Effects of communication style, anthropomorphic setting and individual differences on older adults using voice assistants in a health context

Abstract

Background Voice assistants enable older adults to communicate regarding their health as well as facilitate ageing in place. This study investigated the effects of communication style, anthropomorphic setting, and individual differences on the trust, acceptance, and mental workload of older adults using a voice assistant when communicating health issues. Methods This is a mixed-methods study utilising both quantitative and qualitative methods. One hundred and six older adults (M = 71.8 years, SD = 4.6 years) participated in a 2 (communication style: social- vs. task-oriented; between-subject)$$\times$$ × 2 (anthropomorphic setting: ordinary profession vs. medical background; within-subject) mixed design experiment. The study used multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine the effects of communication style, anthropomorphic setting of the voice assistant, and participants’ use frequency of digital devices on the trust, technology acceptance, and mental workload of older adults using a voice assistant in a health context. End-of-study interviews regarding voice assistant use were conducted with participants. Qualitative content analyses were used to assess the interview findings about the communication content, the more trustworthy anthropomorphic setting, and suggestions for the voice assistant. Results Communication style, anthropomorphic setting, and individual differences all had statistically significant effects on older adults’ evaluations of the voice assistant. Compared with a task-oriented voice assistant, older adults preferred a social-oriented voice assistant in terms of trust in ability, integrity, and technology acceptance. Older adults also had better evaluations for a voice assistant with a medical background in terms of trust in ability, integrity, technology acceptance, and mental workload. In addition, older adults with more experience using digital products provided more positive evaluations in terms of trust in ability, integrity, and technology acceptance. Conclusions This study suggests that when designing a voice assistant for older adults in the health context, using a social-oriented communication style and providing an anthropomorphic setting in which the voice assistant has a medical background are effective ways to improve the trust and acceptance of older adults of voice assistants in an internet-of-things environment.

User acceptance of smart home voice assistant: a comparison among younger, middle-aged, and older adults

“…A female voice assistant is better [ 37 ] Q26. A voice assistant with relevant professional background is better [ 31 ] Q27. A voice assistant responding in a social-communication style is better [ 32 ] Q28.…”

“…A voice assistant with a screen is better [ 36 ] Q31. A voice assistant with a built-in power supply (portable) is better [ 31 ] Q32. A voice assistant that could actively communicate with me is better (self-designed) Q33.…”

“…A voice assistant with a function of imitating acquaintances is better (self-designed) Q34. A voice assistant with a printing function is better [ 31 ] Q35. A voice assistant with a memory function (providing historical inquiry records) is better [ 49 ] Q36.…”

“…A voice assistant with a memory function (providing historical inquiry records) is better [ 49 ] Q36. A voice assistant with a function of detecting body-related indicators is better [ 31 ] Q37. A voice assistant with an emergency alarm function (e.g., in the event of fall or fire) [ 49 ] Q38.…”

“…In addition, the elderly’s acceptance of home care technology is affected by the technology type [ 28 ], culture [ 29 ], anthropomorphism [ 30 , 31 ], communication style [ 31 , 32 ], family orientation [ 33 ], generation [ 33 ], interface design [ 34 , 35 ], visual feedback except for voice [ 36 ], personality [ 3 ], gender [ 25 , 37 ], cost [ 7 ], appearance [ 8 , 28 ], fashion [ 28 ], trust [ 7 ], risk [ 7 ], and social support [ 8 ]. Therefore, we considered these factors in the questionnaire design.…”