Technology that Persuades the Elderly

  • Laura Sorri
  • Eeva Leinonen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5033)


This paper discusses what makes technology persuasive and what kind of technology is considered interesting among the elderly. Also, factors contributing to the choice between appliances are presented. For acquisition of information several qualitative methods were used. Among the factors making technology interesting were the support of safety, independency, memory and health, and bringing easiness and comfort to everyday life without forgetting expressing oneself and social issues. The elderly had several opinions on the usability. The study revealed some factors which were influencing the interest despite the qualities of an appliance.


elderly technology for the elderly persuasion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lines, L., Hone, K.S.: Research Methods for Older Adults. In: British HCI Conf. London (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.: Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, California (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hirsch, T., Forlizzi, J., Hyder, E., Goetz, J., Stroback, J., Kurtz, C.: The ELDer Project: Social and Emotional Factors in the Design of Eldercare Technologies. In: Proc. Universal Usability conference, London, pp. 72–79. ACM, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heller, R.: Use of the Multimedia Taxonomy for a Research Direction into Design and Evaluation of Materials for the Elderly. In: Proceedings of the EC/NSF Workshop on Universal Accessibility of Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 28–30. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alakärppä, I., Karjalainen, T.: Object Environment and Instruments of Living of the Third Age (in Finnish). In: Koskinen, S., Hakapää, L., Maranen, P., Piekkari, J. (eds.) Living of the Third Age in Northern Cities, pp. 310–332, Lapin Yliopistopaino, Rovaniemi (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sorri, L.: Experience of Safety in Immediate Surroundings (in Finnish). Gerontologia. 2/2007, 161–162 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Himanen, M., Jantunen, J.: Wishes and Needs of the Elderly. In: Kasanen, P. (ed.) ELDERATHOME – The Prerequisities of the Elderly for Living at Home: Criteria for Dwellings, Surroundings and Facilities, pp. 21–35, Edita, Helsinki (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Louise-Bender Pape, T., Kim, J., Weiner, B.: The Shaping of Individual Meanings to Assistive Technology: A Review of Personal Factors. Disability and Rehabilitation 34(1/2/3), 5–20 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Such, M.J., Barberà, R., Poveda, R., Belda-Lois, J.-M., Gómez, A., López, A., Cort, J.M., Sánchez, M.: The Use of Emotional Design Techniques in User Oriented Design of Interfaces within a Smart House Environment: Case Study. Technology and Disability 18(4), 201–206 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mynatt, E.D., Rogers, W.A.: Developing Technology to Support the Functional Independency of Older Adults. Ageing International 27(1), 24–41 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Czaja, S., Sharit, J.: Age Differences in Attitudes toward Computers. Journals of Gerontology 53(5), 329–340 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Sorri
    • 1
  • Eeva Leinonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluFinland

Personalised recommendations