한국융합학회논문지 (Journal of the Korea Convergence Society)

  • 제13권4호
  • /
  • Pages.421-432
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2233-4890(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6353(eISSN)
한국융합학회 (Korea Convergence Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

한국과 미국 고령자의 복지기술 사용의도 차이 연구: 기술수용 모델을 중심으로

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

  • 김정근 (강남대학교 실버산업학과) ;
  • 강석영 (미국 뉴욕주립대학교 빙햄턴 사회복지학과)
  • Kim, Jeugnkun (Department of Senior Business, Kangnam University) ;
  • Kang, Suk-Young (Department of Social Work, Binghamton University, SUNY)
  • 투고 : 2022.01.06
  • 심사 : 2022.04.20
  • 발행 : 2022.04.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 국가별 차이가 고령층의 복지기술 사용의도에 미치는 영향을 비교·분석하는데 있다. 이를 위해 기술수용모델과 구조방정식 분석방법을 활용하여, 한국과 미국에 거주하는 65세 이상 고령자 총 334명(한국 154명, 미국 180명)을 대상으로 복지기술에 대한 지각된 편이성, 지각된 유용성, 사용태도, 사용의도의 직접 및 간접효과 차이를 분석하였다. 분석결과 한국고령층은 '지각된 유용성'이 '사용태도'에 미치는 영향(0.74, p<0.001)이, 미국 고령층은 '지각된 편이성'이 '지각된 유용성'에 미치는 영향(0.75, p<0.001)이 가장 높았고, 통계적으로도 두 국가 간 유의한 차이를 보였다. 이는 장기적 지향성(Long-term Orientation)에 대한 두 국가 간 문화적 차이가 고령자 기술사용의도 차이에 영향을 미치고 있음을 설명할 수 있었다. 본 연구결과를 바탕으로 국가 간 고령자의 복지기술 사용의도를 높이기 위한 활용방안의 차이와 정책적 함의들을 제시하였다.

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.

키워드

과제정보

This research project was supported by 2019 National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2019S1A5A2A03048377).

참고문헌

  1. Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues. (2010). Focus on Welfare Technology. https://nvc.brandfactory.se/Files/sv-SE/9047/RelatedFiles/Velferdsteknologi_eng.pdf
  2. 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
  3. C. M. Barbu. (2011). Cultural adaptation of products. Management & Marketing-Craiova, (1), 105-110.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. G. Hofstede. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Perspectives, 7(1), 81-94. DOI : 10.5465/AME.1993.9409142061
  7. G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede & M. Minkov. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the Mind (Vol. 2). New York: Mcgraw-hill.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. KOSIS(2019). Population Projections for Korea, Korean Information Statistical System. http://kostat.go.kr/
  11. 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
  12. 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/
  13. Korean Government (2021). Korean New Deal 2.0, Ministry of Science and ICT. https://digital.go.kr/
  14. 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/
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. F.D. Davis. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340. DOI : 10.2307/249008
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Hofstede Insights. (2022) Country Comparison. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/south-korea,the-usa/
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Statistics Korea. (2019). Population Projections for Korea(2017-2067). Korean Information Statistical System. http://kostat.go.kr/
  28. 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.
  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
  30. US Census Bureau. (2022). Quick Facts Bromme County, New York. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/broomecountynewyork/PST045221
  31. D. George & P. Mallery. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  32. K. A. Bollen. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley & Sons. DOI : 10.1002/9781118619179
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. J. Kim. (2021). Trend of Senior Care Digital Technology with Aging Population, Weekly ICT Trends, Vol. 2010, 13-22. https://www.itfind.or.kr/