Adoption of technology of all kinds has been studied in many fields over many years. The most simplistic model of technology adoption only has two core variables. They are the "perceived usefulness" and the "perceived ease of use". Their tradeoff drives the attitude towards adoption and intention to use. The model was formulated when discussing the adoption of IT within organizations. It has now been widely used for other technologies and other consumer types.
Extensions have been made to the model. Variables were added to deal with the adoption of new technologies by older people. It is true that older people tend to adopt new technologies more slowly. I discussed the many reasons why in a recent Newsletter on the digital divide. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with age specifically. Older people “retire” to more rural areas and have restricted budgets. Those are factors that can influence adoption. It is not some generic resistance to new things by older people (Newsletter # 151 Time to Retire the Digital Divide) .
A Model for the Adoption of Smart Homes
The basic model was expanded in several ways. Many have “ageist” overtones. The researchers propose that perceived usefulness is driven by three variables. The first is “universal connectivity”. A smart home is not very good for anyone if there is no internet connection. The second is automation. Whether the smart home automates something that is of value. That can be health or environment monitoring. It can be providing companionship, social communication, or recreation & entertainment.
Mitigating against adoption of smart homes are several other variables in their model. One is affordability. The ageing stereotype would hold that older people have less spending power. They are likely to have a fixed income. Compatibility in their model is the ability of different parts of a smart home to work together. This is a barrier to all ages. For an older person lacking confidence in their technological ability, it can be insurmoutable.
Can older people get enjoyment out of having the state-of-the-art technology? The researchers included an “enjoyment” variable in their model. The ageing stereotype would imply that there are no older technophiles, only technophobes. This overlaps with another important variable: Secrecy and Privacy. If older people do not understand technology, they are more likely to worry about such things. They may be more susceptible to conspiracy theories, according to the researchers.
Fighting to Age in Place
Other studies have shown the tightrope that older frail people walk. They do not want to be institutionalized. It represents the last step in their journey. It represents the final loss of independence and control. Smart technologies can help to defer that step. However they can expose hidden infirmity. A smart stove can turn off a forgotten hob ring and save burnt food and worse. If that stove is web enabled that mistake becomes visible to carers. If it happens too often it becomes a threat to “ageing in place”. Health monitoring services in a smart home can catch potential problems early. They can provide doctors and nurses online or in person. They can also make transparent declining health. All the research shows that the decision to enter a care home is best made by the individual. If it is “imposed” the loss of control shortens life expectancy.
The Social Context of a Smart Home Decision
The authors of the model include: Subjective Norms. They define this as the impact of friends and family. In fact, it operates at many levels. Buying decisions are often made in conjunction with carers. These can be family, friends, or professionals. They will influence the decision (Newsletter #150 Don’t Call Me Old).
Older friends within the community can have a different impact. If everyone has a smart heating system, then it is easier to conform. If everyone has a smart entertainment system, then there are more people to ask for help. The influence can flow in the other direction. If friends have found little value in the smart service.
The “enemy within” can have a big impact. We all carry stereotypes of what it means to be old. These can be reinforced by friends and family or mitigated by them. Technology plays a major part in any stereotype. If you are not a “digital native” you are not expected to be able to use technology and understand its value.
This can have different influences. The most thought-provoking variable in the smart home model is something they called “self-capability perception”. This is the individual’s perception of whether they can use a smart home to its full value. That capability can be real or only the result of a self-stereotype. Older people are negative about their technological and computer skills. Studies have shown that they grossly underestimate their abilities compared to objective reality. They are less confident when answering technological questions. They expect to get them wrong. They are less confident that they got the correct answer, even when they did (Newsletter #84 Technology is Everything Invented after you were born).
There is a broader impact of the stereotype. If the “enemy within” stereotype does not include a smart home, then they should not have one. There is nothing worse than a failed adoption. It demonstrates to everyone that the stereotype is correct. Family members can reinforce the stereotype. If they ask whether "you can manage something like this?" Frailty can bring with it the loss of physical and cognitive ability. Buttons may be more difficult to press. Passwords are more difficult to remember. Managing smart services can be more difficult for an older person. The caring family question is real.
Stressing the Benefits
The problem for all buyers of smart homes is that no one knows what they really are. This is independent of age. Many different services are being developed using the internet of things. Not all are compatible with each other. Not all are that useful or that smart. Certainly not all fit into the lifestyle of people ageing in place at home. There is still a war going on for control of the “hub” at the center of a smart home. Is it better for all ages to stress the benefits of individual smart services? Perhaps leave the “smart home” in the background