Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 129 references

Towards Designing for (Dis)Trust in Technologies for Aging

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that older adults' distrust in technology is a three-part phenomenon: it emerges when the storage and movement of information become illegible, it shifts over time through experience and breakdowns, and it acts as…

desk verdict An honest, well-scoped thematic review whose three-theme synthesis is useful; the main caveat is search-strategy blind spots, but the paper's own limitations mostly cover them. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02784 v1 pith:X5T5JPPU submitted 2026-08-03 cs.HC

Muhid Hassan Risvy , Dimitri Theodoratos , Alisha Pradhan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords olderadultsdistrusttrusttechnologyacceptanceagingmateriallegibilityboundaryworkhuman-computerinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Drawing on 59 empirical studies that report first-hand accounts from older adults, this paper tries to establish what older adults' distrust in technology actually is, rather than treating it as a barrier to remove. It claims distrust is constituted in three ways: it emerges when the material arrangements of a digital system become illegible, so people cannot tell where information is stored or how it moves; it is built and reshaped over time through prior experience, breakdowns, and changing circumstances; and it acts as boundary work that limits technology's reach into autonomy, relationships, and everyday life. If this is right, designing for trust means making the movement and persistence of information perceptible, supporting trust across phases of use, and respecting the boundaries older adults draw, rather than relying on one-time transparency fixes. The contribution is a reframing of distrust as a meaningful, dynamic stance that deserves design attention on its own terms.

What carries the argument

The central analytic machinery is a three-theme reading of (dis)trust: material legibility, meaning whether users can perceive where information is stored, how it flows, and what actions will do; temporal constitution, meaning trust is built and reshaped over time with an asymmetry between positive continuity and negative spillover; and boundary work, meaning distrust is a way of setting limits on technology's reach. These themes are generated through reflexive thematic analysis of participant quotes and author-reported accounts from the reviewed studies. They carry the argument by linking the 59 studies' findings to design levers: perceptible data movement, phase-sensitive trust support, and respect for negotiable trust boundaries.

What would settle it

A field experiment comparing older adults' use and trust of a smart-home device with a continuously visible data-flow indicator against an identical device without the indicator would test the material-legibility claim; if trust and reliance are the same across conditions, the central mechanism fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Through a reflexive thematic analysis of empirical findings from 59 studies published between 2008 and 2025, the paper identifies three related dynamics in older adults' accounts of (dis)trust. First, distrust emerges when the material arrangements of information become illegible: participants cannot determine where their data is stored, cannot trace its movement beyond the device or home, or cannot anticipate the outcome of an action such as clicking a link or scanning a QR code. Second, trust is temporally constituted and fluid: positive experience builds trust mainly within a familiar brand or technology type, while negative experience is carried across contexts, and trust can strengthen, weaken, or be repaired through sustained use, breakdown, and changing life circumstances. Third, distrust operates as boundary work through which older adults limit technology's reach into their autonomy, relationships, values, and everyday lives. The paper also argues that how distrust is produced relates to how it shows up in use: illegibility tends to produce selective reliance, while boundary-work distrust tends to produce non-use, and both patterns shift over time.

Load-bearing premise

The review's picture of older adults' distrust rests on the assumption that searching two databases for the words trust, distrust, and skeptic captured the full range of relevant studies, so work framed around refusal, privacy, or non-Western contexts could change the themes if it was missed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Trust-support mechanisms should be matched to the phase of use: initial introduction, early experimentation, routine use, after failure, and after broader harms call for different forms of support.
  • Trust-building cannot focus on the current system alone because older users arrive with trust histories, including distrust carried from earlier devices or workplace technologies.
  • Design should make the movement and persistence of information perceptible through physical indicators, dashboards, or hardware shutters, rather than relying only on text-based explanations.
  • Distrust produced by opaque material practices tends to result in selective use, whereas distrust as boundary work tends to result in non-use, so distrust does not reliably predict abandonment.
  • Older adults' negotiable trust boundaries, such as keeping a physical backup alongside a digital reminder, should be treated as design material rather than obstacles to override.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's asymmetry claim implies that trust support may need to operate across a person's whole technology history rather than within a single product; this is a testable extension beyond the paper.
  • If material legibility is the active mechanism, ambient and physical displays of data flow could be evaluated as a general trust-support pattern for older adults, not only for smart-home privacy.
  • Treating distrust as boundary work suggests that some non-use is a legitimate design outcome; future work could map which system aspects are acceptable, negotiable, or non-negotiable for specific technologies and care networks.
  • The temporal fluidity finding points to longitudinal field studies that track the same older adults' trust before adoption, after breakdown, and after repair to test whether phase-sensitive design directions hold over months or years.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The authors conduct a focused, interpretivist review of 59 empirical studies in which older adults discussed trust, distrust, or skepticism toward technology. From a reflexive thematic analysis of these papers, they identify three dynamics through which (dis)trust is constituted: (1) distrust emerging when the material arrangements of information systems become illegible (e.g., when older adults cannot tell where data is stored, how it travels, or what actions it triggers); (2) trust and distrust as temporally constituted and fluid, built through prior experience, breakdowns, and shifts over time; and (3) distrust as boundary work through which older adults limit technology's reach into their autonomy, relationships, and everyday life. They translate these into design directions: supporting trust across different phases of use, making information movement and persistence perceptible, and respecting negotiable trust boundaries. The paper transparently describes its search strategy, inclusion criteria, codebook, theme-to-code mapping, and limitations, and explicitly positions itself as an interpretive account rather than a systematic review.

Significance. If accepted as an interpretive synthesis, the paper makes a useful contribution to HCI and aging research by moving beyond generic privacy, security, and usability explanations of older adults' distrust. It gives designers a more articulated vocabulary: material legibility, temporal fluidity, and boundary work. The methodological transparency is a real strength: Figure 1 shows the screening flow, Table 2 provides a full codebook with per-code paper counts, Table 3 connects codes to themes, and Table 4 includes sample analytic memos with source excerpts. The authors also deserve credit for engaging with the interpretivist tradition seriously, including positionality and explicit non-generalizability statements, and for treating participant distrust as a meaningful stance rather than a deficit to be eliminated. The design directions, while preliminary, are concrete and connected to the findings.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5] The abstract's claim that (dis)trust 'is constituted in three key ways' and Section 5's phrasing 'we identify three distinct but related dynamics' state the taxonomy without the corpus-bounded qualification that Section 4 explicitly acknowledges (e.g., 'the corpus we analyzed may not be exhaustive,' 'search results on platforms like Google Scholar may not be reproducible'). Because the search vocabulary is limited to trust, distrust, and skeptic, studies framed through refusal, non-use, suspicion, or privacy may be underrepresented, which is directly relevant to Theme 3 (boundary work) and Theme 1 (information flow illegibility). This is a load-bearing point for the scope of the contribution. I recommend either (a) conducting a supplemental search with adjacent constructs such as refusal, non-use, reluctance, and suspicion to test whether additional themes emerge or whether the existing three saturate, or (b) explicitly qualifying the abstract and Section 5 statements as 'in our corpus, we identify three dynamics' and referencing the Section 4 limitations at the point of the claim. The latter is the minimum necessary; the former would strengthen the empirical basis for the taxonomy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] 'Inline with our goal' should read 'In line with our goal.'
  2. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'recorded outside' in the voice-assistant example (paragraph on smart home devices) could be misread as 'outdoors'; consider 'recorded off-device' or 'recorded and transmitted beyond the home' for clarity.
  3. [Appendix Table 1] Table 1's column headers 'Papers' and 'Domain' are clear, but within Panel A, 'Papers' actually counts studies; consider renaming to 'Studies' for consistency with Section 2's '59 empirical studies' phrasing.
  4. [Section 3.3; Appendix Table 3] The mapping of 'Fixed beliefs and instinctual distrust' to Theme 3 (Distrust as Boundary Setting) is not self-explanatory; a sentence in Section 3.3 explaining that fixed beliefs can function as boundary work (e.g., 'the old ways we know are fine') would tighten the theme-code connection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the review's three themes are interpretive syntheses of an external 59-paper corpus, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation that reduces by construction to its own inputs. The corpus was found by searching trust, distrust, and skeptic terms, but the inclusion criteria do not force the specific tripartite structure (material illegibility, temporal constitution, boundary work); those themes are the product of reflexive thematic analysis of participants' quotes and author-reported findings across 59 studies. The materiality lens is openly imported from Dourish [22], an external source, and applied to interpret the quotes rather than presented as an emergent result that defines the lens. The authors' own prior papers appear in the corpus ([70], [71], [89]), but each theme is also supported by multiple independent studies (e.g., [52] and [75] for material illegibility; [49] and [100] for temporality; [21], [57], and [90] for boundary work), so the self-citations are not load-bearing and no self-citation chain forces a conclusion. The limitations section explicitly states that the corpus 'may not be exhaustive,' that Google Scholar results 'may not be reproducible,' and that findings are 'not intended to produce generalizable results,' which addresses representativeness concerns without introducing circularity. Concerns about search-term or ranking bias are validity limitations, not circular dependencies.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim is a qualitative interpretation; it carries no fitted parameters or invented entities. It relies on the faithfulness of the reviewed studies, the completeness of the keyword-based search, and the applicability of the Dourish materiality lens. The authors explicitly acknowledge the search and generalizability limitations.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 59 reviewed studies provide faithful first-hand accounts of older adults' trust and distrust.
    The analysis codes participants' quotes and author-reported accounts as empirical evidence; if the published accounts are unrepresentative or misreported, the themes may not hold. Stated in Section 2 and Limitations.
  • domain assumption The search strategy (ACM DL and Google Scholar with trust/distrust/skeptic keywords) captures the relevant corpus.
    The authors scoped out adjacent terms like refusal to avoid shifting focus, which may exclude relevant work; acknowledged in Section 2 and Section 4.
  • domain assumption Dourish's materiality framework is an appropriate lens for interpreting trust in technology.
    Used in Section 3.1 to reframe privacy and security concerns as material illegibility; the paper does not critically compare alternative theoretical lenses.
  • domain assumption Reflexive thematic analysis is an appropriate method for producing an interpretive account.
    The paper follows Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis and adopts an interpretivist epistemological stance; this is a methodological choice rather than a mathematical axiom.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Designing for (Dis)Trust in Technologies for Aging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5T5JPPU

@misc{pith2026260802784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Designing for (Dis)Trust in Technologies for Aging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5T5JPPU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02784}
}
read the original abstract

Across cohorts of older adults and generations of technology, (dis)trust has continued to shape the acceptance of technologies for aging. Yet, we still know little about if or how to design for older adults' distrust in technology. Towards this, we reviewed empirical studies in which older adults discussed trust and distrust in relation to technology. Our analysis shows that (dis)trust is constituted in three key ways: emerges when material arrangements of digital systems become illegible, such as when older adults cannot determine where information is stored or trace its movement; is temporally constituted and fluid, building and shifting through prior experience and breakdowns, and at times distrust can operate as boundary work through which individuals limit technology's reach into their autonomy, relationships, and everyday lives. Our work yields design directions for supporting trust across different phases of technology use and by designing systems that make the movement and persistence of information more perceptible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02784 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the paper selection and analysis process, from 970 unique records to the final corpus of 59 empirical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Imtiaz Ahmad, Rosta Farzan, Apu Kapadia, and Adam J. Lee. 2020. Tangible Privacy: Towards User-Centric Sensor Designs for Bystander Privacy.Proceed- ings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 1–28. doi:10.1145/3415187

    work page doi:10.1145/3415187 2020

  2. [2]

    Mahla Alizadeh, Minha Lee, Dave Randall, Peter Tolmie, Dominik Pins, and Gunnar Stevens. 2026. Finding a Home for Voice Assistants: A Domestication Calculus Across Three Years and Thirty Households. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19. doi:10...

    doi:10.1145/3772318 2026

  3. [3]

    Aloha Hufana Ambe, Margot Brereton, Alessandro Soro, Min Zhen Chai, Laurie Buys, and Paul Roe. 2019. Older People Inventing Their Personal Internet of Things with the IoT Un-Kit Experience. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. doi:10.1145/329...

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Ashratuz Zavin Asha and Ehud Sharlin. 2023. Designing Inclusive Interaction with Autonomous Vehicles for Older Passengers. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2138–2154. doi:10.1145/3563657.3596045

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    What a Stupid Way to Do Business

    Kalya Aung, Ewan Soubutts, and Aneesha Singh. 2024. "What a Stupid Way to Do Business": Towards an Understanding of Older Adults’ Perceptions of Deceptive Patterns and Ways to Develop Resistance.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8 (Oct. 2024), 1–31. doi:10.1145/3677113

    work page doi:10.1145/3677113 2024

  6. [6]

    We Have to Be Advocates for Ourselves

    Cynthia M Baseman, Seka M Dembure, and Rosa I Arriaga. 2025. "We Have to Be Advocates for Ourselves": A Social-Ecological Approach to Mobile Health Design with Black Older Adults Living with Diabetes. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–17. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713617

    arXiv 2025

  7. [8]

    Rafik Belloum, Amel Yaddaden, Maxime Lussier, Nathalie Bier, and Charles Consel. 2021. Caregiver Development of Activity-Supporting Services for Smart Homes.Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments13, 6 (Nov. 2021), 453–471. doi:10.3233/AIS-210616

    work page doi:10.3233/ais-210616 2021

  8. [9]

    De Boer, and Marieke Slootman

    Marije Blok, Erik Van Ingen, Alice H. De Boer, and Marieke Slootman. 2020. The Use of Information and Communication Technologies by Older People with Cognitive Impairments: From Barriers to Benefits.Computers in Human Behavior104 (March 2020), 106173. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.106173

    arXiv 2020

Show all 129 references
  1. [10]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis.Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health11, 4 (Aug. 2019), 589–597. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

    2019

  2. [11]

    Brewer, Christina Harrington, and Courtney Heldreth

    Robin N. Brewer, Christina Harrington, and Courtney Heldreth. 2023. En- visioning Equitable Speech Technologies for Black Older Adults. InProceed- ings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    2023

  3. [12]

    Hodgson, Katherine Wai Lam, Sera Yoo, and Hae-Ra Han

    Maan Isabella Cajita, Nancy A. Hodgson, Katherine Wai Lam, Sera Yoo, and Hae-Ra Han. 2018. Facilitators of and Barriers to mHealth Adoption in Older Adults with Heart Failure.Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN36, 8 (Aug. 2018), 376–382. doi:10.1097/CIN.0000000000000442

    2018 doi

  4. [13]

    I Hope I Never Need One

    Clara Caldeira, Novia Nurain, and Kay Connelly. 2022. “I Hope I Never Need One”: Unpacking Stigma in Aging in Place Technology. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–1...

    2022 doi

  5. [14]

    : Older Adults’ Perspectives on Personal Smart Home Data for Self-Management

    Clara Caldeira, Novia Nurain, Anna A. Heintzman, Haley Molchan, Kelly Caine, George Demiris, Katie A. Siek, Blaine Reeder, and Kay Connelly. 2023. How Do I Compare to the Other People?": Older Adults’ Perspectives on Personal Smart Home Data for Self-Management".Proc. ACM Hum....

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    Chen Chen, Janet G Johnson, Kemeberly Charles, Alice Lee, Ella T Lifset, Michael Hogarth, Alison A Moore, Emilia Farcas, and Nadir Weibel. 2021. Understanding Barriers and Design Opportunities to Improve Healthcare and QOL for Older Adults through Voice Assistants. InProceedin...

    2021

  7. [16]

    Terence W. H. Chong, Eleanor Curran, Jenny Southam, Christina Bryant, Kay L Cox, Kathryn A. Ellis, Kaarin J. Anstey, Anita Goh, and Nicola T Lautenschlager

  8. [17]

    2019.Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory

    Patricia Hill Collins. 2019.Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. Duke University Press

    2019

  9. [18]

    Coughlin, L

    J. Coughlin, L. A. D’Ambrosio, B. Reimer, and M. R. Pratt. 2007. Older Adult Perceptions of Smart Home Technologies: Implications for Research, Policy & Market Innovations in Healthcare.Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IE...

    2007

  10. [19]

    Andrea Cuadra, Jessica Bethune, Rony Krell, Alexa Lempel, Katrin Hänsel, Armin Shahrokni, Deborah Estrin, and Nicola Dell. 2023. Designing Voice-First Ambient Interfaces to Support Aging in Place. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23)...

    2023

  11. [20]

    Shital Desai, Colleen McGrath, Heather McNeil, Heidi Sveistrup, Josephine McMurray, and Arlene Astell. 2022. Experiential Value of Technologies: A Qualitative Study with Older Adults.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health19, 4 (Feb. 2022), 2235. doi:...

    2022 doi

  12. [21]

    Ceci Diehl, Rita Tavares, Taiane Abreu, Ana Almeida, Telmo Silva, Gonçalo Santinha, Nelson Rocha, Katja Seidel, Mac MacLachlan, Anabela Silva, and Oscar Ribeiro. 2022. Perceptions on Extending the Use of Technology after the COVID- 19 Pandemic Resolves: A Qualitative Study wit...

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    2017.The Stuff of Bits: An Essay on the Materialities of Information

    Paul Dourish. 2017.The Stuff of Bits: An Essay on the Materialities of Information. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. doi:10.7551/mitpress/10999.001.0001

    2017 doi

  14. [23]

    Jeannette Durick, Toni Robertson, Margot Brereton, Frank Vetere, and Bjorn Nansen. 2013. Dispelling Ageing Myths in Technology Design. InProceedings of the 25th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference: Augmentation, Application, Innovation, Collaboration (OzCHI ’13). ...

    2013

  15. [24]

    Vera Liao, Michael Muller, Mark O

    Upol Ehsan, Q. Vera Liao, Michael Muller, Mark O. Riedl, and Justin D. Weisz

  16. [25]

    Joanna Ejdys. 2018. Trust in Technology in Case of Humanoids Used for the Care for the Senior Persons.Multidisciplinary Aspects of Production Engineering 1 (Sept. 2018), 875–881. doi:10.2478/mape-2018-0110

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    Steriani Elavsky, Lenka Knapova, Kamil Janiš, Richard Cimler, Jitka Kuhnova, and Tomas Cernicky. 2024. Multiple Perspectives on the Adoption of SMART Technologies for Improving Care of Older People: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of Medical Internet Research26 (Feb. 2024), e45492...

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    Pardis Emami-Naeini, Yuvraj Agarwal, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Hanan Hibshi

  19. [28]

    Sheena Erete, Aarti Israni, and Tawanna Dillahunt. 2018. An Intersectional Approach to Designing in the Margins.interactions25, 3 (April 2018), 66–69. doi:10.1145/3194349

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    Koen Faber and Dea van Lierop. 2020. How Will Older Adults Use Automated Vehicles? Assessing the Role of AVs in Overcoming Perceived Mobility Barriers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice133 (March 2020), 353–363. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2020.01.022

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    Lowry, and Sube Banerjee

    Nicolas Farina, Gina Sherlock, Serena Thomas, Ruth G. Lowry, and Sube Banerjee. 2019. Acceptability and Feasibility of Wearing Activity Monitors in Community-Dwelling Older Adults with Dementia.International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry34, 4 (April 2019), 617–624. doi:10.10...

    2019 doi

  22. [32]

    Alisa Frik, Julia Bernd, and Serge Egelman. 2023. A Model of Contextual Factors Affecting Older Adults’ Information-Sharing Decisions in the U.S.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.30, 1 (April 2023), 12:1–12:48. doi:10.1145/3557888

    2023 doi

  23. [33]

    Parvin Ghadamighalandari, Sima Amirkhani, Konstantin Kosta Aal, Claudia Mueller, and Volker Wulf. 2025. Between Connection and Control: Technology Appropriation by Older Adults in Iran. InProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Communities & Technologies (C&T ’...

    2025

  24. [34]

    Abir Ghorayeb, Rob Comber, and Rachael Gooberman-Hill. 2021. Older Adults’ Perspectives of Smart Home Technology: Are We Developing the Technology That Older People Want?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies147 (March 2021), 102571. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102571

    2021

  25. [35]

    Ioanna Giorgi, Sachini Rajapakse, Marco Palomino, and Giovanni L. Masala

  26. [36]

    Turner, and Carolina Fuentes

    Aisha Gul, Liam D. Turner, and Carolina Fuentes. 2024. An Exploratory Analysis of Trust in Socially Assistive Robot Interactions with Unpaid Car- ers of Older Adults. In2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN). 1630–1637. doi...

    2024

  27. [37]

    Wang, Lydia Choong, Ahmad Alhilal, Peng Yuan Zhou, Pan Hui, and Lennart E

    Reza Hadi Mogavi, Juhyung Son, Simin Yang, Derrick M. Wang, Lydia Choong, Ahmad Alhilal, Peng Yuan Zhou, Pan Hui, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2024. The Jade Gateway to Exergaming: How Socio-Cultural Factors Shape Exergaming Among East Asian Older Adults.Proceedings of the ACM on Hum...

    2024 doi

  28. [38]

    Riter, and Saleh Kalantari

    Yuexing Hao, Zeyu Liu, Robert N. Riter, and Saleh Kalantari. 2024. Advancing Patient-Centered Shared Decision-Making with AI Systems for Older Adult Cancer Patients. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Compu...

    2024

  29. [39]

    Sandra G. Harding. 2004.The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. Psychology Press

    2004

  30. [40]

    Harrington, Katya Borgos-Rodriguez, and Anne Marie Piper

    Christina N. Harrington, Katya Borgos-Rodriguez, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Engaging Low-Income African American Older Adults in Health Discussions through Community-based Design Workshops. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’1...

    2019

  31. [41]

    Harrington and Lisa Egede

    Christina N. Harrington and Lisa Egede. 2023. Trust, Comfort and Relatability: Understanding Black Older Adults’ Perceptions of Chatbot Design for Health Information Seeking. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association ...

    2023

  32. [42]

    2010.The Publish or Perish Book

    Anne-Wil Harzing. 2010.The Publish or Perish Book. Tarma Software Research Pty Limited, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved April 16, 2026 from http://www. harzing.info/download/popbook12.pdf

    2010

  33. [43]

    Danny Yuxing Huang, Noah Apthorpe, Frank Li, Gunes Acar, and Nick Feamster

  34. [45]

    Kahr, Gerrit Rooks, Chris Snijders, and Martijn C

    Patricia K. Kahr, Gerrit Rooks, Chris Snijders, and Martijn C. Willemsen. 2024. The Trust Recovery Journey. The Effect of Timing of Errors on the Willingness to Follow AI Advice.. InProceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, Greenvill...

    2024

  35. [46]

    Kim, Arissa J

    Callie Y. Kim, Arissa J. Sato, Nathan Thomas White, Hui-Ru Ho, Christine P. Lee, Yuna Hwang, and Bilge Mutlu. 2025. Bridging Generations Using AI-Supported Co-Creative Activities. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Associa...

    2025

  36. [47]

    Gajos, Michael Muller, and Barbara J

    Sunyoung Kim, Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Michael Muller, and Barbara J. Grosz. 2016. Acceptance of Mobile Technology by Older Adults: A Preliminary Study. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. ACM, Florence...

    2016

  37. [48]

    doi:10.1145/3397333

    IoT Inspector: Crowdsourcing Labeled Network Traffic from Smart Home Devices at Scale.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies4, 2 (June 2020), 1–21. doi:10.1145/3397333

    2020 doi

  38. [49]

    Bran Knowles and Vicki L. Hanson. 2018. Older Adults’ Deployment of ‘Distrust’. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.25, 4 (Aug. 2018), 21:1–21:25. doi:10.1145/ 3196490

    2018

  39. [50]

    Amanda Lazar, Ben Jelen, Alisha Pradhan, and Katie A. Siek. 2021. Adopting Diffractive Reading to Advance HCI Research: A Case Study on Technology for Aging.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)28, 5 (Aug. 2021), 32:1–32:29. doi:10.1145/3462326

    2021 doi

  40. [51]

    Thompson, Anne Marie Piper, and George Demiris

    Amanda Lazar, Hilaire J. Thompson, Anne Marie Piper, and George Demiris

  41. [52]

    Vilma Lehtinen. 2023. Older Adults Experiencing and Balancing the Ambiva- lences of Digitalisation in Everyday Life: Media Repertoires as Resources in Domesticating Emerging Technologies.Nordicom Review44, 1 (Jan. 2023), 123–141. doi:10.2478/nor-2023-0007

    2023 doi

  42. [53]

    Help Me Help the AI

    Sunnie S. Y. Kim, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Olga Russakovsky, Ruth Fong, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2023. "Help Me Help the AI": Understanding How Explainability Can Support Human-AI Interaction. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1...

    2023 arXiv

  43. [54]

    Eva Lindqvist, Louise Nygård, and Lena Borell. 2013. Significant Junctures on the Way towards Becoming a User of Assistive Technology in Alzheimer’s Disease.Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy20, 5 (Sept. 2013), 386–

    2013

  44. [55]

    Niharika Mathur, Tamara Zubatiy, Agata Rozga, Jodi Forlizzi, and Elizabeth Mynatt. 2026. Sometimes You Need Facts, and Sometimes a Hug: Understand- ing Older Adults’ Preferences for Explanations in LLM-Based Conversational AI Systems. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference o...

    2026

  45. [56]

    Harrison Mcknight, Michelle Carter, Jason Bennett Thatcher, and Paul F

    D. Harrison Mcknight, Michelle Carter, Jason Bennett Thatcher, and Paul F. Clay

  46. [57]

    Athena McLean. 2011. Ethical Frontiers of ICT and Older Users: Cultural, Pragmatic and Ethical Issues.Ethics and Information Technology13, 4 (Dec. 2011), 313–326. doi:10.1007/s10676-011-9276-4

    2011 doi

  47. [58]

    2021.An Exploratory Study of Social Support Systems to Help Older Adults in Managing Mobile Safety

    Tamir Mendel, Debin Gao, David Lo, and Eran Toch. 2021.An Exploratory Study of Social Support Systems to Help Older Adults in Managing Mobile Safety. 13 pages. doi:10.1145/3447526.3472047

    2021

  48. [60]

    Marjan Momeni, Nadjla Hariri, Monir Nobahar, and Fatemeh Noshinfard. 2018. Barriers and Challenges Experienced by Seniors in Using Online Social Net- works: A Phenomenological Study.Middle East Journal of Rehabilitation and HealthIn Press (Jan. 2018). doi:10.5812/mejrh.65310

    2018 doi

  49. [61]

    Benjamin Morrison, Lynne Coventry, and Pam Briggs. 2021. How Do Older Adults Feel about Engaging with Cyber-Security?Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies3, 5 (2021), 1033–1049. doi:10.1002/hbe2.291

    2021 doi

  50. [62]

    Imani Munyaka, Eszter Hargittai, and Elissa Redmiles. 2022. The Misinformation Paradox: Older Adults Are Cynical about News Media, but Engage with It Anyway.Journal of Online Trust and Safety1, 4 (Sept. 2022). doi:10.54501/jots. v1i4.62

    2022 doi

  51. [63]

    Louis Neven. 2010. ‘But Obviously Not for Me’: Robots, Laboratories and the Defiant Identity of Elder Test Users.Sociology of Health & Illness32, 2 (2010), 335–347. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01218.x

    2010

  52. [64]

    James Nicholson, Ben Morrison, Matt Dixon, Jack Holt, Lynne Coventry, and Jill McGlasson. 2021. Training and Embedding Cybersecurity Guardians in Older Communities.. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–15. doi:...

    2021

  53. [65]

    Veronica Milos Nymberg, Beata Borgström Bolmsjö, Moa Wolff, Susanna Calling, Sofia Gerward, and Magnus Sandberg. 2019. ’Having to Learn This so Late in Our Lives. . . ’ Swedish Elderly Patients’ Beliefs, Experiences, Attitudes and Expectations of e-Health in Primary Health Car...

    2019

  54. [66]

    Lee, Mark Billinghurst, Siobhan Banks, and Laura Tolson

    Michelle Leanne Oppert, Melissa Ngo, Gun A. Lee, Mark Billinghurst, Siobhan Banks, and Laura Tolson. 2023. Older Adults’ Experiences of Social Isolation and Loneliness: Can Virtual Touring Increase Social Connectedness? A Pilot Study.Geriatric Nursing53 (2023), 270–279. doi:10...

    2023 doi

  55. [67]

    Fanbo Meng, Xitong Guo, Zeyu Peng, Qiang Ye, and Kee Hung Lai. 2021. Trust and Elderly Users’ Continuance Intention Regarding Mobile Health Services: The Contingent Role of Health and Technology Anxieties.Information Technology and People(2021). doi:10.1108/ITP-11-2019-0602

    2021 doi

  56. [68]

    Swaroop Panda, Farkhandah Aziz Komal, Effie Lai-Chong Law, Syed Murad, Zhongtian Sun, Ben Summerill, Delali Konu, and Thuy-Vy Nguyen. 2025. Exploring User Acceptance of a Fintech Chatbot Powered by LLMs among Older Adults. In38th International BCS Human-Computer Interaction Co...

    2025 doi

  57. [69]

    Clarke, Lars Erik Holmquist, and John Vines

    Belén Barros Pena, Rachel E. Clarke, Lars Erik Holmquist, and John Vines

  58. [71]

    Alisha Pradhan, Amanda Lazar, and Leah Findlater. 2020. Use of Intelligent Voice Assistants by Older Adults with Low Technology Use.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction27, 4 (Aug. 2020), 1–27. doi:10.1145/3373759

    2020 doi

  59. [72]

    Jake Pywell, Santosh Vijaykumar, Alyson Dodd, and Lynne Coventry. 2020. Bar- riers to Older Adults’ Uptake of Mobile-Based Mental Health Interventions.DIG- ITAL HEALTH6 (Jan. 2020), 2055207620905422. doi:10.1177/2055207620905422

    2020 doi

  60. [73]

    Md Mahmudur Rahman, Shuchisnigdha Deb, Lesley Strawderman, Reuben Burch, and Brian Smith. 2019. How the Older Population Perceives Self-Driving Vehicles.Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour65 (Aug. 2019), 242–257. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2019.08.002

    2019 doi

  61. [74]

    Hirak Ray, Ravi Kuber, and Adam J. Aviv. 2022. Investigating Older Adults’ Adoption and Usage of Online Conferencing Tools during COVID-19. InPro- ceedings of the 19th International Web for All Conference. ACM, Lyon France, 1–11. doi:10.1145/3493612.3520447

    2022

  62. [75]

    Debajyoti Pal, Suree Funilkul, Nipon Charoenkitkarn, and Prasert Kanthamanon

  63. [76]

    Vaisutis, Gary Marsden, and Frank Vetere

    Yvonne Rogers, Jeni Paay, Margot Brereton, Kate L. Vaisutis, Gary Marsden, and Frank Vetere. 2014. Never Too Old: Engaging Retired People Inventing the Future with MaKey MaKey. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). Association ...

    2014

  64. [78]

    Chowdhury, and Bernard J

    Joni Salminen, Kathleen Guan, Soon-Gyo Jung, Shammur A. Chowdhury, and Bernard J. Jansen. 2020. A Literature Review of Quantitative Persona Creation. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery,...

    2020

  65. [79]

    InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21)

    Circumspect Users: Older Adults’ as Critical Adopters and Resistors of Technology. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). ACM Association for Computing Machinery, 84. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445128

    2021

  66. [80]

    Hyunjin Seo, Joseph Erba, Mugur Geana, and Crystal Lumpkins. 2017. Calling Doctor Google? Technology Adoption and Health Information Seeking among Low-income African-American Older Adults.The Journal of Public Interest Communications1, 2 (Dec. 2017), 153. doi:10.32473/jpic.v1.i2.p153

    2017 doi

  67. [81]

    Jiyeon Seo, Yoobin Elyson Park, Esther Hehsun Kim, Hajin Lim, and Joonhwan Lee. 2023. The Power of Close Others: How Social Interactions Impact Older Adults’ Mobile Shopping Experience. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23). Associati...

    2023

  68. [82]

    Kraemer, Reuben Binns, and Max Van Kleek

    William Seymour, Martin J. Kraemer, Reuben Binns, and Max Van Kleek. 2020. Informing the Design of Privacy-Empowering Tools for the Connected Home. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376264

    2020

  69. [83]

    William Seymour and Max Van Kleek. 2021. Exploring Interactions Between Trust, Anthropomorphism, and Relationship Development in Voice Assistants. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 371:1–371:16. doi:10.1145/3479515

    2021 doi

  70. [84]

    Dong She, Junbin Ren, Yueru Sun, Wenbo Zhang, Yang Gao, and Zhanpeng Jin. 2026. NursingLLM: A Retrieval-Augmented Health Chatbot for Supporting Nursing Home Residents. InCompanion of the 2025 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp Com...

    2026

  71. [85]

    Hirak Ray, Flynn Wolf, Ravi Kuber, and Adam J. Aviv. 2021. Why Older Adults (Don’t) Use Password Managers. In30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21). 73–90

    2021

  72. [86]

    They Make Us Old Before We’re Old

    Jianna So, Samantha Estrada, Matthew Jörke, Eva Bianchi, Maria Wang, Nava Haghighi, Kristen L. Fessele, James A. Landay, and Andrea Cuadra. 2024. "They Make Us Old Before We’re Old": Designing Ethical Health Technology with and for Older Adults.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-...

    2024 doi

  73. [87]

    Ewan Soubutts, Aneesha Singh, Alice Ashcroft, Bran Knowles, Julia McDowell, Judith Tsouvalis, Jasmine Fledderjohann, Caroline Swarbrick, Richard Harper, and Yvonne Rogers. 2025. Hidden Opportunities for Elder Living: Understanding Shared Technology Troubles and Benefits for Ol...

    2025

  74. [88]

    Sofia Starkhammar and Louise Nygård. 2008. Using a Timer Device for the Stove: Experiences of Older Adults with Memory Impairment or Dementia and Their Families.Technology and Disability20, 3 (Oct. 2008), 179–191. doi:10.3233/TAD- 2008-20302

    2008 doi

  75. [89]

    Neil Selwyn, Stephen Gorard, John Furlong, and Louise Madden. 2003. Older Adults’ Use of Information and Communications Technology in Everyday Life. Ageing & Society23, 5 (2003), 561–582. doi:10.1017/S0144686X03001302

    2003 doi

  76. [90]

    Alexa Is a Toy

    Milka Trajkova and Aqueasha Martin-Hammond. 2020. "Alexa Is a Toy": Ex- ploring Older Adults’ Reasons for Using, Limiting, and Abandoning Echo. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New Y...

    2020

  77. [91]

    Tsai-Hsuan Tsai, Wen-Yen Lin, Yung-Sheng Chang, Po-Cheng Chang, and Ming- Yih Lee. 2020. Technology Anxiety and Resistance to Change Behavioral Study of a Wearable Cardiac Warming System Using an Extended TAM for Older Adults.PLOS ONE15, 1 (Jan. 2020), e0227270. doi:10.1371/jo...

    2020 doi

  78. [92]

    Austin Cole

    Elif Tural, Danni Lu, and D. Austin Cole. 2021. Safely and Actively Aging in Place: Older Adults’ Attitudes and Intentions Toward Smart Home Technologies. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine7 (May 2021), 23337214211017340. doi:10. 1177/23337214211017340

    2021

  79. [93]

    Eleftheria Vaportzis, Maria Giatsi Clausen, and Alan J. Gow. 2017. Older Adults Perceptions of Technology and Barriers to Interacting with Tablet Computers: A Focus Group Study.Frontiers in Psychology8 (Oct. 2017), 1687. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.01687

    2017

  80. [94]

    John Vines, Gary Pritchard, Peter Wright, Patrick Olivier, and Katie Brittain

  81. [95]

    Threatt, Anna Gorham, and Cosmin Munteanu

    Jaisie Sin, Dongqing Chen, Jalena G. Threatt, Anna Gorham, and Cosmin Munteanu. 2022. Does Alexa Live Up to the Hype? Contrasting Expectations from Mass Media Narratives and Older Adults’ Hands-on Experiences of Voice Interfaces. InProceedings of the 4th Conference on Conversa...

    2022

  82. [96]

    Shengzhi Wang, Khalisa Bolling, Wenlin Mao, Jennifer Reichstadt, Dilip Jeste, Ho-Cheol Kim, and Camille Nebeker. 2019. Technology to Support Aging in Place: Older Adults’ Perspectives.Healthcare7, 2 (April 2019), 60. doi:10.3390/ healthcare7020060

    2019

  83. [97]

    Patrick Ware, Susan J Bartlett, Guy Paré, Iphigenia Symeonidis, Cara Tannen- baum, Gillian Bartlett, Lise Poissant, and Sara Ahmed. 2017. Using eHealth Technologies: Interests, Preferences, and Concerns of Older Adults.Interactive Journal of Medical Research6, 1 (March 2017), ...

    2017 doi

  84. [98]

    Jenny Waycott, Frank Vetere, Sonja Pedell, Amee Morgans, Elizabeth Ozanne, and Lars Kulik. 2016. Not For Me: Older Adults Choosing Not to Participate in a Social Isolation Intervention. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16). A...

    2016

  85. [99]

    Brubaker, Nathan Malkin, and Alisha Pradhan

    Ramprabu Thangaraj, Jed R. Brubaker, Nathan Malkin, and Alisha Pradhan

  86. [100]

    That’s Something That as a Senior Person You Have to Consider Now

    "That’s Something That as a Senior Person You Have to Consider Now": Unpacking Older Adults’ Preferences for End-of-Life Data Planning. InProceed- ings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Madeira Portugal, 663–675. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735821

    2025

  87. [101]

    Gates, Santosh Vijaykumar, and Deborah J

    Gemma Wilson, Jessica R. Gates, Santosh Vijaykumar, and Deborah J. Morgan

  88. [102]

    Maximiliane Windl, Philipp Thalhammer, David Müller, Albrecht Schmidt, and Sebastian S. Feger. 2025. PrivacyHub: A Functional Tangible and Digital Ecosys- tem for Interoperable Smart Home Privacy Awareness and Control. InProceed- ings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factor...

    2025

  89. [103]

    Magdalena Wischnewski, Nicole Krämer, and Emmanuel Müller. 2023. Measur- ing and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM,...

    2023

  90. [104]

    Arkers Kwan Ching Wong, Jessica Hiu Toon Lee, Yue Zhao, Qi Lu, Shulan Yang, and Vivian Chi Ching Hui. 2025. Exploring Older Adults’ Perspectives and Acceptance of AI-Driven Health Technologies: Qualitative Study.JMIR aging8 (Feb. 2025), e66778. doi:10.2196/66778

    2025 doi

  91. [105]

    Kelly, Melissa J

    Yushan Xing, Ryan M. Kelly, Melissa J. Rogerson, Jenny Waycott, and Kashifa Aslam. 2024. Designing for Inclusive Experiences: Investigating Opportunities for Supporting Older Adults in Community-based Social Programs. InPro- ceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in C...

    2024

  92. [106]

    Shangyang Zhang, Min Wu, Ruini Sun, Changjie Cui, Ziqing Zhang, Jing Liao, and Ni Gong. 2025. Exploring the Discontinuous Usage Behavior of Digital Cognitive Training Among Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Their Family Members: Qualitative Study Using the Extend...

    2025 doi

  93. [107]

    Philipp Wagner, Anna Winkler, Irina Paraschivoiu, Alexander Meschtscher- jakov, Magdalena Gärtner, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2021. Tracing COVID-19 - Older Adults’ Attitudes Toward Digital Contact Tracing and How to In- crease Their Participation. InProceedings of Mensch Und Comp...

    2021

  94. [108]

    Rogerson

    Fangxing Zhao, Wei Zhao, Jenny Waycott, and Melissa J. Rogerson. 2026. My- Time: Co-Designing a Hybrid Digital Boardgame for Supporting Meaningful Family Life Storytelling. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems...

    2026

  95. [109]

    Kelly, Melissa J

    Wei Zhao, Ryan M. Kelly, Melissa J. Rogerson, and Jenny Waycott. 2025. Older Adults Co-Creating and Experiencing VR Garden Tours: Developing a Partici- patory VR Storytelling Framework.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies205 (Nov. 2025), 103656. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs....

    2025

  96. [110]

    Chunyi Zhou, Yating Ai, Sixue Wang, Yue Yuan, Ailin Zhang, Hui Hu, and Yuncui Wang. 2024. Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Electronic Health Interventions in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: An Umbrella Review.BMC Geriatrics24 (Dec. 2024), 1037. doi:10.1186...

    2024 doi

  97. [111]

    Kelly, Greg Wadley, and Wally Smith

    Sarah Webber, Ryan M. Kelly, Greg Wadley, and Wally Smith. 2023. Engaging with Nature through Technology: A Scoping Review of HCI Research. InPro- ceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York...

    2023

  98. [112]

    Alice Willatt, Stuart Iain Gray, Helen Manchester, Tot Foster, and Kirsten Cater

  99. [113]

    Papers” column shows how many studies (out of 59) were coded with that code. The “Studies

    Boštjan Žvanut and Anže Mihelič. 2024. Qualitative Study on Domestic Social Robot Adoption and Associated Security Concerns among Older Adults in Slovenia.Frontiers in Psychology15 (Jan. 2024). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1343077 A Appendix ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vila Nov...

    2024

  100. [115]

    2023), 222–245

    Understanding Older Adults’ Use of Social Technology and the Factors Influencing Use.Ageing and Society43, 1 (Jan. 2023), 222–245. doi:10.1017/ S0144686X21000490

    2023

  101. [121]

    Yixuan Zhang, Nurul Suhaimi, Rana Azghandi, Mary Amulya Joseph, Miso Kim, Jacqueline Griffin, and Andrea G. Parker. 2020. Understanding the Use of Crisis Informatics Technology among Older Adults. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ...

    2020 arXiv

  102. [125]

    Wenqi Zhu, Ewan Soubutts, Julia Wernersbach, and Aneesha Singh. 2025. Chal- lenges and Opportunities for the Design of Inclusive Social Media Experiences with LGBT+ Older Adults. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Associat...

    2025

  103. [126]

    Yixin Zou, Kaiwen Sun, Tanisha Afnan, Ruba Abu-Salma, Robin Brewer, and Florian Schaub. 2024. Cross-Contextual Examination of Older Adults’ Privacy Concerns, Behaviors, and Vulnerabilities.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies2024, 1 (Jan. 2024), 133–150. doi:10.56553/...

    2024 doi

  104. [128]

    Privacy and Control Loss of control over personal data 11 [15, 20, 37, 49, 75, 77, 80, 96, 106, 107, 112] Lack of transparency in data practices 9 [15, 20, 37, 41, 49, 52, 72, 77, 96] Fear of hacking and unauthorized ac- cess 12 [15, 49, 66, 74, 75, 77, 87, 97, 101, 104, 106, ...

  105. [129]

    System Performance and Design System unreliability 15 [4, 18, 29, 36, 52, 54, 65, 66, 71, 73, 75, 84, 91, 92, 100] Deviation from expectations 4 [54, 65, 85, 111] Deceptive design patterns 5 [5, 41, 49, 61, 112] Transparency and explanation 9 [4, 5, 46, 49, 72, 84, 85, 87, 104...

  106. [130]

    Experience, Familiar- ity, and Knowledge Positive experiences build and sustain trust 10 [5, 47, 54, 57, 68, 73–75, 88, 112] Negative experiences erode trust 19 [5, 15, 41, 49, 54, 61, 65, 66, 75, 77, 81, 86, 89, 92, 97, 100, 106, 111, 112] Knowledge gaps create distrust 13 [4...

  107. [131]

    The Social Ecosys- tem of Trust Family as trust mediators 3 [9, 54, 58] Trusted sources (human, institution) en- able adoption 11 [4, 12, 41, 49, 60, 72, 85, 93, 95, 104, 112] Peer and community influence on trust 7 [6, 15, 49, 58, 92, 97, 112] Organizational reputation and sc...

  108. [132]

    Personal Identity and Values Value conflict creates distrust 6 [37, 46, 47, 49, 85, 107] Cultural norm misalignment 4 [11, 36, 37, 49] Self-distrust 9 [9, 41, 49, 65, 71, 80, 81, 93, 97] Perceived usefulness builds trust 12 [16, 25, 26, 52, 54, 57, 66, 84, 88, 93, 111, 113] Fu...

  109. [133]

    Table 3: Connection between the themes and the codes (Table 2)

    Consequences of Trust and Distrust Avoidance of high-stakes tasks 6 [60, 71, 77, 80, 97, 101] Distrust suppresses adoption broadly 21 [15, 41, 47, 49, 54, 57, 66, 72, 75, 77, 80, 81, 85, 91, 96, 97, 100, 104, 106, 107, 111] Distrust as protest and strategic non- use 2 [37, 57]...

    2026

  110. [134]

    Material Legibility of Information Systems Producing (Dis)Trust Loss of control over personal data Lack of transparency in data practices Fear of hacking and unauthorized access Distrust in data recipients Materiality of data storage Deceptive design patterns

  111. [135]

    (Dis)Trust is Temporally Constituted Positive experiences build and sustain trust Negative experiences erode trust System unreliability Organizational reputation and scale

  112. [136]

    Each row shows an excerpt from a paper in our corpus, an analytic memo written while coding it, and the resulting code(s) from the codebook (Table 2)

    Distrust as Boundary Setting Surveillance and monitoring Fear of losing autonomy Value conflict creates distrust Cultural norm misalignment Distrust as protest and strategic non-use Fixed beliefs and instinctual distrust Table 4: Sample analytic memos and their corresponding c...

    2026

  113. [396]

    doi:10.3109/11038128.2013.766761

    2013

  114. [2011]

    doi:10.1145/1985347.1985353

    Trust in a Specific Technology: An Investigation of Its Components and Measures.ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS)2, 2 (July 2011), 12:1–12:25. doi:10.1145/1985347.1985353

    2011

  115. [2015]

    Comput.-Hum

    An Age-Old Problem: Examining the Discourses of Ageing in HCI and Strategies for Future Research.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.22, 1 (Feb. 2015), 2:1–2:27. doi:10.1145/2696867

    2015 doi

  116. [2016]

    InProceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’16)

    Rethinking the Design of Robotic Pets for Older Adults. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1034–1046. doi:10.1145/2901790. 2901811

    2016 doi

  117. [2018]

    doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2018

    Internet-of-Things and Smart Homes for Elderly Healthcare: An End User Perspective.IEEE Access6 (2018), 10483–10496. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2018. 2808472

    2018 doi

  118. [2020]

    In2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)

    Ask the Experts: What Should Be on an IoT Privacy and Security Label?. In2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, San Francisco, CA, USA, 447–464. doi:10.1109/SP40000.2020.00043 Towards Designing for (Dis)Trust in Technologies for Aging ASSETS ’26, October 25–28...

    2020

  119. [2023]

    2023), 100633

    The Potential of Physical Activity and Technology Interventions to Reduce Anxiety in Older Adults.Journal of Affective Disorders Reports14 (Dec. 2023), 100633. doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2023.100633

    2023

  120. [2024]

    doi:10.1145/3637295

    An Intersectional Lifecourse Lens and Participatory Methods as the Towards Designing for (Dis)Trust in Technologies for Aging ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal Foundations for Co-Designing with and for Minoritised Older Adults.Proceed- ings of the AC...

    2026 doi

  121. [2025]

    Hum.-Robot Interact.15, 1 (Nov

    Older Adults’ Perceptions of Robots with Differing Intelligence in Social Multi-Robot Interactions.J. Hum.-Robot Interact.15, 1 (Nov. 2025), 25:1–25:28. doi:10.1145/3769854

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.