Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Inequities in artificial intelligence acceptance: A case study on the Elderly’s attitudes toward artificial intelligence and influencing factors in South Korea
The digital divide has been recognized as the unequal distribution of, or access to, digital resources, and has been studied to find factors that may facilitate or hinder the adoption of IT technologies. However, it is still necessary to understand various users’ attitude toward widespread of IT technologies. This study focuses on the elderly, a growing demographic in aging societies but have been relatively underexplored, and identifies their attitude toward AI usage and factors that may influence them. South Korea's Digital Divide Survey is used and multiple regression analyses revealed that the respondents have mixed opinions about the adoption and use of AI depending on specific conditions. Digital literacy, the level of digital assistance, and prior AI experience positively influence the elderly's attitudes toward AI, with digital literacy having the strongest effect, while the impact of digital assistance and AI experience varies across socio-demographic groups, highlighting the need for tailored approaches to effectively promote AI adoption among older populations. The findings may encourage researchers and administrators to broaden target population and incorporate influencing factors into policies to overcome inequities in the use of advanced digital technology.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50(2): 179–211.
2.
AlshehriMDrewSAlhussainT, et al. (2012) The effects of website quality on adoption of E-government service: AnEmpirical study applying UTAUT model using SEM. arXiv preprint arXiv:1211.2410.
3.
AquinoYSJ (2023) Making decisions: Bias in artificial intelligence and data-driven diagnostic tools. Australian Journal of General Practice52(7): 439–442.
4.
BanduraA (1986) The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology4(3): 359–373.
5.
BanduraA (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.
6.
BawdenD (2001) Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation57(2): 218–259.
7.
BenbasatIBarkiH (2007) Quo vadis TAM?Journal of the Association for Information Systems8(4): 7.
8.
BentleySVNaughtinCKMcGrathMJ, et al. (2024) The digital divide in action: How experiences of digital technology shape future relationships with artificial intelligence. AI and Ethics: 1–15.
9.
BervellBUmarIN (2017) Validation of the UTAUT model: Re-considering non-linear relationships of exogeneous variables in higher education technology acceptance research. Eurasia journal of mathematics. Science and Technology Education13(10): 6471–6490.
10.
Capegami (2024) Turbocharging software with Gen AI: How organizations can realize the full potential of generative AI for software engineering. Capegami Research Institute.
11.
CheeSY (2024) Age-related digital disparities, functional limitations, and social isolation: Unraveling the grey digital divide between baby boomers and the silent generation in senior living facilities. Aging & Mental Health28(4): 621–632.
12.
ChoiNGDiNittoDM (2013) The digital divide among low-income homebound older adults: Internet use patterns, eHealth literacy, and attitudes toward computer/internet use. Journal of Medical Internet Research15(5): e93.
13.
ChungHChungNKooC (2016) A study on the continuance intention to use NFC services: Applying trust and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Journal of Korea Service Management Society: 50–72.
CortinaJM (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology78(1): 98.
16.
CzajaSJLeeCC (2007) The impact of aging on access to technology. Universal Access in the Information Society5: 341–349.
17.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly: 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
18.
de HaanJ (2004) A multifaced dynamic model of the digital divide. IT & Society1(7): 66–88.
19.
DickinsonHYatesS (2023) From external provision to technological outsourcing: Lessons for public sector automation from the outsourcing literature. Public Management Review25(2): 243–261.
20.
DolciniMMCancholaJACataniaJA, et al. (2021) National-level disparities in internet access among low-income and black and hispanic youth: Current population survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research23(10): e27723.
21.
EaglyAHChaikenA (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Thomson Wadsworth.
22.
EgardHHanssonK (2023) The digital society comes sneaking in. An emerging field and its disabling barriers. Disability & Society38(5): 761–775.
23.
FalkMA (2024) Causes and coping strategies for technology anxiety among the elderly in the digital age. Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities3(10): 6–11.
24.
FerroEHelbigNCGil-GarciaJR (2011) The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs. Government Information Quarterly28(1): 3–10.
25.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1977) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
26.
FletcherJJensenR (2015) Mobile health: Barriers to mobile phone use in the aging population. On-Line Journal of Nursing Informatics19(3.
27.
FongMW (2009) Digital divide between urban and rural regions in China. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries36(1): 1–12.
28.
FrancisJKadylakTMakkiTW, et al. (2018) Catalyst to connection: When technical difficulties lead to social support for older adults. American Behavioral Scientist62(9): 1167–1185.
29.
FredericksonHG (1990) Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review50(2). doi:10.2307/976870
30.
FriemelTN (2016) The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New media & Society18(2): 313–331.
31.
GefenDKarahannaEStraubDW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS quarterly: 51–90. doi:10.2307/30036519
32.
GerlichM (2023) The power of virtual influencers: Impact on consumer behaviour and attitudes in the age of AI. Administrative Sciences13(8): 1.
33.
Glister (1997) Digital Literacy. Wiley.
34.
GnambsTAppelM (2019) Are robots becoming unpopular? Changes in attitudes towards autonomous robotic systems in Europe. Computers in Human Behavior93: 53–61.
35.
HamutoğluNBSavaşçıMSezen-GültekinG (2019) Digital literacy skills and attitudes towards e-learning. Journal of Education and Future16: 93–107.
36.
HargittaiE (2001) Second-level digital divide: Mapping differences in people's online skills, arXiv preprint cs/0109068.
37.
HjaltalinITSigurdarsonHT (2024) The strategic use of AI in the public sector: A public values analysis of national AI strategies. Government Information Quarterly41(1): 101914.
38.
HongXChenQManDShiCWangN (2024) The impact of digitalization on the rich and the poor: digital divide or digital inclusion?Technology in Society102634.
39.
HudsonJOrviskaMHunadyJ (2017) People’s attitudes to robots in caring for the elderly. International Journal of Social Robotics9: 199–210.
40.
HülürGMacdonaldB (2020) Rethinking social relationships in old age: Digitalization and the social lives of older adults. American Psychologist75(4): 554.
41.
HwangHHwangY (2017) Gaps and reasons of digital divide within the Elderly in Korea: Focusing on household composition. Journal of Social Science24(3): 359–386.
42.
JanS (2018) Investigating the relationship between Students’ digital literacy and their attitude towards using ICT. International Journal of Educational Technology5(2): 26–34.
43.
JangMAavakareMNikouS, et al. (2021) The impact of literacy on intention to use digital technology for learning: A comparative study of Korea and Finland. Telecommunications Policy45(7): 102154.
44.
KimBKoJ (2020) A study on the impact of digital supporter on digital social capital in the elderly: Focusing on the mediating effect of digital usage. Discourse and Policy in Social Science13(2): 27–57.
45.
KlineRB (2023) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
46.
KoJ (2021) A study on factors affecting the qualitative use of information by the elderly: Focusing on the use of digital supporters. Korean Public Management Review35(3): 23–46.
47.
KoJParkS (2020) The impact of social support on the digital usage among the elderly: Focused on the mediating effect of digital motivation. Public Policy Review34(2): 121–149.
48.
KuekAHakkennesS (2020) Healthcare staff digital literacy levels and their attitudes towards information systems. Health Informatics Journal26(1): 592–612.
49.
KuoIHRabindranJMBroadbentE, et al. (2009, September) Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. In: RO-MAN 2009-The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 214–219.
50.
La RoseREastinMS (2004) A social cognitive theory of internet uses and gratifications: Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media48(3): 358–377.
51.
LiuYFanZ (2022) The digital divide and COVID-19: impact on the socioeconomic development in Asia and the Pacific.
52.
LutzC (2019) Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies1(2): 141–148.
53.
LythreatisSSinghSKEl-KassarAN (2022) The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change175: 121359.
54.
MartinA (2008) Digital literacy and the “digital society”. Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices30(151): 1029–1055.
55.
Martinez-TorresMDRDíaz-FernándezMDCToralSL, et al. (2015) The moderating role of prior experience in technological acceptance models for ubiquitous computing services in urban environments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change91: 146–160.
56.
Martins Van JaarsveldG (2020) The effects of COVID-19 among the elderly population: A case for closing the digital divide. Frontiers in Psychiatry11: 577427.
57.
McKnightDHChoudhuryVKacmarC (2002) The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems11(3-4): 297–323.
58.
Melander-WikmanAFältholmYGardG (2008) Safety vs. privacy: Elderly persons’ experiences of a mobile safety alarm. Health & Social Care in the Community16(4): 337–346.
59.
Méndez-SuárezMMonfortAHervas-OliverJL (2023) Are you adopting artificial intelligence products? Social-demographic factors to explain customer acceptance. European Research on Management and Business Economics29(3): 100223.
MorosanCDeFrancoA (2016) It's about time: Revisiting UTAUT2 to examine consumers’ intentions to use NFC mobile payments in hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management53: 17–29.
62.
MubarakFSuomiR (2022) Elderly forgotten? Digital exclusion in the information age and the rising grey digital divide. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing59: 00469580221096272.
NIA (2024) The Report on the Digital Divide 2023. South Korea.
65.
NiehavesBPlattfautR (2014) Internet adoption by the elderly: Employing IS technology acceptance theories for understanding the age-related digital divide. European Journal of Information Systems23(6): 708–726.
66.
NorrisP (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
67.
NtoutsiEFafaliosPGadirajuU, et al. (2020) Bias in data-driven artificial intelligence systems-an introductory survey. WIRES Data Mining Knowl Discov10(3): e1356.
68.
OECD (2001) Understanding the Digital Divide. OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 49. OECD Publishing.
69.
OhSKimS (2005) A study on the extended technology acceptance model and primary factors affecting usage of internet banking: Focusing on the role of trust and compatibility. Journal of Economics Studies24(1): 175–206.
70.
PapaFCornacchiaMSapioB, et al. (2017) Engaging technology-resistant elderly people: Empirical evidence from an ICT-enabled social environment. Informatics for Health and Social Care42(1): 43–60.
71.
PerifanouMAEconomidesA (2020) Gender digital divide in Europe, International Journal of Business. Humanities and Technology.
72.
PettyREFazioRHBrinolP (2008) The new implicit measures: An overview. Attitudes: 23–38.
73.
PorterCEDonthuN (2006) Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research59(9): 999–1007.
74.
ReganDTFazioR (1977) On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology13(1): 28–45.
75.
Robles-GómezATobarraLPastor-VargasR, et al. (2021) Analyzing the users’ acceptance of an IoT cloud platform using the UTAUT/TAM model. IEEE Access9: 150004–150020.
76.
RogersEM (1983) Diffision of Innnovations, 4th edNew York: Free Press.
77.
ScheerderAVan DeursenAVan DijkJ (2017) Determinants of internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second-and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics34(8): 1607–1624.
78.
SchepmanARodwayP (2020) Initial validation of the general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports1: 100014.
79.
SelwynN (2004) Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New media & Society6(3): 341–362.
80.
SestinoAD'AngeloA (2024) Elderly patients’ reactions to gamification-based digital therapeutics (DTx): The relevance of socialization tendency seeking. Technological Forecasting and Social Change205: 123526.
81.
ShaoXSiponenM (2011) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Adding consumption theory to UTAUT2.
82.
ShinSYYooD (2023) The impact of digital literacy on digital transformation attitudes: Focusing on the mediating effect of life satisfaction from digital transformation. Modern Society and Public Administration33(4): 67–97.
83.
SimonsenKSalteLK, 2023. Overcoming the Grey Digital Divide in the Banking Sector. Master's thesis.
84.
SinghS (2017) Bridging the gender digital divide in developing countries. Journal of Children and Media11(2): 245–247.
85.
SongYQianCPickardS (2021) Age-related digital divide during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18(21): 11285.
86.
SunTQMedagliaR (2019) Mapping the challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare. Government Information Quarterly36(2): 368–383.
87.
TaylorSToddP (1995) Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS quarterly: 561–570. doi:10.2307/249633
88.
TizhooshHRPantanowitzL (2018) Artificial intelligence and digital pathology: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Pathology Informatics9(1): 38.
89.
TownsendLSathiaseelanAFairhurstG, et al. (2013) Enhanced broadband access as a solution to the social and economic problems of the rural digital divide. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit28(6): 580–595.
90.
UllahSKianiUSRazaB, et al. (2022) Consumers’ intention to adopt m-payment/m-banking: The role of their financial skills and digital literacy. Frontiers in Psychology13: 873708.
91.
Van DeursenAJHelsperEJ (2015) The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In: Communication and Information Technologies Annual. Vol. 10, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 29–52.
92.
van DijkJA (2002) A framework for digital divide research. Electronic Journal of Communication12(1).
93.
Van DijkJA (2006) Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics34(4-5): 221–235.
94.
Van DijkJHackerK (2003) The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society19(4): 315–326.
95.
VenkateshVDavisFD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science46(2): 186–204.
96.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly: 425–478. doi:10.2307/30036540
97.
VenkateshVThongJYXuX (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly: 157–178. doi:10.2307/41410412
98.
WangKChenXSDongY, et al. (2024) Bridging the Access Gap: A Decade of Narrowing the Digital Divide for Hispanic Older Adults in the United States. Journal of Aging and Health08982643241238789.
99.
WillemsJSchmidMJVanderelstD, et al. (2023) AI-driven public services and the privacy paradox: Do citizens really care about their privacy?Public Management Review25(11): 2116–2134.
100.
WirtzBWWeyererJCGeyerC (2019) Artificial intelligence and the public sector—applications and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration42(7): 596–615.
101.
WongYCHoKMChenH, et al. (2015) Digital divide challenges of children in low-income families: The case of Shanghai. Journal of Technology in Human Services33(1): 53–71.
102.
YangHKangS (2002) Purifying the attitude construct in TAM and explaining the usage of world wide web. Korean Management Review31(4): 929–950.
103.
YuJHaIChoiM, et al. (2005) Extending the TAM for a t-commerce. Information & Management42(7): 965–976.
104.
YueQZhangMSongY (2024) Impact of digital divide on energy poverty across the globe: The mediating role of income inequality. Energy Policy195: 114349.
105.
ZaltmanGDuncanRHolbekJ (1973) Innovation and Organizations. New York: Wiley.
106.
ZiefleMBayS (2005) How older adults meet complexity: Aging effects on the usability of different mobile phones. Behaviour & Information Technology24(5): 375–389.
