Technology, Mind, and Behavior

© 2022 The Author(s)

ISSN: 2689-0208 https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000088

SPECIAL COLLECTION: TECHNOLOGY, WORK, AND INEQUALITY

Work and Personal Determinants of Mobile-Technology Adoption

and Use Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults:
A Mixed-Methods Approach
Katrina A. Burch1, Mia Kendrick1, Cora Hurt1, Elizabeth Hill1, Emily Andrulonis2, and C. Faith Rollins3
1
Department of Psychological Sciences, Western Kentucky University
2
Pyramid Healthcare, Duncansville, Pennsylvania, United States
3
Athens Paper, Nashville, Tennessee, United States

Mobile phones play a key role in information and communication technology, as they ease communication and interaction for users.
However, older adults are often described as being on the wrong side of the digital divide, as they are less likely to adopt and use such
technology. While research abounds on technology adoption and use among older adults, prior research has often examined this
demographic as a homogenous group, however inequalities among older adults exist driven by socioeconomic backgrounds. Furthermore,
researchers have called for understanding the mechanisms behind technology adoption and use among older adults so that we can start to
bridge the digital divide. We sought to address gaps in the current literature by integrating the motivational theory of lifespan development
and the theory of digital inequality in examining the inequalities and motivations that drive mobile technology adoption, use, and
proficiency. We used a mixed method approach to collect data from 67 community-dwelling older adults that consisted of semistructured
interviews and survey assessments. Results suggest that inequalities in income and occupation at/prior to retirement are associated with
categories of mobile technology proficiency. Results further suggest that the majority of participants employ compensatory secondary
control strategies which facilitate lower levels of mobile technology adoption and use. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords: mobile technology, older adults, motivation, inequality, digital divide

Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000088.supp

It has been noted that two of the major challenges in today’s
society are the technological revolution and the rapidly increasing
age of global populations (e.g., Martinez-Pecino et al., 2012).
Information and communications technology (ICT) are highly
influential, and have become more so with the COVID-19 pandemic
and the rapid shift to virtually working and schooling from home
for entire populations. Mobile phones play a key role in ICT
(Ezoe et al., 2009), easing communication and interaction for all
age demographics. Indeed, the versatility and rapid advancement of
mobile phone technology have made mobile phones indispensable
in activities of daily living (e.g., Katz, 2006). However, there are
some populations and age demographics with which technology,

Special Collection Editors: Tara Behrend and Mindy K. Shoss
Action Editor: Mindy K. Shoss was the action editor for this article.
ORCID iDs: Katrina A. Burch https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2612-
6894; Cora Hurt https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3248-3978.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Shelby Davis,
Kennedy Hammonds, Adalin McDaniel, Molly Simmons, and Melissa
Sorensen for their time and effort in assisting with the coding of interview
data in the study presented.
Disclosures: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. These
research findings have not been previously presented, however, the research
rationale was presented at the 5th Biannual Aging and Work Small Group
Meeting in St. Gällen, Switzerland in November 2019.
Data Availability: Data for this study are available to other researchers
through the first author’s open science framework profile (https://osf.io/
j2mx9; Burch, 2022). Data include numerically coded interview data as well
as survey and demographic data; interview protocol with full list of interview
questions, and data codebook.
Open Science Disclosures:
The data are available at https://osf.io/j2mx9
Open Access License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC-BY-
NC-ND). This license permits copying and redistributing the work in any medium
or format for noncommercial use provided the original authors and source are
credited and a link to the license is included in attribution. No derivative works are
permitted under this license.
Contact Information: Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Katrina A. Burch, Department of Psychological Sciences,
Western Kentucky University, 1906 College Heights Boulevard #22030,
Bowling Green, KY 42101, United States. Email: Katrina.burch@wku.edu

1
2 BURCH ET AL.
rather than leading to social inclusion, may expand social exclusion
through little to no use of such technology. Specifically, older adults
are at the center of the so-called digital divide, which is defined as
inequalities regarding access, intensity, and nature of ICT use
(Anderson & Perrin, 2017).
Researchers note that while older adults are more digitally
connected than in decades past, there remains a notable digital
divide between younger and older adults, especially those who are
economically disadvantaged (Anderson & Perrin, 2017). Indeed,
technology use holds many attractions for seniors, such as increased
autonomy (Chaffin & Harlow, 2005); increased connectivity to
loved ones (Chen & Schulz, 2016); and increased levels of empow-
erment and self-efficacy (Hill et al., 2015). What’s more, researchers
note that lack of technology use puts elderly adults at a disadvan-
tage, impeding their ability to function independently, such as
performing everyday tasks (e.g., grocery shopping, doctor’s visits;
Czaja et al., 2006). Furthermore, while the use of technology in
elderly populations have often been pessimistically portrayed, there
is evidence that suggests that older adults would like to use new
technologies (e.g., mobile phones) as a means of staying active and
engaged with society (Kurniawan, 2008).
There is a growing body of research which examines technology
adoption and use of older adults (e.g., Davis, 1989; Rogers, 2003;
Venkatesh et al., 2003). As noted by Hargittai et al. (2019), research
has primarily focused on bridging the digital divide for older adults
to enhance social connectivity and obtain information and resources
from the internet. However, gaps in our understanding of technology
use among older adults still exist. In particular, little is understood
about individual differences in the adoption and use of mobile
technology in older adults. For example, recent research has sought
to examine individual differences in the breadth of internet use
(Leukel et al., 2021), and internet skills (Hargittai et al., 2019).
However, prior research primarily uses large online/paper-and-
pencil surveys which do not allow for understanding the differences
and motivations behind technology use because participants are
studied in aggregate rather than emphasizing the understanding of
individual differences provided by qualitative, contextually rich
data. Magsamen-Conrad and Dillon (2020) note that technology
adoption and use is often measured by survey-based research which
does not allow for the capturing of individual differences which can
help researchers better understand the decision-making process
involved in adoption and use. Indeed, van Dijk (2006) argues
that the lack of qualitative research is problematic in that we
need to be able to understand the precise mechanisms (e.g., motiva-
tions, skills, and usage access in settings where interpersonal
relations and particular cultures dominate) in adoption and use of
(mobile) technology in “bridging” the so-called digital divide. In
addition, researchers argue that those older adults least likely to use
technology (e.g., older adults from lower socioeconomic and edu-
cational backgrounds) are often described as a homogenous group
(Neves et al., 2018), although it is recognized that there are
differences in their background and experiences. Unfortunately,
the individual differences in motivation to adopt and use mobile
technology in older adults with lower socioeconomic and more
disadvantaged backgrounds is yet to be explored.
Therefore, we seek to address theoretical and methodological
gaps in literature by examining individual differences and motiva-
tions behind mobile technology adoption and use in a largely
economically disadvantaged sample of community-dwelling older
adults in Southcentral Kentucky. Specifically, we seek to integrate
the motivational theory of lifespan development (Heckhausen &
Schulz, 1995; Heckhausen et al., 2010) with the theory of digital
inequality (DiMaggio et al., 2004; van Dijk, 2006) to emphasize and
understand the motivational strategies employed by community-
dwelling older adults in mobile technology adoption and use. We do
this through a qualitative (interview), mixed-method approach using
thematic analysis and correlation analyses in an underserved sample
of economically disadvantaged older adults.
We feel that this is an important area of consideration given older
adults represent an exponentially growing demographic that aim to
benefit from technological advancements, potentially more so, than
their younger counterparts. However, as mentioned, older adults are
disadvantaged in their use of mobile technology. Indeed, it has been
postulated that seniors who are less affluent or have lower levels of
educational attainment are more disadvantaged than their more
affluent or well-educated counterparts when it comes to technology
adoption and use (Anderson & Perrin, 2017). Importantly, DiMaggio
et al. (2004) note that “inequality in access to and use of information is
a systematic source of social inequality,” (p. 53). In considering
community-dwelling older adults in an economically disadvantaged
area, we also have to consider the sociodemographic and work
backgrounds that may contribute to inequalities in the lack of adoption
and use of mobile technology. We first discuss the Motivational
Theory of Lifespan Development and the Theory of Digital Inequality
in understanding technology adoption and use among older adults. We
then integrate discussions of inequality in social and work back-
grounds that may help us to understand the motivations behind mobile
technology adoption and use. We conclude our literature review with
the integration of theory in examining the aforementioned.
The Motivational Theory of Lifespan Development
The motivational theory of lifespan development posits that people
seek to exercise personal agency, in other words, people seek to
exercise the ability to initiate and direct actions toward the achieve-
ment of defined goals (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995; Heckhausen
et al., 2010), referred to as primary control capacity. To maintain
primary control, people employ two strategies: primary control
strategies are used to shape individuals’ environments consistent
with their needs, and when that is not possible, secondary control
strategies are used to alter goals to fit environmental demands
(Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995). Primary and secondary control strat-
egies can be further distinguished by whether they are selective or
compensatory. Shane and Heckhausen (2019) note that “selective
primary, selective secondary, and compensatory primary control
strategies facilitate goal engagement processes : : : [while] compen-
satory secondary control strategies help individuals to disengage from
a goal” (p. 114). Selective primary control strategies involve behav-
ioral and cognitive efforts in attaining goals. When goals cannot be
obtained easily, individuals will engage in selective secondary (i.e.,
for goal pursuit) and compensatory primary (i.e., for goal adjustment)
control strategies (Shane & Heckhausen, 2019).
Aging is associated with depleting resources, making goals more
difficult to attain. While primary control striving is stable over an
individuals’ lifespan (i.e., the motivation to attain goals, overcome
obstacles, and maintain a positive self-concept), primary control
capacity declines as individuals age (Shane & Heckhausen, 2019).
 TECHNOLOGY, WORK, AND OLDER ADULTS
Therefore, older adults increasingly use secondary control strategies
which facilitate goal adjustment and/or disengagement.
In particular, Heckhausen et al. (2010) suggests that as indivi-
dual’s age, their goals shift from long-term extrinsic goals to more
short-term intrinsically oriented goals. However goals are likely to
shift due to factors associated with age. For example, research by Ng
and Feldman (2009a, 2009b) suggests that self-efficacy decreases
with age. Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) refers to an individual’s
belief in their ability to execute a plan of action. Research suggests
that age-related factors are negatively associated with self-efficacy
(e.g., Bausch et al., 2014; Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004; Kooij et al.,
2008). Furthermore, Maurer (2001) argues that self-efficacy for
learning and skill development decreases with age, which is likely
associated with the notion that older adults perceive that key abilities
required for learning decline with age (Salthouse, 2012), including
their ability to adopt and use mobile technology. This notion adheres
to the (false) adage, you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. Indeed,
there is evidence that suggests that older adults would like to use
new technologies as a means of staying active and engaged with
society (Kurniawan, 2008); but motivation is key to learning (Tyler
et al., 2020).
Understanding the control strategies older adults employ in
mobile technology adoption and use can shed light on better
communication and intervention techniques.
The Theory of Digital Inequality
Older adults are more likely to have grown up and developed
without the use of many of today’s technology, which likely
negatively influences their self-efficacy with learning and using
mobile technology. The theory of digital inequality suggests that
there are many differences associated with technology use among
individuals (DiMaggio et al., 2004). The theory of digital inequality
posits that categorical inequalities between groups of people in
society (e.g., young vs. old; affluent vs. nonaffluent) leads to
unequal distribution of resources in accessing and using ICT.
Resources refer to material (e.g., having a computer or mobile
smart phone; financial), mental (e.g., motivations, cognitive ability),
and social resources (e.g., social support; technical support). Essen-
tially, the theory of digital inequality would suggest that discre-
pancies in resources among categorical groups explains technology
adoption and use in those groups.
van Dijk (2006) posits that technology adoption and use is reliant
on the process of access. Access refers to microdeterminants that
influence an individual’s ability to make use of ICT. According to
the cumulative and recursive model of access (van Dijk, 2006),
motivational access (i.e., desire to adopt, purchase, use, or learn
technology) leads to material access (i.e., obtaining or possessing
technology), which then contributes to skills access (i.e., learning
the technology), which finally contributes to actual use and profi-
ciency (i.e., being able to fully use technology). The process model
of access (van Dijk, 2006) also includes a feedback loop; for
example, when a new technological innovation is released (e.g.,
iPad), the process of access repeats.
The process begins with motivational access, so to understand the
digital divide, and the categorical inequalities that contribute to
understanding mobile technology adoption and use, we must under-
stand how motivations (control strategies) in goal attainment
3
interact with, and influence, other levels of access (i.e., material
access) in the aforementioned process. van Dijk (2006) notes that
motivational access comprises both a social/cultural and mental/
psychological component. While a social/cultural explanation in
motivational access in considering technology adoption and use
might be that technology “does not appeal [to] low-income and low-
educated people” (Katz & Rice, 2002); mental/psychological ex-
planations are grounded in technology anxiety and technophobia
(van Dijk, 2006). van Dijk (2006) notes that technology anxiety and
technophobia are major barriers to technology adoption and use for
seniors. Furthermore, material access and skills access may be
limited when considering socioeconomically disadvantaged older
adults.
Examining Inequality Among Older Adults
As mentioned, prior research often treats older adults as a homog-
enous group on the wrong side of the digital divide (Neves et al.,
2018). However, among older adults, there are additional divides that
may influence material and skills access, as well as motivations in
adopting and using mobile technology. Specifically, social inequal-
ities among older adults may help researchers and practitioners alike,
to understand the facilitators of, and barriers to, adopting and using
technology. Traditional indicators of socioeconomic status include
education, income, and occupational status which influence social
inequalities among older adults in their adoption and use of
technology.
Inequalities among older adults, in particular, are likely driven by
concomitant factors, in other words, social and work inequalities are
inextricably linked. Specifically, older adults likely were employed
in one of two distinct labor market segments, the primary (core)
sector and the secondary (peripheral) sector (Bidwell et al., 2013). In
the primary sector, employees benefited from long-term relation-
ships with employers that were likely associated with steady wage
increases as well as health insurance and old age pensions
(Doeringer & Piore, 1971; Jacoby, 1997). Primary sector jobs are
characterized by high wages, good-working conditions, job stabil-
ity, and good opportunities for training and promotion. However,
those employed in the secondary (or peripheral) sector were not
provided the same level of benefits; this sector was primarily
comprised of women, racial minorities, and low-skilled workers
(Doeringer & Piore, 1971; Jacoby, 1997). Secondary sector jobs are
characterized by less opportunities for training, low wages, poor
working conditions, high turnover, and less opportunities for
advancement and union membership. The absence of retirement
or pension plans for low-skilled workers as compared to higher
skilled workers influences, and likely widens, the digital divide
among older adults as some are more likely to be economically
disadvantaged compared to their more affluent counterparts.
Lower income older adults are likely drawing social-security
benefits (in the United States), which may be their only source of
income. Older adults with lower incomes likely have less education,
and thus retired from occupations where earning potential was
limited. As such, education, income, and occupational status as
indicators of social inequality are linked to technology use and
adoption because of their impact on material and skills access.
Indeed, research supports that socioeconomic status leads to
4 BURCH ET AL.

subdivides within digitally divided populations (i.e., older adults;
Cotten et al., 2016).
Integrating Theory in Examining Mobile Technology
Adoption and Use in Older Adults
Integrating the motivational theory of lifespan development with
the theory of digital inequality for older adults would suggest that
the key to understanding mobile technology use and adoption for
older adults lies in their use of control strategies. According to the
motivational theory of lifespan development, control strategies are
the motivational strategies that adults use in goal setting. As stated,
selective secondary control strategies facilitate goal engagement,
while compensatory primary control strategies facilitate goal adjust-
ment (Shane & Heckhausen, 2019). Specifically, selective second-
ary control strategies includes intrinsic volitional strategies which
enable individuals’ to commit to goal pursuits (i.e., increasing the
perceived value and ability to achieve the goal; Shane &
Heckhausen, 2019). Compensatory primary control strategies, on
the other hand, involves finding alternative ways to attain a goal and
getting help from external resources. This suggests that bridging the
digital divide for older adults must include persuading older adults
to perceive the value of, and recognizing and believing in their
ability to, adopt, learn, and use mobile technology, while being open
to receiving help from others in order to attain the goal of mobile
technology adoption and use. In particular, compensatory primary
control strategies are necessary for older adults to address and/or
prevent competence gaps, such as adopting and using newer tech-
nologies. Indeed, recent research supports that older adults will
invest the time necessary to adopt and learn newer technologies “if
they perceive the value in the technology, have positive attitudes
related to technology readiness, and have confidence that they have
the cognitive abilities needed to acquire the necessary skills,” (Sharit
et al., 2021, p. 1).
However, integrating the motivational theory of lifespan devel-
opment and the theory of digital inequality would suggest that older
adults with less resources in accessing, adopting, and using tech-
nology (e.g., less affluent, less education) may engage in compen-
satory secondary control strategies. Compensatory secondary
control strategies are self-protective strategies that facilitate goal
disengagement enacted in a way that minimizes threats to one’s self-
esteem (Shane & Heckhausen, 2019). In other words, older adults
may reason that they do not need to adopt and use newer technology
because they’ve been able to “get by” without it. This only con-
tributes to a widening of the digital divide between older and
younger adults, and among older adults who differ in sociodemo-
graphic and economic backgrounds. Research suggests that the
adoption and use of technology for older adults provides an
important tool which enhances autonomy and social connection
(Chaffin & Harlow, 2005; Chen & Schulz, 2016). Therefore, while
some older adults may believe they can “get by” without learning
and mastering newer technology, research would suggest that the
health and social benefits may outweigh older adults’ skepticism
(Chaffin & Harlow, 2005; Chen & Schulz, 2016).
Please see Figure 1, for a representation of the integration of the
motivational theory of lifespan development with the theory of
digital inequality in considering mobile technology adoption and
use for older adults. Specifically, this integrated model suggests that,
according to the theory of digital inequality, motivational access
(desire to have) leads to material access (physical access); however,
the use of compensatory primary or secondary control strategies
may enhance this association or buffer it. In other words, the use of
compensatory primary control strategies may strengthen the associ-
ation between one’s desire to have mobile technology and their

Figure 1
Integrated Model Depicting Technology Adoption and Use for Older Adults

Note. Compensatory primary and secondary control strategies (motivational theory of lifespan development) are depicted as
moderators of the relationship between motivational and material access (theory of digital inequality) in conceptualizing mobile
technology adoption and use by older adults.
 TECHNOLOGY, WORK, AND OLDER ADULTS
material or physical obtainment of said technology; while the
use of compensatory secondary control strategies may inhibit this
association.
The Present Study
We sought to understand mobile technology adoption and use in
community-dwelling older adults using an integrated theoretical
framework to understand motivations in mobile technology adop-
tion and use. Specifically, mobile phone technology advances
rapidly, and in an ever-changing technology landscape, mobile
phones in particular have the capacity to be leveraged to enhance
community-dwelling older adults’ mobility and independence
through the use of apps that support activities of daily living
(e.g., rideshare, grocery delivery). Research supports that managing
activities of daily living are important indicators of enhanced quality
of life and healthy aging for older adults (Molzahn et al., 2010).
However, as mentioned, older adults, particularly those who are less
affluent, are on the disadvantaged side of the ever-widening digital
divide. Researchers note that while the literature on older users of
technology is growing, there are few studies focused specifically on
mobile technology use (e.g., smartphones; Mohlman & Basch,
2021). In addition, much of prior research have utilized survey
methodology with relatively large samples, treating older adults as a
homogenous group when indeed, they differ significantly in terms
of educational, occupational, and socioeconomic background
(Neves et al., 2018).
Therefore, we examined mobile technology adoption and use in
community-dwelling older adults in Southcentral Kentucky using a
combination of semistructured interviews and survey techniques.
Recent census statistics indicate that nearly 17% of the total
population of Kentucky is age 65 or older (United States Census
Bureau, 2019); this is projected to increase to approximately 26% by
2030 (Institute for Aging, 2015). Therefore, as the population ages,
the need to understand mobile technology adoption and use among
older adults has become necessary in order to help close the digital
divide. Indeed, understanding the motivations of older adults in the
adoption and use of mobile technology could help researchers and
practitioners alike to determine how best to facilitate mobile tech-
nology proficiency through training efforts that are tailored to older
users (Roque & Boot, 2018).
Semistructured interviews are an appropriate method when con-
sidering understanding motivations behind, and barriers to, mobile
technology adoption and use as they allow for structured questions
that can be clarified through follow-up questions. Participants were
able to describe their current living and care situation, as well as
describe their motivations behind using and/or adopting mobile
technology. Motivations behind mobile technology adoption and
use could then be coded and categorized. Survey techniques were
used in order to collect demographics and occupational history, as
well as to assess proficiency in using mobile technology. Given prior
research, we formulated the following research questions as they
pertain to the motivational strategies older adults use when consid-
ering the adoption and use of mobile technology:
Research Question 1: What motivational strategies (compen-
satory primary control or compensatory secondary control) do
older adults use when considering the adoption and use of
mobile technology?
5
Research Question 2: What motivational strategies (compen-
satory primary control or compensatory secondary control) do
older adults use when considering the adoption and use of
assistance of daily living apps?
Furthermore, based on prior research we formulated the following
hypotheses as they pertain to sociodemographic differences in the
adoption and use of mobile technology:
Hypothesis 1: Education and current income level will be
positively associated with the use of mobile technology such
that those who report a higher education level and a higher
current income level will be more likely to currently have and
use mobile technology.
Hypothesis 2: Occupation will be positively associated with the
use of mobile technology such that those whose occupation
before retirement required more knowledge-based, rather than
skill-based work, will be more likely to currently have and use
mobile technology.
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 67 community-dwelling older adults
recruited from seven senior centers located in Southcentral Kentucky.
A senior center is a community-based center for older adults that
are usually locally funded. Senior centers allow a communal space
for older adults to gather, fulfilling social, physical, emotional and
intellectual needs. Senior center patrons in Southcentral Kentucky
come from a variety of backgrounds. While many patrons were
natives of Kentucky, a subset of the sample had decided to retire
in Kentucky to be close to family and because the low cost-of-living
allows older adults to stretch their incomes. While the majority of
participants were retired (N = 58), seven participants reported being
currently employed in some fashion. For example, one patron who
volunteered to participate also assisted with cooking meals at the
senior center part-time for a modest wage. Another patron who
volunteered had retired from her prior occupation but was currently
working as a part-time manager of a community center.
As of the 2018 census statistics for the state of Kentucky, 36.4%
of the population is over 50. Furthermore, 8.8% of the population of
Kentucky over 60 are classified as persons of color. The average
income for the state of Kentucky for those age 65+ is approximately
$25,500, with only 44.7% of the population of older adults (60+)
reporting having a retirement income. The average social security
income for older adults (age 60+) in Kentucky is approximately
$9,900. Therefore, participant demographics for the study sample
are representative of the population of older adults in Kentucky.
Participants were prescreened to ensure that they were not
experiencing excessive cognitive decline (i.e., dementia or Alzhei-
mer’s). Participants ranged in age from 49 to 91, with 90% of the
sample identifying as older than 60 (Mage = 72.7, standard deviation
[SD] = 8.63). The majority of participants identified as female
(70.8%), White (78.5%), with 69.7% of the sample indicating
having a high-school diploma (or equivalent) or greater. Approxi-
mately 26% (N = 17) of participants indicated having some high-
school education, with 4.5% (N = 3) having only a junior high
education (up to 8th grade). The majority of participants were
6 BURCH ET AL.

divorced, widowed, or separated (58.2%), with 30% of the sample 17 points or above, which would indicate that participant is not
indicating that they were currently married, and 12% of the sample likely experiencing issues around cognitive decline.
indicating that they were single and have never been married. The Mobile technology use was assessed utilizing the Mobile Device
overwhelming majority of participants (73%) reported having an Proficiency Questionnaire, a previously validated and reliable mea-
annual household income of less than $25,000 and being retired sure (MDPQ; Roque & Boot, 2018). The MDPQ contains eight
(89.2%). In addition, the majority of participants reported retiring subscales: mobile device basics (nine items), communication (nine
from production-related occupations (31%), and service-related items), data and file storage (three items), interests (eight items),
occupations (27.6%). Please see Table 1 for full sociodemographic calendar (three items), entertainment (five items), privacy (four
breakdown. items), and troubleshooting and software management (five items).
All items contained the stem, “Using a mobile device, I can : : : ,”
and were assessed along a 5-point Likert-type ability scale ranging
Materials from 1 (never tried) to 5 (very easily). Subscales were summed and
averaged such that higher mean subscale scores indicated greater
Standardized interview protocols were developed in an effort to
proficiency with mobile phone technology. Reliabilities were as-
assess participation in social activities; knowledge and use of com-
sessed using Cronbach’s α, and ranged from 0.88 to 0.97 for all
puters, internet, and mobile phones/apps; motivation in learning and
subscales.
using mobile application technologies; personal competence; mobility Demographics included age, sex, race, education, marital status,
and/or mobility limitations; and sociodemographic characteristics, five-digit home zip code, annual income, and work history and
including gender, age, occupation before retirement, work experience, retirement. The reported demographic information was used to
socioeconomic level, marital status, and educational background. index inequalities in the sample. Specifically, education contained
Interviews were conducted between January and March, 2020. the following response categories: less than high school, some high
school, high school graduate (or GED), some college (or vocational
school), 2-year college degree (associate’s), 4-year college degree
Measures
(bachelor’s), and graduate degree or beyond. Education was
Cognitive decline was assessed utilizing the short form of the dummy-coded such that those participants who had a high school
Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE; Folstein et al., 1975). degree or less were given a value of 0, while those who had some
The MMSE consisted of 21 items that required participants to college (or vocational education) or more were given a value of 1.
verbally respond and recall information, and each item correct Current income contained the following response categories: under
was scored with 1 point. Participants were required to score at least $25,000, $25,000–$49,999, $50,000–$74,999, $75,000–$99,999,
and $100,000 or more. Income was dummy-coded such that parti-
cipants who responded that their household income was greater than
Table 1 $25,000 were given a value of 0, while those who responded that
Sample Characteristics their income was less than $25,000 were given a value of 1. Finally,
occupation was categorized with the following response options:
Demographics N Percent M (SD) management, business, financial operations; sales and related
Age 72.7 (8.6) occupations; construction trades and related work; production oc-
Female 46 68.7% cupations; professional and related occupations; office and admin-
Ethnic/racial istrative work; installation, maintenance, and repair occupations;
White 51 78.5 transportation and material moving operations; service occupations;
Black 12 18.5
farming, fishing, forestry; and education. Occupation was dummy-
Native American 2 3.1
Marital coded such that those participants who responded that their occu-
Single 8 11.9 pational industry prior to retirement fell into the following catego-
Married 20 29.9 ries was given a value of 0 (nonprofessional): sales and related
Divorced, widowed, separated 39 58.2 occupations; construction trades and related work; production oc-
Education
Less than high school 3 4.5 cupations; installation, maintenance, and repair occupations; trans-
Some high school 17 25.8 portation and material moving operations; service occupations; and
High school grad 24 36.4 farming, fishing, forestry. Participants who responded that their
Some college 12 18.2 occupational industry prior to retirement fell into the following
2-year college 4 6.1
categories was given a value of 1 (professional): management,
4-year college 3 4.5
Graduate school or beyond 3 4.5 business, financial operations; professional and related occupations;
Household income office and administrative work; and education. This coding scheme
Under $25,000 46 73 was developed by the research team.
$25,000–$49,999 12 19
$50,000–$74,999 1 1.6
$75,000–$99,999 1 1.6 Procedure
$100,000+ 3 4.8
Mobile phone type The research was approved by the university institutional review
None 10 14.9 board and was performed in accordance with relevant ethical
Flip phone 28 41.8
29 43.3
standards. All participants were interviewed by two researchers
Smartphone
in a quiet room. One researcher prepared audio-recording equipment
 TECHNOLOGY, WORK, AND OLDER ADULTS 7

and interviewed the senior participant, while the second researcher
took notes. All participants provided signed and recorded verbal
consent to the interview and survey process. Initially, the two
researchers introduced themselves to the senior participants,
thanked them for participating, and then collected consent signa-
tures. Prior to the interviews, all participants were prescreened to
ensure they were not experiencing cognitive decline using the
MMSE screening questionnaire. All participants were read the
same script prior to verbally completing the MMSE, and research
assistants were trained in administering and scoring the MMSE prior
to interacting with participants.
All interviews were audio-recorded to allow researchers to clarify
notes. Following interviews, participants completed a survey ques-
tionnaire to assess computer and mobile device proficiency, as well
as to report their demographics and work history. Participation was
voluntary, and volunteers were paid $30 cash for participating in an
hour-long interview and 30-min of questionnaires. Research assis-
tants were available while participants were filling out question-
naires to answer questions and assist participants if necessary.
Data Preparation
Research questions one and two were approached through
deductive-driven thematic analysis. Thematic analysis involves
understanding written content through the use of themes and
patterns within the data (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Using the motiva-
tional theory of lifespan development, preidentified themes included
the use of compensatory primary and secondary control strategies.
Interviews underwent a two-step coding process whereby four
coders were trained in the coding process. After undergoing train-
ing, coders independently coded in teams of two (each team
independently coded approximately 34 interviews each). Interviews
were analyzed into clauses, and these clauses were then synthesized
into categories, themes, and subcategories. Coding teams met
independently with a third party trained in the coding process to
discuss any discrepancies in coded information. Once coders
achieved an intercoder reliability of 0.8 or greater, the teams then
switched and recoded the additional 34 interviews from the other
coding team. Again, coding was not complete until coders achieved
an intercoder reliability of 0.8 or greater. Categories and themes
were then numerically coded so that correlation analyses could be
performed. We were primarily interested in current mobile phone
adoption and use, so participants were asked if they had a cell phone,
and if so which type (flip phone, or smartphone). In addition, we
were primarily interested in the use of applications to assist with
activities of daily living (e.g., rideshare, grocery delivery), and
therefore we specifically asked participants to describe their moti-
vations in adopting and using app-based technology to assist with
their activities of daily living. These motivations were then coded
into compensatory primary control strategies (i.e., willingness to
learn if provided training and support) and compensatory secondary
control strategies (i.e., not interested due to expense and/or lack of
need, not interested because of hesitation around ability to learn).
Quantitative data were used to test Hypotheses 1 and 2. Specifi-
cally, we examined bivariate zero-order correlations of survey data
to test the significance of the associations. Data for this study are
available to other researchers through the first author’s open science
framework profile (https://osf.io/j2mx9; Burch, 2022). Data include
numerically coded interview data as well as survey and demo-
graphic data, interview protocol with full list of interview questions,
and data codebook.
Results
Results are presented to address the aforementioned research ques-
tions and organized first by descriptive analyses and hypothesis testing,
and then by analysis of semistructured interview data. Specifically, we
first report findings related to the motivations that older adults employ
in adopting and using mobile technology (Research Question 1).
We then present findings related to the motivations that older
adults employ in adopting and using mobile applications to assist
with activities of daily living (Research Questions 2).
Descriptive Analyses and Hypothesis Testing
Characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1, with
means, SDs, and bivariate correlations presented in Table 2. As
can be seen by Table 2, income level was significantly associated

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Age 72.7 8.63 —

2. Sex — — 0.03 —
3. Education — — −0.08 −0.17 —
4. Income — — 0.04 −0.16 0.18 —
5. Occupation — — −0.02 −0.03 0.56* 0.39* —
6. Motive — — 0.02 −0.16 0.11 −0.15 −0.18 —
7. Basics 3.03 1.48 −0.33* 0.12 0.05 0.31* 0.23 0.17 (0.88)
8. Communication 2.15 1.86 −0.39* −0.03 0.21 0.46* 0.33* 0.11 0.86* (0.97)
9. Data 1.48 1.62 −0.34* −0.09 0.20 0.40* 0.28* 0.04 0.69* 0.84* (0.94)
10. Interests 2.06 1.92 −0.42* −0.05 0.24 0.42* 0.29* 0.10 0.80* 0.95* 0.82* (0.97)
11. Calendar 2.02 1.86 −0.48* −0.10 0.09 0.33* 0.15 −0.09 0.62* 0.69* 0.71* 0.70* (0.88)
12. Entertainment 2.13 1.76 −0.51* 0.02 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.76* 0.84* 0.64* 0.86* 0.72* (0.90)
13. Privacy 2.29 1.80 −0.44* 0.001 0.14 0.36* 0.21 0.03 0.76* 0.85* 0.73* 0.90* 0.75* 0.89* (0.90)
14. Troubleshoot 2.21 1.72 −0.54* −0.02 0.14 0.28* 0.14 0.08 0.74* 0.82* 0.75* 0.84* 0.77* 0.82* 0.85* (0.91)
Note. Reliabilities reported along the diagonal. Motive was coded as 0 (compensatory secondary control) and 1 (compensatory primary control).
* p < .05.
8 BURCH ET AL.
with more proficiency in the following mobile phone categories:
basics (r = 0.31, p < .05), communication (r = 0.46, p < .05), data
and file storage (r = 0.40, p < .05), interests (r = 0.42, p < .05),
calendar (r = 0.33, p < .05), privacy (r = 0.36, p < .05), and
troubleshooting (r = 0.28, p < .05). However, education was not
significantly associated with proficiency in any of the mobile phone
categories, therefore, partial support was found for Hypothesis 1.
Specifically, the pattern of correlations for the sample indicate that
those participants with more income are more likely to self-report
more proficiency with mobile phone technology. A pattern of
significant correlations in mobile phone technology was also found
for participants who reported retiring from a professional occupa-
tion. Specifically, prior professional occupation was significantly
associated with more proficiency in the following mobile phone
categories: communication (r = 0.33, p < .05), data and file storage
(r = 0.28, p < .05), and interests (r = 0.29, p < .05), providing partial
support for Hypothesis 2. Of note for the sample, income and
occupation were significantly correlated (r = 0.56, p < .05),
indicating that those participants who reported retiring from a
professional occupation also indicated an annual household income
of $25,000 or more. These results suggest that more affluent
community-dwelling older adults in Southcentral Kentucky are
more likely to report mobile phone adoption and use, which is
consistent with prior research.
Motivations in Adopting and Using
Mobile Technology
Participants were asked their motivations behind learning how to
use mobile phone technology (if they did not currently use smart-
phones). If participants currently used smartphones, they were asked
what their motivations were in using a smartphone. Motivational
responses were coded as compensatory primary control strategies or
compensatory secondary control strategies. Frequencies and sum-
mary statistics are reported in Table 3.
Compensatory Primary Control Strategies
As mentioned, compensatory primary control strategies involve
finding alternative ways to attain a goal and getting help from
external resources. Less than half of the participants (20/64 coded
responses; 31.3%) reported using compensatory primary control
strategies in willingness to learn and/or currently using mobile
technology. Specifically, of the participants who currently had no
Table 3
Frequencies for Motivational Responses in Mobile Technology
Adoption and Use
Motivation
CSC CPC
Type of phone N % N %
No mobile phone 7 18.9 2 3.1
Flip phone 23 35.9 5 7.8
Smart phone 14 21.9 13 20.3
Total 44 68.8 20 31.3
Note. 64 total coded responses were used to calculate the percentages.
CSC = compensatory secondary control; CPC = compensatory primary control.
mobile phone or a flip phone, only seven (7/37-coded responses;
18.9%) reported using compensatory primary control strategies in
willingness to learn how to use smart mobile-based technology. For
example, one participant mentioned the desire to get a smartphone
so that they could be more connected:
[I’d like to be able to use mobile technology to] communicate better and
learn [to do more], but that’s hard because [I don’t have anyone to
teach me].
Of the participants who currently had a smartphone, 13 (13/27-
coded responses; 48.1%) reported using compensatory primary
control strategies in why they adopted and used them. For example,
one participant mentioned that her grandson bought her smartphone
for her and it allows her to be connected and informed:
[I use my smartphone for] everything : : : I can check on my kids, [use
Facebook], and [get information from Siri]. I love Siri, and I use Siri [a
lot]. [But I would like to learn more]. I know the iPhone will do a lot, but
I can’t get it right. My granddaughter tries to [teach me, but we get
frustrated with each other].
Another participant mentioned a willingness to learn more if there
was a class she could take:
I use [my smartphone] but I’m not the best, [I have to ask my grand-
children for help]. I would love to [take a] class and be shown some
things so that when my grandkids try to say, “Let me show you
Grammy,” [I can say] I got it, I’m good. I like learning new things.
Compensatory Secondary Control Strategies
As mentioned, compensatory secondary control strategies are
self-protective strategies that facilitate goal disengagement enacted
in a way that minimizes threats to one’s self-esteem (Shane &
Heckhausen, 2019). In other words, older adults may reason that
they do not need to adopt and use new technology because they’ve
been able to “get by” without it. More than half the participants
reported using compensatory secondary control strategies in will-
ingness to learn and/or currently using mobile technology. Specifi-
cally, of the participants who currently had no mobile phone or a flip
phone, most (30/37-coded responses; 81%) reported using compen-
satory secondary control strategies in willingness to learn how to use
mobile-based technology. For example, one participant mentioned
that they had a flip phone and that was all they needed. When asked
if they would consider upgrading to smart mobile technology they
provided the following response:
If I thought I needed it, [but] I want to be smart without the phone. [I
enjoy the news, but I’m able to watch it on the television], and I’m
happy with that. [I have everything I need].
Another participant mentioned that they preferred the simple life:
[I] just stay with what I know. Just the simple stuff for me.
Another participant who indicated that they would not upgrade to
a smartphone indicated their projected use could not justify the cost:
I wouldn’t use [a smart phone] enough [to justify] the expense of it. It’s
more technology than I need.
Of the participants who currently had a smartphone, 14 (14/27-
coded responses; 51.8%) reported using compensatory secondary
 TECHNOLOGY, WORK, AND OLDER ADULTS 9

control strategies in their willingness to learn new mobile-based
technology. The most common reason provided was that partici-
pants were able to do what they needed and they did not need to
know more. For example, participants mentioned the following:
I’ve got Google, I’ve got messaging and messenger, and [I don’t need
much else].
smartphone for mobile technology. One participant who reported
using a smart phone indicated that they would use grocery delivery
apps, “If I got to where I could not go by myself.” Another
participant mentioned interest if someone could train them to use
a grocery delivery app:
Yes, I would be interested in learning [if training were available].

I’ve functioned for most of my life without [mobile phones], [and] I’ve
gotten along well.
Another participant with a smart phone mentioned that they were
displeased with how fast mobile technology was changing and they
did not care to keep up:
I [use my phone to check the] weather : : : I will check Google or ask
Siri [for information]. I check the stock market. I check my number of
steps. I [use my phone often]. [But I have a lot of hesitation in using
newer technology : : : [because] it changes so fast : : : I don’t need [to
know more].
Motivations in Adopting and Using Apps to Assist
With Activities of Daily Living
Participants were asked their motivations behind adopting and
using apps to assist with activities of daily living, regardless of their
current mobile phone status (no phone, flip phone, smart phone). In
particular, we were interested if participants would be interested in
enhancing their mobility and independence through the adoption
and use of grocery-delivery apps, rideshare apps, and medication
management apps. Again, participants’ motivational responses were
coded as primary control strategies or secondary control strategies.
Interestingly, the majority of participants were aware of grocery-
delivery (72%) apps, while a little less than half of the participants
were aware of ridesharing (48.1) and medication management
(42%) apps. Of the participants who reported using mobile app
technology, the following apps were reported as primarily used:
entertainment and games (25.4%); social media (29.9%); commu-
nication (28.4%); information (3%); and daily living (e.g., banking;
6%). Frequencies and summary statistics are reported in Table 4.
Another participant who was aware of grocery delivery apps
mentioned the following:
[Grocery delivery apps] would be nice. You can order what you want
and pay for it and then it’s at your door. [I’d like to] try that.
About one-third of participants indicated using compensatory
primary control strategies when considering the use of rideshare
apps to assist with activities of daily living (17/45; 37.8%). While
participants were less aware these apps existed, they reported
interest in using them if their mobility was limited:
[I haven’t used those apps but] if I couldn’t drive [anymore], yes, [I
would use them].
Another participant indicated that they would love to learn to use
ridesharing apps but they would need training:
Yeah, I hear about [rideshare apps], but I wouldn’t know how to [use]
them. I’m open and willing to learn.
Finally, approximately one-third of participants also indicated
using compensatory primary control strategies when considering the
use of medication management apps to assist with activities of daily
living (15/45; 33.3%). Again, while fewer participants indicated
awareness of medication management apps, many indicated a
willingness to learn.
[Medication management apps] would be neat. [They] would come in
handy, [especially if the phone] would let you know if you took [your
pill] or not. [I’d like training] and more knowledge.
Compensatory Secondary Control Strategies

Compensatory Primary Control Strategies
When asked about grocery delivery apps, a little less than half of
the participants with coded responses reported using compensatory
primary control strategies in adopting and using grocery-delivery
apps in assisting with activities of daily living (23/48, 47.9%). Of
note, these participants also all reported using a flip phone or
When presented with information on apps to assist with daily
living and the motivations in using grocery delivery, rideshare, and
medication management apps, in particular, more than half of the
participants indicated using compensatory secondary control strate-
gies in adopting and using such technology. Again, the common
theme was that this technology was less likely needed. Specifically,
52.1% (25/48) reported using compensatory secondary control

Table 4
Frequencies in Motivational Responses for App Adoption and Use

Grocery Ride share Medication management

CSC CPC CSC CPC CSC CPC
Type of phone N % N % N % N % N % N %

No mobile phone 2 4.2 0 0 1 2.2 0 0 1 2.2 0 0

Flip phone 11 22.9 11 22.9 14 31.1 8 17.8 16 35.6 6 13.3
Smartphone 12 25.0 12 25.0 13 28.9 9 20.0 13 28.9 9 20.0
Total 25 52.1 23 47.9 28 62.2 17 37.8 30 66.6 15 33.3
Note. Grocery apps = 48 coded responses; rideshare apps = 45 coded responses; medication management apps = 45 coded responses. CSC = compensatory
secondary control; CPC = compensatory primary control.
10 BURCH ET AL.
strategies when considering adopting and using grocery delivery
apps. Other participants mentioned that they know of grocery
delivery apps but would find no use for them:
[If I couldn’t get to the store] I’d just find someone to take me.
I have no use for [grocery delivery apps]. When my daughter goes to the
grocery I go with her. She’s really good about bringing me along.
Another participant indicated that they knew about grocery
delivery apps, but they enjoy the store:
Yeah, but I like to go to the grocery store, [so] I wouldn’t use anything
like that.
In considering the use of rideshare apps to assist with activities of
daily living, nearly two-thirds of participants reported using com-
pensatory secondary control strategies (28/45; 62.2%). One partici-
pant indicated that if they needed to get somewhere, they would rely
on family and friends:
If I needed to, I would call somebody and let them drive one of [my three
vehicles to get me where I needed to go].
In considering the use of medication management apps to assist
with activities of daily living, again two-thirds of participants
reported using compensatory secondary control strategies (30/45;
66.6%). One participant indicated that she prefers to manage her
own medications:
I prefer to [manage my medications] because I don’t take that much. Just
three at night and three in the morning and I know what they are. So far
so good.
Other participants mentioned that their local pharmacies offer
automatic refills and that is all they need:
[My local pharmacy] does pretty good. [The pharmacist] keeps up
with me.
I get my medication at Walmart so they keep track of what I need.
Other participants mentioned that they used pill-boxes, and that
method was working fine for them:
I’ve got a container : : : that’s got a box for every day of the week, [and
that’s what I use].
Well, I do sometimes forget my noon medicine but I do my own
pill boxes.
Well see, I have a two-week pill box. I wouldn’t need an app for that.
Discussion
The goal of the present study was to investigate mobile technol-
ogy adoption and use among community-dwelling older adults. We
accomplished this through the integration and application of the
motivational theory of lifespan development and the theory of
digital inequality in understanding individual differences in moti-
vational, material, and skills access. First, we examined the influ-
ence of current income, prior education, and occupation on
proficiency with mobile technology. Results suggest that education
(high school or less than high school compared with education
beyond high school) was not significantly associated with indicators
of proficiency with mobile technology among our sample of
community-dwelling older adults in Southcentral Kentucky. How-
ever, unsurprisingly results do suggest that current income level and
occupation at or prior to retirement are significantly associated with
indicators of proficiency with mobile technology. Specifically, older
adults whose annual household income exceeds $25,000 per year
and those who have or are retired from occupations that were more
professional in nature are more proficient with mobile technology.
In considering the sample demographics, much of the sample, 31%
and 27.6%, respectively, were employed in production and service
occupations prior to retirement. Production and service-oriented
jobs, now, are more technology-focused. However, prior to the 1990s,
digital technology was not as present in production and service-
oriented occupations (Cortada, 2004), even then the advancement of
digital technology in manufacturing and service was not what it is
now. Now production- and service-oriented occupations are being
revolutionized by machine learning (e.g., artificial intelligence),
requiring greater skill set and comfort with digital technological
advances.
These results suggest that among a seemingly homogenous
sample of older adults (community-dwelling residents of South-
central Kentucky), there are differences in materials and skills
access likely driven by economic and work history advantages
and disadvantages. Therefore, even among older adults who are
often portrayed on the wrong-side of the digital divide, subdivides
are present.
Next, we utilized semistructured interviews to understand the
motivations behind mobile technology adoption and use, specifi-
cally, whether older adults used compensatory primary or compen-
satory secondary control strategies and how these motivational
strategies influenced their technology adoption and use, and will-
ingness to learn. We did so by first examining motivations in mobile
technology adoption and use, then by examining the motivations in
adopting and using apps to assist with activities of daily living.
Results revealed that the majority of community-dwelling older
adults in our sample employ compensatory secondary control
strategies in both mobile technology adoption and use, as well as
the adoption and use of apps to assist with activities of daily living.
Older adults are a demographic that may likely benefit the most from
technology adoption and use, especially considering the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic which has led to an ever-increasing digital
world, yet many participants reported that they have “gotten along
fine” without the use of mobile technology and that mobile tech-
nology offers more than they need. Participants also reported that
they do not need apps to assist with their activities of daily living
because they are either getting around themselves or are able to rely
on family and friends, as well as their pharmacies in assisting them
without technology intervention. Interestingly, many of these same
participants report concerns with physical (44.8%), general health
(16.4%), and cognitive (14.9%) decline as well as concerns with
aging, and thus are more likely to benefit from the increase in
mobility and independence offered by the use of mobile technology
and apps to assist with activities of daily living. Recent research
suggests that smartphone technology can be used to detect postural
stability in older adults which can help assess fall risk, a leading
cause of injury-related death in older adults (Hsieh et al., 2019). As
mentioned, research further suggests that older adults who are able
to manage their independence and mobility through control in their
activities of daily living report better quality of life and more
successful aging outcomes (Molzahn et al., 2010). The use of
 TECHNOLOGY, WORK, AND OLDER ADULTS
mobile technology for older adults provides an avenue for managing
activities of daily living and maintaining independence and social
connections.
While fewer older adults in our sample employed compensatory
primary control strategies, those that did demonstrated a clear under-
standing of how mobile technology can enhance their lives, as well as
a willingness to learn. Many participants demonstrated excitement in
the possibility of being able to learn to use their mobile technology
more effectively, as well recognizing how different apps to assist with
activities of daily living can enhance their quality of life, commenting
that many have an awareness of such apps and would like to learn
how to use them. One participants quote is particularly resonant,
“[I would like] things that will help me stay out of a nursing home
longer; that’s my fear.” When asked what scares this participant about
nursing homes, they responded that, “I’ve been independent all my
life and worked all my life, it would be difficult to be dependent on
someone else.” Indeed, many participants also emphasized that if they
had help or training, they feel they could be more successful in mobile
technology adoption and use.
Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications
In integrating the motivational theory of lifespan development
with the theory of digital inequality, we have provided evidence to
support that understanding the association between motivational
access and materials access through motivational strategies that
older adults use in later life is necessary to understanding mobile
technology adoption and use. In particular, the literature on the
digital divide is abundant, and spans many disciplines, for example,
computer science, gerontology, sociology, and psychology. How-
ever, this literature must incorporate theoretical contributions and
empirical findings across the spectrum of disciplines in order to
continue to advance our understanding of technology adoption and
use among seniors so that intervention efforts and policies can be
designed that would allow those older adults who are less techno-
logically savvy the material and skills access they need to be
successful users of technology, thus bridging the divide. Indeed,
targeting motivational strategies to enhance compensatory primary
control will better facilitate goal engagement and adjustment in
technology use and adoption among older adults.
In practice, intervention efforts should be aimed at training
programs that take into account adult learning theories. Older adults
demonstrate a desire and willingness to learn, yet research suggests,
as do our interviews, that older adults are concerned with their
ability to learn (Kurniawan, 2008). Some participants commented
that they would be interested in a training program to learn how to
better use mobile technology, but the trainer would need a lot of
patience. Repetition and hands on practice can facilitate crystallized
intelligence (Hering et al., 2017). In addition, policies aimed at
providing senior centers (a community resource for community-
dwelling older adults) the resources necessary to implement local
technology training programs may be beneficial in starting to bridge
the divide for community-dwelling older adults.
Furthermore, technology companies can do more to assist in
bridging the digital divide for older adults. Mobile technology not
only changes on a daily basis, but many mobile interfaces are
challenging for older adults to see and manipulate (Cisco, 2010).
Indeed, one participant commented that “maybe technology com-
panies should make it a little easier for us seniors to download stuff
11
and get the apps and things [we need]. [It’s challenging when it’s
difficult to keep up].” This quote highlights that mobile technology
proficiency is associated with many hassles and frustrations for older
adults. With interventions aimed at training, cost (to enhance
material access), and more older adult–friendly interfaces, mobile
technology adoption and use will reap more benefits.
Limitations and Future Research
We examined the use of motivational strategies in understanding
technology adoption and use among community-dwelling older
adults, as well as the economic disadvantages derived from social
and work inequalities in material and skills access. We did this
through a mixed-methods study whereby we conducted semistruc-
tured interviews and collected survey data on mobile phone profi-
ciency and demographics with a sample of 67 community-dwelling
older adults in Southcentral Kentucky. In doing so, we sought to
understand the contextual differences in mobile technology adop-
tion and use among older adults while recognizing that they are not a
homogenous group which may illuminate the subdivides in digital
access and use for this demographic. Our data were collected prior to
the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (January–the first week
of March, 2020). While we had hoped to conduct more interviews
and collect more survey data from our sample who were largely
without the digital means to collect survey-based data online,
unfortunately we had to end our data collection early. Importantly,
we recognize that quantitative analyses rely on sufficient sample
sizes in order to more confidently model that data of interest, and
thus with a sample of 67 older adults, we chose to investigate
proficiency and social and work inequalities via correlations rather
than through regression-based analyses which may help us to
understand the predictors and incremental variance provided in
the outcomes of interest. Future research should examine how social
and work history factors interact in understanding technology
adoption and use among older adults.
While we sought to increase our sample size in order to have the
power to detect the effects of interest in the quantitative portion of
our study, we reached thematic saturation with our sample of older
adults at approximately 30 interviews. However, we conducted
more interviews in an effort to collect as much data as possible
(interviews were conducted prior to participants filling out survey
measures, and often research assistants assisted participants in filling
out the paper-and-pencil surveys and were on hand to clarify and
answer questions). While there is very little guidance on sample size
justification for semistructured interviews, a review of qualitative
interview studies suggests that in most cases, a sample of 20–30 is
sufficient for reaching data saturation (Marshall et al., 2013).
Furthermore, our data were cross-sectional in nature, and while
the semistructured interviews provide contextual value where it is
often lacking in survey-based research, we recognize that longitu-
dinal methods that track technology adoption, use, and proficiency
among older adults would provide valuable information that is
lacking from the current body of literature on older adults and
technology. However, researchers note that given the rapidity with
which mobile technology changes, a cross-sectional approach is best
as it provides a snapshot of technology adoption and use for the
point in time (Zhou et al., 2012).
It is also worth noting that while many participants reported using
compensatory primary control strategies, recognizing the value of
12 BURCH ET AL.
mobile technology adoption and use, many participants did not.
Some participants specifically mentioned cost while others referred
to the hassle and frustration with the use of mobile technology
considering its continuous advancement. It is possible that the cost
and frustration of using mobile technology outweigh the benefits of
using technology for some. While there is a large body of research
discussing the benefits of technology use for older adults, future
research should seek to understand the boundary conditions of these
benefits given the aforementioned points on cost and frustration
of use.
In addition, while we did not examine resources as a barrier to
material access to technology, we recognize that resources may
serve as a precursor to motivational access or a moderator of the
association between motivational and material access, especially for
older adults who have not grown up with mobile technology. In
contrast, lower income younger adults who make less than $30,000
per year are more likely to have a mobile phone, and are more likely
to only have access to the internet through their mobile phone rather
than multiple devices as compared to their more affluent counter-
parts (Anderson & Perrin, 2017).
Conclusion
In conclusion, older adults, while primarily treated as a homoge-
nous group, demonstrate inherent inequalities that likely preclude
them from fully engaging in mobile technology adoption and use.
These inequalities are likely driven by socioeconomic factors
derived from income and occupational type prior to retirement
(i.e., lower income and less professional work history are associated
with less proficiency in mobile technology). Furthermore, motiva-
tional access in understanding technology adoption and use among
older adults may be conceptualized and understood through target-
ing older adults’ compensatory strategies. Specifically, compensa-
tory primary control strategies support goal adjustment; those who
use compensatory primary control strategies in their adoption and
use of mobile technology recognize that mobile technology may
enhance their lives but also recognize that they may need to seek
help to learn such technology. Our results support that many older
adults use compensatory primary control strategies, demonstrating a
willingness to learn technology as well as a recognition of how
technology can enhance their independence and mobility.
References
Anderson, M., & Perrin, A. (2017). Technology use among seniors. Pew
Research Center for Internet & Technology.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-295X.84.2.191
Bausch, S., Michel, A., & Sonntag, K. (2014). How gender influences the
effect of age on self-efficacy and training success. International Journal of
Training and Development, 18(3), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ijtd.12027
Bidwell, M., Briscoe, F., Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Sterling, A. (2013). The
employment relationship and inequality: How and why changes in
employment practices are reshaping rewards in organizations. The Academy
of Management Annals, 7(1), 61–121. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520
.2013.761403
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M.
Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA
handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs:
Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71).
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Burch, K. A. (2022, May 25). Mobile technology adoption & use for older
adults in Kentucky. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/J2MX9
Chaffin, A. J., & Harlow, S. D. (2005). Cognitive learning applied to older
adult learners and technology. Educational Gerontology, 31(4), 301–329.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270590916803
Chen, Y. R. R., & Schulz, P. J. (2016). The effect of information communi-
cation technology interventions on reducing social isolation in the elderly:
A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(1), Article
e18. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4596
Cisco. (2010). Older people, technology and community. Independent Age.
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/wp/ps/Report.pdf
Cortada, J. W. (2004). The digital hand: How computers changed the
work of American manufacturing, transportation, and retail industries.
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/978019516
5883.001.0001
Cotten, S. R., Francis, J., Kadylak, T., Rikard, R. V., Huang, T., Ball, C., &
DeCook, J. (2016). A tale of two divides: Technology experiences among
racially and socioeconomically diverse older adults. In J. Zhou & G.
Salvendy (Eds.), Human aspects of IT for the aged population. Design for
aging (pp. 167–177). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39943-
0_16
Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S. N., Rogers,
W. A., & Sharit, J. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology:
Findings from the center for research and education on aging and
technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21(2),
333–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital
inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In K. Neckerman
(Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). Sage Publications.
Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. (1971). Internal labor markets and manpower
analysis. Heath.
Ezoe, S., Toda, M., Yoshimura, K., Naritomi, A., Den, R., & Morimoto, K.
(2009). Relationships of personality and lifestyle with mobile phone
dependence among female nursing students. Social Behavior and Per-
sonality, 37(2), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.2.231
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental
state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the
clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189–198. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
Hargittai, E., Piper, A. M., & Morris, M. R. (2019). From internet access to
internet skills: Digital inequality among older adults. Universal Access in
the Information Society, 18(4), 881–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-
018-0617-5
Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A life-span theory of control. Psycho-
logical Review, 102(2), 284–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102
.2.284
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of
life-span development. Psychological Review, 117(1), 32–60. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0017668
Hering, A., Meuleman, B., Bürki, C., Borella, E., & Kliegel, M. (2017).
Improving older adults’ working memory: The influence of age and
crystallized intelligence on training outcomes. Journal of Cognitive
Enhancement: Towards the Integration of Theory and Practice, 1(4),
358–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-017-0041-4
Hill, R., Betts, L. R., & Gardner, S. E. (2015). Older adults’ experiences and
perceptions of digital technology: (Dis)empowerment, well-being, and
inclusion. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 415–423. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.chb.2015.01.062
 TECHNOLOGY, WORK, AND OLDER ADULTS
Hsieh, K. L., Roach, K. L., Wajda, D. A., & Sosnoff, J. J. (2019).
Smartphone technology can measure postural stability and discriminate
fall risk in older adults. Gait & Posture, 67, 160–165. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.10.005
Institute for Aging. (2015). The state of aging.
Jacoby, S. M. (1997). Modern manors: Welfare capitalism since the New
Deal. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400822393
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work
motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 440–458. https://
doi.org/10.2307/20159053
Katz, J. E. (2006). Mobile communication and the transformation of daily
life: The next phase of research on mobiles. Knowledge in Society, 19(1),
62–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-006-1016-4
Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use:
Access, involvement, and interaction. MIT Press.
Kooij, D., de Lange, A., Jansen, P., & Dikkers, J. (2008). Older workers’
motivation to continue to work: Five meanings of age: A conceptual
review. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(4), 364–394. https://doi.org/
10.1108/02683940810869015
Kurniawan, S. (2008). Older people and mobile phone: A multi-method
investigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(12),
889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.03.002
Leukel, J., Schehl, B., & Sugumaran, V. (2021). Digital inequality among
older adults: Explaining differences in the breadth of internet use. Infor-
mation Communication and Society. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1942951
Magsamen-Conrad, K., & Dillon, J. M. (2020). Mobile technology adoption
across the lifespan: A mixed methods investigation to clarify adoption
stages, and the influence of diffusion attributes. Computers in Human
Behavior, 112, Article 106456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106456
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample
size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in IS
research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667
Martinez-Pecino, R., Lera, M. J., & Martinez-Pecino, M. (2012). Active
seniors and mobile phone interaction. Social Behavior and Personality,
40(5), 875–880. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.5.875
Maurer, T. J. (2001). Career-relevant learning and development, worker age,
and beliefs about self-efficacy for development. Journal of Management,
27(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700201
Mohlman, J., & Basch, C. H. (2021). Health-related correlates of demon-
strated smartphone expertise in community-dwelling older adults. Journal
of Applied Gerontology, 40(5), 510–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/073346
4820902304
Molzahn, A., Skevington, S. M., Kalfoss, M., & Makaroff, K. S. (2010). The
importance of facets of quality of life to older adults: An international
investigation. Quality of Life Research, 19(2), 293–298. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s11136-009-9579-7
13
Neves, B. B., Waycott, J., & Malta, S. (2018). Old and afraid of new
communication technologies? Reconceptualising and contesting the ‘age-
based digital divide’. Journal of Sociology, 54(2), 236–248. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1440783318766119
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2009a). Age, work experience, and the
psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1053–
1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.599
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2009b). Re-examining the relationship
between age and voluntary turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3),
283–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.01.004
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). The Free Press.
Roque, N. A., & Boot, W. R. (2018). A new tool for assessing mobile device
proficiency in older adults: The mobile device proficiency questionnaire.
Journal of Applied Gerontology, 37(2), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0733464816642582
Salthouse, T. (2012). Consequences of age-related cognitive declines.
Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-psych-120710-100328
Shane, J., & Heckhausen, J. (2019). Motivational theory of lifespan devel-
opment. In B. B. Baltes, C. W. Rudolph, & H. Zacher (Eds.), Work across
the lifespan (pp. 111–134). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
812756-8.00005-0
Sharit, J., Moxley, J. H., & Czaja, S. J. (2021). Investigating older adults’
willingness to invest time to acquire technology skills using a discounting
approach. Innovation in Aging, 5(2), Article igab017. https://doi.org/10
.1093/geroni/igab017
Tyler, M., De George-Walker, L., & Simic, V. (2020). Motivation matters:
Older adults and information communication technologies. Studies in the
Education of Adults, 52(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830
.2020.1731058
United States Census Bureau. (2019). Kentucky QuickFacts (V2019).
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and
shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic
.2006.05.004
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Manage-
ment Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10
.2307/30036540
Zhou, J., Rau, P. L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2012). Use and design of handheld
computers for older adults: A review and appraisal. International Journal
of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(12), 799–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10447318.2012.668129
Received January 1, 2021
Revision received May 25, 2022
Accepted June 7, 2022 ▪