In present-day technology is governing the way we live and lead our life. It primarily governs our day-to-day work, quality of life, health, environment and surroundings. The use of technology has made our lives easier as almost everything around us is accessible with the use of some innovative technologies. But at the same point in time, it has made the experience little complex for the older people living in our society. As per the Ministry of Statistics, Government of India 2017, the numbers of Indians over the age of 60 years constitute almost 36 per cent of the country’s population. Considering this fact, it is imperative to be acquainted with the full picture of digital involvement of older people in the country. The research is focussed primarily on the people aged between 58 and 70 years residing in the urban locality of India. The study will use a mixed-method framework to conclude its findings. Data are collected first through a survey of 388 respondents and then interviewing some of the participants (20 participants who were also part of the survey) from different states of India. Sequential explanatory research design is used to conduct the study. Phase one is a quantitative analysis where statistical tools like Cronbach’s alpha, factor analysis and regression is used to validate the proposed model. In phase two, the validated constructs of the proposed model are used to frame the discussion guide and in-depth interviews were conducted. The depth interviews further clarified and explained in more details the results derived from the quantitative study in the first stage. The purpose of this research is to identify the level of digital exclusion and also to ascertain the reasons behind the marginalization. Further, the research is also focussing on understanding the noteworthy perceptions that will be effective in creating and implementing strategies for digital inclusion and engagement of the elderly in India. The results (both quantitative and qualitative study) established the influence of perceived usefulness, ease of use, risk and anxiety on the engagement and hence generating an attitude towards adoption.
AjzenI. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In KuhlJ. A. (Ed.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11−39). Heidelberg, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
2.
AllardiceL. C. (2001). Websites for seniors. link-up, 18(5), 24–25. analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
3.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
BECTA (2001). The digital divide. Coventry: BECTA.
5.
BeckersJ., SchmidtH., & WichertsJ. (2008) Computer anxiety in daily life. In LoosE., Mante-MeijerE., & HaddonL. (Eds.), The social dynamics of information and communication technology (pp. 13–23). Farnham: Ashgate.
6.
Blit-CohenE., & LitwinH. (2004). Elder participation in cyberspace: A qualitative analysis of Israeli retirees. Journal of Aging Studies, 18(4), 385–398.
7.
BoströmM., KjellströmS., & BjörklundA. (2013). Older persons have ambivalent feelings about the use of monitoring technologies. Information Technology and Disabilities, 25(2), 117–125.
8.
BrinkS. (2001). Digital divide or dividend? Ensuring benefits to seniors from information technology. In National Advisory Council on Aging (Ed.), Writings in gerontology: Seniors and technology (Vol. 17, pp. 19−32). Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada.
9.
BronerF., & NeijensP. C. (2006). Audience experiences of media context and embedded advertising: A comparison of eight media. International Journal of Market Research, 48(1), 81–100.
10.
BrownS. A. (2008). Household technology adoption, use, and impacts: Past, present, and future. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 397–402.
11.
BrownS. A., & VenkateshV. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 399–426.
12.
BucyE. P. (2000). Social access to the Internet. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 50(1). doi: 10.1177/ 1081180X00005001005
13.
CalderB. J., IsaacM. S., & MalthouseE. C. (2016). How to capture consumer experiences: A context-specific approach to measuring engagement predicting consumer behavior across qualitatively different experiences. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(1), 39–52.
14.
CalderB. J., MalthouseE. C., & SchaedelU. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 321–331.
15.
CaineK. E., FiskA. D., & RogersW. A. (2006). Benefits and privacy concerns of a home equipped with a visual sensing system: A perspective from older adults. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(2), 180–184.
16.
ChenW., & WellmanB. (2005). Minding the gaps: The digital divide and social inequality. In RomeroM. & MargolisE. (Eds.). Blackwell companion to social inequalities (pp. 523–545). Oxford: Blackwell.
17.
ChurchillG. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.
18.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
19.
CzajaS., CharnessN., FiskA. D., HertzogC., NairS. N., RogersW. A., & SharitJ. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the Center for comparison shopping. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21(2), 333–352.
20.
DaulerioA. (2001, June18). Seeking the cyber senior. Bond Buyer, p. A18.
21.
DavisF. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end user information systems: Theory and results (doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management.
22.
DiMaggioP., HargittaiE., CelesteC., & ShaferS. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. In NeckermanK. (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
23.
EckhardtA., LaumerS., & WeitzelT. (2009). Who influences whom analyzing workplace referents’ social influence on IT adoption and non-adoption. Journal of Information Technology, 24(1), 11–24.
24.
FeathermanM. S., & PavlouP. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474.
25.
FrischA.-L., CameriniL., DivianiN., & SchulzP. J. (2012). Defining and measuring health literacy: How can we profit from other literacy domains?Health Promotion International, 27(1), 117–126.
26.
GerverB. (2000). The age-factor; how Internet use varies from teens to seniors. Advertising Age, p. 22.
27.
GirondaJ. T., & KorgaonkarP. K. (2014). Understanding consumers’ social networking site usage. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(5–6), 571–605.
28.
GlasserB., & StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA Sociology Press.
29.
Global Web Index (2017). Retrieved from global web index. Retrieved from https://www.globalwebindex.net/
30.
Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (2017). Elderly in India. New Delhi: Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.
31.
HairJ. S., BlackW. C., BabinB. J., AndersonR. E., & TathamR. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
32.
HargittaiE. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. Retrieved from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_4/hargittai
33.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.
34.
HelsperE. J. (2012). A corresponding fields model of digital inclusion. Communication Theory, 22(4), 403–426.
35.
HelsperE. J., & ReisdorfB. (2013). Quantitative examination of explanations for reasons of Internet non-use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(2), 94–99.
36.
HesseB., MoserR., & RuttenL. (2010). Surveys of physicians and electronic health information. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(9), 859–860.
37.
HillR., Beynon-DaviesP., & WilliamsM. D. (2008). Older people and Internet engagement. Acknowledging social moderators of Internet adoption, access and use. Information Technology & People, 21(3), 244−266. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840810896019
38.
IyerR. A., & EastmanJ. K. (2006). The elderly and their attitudes towards Internet: The impact on Internet use, purchase and comparison shopping. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(1), 57–67.
39.
JosephN. (2005). Diagnosis: Internet phobia. Newsweek, 145(17), 74.
40.
KumarK. (2004, June). The grey digital divide. Business Line, p. 1.
41.
KimH. W., & KankanhalliA. (2009). Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 567–582.
42.
KuoY. F., & YenS. N. (2009). Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use 3G mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 103–110.
43.
LaumerS., MaierC., & EckhardtA. (2010). Why do they resist? An empirical analysis of an individual’s personality trait resistance regarding the adoption of new information systems. European Conference on Information Systems, South Africa.
44.
LeeZ. W., ChanT. K., BalajiM. S., & ChongA. Y. L. (2016). Technology-mediated sharing economy: Understanding user participation in collaborative consumption through the benefit-cost perspective. Proceedings of the 20th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS).
45.
LeppelK., & McCloskeyD. W. (2011). A cross-generational examination of electronic commerce adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(4), 261−268. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761111143150
46.
LookerD. E., & NaylorT. D. (2010). Digital diversity: Youth, equity, and information technology. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
47.
LoosE. (2012). Senior citizens: Digital immigrants in their own country?Observatorio Journal, 6(1), 1–23.
48.
MagnussonL., & HansonE. J. (2003). Ethical issues arising from a research, technology and development project to support frail older people and their family careers at home. Health & Social Care in the Community, 11(5), 431–439.
49.
MalhotraN. K., KimS. S., & AgarwalJ. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355.
50.
MalthouseE. C., CalderB. J., & TamhaneA. (2007). The effects of media context experiences on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 36(3), 7–18.
51.
MasonS. M. (2003). Applying communication theory to digital divide research. IT and Society, 1(5), 40–55.
52.
MathiesonK. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behaviour. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191.
53.
McCloskeyD. W. (2006). The importance of ease of use, usefulness, and trust to online consumers: An examination of the technology acceptance model with older consumers. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 18, 47–65.
54.
Ministry of Statistics (2016). Elderly in India. New Delhi: Government of India.
55.
MiskellyF. G. (2001). Assistive technology in elderly care. Age and Aging, 30(6), 455–458.
56.
MuntingaD. G., MoormanM., & SmitE. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising. 30(1), 13–46.
57.
NayakL. U. S., PriestL., & WhiteA. P. (2010). An application of the technology acceptance model to the level of Internet usage by older adults. Universal Access in the Information Society, 9(4), 367–374.
58.
OlphertC., DamodaranL., & MayA.J. (2005, August23–25). Towards digital inclusion: Engaging older people in the digital world. Accessible Design in the Digital World Conference2005, Dundee, Scotland.
59.
PanSh., & Jordan-MarshM. (2010). Internet use intention and adoption among Chinese older adults: From the expanded technology acceptance model perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1111–1119.
60.
PastoreM. (2001, June11). Internet use continues to pervade US life.
61.
PepperJ. (2002). Wired and retired: Assisted living residents to go online. Nursing Homes: Long Term Care Management, 51(10), 60.
62.
PeterssonI., LiljaM., & BorellL. (2012). To feel safe in everyday life at home—A study of older adults after home modifications. Ageing and Society, 32(5), 791–811.
63.
PolyakI. (2000). The centre of attention. American Demographics, 30–32.
64.
O’BrienH. L., & TomsE. G.2010a. The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Banner, 61(1), 50–69.
65.
O’BrienH. L., & TomsE. G.2010b. Is there a universal instrument for measuring Interactive information retrieval? The case of the user engagement scale. Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Information Interaction in Context. ACM, 335–340.
66.
QualterP., VanhalstJ., HarrisR. A., Van RokelE., LodderG., BangeeM., … VerhagenM. (2015). Loneliness across the life span. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 250−264. doi: 10.1177/1745691615568999
67.
RockW., HiraT. K., & LoiblC. (2010). The use of the Internet as a source of financial information by households in the United States: A national survey. International Journal of Management, 27(3), 754–778.
68.
SaranowJ. (2004). Consumer technology: Memo to websites: grow up! As more older go online, online operators would do well to stop thinking so young. Wall Street Journal, R14.
69.
ShimS., EastwickM. A., LotzS. L., & WarringtonP. (2001). An online prepurchase intentions model: The role of intention to search. Journal of Retailing, 77(3), 397–416.
70.
Social Exclusion Unit (2005). Excluded older people: Social exclusion unit interim report. London: ODPM.
71.
Statista (2017, January). Retrieved from www.statista.com
TaylorS. A., & ToddP. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.
74.
ThompsonR. H. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125–143.
75.
Van DeursenA.M.J.A., & Van DijkJ. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507–526.
76.
VenkateshA (2008). Digital home technologies and transformation of households. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 391–395.
77.
VenkateshV., & BalaH. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Science, 39(2), 273–312.
78.
VenkateshV., & DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
79.
WagnerN., HassaneinmK., & HeadM. (2010). Computer-use by older adults: A multidisciplinary review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 870–882.
80.
WeberK., & RoehlW. S. (1999). Profiling people searching for and purchasing travel products on the worldwide web. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 291–298.
81.
World Health Organization (2018). Retrieved from https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/india-life-expectancy
82.
WitteJ. C., & MannonS. E. (2010). The Internet and social inequalities. New York, NY: Routledge.
83.
ZillienN., & HargittaiE. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of Internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 274–291.
