The Influence of Context on Product Judgement – Presenting Assistive Products as Consumer Goods

According to the ISO definition, any product can be assistive, though usually products that are considered to be assistive are those which are specially designed to improve the functionality of a person with disabilities (World Health Organization, 2001). The problems with these specifically designed devices are the commonly mentioned discontinuance in use and abandonment. Lack of information on the correct use of assistive products (AP), changes in users’ preferences, shame, and inadequacy of APs in the home environment were identified by Gitlin and Schemm (1996) as reasons for the abandonment of APs by elderly people. In their literature review on meanings attributed by people to APs and the ways in which these influence APs’ adoption, Pape, Kim and Weiner (2002) concluded that, at times, social concerns (e.g. stigma) have a greater weight on the decision to use APs than the improvement of functionality they foster. According to Goffman (1986), APs are often associated with some depreciative characteristics, causing AP users to feel stigmatized by society. Within the broad range of APs are the specific devices designed for very specific impairments, but there are also “daily living aids” which are those products that help people to accomplish everyday tasks such as opening a jar, peeling vegetables or combing hair. Everyday tasks are referred to as Activities of Daily Living (ADL), while the most basic – e.g. eating, dressing or bathing – are called Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL). The performance on these BADL is used in healthcare to measure one’s degree of dependence (Katz, Down, Cash, & Grotz, 1970; Mahoney & Barthel, 1965), i.e. the degree of one’s capacity for self-care (Holbrook & Skilbeck, 1983). Here, then, lies the great importance of fighting the abandonment of APs that assist the performance of BADL, for they are crucial to the improvement of individual independence. Beyond their importance in boosting independence, daily living aids are also considered to be the type of APs with the greatest chance of entering the mainstream market (Coleman, 2006). The reason for this is that these products are the most useful to most people (either with or without disabilities) and are the most likely to be used by them. The design of these products is also likely to involve an inclusive approach which is not possible with APs designed for more specific disabilities, or APs which are custom-made to meet very specific needs. Næss and Øritsland (2005) argue for an inclusive design approach to product development, bearing in mind product semiotics and affordances, noting that “by definition, mainstream ORIGINAL ARTICLE

[1]  A. Maslow.  Motivation and Personality , 1954 .

[2]  E. Goffman.  Stigma; Notes On The Management Of Spoiled Identity , 1964 .

[3]  F. Mahoney,et al.  FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. , 2018, Maryland state medical journal.

[4]  S. Katz,et al.  Progress in development of the index of ADL. , 1970, The Gerontologist.

[5]  C. Skilbeck,et al.  An activities index for use with stroke patients. , 1983, Age and ageing.

[6]  A. Maslow.  Motivation and personality, 3rd ed. , 1987 .

[7]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[8]  Pamela Jordan.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques , 1994 .

[9]  Hendrik N.J. Schifferstein,et al.  CONTEXTUAL SHIFTS IN HEDONIC JUDGMENTS , 1995 .

[10]  F. Strack,et al.  Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility , 1997 .

[11]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Constructive Consumer Choice Processes , 1998 .

[12]  C. Hocking.  Function or feelings: factors in abandonment of assistive devices ∗ , 1999 .

[13]  Elaine B. Hyder,et al.  The ELDer project: social, emotional, and environmental factors in the design of eldercare technologies , 2000, CUU '00.

[14]  A. Markman,et al.  “What Is It?” Categorization Flexibility and Consumers' Responses to Really New Products , 2001 .

[15]  A I M Voorbij,et al.  The twisting force of aged consumers when opening a jar. , 2002, Applied ergonomics.

[16]  B. Weiner,et al.  The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors , 2002, Disability and rehabilitation.

[17]  Rashmi Adaval,et al.  Automatic construction and use of contextual information for product and price evaluations , 2002 .

[18]  Jane Seale,et al.  Older people as partners in assistive technology research: The use of focus groups in the design process , 2002 .

[19]  C. J. Overbeeke,et al.  Design Science: Meaning, Action and Value , 2003 .

[20]  D. Norman.  Emotional design : why we love (or hate) everyday things , 2004 .

[21]  P. Clarkson,et al.  Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design , 2004 .

[22]  P. Boradkar.  Beautiful Beings : Aesthetics in Industrial Design and Cultural Studies , 2006 .

[23]  Darren W. Dahl,et al.  To Be or Not Be? The Influence of Dissociative Reference Groups on Consumer Preferences , 2006 .

[24]  恵子 紀国谷.  国際生活機能分類(International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF)にみた福祉・保健・医療の専門職協働における連携に関する貢献と課題 , 2007 .

[25]  P. Desmet,et al.  Framework of product experience , 2007 .

[26]  Gunnar Bolmsjö,et al.  MAGIC-HAND: A bottle and jar opening machine for people with severe disabilities , 2007 .

[27]  Jean-François Bassereau,et al.  Perception and Deception: How Quantity and Quality of Sensory Information Affect Users' Perception of Office Chairs , 2008 .

[28]  H. Schifferstein,et al.  Consumer-product attachment: Measurement and design implications , 2008 .

[29]  Jeffery D. Higginbotham,et al.  Design Meets Disability , 2009 .

[30]  T. Möttönen,et al.  Perceived functional disabilities among rheumatoid arthritis patients , 2010, Rheumatology International.

[31]  Jacquie Ripat,et al.  The intersection of culture, disability and assistive technology , 2011, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.