Relational components in the use of digital devices and apps: Mapping media appropriation processes among older adults in Sweden

In this article, the concept of appropriation is understood from the perspective of media domestication theory. Within media domestication research, appropriation is commonly seen as the first stage of the domestication process, where a media device or media content is acquired (Berker et al., 2006; Haddon, 2016; Silverstone et al., 1992). After this follows the processes of objectification (the spatial location of media in the home), incorporation (the use of media and their integration into the routines of everyday life) and conversion (the display of media to others as part of identity work) (Berker et al., 2006; Haddon, 2016; Silverstone et al., 1992). The whole process of domestication concerns how objects from the formal economy (the public) enter the moral economy (the private), and how the social context both shape and is shaped by media use (Silverstone, 1994). Social actors are seen as active in shaping technology; hence, the meaning and use of media is socially constructed (Bakardjieva, 2006; Haddon, 2016; Sørensen, 2006). Through the domestication process, media is tamed and integrated into the routines of everyday life (Haddon, 2016; Hartmann, 2006). Sørensen (2006: 48) wrote that while domestication “may appear to involve adaption and habituation, it is through hindsight – the knowledge of what actually happens” and points out that domestication (as any other social process) involves social conflict, discipline, and power.

Looking more specifically at how appropriation was defined in the early domestication research, Silverstone (1994: 126) wrote that an object is appropriated “at the point at which it is sold, at the point at which it leaves the world of the commodity and the generalised system of equivalence and exchange, and is taken possession of by an individual or household”. Hence, appropriation stands for “the whole process of consumption” (Silverstone, 1994: 126), where the object crosses the boundary of the formal and moral economy and gains meaning (see also Silverstone et al., 1992). In later domestication research focusing on digital media, additional practices of the appropriation process have been highlighted. Downloading and installing software, and the initial steps in learning how to use a technology are also included in the appropriation process (De Schutter et al. 2015; Leong, 2017; Olsson & Viscovi, 2018). This is probably due to the increasing complexity of digital media, where devices and apps must be continuously updated and re-learned. Later studies have also questioned the idea that appropriation is only about acquiring new devices and have included practices such as receiving an older device from family members or friends (see Olsson & Viscovi, 2018).

Hence, appropriation concerns the purchase (or other means for acquisition) as well as the initial installation and learning how to use a device or application. However, there is one important part of the appropriation process that has not been discussed yet, namely the initiation and motivation of the process. Some scholars have emphasised the negotiations and discussions that take place in households prior to purchase and how people motivate the purchase of a certain technology (Haddon, 2016; Olsson, 2006). Other scholars have focused more broadly on the different circumstances that initiate appropriation, for instance, how parents can be inspired by their children to start playing digital games (De Schutter et al., 2015; Willett, 2017).

Based on this, the present article defines appropriation as comprising two main stages: first, the initiation phase (what leads to the acquisition), and second, the subsequent phase of purchase, installation, and initial leaning in which the medium is appropriated. This article thus studies how these two stages of the appropriation process unfold among older adults and how different relations are involved in the process. Acknowledging the double articulation of media (Silverstone, 1994), I hence analyse appropriation of both devices (primarily smartphones, tablets, and laptops) and content (mainly apps and computer programs).

As demonstrated above, domestication theory (including the concept of appropriation) has been developed and adapted to the study of an increasingly complex digital everyday life, and several studies point to the continuous relevance of this approach in today's media landscape (Martínez & Olsson, 2021). Accordingly, this article finds the concept of appropriation highly relevant for studying the acquisition of digital media; it also argues that our understanding of this phenomenon can be further developed by introducing the concept of transaction.

The concept of transaction has been developed within relational sociology, which is a field comprising different directions, but the common thread is the focus on relations as the essential dimension in forming social reality (Dépelteau, 2018b). More specifically, this article adheres to the pragmatic approach in relational sociology developed by Emirbayer (1997) and Dépelteau (2008, 2015, 2018a), who were influenced mainly by the work of John Dewey and Norbert Elias. Dépelteau (2008) outlined central principles of the pragmatic approach, two of which are particularly relevant to the present study.

The first is the principle of transaction, which holds that social actors and social action must be understood as parts of chains of transactions with other actors and the environment: “Social actors and actions are what they are [or do what they do], at some specific time and space, only through empirical chains of trans-actions” (Dépelteau, 2008: 61; see also Dépelteau, 2015: 55). There is no independent self-action, but agency is “always one piece of a moving puzzle composed by interdependent actions” (Dépelteau, 2008: 60). Agency and action are here seen as closely connected: “an agent is someone or something that through an action produces an effect on the world or upon other people” (Burkitt, 2018: 531). In the context of this article, this means that appropriation of digital devices and apps is seen as co-produced by older adults and various other actors.

Relevant to this study is also the principle of the primacy of process in relational sociology (Dépelteau, 2008). The social world and social phenomena are fluid, dynamic, and changeable (be it families, states, digitalisation, or wars). However, this does not mean that there are no patterns or continuity: “The social universe is full of more or less continuous and similar trans-actions […] Their discovery and explanation is one of the most important tasks in sociology” (Dépelteau, 2008: 62). In line with this, I understand media appropriation as processes involving different phases that are fuelled by various transactions between older adults and their social and material surroundings. With this article, I seek to identify patterns and distinguish different types of processes, while also acknowledging that social processes are fluid and dynamic.

This study acknowledges relations with human transactors as well as non-human transactors in the material environment. Dépelteau (2008: 65) argued: “The principle of transaction is founded on the idea that the production of the social world happens through social relations and in a physical environment”. In later work, Dépelteau (2015, 2018a) also explicitly stressed the need to include non-human transactors as part of the analysis, when considered relevant. This focus on human as well as non-human transactors obviously shows some similarities to other frameworks, for instance, actor-network theory, which is also commonly considered part of relational sociology (Papilloud, 2018). However, as argued in the introduction, this article uses a broader relational analysis primarily to understand the human relations – in this case, the agency of older adults and social support agents.

So, what can the concept of transaction – which has not been developed for studying digital media – add to the study of digital media appropriation? Using this concept and its inherently relational perspective can help in identifying the various relations involved in motivating and supporting the appropriation process. As stated above, in research on media domestication – including media appropriation – much attention has been paid to social relations and social support. Thus, domestication research most commonly departs from a relational perspective. However, applying the perspective of relational sociology and the notion of transaction enables us to decentre the role of social support agents (known others) and to highlight relations with distant others and non-human actors. Decentring the role of social support agents may also help us more clearly distinguish their role.

In self-initiated and self-performed appropriation, acquisition was initiated through the older adults’ transactions with their material and wider social environment. Other known agents in their everyday lives, such as family and friends, played no active role but at most an indirect one. Initiation came in three sub-forms, presented below.

Appropriation of a new media technology could be initiated through a transaction between the older person and another media technology (self↔media-technology initiation). For example, for any reason their previous device could no longer be usable, which led to the decision to acquire a new device or computer program, mostly to be able to continue already-established media practices. In some situations, it was unclear for the participants who did the acting – they or the machine. They expressed uncertainty about whether they had broken the device or whether it stopped working on its own, or whether it was their lack of competence or something wrong with the device that caused the malfunction. Their interpretation of the machine as inoperative, based on the machine's performance, sometimes led to the purchase of a new device. In other situations, participants located the agency more clearly in themselves, such as when they had dropped their phone on the ground, or in the machine, when it stopped working and displayed a message such as: “Your computer has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down” (woman, 76).

Another example of self↔media-technology initiation was when appropriation of a new device, app, or program was connected to the purchase of another media technology; for example, when an app (such as Instagram) was pre-installed on a smart-phone, or a device (such as Google Home) came as part of another purchase (such as a smartphone). Hence, the person did not actively initiate appropriation, but when they encountered this new media technology and interpreted it as relevant to explore, their new use was established. This transaction can also be said to involve another human relation, namely one with the marketers who designed this marketing strategy aimed at facilitating appropriation.

Appropriation of a new device or app could also be initiated through the older adults’ transactions with the surrounding society (self↔surrounding-society initiation). Changes in how payment could be made for different services, for example, prompted participants to consider the benefits of appropriating new media. This could be experienced as an opportunity to better function in society, or more generally a need to “keep up with the times” (woman, 73 years). However, there was sometimes a sense of coercion, and a need to appropriate new media to evade constraints on their capacity to act:

We were supposed to park next to the church, but there were no parking spaces anywhere, so you had to use Parkster. So, all you could do was go in and search through the apps to find Parkster […] Not exactly something you were praying for [laughter].

From a relational perspective, these transactions with the surrounding society can be seen as involving relations with distant others, such as the municipality workers and corporate agents who had contributed to these changes. Hence, in this way, distant actors constrained the actions of others to make them to act in new (and for them, desired) ways.

Appropriation could also start as a transaction with the surrounding media society. For instance, someone could learn about an app or device from reading a newspaper article or through advertisements. These media representations, combined with their own interests and their specific circumstances (such as going on a trip), led to appropriation as they saw the potential to act in new ways. It is possible to distinguish in these cases other (distant and unknown) agents as parts of the transactions, such as journalists and marketers. In some cases, known others also played an indirect role, such as one participant who downloaded Candy Crush after reading about it in a newspaper as well as knowing that her daughter and grandchildren played it (thus including an element of self↔others initiation; see below).

Appropriation could also start based on transactions between the older adults and known others in their everyday lives, mostly family members and friends (self↔others initiation). In these cases, the others served as inspiration and a source of motivation but did not actively prompt appropriation; hence, family members and friends did not act in the role of warm experts (Bakardjieva, 2005). For instance, participants observed the use of devices and apps among family members and friends and decided to appropriate on the basis of this combined with their own interests and needs (entertainment or more practical needs). Other people's media practices also enabled them to imagine themselves as engaged in new media uses: “The neighbour had bought one like that, so I thought I might as well have one too” (man, 73).

Known others could also play an indirect role, for instance, when the older person acquired a new device or app with them in mind. Participants described how they wanted to connect with friends and family using digital media and drew on their knowledge of them – based on their previous actions – to select the relevant media that would engage them all. One example is a woman (73 years) who downloaded a game app which she liked, and thought would also interest her grandchildren, and subsequently they played this game during their holiday together.

As seen here, appropriation was initiated in different ways. After the initiation phase, in this type of appropriation the older adults managed purchase, installation, and initial learning on their own without the involvement of known others such as family and friends, and the process was described as unproblematic. Self-initiated and self-performed appropriation was mostly about acquiring new apps and computer programs, but also devices such as laptops and smartphones. When apps were pre-installed, there was only the learning phase left, and this unfolded as a transaction between the person and the media where different features were explored. One participant said concerning Instagram: “So, I went in and opened it […] then worked through it by trial and error to learn what I know” (man, 75).

In cases where apps needed installation, this process was described as straightforward. One woman (82 years) spoke about installing a museum app after reading about it on a website: “I managed to install that app myself when I was going to go on a trip, so it was really good. I installed it, so I can do some things on my own”. Devices such as tablets and smartphones were also acquired in a seemingly uncomplicated way, including both new and continuous practices. After observing the use of iPads among family members, a man (70 years) bought one for himself: “I just went to Net-on-Net and bought it, easy peasy. There was nothing strange about it, that much I understood”.

In self-initiated and supported appropriation, the initiation phase was very similar to that in self-initiated and self-performed appropriation. Hence, initiation started – as described above – in different forms of transactions: self↔media-technology; self↔surrounding-society; and self↔others.

However, in this type of appropriation, other known agents in the older adults’ everyday lives were involved in all or some of the processes of purchase, installation, and initial learning. These other persons were involved based on the specific needs of the older adults, and according to the participants’ narratives, it was them who in most cases activated their family members and friends (or salespersons or bank officials) for different kinds of support. In these cases, the older adults managed the appropriation process by acting as directors who knew which persons were relevant to engage and when. Based on their knowledge of their own and others’ competences, they tried to orchestrate a successful appropriation process. Hence, the older adults took on a clear agentic role vis-à-vis the known others also in this type of appropriation.

In the purchase phase, the older adults commonly sought the advice of family members regarding which object to buy (price, brand, standard, etc.) based on their needs. The family members, acting in the role of warm experts, provided advice before purchase, and sometimes they bought the device for the older adults or they went together to the store. In the store, family members acted as mediators between the older adult and the salesperson, providing a sense of security and reassurance that they were not being duped. One woman (81 years) said: Woman:

 Well, he [her grandson] always comes with me when I’m going to buy something […] like when I was going to buy the tablet or the phone. And he lets me know if he thinks it's a good buy, and if not, we do something else. After all, you can never trust a salesman a hundred per cent.

As seen in the quotation above, the woman described how she asked her grandson to join her based on her understanding of him as knowledgeable and trustworthy.

The phases of installation and initial learning mostly involved family members, but they could also involve a salesperson or a bank official. The participants described how they sought out this support where it was available and from persons they knew had the specific knowledge required. One woman (79 years) selected between her daughter and her son. When she needed to install an app for money transfer, she asked her daughter, as it was about the smartphone: Woman:

 I said, “Honey, I’d like to have Swish, can you install it for me?” And she did. Then she entered a BankID and I got a number there. I was able to choose myself. So, I did that and it all worked out. […] If anything comes up, I say “Hold on, let me ask Anna” [her daughter]. All the time.

In this quotation, the woman describes how she directed the installation and initial learning phase and selected what parts she wanted to learn. She chose her daughter, who usually supported her in issues concerning the smartphone. In contrast to this, other participants sought help from family members who had phones of the same brand, to mobilise the relevant knowledge and support.

In other-initiated and self-performed appropriation, the acquisition of a new media technology was initiated through transactions with known others who played an active role in prompting appropriation. These known others were primarily family and friends, but in a few cases, professionals such as bank officials and librarians. This type of appropriation mainly concerned the installation of new apps.

The acquisition of new apps was mainly initiated through mediated communication from family members, for example, by sending a message through an app that the older adults needed to install to read the message (other↔self initiation through mediated communication). Sending these messages was based on the needs of family members to communicate, combined with relevance of the information for the older adults. One example is a man (70 years) who installed Reddit after receiving a joke from his stepson:

He often sends jokes to me because I love jokes, or love to laugh and joke around. So, he sent something to me that I couldn’t open, so I had to get Reddit and that's why I have it [laughter].

As can be seen here, there was also a sense of coercion, making installation of the app feel like a “must”. Sometimes, this was perceived as coercion on behalf of the machine: “If I get a message in Messenger, the computer tells me that I have to install the Messenger app” (man, 76 years).

Appropriation could also be initiated following a suggestion or encouragement in face-to-face communication (other↔self initiation through face-to-face communication). Others pointed to the practical relevance or the possibilities for entertainment with acquiring, for instance, a new app. These suggestions were based primarily on what they perceived as the older people's interests and needs, but in some cases, their own needs, such as wanting a grandfather to have an app for transferring money. However, to result in appropriation, the older adults needed to see a fit in their own lives; this could come either immediately or at a later point in time. In some cases, when evaluating the relevance of a new technology, the older adults also drew on experiences from other family members, for instance, having observed the use of an app or device (self↔others initiation). Hence, different chains of transactions with known others were interlinked in their decision.

In this type of appropriation, installation and initial learning unfolded as a transaction between the person and the medium, and the process was presented as uncomplicated. One woman (81 years) said:

My bank manager told me, “You can install that [the 112 app]. It's actually a good thing to have”. […] And it wasn’t hard to install it. […] So, sure, as long as you’re open to most things, it works out.

In this type of appropriation, the initiation phase shares some similarities with other-initiated and self-performed appropriation discussed above. For instance, acquisition of digital devices and apps could be initiated through transactions with known others in face-to-face communication (other↔self initiation through face-to-face communication). In addition to this, appropriation was initiated when family members gave media devices to the older adults (other↔self initiation through giving media devices), which sometimes was related to family members transactions with their own media technologies (other↔media-technology initiation).

When face-to-face communication was involved in other-initated and supported appropriation, it came as a more direct instruction from family members, primarily from children, to acquire a new app (such as BankID) or a smartphone, which they considered practical in the lives of their parents. In these cases, appropriation was experienced as coercion, as the others did not leave space for the older adults’ own evaluation and decision-making. One woman (77 years) spoke about how she acquired her first smartphone: “Well, they forced me. […] ‘You have to have a smartphone, Mom’”. After this initial coercion, the woman became an engaged smartphone user, and she felt that her son understood her better than she did herself.

The appropriation of a new device could also be initiated by family members, primarily children and grandchildren, when giving an older adult a media device (other↔self initiation through giving media devices). Mostly they gave away their old devices when they were about to buy a new one and saw a fit in the life of the older person. Hence, one could also say that other↔media-technology initiation was involved here, as this initiation was connected to the others’ previous media use. In judging the fit, the others drew on knowledge of the older adults’ previous actions. One example is a woman (77 years) whose children and daughter-in-law gave her an old computer as a Christmas present because they knew she had attended a computer course.

A sense of coercion could also sometimes be seen in this form of initiation. One example is a man (78 years) who was encouraged to use the computer in his daughter's house, and when she saw that he could play card games, she found arguments to give him the computer, something he experienced as coercion: “I didn’t want a computer in the first place. The kids kept nagging me [laughter]. So I was forced into it”. In both cases presented here, the family members drew on knowledge of previous actions, thus acting on the older adults’ actions and constructing chains of transactions to push appropriation.

As stated previously, in self-initiated and supported appropriation, the older adults were those who mostly orchestrated purchase, installation, and initial learning. In contrast to this, in this type of other-initated and supported appropriation, others took a more active role, sometimes to the extent that the older people experienced a sense of coercion. However, there was variation in what and how much support they received. It was mainly family members who provided this support, but other agents could also be involved.

When others instructed the older adults to appropriate digital media in face-to-face communication, the family members also commonly took the initiative to purchase the new device, rather than the older person seeking out advice in the consumption process. One woman (77 years) explained how she felt coerced by her son when he drove her to buy a smartphone: Woman:

 Yes, but they forced me. He was going to drive me. “You have to have a smartphone, Mom”.

The others were also more active in managing the phase of installation and initial learning, but some of the phases could also be directed by the older adults. In some cases, family members not only initiated appropriation and managed the process, but also engaged other relevant actors. One woman (82 years) said that her daughter took her to the bank and made her get a BankID, because she thought she should have one:

So, my daughter came to my house and said “Now, this is just the way it is, you can do it, now you’re going to have a BankID and you’re going to learn, and you won’t need that service account any more, that's just the way it is now” [speaking as if she was giving an order]. “Okay”, I said [speaking as if it seemed unreasonable]. “Yes, I’ve made an appointment at the bank”, she said. “And we’re going now” [laughter]. “Okay then” [speaking as if she has no choice].

In the quotation above, the woman expressed how appropriation was forced on her. Later, she also described how there were subsequent steps of learning and problem-solving involving both the bank and her daughter. In other cases, family members took a more motivational role, encouraging them to explore and learn by themselves. Sometimes, family members were only engaged in initiation, and the older adults received support from professionals (primarily bank officials).

In cases where a family member gave an older adult their old device (or bought one for a surprise), they were not involved in the purchase phase but were directly introduced to the medium. Usually it was the family members who performed the installation and supported the initial learning, but in a few cases the older adults joined a course. A man (82 years) described how he observed his granddaughter installing her old computer in his house: Interviewer:

 Okay, so were you surprised when she showed up with it?

In another example, a man (94 years) was active in seeking additional learning experiences from his grandson after receiving his first smartphone from his 75-year-old girlfriend, and the grandson wrote step-by-step notes on how to send messages and take photos. When receiving a device from family members, active encouragement was also used as a tool for motivating learning. The family members picked up on small successful actions the older adults performed with their devices, and used these actions to advocate for new actions, thus constructing chains of transactions to fuel appropriation.

As previously stated, the typology presented in this article is based on the participants’ stories of appropriation processes. Since one interview participant could have several stories, they could be represented in more than one type of appropriation process. However, the analysis shows some patterns related to the participants’ age, gender, and online repertoires that are relevant to discuss here. The clearest patterns relate to two types of appropriation: self-initiated and self-performed, and other-initiated and self-performed. These two types mostly comprised younger men in their 70s who had a broader online repertoire and a range of (often newer) devices.

In contrast, a broader mix of participants – including men and women in their 70s, 80s, and 90s, some with broad online repertoires and several devices and some with a less broad repertoire and fewer devices – was represented in the two other types of appropriation: self-initiated and supported, and other-initiated and supported. These two types were also most prevalent in the data. Notably, the younger male participants who were represented in the first two types mentioned above were also represented here. For instance, they could handle the appropriation of a new laptop but needed support from known others when appropriating a new smartphone.

In self-initiated and self-performed and other-initiated and self-performed appropriation, people are motivated by relations with different actors but perform the practical tasks of purchase, installation, and learning without transactions with known others. This requires certain experience with and knowledge of digital devices and apps. As stated in the introduction, studies have shown how demographic factors such as younger age facilitate the appropriation of digital devices and applications (Barrantes Cáceres & Cozzubo Chaparro, 2019; Bergström, 2017; Fang et al., 2019; Hargittai & Dobransky, 2017; Lissitsa & Chachashvili-Bolotin, 2015; Olsson et al., 2019; Tirado-Morueta et al., 2021). This could explain why the younger participants in their 70s with a broader online repertoire and a range of (often newer) devices dominated this group. However, it is less clear why men in particular dominated these types. Previous studies do not show any clear gender differences when it comes to digital media access and use (Fang et al., 2019). Moreover, previous studies on access and use have not looked in detail into actual appropriation processes, and further studies are needed to understand whether men actually tend to handle appropriation processes more often without the support of known others.

In self-initiated and supported and other-initiated and supported appropriation, people are motivated by relations with different actors but receive support from known others in the purchase, installation, and initial learning phases. The recruitment strategy in the present study – which focused on how older adults learn about digital devices and apps together with younger generations, primarily children and grandchildren – can explain why these types were most prevalent in the data. The fact that these two types were represented among a broader age range, including the 80- and 90-year-olds, can also be explained due to the fact that older age is related to more challenges when it comes to media appropriation (Barrantes Cáceres & Cozzubo Chaparro, 2019; Bergström, 2017; Fang et al., 2019; Hargittai & Dobransky, 2017; Lissitsa & Chachashvili-Bolotin, 2015; Olsson et al., 2019; Tirado-Morueta et al., 2021).