Mixed-methods study examines navigation design effects on cognitive load, emotions, and self-efficacy in older adults, highlighting design implications.
Objective Drawing on the Stimulus-Organism-Response framework, this mixed-methods research examines how specific mobile navigation architectures, namely complexity and diversity, shape older adults' cognitive load, affective states, and enduring digital self-efficacy. Methods The study utilized a two-phase design. Phase 1 involved a cross-sectional survey of 285 community-dwelling older adults, applying Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling to test parallel mediation pathways. Phase 2 conducted a within-subject usability experiment with 25 participants evaluating five common mobile navigation paradigms, pairing real-time emotion tracking via the PANAS scale with granular behavioral metrics. Results The PLS-SEM analysis indicated that high navigation complexity significantly drives up cognitive load (β = 0.111, p < 0.05) and dampens positive affect (β = −0.233, p < 0.001). In contrast, moderate design diversity boosted positive emotional responses (β = 0.330, p < 0.001) without triggering cognitive overload. Most notably, an exploratory hierarchical cluster analysis in Phase 2 suggested a potential performance- affect paradox: a subgroup of “cautious learners” took the longest to complete navigation tasks but reported the highest levels of positive affect and perceived control. Conclusions These findings highlight the limitations of relying solely on the traditional efficiency-first paradigm in usability evaluation. For older adults, establishing a psychological sense of control frequently outweighs mere interaction speed. To advance sustainable digital inclusion, designers should move beyond purely reductive interfaces and instead design supportive environments that accommodate behavioral heterogeneity and foster true cognitive engagement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: