Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2022.13.04.421

Cross-National Differences in the Intention to Use of Welfare-Technology among Older Adults between Korea and the U.S.: Focusing on the Technology Acceptance Model  

Kim, Jeugnkun (Department of Senior Business, Kangnam University)
Kang, Suk-Young (Department of Social Work, Binghamton University, SUNY)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Convergence Society / v.13, no.4, 2022 , pp. 421-432 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze whether there are country differences in the intention to use Welfare Technology among older adults. Based on Technology Acceptance Model and Structural Equation Model, we surveyed total 334 older adults aged 65 and over living in Korea and the U.S. and analyzed the path differences between the perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude toward use, and intention to use of Welfare Technology between two countries. Results showed that the effect of 'perceived usefulness' on 'attitude toward use' was the highest in Korea at 0.74 (p<0.001), and 'Perceived ease of use' in 'Perceived Usefulness' in the United States at 0.75(p<0.001), with the differences being statistically significant. Findings indicate that 'Long-term Orientation' may explain the differences between the two countries. Practical and policy implications are presented in conclusion.
Keywords
Welfare Technology; Older Adults; Technology Acceptance Model; Structural Equation Model; Cultural Diversity; International Comparison;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 J. Kim. (2018). Study on Welfare Technology and Welfare Technology Assessment for Older Adults. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 18(5), 156-166. DOI : 10.5392/JKCA.2018.18.05.156   DOI
2 C. M. Barbu. (2011). Cultural adaptation of products. Management & Marketing-Craiova, (1), 105-110.
3 L. Wang, P.L. Rau, & G. Salvendy. (2011). A cross-culture study on older adults' information technology acceptance. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 9(5), 421-440. DOI : 10.1504/IJMC.2011.042452   DOI
4 M. Moslehpour, V. K. Pham, W.K. Wong, & I. Bilgicli. (2018). E-purchase intention of Taiwanese consumers: Sustainable mediation of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Sustainability, 10(1), 234. DOI : 10.3390/su10010234   DOI
5 J. Cho. (2014). Expanded Reproduction of Digital Divide : Acceptance of Smartphones among the Elderly. Journal of Korea Sociology, 48(5), DOI : 10.21562/jks.2014.10.48.5.211   DOI
6 Statistics Korea. (2019). Population Projections for Korea(2017-2067). Korean Information Statistical System. http://kostat.go.kr/
7 M. Cozza, L. Crevani, A. Hallin & J. Schaeffer. (2019). Future ageing: welfare technology practices for our future older selves. Futures, 109, 117-129. DOI : 10.1016/j.futures.2018.03.011   DOI
8 M. Park, S. Choi & Y. Lee.(2020). Current Status and Prospect of Immigration Policy for Care Service in the Aging Era, MRTC Research Report Series No. 2020-01.Migration Research & Training Center. https://www.mrtc.re.kr/
9 J. Kim. (2021). Cases and Issues in Caring for Older Adults Using AI/Robots during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the U.S.. International Social Security Review 2021(Spring), 16-26. https://repository.kihasa.re.kr/
10 S. Frennert. & K. Baudin. (2021). The concept of welfare technology in Swedish municipal eldercare. Disability and rehabilitation, 43(9), 1220-1227. DOI : 10.1080/09638288.2019.1661035   DOI
11 V. Venkatesh & F. D. Davis. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204. DOI : 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926   DOI
12 F. D. Davis. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://www.mit.edu
13 F. D. Davis, R. P. Bogozzi & P. R. Warshaw. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982-1003. DOI : 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982   DOI
14 G. Hofstede. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Perspectives, 7(1), 81-94. DOI : 10.5465/AME.1993.9409142061   DOI
15 H, Lee, N. Chung & T. Jung. (2015). Examining the cultural differences in acceptance of mobile augmented reality: Comparison of South Korea and Ireland. In Information and communication technologies in tourism 2015 (pp. 477-491). Springer, Cham. DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_35   DOI
16 V. Venkatesh & F. D. Davis. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-481. DOI : 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.x   DOI
17 D. A. Kenny & D. B. McCoach. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 333-351. DOI : 10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1   DOI
18 S. Y. Kang, J. Kim, J. Winthal & R. Lenz. (2021). An Analysis of Professional's Perspectives on the Roles of Socio-cultural Factors and Welfare Technology among Older Adults in the US. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 12(8), 215-228. DOI : 10.15207/JKCS.2021.12.8.215   DOI
19 C. Lee & J. F. Coughlin. (2015). PERSPECTIVE: Older adults' adoption of technology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(5), 747-759. DOI : 10.1111/jpim.12176   DOI
20 J. Kim. (2021). Trend of Senior Care Digital Technology with Aging Population, Weekly ICT Trends, Vol. 2010, 13-22. https://www.itfind.or.kr/
21 Hofstede Insights. (2022) Country Comparison. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/south-korea,the-usa/
22 P. W. Cardon & B. A. Marshall. (2008). National culture and technology acceptance: The impact of uncertainty avoidance. Issues in Information Systems, 9(2), 103-110. http://iacis.org/iis/2008/S2008_920.pdf
23 US Census Bureau. (2022). Quick Facts Bromme County, New York. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/broomecountynewyork/PST045221
24 D. George & P. Mallery. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
25 M. Fishbein & I. Ajzen. (1980). Predicting and und erstanding consumer behavior: Attitude-behavior correspondence. In Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (eds.). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Be havior (pp. 148-172). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26 D. Hooper, J. Coughlan & M. Mullen. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60. DOI : 10.21427/D7CF7R   DOI
27 J. C. Anderson & D. W. Gerbing. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411. DOI : 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411   DOI
28 J. H. Ahn & S.H. Yi. (2015). Factors associated with usage intention of smart technology in long-term care facilities: Based on the technology acceptance model (TAM & TAM2). Korean J Gerontol Soc Welf, 68, 357-387. DOI : 10.21194/kjgsw..68.201506.357   DOI
29 A. J. Tomarken & N. G. Waller. (2005). Structural equation modeling: Strengths, limitations, and misconceptions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 1, 31-65. DOI : 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144239   DOI
30 K. A. Bollen. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley & Sons. DOI : 10.1002/9781118619179   DOI
31 T. Teo, W.S. Luan & C. C. Sing. (2008). A cross-cultural examination of the intention to use technology between Singaporean and Malaysian pre-service teachers: an application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 265-280. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.11.4.265
32 W. Chin & P. R. Newsted. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research (pp. 307-341). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.
33 Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues. (2010). Focus on Welfare Technology. https://nvc.brandfactory.se/Files/sv-SE/9047/RelatedFiles/Velferdsteknologi_eng.pdf
34 A. E. Molzahn, M. Kalfoss, K. Schick Makaroff & S. M. Skevington. (2010). Comparing the importance of different aspects of quality of life to older adults across diverse cultures. Age and ageing, 40(2), 192-199. DOI : 10.1093/ageing/afq156   DOI
35 G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede & M. Minkov. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the Mind (Vol. 2). New York: Mcgraw-hill.
36 KOSIS(2019). Population Projections for Korea, Korean Information Statistical System. http://kostat.go.kr/
37 Korean Government (2021). Korean New Deal 2.0, Ministry of Science and ICT. https://digital.go.kr/
38 G. Wickstrom, A. Regner & L. Micko. (2017). Vision eHealth 2025. Government of Sweden. https://www.ehalsomyndigheten.se/globalassets/dokument/vision/vision-for-ehealth-2025.pdf
39 F.D. Davis. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340. DOI : 10.2307/249008   DOI