Understanding the Interest Toward Smart Home Technology: The Role of Utilitaristic Perspective

  • Vera StaraEmail author
  • Massimo Zancanaro
  • Mirko Di Rosa
  • Lorena Rossi
  • Stefania Pinnelli
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 544)


Every day, innovative devices support healthcare for the escalating needs of the population ageing but the poor adoption hinder their spread older adults. The present study aims to investigate the factors that may influence perceptions and expectations of 306 Italian older adults (M = 74, SD = 7.43) towards smart home and wellbeing technology. A questionnaire was verbally administered in face-to-face sessions by trained interviewers in order to collect data. Overall, the results return a positive picture of participants’ perception of the technology though attitude towards technology is definitely driven by utilitaristic means: usefulness, easiness, safety and privacy are considered important while aesthetics, size and weight are not. Around half of our respondents have a positive interest in technology and almost all of them believe that technology may eventually improve their life. According to these findings, the paper discusses some challenges for the whole research sector that appears still fragmentary and lacking of a strong body of evidence. Moreover, the promotion of trust and empowerment actions through instructional programs is highlighted.


Smart home technology Active ageing Utilitaristic perspective 



This work was supported by the Italian Ministry for University and Research through the project “Active Ageing@home”, within the National Technological Cluster (CTN01_00128_297061, TAV—Tecnologie per gli Ambienti di Vita) venture in the PON-2013-FESR framework.


  1. 1.
    Adair B, Miller K, Ozanne E, Hansen R, Pearce AJ, Santamaria N, Said CM (2013) Smart-home technologies to assist older people to live well at home. J Aging SciGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arning K, Ziefle M (2007) Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance. Comput Hum Behav 23(6):2904–2927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boström M, Bravell M, Lundgren D, Björklund A (2013) Promoting sense of security in old-age care. Health 5:56–63. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowling A (2005) Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health 27(3):281–291. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen K, Chan AH (2011) A review of technology acceptance by older adults. Gerontechnology 10(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conci M, Pianesi F, Zancanaro M (2009, August) Useful, social and enjoyable: mobile phone adoption by older people. In: IFIP conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Costa F (2014) Big data in biomedicine. In: Drug discovery today, vol 19, Issue 4, pp 433–440. ISSN 1359-6446, Scholar
  8. 8.
    Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, Sharit J (2006) Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging 21(2):333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demiris G, Rantz MJ, Aud MA, Marek KD, Tyrer HW, Skubic M, Hussam AA (2004) Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: a pilot study. Med Inform Internet Med 29(2):87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farage MA, Miller KW, Ajayi F, Hutchins D (2012) Design principles to accommodate older adults. Glob J Health Sci 4(2):2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisk AD, Rogers WA, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Sharit J (2009) Designing for older adults: principles and creative human factors approaches. CRC pressGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hill R, Betts LR, Gardner SE (2015) Older adults’ experiences and perceptions of digital technology: (Dis) empowerment, wellbeing, and inclusion. Comput Hum Behav 48:415–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacelon CS, Hanson A (2013) Older adults’ participation in the development of smart environments: an integrated review of the literature. Geriatr Nurs 34(2):116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jimison H, Gorman P, Woods S, Nygren P, Walker M, Norris S, Hersh W (2008) Barriers and drivers of health information technology use for the elderly, chronically III, and underserved. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No 175. AHRQ Publication No 09-E004. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, Nov 2008Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee C, Coughlin JF (2015) Perspective: older adults’ adoption of technology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers. J Prod Innov Manag 32(5):747–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leonardi C, Mennecozzi C, Not E, Pianesi F, Zancanaro M, Gennai F, Cristoforetti A (2009, April) Knocking on elders’ door: investigating the functional and emotional geography of their domestic space. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1703–1712Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I, Miguel-Cruz A, Rios Rincon A (2016) Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform 91:44–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCreadie C, Tinker A (2005) The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Ageing Soc 25(01):91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Melenhorst AS, Rogers WA, Caylor EC (2001, October) The use of communication technologies by older adults: exploring the benefits from the user’s perspective. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 45, no 3. SAGE Publications, pp 221–225Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mitzner TL, Boron JB, Fausset CB, Adams AE, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Sharit J (2010) Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput Hum Behav 26(6):1710–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morton TA, Wilson N, Haslam C, Birney M, Kingston R, McCloskey LG (2016) Activating and guiding the engagement of seniors with online social networking experimental findings from the ages 2.0 project. J Aging Health. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nijhof N, van Gemert-Pijnen LJ, Woolrych R, Sixsmith A (2013) An evaluation of preventive sensor technology for dementia care. J Telemed Telecare 19(2):95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peek ST, Luijkx KG, Rijnaard MD, Nieboer ME, van der Voort CS, Aarts S, Wouters EJ (2015) Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology 62(2):226–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pol MC, van Nes F, van Hartingsveldt M, Buurman BM, de Rooij SE, Kröse BJA (2014) P315: older people’s perspectives regarding the use of sensor monitoring in their home. Eur Geriatr Med 5:S180–S181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Porter CE, Donthu N (2006) Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: the role of perceived access barriers and demographics. J Bus Res 59(9):999–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Quinn K (2016) 10 Older adults and social media. Digital media usage across the life course, p 132Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sarker S, Wells JD (2003) Understanding mobile handheld device use and adoption. Commun ACM 46(12):35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schulz R, Wahl HW, Matthews JT, Dabbs ADV, Beach SR, Czaja SJ (2014) Advancing the aging and technology agenda in gerontology. Gerontology gnu071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Seeman TE, Lusignolo TM, Albert M, Berkman L (2001) Social relationships, social support, and patterns of cognitive aging in healthy, high-functioning older adults: MacArthur studies of successful aging. Health Psychol 20(4):243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Selwyn N, Gorard S, Furlong J, Madden L (2003) Older adults’ use of information and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing Soc 23(05):561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spinsante S, Stara V, Felici E, Montanini L, Raffaeli L, Rossi L, Gambi E (2016) The human factor in the design of successful ambient assisted living technologies. Ambient assisted living and enhanced living environments. Princ Technol Control 61Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stara V, Harte R, Di Rosa M, Rossi L, ÓLaighin G (2016) Toward a connected health system for older adults: lessons learned. In: Advances in physical ergonomics and human factors. Springer, Cham, pp 849–857Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thielke S, Harniss M, Thompson H, Patel S, Demiris G, Johnson K (2012) Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs and the adoption of health-related technologies for older adults. Ageing Int 37(4):470–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Hoof J, Kort HSM, Rutten PGS, Duijnstee MSH (2011) Ageing-in-place with the use of ambient intelligence technology: perspectives of older users. Int J Med Inform 80(5):310–331Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Venkatesh V, Davis FD (1996) A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decis Sci 27(3):451–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vroman KG, Arthanat S, Lysack C (2015) “Who over 65 is online?” Older adults’ dispositions toward information communication technology. Comput Hum Behav 43:156–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Walsh K, Callan A (2011) Perceptions, preferences, and acceptance of information and communication technologies in older-adult community care settings in Ireland: a case-study and ranked-care program analysis. Ageing Int 36(1):102–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wild K, Boise L, Lundell J, Foucek A (2008) Unobtrusive in-home monitoring of cognitive and physical health: reactions and perceptions of older adults. J Appl Gerontol 27(2):181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilkowska W, Ziefle M (2009, November) Which factors form older adults’ acceptance of mobile information and communication technologies?. In: Symposium of the austrian HCI and usability engineering group. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yusif S, Soar J, Hafeez-Baig A (2016) Older people, assistive technologies, and the barriers to adoption: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform 94:112–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vera Stara
    • 1
    Email author
  • Massimo Zancanaro
    • 2
  • Mirko Di Rosa
    • 1
  • Lorena Rossi
    • 1
  • Stefania Pinnelli
    • 3
  1. 1.IRCCS INRCA, National Institute of Health and Science on AgingAnconaItaly
  2. 2.ITC-irstPovo, TrentoItaly
  3. 3.University of SalentoLecceItaly

Personalised recommendations