Technology anxiety and technology enthusiasm versus digital ageism

Technology anxiety and technology enthusiasm versus digital ageism


Europe has called attention to the importance of the e-inclusion of older adults. Society is indicating that developers, websites and devices are causing age bias in technology. This affects living independently, the values of ethical principles associated with an older person, and digital ageism: which is an age-related bias in artificial intelligence systems.


This research attempts to investigate the instrument technology anxiety and enthusiasm, and assistive technology devices during the period 2019- 2021. This instrument may be a way to redress misconceptions in digital ageism. The assistive technology device that we will investigate in this study is the adoption of a service that is designed for online health consultations.


The participants are part of the longitudinal Swedish National Study on Aging and Care. Technology anxiety and technology enthusiasm are two factors, which aim to measure technophilia (vs technophobia) in older adults. The age range is 63 -99 years of age in 2019 T1 and 66 -101 in 2021 T2. Wilcoxon rank test was conducted to investigate technology enthusiasm, tehcnology anxiety and how they changed with time.An Edwards Nunnally index was calculated for technology enthusiasm and anxiety to observe significant change in score from T1 to T2. Mann Whitney U test was used to investigate the variables sex and health status with technology anxiety & technology enthusiasm in T1 & T2. Age, Cognitive function MMSE, digital social participation were investigated through a Kruskall-Wallis test. A logistic regression was conducted with the significant variables.


Between 2019-2021, change in technology enthusiasm was based on less digital social participation (OR: 0.608; CI 95%: 0.476- 0.792). Technology anxiety was significantly higher due to age (OR: 1.086, CI 95%: 1.035-1.139) and less digital social participation (OR: 0.684; CI95%: 0.522- 0.895). The want for online healthcare consultations was popular but usage low. Digital ageism is a complex phenomenon that requires different solutions to include the older adult better.


Technology anxiety, Technology enthusiasm, digital ageism, artificial intelligence, older adults


1. Alexopoulou, S., & Åström, J. (2022). How the Responsibility of Digital Support for olde people is allocated? The Swedish Welfare system at the crossroads. Research on Ageing and Social Policy, 10(1), 48–76.

2. Alexopoulou, S., Åström, J., & Karlsson, M. (2022). The grey digital divide and welfare state regimes: A comparative study of European countries. Information Technology & People, 35(8), 273–291.

3. Anderberg, P., Abrahamsson, L., & Berglund, J. S. (2021). An instrument for measuring social participation to examine older adults’ use of the internet as a social platform: Development and validation study. JMIR Aging, 4(2), e23591–e23591.

4. Berner, J., Aartsen, M., & Deeg, D. (2019). Predictors in starting and stopping Internet use between 2002 and 2012 by Dutch adults 65 years and older. Health Informatics Journal, 25(3), 715–730.

5. Binstock, R. H. (2010). From Compassionate Ageism to Intergenerational Conflict? The Gerontologist, 50(5), 574–585.

6 Carstensen, L. L. (2019). Integrating cognitive and emotion paradigms to address the paradox of aging. Cognition and Emotion, 33(1), 119–125.

7. Chu, C. H., Nyrup, R., Leslie, K., Shi, J., Bianchi, A., Lyn, A., McNicholl, M., Khan, S., Rahimi, S., & Grenier, A. (2022). Digital Ageism: Challenges and Opportunities in Artificial Intelligence for Older Adults. The Gerontologist, gnab167.

8. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social Implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307–336.

9. Ghazi, S. N., Anderberg, P., Berglund, J. S., Berner, J., & Dallora, A. L. (2022). Psychological Health and Digital Social Participation of the Older Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Blekinge, Sweden-An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3711.

10. Gupta, D., Rodrigues, J., Peng, S.-L., & Nguyen, N. (2022). Artificial Intelligence for eHealth. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.

11. Hargittai, E. (2001). Second-Level Digital Divide: Mapping Differences in Peoples Online Skills. Journal Article.

12. Hoffman, S., & Podgurski, A. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and Discrimination in Health Care. Social Science Research Network.

13. James, J. W., & Haley, W. E. (1995). Age and health bias in practicing clinical psychologists. Psychology and Aging, 10(4), 610–616.

14. Jandoo, T. (2020). WHO guidance for digital health: What it means for researchers. Digital Health.

15. Lagacé, M., Charmarkeh, H., Laplante, J., & Tanguay, A. (2015). How ageism contributes to the second-level digital divide: The case of Canadian seniors. Journal of Technologies and Human Usability, 4(11), 1–13.

16. Lagergren, M., Fratiglioni, L., Hallberg, I. R., Berglund, J., Elmståhl, S., Hagberg, B., Holst, G., Rennemark, M., Sjölund, B.-M., Thorslund, M., Wiberg, I., Winblad, B., & Wimo, A. (2004). A longitudinal study integrating population, care and social services data. The Swedish National study on Aging and Care (SNAC). Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 16(2), 158–168.

17. Leavitt, H. J. (2002). Technology and Organizations: Where’s the Off Button? California Management Review, 44(2), 126–140.

18. Longevity Briefing: April 2022. (2022). Stanford Centre of Longevity.

19. Lythreatis, S., Singh, S. K., & El-Kassar, A.-N. (2022). The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121359.

20. Manor, S., & Herscovici, A. (2021). Digital ageism: A new kind of discrimination. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(5), 1084–1093.

21. Martínez-Córcoles, M., Teichmann, M., & Murdvee, M. (2017). Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaire. Technology in Society, 51, 183–188.

22. McLean, A. (2011). Ethical frontiers of ICT and older users: Cultural, pragmatic and ethical issues. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(4), 313–326.

23. Osiceanu, M.-E. (2015). Psychological Implications of Modern Technologies: “Technofobia” versus “Technophilia”. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1137–1144.

24. Rochat, L., Wilkosc-Debczynska, M., Zajac-Lamparska, L., Rothen, S., Andryszak, P., Gaspoz, J., Colombo, L., Khazaal, Y., & Achab, S. (2021). Internet Use and Problematic Use in Seniors: A Comparative Study in Switzerland and Poland. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12.

25. Rosales, A., & Fernández-Ardèvol, M. (2020). Ageism in the era of digital platforms. Convergence, 26(5–6), 1074–1087.

26. Sayago, S. (2019). Perspectives on human computer interaction research with older people. eBook)

27. Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607–1624.

28. Shaping Europes digital future | Shaping Europes digital future. (n.d.). Retrieved 27 April 2022, from

29. United Nations. (2020). Digital interdependence and how to design for itACM Interactions.

30. Valokivi, H., Carlo, S., Kvist, E., & Outila, M. (2021). Digital ageing in Europe: A comparative analysis of Italian, Finnish and Swedish national policies on eHealth. Ageing and Society, 1–22.

31. Wei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2011). Conceptualizing and Testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital Divide. Information Systems Research, 22(1), 170–187.

32. Zambianchi, M., Rönnlund, M., & Carelli, M. G. (2019). Attitudes Towards and Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Among Older Adults in Italy and Sweden: The Influence of Cultural Context, Socio-Demographic Factors, and Time Perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 34(3), 291–306.

33. Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. (2018). Discrimination, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making.


Categories: Publications, Research

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *