Background: Technology plays a major role in enhancing quality of life and everyday competence in old age. Mechanic and pragmatic cognitive functions are known to serve as resources when using technology in everyday life. Not much is known about the differential role of mechanic and pragmatic cognitive functions when moderating reduced technology ownership in old age. Objective: In this research, we explored whether perceptual speed or verbal fluency is more important for buffering age differences in technology ownership. We investigate possible moderation effects of cognitive functions relative to demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and household composition variables. Methods: We report findings based on a nationally representative German sample of 3,357 younger and older adults between 18 and 94 years of age (mean = 51.2, SD = 17.3). Interaction and relative importance analyses were conducted to examine the relative importance of perceptual speed and verbal fluency for the moderation of age differences in technology ownership across adulthood. Results: Findings suggest that perceptual speed (B = 0.0008, t = 6.23, p < 0.001) and verbal fluency (B = 0.0003, t = 2.70, p < 0.01) buffered age differences in technology ownership. The moderating role of perceptual speed remained robust (B = 0.0007, t = 5.48, p < 0.001) when including interactions of age with demographic, socioeconomic, and household composition variables; however, the interaction between age and verbal fluency was no longer significant (B = 0.0002, t = 1.82, p = 0.069). Relative importance analysis indicates that perceptual speed was the most important moderator of age differences (DW = 0.0121), whereas verbal fluency was less important for moderating the relation between age and technology ownership (DW = 0.0039). Conclusions: Mechanic and pragmatic cognitive functions may serve differently as moderators of the relation between age and technology ownership. Our findings suggest that perceptual speed was more important for buffering age differences in technology ownership than verbal fluency. Such findings underscore the relevance of information processing for the ownership of technological devices in late life.

Keywords:
Interactions, Dominance analysis, Aging and technology, Gerontechnology, Technology use, Cognition
1.
Schulz R, Wahl H, Matthews JT, De Vito Dabbs A, Beach SR, Czaja SJ: Advancing the aging and technology agenda in gerontology. Gerontologist DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnu071.
2.
Bouma H: Foundations and goals of gerontechnology. Gerontechnology 2012;11:1-4.
3.
Williger B, Lang FR: Hearing aid use in everyday life: managing contextual variability. Gerontology 2015;61:158-165.
4.
Leist AK: Social media use of older adults: a mini-review. Gerontology 2013;59:378-384.
5.
Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, et al: Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging 2006;21:333-352.
6.
Gell NM, Rosenberg DE, Demiris G, LaCroix AZ, Patel KV: Patterns of technology use among older adults with and without disabilities. Gerontologist 2015;55:412-421.
7.
van der Wardt V, Bandelow S, Hogervorst E: The relationship between cognitive abilities, well-being and use of new technologies in older people. Gerontechnology 2013;10:187-207.
8.
Elliot AJ, Mooney CJ, Douthit KZ, Lynch MF: Predictors of older adults' technology use and its relationship to depressive symptoms and well-being. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2014;69:667-677.
9.
Baltes PB, Lindenberger U, Staudinger UM: Life span theory in developmental psychology; in Damon W, Lerner RM (eds): Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol 1. Theoretical Models of Human Development, ed 6. New York, Wiley, 2006, pp 569-664.
10.
Lawton MP: Behavior relevant ecological factors; in Schaie KW, Schooder C (eds): Social Structure and Aging. Hillsdale, Erlbaum, 1989, pp 57-77.
11.
Rogers WA, Fisk AD: Toward a psychological science of advanced technology design for older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2010;65:645-653.
12.
Wahl H, Mollenkopf H: Impact of everyday technology in the home environment of older adults quality of life; in Charness N, Schaie KW (eds): Impact of Technology on Successful Aging. New York, Springer, 2003, pp 215-241.
13.
Czaja SJ, Sharit J, Lee CC, Nair SN, Hernández MA, Arana N, et al: Factors influencing use of an e-health website in a community sample of older adults. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013;20:277-284.
14.
Taha J, Czaja SJ, Sharit J, Morrow DG: Factors affecting usage of a personal health record (PHR) to manage health. Psychol Aging 2013;28:1124-1139.
15.
Fazeli PL, Ross LA, Vance DE, Ball K: The relationship between computer experience and computerized cognitive test performance among older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2013;68:337-346.
16.
Tun PA, Lachman ME: The association between computer use and cognition across adulthood: use it so you won't lose it? Psychol Aging 2010;25:560-568.
17.
Lindenberger U, Lövdén M, Schellenbach M, Li S, Krüger A: Psychological principles of successful aging technologies: a mini-review. Gerontology 2008;54:59-68.
18.
Lindenberger U, Reischies FM: Limits and potentials of intellectual functioning in old age; in Baltes PB, Mayer KU (eds): The Berlin Aging Study: Aging from 70 to 100. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp 329-359.
19.
Schaie KW: Intellectual Development in Adulthood: The Seattle Longitudinal Study. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
20.
Lindenberger U, Baltes PB: Intellectual functioning in old and very old age: cross-sectional results from the Berlin Aging Study. Psychol Aging 1997;12:410-432.
21.
Salthouse TA: The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychol Rev 1996;103:403-428.
22.
Lindenberger U, Mayr U, Kliegl R: Speed and intelligence in old age. Psychol Aging 1993;8:207-220.
23.
Selwyn N, Gorard S, Furlong J, Madden L: Older adults' use of information and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing Soc 2003;23:561-582.
24.
Fozard JL, Wahl H: Age and cohort effects in gerontechnology: a reconsideration. Gerontechnology 2012;11:10-21.
25.
Baltes PB, Staudinger UM, Lindenberger U: Lifespan psychology: theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annu Rev Psychol 1999;50:471-507.
26.
Wagner GG, Frick JR, Schupp J: The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) - scope, evolution and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrb 2007;127:139-169.
27.
Lang FR, Weiss D, Stocker A, von Rosenbladt B: Assessing cognitive capacities in computer-assisted survey research: two ultra-short tests of intellectual ability in the German Socio-Ecomomic Panel (SOEP). Schmollers Jahrb 2007;127:183-192.
28.
LeBreton JM, Tonidandel S, Krasikova DV: Residualized relative importance analysis: a technique for the comprehensive decomposition of variance in higher order regression models. Organ Res Methods 2013;16:449-473.
29.
Tonidandel S, LeBreton JM: Relative importance analysis: a useful supplement to regression analysis. J Bus Psychol 2011;26:1-9.
30.
StataCorp: STATA Statistical Software, release 13. StataCorp LP, 2013.
31.
Luchman JN: DOMIN: Stata module to conduct dominance analysis. 2013.
32.
Baltes MM, Wilms H, Borchelt M: Everyday competence in old age and very old age: theoretical considerations and empirical findings; in Baltes PB, Mayer KU (eds): The Berlin Aging Study: Aging from 70 to 100. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp 384-402.
33.
Baltes PB, Kliegl R: Further testing of limits of cognitive plasticity: negative age differences in a mnemonic skill are robust. Dev Psychol 1992;28:121-125.
34.
Fisk AD, Rogers WA, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Sharit J: Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches, ed 2. Human Factors and Aging Series. Boca Raton, CRC Press, 2009.
35.
Geissel B: Germany: successful quota rules in a gendered society; in Dahlerup D, Leijenaar M (eds): Breaking Male Dominance in Old Democracies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp 197-218.
36.
Kamin ST, Lang FR: The Subjective Technology Adaptivity Inventory (STAI): a motivational measure of technology usage in old age. Gerontechnology 2013;12:16-25.
37.
Salthouse T: Consequences of age-related cognitive declines. Annu Rev Psychol 2012;63:201-226.
38.
McGrew KS: The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: past, present, and future; in Flanagan DP, Harrison PL (eds): Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. New York, Guilford Press, 2005, pp 136-181.
39.
Broady T, Chan A, Caputi P: Comparison of older and younger adults' attitudes towards and abilities with computers: implications for training and learning. Br J Educ Technol 2010;41:473-485.
40.
Lawton MP: Future society and technology; in Graafmans J, Taipale V, Charness N (eds): Gerontechnology: A Sustainable Investment in the Future. Amsterdam, IOS Press, 1998, pp 12-22.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.