A Qualitative Study of the Applicability of Technology Acceptance Models to Senior Mobile Phone Users
This paper investigates the factors that influence mobile phone adoption by the older user. Technology adoption is a process, with the adopter progressing from a state of ignorance of the technology to embracing it and considering it a necessity. Full progression can only occur if the adopter fully accepts the technology. If not, he or she is unlikely to progress towards wholehearted adoption and remain a reluctant user or discard the technology altogether. Many theoretical models explain the dynamics of technology acceptance by proposing particular predictive factors and are based on quantitative studies built on the responses of students or economically active adults. This begs the question: Do existing technology acceptance models incorporate the factors that lead to mobile phone adoption and use by older adults? We consulted findings from studies of senior mobile phone users and extracted a number of issues concerning needs, uses and limitations, which we verified by means of structured interviews with senior mobile phone users. We compare these qualitatively derived issues with the factors from existing quantitative models. This led to the identification of a two-dimensional adoption matrix where verified acceptance factors, derived from the experiences and opinions of our participants, are mapped against a recognised adoption process, highlighting the fact that current models only partly predict adoption and acceptance by the senior mobile phone user.
KeywordsMobile technology acceptance usability elderly
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Mallenius, S., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V.K.: Factors affecting the adoption and use of mobile devices and services by elderly people – results from a pilot study. In: 6th Annual Global Mobility Roundtable 2007, Los Angeles (2007)Google Scholar
- 2.Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
- 3.Lee, Y.S.: Older adults’ user experiences with mobile phones: Identification of user clusters and user requirements, in Industrial and Systems Engineering. Doctoral dissertation at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia (2007)Google Scholar
- 4.Van Biljon, J.A.: A Model for Representing the Motivational and Cultural Factors that Influence Mobile Phone Usage Variety, Doctoral dissertation at the School of Computing. University of South Africa, Pretoria (2007)Google Scholar
- 5.Haddon, L.: Domestication and Mobile Telephony, In Machines that Become Us: The Social Context of Personal Communication Technology, pp. 43–56. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (2003)Google Scholar
- 7.Ling, R.: The diffusion of mobile telephony among Norwegian teens: A report from after the revolution. Telenor Research and Development (2001)Google Scholar
- 8.Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. The Free Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
- 9.Silverstone, R., Haddon, L.: Design and the Domestication of Information and Communication Technologies: Technical Change and Everyday Life. In: Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies, Oxford, pp. 44–74 (1996)Google Scholar
- 10.Malhotra, Y., Galletta, D.F.: Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Account for Social Influence: Theoretical Bases and Empirical Validation. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 1. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
- 15.Abascal, J., Civit, A.: Universal Access to Mobile Telephony as a way to enhance the Autonomy of Elderly People. In: WUAUC 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
- 18.Kurniawan, A.: Mobile Phone Design for Older Persons, Interactions, pp. 24–25 (2007)Google Scholar
- 19.Chismar, W.G., Wiley-Patton, S.: Does the Extended Technology Acceptance Model Apply to Physicians. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2003), doi:10.1109/HICSS.2003.1174354Google Scholar