Examines psychological and contextual factors impacting mobility scooter acceptance in older adults, highlighting the significance of 'Shame'.
Equitable transportation for minority groups, such as older generations, is fundamental to social sustainability, as active participation in society improves their quality of life. Mobility scooters have the potential to promote independence among older adults so that they can participate in society alongside reducing dependency on motor vehicles, contributing to more sustainable urban mobility solutions. However, in developing countries, existing literature reveals a gap in quantitively assessing and comparing different factors influencing their adoption, especially psychological factors, such as external shame. This study examines mobility scooter acceptance among the elderly (aged 60+), in Tehran, a large metropolitan area, and Gorgan, a small city in Iran. An extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with seven constructs, including the novel introduction of "Shame," was assessed using data from 805 respondents through face-to-face interviews. The second part of the study measured observed heterogeneity using multi-group analysis (MGA) to examine the effects of two moderators: city size and daily physical challenges. The results highlight “Shame” as a predictor of mobility scooter acceptance, with different impacts between the two cities. In the small city, “Shame” negatively moderates other constructs, while in the large city, perceived usefulness is a more decisive predictor; suggesting that practicality holds greater sway in such contexts. These results highlight the importance of psychological factors, especially "Shame," in predicting mobility scooter acceptance based on city size. In light of these findings, tailored policies and strategies are proposed to address the unique psychological and contextual barriers faced by older adults in small and large cities, advancing social equity in sustainable transportation for the elderly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kordrostami et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: