Fluidity in the Phased Framework of Technology Acceptance: A Case Study to Understand (Older Adult) Participant Journeys Through Acceptance Phases with Mobile Telepresence Robots
Source abstract
Abstract
Loneliness has a direct impact on mental and physical health. This is especially relevant to older adults. In prior studies, socially isolated older adults wanted technology that would help them feel more physically present even across distances, such as telepresence robots. However, how useful this technology can be directly depends on whether people accept it over the long term. In this paper, we describe a case study in which we introduced telepresence robots into homes of older adults for seven months. We investigate how older adults’ progression through acceptance phases ebbed and flowed. We describe primary factors that affected speed of progression through acceptance phases: solving problems with technology, life situations (business vs. routines), and personality. We introduce example personas based on this case study. We also propose changes to the longitudinal technology-acceptance framework to take this more nuanced view into account. These outcomes will help future researchers and practitioners to better understand and influence longitudinal technology acceptance.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Technology Use by Older Adults · Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Psychology, New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
Department of Engineering, New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
Toyota Research Institute, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Funding
Toyota Research Institute
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Desai, M., Tsui, K.M., Yanco, H.A., and Uhlik, C. (2011, January 11–12). Essential features of telepresence robots. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Practical Robot Applications, Woburn, MA, USA.10.1109/TEPRA.2011.5753474 ↗
2. Measuring the quality of interaction in mobile robotic telepresence: A pilot’s perspective10.1007/s12369-012-0166-7 ↗
3. Stoll, B., Reig, S., He, L., Kaplan, I., Jung, M.F., and Fussell, S.R. (2018, January 5–8). Wait, can you move the robot?: Examining telepresence robot use in collaborative teams. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Chicago, IL, USA.10.1145/3171221.3171243 ↗
4. Conversational fluency and attitudes towards robot pilots in telepresence robot-mediated interactions10.1007/s10606-023-09476-5 ↗
5. Reactions to a remote-controlled video-communication robot in seniors’ homes: A pilot study of feasibility and acceptance10.1089/tmj.2012.0026 ↗
6. Long-term evaluation of a telepresence robot for the elderly: Methodology and ecological case study10.1007/s12369-016-0337-z ↗
7. Towards ethical guidelines of using telepresence robots in residential care10.1007/s12369-019-00529-8 ↗
8. Lim, J. (2023). Effects of a cognitive-based intervention program using social robot PIO on cognitive function, depression, loneliness, and quality of life of older adults living alone. Front. Public Health, 11.10.3389/fpubh.2023.1097485 ↗
9. A phased framework for long-term user acceptance of interactive technology in domestic environments10.1177/1461444817727264 ↗
10. Longitudinal Study of Mobile Telepresence Robots in Older Adults’ Homes: Uses, Social Connection, and Comfort with Technology10.1145/3674956 ↗
11. Baggett, R., Simecek, M., Tsui, K.M., and Fraune, M.R. (2024). Temporal Progression of Four Older Adults through Technology Acceptance Phases for a Mobile Telepresence Robot in Domestic Environments. Robotics, 13.10.3390/robotics13070095 ↗
12. Loneliness, social isolation, and behavioral and biological health indicators in older adults10.1037/a0022826 ↗
13. Social isolation kills, but how and why?10.1097/00006842-200103000-00011 ↗
14. Social isolation and health, with an emphasis on underlying mechanisms10.1353/pbm.2003.0049 ↗
15. The effect of loneliness on distinct health outcomes: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113514 ↗
16. Thoits, P.A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social suppoty processes: Where are we? What next. J. Health Soc. Behav., 53–79.10.2307/2626957 ↗
17. Health psychology: What is an unhealthy environment and how does it get under the skin?10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.411 ↗
18. Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among older adults10.1177/002214650905000103 ↗
19. CDC (2015). Indicator Definitions—Older Adults.
20. APA (2021). Older Adults’ Health and Age-Related Changes, APA.
21. NIH (2022). Age.
22. Vincent, G.K., and Velkoff, V.A. (2010). The Next Four Decades: The Older Population in the United States: 2010 to 2050.
23. Ageing, leisure, and social connectedness: How could leisure help reduce social isolation of older people?10.1007/s11205-012-0097-6 ↗
24. Jamal, S., and Newbold, K.B. (2020). Factors associated with travel behavior of millennials and older adults: A scoping review. Sustainability, 12.10.3390/su12198236 ↗
25. Isabet, B., Pino, M., Lewis, M., Benveniste, S., and Rigaud, A.S. (2021). Social telepresence robots: A narrative review of experiments involving older adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18.10.3390/ijerph18073597 ↗
26. Loneliness in the time of COVID-19: Impact on older adults10.1111/jan.14856 ↗
27. Telepresence mobile robots design and control for social interaction10.1007/s12369-020-00676-3 ↗
28. Moyle, W., Jones, C., Cooke, M., O’dwyer, S., Sung, B., and Drummond, S. (2014). Connecting the person with dementia and family: A feasibility study of a telepresence robot. BMC Geriatr., 14.10.1186/1471-2318-14-7 ↗
29. Fraune, M.R., Komatsu, T., Preusse, H.R., Langlois, D.K., Au, R.H.Y., Ling, K., Suda, S., Nakamura, K., and Tsui, K.M. (2022). Socially facilitative robots for older adults to alleviate social isolation: A participatory design workshop approach in the US and Japan. Front. Psychol., 13.10.3389/fpsyg.2022.904019 ↗
30. Ling, K., Langlois, D., Preusse, H., Rheman, J.M., Parson, D., Kuballa, S., Simecek, M., Tsui, K.M., and Fraune, M.R. (2023). “If you weren’t connected to the Internet, you were not alive”: Experience of using social technology during COVID-19 in adults 50+. Front. Public Health, 11.10.3389/fpubh.2023.1177683 ↗
31. Could robots strengthen the sense of autonomy of older people residing in assisted living facilities?—A future-oriented study10.1007/s10676-019-09524-z ↗
32. Boudouraki, A., Fischer, J.E., Reeves, S., and Rintel, S. (2023, January 13–16). ‘Being in on the action’ in mobile robotic telepresence: Rethinking presence in hybrid participation. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Stockholm, Sweden.10.1145/3568162.3576961 ↗
33. Krupp, M.M., Rueben, M., Grimm, C.M., and Smart, W.D. (September, January 28). A focus group study of privacy concerns about telepresence robots. Proceedings of the 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Lisbon, Portugal.10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172495 ↗
34. The evolution of technology acceptance theories
35. A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.137 ↗
36. Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predictiing Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall.
37. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 ↗
38. The theory of planned behavior10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T ↗
39. Citizen’s adoption of an e-government system: Validating extended social cognitive theory (SCT)10.1016/j.giq.2015.02.002 ↗
40. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 ↗
41. Davis, F. (1985). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. [Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
42. The extended technology acceptance model (ETAM): Examining students’ acceptance of online learning during COVID-19 pandemic10.3991/ijet.v17i20.29441 ↗
43. Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view10.1016/j.im.2005.08.006 ↗
44. University Management Information System (UMIS) acceptance among university student: Applying the Extended Technology Acceptance Model (ETAM)10.5296/jse.v1i1.990 ↗
45. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view10.2307/30036540 ↗
46. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y ↗
47. Exploring the digital divide: Internet connectedness and age10.1177/009365001028004007 ↗
48. Befriending older adults in nursing homes: Volunteer perceptions of switching to remote befriending in the COVID-19 era10.1080/07317115.2020.1868646 ↗
49. The design, development, and evaluation of telepresence interfaces for aging adults: Investigating user perceptions of privacy and usability10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102695 ↗
50. Attitudinal and intentional acceptance of domestic robots by younger and older adults
51. Renaud, K., and Van Biljon, J. (2008, January 6–8). Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly: A qualitative study. Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries: Riding the Wave of Technology, Wilderness, South Africa.10.1145/1456659.1456684 ↗
52. Sung, J., Christensen, H.I., and Grinter, R.E. (2009, January 9–13). Robots in the wild: Understanding long-term use. Proceedings of the 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), La Jolla, CA, USA.10.1145/1514095.1514106 ↗
53. Ghapanchi, A.H., and Talaei-Khoei, A. (2018, January 16–18). Rethinking technology acceptance: Towards a theory of technology utilization. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA.
54. Silverstone, R., and Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: Technical change and everyday life. Communication By Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies, Oxford Academic.10.1093/oso/9780198289418.003.0003 ↗
55. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press. [4th ed.].
56. Orr, G. (2025, March 30). Diffusion of innovations, by Everett Rogers (1995). Retrieved January, 21, 2005. Available online: https://teddykw2.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/everett-m-rogers-diffusion-of-innovations.pdf.
57. Ittersum, K.V., Rogers, W.A., Capar, M., Caine, K.E., O’Brien, M.A., Parsons, L.J., and Fisk, A.D. (2006). Understanding Technology Acceptance: Phase 1—Literature Review and Qualitative Model Development Requests for More Information May Be Sent to Background and Overview, Georgia Institute of Technology.
58. Domestic robot ecology: An initial framework to unpack long-term acceptance of robots at home10.1007/s12369-010-0065-8 ↗
59. Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., and Martens, J.B. (2009, January 4–9). User experience over time. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA.10.1145/1518701.1518814 ↗
60. Measuring acceptance of computer-mediated communication systems10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(198911)40:6<386::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-V ↗
61. Lohse, M. (August, January 31). Bridging the gap between users’ expectations and system evaluations. Proceedings of the 2011 RO-MAN, Atlanta, GA, USA.10.1109/ROMAN.2011.6005252 ↗
62. Findings from a participatory evaluation of a smart home application for older adults10.3233/THC-2008-16205 ↗
63. Conceptualizing effects of office information systems: A methodology and application for the study of alpha, beta, and gamma changes10.1111/j.1540-5915.1990.tb01687.x ↗
64. van Biljon, J., and Renaud, K. (2008). A qualitative study of the applicability of technology acceptance models to senior mobile phone users. Advances in Conceptual Modeling—Challenges and Opportunities, Proceedings of the ER 2008 Workshops CMLSA, ECDM, FP-UML, M2AS, RIGiM, SeCoGIS, WISM, Barcelona, Spain, 20–23 October 2008, Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-87991-6_28 ↗
65. Why do they refuse to use my robot?: Reasons for non-use derived from a long-term home study
66. Factors affecting the adoption of open systems: An exploratory study factors affecting the adoption of open systems: An exploratory study10.2307/249740 ↗
67. Effects of the biopsychosocial functional activity program on cognitive function for community older adults with mild cognitive impairment: A cluster-randomized controlled trial10.1111/nhs.12772 ↗
68. Double Robotics (2024, May 10). Double 3, Double Robotics—Telepresence Robot for the Hybrid Office. Available online: https://www.doublerobotics.com.10.1155/2024/9831614 ↗
69. Forlizzi, J., and Disalvo, C. (2006, January 2–3). Service robots in the domestic environment: A study of the Roomba vacuum in the home. Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.10.1145/1121241.1121286 ↗
70. Heshmat, Y., Jones, B., Xiong, X., Neustaedter, C., Tang, A., Riecke, B.E., and Yang, L. (2018, January 21–26). Geocaching with a Beam: Shared outdoor activities through a telepresence robot with 360 degree viewing. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1145/3173574.3173933 ↗
71. Korblet, V.M., Karreman, J., and Rompay, T.V. (2019). The Acceptance of Mobile Telepresence Robots by Elderly People. [Master’s Thesis, University of Twente].
72. King, N., Horrocks, C., and Brooks, J. (2019). Interviews in Qualitative Research, SAGE Publications. [2nd ed.].
73. Saldaña, J. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, SAGE Publications.
74. Factors that influence the performance of computer-based assessments: An extension of the technology acceptance model
75. Understanding continued information technology usage behavior: A comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet10.1016/j.dss.2006.03.009 ↗
76. Determinants of the continued use of self-service technology: The case of Internet banking10.1016/j.technovation.2006.11.001 ↗
77. Understanding e-learning continuance intention: A negative critical incidents perspective10.1080/01449291003752948 ↗
78. Behrenbruch, K., Söllner, M., Leimeister, J.M., and Schmidt, L. (2013). Understanding diversity—The impact of personality on technology acceptance. Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2013, Proceedings of the 14th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Part IV 14, Cape Town, South Africa, 2–6 September 2013, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_23 ↗
79. Consumer experiences, attitude and behavioral intention toward online food delivery (OFD) services10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.12.013 ↗
80. An integrated framework for the adoption and continuance intention to use mobile payment apps10.1108/IJBM-03-2018-0072 ↗
81. Kraus, M., Wagner, N., Untereiner, N., and Minker, W. (2022, January 4–7). Including social expectations for trustworthy proactive human-robot dialogue. Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, Barcelona, Spain.10.1145/3503252.3531294 ↗
82. User profiles and personas in the design and development of consumer health technologies10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.03.006 ↗
83. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 ↗
84. Personal and other factors affecting acceptance of smartphone technology by older Chinese adults10.1016/j.apergo.2015.11.015 ↗
85. The digital divide and t-government in the United States: Using the technology acceptance model to understand usage10.1057/ejis.2010.64 ↗
86. Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior
87. Factors motivating software piracy: A longitudinal study10.1109/TEM.2004.835087 ↗
88. Four ways five factors are basic10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I ↗
89. How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use10.1287/isre.1070.0153 ↗
90. Seibert, D., Godulla, A., and Wolf, C. (2025, March 30). Understanding How Personality Affects the Acceptance of Technology: A Literature Review. Social Science Open Access Repository. Available online: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-75164-7.
91. Paepcke, S., and Takayama, L. (2010, January 2–5). Judging a bot by its cover: An experiment on expectation setting for personal robots. Proceedings of the 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Osaka, Japan.10.1109/HRI.2010.5453268 ↗
92. Horstmann, A.C., and Krämer, N.C. (2020, January 23–26). When a Robot Violates Expectations: The Influence of Reward Valence and Expectancy Violation on People’s Evaluation of a Social Robot. Proceedings of the Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Cambridge, UK.10.1145/3371382.3378292 ↗
93. Bringing personas to life: User experience design through interactive coupled open innovation10.21153/ps2016vol2no1art534 ↗
94. Marsden, N., and Pröbster, M. (2019, January 4–9). Personas and identity: Looking at multiple identities to inform the construction of personas. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK.10.1145/3290605.3300565 ↗
95. Acceptance research on the adaptation of target audience personas in graphic design
96. Fernaeus, Y., Håkansson, M., Jacobsson, M., and Ljungblad, S. (2010, January 9–12). How do you play with a robotic toy animal? A long-term study of Pleo. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Barcelona, Spain.10.1145/1810543.1810549 ↗
97. Living with a vacuum cleaning robot: A 6-month ethnographic study10.1007/s12369-013-0190-2 ↗
98. Data-driven modeling of technology acceptance: A machine learning perspective10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115584 ↗
99. Technology acceptance prediction of robo-advisors by machine learning
100. Tsui, K.M. (2014). The Development of Telepresence Robots for People with Disabilities. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts Lowell].