Aging in a Smart Home? The Oldest Olds’ Attitudes Toward Technology for Aging-in-Place

Abstract

Recent studies have explored the complexity of technology adoption among older adults, particularly for aging in place with smart home technologies. However, less is known about those aged 85 and older, a rapidly growing demographic in the U.S. This study investigates smart home technology adoption and attitudes within this group using a survey and focus groups, focusing on the perceived benefits and drawbacks of specific devices. Results suggest the primary advantages of this technology for this population, include enhanced safety, personal curiosity satisfaction, and eco-friendliness. Conversely, the main disadvantages were maintenance costs, initial purchase expenses, and the learning curve associated with new systems. Findings emphasize the over-85 demographic are highly interested in technologies that help maintain their sense of control and autonomy over their environment.

Introduction

One of the greatest challenges faced by our global aging population is the need for maintaining independence and quality of life amid aging-related changes. According to AARP (Binette & Farago, 2021), most people—about three-quarters of those aged 50 and over—want to age in place, or live independently in their own homes and communities as long as they can. Aging in place can help individuals to preserve their independence, life satisfaction, health, and self-esteem, making it a top priority in research and policy (Ratnayake et al., 2022). However, the physical, cognitive, and social challenges associated with aging can significantly impact older adults’ ability to age independently in their own homes and communities. For example, it may become more difficult for older adults to complete necessary household tasks or to manage new or worsening health conditions independently as they age. New technological innovations, particularly those in the realm of the smart home, may serve as potential solutions to address these multifaceted challenges and enable older adults to age in place safely for longer (Lee, 2022). Despite the potential benefits, technology adoption among older adults, while growing, remains low compared to other age groups of adults in the United States (U.S.) and especially low amongst the oldest old or age 85+ demographic (Anderson & Perrin, 2017). Past research has explored the complexities surrounding technology adoption among older adults and applications of smart home technologies for aging in place (i.e., complex design and installations, user distrust, and prior experiences) (Wei et al., 2023). However, to date, little research has investigated these topics among the “oldest-old,” or those aged 85 and older—one of the fastest-growing age cohorts in the U.S. (Mather & Scommegna, 2024). The present study aims to explore the complexities surrounding smart home technology adoption among this population by analyzing insights from a panel of individuals aged 85 and older. The primary questions of interest for this study are as follows: How do 85+-year-olds perceive and think about using technology to support aging-in-place? Are there specific devices and systems being utilized? What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of using these technologies for aging-in-place? How might we improve uptake and adoption of technology for aging-in-place among the over-85 age demographic?

Methods

For the present study, a group of 20 participants aged 85 or older was convened in a workshop to discuss their experiences with, attitudes towards, and perceptions of advantages and disadvantages of adopting smart home technologies. This workshop was part of an ongoing longitudinal research study started in 2015 called the MIT AgeLab 85+ Lifestyle Leaders Panel, an open membership panel of the over-85 age demographic who meet bimonthly to discuss and deconstruct issues related to aging in the latest phase of life. Participants for this study ranged in age from 86 to 94. All participants were U.S.-based and the majority lived in an urban area (56%). The majority of participants lived in their own home in the general community (56%) and were solo households (50%). Participants were overall more affluent, educated, and racially homogeneous relative to the average U.S.-85+-year-old. Due to this skewness in socio-demographic characteristics, this panel is not representative of the 85+ population more broadly. This study was approved by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Committee on the Use of Humans as Experimental Subjects (MIT COUHES). Mixed methods were used for this study to triangulate data collection and strengthen the reliability and trustworthiness of our findings. These methods are also well-suited to execute research accessible to the 85+. Prior to the workshop, participants were invited to complete a 20-item questionnaire (n = 20) online via Qualtrics that included original items related to: hypothetical adoption of specific types of technology for aging-in-place; perceived advantages and disadvantages of technology for aging-in-place; and current residential situation. A 120-minute workshop was held over Zoom 3 days after distribution of the questionnaire. The meeting began with a brief presentation by an MIT AgeLab research assistant about smart home technology, including presentation of a prototyped interface for a hypothetical integrated smart home. Immediately following the presentation, participants were divided into four focus groups for semi-structured, in-depth discussions. As this study aimed to gain a better understanding of the over-85 age demographic’s perceptions of smart home technology, focus groups were formed on the basis of participants’ self-reported ownership of smart home technology devices (i.e., yes, I own smart home technology [n = 6, one group], no, I do not own or am unsure if I own smart home technology [n = 14, four groups]). These qualities were assessed via a short survey administered prior to the meeting as part of the workshop registration process. Concurrent focus groups lasted approximately 45 min. Moderators asked participants about: (1) how technology might make participants’ lifestyles “smarter;” (2) perceived benefits and shortcomings of integrating technology into the home; (3) for adopters of smart technology for aging-in-place, what motivates their adoption and use; (4) for non-adopters, what activities, use cases, or other factors this technology could address to prompt uptake. Questionnaire data were analyzed using SPSS Version 29 and focus groups were audio-recorded and analyzed using an inductive, thematic analysis approach.

Results

The following themes further develop our understanding of the over-85 age demographic’s attitudes towards and perceptions of technology for aging-in-place.

Attitudes Towards Technology for Aging-in-Place

While the majority of the panel self-selected into focus groups as “non-users” of technology for aging-in-place, many participants described adopting and using devices to support aging-in-place; most commonly, smart smoke and gas alarm systems, smart speakers and voice assistants (e.g., Amazon’s Echo or Alexa), smartphones, and wearables (e.g., Apple watch, Fitbit) for health monitoring. Survey items assessed all participants’ preferences for adopting certain types of technologies for aging-in-place. The majority (83%) expressed a preference for automating lawn and garden maintenance systems (e.g., automated irrigation), followed by water and energy preservation systems (67%) and smart thermostat or ambient temperature systems for the home (56%). The largest proportions of participants responded they would “maybe” adopt smart plant care systems (64%), smart locks (50%), or health management systems like smart home assistants with health features, smart medication dispensers, and wearables (44%). Participants reported the lowest interest in adopting automated or smart waste disposal systems (56%), automated pet care (50%), and smart televisions (40%). Across all items, participants generally favored greater automation of various home technologies. There were not differences in the types of aging-in-place technologies participants would prefer to adopt by gender, household size, residence type, or living environment. Focus group participants were asked to articulate which devices, systems, and services might better meet their needs around aging-in-place. Conspicuous ideas included wearables that could measure and monitor more nuanced health indicators like oxidation, heart rate, blood pressure, sleep, and glucose; devices to improve memory and alleviate concerns about the home environment while away, such an alerting system for when the stove is turned off or a particular door in the home is locked; technology to “keep us busy;” “dumb” technology like customized grab bars, railings, and rubber mats that could be installed throughout the home. Participants also expressed interest in having access to a dedicated “expert” who could help inform older adults how to maximize and integrate technology to make their homes smarter and more conducive to aging-in-place.

Motivators of Low Interest in Aging-in-Place Technology

The panel generally reported low interest in purchasing or adopting new technologies for aging-in-place (i.e., 81% had no plans to do so). As one participant described himself, “I am 93 and I am not really into all of these new systems, and so I am kind of in-between [in my propensity to adopt technologies for aging-in-place].” Focus group participants articulated three prominent themes related to their lack of interest. First, participants expressed concerns about the design limitations of these devices. One participant explained, “Five weeks ago I fell in the shower and lost my balance on the wheelchair. I have a caregiver and wife around, and they called the fire department. The point is that I didn’t need a [smart] watch because of the people around and I probably could not take the watch to the shower anyway.” Additionally, participants frequently described a desire for technology that was simple, practical, and did not look like an “old person’s product.” Another contributor to participants’ disinterest focused on the perceived learning curve associated with the adoption and use of new technology in the home. A self-described “tech-savvy” participant explained, “I don’t know anyone in their 80s who isn’t dependent on someone else (e.g., a family member) for learning to use a new technology or device.” Participants also noted that their low interest in adopting new smart home devices was connected not only to the challenge of learning how to use and maintain a new device, but also the acknowledgement that systems or technologies can quickly become “obsolete.” A participant described, “I’m not fascinated with all the things these technologies can do. I dread when the technology updates. I wish they would leave it be, so that folks who are not interested in new features can stay comfortable with what they have.” The final contributor to participants’ lack of interest in adopting new technology was a large, but nuanced, concern about data privacy. Participants in focus groups largely acknowledged that the collection of their personal data was an anticipated and expected part of their use of smart home technology. However, they expressed a keen awareness and desire to have greater control over the type and volume of data that is being collected about them. One panelist who indicated having some smart systems in her home discussed that she intentionally does not integrate her devices with one another or attempt to connect them to devices that leave her home, out of a mistrust of the system’s companies’ personal data collecting and sharing practices. In the words of one participant, “when I discovered that Alexa was accumulating all kinds of data [while] in my house, because [of] what she hears, I am not sure I need [her] in my house!”

Promoting Adoption of Technology for Aging-in-Place

Results indicate that the over-85 age demographic may benefit from tailored strategies to effectively promote their adoption of technology for aging-in-place. In the case of our sample, survey participants reported a number of perceived advantages to having smart home technology; commonly, an increased sense of safety and security (45%), fulfilling their personal interests and curiosity (25%), and eco-friendliness (25%). Noted disadvantages included the costs associated with maintaining and using the technology (40%), costs associated with purchasing the technology (35%), and the need to learn about new technology systems (30%) (validating a need for more effective learning of technology among users, as noted in the prior theme). Focus group participants shared the sentiment that technology that they could be in full control over, and that would help them maintain autonomy in their living environments, most strongly resonated with them. Focus group participants further noted that promoting adoption of technology in the home for aging-in-place requires making a value proposition to more than just one stakeholder. One explained the degree to which family members played a role in decisions around technology, saying, “It’s also a balancing act when you’re dealing with a couple. My spouse is a very independent person. She doesn’t like to address her difficulties, ‘I’m fine, thank you very much.’ I would have a considerable selling job to persuade her to have any technology or surveillance in the household. We’re under the care of what I call ‘the syndicate,’ our four kids, who have their own role in [the] decision-making.” Additional participants shared they would “quickly adopt new technologies, in part, to help [their] loved ones also feel positive about [their] ability to take care of [themselves],” suggesting that the wishes and potential improvements in peace-of-mind of family members (e.g., adult children) may motivate them to adopt new technologies. A smaller proportion of participants noted there are additional “markets” for technology for aging-in-place among the oldest of older adults living in senior living communities (e.g., “Most of the people here in my Village wear smart watches given to us by the Village for no cost [for falls prevention in the house].”) or those who own secondary or vacation homes (e.g., “My family has a large vacation house in New Hampshire. We set it up with a system that would alert us if the house would go cold. When we got that phone call, we thought it was a scam, we paid no attention to it, and the house froze. Now, that house is even more smart. [We have a] backup generator on the outside, a video system that shows heating system in real-time, etc.”).

Discussion

Increasingly “smart” and automated technologies in the home are posed to deliver unique value, integration, and features for residents across the age span. Developing our understanding of technology adoption among older adults, particularly in the domain of aging-in-place, remains essential as generational gaps in technology savviness close (e.g., Faverio, 2022) and older adults’ openness towards technology-enabled products and services improve (Mitzner et al., 2010). The over-85 age demographic, in particular, possesses great diversity in their technology savviness, access to smart home technologies, living situations, and desire to age-in-place. In this study with a panel of adults aged 85+, a mixed methods approach was leveraged to better understand how this age group views and perceive technology for aging-in-place. The over-85 age demographic is not monolithic and may benefit from tailored value propositions and tactics of persuasion to effectively promote their adoption of technology for aging-in-place as buyers and users. While the panel reported generally low interest in purchasing or adopting new technologies for aging-in-place, certain technologies for aging-in-place garnered interest amongst the panel (automating lawn and garden maintenance systems, irrigation systems, etc.). These findings suggest that the 85+ remain curious about technologies that will allow them to continue to age-in-place if they govern or solve a concrete challenge. Panelists were least interested in aging-in-place technologies like smart televisions and pet care, potentially because respondents have their own systems in place to manage these daily tasks and they require minimal physical effort compared to lawn and irrigation maintenance. The findings again highlight that, while interest for aging-in-place technologies were reported as universally low, panelists continue to search for solutions and “hacks” to their everyday challenges, presenting an opportunity for new technologies to alleviate challenges. The study’s results offer a range of broader implications for developers of smart home technologies. Systems should be designed and delivered in a way that aligns with the needs and preferences of customers. For example, products should not look or feel like products designed solely for older adults. Additionally, to avoid confusion or need for continued learning each time a new version is released, interfaces and features should also remain relatively consistent across system versions. To alleviate potential concerns around data privacy, privacy policies should be made clear, concise, and transparent, and use minimal technical jargon. Results also indicated that even participants who were generally hesitant or resistant to using new technologies may be willing to adopt technologies if it meant improved peace-of-mind for their loved ones, suggesting an opportunity for developers to focus on demonstrating value to family members (e.g., adult children or caregivers) in addition to older users themselves. This study only included a select group of the over-85 age demographic that was geographically limited and skewed in terms of a number of characteristics that may influence technology adoption, including income, level of education, residential environment, technology savviness, and overall health and wellbeing. Findings may not represent perceptions and attitudes of all older adults aged 85+. Future research must explore this topic with more diverse identities of the over-85 age demographic and other older age groups.