such as faxing rather than mailing documents. Participants also spoke positively of the ability to access, store, and retrieve information, such as the computers ability to

perform these actions rather than having to rely on hard copies.

For the health domain, specific features, and portability and size were significantcontributors to the effect (39% of feature data). Specific features included date and time onmedical devices and the ability to get a print out from a device. Portability and size

characteristics were viewed positively as well, such as the design of hearing aids to fit insidethe ear and the size and portability of blood glucose meters.

The data about technology features reflect that older adults perceived the benefits of technology to include performing specific and quick actions, as well as offering manyoptions. The perceived benefits of technology were similar for home and work domains (i.e.,specific features and speed), although accessing, storing and retrieving information was anadditional benefit for work. Participants spoke most frequently about their positive attitudestoward specific features of multi-function health technologies, and the characteristic of health technologies being small and portable. The feature data demonstrate that the older adult participants had preferences for the design of technology items, which is of particular importance for technology designers.

Why people disliked technolo gy We were also interested in the reasons for whicholder adults reported disliking technology, as these details could provide insight intotechnology acceptance (i.e., the reasons for which a person might not adopt technology).The category frequencies varied within all domains (see Fig. 2). In comparison to the topthree likes (support for activities, convenience, and features), when a reason was provided for disliking a technology, it was most frequently related to inconvenience brought on byusing the technology and features of the technology, regardless of the domain being



NI H-P A A



NI H-P A A ut h or

Manus c r i pt

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

9/25

discussed. Security and reliability issues were also frequently mentioned as dislikes:Security emerged in the home and work domains, whereas reliability arose in all domains.Subcategories for inconvenience, features, and security provide more details about older adults reasons for disliking technologies (see Tables 79 for percentages and examplequotes); the reliability category did not have subcategories.

Dislike: Inconv enience Various types of inconvenience were frequently mentioned

dislikes. There were significant differences among the frequencies of types of inconveniencediscussed in the home, 2(7) = 82.43, p < .01, for work, 2(7) = 71.42, p < .01, and for health, 2(5) = 21.11, p < .01. In the home domain, interruptions, financial issues, and effortaccounted for 76% of inconvenience data. Participants mentioned technology causinginterruptions in their lives (e.g., unwanted calls, commercials) and being expensive (e.g., thecost of ink cartridges and cellular phones). They also made negative comments abouttechnology requiring or increasing effort, such as the computer requiring too much mentaleffort to use or having to carry around a cellular phone.

In the work domain, the most frequently reported dislikes related to inconvenience wereinterruptions and effort (58% of inconvenience data). Just as in the home, participantsdiscussed disliking interruptions (e.g., cell phones ringing at inappropriate times) and theeffort required for using certain work technologies. In the health domain, the most

frequently reported inconveniences fell into the physical and effort categories (57% of inconvenience data). Participants reported disliking the physical inconveniences of usingcertain technologies, such as having to prick a finger to use a blood glucose meter. Effortinconveniences included physical and mental effort required to use certain medical devicesor other health-related technologies.

The inconvenience data suggest that older adults perceived interruptions, financial expenses,and effort to be costs of using technology in their homes. Workplace technologies weredisliked for some of the same reasons (i.e., interruptions and effort). Physical inconveniencewas a complaint specific to healthcare technologies, which may be due to the fact that manymeasures of physical health status rely on some sort of physical intrusion or discomfort.

Dislike: Features Participants expressed negative attitudes about many features of

technology. There were significant differences between the subcategories of features for home, 2(10) = 56.70, p < .01, and for work, 2(9) = 29.08, p < .01. There was not asignificant difference between the subcategories for health, p = .17. In the home domain,number of features, content quality, and quality of output accounted for 63% of the featuredata. Participants reported disliking when technology items had too many or too fewfeatures or programming options, poor content or programming quality (e.g., too muchviolence on television), and poor output quality, such as the quality of sound or the pictureof a visual display (e.g., on a cellular phone).

In the work domain, number (31% of feature data) accounted for the significant effect. In particular, older adults disliked work technologies with too many or too few features or programming options (e.g., telephones and fax machines). These data demonstrate that justas participants liked technologies that made them more efficient workers, they disliked

technologies that reduced their efficiency.

The feature-related data demonstrate that the older adult participants had specific ideasabout features they view as costs in using technology. Moreover, features of technologyconstituted the majority of the older adults dislikes. In the home and work domains,

participants focused on the number of features as a common dislike. In the home domaincontent quality and output quality was also a frequent dislike. The relative frequencies of the



NI H-P A A



NI H-P A A ut h or

Manus c r i pt

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

10/25

remaining categories varied by domain suggesting that attitudes about features are relativelycontext dependent; hence, customization or adjustability of features may be preferable incases where it is possible.

Dislike: Security and reliability In the home and work domains security issues werefrequently mentioned when discussing dislikes of technology; especially with respect tosafety which was reported significantly more than other security subcategories: home, 2(3)

= 60.46, p < .01, and work, 2(5) = 32.84, p < .01. Safety concerns (71% of security data for the home domain and 49% for work) encompassed worries of physical danger, including

health risks. These safety fears, whether were real or misconceptions, contributed to older adults negative views about home and work technologies.

Reliability (i.e., whether the technology functions accurately) was mentioned frequently inall domains. Participants reported disliking the lack of reliability with some technologyitems such as once the network is down, nobody can do anything [on the computer],some of the bar-coded items, my scanner will not pick up, and my [blood pressuremonitor] doesnt work well. I dont get accurate readings. Not surprisingly, older adultshad negative views about technology performing inaccurately and undependably, and thesenegative attitudes can impact future usage.

DiscussionA thorough understanding of older adults usage and perceptions of technology is essentialfor maximizing the potential that technology has to offer for facilitating independence ineveryday life. The goal of this study was to explore in-depth a large and diverse sample of older adults and their attitudes about a wide range of technologies they use in a wide varietyof contexts (i.e., their homes, for work, and for health). The findings from this studysupplement past research that was limited with respect to the details about technology usageor the generalizability to different types of technologies, contexts, or users. The resultselucidate some of the reasons behind older adults attitudes toward technology, provideinsight into how people define the constructs in technology acceptance models, and canenable designers to better meet older adults needs and preferences.

Stereotypes suggest that older adults are unable, unwilling, or afraid to use technology.Indeed, consistent with these stereotypes, several large scale usage studies have found thatolder adults do not use certain technologies to the extent that younger adults do (Adler,2006; Pew, 2000). The older adults we interviewed used a wide variety of technologies,ranging from microwaves to cell phones to computers. Participants reported using thegreatest number of technology items in their homes, a finding perhaps reflecting that our sample comprised mostly retired and healthy older adults. Older adults who have health

problems would be expected to have more experience using health technologies and thosewho are still employed would be expected to have more experience with work-related technologies.

By focusing on a broader range of technologies than that of large-scale surveys (e.g., Pew,2000) and by employing qualitative methods, we were able to provide a more detailed

depiction of older adults attitudes about technology in general. Participants clearly perceived many benefits of using technology, regardless of domain, and they viewed those benefits as outweighing the costs, judging by the number of comments they made about the positive aspects of technologies. Benefits discussed related to technology supportingactivities (i.e., communication, research, and health monitoring and maintenance), addingconvenience (i.e., when technology reduces effort), and having useful features (i.e., specificfeatures of technology). Although the benefits discussed were greater in number, costs or



NI H-P A A



NI H-P A A ut h or

Manus c r i pt

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

11/25

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

12/25

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

13/25

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

14/25

Smith TJ. Senior citizens and e-commerce websites: the role of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and web site usability. Informing Science: International Journal of an EmergingTransdiscipline 2008;11:5983.

Smither JA, Braun CC. Technology and older adults: Factors affecting the adoption of automatic teller machines. The Journal of General Psychology 2001;121(4):381389. [PubMed: 7815051]

Taha J, Czaja SJ, Sharit J. Use of and satisfaction with sources of health information among older Internet users and non-users. The Gerontologist 2009;49:663673. [PubMed: 19741112]

Tinker A, Lansley P. Introducing assistive technology into the existing homes of older people:feasibility, acceptability, costs and outcomes. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2005;11:13.[PubMed: 16035974]

U.S. Census Bureau. The 65 years and over population: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S Census Bureau;2000. Retrieved October, 9, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-10.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, DC: U.S Census Bureau; 2003. Table 5B. Use of a computer athome, school, or work and the Internet at any location for people 18 years and over, by selected characteristics: October 2003. Retrieved December, 17, 2008, fromhttp://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/computer/2003/tab05B.xls

U.S. Department of Labor. Older workers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor; Jul. 2008Retrieved October, 9, 2008, from www.bls.gov/spotlight/2008/older_workers



NI H-P A A



NI H-P A A ut h or

Manus c r i pt
http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2008/older_workershttp://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/computer/2003/tab05B.xlshttp://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-10.pdf

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

15/25

Figure 1.Percentage of likes in the context of home, health, and work (y-axis in alphabetical order).



NI H-P A A



NI H-P A A ut h or

Manus c r i pt

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

16/25

Figure 2.Percentage of dislikes in the context of home, health, and work (y-axis in alphabeticalorder).



NI H-P A A



NI H-P A A ut h or

Manus c r i pt

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

17/25





Table 1

Coding Scheme for Assessment of Attitudes toward Technology

Category Definition Subcategories

Convenience/Inconvenience Makes life easier or harder in some way. EffortFinancialHome-based InterruptionsMiscellaneous conveniencePhysicalTimeUnspecified convenience

Feedback Any information that a person can use to monitor their performance.

(no subcategories)

Features Qualities of the technology itself. Access, storage, and retrievalAdjustability and versatilityAppearanceContent qualityDurabilityInput devicesMiscellaneous features

Number and programming optionsPortability and size

QualitySpecific featuresSpeed

Complexity Nature of technology being complex or simple. (no subcategories)

Reliability How well a technology does or does not work. (no subcategories)

Serviceability Anything related to the service and/or maintenanceassociated with a technology.

(no subcategories)

Miscellaneous system characteristics A property of the system but does not fit into the abovecategories.

(no subcategories)

Security Increases or decreases feelings of security. Unspecified securityPrivacySafetyTrustViruses, etc.Miscellaneous security

Activity (Support for or lack of support) Support for or lack of support for an activity. Administrative tasksCommunicationCookingEmergenciesLeisure, hobby, and entertainmentHealth monitoring and maintenanceResearch and educationFinancialShoppingTransportationMiscellaneous activities

Miscellaneous reasons A reason that does not fit into the above categories. (no subcategories)


7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

18/25





T a

b l e 2

N u m

b e r o

f T e c h n o l o g y

I t e m s

R e p o r

t e d i n E a c

h F o c u s G

r o u p

i n R e s p o n s e

t o W h a t T e c

h n o l o g i e s

D o

Y o u

U s e

[ i n

t h e

C o n

t e x t o f

E a c

h D o m a i n ]

?

D o m a i n

E d u c a

t i o n

l e v e

l

R a n g e

M

M e d

i a n

S D

H o m e

L o w

1 5 2

3

2 1

2 1

2 . 9

H i g h

1 2 2

5

1 7

1 5

5 . 0

W o r

k

L o w

6 3 2

1 4

1 1

8 . 9

H i g h

4 2 0

1 3

1 3

5 . 9

H e a

l t h

L o w

3 1 6

7

6

4 . 4

H i g h

4 1 3

7

5

4 . 0

N o t e . F

o c u s g r o u p s r a n g e d

i n s i z e

f r o m

4 t o 9 p a r t i c i p a n t s .


7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

19/25





Table 3

Most Frequent Technologies Discussed in Each Domain

Domain Top technologies discussed Percentage of segments

Home

Computer 13%

Microwave 12%

Cellular phone 11%

Television 9%

Telephone 5%

DVD VCR 5%

Work

Computer 29%

Fax 14%

Telephone 13%

Cell phone 6%

Scanner 6%

Digital camera 5%

Health

Blood glucose monitor 17%

Blood pressure monitor 16%

Telephone 15%

Computer 11%

Internet 7%

Note. Only technologies accounting for 5% or more of the data are represented.


7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

20/25





T a

b l e 4

S u p p o r

t f o r

A c t i v

i t i e s

S u b c a t e g o r

i e s

R e l a t e d

t o L i k e s a

b o u t

T e c

h n o l o g y

D o m a i n

S u b c a t e g o r

i e s

P e r c e n

t a g e o f

s u p p o r

t f o r

a c t i v i t i e s s e g m e n

t s

2 A d j u s

t e d R e s

i d u a

l

E x a m p l e q u o t e s

H o m e

C o m m u n

i c a t

i o n

2 0 %

5 . 5

3

I l i k e i t . I j u s t c a l l e d a f r i e n d w h o s v a c a t i o n i n g i n A l a s k a .

I l i k e [ e m a i l i n g ] w i t h m y g r a n d s o n .

C o o

k i n g

1 9 %

4 . 9

8

I l i k e [ t h e m i c r o w a v e ] f o r r e h e a t i n g f o o d .

L e i s u r e , h o b

b y , a

n d

e n t e r t a

i n m

e n t

1 5 %

3 . 1

2

T o r e c o r d m o v i e s [ w i t h t h e V C R ] .

T o p l a y g a m e s [ o n t h e c o m p u t e r ] .

R e s e a r c h

1 4 %

2 . 3

4

I m u s i n g t h e i n t e r n e t t o r e s e a r c h a n e w c a r .

W o r

k

C o m m u n

i c a t

i o n

3 4 %

1 0 . 8 2

[ T h e f a x m a c h i n e ] g i v e s e a c h p e r s o n i n v o l v e d a d o c u m e n t a t i o n , a n e x a c t c o p y .

A d m i n i s t r a

t i v e

t a s k s

2 9 %

8 . 2

6

I l i k e b e i n g a b l e t o e d i t a s y o u g o [ w h e n w r i t i n g o n t h e c o m p u t e r ] .

Y o u j u s t r u n o f f a l l y o u r l a b e l s f r o m y o u r p r o g r a m .

R e s e a r c h

1 6 %

2 . 0

6

[ I l i k e t h e c o m p u t e r b e c a u s e ] y o u p u t y o u r n u m b e r s i n t h e r e a n d f i n d o u t h o w m u c h s t o c k a n d

i n v e n t o r y y o u h a v e .

[ T o f i n d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t ] b u s i n e s s n e w s t o f o l l o w t r e n d s t h a t m i g h t b e u s e f u l t o o u r p l a n n i n g a n d

w h a t o u r a c t i v i t i e s a r e .

H e a

l t h

R e s e a r c h

3 8 %

1 1 . 0 5

T o r e s e a r c h m e d i c a t i o n s a n d s i d e e f f e c t s .

C h e c k i n g r e f e r e n c e s .

H e a

l t h m o n

i t o r i n g a n

d

m a i n t e n a n c e

3 5 %

9 . 6

7

I l i k e t o k n o w w h a t m y [ b l o o d g l u c o s e l e v e l ] i s e v e r y d a y .

[ I l i k e t h a t ] y o u c a n c a l l i n [ t o o r d e r ] y o u r p r e s c r i p t i o n s .

N o t e . O

n l y c a

t e g o r i e s a c c o u n t

i n g

f o r s

i g n i

f i c a n

t C h i - S q u a r e e f

f e c t s

( r e s

i d u a l

> 2 ) a r e

i n c l u d e d .


7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

21/25





T a

b l e 5

C o n v e n i e n c e

S u b c a

t e g o r i e s

R e l a t e d

t o L i k e s a b o u

t T e c

h n o l o g y

D o m a i n

S u b c a t e g o r

i e s

P e r c e n

t a g e o f

c o n v e n

i e n c e

s e g m e n

t s

2 R e s

i d u a

l


H o m e

E f f o r t

3 2 %

8 . 3 9

I t s s o c o n v e n i e n t w h e n y o u c a n t u r n [ t h e t e l e v i s i o n ] o n [ a n d y o u ] d o n t h a v e t o g e t u p .

W e d o n t h a v e t o w a s h s o m a n y d i s h e s .

Y o u r e n o t h a v i n g t o g o o u t a n d m o v e s p r i n k l e r s .

U n s p e c i f

i e d c o n v e n

i e n c e

1 8 %

2 . 2 2

I l i k e [ t h e t e c h n o l o g y ] b e c a u s e i t s c o n v e n i e n t .

[ I l i k e t h e t e c h n o l o g y b e c a u s e ] i t s h a n d y .

W o r

k

E f f o r t

4 6 %

1 1 . 0

1

[ U s i n g t h e c o m p u t e r ] i s a n e a s i e r w a y t o w r i t e b e c a u s e y o u c a n c h a n g e i t .

O h y o u r f i n g e r s w o u l d b e s o t i r e d [ b e f o r e ] b u t n o w [ w i t h t h e e l e c t r i c c l i p p e r s t h e r e i s ] n o t h i n g t o i t .

i t [ s ] e a s i e r f o r m e t o p l a c e o r d e r s [ u s i n g a c o m p u t e r ] .

W h a t I l i k e d a b o u t i t , i t e l i m i n a t e d a l o t o f h a r d w o r k . T

h i s m a c h i n e j u s t g o e s r i g h t i n t o t h e c o a l . A n d i t e l i m i n a t e d t h e p i c k

a n d s h o v e l .

T i m e

2 4 %

2 . 4 1

[ T h e b a r c o d e s c a n n e r i s ] q u i c k e r t h a n i f I h a v e t o s t a n d t h e r e a n d t y p e i n t h e t i t l e o f t h e i t e m o r t h e n u m b e r t h a t s o n t h e

b a c k .

H e a

l t h

E f f o r t

4 0 %

6 . 9 8

Y o u j u s t p u t i t o n y o u r w r i s t a n d p u s h t h e b u t t o n .

I h a d e v e r y t h i n g p r o g r a m m e d o n m y c e l l p h o n e s o I d o n t h a v e t o r e m e m b e r p h o n e n u m b e r s .

I f i n d [ t h e t e l e p h o n e a u t o m a t i c r e f i l l s y s t e m ] v e r y e a s y .

H o m e b a s e

d

2 3 %

1 . 9 4

[ U s i n g m y o w n b l o o d p r e s s u r e m o n i t o r ] i s a l o t b e t t e r t h a n r u n n i n g b y t h e d o c t o r s o f f i c e o n c e a d a y .

W e l l , [ I l i k e u s i n g a b l o o d g l u c o s e m e t e r ] b e c a u s e I d o n t h a v e t o g o i n a n d h a v e i t d o n e .

[ I l i k e h a v i n g a t r e a d m i l l b e c a u s e ] y o u c a n e x e r c i s e i n y o u r h o m e .

N o t e . O

n l y c a


i n g

f o r s

i g n i

f i c a n


f e c t s

( r e s

i d u a l

> 2 ) a r e

i n c l u d e d .


7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

22/25

7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

23/25





T a

b l e 7

I n c o n v e n

i e n c e S u

b c a t e g o r

i e s

R e l a t e d

t o D i s l i k e s a b o u t

T e c

h n o l o g y

D o m a i n

S u b c a t e g o r

i e s

P e r c e n

t a g e o f

f e a t u r e s

s e g m e n

t s

2 R e s

i d u a

l


H o m e

I n t e r r u p t i o n s

2 8 %

4 . 6 3

B u t I d i s l i k e i t w h e n p e o p l e c a l l y o u [ o n t h e t e l e p h o n e ] a t n i g h t t i m e .

T h e y c a n d o a w a y w i t h a l l t h a t a d v e r t i s i n g [ o n t e l e v i s i o n ] .

A n d w h a t I d i s l i k e a b o u t i s t h a t s o m e t i m e s I m i n m y r o o m o n t h e c o r d l e s s p h o n e a n d w i t h t h e s e l o n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s [ t h e n ] b e e p , b e e p ,

b e e p [ t h e b a t t e r y a l a r m s o u n d s ] .

F i n a n c

i a l

2 7 %

4 . 3 6

A i r c o n d i t i o n e r s a r e t o o e x p e n s i v e .

I d i s l i k e t h e e x p e n s e [ o f V C R a n d D V D p l a y e r s ] .

Y o u r e a l l y h a v e a h i g h b i l l i f y o u u s e [ a c e l l u l a r p h o n e ] e x c e s s i v e l y a n d d o n t h a v e t h e p r o p e r p l a n t h a t s u i t s y o u r n e e d s .

[ P r i n t e r i n k c a r t r i d g e s ] a r e t o o e x p e n s i v e .

E f f o r t

2 1 %

2 . 4 7

[ L e a r n i n g t o u s e a c o m p u t e r i s ] t o o m u c h r a c k i n g m y b r a i n .

I h a v e t o

d i s a b l e t h e d i g i t a l r e c o r d e r i n o r d e r t o p l u g i n t h e f a x m a c h i n e .

W o r

k

I n t e r r u p t i o n s

2 9 %

4 . 4 2

T h e y s e n d y o u s o m e s t u f f [ t h r o u g h t h e f a x m a c h i n e ] l i k e t h i s f i n a n c i n g o f f e r s o r s t u f f l i k e t h a t .

[ C e l l u l a r p h o n e s a r e ] a d i s t r a c t i o n .

T h e b a d p a r t i s w h e n y o u a r e i n a c l o s i n g a n d y o u r b e e p e r s t a r t s v i b r a t i n g a n d y o u t h i n k n o t n o w !

E f f o r t

2 9 %

4 . 4 2

I d i s l i k e t h a t [ t h e c o r d l e s s d r i l l ] i s k i n d o f h e a v y .

[ I f y o u ] m a k e a n e r r o r o r p u n c h t h e w r o n g b u t t o n [ o n a n a d d i n g m a c h i n e ] y o u g o t t o g o o v e r i t a g a i n .

H e a

l t h

P h y s

i c a l

2 9 %

2 . 5 8

I d i s l i k e t h e t i g h t n e s s [ o f t h e b l o o d p r e s s u r e c u f f ] .

I d i s l i k e s t i c k i n g m y f i n g e r [ w h e n u s i n g t h e b l o o d g l u c o s e m e t e r ] .

I t c a n b e d i f f i c u l t t o u s e [ a n a u t o m a t e d t e l e p h o n e m e n u ] w h e n y o u h a v e a r t h r i t i s .

E f f o r t

2 8 %

2 . 2 9

[ T h e w h e e l c h a i r ] i s h e a v y .

I f y o u h a v e t o g e t u p t o u s e t h e b a t h r o o m d u r i n g t h e n i g h t , y o u h a v e t o d i s c o n n e c t [ t h e n e b u l i z e r ] .

W h e n y o u h a v e e i g h t o r n i n e [ p r e s c r i p t i o n s ] a n d y o u h a v e t o p u s h t h e b u t t o n o n t h e p h o n e a n d p u t a l l t h e n u m b e r s i n .

N o t e . O

n l y c a


i n g

f o r s

i g n i

f i c a n


f e c t s

( r e s

i d u a l

> 2 ) a r e

i n c l u d e d .


7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

24/25





T a

b l e 8

F e a t u r e s

S u b c a t e g o r i e s

R e l a t e d

t o D i s l i k e s a b o u

t T e c h n o l o g y

D o m a i n

S u b c a t e g o r

i e s

P e r c e n

t a g e o f

f e a t u r e s

s e g m e n

t s

R e s i

d u a l


H o m e

N u m

b e r / P r o g r a m m

i n g

O p t

i o n s

2 1 %

4 . 1 8

T h e r e i s j u s t s o m u c h s t u f f i t s t o o m a n y g a d g e t s .

[ T h e r e a r e ] t o o m a n y o p t i o n s [ o n t h e a u t o m a t e d t e l e p h o n e m e n u ] .

T h e r e a r e t o o m a n y c h o i c e s [ o n d i g i t a l c a m e r a s ] .

I d i s l i k e [ c e l l u l a r p h o n e s ] b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e a l o t o f c a p a b i l i t i e s .

T h e o t h e r s y o u g o t t o s p e n d 1 5 2

0 m i n u t e s t r y i n g t o d o t h a t a n d t h e n i f y o u w a n t e d t o c o m p a r e t h a n y o u g o t t o g o

b a c k a n d d o - y o u g o t a l o t o f t r o u b l e t r y i n g t o f i n d w h a t i s a v a i l a b l e t o y o u .

C o n

t e n t Q

u a l i t y

2 1 %

4 . 1 8

I d i s l i k e t h e [ t e l e v i s i o n ] p r o g r a m s w e g e t .

T o o m a n y s p o r t s [ p r o g r a m s o n t h e t e l e v i s i o n ] .

Q u a

l i t y o

f o u t p u

t

2 1 %

4 . 1 8

W h a t I d i s l i k e a b o u t [ t h e m i c r o w a v e i s t h a t ] i f I l e a v e [ t h e f o o d ] i n t h e r e t o o l o n g i t s l i k e r u b b e r .

I c a n t g e t g o o d r e c e p t i o n t o p l a y t h e s t e r e o i n t h e b e d r o o m .

[ T h e s c a n n e r ] d o e s n t m a k e a g o o d , s h a r p , c r i s p c o p y .

[ L a w n m o w e r s a r e ] n o i s y .

W o r

k

N u m

b e r / P r o g r a m m

i n g

O p t

i o n s

3 1 %

5 . 6 1

[ T h e c a l c u l a t o r ] d o e s n t s h o w e n o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n .

[ C o m p u t e r s u s e ] t o o m u c h p a p e r .

Y o u a r e l i m i t e d [ i n w h a t y o u c a n d o w i t h a c o m p u t e r ] .

S o m e t i m e s y o u r e c a l l i n g a n d t h e [ a u t o m a t e d ] m e n u d o e s n o t h a v e w h a t y o u r e l o o k i n g f o r .

N o t e . O

n l y c a


i n g

f o r s

i g n i

f i c a n


f e c t s

( r e s

i d u a l

> 2 ) a r e

i n c l u d e d .


7/27/2019 nihms226103.pdf

25/25





T a

b l e 9

S e c u r i

t y S u b c a t e g o r i e s

R e l a t e d

t o D i s l i k e s a b o u

t T e c

h n o l o g y

D o m a i n

S u b c a t e g o r

i e s

P e r c e n

t a g e o f

f e a t u r e s s e g m e n

t s

2 R e s

i d u a

l


H o m e

S a f e t y

7 1 %

1 1 . 6

3

T h e y t e l l m e t h a t t h e m i c r o w a v e h a s a l o t o f r a d o n i n i t , w h i c h I d o n t l i k e u s i n g m i c r o w a v e s f o r t h a t r e a s o n .

[ M i c r o w a v e s ] a r e d a n g e r o u s .

I t h i n k i t s d a n g e r o u s [ t o u s e a c e l l u l a r p h o n e w h i l e d r i v i n g ] .

[ U s i n g a c o m p u t e r c a n c a u s e ] c a r p e l t u n n e l s y n d r o m e , b a c k t r o u b l e , a n d e y e t r o u b l e .

W o r

k

S a f e t y

4 9 %

3 . 2 5

A n d y o u h a v e t o b e v e r y c a r e f u l h o w y o u u s e [ a d r i l l ] , y o u c a n b r e a k y o u r h a n d v e r y e a s i l y .

[ C e l l p h o n e s c a n b e ] d e a d l y .

S i t t i n g a t t h e c o m p u t e r f o r t o o l o n g i s v e r y d e b i l i t a t i n g .

N o t e . O

n l y c a


i n g

f o r s

i g n i

f i c a n


f e c t s

( r e s

i d u a l

> 2 ) a r e

i n c l u d e d .


Documents

nihms226103.pdf