Older Adults’ Acceptance of Technology During the Pandemic: The COVID Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During the pandemic, technology-mediated communication was one of the few ways to maintain social and community connections. We explored how the pandemic impacted older adults’ use and appraisal of technology. In a random sample of 407 older adults (M age = 81.1 years; range 65-105 years) almost half (n = 161) reported they changed how they used technology to virtually connect with others during the pandemic, and 78 of these reported that this was new technology for them. We adapted the technology acceptance model (TAM) for the pandemic, the COVID-TAM, and describe how physical distancing led to new acceptance of technology due to an increased perception of usefulness of technology for maintaining community and social connections. The 71 older adults who denied using technology were asked about the reasons underlying their reluctance to use technology to access social networks and community events during the pandemic. Thematic analysis revealed factors consistent with a double-digital divide; lack of physical exposure to technology creates an additional psychological barrier to adoption of new technology. Of the technology-reluctant subgroup of older adults, few reported lack of perceived usefulness of technology during the pandemic. Instead, most reported lack of self-efficacy or fear of technology underlying their lack of technology use for social and community connections during the pandemic, which we incorporate into the COVID-TAM. Findings indicate that technology training can help mitigate this fear and increase social and community connections that are technology-mediated in circumstances where physical distancing is necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it