The influence of context on product judgement - Presenting assistive products as consumer goods

International Journal of Design

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 99-112

  de Barros, Ana Correia ^a   Duarte, Carlos ^a   Cruz, José Bulas ^b  

^a UNIDCOM IADE   (Portugal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRÁS OS MONTES AND ALTO DOURO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Communication; Inclusive design; Presentation format; Product design; Questionnaire

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855756131     PISSN: 19913761     EISSN: 1994036X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Adaval, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2002). Automatic construction and use of contextual information for product and price evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 572-588.
2. Ashley (2010). Welcome Eva Solo. Retrieved December 09, 2011, from http://blog.awhiteroom.com/welcome-evasolo_617.html
3. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187-217.
4. Boradkar, P. (2004). Beautiful beings: Aesthetics in industrial design and cultural studies. Paper presented at the National Design Education Conference, Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA). Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http://www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/xiglafiles/Prasad_Boradkar.pdf
5. Coleman, R. (2006). From margins to mainstream: Why inclusive design is better design. 2006 Ergonomics Society Lecture address. Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http://www.ergonomics.org.uk/espdfs/ErgSocLecture.pdf
6. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547-577.
7. Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57-66.
8. Feijs, L., & Overbeek, K. (2003). Design science: Meaning, action and value. In Proceedings of the 6th Asian Design International Conference [CD-Rom]. Tsukuba, Japan: University of Tsukuba.
9. Goffman, E. (1986). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Touchstone.
10. Hirsch, T., Forlizzi, J., Hyder, E., Goetz, J., Kurtz, C., & Stroback, J. (2000). The ELDer project: Social, emotional, and environmental factors in the design of eldercare technologies. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Universal Usability (pp. 72-79). New York: ACM.
11. Hocking, C. (1999). Function or feelings: Factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technology and Disability, 11(1/2), 3-11.
12. Hocking, C. (2008). Objects of meaning: Assistive devices as symbols of professionalism, identity and disability. In Proceedings of the ARATA 2008 National Conference [CDRom]. South Australia: Australian Rehabilitation & Assistive Technology Association.
13. Holbrook, M., & Skilbeck, C. E. (1983). An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age and Ageing, 12(2), 166-170.
14. Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. London: Taylor & Francis.
15. Katz, S., Down, T. D., Cash, H. R., & Grotz, R. C. (1970). Progress in the development of the index of ADL. The Gerontologist, 10(1), 20-30.
16. Link, B. G., & C., P. J. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 363-385.
17. Lorentzon, U., Bolmsjö, G., Doyle, M., & Carus, D. (2007). Magic-Hand: A bottle and jar opening machine for people with severe disabilities. Gerontechnology, 6(2), 79-88.
18. Mahoney, F., & Barthel, D. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Med Journal, 14, 56-61.
19. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). Hong Kong: Longman.
20. McRaney, C. (2010). Anchoring effect. Retrieved June 27, 2011, from http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/07/27/anchoring-effect/
21. Moreau, C. P., Markman, A. B., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). "What is it?" Categorization flexibility and consumers' responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 489-498.
22. Næss, I. R., & Øritsland, T. A. (2005). Inclusive, mainstream products. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Inclusive Design [CD-Rom]. London: Helen Hamlyn Research Centre at the Royal College of Art. Retrieved June 27, 2011, from http://www.hhc.rca.ac.uk/archive/hhrc/programmes/include/2005/proceedings/
23. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
24. Pape, T. L.-B., Kim, J., & Weiner, B. (2002). The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: A review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1/2/3), 5-20.
25. Pullin, G. (2009). Design meets disability. Cambridge: MIT Press.
26. Ricci, S. (2011). Eva Solo updated. Retrieved December 09, 2011, from http://www.elmanco.com/2011/04/01/eva-soloupdated/
27. Ripat, J., & Woodgate, R. (2010). The intersection of culture, disability and assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6(2), 87-96.
28. Rouvray, A. d., Bassereu, J.-F., Duchamp, R., Schneider, J.-S., & Charbonneau, S. (2008). Perception and deception: How quantity and quality of sensory information affect users' perception of office chairs. The Design Journal, 11(1), 29-50.
29. Scherer, M. J. (2010). Assistive product selection focusing on the person, milieu and product. In J. H. Stone & M. Blouin (Eds.), International encyclopedia of rehabilitation. Retrieved June 27, 2011, from http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/ encyclopedia/en/article/115/
30. Schifferstein, H. N. J. (1995). Contextual shifts in hedonic judgements. Journal of Sensory Studies, 10(4), 381-392.
31. Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E. P. H. (2008). Consumer-product attachment: Measurement and design implications. International Journal of Design, 2(3), 1-13.
32. Seale, J., McCreadie, C., Turner-Smith, A., & Tinker, A. (2002). Older people as partners in assistive technology research: the use of focus groups in the design process. Technology and Disability, 14(1), 21-29.
33. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174.
34. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437-446.
35. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
36. Tuominen, R., Tuominen, S., Suominen, C., Möttönen, T., Azbel, M., & Hemmilä, J. (2010). Perceived functional disabilities among rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology International, 30(5), 643-649.
37. Voorbij, A. I. M., & Steenbekkers, L. P. A. (2002). The twisting force of aged consumers when opening a jar. Applied Ergonomics, 33(1), 105-109.
38. White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). To be or not be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 404- 414.
39. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneve, Switzerland