Attitudes Towards Aging and the Acceptance of ICT for Aging in Place

  • Eva-Maria SchomakersEmail author
  • Julia Offermann-van Heek
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10926)


Facing the demographic developments in the Western world, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) designed to support older people can represent a promising approach for the overloaded health care systems. Most older adults prefer to age in place in their home environment. Assistive ICT can support older adults in staying independent, connected, and healthy and provide help in emergency situations. However, older adults represent a special group regarding the use of ICT: they are still often less experienced and cautious in adapting new technologies. Correspondingly, acceptance poses the greatest barrier for the success of assistive ICT. Older adults are not a homogeneous group, they differ in their experience with technologies, attitudes towards aging, and ideas for quality of life. In a questionnaire approach, N = 166 participants’ attitudes towards aging and evaluation of two examples of ICT are assessed. The analysis shows, that technology generations differ in their opinions about aging as well as their assessment of assistive ICT. Attitude towards aging, gender, education, health status, and other attitudes form a multifaceted picture of influences on the acceptance.


Technology acceptance Aging Attitudes towards aging Information and communication technologies Assistive technologies 



The authors thank all participants for their openness in sharing their opinions. Furthermore, the authors want to thank Nils Plettenberg for research assistance. This work was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (in parts: projects Whistle 16SV7530 and MyneData (KIS1DSD045)).


  1. 1.
    Haustein, T., Mischke, J., Schönfeld, F., Willand, I., Theis, K.: Older People in Germany and the EU (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: User diversity as a challenge for the integration of medical technology into future smart home environments. In: Ziefle, M., Röcker, C. (eds.) Human-Centered Design of E-Health Technologies: Concepts, Methods and Applications, pp. 95–126. Medical Information Science Reference, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cardinaux, F., Deepayan, B., Charith, A., Hawley, M.S., Mark, S., Bhowmik, D., Abhayaratne, C.: Video based technology for ambient assisted living: a review of the literature. J. Ambient Intell. Smart Environ. 1364, 253–269 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blackman, S., Matlo, C., Bobrovitskiy, C., Waldoch, A., Fang, M.L., Jackson, P., Mihailidis, A., Nygård, L., Astell, A., Sixsmith, A.: Ambient assisted living technologies for aging well: a scoping review. J. Intell. Syst. 25, 55–69 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yared, R., Abdulrazak, B.: Ambient technology to assist elderly people in indoor risks. Computers 5, 22 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaudhuri, S., Thompson, H., Demiris, G.: Fall detection devices and their use with older adults: a systematic review. J. Geriatr. Phys. Tehr. 37, 178–196 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rashidi, P., Mihailidis, A.: A survey on ambient-assisted living tools for older adults. IEEE J. Biomed. Heal. Informatics. 17, 579–590 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merkel, S.: Technische Unterstützung für mehr Gesundheit und Lebensqualität im Alter: Herausforderungen und Chancen [Technical support for more Health and Quality of Life in Older Age: Challgendes and Opportunities]. Forsch. Aktuell, Inst. für Arbeit und Tech. (IAT), Westfälische Hochschule, University Applied Science (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1980)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Venkatesh, V., Zhang, X.: Culture and technology adoption: theory and empirical test of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in the us vs china. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 1689–1699 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Czaja, S.J., Charness, N., Fisk, A.D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S.N., Rogers, W.A., Sharit, J.: Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psyhol. Aging. 21, 333–352 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ziefle, M., Schaar, A.K.: Gender differences in acceptance and attitudes towards an invasive medical stent. Electron. J. Heal. Inf. 6 (2011).
  14. 14.
    Chen, K., Chan, A.H.S.: Review a review of technology acceptance by older adults. Gerontechnology 10, 1–12 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jakobs, E.: Alter und Technik (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van de Goor, A.G., Becker, H.A.: Technology generations in the Netherlands: a sociological analysis. Shaker Pub, Maastricht (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sackmann, R., Winkler, O.: Technology generations revisited: the internet generation. Gerontechnology 11, 493–503 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Heek, J., Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: Caregivers’ perspectives on ambient assisted living technologies in professional care contexts. In: 4th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health (ICT4AWE 2018). SCITEPRESS (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: Smart home medical technologies: users’ requirements for conditional acceptance. I-Com. J. Interact. Media. 15, 39–50 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Heek, J., Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Where, wherefore, and how? Contrasting two surveillance contexts according to acceptance. In: 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (Smartgreens 2017), pp. 87–98. SCITEPRESS (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaschinski, C., Allouch, S.B.: An extended view on benefits and barriers of ambient assisted living solutions. Int. J. Adv. Life Sci. 7, 40–53 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peek, S.T.M., Wouters, E.J.M., van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K.G., Boeije, H.R., Vrijhoef, H.J.M.: Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Heek, J., Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: Helpful but spooky ? Acceptance of AAL-systems contrasting user groups with focus on disabilities and care needs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health (ICT4AWE 2017), pp. 78–90 (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bowling, A., Gabriel, Z., Dykes, J., Dowding, L.M., Evans, O., Fleissig, A., Banister, D., Sutton, S.: Let’s ask them: a national survey of definitions of quality of life and its enhancement among people aged 65 and over. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 56, 269–306 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schomakers, E.-M., van Heek, J., Ziefle, M.: A game of wants and needs. The Playful, user-centered assessment of AAL technology acceptance. In: ICT4AgeingWell 2018. SCITEPRESS (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beier, G.: Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik [Technical Self-Efficacy]. Rep. Psychol., 684–693 (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, H.J., Hart, P.: Examining the formation of individual’s privacy concerns: toward an integrative view. In: International Conference on Information Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C.: Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf. Syst. Res. 13, 334–359 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Claßen, K.: Zur Psychologie von Technikakzeptanz im höheren Lebensalter: Die Rolle von Technikgenerationen [Psychology of Technology Acceptance in older age: the role of technology generations]. Dissertation (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Statistisches Bundesamt Destatis: Private Haushalte in der Informationsgesellschaft - Nutzung von Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien [Private Household in the Information Society - Use of Information and Communication Technologies] (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prensky, M.: Digital natives. Digit. Immigrants. Horiz. 9, 1–6 (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilkowska, W., Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: A small but significant difference - the role of gender on acceptance of medical assistive technologies. In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) USAB 2010, LNCS 6389, pp. 82–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva-Maria Schomakers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Julia Offermann-van Heek
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations