Examining the Digital Technology Usage of Older Adults as Determinants of Life Satisfaction in the Digital Divide

Abstract

The digital divide has become a growing source of inequality, as older adults face challenges in adopting and using digital technologies in daily life. Few studies have explored how different types of digital technology usage in various life domains among older adults impact their overall well-being. This study addresses this gap by suggesting effective directions for reducing the cross-generational digital divide. To this end, it analyzed de-identified secondary data from 864 South Korean adults above 65 years, surveyed by the National Information Society Agency (NIA). The findings show that digital efficacy positively affects older adults’ life satisfaction, mediated by their perceptions of digital technology. Additionally, social networking through digital technology positively influences their life satisfaction through the same mediation. Our findings suggest that policymakers should prioritize the development of educational programs to improve digital efficacy and social networking, which will ultimately enhance older adults’ well-being.

Keywords

quality of life technology social networks older adults,digital efficacy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Argyle

(2001). The psychology of happiness. Routledge.

Bowerman

B. L.

O’Connell

R. T.

(1990). Linear statistical models: An applied approach (2nd ed.). Duxbury.

Cantor

Blanton

(1996). Effortful pursuit of personal goals in daily life. In Bargh

J. A.

Gollwitzer

P. M.

(Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behaviour (pp. 338–359). Guilford.

Cantor

Sanderson

C. A.

(1999). Life task participation and well-being: The importance of taking part in daily life. In Kahneman

Diener

Schwarz

(Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (p. 608). Russell Sage Foundation.

Cohen

(2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Routledge.

Cotton

S. R.

Ford

Hale

T. M.

(2014). Internet use and depression among retired older adults in the United States: A longitudinal analysis. The Journals of Gerontology: Serie Bibliographique, 69(5), 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu018

Czaja

S. J.

Boot

W. R.

Charness

Rogers

W. A.

Sharit

(2018). Improving social support for older adults through technology: Findings from the PRISM randomized controlled trial. The Gerontologist, 58(3), 467–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw249

Diener

Seligman

M. E.

(2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00501001.x

Fornell

Cha

(1994). Partial least squares. In Advanced methods of marketing research (Vol. 407, pp. 52–78). Blackwell Business.

10.

Friemel

T. N.

(2016). The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society, 18(2), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814538648

11.

Greenley

J. R.

Greenberg

J. S.

Brown

(1997). Measuring quality of life: A new and practical survey instrument. Social Work, 42(3), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/42.3.244

12.

Hair

J. F.

Howard

M. C.

Nitzl

(2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109(March), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069

13.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202

14.

Hair

J. F.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Mena

J. A.

(2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6

15.

Hantrais

Allin

Kritikos

Sogomonjan

Anand

P. B.

Livingstone

Williams

Innes

(2021). Covid-19 and the digital revolution. Contemporary Social Science, 16(2), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2020.1833234

16.

Harlow

R. E.

Cantor

(1996). Still participating after all these years: A study of life task participation in later life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1235–1249. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.6.1235

17.

Hill

Betts

L. R.

Gardner

S. E.

(2015). Older adults’ experiences and perceptions of digital technology: (Dis)empowerment, wellbeing, and inclusion. Computers in Human Behaviour, 48(July), 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.062

18.

Ihm

Hsieh

Y. P.

(2015). The implications of information and communication technology use for the social well-being of older adults. Information, Communication & Society, 18(10), 1123–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2015.1019912

19.

Kim

K. I.

Gollamudi

S. S.

Steinhubl

(2017). Digital technology to enable aging in place. Experimental Gerontology, 88(February), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2016.11.013

20.

Kite

M. E.

Wagner

L. S.

(2002). Attitudes toward older adults. In Nelson

T. D.

(Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons (pp. 129–161). The MIT Press.

21.

Maslow

A. H.

(1970). Motivation and personality. Harper & Row.

22.

Moore

M. G.

Kearsley

(2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.

23.

Morrison

B. A.

Nicholson

Wood

Briggs

(2023). Life after lockdown: The experiences of older adults in a contactless digital world. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1100521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1100521

24.

Muscanell

N. L.

Guadagno

R. E.

(2012). Make new friends or keep the old: Gender and personality differences in social networking use. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.016

25.

Ollevier

Aguiar

Palomino

Simpelaere

I. S.

(2020). How can technology support ageing in place in healthy older adults? A systematic review. Public Health Reviews, 41(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-020-00143-4

26.

Praag

Frijters

Ferrer-i-Carbonell

(2003). The anatomy of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 51(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-2681(02)00140-3

27.

Sheldon

K. M.

Elliot

A. J.

(1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.76.3.482

28.

Van Deursen

A. J.

(2020). Digital inequality during a pandemic: Quantitative study of differences in COVID-19–related internet uses and outcomes among the general population. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8), Article e20073. https://doi.org/10.2196/20073

29.

Van Deursen

A. J.

Helsper

Eynon

Van Dijk

J. A.

(2017). The compoundness and sequentiality of digital inequality. International Journal of Communication, 11(20170005), 452–473. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5739

30.

Van Deursen

A. J.

Helsper

E. J.

(2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In Communication and information technologies annual. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

31.

Van Deursen

A. J.

Helsper

E. J.

(2018). Collateral benefits of Internet use: Explaining the diverse outcomes of engaging with the Internet. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817715282

32.

Van Dijk

J. A.

(2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4-5), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004

33.

Van Dijk

J. A.

(2017). Digital divide: Impact of access. In The international encyclopaedia of media effects (pp. 1–11). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764

34.

Visaria

Aithal

Malhotra

(2023). Digital technology use, in general and for health purposes, by older adults in Singapore. Aging and Health Research, 3(1), 100117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahr.2023.100117

35.

Zhao

Zhang

Dasgupta

R. K.

Xia

(2023). Narrowing the age-based digital divide: Developing digital capability through social activities. Information Systems Journal, 33(2), 268–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12400