Smart Home Technologies: Insights into Generation-Specific Acceptance Motives

  • Sylvia Gaul
  • Martina Ziefle
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5889)


In this research we examine the generation specific acceptance motives of eHealth technologies in order to assess the likelihood of success for these new technologies. 280 participants (14 - 92 years of age) volunteered to participate in a survey, in which using motives and barriers toward smart home technologies were explored. The scenario envisaged was the use of a medical stent implemented into the body, which monitors automatically the health status and which is able to remotely communicate with the doctor. Participants were asked to evaluate the pros and cons of the usage of this technology, their acceptance motives and potential utilization barriers. In order to understand the complex nature of acceptance, personal variables (age, technical expertise, health status), individual’s cognitive concepts toward ageing as well as perceived usefulness were related. Outcomes show that trust, believe in the reliability of technology, privacy and security as well as intimacy facets are essential for acceptance and should be considered in order to proactively design a successful rollout of smart home technologies.


Aging technology acceptance smart home technology perceived usefulness TAM medical technology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wittenberg, R., Comas-Herrera, A., Pickard, L., Hancock, R.: Future Demand for Long-Term Care in England. PSSRU Research Summary (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leonhardt, S.: Personal Healthcare Devices. In: Mekherjee, S., et al. (eds.) Malware: Hardware Technology Drivers of Ambient Intelligence, pp. 349–370. Springer, Dordrecht (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weiner, M., Callahan, C.M., Tierney, W.M., Overhage, M., Mamlin, B., Dexter, A.: Using Information Technology To Improve the Health Care of Older Adults. Ann. Intern. Med. 139, 430–436 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Groß, D., Jakobs, E.-M.: E-Health und technisierte Medizin [Ehealth and medical engineering]. LIT, Münster (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jähn, K., Nagel, E.: e-Health. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tan, J.K.H.: Healthcare information systems & informatics: research and practices, Hershey (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Warren, S., Craft, R.L.: Designing smart health care technology into the home of the future. Engineering in Medicine and Biology 2, 677 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Starr, P.: Smart technology, stunted policy: developing health information networks. Health Affairs 16(3), 91–105 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lymberis, A.: Smart wearable systems for personalised health management: current R&D and future challenges Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. In: Proc. of the 25th Annual International Conference, vol. 4, pp. 3716–3719. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wirtz, S., Ziefle, M., Jakobs, E.-M.: Autopilot versus hearing aid – domain- and technology type-specific parameters of older people’s technology acceptance. In: 9th International Conference on Work With Computer Systems, Beijing, China (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jakobs, E.-M., Lehnen, K., Ziefle, M.: Alter und Technik. Eine Studie zur altersbezogenen Wahrnehmung und Gestaltung von Technik., Aprimus, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: What older user expect from mobile devices: An empirical survey. In: Pikaar, R.N., Konigsveld, E.A., Settels, P.J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th World Congress on Ergonomics (IEA). Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mynatt, E.D., Melenhorst, A.-S., Fisk, A.-D., Rogers, W.A.: Aware technologies for aging in place: understanding user needs and attitudes. .IEEE Pervasive Computing 20(3) (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Melenhorst, A.S., Rogers, W.A., Caylor, E.C.: The use of communication technologies by older adults: Exploring the benefits from an users perspective. In: Proc. of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Melenhorst, A.-S., Rogers, W.A., Bouwhuis, D.G.: Older adults’ motivated choice for technological innovation: Evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychology and Aging 21(1), 190–195 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zimmer, Z., Chappell, N.L.: Receptivity to new technology among older adults. Disability and Rehabilitation 21(5/6), 222–230 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319–337 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science 46, 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test. Decision Sciences 27, 451–481 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance. Computers in Human Behavior 23, 2904–2927 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27, 3 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Different perspectives on technology acceptance: The role of technology type and age. In: USAB 2009, Linz, Austria (submitted, 2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ziefle, M.: Age perspectives on the usefulness on e-health applications. In: International Conference on Health Care Systems, Ergonomics, and Patient Safety (HEPS), Straßbourg, France (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meyer, S., Mollenkopf, H.: Home technology, smart homes, and the Aging user. In: Schaie, K.W., Wahl, H.-W., Mollenkopf, H., Oswald, F. (eds.) Aging Independently: Living Arrangements and Mobility. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Demiris, G., Hensel, B.K., Skubic, M., Rantz, M.: Senior residents’ perceived need of and preferences for “smart home” sensor technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 24, 120–124 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stronge, A.J., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D.J.: Human factors considerations in implementing telemedicine systems to accommodate older adults. Telemed. Telecare 13, 1–3 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morrell, R.W., Mayhorn, C.B., Bennet, J.: A Survey of World Wide Web Use in Middle-Aged and Older Adults. Human Factors 42(2), 175–182 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vicente, K.J., Hayes, B.C., Williges, R.C.: Assaying and isolating individual dfferences in searching a hierarchical files system. Human Facotrs 29, 349–359 (1987)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Westerman, S.J.: Individual differences in the use of command line and menu computer interfaces. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction 9, 183–198 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Barriers of Information Access in Small Screen Device Applications: The Relevance of User Characteristics for a Transgenerational Design. In: Stephanidis, C., Pieper, M. (eds.) ERCIM Ws UI4ALL 2006. LNCS, vol. 4397, pp. 117–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ziefle, M., Bay, S.: How older adults meet cognitive complexity: Aging effects on the usability of different cellular phones. Behaviour and Information Technology 24(5), 375–389 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ziefle, M., Bay, S.: How to overcome disorientation in mobile phone menus: A comparison of two different types of navigation aids. Human Computer Interaction 21(4), 393–432 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ziefle, M., Bay, S.: Transgenerational Designs in Mobile Technology. In: Lumsden, J. (ed.) Handbook of Research on User Interface Design and Evaluation for Mobile Technology, pp. 122–140. IGI Global (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ziefle, M., Schroeder, U., Strenk, J., Michel, T.: How young and older users master the use of hyperlinks in small screen devices. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems 2007, pp. 307–316. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Comparing apples and oranges? Exploring users’ acceptance of ICT and eHealth applications. In: International Conference on Health Care Systems, Ergonomics, and Patient Safety, HEPS (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Marquie, J.C., Jourdan-Boddaert, L., Huet, N.: Do older adults underestimate their actual computer knowledge? Behaviour and Information Technology 21(4), 273–280 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Noyes, J.M., Sheard, M.C.A.: Designing for older adults - are they a special group? In: Universal Access in HCI: Inclusive Design in the Information Society, pp. 877–881. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sackmann, R., Weymann, A.: Die Technisierung des Alltags – Generationen und technische Innovationen [mechanization of daily life- genarations and technical innovations]. Frankfurt: Campus (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvia Gaul
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Technology Centre (HumTec)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations