Cultural influences on perception of disability and disabled people: a comparison of opinions from students in the United Kingdom (UK) Pakistan (PAK) about a generic wheelchair using a semantic differential scale

References

• Torrens G. Assistive technology product to universal design: a way forward. Des All [Internet]. 2012;182–205. Available from: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/15736
   Google Scholar
• Assistive technology-Gov.UK [Internet]. Assist. Technol. Defin. safe use. 2017 [cited 2017 Aug 3]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assistive-technology-definition-and-safe-use/assistive-technology-definition-and-safe-use
   Google Scholar
• The Economist. Moving from the margins Mainstreaming persons with disabilities in Pakistan. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Lanutti JNL, Medola FO, Gonçalves DD, et al. The significance of manual wheelchairs: a comparative study on male and female users. Procedia Manuf. 2015;3:6079–6085.
   Google Scholar
• Newell AF, Inclusive design or assistive technology. In: Keates S, Lebbon C, Coleman R, et al. editors. Inclusive design. Design for the whole population. London: Springer Verlag GmbH; 2003. p. 172–181. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-1-4419-7031-2
   Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Woodgate R. The intersection of culture, disability and assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6:87–96. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/17483107.2010.507859
   Google Scholar
• Moalosi R, Popovic V, Hickling-Hudson A. Culture-orientated product design. Int J Technol Des Educ. 2010;20:175–190.
   Google Scholar
• Chiu T, Arbor A. Cultural differences in aesthetic preferences: does product-to-context match matter? Int Assoc Soc Des Res. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Matsumoto D, Juang L. Culture and psychology. 5th ed. Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Berry JW, Poortinga YH, Breugelmans SM, et al. Cross-Cultural Psychology. 3rd, edition. Cambridge University Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Williams R. Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society [Internet]. New York. 1983. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=S6U03FvYZYkC&pgis=1
   Google Scholar
• Paratte P, Huer MB, Hourcade JJ. Using assistive technology focus groups with families across cultures. Educ Train Ment Retard Dev Disabil. 2003;38:429–440.
   Google Scholar
• Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev. 1991;98:224–253.
   Google Scholar
• Masuda T, Nisbett RE. Attending holistically versus analytically: comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81:922–934.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbett RPD. The geography of thought [Internet]. NewYork: The Free Press; 2003. Available from: https://stg.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app;jsessionid=08FAAACAF5D4B696DD9DB3B6F1400436
   Google Scholar
• Nisbett RE, Choi I, Peng K, et al. Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol Rev. 2001;108:291–310.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbett RE, Masuda T. Culture and point of view. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:11163–11170.
   Google Scholar
• Kastanakis MN, Voyer BG. The effect of culture on perception and cognition: a conceptual framework. J Bus Res. 2014;67:425–433.
   Google Scholar
• Goto SG, Ando Y, Huang C, et al. Cultural differences in the visual processing of meaning: detecting incongruities between background and foreground objects using the N400. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010; 5:242–253.
   Google Scholar
• Chua HF, Boland JE, Nisbett RE. Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:12629–12633.
   Google Scholar
• Shinohara K, Wobbrock JO. In the shadow of misperception. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2011;705:Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1978942.1979044
   Google Scholar
• Goffman E. Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1963.
   Google Scholar
• Bispo R, Branco V. Designing out stigma - The role of objects in the construction of disabled people´s identity. Dare to Desire 6th Int. Des. Emot. Conf 2008; 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• The Oxford English Dictionary. Stigma. The Oxford English Dictionary [Internet]. Oxford University Press. 2018. Available from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stigma
   Google Scholar
• Stockton G. Stigma: addressing negative associations in product design. 2009; 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Parette P, Scherer M. Assistive technology use and stigma. Educ Train Dev Disabil. 2004;39:217–226. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=psyc4&AN=2004-17998-003%5Cnhttp://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com/galway?sid=OVID:psycdb&id=pmid:&id=doi:&issn=1547-0350&isbn=&volume=39&issue=3&spage=217&pages=217-226&date=2004&title=Educa
   Google Scholar
• WHO. World report on disability - Summary. World Rep Disabil. 2011;2011:1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Sun W, Wilson MG, Schreiber D, et al. Ethical challenges related to assistive product access for older adults and adults living with a disability: a scoping review protocol. Syst Rev. 2017;6:24.
   Google Scholar
• BusinessWire. Disabled & elderly assistive technologies market - global opportunity analysis and industry forecast, 2017-2023: research and markets. Business Wire [Internet] 2017;[cited 2017 Dec 20]. Available from: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170824005495/en/Disabled-Elderly-Assistive-Technologies-Market—Global
   Google Scholar
• Routhier F, Vincent C, Desrosiers J, et al. Mobility of wheelchair users: a proposed performance assessment framework. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:19–34. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/dre.25.1.19.34
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Guidelines on the provision of manual wheelchairs in less resourced settings [Internet]. World Heal. Organ. 2008. Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/publications/technology/wheelchairguidelines/en/index.html
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Assistive devices/technologies: What WHO is Doing [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2017 Dec 20]. Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/technology/en/
   Google Scholar
• Lucintel [Internet]. Glob. Wheel. Mark. by Prod. Categ. Des. Funct. end user, Reg. 2017-2022. 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 20]. Available from: http://www.lucintel.com/global-wheelchair-market-2017.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Market research reports Inc. [Internet]. World Wheel. Mark. to Grow 2.8% Annu. from 2014 to 2018 | Mark. Res. Blog. 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 21]. Available from: https://www.marketresearchreports.com/blog/2014/05/15/world-wheelchair-market-grow-28-annually-2014-2018
   Google Scholar
• Pape TLB, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Gooberman-Hill R, Ebrahim S. Making decisions about simple interventions: older people’s use of walking aids. Age Ageing. 2007;36:569–573.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver M. The politics of disablement. Palgrave MacMillan; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Swain J, Colin SF, Cameron C. Controversial Issues in a Disabling Society. Open University Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Muller W. Order and meaning in design. Lemma Publishers; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Evans M, Sommerville S. Seeing is believing: the challenge of product semantics in the curriculum. DS 43 Proc. E&PDE 2007, … [Internet] 2007;1–6. Available from: http://www.designsociety.org/download-publication/28381/seeing_is_believing_the_challenge_of_product_semantics_in_the_curriculum
   Google Scholar
• Crilly N, Moultrie J, Clarkson PJ. Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Des Stud. 2004;25:547–577.
   Google Scholar
• Fiske J. Introduction to communication studies. 2nd ed. Routledge; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Vihma S. On actual semantic and aesthetic interaction. . 2003; 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• McDonagh D, Bruseberg A, Haslam C. Visual product evaluation: exploring users' emotional relationships with products. Appl Ergon. 2002;33:231–240.
   Google Scholar
• Lu W, Čok V, Zhu R. Study on cultural differences of users’ perception towards shape characteristics. 2014;1135–1146:
   Google Scholar
• Burkette AP. Language and material culture. Amsterdam, The Netherlands,: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Dant T. Material civilization: things and society. Br J Sociol. 2006;57:289–308.
   Google Scholar
• Miodownik M. Stuff matters: exploring the marvelous materials that shape our man-made world. 2014; Available from: https://books.google.com/books?id=_5yUAwAAQBAJ&pgis=1
   Google Scholar
• Dant T. The “pragmatics” of material interaction. J Consum Cult. 2008;8:11–33.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson S, Kaiser Gladwin K, Mayo N. Considering material culture in assessing assistive devices: “breaking up the rhythm”. Societies. 2016;6:14. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/6/2/14
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff K, Butter R. Product semantics: exploring the symbolic qualities of form. Innovation. 1984;3:8. Available from: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=asc_papers
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff K. The semantic turn: a new foundation for design. Artifact. CRC Press; 2007. Available from: http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/artifact/article/view/1300
   Google Scholar
• Steffen D. Design semantics of innovation: product language as a reflection on technical innovation and socio-cultural change. 2010; Available from: http://www2.uiah.fi/sefun/DSIU_papers/DSIU_Steffen_Design Semantics of Innovation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Demirbilek O, Sener B. Product design, semantics and emotional response. Ergonomics. 2003;46:1346–1360. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140130310001610874
   Google Scholar
• Hughes RS. The conceptual structure of product semantic models. Brunel University; 1999. Available from: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/4969
   Google Scholar
• Artacho-Ramirez MA, Diego-Mas JA, Alcaide-Marzal J. Influence of the mode of graphical representation on the perception of product aesthetic and emotional features: an exploratory study. Int J Ind Ergon. 2008;38:942–952.
   Google Scholar
• Wei D, Neel S, Robinson PAB. Is a picture really worth a thousand words?:-on the role of images in e-commerce. Proc 7th ACM Int Conf Web Search Data Min. - WSDM ’14. 2014;633–641. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2556226
   Google Scholar
• Lomay V, Hinkebein J. Cultural considerations when providing rehabilitation services to American Indians. Rehabil Psychol. 2006;51:36–42. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=paovfth&NEWS=N&AN=00001344-200602000-00006
   Google Scholar
• Hammell KW. Sacred texts: a sceptical exploration of the assumptions underpinning theories of occupation. Can J Occup Ther. 2009;76:6.
   Google Scholar
• Norman DA. Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. 1st ed. New York: Basic Books; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Ajani T, Stork E. Creating a semantic differential scale for measuring users’ perceptions and attitudes toward emerging technologies. Proc Conf Inf Syst Appl Res. 2013;1–7. Available from: www.aitp-edsig.org
   Google Scholar
• Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH. The measurement of meaning. 2nd ed. Urbana, Chicago and London: University of Illinois Press; 1957.
   Google Scholar
• Robson C, McCartan K. Real world research. 4th ed. London: Wiley; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Martin B, Hanington B. Universal Methods of Design 2012;
   Google Scholar
• Petiot JF, Yannou B. Measuring consumer perceptions for a better comprehension, specification and assessment of product semantics. Int J Ind Ergon. 2004;33:507–525.
   Google Scholar
• Yusoff R, Mohd Janor R. Generation of an interval metric scale to measure attitude. SAGE Open. 2014;4:
   Google Scholar
• Osgood CE. Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures. Am Anthropol. 2009;66:171–200.
   Google Scholar
• Heise DR. The semantic differential and attitude research. Attitude Meas. 1970;235–253.
   Google Scholar
• Ciabuca A. The development of a semantic differential scale for assessing the perceived image of citizens about Romanian Police Forces. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2015;187:28–33.
   Google Scholar
• Alcántara E, Artacho MA, González JC, et al. Application of product semantics to footwear design. Part I - Identification of footwear semantic space applying differential semantics. Int J Ind Ergon. 2005;35:713–725.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu SH, Chuang MC, Chang CC. A semantic differential study of designers’ and users’ product form perception. Int J Ind Ergon. 2000;25:375–391.
   Google Scholar
• Aros M, Aros NH, Narvaez G. The semantic differential for the discipline of design: a tool for the product evaluation. 13th International Congress on Project Engineering. Badajoz. 2009;422–433:
   Google Scholar
• Davis M, Jackson R, Smith T, et al. The hearing aid effect in African American and Caucasian males as perceived by female judges of the same race. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1999;30:165–172.
   Google Scholar
• Ajani T, Stork E. Emerging Technologies: Public Health Educators’ Knowledge and Attitudes towards Global Sensor Networks 2014;5. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84865650262&partnerID=40&md5=5b86ac5d0f1ed879577e79a75116b9ca
   Google Scholar
• Fellinghauer BAG, Roth A, Bugari K, et al. Construct validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency of the Photo Elicitation Semantic Differential Scale (PESD) in disability studies. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2011;23:257–265.
   Google Scholar
• Carneiro L, Oliveira T, Noriega P, et al. Can the context stigmatize the assistive technology? a preliminary study using virtual environments. Adv Ergon Des. 2016;289–298. Available from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/51854981/Advances_in_Ergonomics_in_Design.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1517938138&Signature=4v%2F33viDPJSyTo0mBRdDt8LQzV0%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B filename%3DClothing_Cust
   Google Scholar
• Loughborough University [Internet]. Ethics Approv. (Human Particip. Sub-Committee. 2018 [cited 2017 Aug 30]. Available from: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/committees/ethics-approvals-human-participants/
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff K. On the proposition that “Deisgn is making sense (of things)”. Design Issues. 1989;5:9–39.
   Google Scholar
• Owen MJ. Simple canonical views. Proc Br Mach Vis Conf 2005. 2005;85:1–85. 10. Available from: http://www.bmva.org/bmvc/2005/papers/paper-264.html
   Google Scholar
• Elliott AC, Woodward WA. Statistical analysis quick reference guidebook: with SPSS examples. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Author 2019 - Figshare
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Polgar JM. Assistive technology: principles & practices. 4th ed. Missouri: Elsevier Mosby; 2015. Available from: https://www.advantageceus.com/sites/advantageceus/uploads/documents/Courses/Assistive_Technology/AT-_Module_1-_Web_Course.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Moon H, Park J, Kim S. The importance of an innovative product design on customer behavior: development and validation of a scale. J Prod Innov Manag. 2015;32:224–232.
   Google Scholar
• Malhotra NK. Marketing research- an applied orientation. 6th Editio. Yagan S, editor. Pearson; 2010.
   Google Scholar