Mobile Technology for Older Adults: Protector, Motivator or Threat?

  • Lynne CoventryEmail author
  • Pam Briggs
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9754)


New technologies offer an opportunity to improve the wellbeing and independence of older adults, but many of the potential benefits, have not yet been realised. Some technologies suggest a lifestyle of constant monitoring, controlling and nudging - transformations that could be perceived as threatening. To better understand older adult perceptions and attitudes to adoption of such systems, we describe a 3 week field trial of an application and view the results through the lens of protection motivation theory. Our participants identified a number of threats including not being able to live independently, fear of getting lost, being stigmatised and lack of privacy. Usability, accessibility, reliability, costs and usefulness all negatively impacted coping appraisal that would result in non-adoption, despite their stated intention to adopt the technology in the future.


Older adults Service design Behaviour theories 


  1. 1.
    Harding, E.: Sustainable planning for housing in an ageing population: a guide for regional-level strategies. International Longevity Centre UK (2008).
  2. 2.
    Malley, J., Hancock, R., Murphy, M., Adams, J., Wittenberg, R., Comas-Herrera, A., Curry, C., King, D., James, S., Morciano, M., Pickard, L.M.: The effect of lengthening life expectancy on future pension and long-term care expenditure in England, 2007 to 2032. Health Stat. Q. 52(1), 33–61 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunnell, K.: Ageing and mortality in the UK – national statistician’s annual article on the population. Popul. Trends 134, 6–23 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodrigues, H., Rui, J.: System implications of context-driven interaction in smart environments. Interact. Comput. 26, 105–117 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jara, A.J., Lopez, P., Fernandez, D., Zamora, M.A., Ubeda, B., Skarmeta, A.F.: Communication protocol for enabling continuous monitoring of elderly people through near field communications. Interact. Comput. 26, 145–167 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sum, S., Mathews, R.M., Hughes, I., Campbell, A.: Internet use and loneliness in older adults. CyberPsychol. Behav. 11(2), 208–211 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    White, H., McConnell, E., Clipp, E., Branch, L.G., Sloane, R., Pieper, C., Box, T.L.: A randomized controlled trial of the psychosocial impact of providing internet training and access to older adults. Aging Ment. Health 6(3), 213–221 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cotten, S.R., Ford, G., Ford, S., Hale, T.M.: Internet use and depression among older adults. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(2), 496–499 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wright, K.: Computer-mediated social support, older adults, and coping. J. Commun. 50(3), 100–118 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, Y., Pearson, A.: Internet use among young and older adults: relation to psychological well-being. Educ. Gerontol. 28, 731–744 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stark-Wroblewski, K., Edelbaum, J.K., Ryan, J.J.: Senior citizens who use e-mail. Educ. Gerontol. 33, 293–307 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith, A.: Older adults and technology use (2014).
  13. 13.
    Bowling, A.: Enhancing later life: How older people perceive active ageing? Aging Ment. Health 12, 3 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rogers, R.W.: A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. J. Psychol. 91(1), 93–114 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hanson, V.L.: Influencing technology adoption by older adults. Interact. Comput. 22, 502–509 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hogeboom, D.L., McDermott, R.J., Perrin, K.M., Osman, H., Bell-Ellison, B.A.: Internet use and social networking among middle-aged and older adults. Educ. Gerontol. 36, 93–111 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cockton, G.: A development framework for value-centred design. In: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2005, pp. 1292–1295. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cockton, G.: Designing worth is worth designing. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles, pp. 165–174. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norman, D.A.: Human-centered design considered harmful. Interactions 12(4), 14–19 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sellen, A., Rogers, Y., Harper, R., Rodden, T.: Reflecting human values in the digital age. Commun. ACM 52(3), 58–66 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Czaja, S.J., Lee, C.C.: The impact of aging on access to technology. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 5(4), 341–349 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gillespie, A., Best, C., O’Neill, B.: Cognitive function and assistive technology for cognition: a systematic review. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 18, 1–19 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nutbeam, D.: Health promotion glossary. Health Promotion Int. 13(4), 349–364 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maddux, J.E., Rogers, R.W.: Protection motivation and self-efficacy: a revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19(5), 469–479 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maki, B.E.: Gait changes in older adults: predictors of falls or indicators of fear? J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 45(3), 313–320 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thomas, L., Little, L., Briggs, P., McInnes, L., Jones, E., Nicholson, J.: Location tracking: views from the older adult population. Age Ageing 42(6), 758–763 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84(2), 191–215 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bennett, J.: Online communities and the activation, motivation and integration of persons aged 60 and older. A literature review. Version 1.1 (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oudshoorn, N., Pinch, T.J. (eds.): How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technologies. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E. (eds.): Consuming Technologies, Media and Information in Domestic Spaces. Routledge, London (1992)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chang, S.E.: Computer anxiety and perception of task complexity in learning programming related skills. Comput. Hum. Behav. 21, 713–728 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Loos, E., Haddon, L., Mante-Meijer, E. (eds.): Generational Use of New Media. Ashgate, Farnham (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fagan, M., Neill, S., Wooldridge, B.: An empirical investigation into the relationship between computer self-efficacy, anxiety, experience, support and usage. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 44, 95–104 (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Coleman, G.W., Gibson, L., Hanson, V.L., Bobrowicz, A., McKay, A.: Engaging the disengaged: how do we design technology for digitally excluded older adults? In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 175–178. ACM, August 2010Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Greathead, D., Arief, B., Coventry, L., van Moorsel, A.: Deriving requirements for an online community interaction scheme, In: CHI 2012, Austin, pp. 1541–1546, 5–10 May 2012Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Resnick, B.: Health promotion practices of older adults: testing an individualized approach. J. Clin. Nurs. 12(1), 46–55 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aresu, M., Bécares, L., Brage, S.: Health Survey for England: Physical Activity and Fitness, vol. 1 (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Coventry, L., Jones, E.: The role of tea parties to elicit technology requirements to support the mobility of older adults. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, PETRA 2012 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PaCT Lab, Department of PsychologyNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations