03 iancu & iancu

Dossier

ESSACHESS. Journal for Communication Studies, vol. 13, no 2(26) / 2020 : 13-39 eISSN 1775-352X © ESSACHESS

I Love It, but It Is Too Complicated. Aging Adults’ Perspective on Mobile

Technology Acceptance

Ioana IANCUAssociate Professor, Babeș-Bolyai University

Cluj-Napoca ROMANIA

[email protected]

Bogdan IANCUSenior Lecturer, Technical University of Cluj-

Napoca, Cluj-Napoca ROMANIA

[email protected]

Abstract: In the context of constant population aging, digital technologies are required especially for communication and geriatric care. However, before a large-scale deployment could be implemented, the general technological acceptance level should be assessed. The paper aims to descriptively analyze the perception of aging adults on mobile technology. Based on Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the variables considered are emotional attachment on technology, actual use, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intentions. Methodologically, a set of semi-structured interviews have been conducted. The results show that although individuals love their mobile devices and although they perceive them as being useful, the devices are not easy to be used and there are numerous concerns regarding technology. Paradoxically, while they claim the like owning smart devices, they consider them too complex and intrusive.

Keywords: aging adults, mobile technology acceptance, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, behavioral intention

*** J’aime ça, mais c’est trop compliqué.

Les perspectives des adultes vieillissants sur l’acceptation des technologies mobiles

14 Ioana IANCU & Bogdan IANCU I Love It, but It is Too Complicated

Résumé: Dans un contexte de vieillissement constant de la population, les technologies numériques sont nécessaires notamment pour la communication et les soins gériatriques. Cependant, avant qu’un déploiement à grande échelle puisse être mis en œuvre, le niveau général d’acceptation technologique doit être évalué. L’article vise à analyser de manière descriptive la perception des adultes vieillissants sur la technologie mobile. Basé sur le modèle d’acceptation de la technologie (TAM), les variables considérées sont l’attachement émotionnel à la technologie, l’utilisation réelle, la facilité d’utilisation perçue, l’utilité perçue et les intentions comportementales. Sur le plan méthodologique, une série d'entretiens semi-structurés ont été menés. Les résultats montrent que si les individus aiment leurs mobile appareils et qu’ils les perçoivent comme étant utiles, les appareils ne sont pas faciles à utiliser et les préoccupations technologiques sont nombreuses. Paradoxalement, alors qu’ils prétendent vouloir posséder des appareils intelligents, ils les considèrent trop complexes et intrusifs.

Mots-clés: adultes vieillissants, acceptation de la technologie mobile; facilité d’utilisation perçue, utilité perçue, intention comportementale

*** Introduction

In a context characterized by a constant aging of the population (Lüders & Brandtzæg, 2014), the way the aging adults perceive technology and how it can be used for daily activities and health monitoring become of great interest. As a global trend, largely present in Europe (Niehaves & Plattfaut, 2014), there is an increased life expectancy doubled by a rapid technological development, especially in the mobile sector (Jochems, 2016). It is estimated that in 2050, globally, the population over 60 years will reach 22% of the total population (Gatti et al., 2017). In Romania, until 2060, the population over 65 years old is expected to increase from 17,2% (in 2015) to 29% (National Institute of Statistics, 2017). This is believed to rise demand for the health system, assisting living and promoting independence (Fang & Chang, 2016; Chen & Schulz, 2016). In this respect, the use of technology is believed to be a feasible and efficient solution for enhancing the quality of life, for preventing social isolation by allowing independency, easy interaction, communication, and monitoring (Niehaves & Plattfaut, 2014). Mobile phone applications, in particular, are considered as occupying a critical position in health-care context (Chou & Liu, 2016).

The aim of this paper is that of descriptively explore the perception of Romanian aging adults on mobile technology (e.g., mobile phones). Based on the Networking Readiness Index (World Economic Forum, 2016), which measures the performance of using information and communication technologies to improve competitiveness, innovation and well-being, Romania ranks just 66th out of 139 countries evaluated. Following Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989), the main assessed directions are related to the general perception on technology and the emotional

ESSACHESS. Journal for Communication Studies, vol. 13, no. 2(26) / 2020 15

associations, the actual behavior, the perceived ease of use, the perceived usefulness, and the behavioral intentions.

When focusing on the idea of technology acceptance, the existing literature talks about concepts as young seniors, young elderly (people between 60 and 75 years old) (Nikou 2015), adults aging (people between 50 and 70 years old) (Mitzner et al., 2017), or older adults (people between 54 and 85 years old) (Betts et al., 2017). However, considering that Romania is on the last position among European countries in respect to digitalization (Digital Economy and Society Index 20171),and that the level of technology acceptance rate is small among seniors over 60 years old, the present research examines the opinions of people aged between 45 and 60 years old. The choice of this group resides on the fact that they are the oldest cohort that significantly use smart mobile technology.

Considering that aging is often associated with physical (deterioration of visual, hearing and motor senses), cognitive (the decrease of the working memory, the decline of attention, of managing large amounts of new information, of language comprehension of mentally manipulating images), and psychosocial (personal vulnerability, self-esteem) decline, technology can help young elderly to develop new companionship and to increase the use of healthcare services (in-home monitoring, interactive communication, searching for information, or entertainment) (Gatti et al., 2017). Assistive technologies (e.g., ambient and wearable sensors, mobile technology) focus not only on physical well-being of the individual (monitoring vital signs and activity patterns, providing reminders, detecting falls), but also on emotional well-being (facilitating communication and interaction) (Jaschinski & Allouch, 2015; Saborowski & Kollak, 2014).

In the context of digital divide (the digital disparities created due to unequal access to technology, unequal amount of knowledge and resources) (DiMaggio et al., 2001) and the need of electronic inclusion, the aging adults are lagging behind in the use of technology, mobile health and wellness applications (DiMaggio et al., 2001; Van Deursen & Helsper, 2015; Ștefăniță & Ivan, 2018). While young-middle age individuals are the main users of the mobile technology, the perceptions and the needs of the elders is receiving less attention (Nikou, 2015). Although the literature discusses a wide range of technologies that can improve seniors’ lives, there is a lack of literature that emphasizes the users’ perception on them (Pal et al., 2018). Due to the fact that the perspective of users on technology is often neglected, many products that are created for elderly are rejected by them (Pelizäus-Hoffmeister, 2016). As the usual developer of ICT (information and communication technology) is not part of the aged population, technology becomes insufficiently understood and

1 The variables analyzed within the Digital Economy and Society Index are: connectivity, human capital,use of Internet services, integration of digital technology, and digital public services.


there appears a gap between what is invented and what is needed (Lee & Coughlin, 2014).

Considering that older users of technology want it to be simple, familiar, intuitive and less cognitive demanding, there are studies that stress that some features of information and communication technology (ICT) are not easy to be used for older adults and are error-inducing (Lee & Coughlin, 2014). Moreover, privacy concerns and the way technology is designed, without any specific attention to elderly’s’ needs, are considered (Kirchbuchner et al., 2015).

The novelty of the paper is dual. On one hand, the study aims to profoundly investigate the users’ perception on mobile technology by conducting in-depth interviews with a high number of people (N=65). In this respect, the Romanian case study is also newness since there is a lack of literature in this respect. On the other hand, since most of the studies are emphasizing the need to adapt the new technologies to elderly’s needs (people over 60 years old), the present analysis aims to investigate a younger cohort (people between 45 and 60 years old) that is usually neglected.

The paper is an interdisciplinary approach that bonds the domains of communication, geriatrics, ICT, psychology, and sociology. The entire research falls under the communication domain by aiming to better understand how people communicate through technology, how they asses this type of communication and how they use metaphors to describe how they relate to technology. Geriatrics insights help to grasp the issues the elderly are facing and to open the discussion on how technology can improve the health care context. ICT domain provides the operationalization tools on technology acceptance and adoption, and on user experience. Intending to understand perceptions, psychology contributes by framing emotional perspectives and planned behavior. Finally, sociology offers the methodological instruments for developing the design and for interpreting the results.

The implication of the research is threefold. First, the results can have an impact for the industry, for the companies that develop devices for elderly and for whom any insight from the target population can be of great value. Second, this endeavor can be essential for the policy makers especially in the context of permanent aging of the population, of increased life expectancy, and, thus, of a great pressure on the medical and social systems. Considering the same socio-demographical and economical regional particularities, this case study is also of high relevance for neighboring Eastern European countries. Finally, the academic research agenda can benefit of such exploratory findings by developing and completing on the existing theories and by creating new methodological designs. The literature is very rich in developing theories that aim to explain the seniors’ technology acceptance. However, the explicit variables should also be applied to different countries to clearly create the most suitable background for public policy conceptualization.


1. Understanding technology adoption

Technology adoption is explained by a large number of theories, most of them being born out of the previous one. While predicting behavior is a major objective in many sciences, especially in psychology (Chang, 1998), among the theories that emphasize the role of cognitive factors in motivating actions, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is of great notoriety (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The model explicitly refers to behavioral intentions (e.g., buying a new device) and not to outcomes or events that results from behaviors (e.g., owning a new car) (Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). Moreover, it refers to behavior under complete volitional control (a behavior dependent on the personal choice, rather than external factors) (Untaru et al., 2016). The core variable of the theory is the intention (willingness or readiness to engage in a certain behavior as a precursor and predictor of that behavior), the motivation to perform a desired behavior; thus, the more a person aims to assume a behavior, the more he/she is likely to do so (Paul, Modi, & Patel, 2016; Baban & Craciun, 2007; Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992; Fishbein, 2008). Put it more in-depth, behind the intention element, there are both the attitude towards performing a certain behavior (beliefs on the consequences/outcomes of an action/ a general feeling on the level of favorableness of the behavior) and the social norms (beliefs that other people think that he/she should adopt a certain behavior – social approval) (Baban & Craciun, 2007; Chang, 1998). While attitude is the emotion used for consumers’ evaluation of a context, social norms refers to perceived social pressure (e.g., friends, relatives, colleagues, partners) to perform or not a certain behavior (Paul, Modi, & Patel, 2016).

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), by extended the boundaries of condition of pure volitional control (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992) and by improving its predictability (Paul, Modi, & Patel, 2016) adds to the TRA the perceived control element (the extent to which a certain action is easy or difficult/ the perception of the presence of resources and opportunities needed for conducting the behavior) as a predictor for behavior (Ajzen, 1991, Chang, 1998). Put it differently, the more resources and opportunities (based on past experiences and anticipated obstacles) the individuals think they own, the greater is the perceived control over the final behavior (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992; Paul, Modi, & Patel, 2016). TPB states that attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral control influence the intention and, thus, the behavior in itself (Baban & Craciun, 2007).

Both TRA and TPB consider that humans are rational entities that use information in a systematic manner within their decision-making process (Chang, 1998; Paul, Modi, & Patel, 2016). The theories have been studied and tested in various domains, as health behavior, voting, participation intention, online behavior, organic food, alcohol use, technology use, marketing, consumer behavior (Paul, Modi, & Patel, 2016). It is also stated that the models are useful for targeting strategies not only for predicting but for changing behaviors as well (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992).


The technology domain has borrowed the TRA’s variables and describes a new model, namely Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). It emphasizes two main factors: perceived usefulness (the probability that by using a specific application will enhance an individual job or life performance) and perceived ease of use (the degree to which the use of the technology is free of effort) (Davis, 1989; Wang & Sun, 2016). While the perceived usefulness is suggested to be the strongest predictor of the intention to use a certain device (Davis et al., 1989), the perceived ease of use is critical for the initial acceptance of an innovative system and for a final adoption or rejection, for the actual use (Lin et al., 2007; Ramayah et al., 2003; Renaud & Ramsay, 2007).

As TAM is extensively used in the context of technology literature (Benbasat & Barki, 2007), additional elements are being added. For instance, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al., 2016) is emphasizing additional variables as social influence (the degree to which one believes that others feel he/she should use technology) and facilitating conditions (the available support for adopting technology) (Venkatesh et al., 2016; Peek et al., 2014). While, these two variables are similar to the TPB elements, namely subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, perceived usefulness and ease of use can be viewed as antecedents of the attitude construct (Ajzen 1991). Age and gender are also used as moderators in the model (Venkatesh et al., 2003). While, usually, age is negatively correlated with technology adoption, a newer set of literature stresses that older adults are not technology or mobile phone averse; their attitude is rather related to the values they associate with it, to the way it shapes their daily routine and to the fact that they tend to use it for their original design purpose (Wang et al., 2018).

As the main variables within the above theories are perceived ease of use (effort expectancy, complexity), perceived usefulness, social influence or facilitating conditions (Renaud & Van Biljon, 2008), other important elements as compatibility (Rogers, 1995), social support, emotions (Lee & Coughlin, 2014), technology anxiety, or perceived cost (Pal et al., 2018; Brown et al., 2006) should be considered.

Strongly related to TAM and as a subdivision of media effects research, the uses and gratification theory aims to investigate why the audience engages into different forms of media communication by emphasizing the importance of a reward as a follow up of that exposure (Katz & Foulkes, 1962; Ruggiero, 2000; Kim, Lee, & Contractor, 2018). Individuals are perceived as active entities that choose technology for gratifications as knowledge, relaxation, escapism, interaction etc. (Wang et al., 2018). Although media audiences’ needs and motivations differ from one individual to another (Yang & Lin, 2018), the literature talks about several incentives that function universally. The utilitarian (e.g., achievement, ease of use) or hedonic rewards (e.g., enjoyment, fantasy, escapism) become a measure of the time spent on a particular technology and of the future intentions of the users (Van Roy, Deterding, & Zaman, 2018; Kim, Lee, & Contractor, 2018). Beside utilitarian and entertainment motivations, sociability, information-seeking, fashion (the use of


most popular tools, keeping up with the trends) and epistemic incentives (the use of tools that provide novelty and arouse curiosity) are very much keen on mobile technology adoption in general and by seniors in particular (Yang & Lin, 2018).

Having less knowledge on information technology, aging adults need strong motivation to accept and adopt a new device or a new technology (Yang & Lin, 2018). While, in general, mobile phone usually serves instrumental (facilitating business-related conversations, organization), sociability (connect with family and friends) purposes, and reassurance needs (sense of security and safety in case of an emergency), when connected to Internet, mobile phone usage can be motivated by information and entertainment seeking (Wang et al., 2018). However, it is largely accepted that elderly’s main motivation to learn using technology refer especially to social adaptation (Chou & Liu, 2016), to usefulness and security (Wang et al., 2018).

It can be said that aging adults use the new technologies in a rather passive and non-sophisticated manner; they use a small amount of applications and they do not usually create content (Ivan & Ferna ́ndez-Arde ̀vol, 2017). Elderly are motivated touse technology only when it is perceived as being helpful and fulfilling needs and expectations (Arenas-Gaitán et al., 2014; Gatti et al., 2017). As Mitzner et al. (2008) stress, individuals usually tend to adopt technology for the three main reasons: support of activities (information activities, administrative tasks and communication, leisure, entertainment and health monitoring), convenience (reducing physical and mental effort), technology features (specific and quick actions, many options, small size and portability).

In order to explain the individuals’ behavior within a changing environment, as the adoption and use of new technology, Bala and Venkatesh (2016) combines the transactional model of stress and handling with the coping model of user adaptation (CMUA). Thus, while on one hand they talk about cognitive appraisal (the evaluation of the relevance for the well-being of an individual), on the other hand, they emphasize the importance of adaptation through problem-focus strategy (solving the problems) and emotion-focused strategy (reducing emotional distress) (Bala & Venkatesh, 2016). In this respect, emotions are becoming a key ingredient. Emotional perspective on technology translated into a flow and an enjoyable experience, together with cognitive approaches, is continuously fused within technology acceptance research (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Deng, 2017; Tsoy, 2017).

Due to the fact that elderly tend to use less technology in comparison with other groups of people, they are usually perceived as being uninterested in technology and less prepared to learn to use devices (Wang, Sun, 2016). However, considering the rapid growth of the elderly population, their perception on technology is important (Demiris et al., 2004). As Davis (1989) points out, the way one perceives a technology is crucial to using that particular technology.


2. Methodology

Based on the analyzed theoretical models, the study aims to in-depth understand the aging adults’ perception on mobile technology use and adoption. This approach is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: How is mobile technology perceived in general and in terms of emotional attachment?

RQ2: How is mobile technology defined in terms of ease of use and of usefulness?

RQ3: Which are the main features characterizing the behavioral intentions of using mobile and smart technology?

2.1. Procedure and instrument

A set of semi-structured interviews, with 22 questions and eight socio-demographic inquiries, have been conducted. Since the corpus of the interview aims to follow the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989), the interview guide is grouped into five issues. The first one refers to the general attitude on technology. In this respect there are discussed the main impulsive associations with technology and an imaginative personification exercise. Personification implies attaching humanlike characteristics to non-human agents and objects (e.g., machinery, computer) (Lopatovska & Williams, 2018). It is argued that personification has three functions: making sense of a situation, reducing the feeling of uncertainty, and developing social connections (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007). Based on the computer and social actors’ paradigm, the user experience can be better understood by asking people to think of technology as they were human and ascribe them features (Purington et al., 2017). Thus, the respondents are asked to name the strengths and weaknesses of the used technology and to debate on the emotional attachment on it.

The second issue discussed aims to assess the actual use of mobile technology and the attitude towards it (likes and dislikes). The third and fourth set of questions refer to the perceived ease of use of mobile technology (including the support needed to perform the tasks on the device) and to the perceived usefulness. In respect to the latter aspect, the usefulness in the future and in the context of aging trend are also discussed. The fifth issue included, the behavioral intentions (including the vision on the perfect device and the use of a very intelligent technology), completes the TAM approach (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Vaportzis et al., 2017).

2.2. Participants

The individuals within the sample (N=65) are selected based on a convenience procedure. Out of this sample, 59.9% are women, 61.5% are from the urban area, 27.7% have higher education, 33.9% have incomes higher that 3000 lei (approximately 621 Euros), and the average age is around 50 years old (M=50.39, SD=4.81). With eight exceptions, individuals that own traditional (not smart) mobile


phone, all of the respondents own a smart phone, and almost all of them are using it for, in average, 2 years. The interviews have been face-to-face and have lasted between half an hour and an hour. The participants’ quotations have been translated from Romanian to English as closely as possible to the original.

3. Results

3.1. The General Attitude on Technology

When deeply analyzing the perception on technology, a more personal approach has been developed by emphasizing the first word coming to mind when talking about technology and the main associations and feelings with it in the context in which technology would be a person.

Beside the actual name of the device (mobile phone, laptop, microprocessor, robots or spaceship), the first associations to technology (Figure 1) are multiple. In terms of attributes, the respondents perceive technology as something modern, upgraded, new, high tech, innovative, intelligent, smart, creative. In terms of utility, the first words coming to mind are communication, getting in touch, connectivity, information, or necessity. Interestingly, one respondent considers the evolution of technology as an effect of laziness. One negative association brings into discussion the manipulative role of technology by emphasizing its controlling potential.


Figure 1. The main associations with technology

The respondents have been asked to imagine that technology is a person. Regarding the strengths (Figure 2), a respondent claims that “if you know how to use it, technology has only strengths”. The answers can be grouped in three dimensions. First, emotionally, technology is perceived both as a friend, a companion and as a very generous person. The second dimension indicates a professional attachment. Technology is perceived as a very intelligent educator that stands out through efficiency and performance. Finally, while physical attributes are mentioned, technology is portrayed as being young and beautiful. In contrast with the way strengths are aggregated, weaknesses (Figure 3) emphasize hard (functionality, vulnerability) and soft features (time constraints, control and complexity). The weaknesses overlap the perceived disliked features of technology. The discomfort created by the need to frequently re-charge the battery, by the lack of Internet connection, and by the lack of safety are important technical attributes mentioned. Intriguingly, although individuals would like to have a non-interrupted communication possibility, they accuse technology of developing addiction.


Moreover, being too costly, technology is not safe, can be annoying and it is too complicated.

Figure 2. The personification of technology - strengths

Figure 3. The personification of technology – weaknesses


Continuing to associate the technology with a person, the individuals have been asked about the emotions developed for this person (Figure 4). The positive feelings prevail in front of the negative ones. They illustrate a very profound and strong connection with technology, which becomes compulsory: “If I lose the phone, I would really cry after it. I have been so sad when it felt in the water and it needed to stay in service for several days”. The respondents feel respect, friendship and love for technology. They respect it especially for the large amount of available information and the help it provides every time they need it. The individuals consider technology as a friend, as a replacing entity in the case no one else is around. Technology provides a certain type of relaxation and helps developing sympathy and trust feelings. Sometimes, technology is considered as a life partner for which love feelings are developed. The negative feelings developed for technology are mainly of frustration, anger and fear. These feelings are due either to the complexity of technology, to the lack of users’ knowledge, or to the lack of control.

Figure 4. The developed emotions in respect to technology

3.2. The Actual Use of Technology

Asked what devices they are using, regardless of the sex, income, education or residence, all the respondents specify the mobile phone as the main used device. Some of them mention the tablet, the laptop or PC, and the smart watch. Interestingly, some of the respondents highlight the similarities and the differences between a mobile phone and a tablet. While there are consumers that consider that the mobile phone integrates all the necessary features and that there is no need for


other devices, others emphasize the advantages of the devices that have a bigger screen.

When it comes to the reasons why the respondents use these devices (Figure 5), although they show a wide variety of tasks, there is a certain pattern. Communication and social connection (inside the country and/or abroad) are, by far, the most important gratifications. Communication through technology is considered not necessary only a personal and intimate need, but also a professional tool that can reach efficiency. The second most important role of technology is providing information. Technology helps individuals to remain connected and to get informed in real time. As a third, pretty unexpected reason for using technology, the interviewees mention economic tasks, as, for instance, online banking. Finally, the entertainment function of technology is brought into discussion. In this respect, the mobile phone is not the main actor anymore, the table or the PC/laptop coming into play. Being a tool for easing the work, technology in general and mobile phone in particular are perceived as “a necessity, like the car”. By incorporating all the needed applications in one “small size device, available anytime and anywhere”, mobile phone is “easy to use and to be transported”.

Figure 5. The reasons why the individuals use mobile technology

There are several important features why the interviewees like mobile devices (Figure 6). These features can be grouped into five categories. First, technology is a tool for easing the work, mainly due to speed and real time communication features. Regardless of the socio-demographical variables, the respondents perceive technology in general, and the mobile phone in particular, as an instrument that increases work efficiency. Second, safety is under-represented within the discussions. However, in terms of mobility and medical issues, technology is perceived as a savior. Third, mobile devices are mainly important for communication in general. An interesting observation during the discussions is that there is a constant overlap between using a certain device and using the Internet. These two entities are not being perceived as separate anymore. Except from the


calling features, all the activities done by using technology are happening online. People like the fact that they can communicate and that they can find information without any effort “anytime and anywhere”. Fourth, entertainment is an important component materialized in networking, in saving memories, taking pictures, listening to music and relaxation. Finally, there are grouped all the technological features related to design. Formally, consumers appreciate the size of the devices and that they can be taken anywhere. The device becomes an extremely important tool that has the ability to “concentrate an entire world into a small volume”.

Beside all the above-mentioned reasons why people like their devices, one response stands out and cannot be places in neither category. Technology is believed to have the capacity to influence a person’s social image. Therefore, regardless of all its applications, one should own it only for the sake of having a positive image in front of other people: “I like to have it for the image. Because other people are seeing it”. Intriguingly, this individual declares that she does not own a smart phone.

Alongside the features the users like about devices, there are several characteristics they dislike (Figure 6). Beside the few respondents claiming there is nothing they dislike about their phones, these features have been grouped into five concerns categories. The functional worries refer both to limited battery life and to breaking or losing the device. On one hand, the need to frequently re-charge the device is perceived as being very annoying. On the other hand, the users are concerned about the possibility to break the device, as being very fragile, to have it stolen, or to lose it. They present these issues as being a major permanent concern of their everyday life. Interestingly, even persons that do not own a smart phone consider that the devices can be easily broken and that they are pretentious. Thus, one may conclude that the mobile phones are delicate devices that need permanent attention and are a supplementary concern. Dexterity concerns refer mainly to touching impairments. The main unease in this case refers to the use of touch screens. These are perceived as being too small and too sensitive. Thus, not having experience in using them, the individuals usually emphasize they prefer the buttons. Besides touching impairments, visual obstacles are also brought into discussion. One of them claims that the used font is too small, and the text cannot be read. In addition, by using the devices a longer period of time, the sight becomes negatively influenced. Technology is perceived as being hard to use, especially by invoking the applications and the functions one needs to invest time in learning. The economic concerns are clearly focusing on both the cost of purchase and the cost of maintenance. Moreover, these costs are linked to the life expectancy and to the device resistance. By emphasizing the constant aggression feature of the mobile phone, the respondents’ addiction concerns refer mainly to the large amount of time lost by using it. Although the young generation is brought into discussion, the seniors are also affected by technology and they admit they do not even notice the time passing while using it. The security concerns discuss the need of data protection and of being in control. Individuals feel anxiety when it comes to


personal details and online actions. Moreover, the issue of viruses is associated with a high degree of technological fragility.

Figure 6. The reasons why the individuals like and dislike mobile devices


3.3. The Perceived Ease of Use

Ease of use is considered an important variable that aims to explain technology adoption. The respondents are asked to discuss their general opinion on this issue by emphasizing the difficulties they encounter. From the very beginning, the respondents make comparisons between different types of devices. They admit that mobile phones are the easiest to be used in comparison with PC or tablets. Their reasons are related to the simplicity of the mobile phones and to the frequency of using. Moreover, the ease of use has to do with the habit and the experience.

In general, the perceived ease of technology use (Figure 7) is related to formal aspects of the device. The most frequently encounter aspect that leads to use difficulties is the touch screen. Buttons used to be less complicated. Moreover, on one hand, although some of them admit that touch screen is easier to use, they still do not like it. On the other hand, some are recognizing the benefits of a touch screen. Beside the pressing difficulties, the size of the screen is brought into discussion. By using a mobile phone, it is harder to edit and to read. The difficulty of using the mobile technology resides even from the lack of a mouse. Likewise, the configured language of the device seems to be a problem. The analyzed cohort had been educated during communist regime, without extensive studies in English. Therefore, mobile phones are perceived as being hard to use even from the language perspective. The use of application is another issue that permanently concerns the individuals. Probably, mainly due to the lack of experience, patience, and competencies, the respondents do not insist on understanding the way a device works. Although higher education respondents consider that the mobile operation system is fluent and intuitive, for others, the degree of difficulty is high.

Figure 7. The perceived ease of use of mobile devices


3.4. The Support in Using Technology

Considering that the support in using technology is strongly related with the ease of device use, the respondents are asked to discuss who is helping them in the learning process of suing technology. As expected, the younger family members, mainly children, are the helping entity. Surprisingly, approximately one third of the interviewees claim that they have learnt to use technology by themselves, by discovering the functions step by stem and by using the instructions: “I have discovered everything by myself, step by step”; “Nobody is helping me. I read the instructions and I get used”. This initiation task is a challenge for almost all of them. Although it seems to be frustrating when an issue cannot be solved, the respondents feel like “small explorers” in the world of technology.

Albeit we talk about young seniors that own a smart device for several years now, they are still requiring substantial help in using, understanding and discovering new functions of the device. Therefore, simplicity and constancy in design and functions seems to be an efficient solution for increasing self-trust and usability.

3.5. The Perceived Usefulness

One of the most important variables that aims to explain technology adoption is the perceived usefulness. The respondents are asked to state their opinion on the usefulness of mobile technology and to give the most appropriate examples of their own experience (Figure 8). The main encountered answer categories refer to the efficiency brought by technology at the work place and within daily activities, in terms of communication and of using information, health monitoring, capacity to replace the human effort, and entertainment.

However, some respondents have a holistic view on mobile devices by emphasizing their usefulness for any domain and any situation. “First, it is useful through the rapid communication possibility. Second, it saves costs (one does not have to travel to have the communication possibility). Third, it helps in emergency situations – one can easily access the bank account, can transfer money when it is needed, can keep updated with the expenditures. It saves time – one can obtain information in several seconds”. Technology is assumed to ease life and daily activities. Specifically, mobile technology is efficient at the work place and in terms of communication. This process is happening in real time and does not have any boundaries. However, in some cases, this type of communication, especially regarding social media, is perceived as being a fake one that leads to insensitive people. In terms of information, mobile technology is perceived as being an additional sense that helps the individual integrate in the routine and create a more fluent existence. Interestingly, some respondents recognize the technological capacity to replace human effort. Although being helpful in finding any information, technology is perceived as exempting one from doing things and thinking, which can be considered both a good and a negative thing. Therefore, a total replacement is not fully convenient. In addition, technology is perceived as being able to improve


medical conditions and monitor health, for entertainment, especially for gaming, saving memories, listening to music and watching movies.

Figure 8. The perceived usefulness of mobile devices

The perception on the usefulness of technology in the future is diverse. Some individuals state that technology will be used in absolutely any domain: “for medicine, transportation, production”, “for stopping pollution”, “for education, army”, “to organize the society better than the humans can do”. Being emphasized again the capacity to “ease work and save time”, technology will probably “replace mechanical work”, and will be designed to do everything that humans do. Unfortunately, this context will imply that “there are a lot of jobs that will disappear for humans”. Likewise, although information will remain the main characteristic of technology, “manipulating the masses and getting information on every person” might be the drawback of evolution. However, it seems the main technological usefulness is related to the possibility to “increase life expectancy, to cure illnesses” and to “develop tools for surviving”. Specifically, although it is believed that technology will be more affordable for people with higher income, “it will also help people with disabilities”. Technology either will “help people with problems, people that cannot see or walk”, or “will make the living conditions more intelligent through some applications that will announce the owner of the household of certain risks, dangers”.


In the context of aging population and increased life expectancy (Figure 9), unexpectedly, the interviewees, beside describing the economic pressure, refer to technology as a helping tool in coping with the phenomenon. Financially, in this previsioned context, “there will be nobody to pay their pensions or medical costs”. However, in a context in which there will not be others to help the seniors, technology is perceived as a helper.

However, regardless of how developed the technology will be, some of the respondents consider that the Romanian elders will not learn to use technology. Instead of an evolution, there might be a technological slow down. Nonetheless, there are optimist opinions that state that “the seniors will learn to use technology as good as the youngsters”. Being designed in a proper manner for elderly and being joint by clear and comprehensive instructions, this perspective might become reality.

Figure 9. Technology perception in the context of an aging population

3.6. Behavioral Intention

The last part of the interview refers to the behavioral intentions in using state-of-the-art machines. There are considered three aspects: if there is a wished device, how would the perfect device look like, and if the respondents would like to own a high-end device or a set of devices that monitor safety, health, everyday activity and that would be integrated in a smart home.

When asked on a device they would like to own, the interviewees are modest in their wishes. A large number of respondents claim they do not desire anything more: “I have the phone and it has everything I need”. However, others would like a better phone, a tablet instead of the laptop, a laptop instead of the computer or a smart watch. Usually, the main invoked reasons for a technological change are related to


battery life problems, small screens, small memory space, the impossibility of audio-video communication, bad signal, small amount of applications, or small life expectancy. Nonetheless, two answers should be highlighted. While one individual claim that she would like a phone with vocal commands “to avoid any menus”, the other appeals “a robot that cooks, that is small and quiet”.

Imagining a situation in which the resources are not a problem, the individuals’ wishes are more eccentric. For a large part of the sample, a robot seems to be the perfect device for them (Figure 10). One of the main concerns in this respect is related to household activities. A very interesting answer coming from a person that does not own a smart phone refers to the possibility of having a robot as a companion. Being a nation with a high level of exodus, it is likely that the members of a family see each other rarely. This would explain why holograms or teleportation are brought into discussion. However, the large majority of responses refer to a device, usually resembling with a phone, especially created for entertainment and monitoring purposes.

From a medical perspective, the responses underline the need to prevent any serious sickness through early detection of a health problem. Thus, people would like a device that systematically scans the body for measuring the health condition, for announcing eventual illnesses, and for protecting against viruses. An important feature of this device would be its portability.

Another interesting perspective is given by the individuals that wish a smart house in which there is a permanent communication possibility between different smart devices: “I would create a device that monitors and programs the house activities (e.g., the heating system should function only in certain conditions, the cook machine should start preparing the food at a certain time etc.). The device should set reminders, should replace the physical agenda”.

Regardless of the complexity of the imagined device, the physical features should be always the same. The device should be smart, small but with big fonts, portable, very easy to use, resistant, and with a long-life expectancy.


Figure 10. The features of a perfect device

The last discussed topic offers a high-end context. The respondents are asked to declare their behavioral intentions regarding owning a complex device that monitors health, everyday activities and has safety alarm tools. The majority of the individuals claim they would like to own it especially for safety reasons and health monitoring. By having “all the functions in one single device”, the concern on safety disappears. The usefulness of such a device is even higher when talking about aging related issues: “I would like one; I tend to forget what I have to do. Having this, I would feel safer”. Medical monitoring and advice are also welcomed: “I would like such a device especially for the health issues: to monitor my health condition, to recommend drugs, to set the medical appointments, to tell me when there are certain symptoms etc.”.

However, there are negative opinions in respect to such a device. It is mainly believed to create panic and anxiety, due to a constant flow of information about the health condition: “It is too complex. I would panic to constantly being told that I have high blood pressure, that my meal smells burn. I would feel controlled”. Moreover, there are security and control concerns as well: “If I lose the device, I would feel vulnerable”. Nevertheless, such a device would be considered addictive, procrastinator and boring: “I would become technology addicted. I consider that we


are not ready for such devices and I would not like to be deprived of the daily routine”.

Discussions and conclusion

In the context of healthcare technologies, especially for geriatric care domain, before a large-scale deployment could be implemented, the general technological acceptance is important to be understood. This research is an initial attempt to assess the way Romanian adults aging perceive technology in general and mobile devices in particular.

The results show that, while, in general, technology is perceived as a necessary tool in daily activities, people tend to develop a profound emotional attachment for it. Although they are being frustrated because they do not have the holistic knowledge to fully use it, and, sometimes, scared due to security reasons, individuals cannot imagine life without technology and compare it with a life partner (RQ1). As expected, technology in general and mobile phones in particular, are used mainly to communicate, to find information, for entertainment and for e-commerce. The main reasons why technology is liked is because it is easing life. However, there are several important concerns that need to be mentioned: functional concerns (the short battery life, the possibility of breaking the device), dexterity concerns (mainly related to visual and tactile impairments but also to complicated menus), economic, addiction and security concerns.

In terms of ease of use (RQ2), the main functions are perceived to be the simplest ones (calling, sending and receiving messages, taking photos). However, the difficulties given by the touch screen, the complicated, non-intuitive menus, and the English language are features that make the devices hard to use. Resistance to change might can be an important variable. Online navigation in general and the use of social networks in particular are easy tasks for some of the respondents and hard for others. Without noticing a pattern, the complications named by the respondents are mainly related to the small number of webpages adapted for mobile devices. In terms of usefulness, technology is perceived to have an important role in every aspect of life mainly referring to communication, information and entertainment activities. Moreover, while it is perceived as replacing the human effort, both in physical and cognitive terms, technology is believed to be a saver in respect of medical benefits (health monitoring). The perceived technological future context refers to more sophisticated devices, yet too complicated to be used by elderly. In the context of aging, technology is appreciated as being useful for better communication, for better mobility, for comfortable living, for better health, and for easing the daily life.

Regarding the behavioral intention (RQ3), although they are not pretentious, the respondents would like to own devices that better fulfil their needs and that are designed in respect with their dexterities. When asked about the behavioral intention


to use a high-end device that could be useful in the context of aging, although safety and health monitoring reasons induced a positive answer, a large part of the respondents rejects this idea due to its complexity, intrusiveness, and panic creator.

A general conclusion claims that the perception on technology is, actually, a paradox. On one hand, technology makes individuals happy by fulfilling their daily needs. On the other hand, technology scares them due to its complicated navigation system and security.

The main limits of the paper refer to its descriptively exploratory purpose, to the general discussion on mobile technology and to the convenience sample. Therefore, the research perspectives are drawn around the need to have more correlational explanations, to study the effect of a specific device on a probabilistic sample.

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50, pp. 179-211. �

Arenas-Gaitán, J., Peral-Peral, B., & Ramón-Jerónimo, M. (2014). Gender in the Elderly Internet Users. In I. Gil-Pechuán, D. Palacios-Marqués, M. Peris-Ortiz, E. Vendrell, C. Ferri-Ramirez (Ed.), Strategies in E-Business. Positioning and Social Networking in Online Markets (pp. 67-79). Springer Science+Business Media New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8184-3.

Baban, A., & Craciun, C. (2007). Changing Health-Risk Behaviors: A Review of Theory and Evidence-Based Interventions in Health Psychology. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 7(1), pp. 45-67.

Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2016). Adaptation to Information Technology: A Holistic Nomological Network from Implementation to Job Outcomes. Management Science, 62(1), pp. 156-179.

Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo Vadis TAM?. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4).

Betts, L., Hill, R., & Gardner, S. (2017). “There’s Not Enough Knowledge Out There”: Examining Older Adults’ Perceptions of Digital Technology Use and Digital Inclusion Classes. Journal of Applied Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817737621

Brown, S., Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2006). Household Technology Use: Integrating Household Life Cycle and the Model of Adoption of Technology in Households. The Information Society, 22, pp. 205–218.

Chang, M. (1998). Predicting Unethical Behavior: A Comparison of the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, pp. 1825–1834. �

Chen, Y., & Schulz, P. (2016). The Effect of Information Communication Technology Interventions on Reducing Social Isolation in the Elderly: A Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4596


Chou, M., & Liu, C. (2016). Mobile Instant Messengers and Middle-Aged and Elderly Adults in Taiwan: Uses and Gratifications. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1201892

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, New York: Harper & Row.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319-340.

Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: a Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), pp. 982-1003.

Demiris, G., Rantz, M., Aud, M., Marek, K., Tyrer, H., Skubic, M., & Hussam, A. (2004). Older Adults' Attitudes Towards and Perceptions of ‘Smart Home’ Technologies: A Pilot Study. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 29(2), pp, 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639230410001684387

Deng, L. (2017). Regulatory Focus, Emotions and Technology Adaptation. Quarterly Review of Business Disciplines, 4(1), pp. 37-54.

Digital Economy and Society Index (2017). European Commission. Retrieved July 2018 from ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=43037.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W., & Robinson, J. (2001). Social Implication of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, pp. 307-336.

Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. (2007). On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism. Psychological Review. 114(4), 864-886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864

Fang, Y., & Chang, C. (2016). Users' Psychological Perception and Perceived Readability of Wearable Devices for Elderly People. Behaviour & Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1114145

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison. Wesley.

Fishbein, M. (2008). Theory of Reasoned Action. The International Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecr017

Gatti, F., Brivio, E., &Galimberti, C. (2017). “The Future Is Ours Too”: A Training Process to Enable the Learning Perception and Increase Self- Efficacy in The Use of Tablets in the Elderly. Educational Gerontology, 43(4), pp. 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2017.1279952

Ivan, L. & Ferna ́ndez-Arde ̀vol, M. (2017). Older people and the use of ICTs to communicatewith children and grandchildren. Transnational Social Review, https://doi.org/10.1080/21931674.2016.1277861

Jaschinski, C., & Allouch, S. (2015). Why Should I Use This? Identifying Incentives for Using AAL Technologies. In B. De Ruyter, A. Kameas,�P. Chatzimisios, I. Mavrommati (Eds.), Ambient Intelligence (pp. 155-170). 12th European Conference, AmI 2015 Athens, Greece, November 11–13, 2015 Proceedings.


Jochems, N. (2016). Designing Tablet Computers for the Elderly a User-Centered Design Approach. In J. Zhou, G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population Design for Aging (pp. 42-51). Second International Conference, ITAP 2016 Held as Part of HCI International 2016 Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17–22, 2016 Proceedings, Part I. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39943-0_5

Katz, E., & Foulkes, D. (1962). On the use of mass media as escape: Clarification of a concept. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, pp. 377–388.

Kim, M., Lee, C., & Contractor, N. (2018). Seniors’ usage of mobile social network sites: Applying theories of innovation diffusion and uses and gratifications. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.046

Kirchbuchner, F., Grosse-Puppendahl, T., Hastall, M., Distler, M., & Kuijper, A. (2015). Ambient Intelligence from Senior Citizens’ Perspectives: Understanding Privacy Concerns, Technology Acceptance, and Expectations. In B. De Ruyter, A. Kameas, �P. Chatzimisios, Irene Mavrommati (Eds). Ambient Intelligence (pp. 48-59). 12th European Conference, AmI 2015 Athens, Greece, November 11–13, 2015 Proceedings.

Lee, C., & Coughlin, J. (2014). Older Adults’ Adoption of Technology: An Integrated Approach to Identifying Determinants and Barriers. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12176

Lin, C., Shih, H., & Sher, P. (2007). Integrating Technology Readiness into Technology Acceptance: The TRAM Model. Psychology & Marketing, 24(7), pp. 641-657

Lopatovska, I., & Williams, H. (2018). Personification of the Amazon Alexa: BFF or a Mindless Companion?. CHIIR’18, March 11-15, 2018, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3176349.3176868

Lüders, M., & Brandtzæg, P. (2014). ‘My Children Tell Me It’s So Simple’: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understand Older Non-Users’ Perceptions of Social Networking Sites. New Media & Society, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814554064

Madden, T., Ellen, P., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Personality and Social Psychology Bull, 18(1), pp. 3-9.

Mitzner, T., Fausset, C., Boron, J., Adams, A., Dijkstra, K., Lee, C., Rogers, W., & Fisk, A. (2008). Older Adults’ Training Preferences for Learning to Use Technology. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52 Annual Meeting (pp. 2047-2051). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Mitzner, T, Stuck, R., Hartley, J., Beer, J., & Rogers, W. (2017). Acceptance of Televideo Technology by Adults Aging with a Mobility Impairment for Health and Wellness Interventions. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering, 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668317692755

National Institute of Statistics (2017). Proiectarea populatiei Romaniei, in profil territorial la orizontul anului 2060. [The projection of the Romanian population by territory in the future of 2060] Retrieved August 2018 from http://www.insse.ro/cms/sites/default/files/field/publicatii/proiectarea_populatiei_romaniei_in_profil_teritorial_la_orizontul_2060.pdf.


Nikou, S. (2015). Mobile Technology and Forgotten Consumers: The Young-Elderly’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39, pp. 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12187

Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2014). Internet Adoption by The Elderly: Employing Is Technology Acceptance Theories for Understanding the Age-Related Digital Divide. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(6), pp. 708–726.

Pal, D., Funilkul, S., Charoenkitkarn, N., & Kanthamanon, P. (2018). Internet-of-Things and Smart Homes for Elderly Healthcare: An End User Perspective. IEEE Access, 6, pp. 10483-10496.

Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J. (2016). Predicting Green Product Consumption Using Theory of Planned Behavior and Reasoned Action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, pp. 123–134.

Peek, S., Wouters, E., Van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K., Boeije, H., & Vrijhoef, H. (2014). Factors Influencing Acceptance of Technology for Aging in Place: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83, pp. 235–248.

Pelizäus-Hoffmeister, H. (2016). Motives of the Elderly for the Use of Technology in their Daily Lives. In E. Domínguez-Rué, L. Nierling (Eds.) Ageing and Technology Perspectives from the Social Sciences (pp. 27-46). transcript Verlag, Bielefeld.

Purington, A., Taft, J., Sannon, S., Bazarova, N., & Taylor, S. (2017). “Alexa Is My New BFF”: Social Roles, User Satisfaction, and Personification of the Amazon Echo. CHI'17 Extended Abstracts, May 06-11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA, ACM 978-1-4503-4656-6/17/05. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053246

Ramayah, T., Lam, S., & Sarkawi, F. (2003). Attitude and Intention to Use Web-based Supply Chain Management (SCM) among SME’s. Asia Pacific Seminar on E- Customer Relationship Management, Shah Alam, Selangor, 8-9th July, Malaysia.

Renaud, K., & Ramsay, J. (2007). Now What Was that Password Again? A More Flexible Way of Identifying and Authenticating Our Seniors. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26, pp. 309-322.

Renaud, K., & Van Biljon, J. (2008). Predicting Technology Acceptance and Adoption by the Elderly: A Qualitative Study. SAICSIT 2008, Proceeding of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT research in developing countries: riding the wave of technology (pp. 210-219). ACM, New York.

Roger, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. Fourth edition. New York: Free Press.

Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), pp. 3-37.

Saborowski, M., & Kollak, I. (2014). “How Do You Care for Technology?” – Care Professionals' Experiences with Assistive Technology in Care of the Elderly. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.05.006


Sheppard, B., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. (1988). The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15.

Ștefăniță, O., & Ivan, L. (2018). Characteristics of the Digital Divide �in Romania and Differences in Internet Use in Comparison with Internet Use in Europe. Journal of Media Research, 11(2), pp. 5-21.

Tsoy, M. (2017). Effects of Positive Emotions on Enhanced IT Use, SIGHCI 2017 Proceedings.

Untaru, E., Ispas, A., Candrea, A., Luca, M., & Epuran, G. (2016). Predictors of Individuals’ Intention to Conserve Water in a Lodging Context: The Application of an Extended Theory of Reasoned Action. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 59, pp. 50–59.

Van Deursen, A., & Helsper, E. (2015). A Nuanced Understanding of Internet Use and Non-Use Among the Elderly. European Journal of Communication, 30(2), pp. 171–187.

Van Roy, R., Deterding, S., & Zaman, B. (2018). Uses and Gratifications of Initiating Use of Gamifed Learning Platforms. CHI'18 Extended Abstracts, April 21–26, 2018, Montreal, QC, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188458

Vaportzis, E., Clausen, M., & Gow, A. (2017). Older Adults Perceptions of Technology and Barriers to Interacting with Tablet Computers: A Focus Group Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1687. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01687

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), pp. 273- 315.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), pp. 425-478.

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead. Journal of the Association for International Systems, 17(5), pp. 328 – 376.

Wang, Q., & Sun, X. (2016). Investigating Gameplay Intention of The Elderly Using an Extended Technology Acceptance Model (ETAM). Technological Forecasting and Social Change. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.024

Wang, Y., Matz-Costa, C., Miller, J., Carr, D., & Kohlbacher, F. (2018). Uses and Gratifications Sought from Mobile Phones and Loneliness Among Japanese Midlife and Older Adults: A Mediation Analysis. Innovation in Aging, XX(XX), pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igy027

World Economic Forum (2016). Networking Readiness Index. Retrieved October 2018 from https://widgets.weforum.org/gitr2016.

Yang, H., & Lin, S. (2018). The Reasons Why Elderly Mobile Users Adopt, Ubiquitous Mobile Social Service. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.005

03 iancu & iancu

Documents