Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 271–280 | Cite as

Predicting older adults’ perceptions about a computer system designed for seniors

  • Tracy L. Mitzner
  • Wendy A. Rogers
  • Arthur D. Fisk
  • Walter R. Boot
  • Neil Charness
  • Sara J. Czaja
  • Joseph Sharit
Long paper
First Online:

Abstract

Although computer technology may be particularly useful for older adults (e.g., for communication and information access), they have been slower adopters than their younger counterparts. Perceptions about computers, such as perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, can pose barriers to acceptance and universal access (Davis in MIS Q 13(3):319–340, 1989). Therefore, understanding the precursors to these perceptions for older adult non-computer users may provide insight into the reasons for their non-adoption. The authors examined the relationship between perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of a computer interface designed for older users and demographic, technology experience, cognitive abilities, personality, and attitudinal variables in a sample of 300 non-computer-using adults between the ages 64 and 98, selected for being at high risk for social isolation. The strongest correlates of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were technology experience, personality dimensions of agreeableness and openness to experience, and attitudes. The emotional stability personality dimension was significantly correlated with perceived ease of use though not perceived usefulness. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that attitudes (i.e., self-efficacy, comfort, and interest) remained predictive of perceptions of usefulness and ease of use when technology experience and personality variables were accounted for. Given that attitudes are more malleable than other variables, such as demographic and cognitive abilities, these findings highlight the potential to increase technology acceptance through positive experiences, appropriate training, and educational campaigns about the benefits of computers and other technologies.

Keywords

Aging Technology acceptance Computers usefulness Ease of use Personality 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute on Aging) Grant P01 AG17211 under the auspices of the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE; www.create-center.org). The authors would also like to thank Chin Chin Lee, Laura Matalenas, Sank Nair, Shih-Hua Fu, and Minsun Park for their assistance with various aspects of the project.

References

  1. 1.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Czaja, S.J., Lee, C.C.: Older adults and information technology: opportunities and challenges. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) The human computer-interaction handbook, pp. 825–840. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bureau, U.S.C.: Projections of the population by selected age groups and sex for the United States: 2015 to 2060. United States Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams, D., Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc., AARP: The grandparent study 2002 report. American Association for Retired Persons, Washington, DC (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charness, N., Boot, W.R.: Aging and information technology use potential and barriers. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18(5), 253–258 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Green, C.S., Bavelier, D.: Exercising your brain: a review of human brain plasticity and training-induced learning. Psychol. Aging. 23(4), 692–701 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boot, W.R., Blakely, D.P., Simons, D.J.: Do action video games improve perception and cognition? Front. Psychol. 2, 226 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Falling through the net: a survey of the “Have Nots” in rural and urban America. National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA], Washington, DC (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Falling through the net: toward digital inclusion. A report on Americans’ access to technology tools. National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA], Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A nation outline: how Americans are expanding their use of the internet. National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA], Washington, DC (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Project, P.I.A.L.: Demographics of internet users (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fox, S.: Americans living with disability and their technology profile. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zickuhr, K., Madden, M.: Older adults and internet use. PEW Research Center, Washington, DC (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morrell, R.W., Dailey, S.R., Stoltz-Loike, M., Mayhorn, C.B., Echt, K.V.: Older adults and information technology: a compendium of scientific research and web site accessibility guidelines. National Institute on Aging, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boot, W.R., Charness, N., Czaja, S.J., Sharit, J., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D., Mitzner, T.L., Lee, C.C., Nair, S.: The computer proficiency Questionnaire (CPQ): assessing low and high computer proficient seniors. The Gerontologist (2013) [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fox, S.: Older Americans and the internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morrell, R.W., Mayhorn, C.B., Bennett, J.: A survey of World Wide Web use in middle-aged and older adults. Hum. Factors. 42, 175–182 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    King, W.R., He, J.: A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 43, 740–755 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davis, F.D., Venkatesh, V.: Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: implications for software project management. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 51(1), 31–46 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Porter, C.E., Donthu, N.: Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine internet usage: the role of perceived access barriers and demographics. J. Bus. Res. 9, 999–1007 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G.: Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Q. 24(1), 115–139 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dishaw, M.T., Strong, D.M.: Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs. Inf. Manag. 36(1), 9–21 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis, F.D., Venkatesh, V.: A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 45(1), 19–45 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plouffe, C.R., Hulland, J., Vandenbosch, M.: Richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decisions: understanding merchant adoption of a smart card-based payment system. Inf. Syst. Res. 12(2), 208–222 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., Angst, C.: Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance. MIS Q. 30(4), 781–804 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decis. Sci. 27, 451–481 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nov, O., Ye, C.: Users’ personality and perceived ease of use of digital libraries: the case for resistance to change. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 59(5), 845–851 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wixom, B.H., Todd, P.A.: A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inf. Syst. Res. 16(1), 85–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhou, T., Lu, Y.: Examining mobile instant messaging user loyalty from the perspectives of network externalities and flow experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(2), 883–889 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Czaja, S.J., Charness, N., Fisk, A., Hertzog, C., Nair, S., Rogers, W., Sharit, J.: Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychol. Aging 21(2), 333–352 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Haan, J.: A multifaceted dynamic model of the digital divide. IT Soc. 1(7), 66–88 (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Freese, J., Rivas, S.: Cognition, personality, and the sociology of response to social change: the case of internet adoption. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Gerontological Society of America, Orlando, Florida (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pratt, R.M.C., K. M. Extraversion, the predictor of system adoption? The effect of personality traits on acceptance. In: The Academy of Management (AOM) Meeting. Atlanta, GA (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Punnoose, A.: Determinants of intention to use eLearning based on the technology acceptance model. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 11(1), 301–337 (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Digman, J.M.: Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41, 417–440 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goldberg, L.R.: The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychol. Assess. 4(1), 26–42 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    John, O.P., Srivastava, S.: The big-five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handb. Personal. Theory Res. 2, 102–138 (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., Swann, W.B.: A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains. J. Res. Pers. 37, 504–528 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zweig, D., Webster, J.: Personality as a moderator of monitoring acceptance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 19, 479–493 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mitzner, T.L., Boron, J.B., Fausset, C.B., Adams, A.E., Charness, N., Czaja, S.J., Dijkstra, K., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A., Sharit, J.: Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(6), 1710–1721 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Burnett, J.S., Mitzner, T.L., Charness, N., Rogers, W. A.: Understanding predictors of computer communication technology use by older adults. In: The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA (2011)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Madden, M.: America’s online pursuits-the changing picture of who’s online and what they do. The pew internet and American life project, Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reitan, R.M.: The validity of the trail making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept. Mot. Skills 8, 271–276 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ekstrom, R.B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., Dermen, D.: Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Education Testing Service, Princeton, NJ (1976)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    McCabe, D.P., Robertson, C.L., Smith, A.D.: Age differences in stroop interference in working memory. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 27, 633–644 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rosen, W.: The UCLA loneliness scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J. Pers. Assess. 66, 20–40 (1980)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shipley, W.C.: A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. J. Psychol. 9, 371–377 (1940)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zachary, R.A.: Shipley institute of living scale: revised manual. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles (1986)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wilkinson, G.S.: Wide range achievement test administration manual. Wide Range, Inc., Wilmington, DE (1993)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Loyd, B.H., Gressard, C.: Reliability and factoral validity of computer attitude scale. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 44(2), 501–505 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hall, C.D., et al.: Cognitive and motor mechanisms underlying older adults’ ability to divide attention while walking. Phys. Ther. 91(7), 1039–1050 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chesney, T.: Measuring the context of information systems use. J. Inf. Technol. Manag. 29(3), 9–20 (2008)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Szajna, B.: Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Manag. Sci. 42(1), 85–92 (1996)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cresci, M.K., Yarandi, H., Morrell, R.W.: Pro-nets versus no-nets: differences in urban odler adults’ predilections for Internet use. Educ. Gerontol. 36, 1–21 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cresci, M.K., Yarandi, H., Morrell, R.W.: Digital divide and urban older adults. Comput. Inf. Nursing 28(2), 88–94 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stolp, S., Zabrucky, K.M.: Contributions of metacognitive and self-regulated learning theories to investigations of calibration of comprehension. Int. Electron. J. Element. Educ. 2(1), 7–31 (2009)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Older adults and technology use. Pew Research Center (2014)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jay, G.M., Willis, S.L.: Influence of direct computer experience on older adults’ attitudes towards computers. J. Gerontol. 47(4), 250–257 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tracy L. Mitzner
    • 1
  • Wendy A. Rogers
    • 1
  • Arthur D. Fisk
    • 1
  • Walter R. Boot
    • 2
  • Neil Charness
    • 2
  • Sara J. Czaja
    • 3
  • Joseph Sharit
    • 4
  1. 1.School of PsychologyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesUniversity of Miami Miller School of MedicineMiamiUSA
  4. 4.Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations