While social support—friends, family, and colleagues—is one of the main sources of encouragement and digital literacy for older people, there is evidence that suggests that they may prefer formal sources of support. This study aims to verify the capacity of technological support services to promote literacy and Internet use by older people in multiple contexts. The participants (N = 560) were retired adults (over 54) residing in Spain and habitual users of technological support services in four organizational contexts (nursing homes, community senior centers, university programs for seniors, and adult education programs). The results show the moderating role of organizational contexts on the capacity of formal technological supports to determine the use and appropriation of the Internet by older people. Finally, the findings are discussed in terms of their usefulness for initiatives that adapt to the needs of the users of these services.
AlcaláLA (2014) Diseño de programas de e-inclusión para alfabetización mediática de personas mayors. Comunicar: Revista científica iberoamericana de comunicación y educación42: 173–180. DOI: 10.3916/C42-2014-17.
2.
BallerSDuttaSLanvinB (2016) Global Information Technology Report 2016. Geneva: Ouranos.
3.
BarnardYBradleyMDHodgsonF, et al. (2013) Learning to use new technologies by older adults: perceived difficulties, experimentation behaviour and usability. Computers in Human Behavior29(4): 1715–1724. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.006.
4.
BeardJOfficerACasselsA, et al. (2015) World Report on Aging and Health. Geneva: WHO.
5.
BrandtweinerRDonatEKerschbaumJ (2010) How to become a sophisticated user: a two-dimensional approach to e-literacy. New Media & Society12(5): 813–833. DOI: 10.1177/1461444809349577.
6.
BrandtzægPB (2010) Towards a unified Media-User Typology (MUT): a meta-analysis and review of the research literature on media-user typologies. Computers in Human Behavior26(5): 940–956. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.008.
7.
ChaffinAJMadduxCD (2007) Accessibility accommodations for older adults seeking e-health information. Journal of Gerontological Nursing33(3): 6–12. Available at: https://goo.gl/QEk4LA (accessed 1 March 2020).
8.
ChenYPerssonA (2002) Internet use among young and older adults: relation to psychological well-being. Educational Gerontology28(9): 731–744. DOI: 10.1080/03601270290099921.
FrancisJKadylakTMakkiTW, et al. (2018) Catalyst to connection: when technical difficulties lead to social support for older adults. American Behavioral Scientist62(9): 1167–1185. DOI: 10.1177/0002764218773829.
13.
FriemelTN (2016) The digital divide has grown old: determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society18(2): 313–331. DOI: 10.1177/1461444814538648.
14.
GattoSLTakSH (2008) Computer, Internet, and e-mail use among older adults: benefits and barriers. Educational Gerontology34(9): 800–811. DOI: 10.1080/03601270802243697.
15.
GoldhammerFNaumannJKeßelY (2013) Assessing individual differences in basic computer skills. European Journal of Psychological Assessment29(4): 263–275. DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000153.
16.
HardillIOlphertCW (2012) Staying connected: exploring mobile phone use amongst older adults in the UK. Geoforum43(6): 1306–1312. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.03.016.
17.
HargittaiEDobranskyK (2017) Old dogs, new clicks: digital inequality in skills and uses among older adults. Canadian Journal of Communication42(2). DOI: 10.22230/cjc.2017v42n2a3176.
18.
HargittaiEHinnantA (2008) Digital inequality. Communication Research35(5): 602–621. DOI: 10.1177/0093650208321782.
19.
HassaniSN (2006) Locating digital divides at home, work, and everywhere else. Poetics34(4–5): 250–272. DOI: 10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.007.
20.
HeartTKalderonE (2013) Older adults: are they ready to adopt health-related ICT?International Journal of Medical Informatics82(11): e209–e231. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.03.002.
21.
HunsakerANguyenMHFuchsJ, et al. (2019) “He explained it to me and I also did it myself”: how older adults get support with their technology uses. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. Epub ahead of print 4December. DOI: 10.1177/2378023119887866.
INEbase (2019b) Índice de envejecimiento por provincias. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Available at: https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=1489 (accessed 10 February 2020).
KaminSTBeyerALangFR (2019) Social support is associated with technology use in old age. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie53: 256–262. DOI: 10.1007/s00391-019-01529-z.
26.
KaminSTLangFRKamberT (2016) Social contexts of technology use in old age. In: KnonS (ed.) Gerontechnology. Research, Practice, and Principles in the Field of Technology and Aging. New York: Springer, pp. 35–56.
27.
Kania-LundholmMTorresS (2015) The divide within: older active ICT users position themselves against different “others.”Journal of Aging Studies35: 26–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaging.2015.07.008.
28.
KuYCChuTHTsengCH (2013) Gratifications for using CMC technologies: a comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Computers in Human Behavior29(1): 226–234. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.009.
29.
MacQueenJ (1967) Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations. In: Proceedings of the 5th Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, pp. 281–297. Available at: https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.bsmsp/120051299 (accessed 10 February 2020).
30.
MillwardP (2003) The ‘grey digital divide’: perception, exclusion and barriers of access to the Internet for older people. First Monday8(7). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v8i7.1066.
31.
MorrisA (2007) E-literacy and the grey digital divide: a review with recommendations. Journal of Information Literacy1(3): 13–18. DOI: 10.11645/1.3.14.
32.
Muñoz BaenaAM (2013) Problemática en la elección del número de cluster en el algoritmo K-Means. MoleQla: Revista de Ciencias de la Universidad Pablo de Olavide10: 15.
33.
NevesBBAmaroF (2012) Too old for technology? How the elderly of Lisbon use and perceive ICT. The Journal of Community Informatics8(1): 1–12. Available at: http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/800 (accessed 21 February 2020).
34.
NewhagenJEBucyEP (2004) Routes to media access. In: BucyEPNewhagenJE (Eds) Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 3–23.
35.
NimrodG (2016) Older audiences in the digital media environment. Information, Communication & Society20(2): 233–249. DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2016.1164740.
36.
OECD (2019) Health at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/4dd50c09-en (accessed 15 January 2020).
37.
PapacharissiZRubinAM (2000) Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media44(2): 175–196. DOI: 10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_2.
38.
PeekSTLuijkxKGRijnaardMD, et al. (2016) Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology62(2): 226–237. DOI: 10.1159/000430949
39.
Quan-HaaseAMartinKSchreuersK (2016) Interviews with digital seniors: ICT use in the context of everyday life. Information, Communication & Society19(5): 691–707. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1140217.
40.
Quan-HaaseAMoGYWellmanB (2017) Connected seniors: how older adults in East York exchange social support online and offline. Information, Communication & Society20(7): 967–983. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1305428.
41.
RasiPKilpeläinenA (2016) Older people’s use and learning of new media: a case study on remote rural villages in Finnish Lapland. In: International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Cham: Springer, pp. 239–247. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-39949-2_23.
42.
SchehlBLeukelJSugumaranV (2019) Understanding differentiated internet use in older adults: a study of informational, social, and instrumental online activities. Computers in Human Behavior97: 222–230. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.031.
43.
SchreuersKQuan-HaaseAMartinK (2017) Problematizing the digital literacy paradox in the context of older adults’ ICT use: aging, media discourse, and self-determination. Canadian Journal of Communication42(2): 359–377. DOI: 10.22230/cjc.2017v42n2a3130.
44.
SchulzRWahlHWMatthewsJT, et al. (2015) Advancing the aging and technology agenda in gerontology. The Gerontologist55(5): 724–734. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnu071.
45.
SelwynN (2004) Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society6(3): 341–362. DOI: 10.1177/1461444804042519.
46.
SeoHErbJAltschwagerD, et al. (2019) Evidence-based digital literacy class for older, low-income African-American adults. Journal of Applied Communication Research47(2): 130–152. DOI: 10.1080/00909882.2019.1587176.
47.
SeoHErbaJGeanaM, et al. (2017) Calling Doctor Google? Technology adoption and health information seeking among low-income African-American older adults. The Journal of Public Interest Communications1(2): 153. DOI: 10.32473/jpic.v1.i2.p153
48.
ShapiraNBarakAGalI (2007) Promoting older adults’ well-being through Internet training and use. Aging & Mental Health11(5): 477–484. DOI: 10.1080/13607860601086546
Tirado-MoruetaRAguaded-GómezJIOrtíz-SobrinoMÁ, et al. (2020) Determinants of social gratifications obtained by older adults moderated by public supports for Internet access in Spain. Telematics and Informatics49: 101363. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2020.101363.
53.
Van BoekelLCPeekSTLuijkxKG (2017) Diversity in older adults’ use of the internet: identifying subgroups through latent class analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research19(5): e180. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6853.
54.
Van DeursenAJHelsperEJ (2015) The third-level digital divide: who benefits most from being online? In: Communication and Information Technologies Annual. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 29–52. DOI: 10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002.
55.
Van DeursenAJVan DijkJA (2018) The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical Access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society21(2): 354–375. DOI: 10.1177/1461444818797082.
56.
Van DijkJA (2005) The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
57.
Van DijkJA (2006) Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics34: 221–235. DOI: 10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004.
58.
WagnerNHassaneinKHeadM (2010) Computer use by older adults: a multi-disciplinary review. Computers in Human Behavior26(5): 870–882. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.029.
59.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2016) The Global Strategy and action plan on ageing and health 2016-2020: towards a world in which everyone can live a long and healthy life: Resolution (No. A69/A/CONF./8). WHO. Available at: https://www.who.int/ageing/GSAP-Summary-EN.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 23 February 2020)
WitteJCMannonSE (2010) The Internet and Social Inequalities. New York: Routledge.
62.
WuSWangMZouY (2018) Research on Internet information mining based on agent algorithm. Future Generation Computer Systems86: 598–602. DOI: 10.1016/j.future.2018.04.040.
63.
XieBJaegerPT (2008) Older adults and political participation on the Internet: a cross-cultural comparison of the USA and China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology23(1): 1–15. DOI: 10.1007/s10823-007-9050-6.
64.
ZillienNHargittaiE (2009) Digital distinction: status specific types of Internet usage. Social Science Quarterly90(2): 274–291. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
