Technology-driven assistive devices provide numerous benefits to people with severe visual impairments, yet device take-up rates are often low.
OBJECTIVE:
The study sought to determine the strengths of connections between transportation self-efficacy, technophobia, personal inertia, innovation resistance, and willingness to adopt high-tech transportation assistive devices among visually impaired individuals. It also examined certain potential barriers to device acceptance; namely the perceived safety and complexity of assistive devices and the effects on a person’s self-image of using a device.
METHODS:
A model was developed and tested via a questionnaire survey of 319 people with visual disabilities, each of whom was presented with five examples of hypothetical high-tech mobility and transportation assistive devices.
RESULTS:
Technophobia exerted a powerful negative impact on innovation resistance and was itself significantly determined in part by transportation self-efficacy. Personal inertia and the effects of device use on self-image failed to impact significantly on the participants’ levels of innovation resistance.
CONCLUSIONS:
The results have implications for the promotional activities of manufacturers of mobility and transportation assistive devices and for visual disability support organisations that wish to secure acceptance of new assistive devices.
WHO (World Health Organisation). Visual impairment and blindness. Geneva: WHO; 2015.
2.
NHS (National Health Service). Blindness and vision loss. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2021.
3.
RNIB (Royal National Institute for the Blind). Key information and statistics on sight loss in the UK. London: RNIB; 2018.
4.
CDC (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention). Vision health initiative. Atlanta GA: CDC; 2020.
5.
ParedesHFernandesHMartinsPBarrosoJ. Gathering the users’ needs in the development of assistive technology: A blind navigation system use case. In: StephanidisCAntonaM, editors. Universal Access in Human-computer Interaction: Applications and Services for Quality of Life, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. vol. 8011. pp. 79-88.
6.
BhowmickAHazarikaM. An insight into assistive technology for the visually impaired and blind people: State-of-the-art and future trends. Journal of Multimodal User Interfaces. 2017; 11(2): 1-24.
7.
ManduchiRCoughlanJ. (Computer) vision without sight. Communications of the ACM. 2012; 55(1): 96-104.
8.
ClaypoolHBin-NunAGerlachJ. Self-driving cars: The impact on people with disabilities. Boston: Ruderman; 2017.
9.
GiampapaJSteinfeldATevesEDiasMRubinsteinZ. Accessible transportation technologies research initiative (ATTRI): State of the practice scan. Pittsburgh: The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University; 2017.
FedericiSBorsciS. The use and non-use of assistive technology in Italy: A pilot study. In: GelderblomGSoedeMAdriaensLMiesenbergerK, editors. Everyday technology for independence and care. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2011. pp. 979-86.
12.
RoentgenUGelderblomGSoedeMde WitteL. The impact of electronic mobility devices for persons who are visually impaired: A systematic review of effects and effectiveness. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness. 2009; 103(11): 743-753.
13.
GitlinL. Why older persons accept assistive technology or abandon its use. Generations. 1995; 19: 41-46.
14.
BlaschBDe l’AuneW. A computer profile of mobility coverage and safety index. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness. 1997; 86: 249-254.
15.
Riemer-reissMWackerR. Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation. 2000; 66(3): 44-50.
16.
FedericiSMeloniFBorsciS. The abandonment of assistive technology in Italy: A survey of National Health Service users. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2016; 52(4): 516-26.
17.
TervenJSalasJRaducanuB. New opportunities for computer vision-based assistive technology systems for the visually impaired. Computer. 2013; 47(4): 52-58.
18.
GianoglioM. Smart cities for the blind. Bath UK: Living Map; 2017. Available at: https://www.livingmap.com/smart-cities-for-the-blind/.
19.
SobnathDRehmanI. Smart cities could give the visually impaired a new outlook on urban life. The Conversation. 16 September 2019. Available at: https://theconversation.com/smart-cities-could-give-the-visually-impaired-a-new-outlook-on-urban-life-123478.
20.
EuklidiadasM. How can cities help visually impaired people? Barcelona: Tomorrow City; 2021. Available at: https://tomorrow.city/a/how-can-cities-help-visually-impaired-people.
21.
RamadhanA. Wearable smart system for visually impaired people. Sensors. 2018; 13(3): 834.
22.
MandalSChandranA. Low-cost ultrasonic-based shoe for visually impaired people. In: SudipPBhatiaD, editors. Smart healthcare for disease diagnosis and prevention. New York: Academic Press; 2020. pp. 103-114.
23.
MerrifieldR. How soundscapes and vibrations are helping blind people see the world. Horizon: The EU Research and Innovation Magazine; 22 November 2017. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/themes/custom/hm_theme/images/horizon-magazine-logo.svg.
24.
Al-HeetiA. Google expands lookout app for people who are blind or vision-impaired. London: Cnet Tech; 2020.
25.
HarrisonV. The blind woman developing tech for the good of others. BBC News. Singapore: 7 December 2018. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46258339.
26.
MajeedZ. ‘Mini cheetah’: Robotic guide dogs could help visually impaired people navigate the world; here’s how. Republic World. 8 April 2021. Accessed at https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/science/robotic-guide-dogs-could-help-visually-impaired-people-navigate-the-world-heres-how.html.
27.
KimYKimCKimB. Design of an auditory guidance system for the blind with signal transformation from stereo ultrasonic to binaural audio. Artificial Life and Robotics. 2006; 4: 220-226.
28.
CalderD. Assistive technology interfaces for the blind. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies. Istanbul: IEEE; 2009. pp. 318-323.
29.
DaillyJ. Blind young people aren’t connected to the Internet – yet. The Guardian. 2 October 2012. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2012/oct/02/blind-digital-technology-internet-design.
30.
ArthanatSBauerSLenkerJNochajskiSWuY. Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. 2007; 2(4): 235-48.
31.
AhmedTHoyleRShafferPConnellyKCrandallDKapadiaA. Understanding the physical safety, security, and privacy concerns of people with visual impairments. IEEE Internet Computing. 2017; 21(3): 56-63.
32.
SachdevaNSuomiR. Assistive technology for totally blind: Barriers to adoption. Turku Finland: TUCS/Turku School of Economics, University of Turku; 2013.
33.
SöderströmSYtterhusB. The use and non-use of assistive technologies from the world of information and communication technology by visually impaired young people: A walk on the tightrope of peer inclusion. Disability and Society. 2010; 25(3): 303-315.
34.
HuangDJinXCoghlanA. Advances in consumer innovation resistance research: A review and research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021; 166: 120594.
35.
DaviesTBurnsCPinderS. Using ecological interface design to develop an auditory interface for visually impaired travellers. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Australasian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. Sydney, Australia; 2006. pp. 1-9.
36.
HeidenreichSKraemerT. Passive innovation resistance: The curse of innovation? Investigating consequences for innovative consumer behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2015; 51: 134-151.
37.
RamSShethJ. Consumer resistance to innovations: The marketing problem and its solutions. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 1989; 6(2): 5-14.
38.
TalkeKHeidenreichS. How to overcome pro-change bias: Incorporating passive and active innovation resistance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2015; 31(5): 894-907.
39.
HeidenreichSHandrichM. What about passive innovation resistance? Investigating adoption-related behaviour from a resistance perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2015; 32(6): 878-903.
40.
EllenPBeardenWSharmaS. Resistance to technological innovations: An examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1991; 19: 297-307.
41.
KimDLeeC. Exploring the roles of self-efficacy and technical support in the relationship between techno-stress and counter-productivity. Sustainability. 2021; 13: 4349.
42.
YanS. Lack of self-efficacy and resistance to innovation impact on insufficient learning capabilities: Mediating the role of demotivation and moderating the role of institutional culture. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; early view website.
43.
BauerM. Technophobia: A misleading conception of resistance to new technology. In: BauerM, editors. Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995. pp. 97-124.
44.
SinkovicsRStöttingerBSchlegelmilchBSundaresanR. Reluctance to use technology related products: Development of a technophobia scale. Thunderbird International Business Review. 2002; 44(4): 477-494.
45.
DibrovA. Innovation resistance: The main factors and ways to overcome them. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences. 2015; 166: 92-96.
46.
ManiZChoukI. Consumer resistance to innovation in services: challenges and barriers in the internet of things era. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2018; 35(5): 780-807.
47.
SethHTalwarSBhatiaASaxenaADhirA. Consumer resistance and inertia of retail investors: Development of the resistance adoption inertia continuance (RAIC) framework. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2020; 55: 102071.
48.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review. 1977; 84(2): 191-215.
49.
CmarJMcDonnallMCruddenA. Transportation self-efficacy and employment among individuals with visual impairments. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 2018; 48(2): 257-268.
50.
CruddenAAntonelliKO’MallyJ. Transportation self-efficacy and social problem-solving of persons who are blind or visually impaired. Journal of Social Work in Disability and Rehabilitation. 2016; 15(1): 52-61.
51.
CserdiZKeneseiZ. Attitudes to forced adoption of new technologies in public transportation services. Research in Transportation Business and Management. 2020; 41: 100611.
52.
CarlsonJSallisJConwayTSaelensBFrankLKerrJCainKKingA. Interactions between psychosocial and built environment factors in explaining older adults’ physical activity. Preventative Medicine. 2012; 54(1): 68-73.
53.
SkarinFOlssonLFrimanMWästlundE. Importance of motives, self-efficacy, social support and satisfaction with travel for behaviour change during travel intervention programs. Transportation Research (F): Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2019; 62: 451-458.
54.
BlockPVannerEKeysCRimmerJSkeelsS. Project Shake-it-Up: Using health promotion, capacity building and a disability studies framework to increase self-efficacy. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2010; 32(9): 741-754.
55.
KaravidasMLimNKatsikasS. The effects of computers on older adult users. Computers in Human Behaviour. 2005; 21(5): 697-711.
56.
TihicMHadzicMMcKelvieA. Social support and its effects on self-efficacy among entrepreneurs with disabilities. Journal of Business Venturing Insights. 2021; 16: e00279.
57.
ParkYChenJ. Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone. Industrial Management and Data Systems. 2007; 107: 1349-1365.
58.
BrosnanM. Technophobia: The psychological impact of information technology. London: Routledge; 2002.
59.
OsiceanuM. Psychological implications of modern technologies: “Technofobia” versus “Technophilia”. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, V. 2015; 180: 1137-1144.
60.
KhasawnehO. Technophobia: Examining its hidden factors and defining it. Technology in Society. 2018; 54: 93-100.
61.
BlutMWangC. Technology readiness: A meta-analysis of conceptualizations of the construct and its impact on technology usage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2020; 48: 649-669.
62.
BozionelosN. Computer anxiety: Relationship with computer experience and prevalence. Computers in Human Behavior. 2001; 17(2): 213-224.
63.
KhasawnehO. Technophobia without boarders: The influence of technophobia and emotional intelligence on technology acceptance and the moderating influence of organizational climate. Computers in Human Behaviour. 2018; 88: 210-218.
64.
HirunyawipadaTPaswanA. Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk: Implications for high technology product adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2006; 23(4): 182-198.
65.
MinSKalwaniMRobinsonW. Market pioneer and early follower survival risks: A contingency analysis of really new versus incrementally new product-markets. Journal of Marketing. 2006; 70(1): 5-33.
66.
MarinRBiedrzyckiRFirinciogullariS. Reliability and validity of the Apathy Evaluation Scale. Psychiatry Research. 1991; 38(2): 143-162.
67.
WoodWNealD. A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychological Review. 2007; 114(4): 843-863.
68.
SommerL. The theory of planned behaviour and the impact of past behaviour. International Business and Economics Research Journal. 2011; 10(1): 91-100.
69.
YanamandramVWhiteL. Switching barriers in business-to-business services: A qualitative study. International Journal of Service Industry Management. 2006; 17(2): 158-192.
70.
KitamuraRHoornT. Regularity and irreversibility of weekly travel behaviour. Transportation. 1987; 14: 227-251.
71.
CherchiEMancaF. Accounting for inertia in modal choices: Some new evidence using a RP/SP dataset. Transportation. 2011; 38(4): 679-695.
72.
JainTJohnsonMRoseG. Exploring the process of travel behaviour change and mobility trajectories associated with car share adoption. Travel Behaviour and Society. 2020; 18: 117-131.
73.
GalD. A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion. Judgment and Decision Making. 2006; 1(1): 23-32.
74.
LallyPVan JaarsveldCPottsHWardleJ. How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world?European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010; 40(6): 998-1009.
75.
GonzálezRMarrero ÁCherchiE. Testing for inertia effect when a new tram is implemented. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2017; 98: 150-159.
76.
PolitesGKarahannaE. Shackled to the status quo: The inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Quarterly. 2012; 36(1): 21-42.
77.
VenkateshVMorrisMDavisGDavisF. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003; 27: 425-478.
78.
HakobyanLLumsdenJO’SullivanDBartlettH. Mobile assistive technologies for the visually impaired. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2013; 58(6): 513-528.
79.
AhmedTShafferPConnellyKCrandallDKapadiaA. Addressing physical safety, security, and privacy for people with visual impairments. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. Denver CO; 2016. pp. 341-354.
80.
AzenkotSPrasainSBorningAFortunaELadnerRWobbrockJ. Enhancing independence and safety for blind and deaf-blind public transit riders. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2011. pp. 3247-3256.
81.
WittichWSouthallKJohnsonA. Usability of assistive listening devices by older adults with low vision. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. 2016; 11(7): 564-571.
82.
RogersE. Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press; 2003.
83.
KhanAKhusroSAlamI. BlindSense: An accessibility-inclusive universal user interface for blind people. Engineering, Technology and Applied Science Research. 2018; 8(2): 2775-2784.
84.
FruchtermanJ. In the palm of your hand: A vision of the future of technology for people with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness. 2003; 97(10): 585-591.
85.
HellmanR. Universal design and mobile devices. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2007; 4554(1): 147-156.
86.
LahavOHagabNEl KaderSLevyTTalisV. Listen to the models: Sonified learning models for people who are blind. Computers and Education. 2018; 127: 141-153.
87.
MukherjeeAHoyerW. The effect of novel attributes on product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research. 2001; 28(3): 462-472.
88.
ShinoharaK. Investigating meaning in uses of assistive devices: Implications of social and professional contexts. In: Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2010. pp. 319-320.
89.
SrimathiSKhanM. Assistive technology: A prelude to better inclusion. Literary Herald. 2019; 5(4): 77-81.
90.
ParettePSchererM. Assistive technology use and stigma. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities. 2004; 39(3): 217-26.
91.
McGrathCAstellA. The benefits and barriers to technology acquisition: Understanding the decision-making processes of older adults with age-related vision loss. British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2017; 80(2): 123-131.
92.
SpaffordMRudmanDLeipertB. When self-presentation trumps access: Why older adults with low vision go without low-vision services. Journal of Applied Gerontology. 2010; 29(5): 579-602.
93.
HershM. Deafblind people, stigma and the use of communication and mobility assistive devices. Technology and Disability. 2013; 25(40): 245-261.
94.
DavisF. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989; 13(3): 319-339.
95.
HairJHultGRingleCSarstedtM. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling. 2 ed. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage; 2017.
96.
GilbertC. Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal. 2005; 48(5): 741-763.
97.
MoradiEJafariSDoorbashZMirzaeiA. Impact of organizational inertia on business model innovation, open innovation, and corporate performance. Asia Pacific Management Review. 2021; 26(4): 171-179.
98.
AhrneGPapakostasA. Inertia and Innovation. Stockholm: Stockholm Centre for Organizational Research; 2001.
99.
VerzaRCarvalhoMBattagliaMUccelliM. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Multiple Sclerosis Journal. 2006; 12(1): 88-93.
100.
SquiresLWilliamsNMorrisonV. Matching and accepting assistive technology in multiple sclerosis: A focus group study with people with multiple sclerosis, carers, and occupational therapists. Journal of Health Psychology. 2019; 24(4): 480-494.
101.
PawlukDAdamsRKitadaR. Designing haptic assistive technology for individuals who are blind or visually impaired. IEEE Transactions on Haptics. 2015; 8(3): 258-278.
102.
WilkowskaWGaulSZiefleM. A small but significant difference: The role of gender on acceptance of medical assistive technologies. In: Symposium of the Austrian HCI and usability engineering group. Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. pp. 82-100.
103.
ReesEEnnalsPFosseyE. Implementing an action over inertia group program in community residential rehabilitation services: Group participant and facilitator perspectives. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2021; 12: 624803.
104.
SchrederGSiebenhandlKMayrE. E-Inclusion in public transport: The role of self-efficacy. In: HolzingerAMiesenbergerK, editors. HCI and Usability for e-Inclusion. USAB 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 5889. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. pp. 311-311.
105.
HagenKGutkinTWilsonCOatsR. Using vicarious experience and verbal persuasion to enhance self-efficacy in pre-service teachers: "Priming the pump" for consultation. School Psychology Quarterly. 1998; 13(2): 169-178.
106.
GregorPSloanDNewellA. Disability and technology: Building barriers or creating opportunities?Advances in Computers. 2005; 64: 283-346.
107.
NimrodG. Technophobia among older Internet users. Educational Gerontology. 2018; 44(2-3): 148-162.
108.
SchererM. The change in emphasis from people to person: Introduction to the special issue on assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2002; 24(1-3): 1-4.
109.
SherrillAWieseCAbdullahSArriagaR. Overcoming clinician technophobia: What we learned from our mass exposure to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology in Behavioural Science. 2022; 7(4): 547-553.
110.
SchwarzerRJerusalemM. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: WeinmanJWrightSJohnstonM, editors. Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio, causal and control beliefs. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson; 1995. pp. 35-37.
111.
Van BeuningenJDe RuyterKWetzelsMStreukensS. Customer self-efficacy in technology-based self-service: Assessing between-and within-person differences. Journal of Service Research. 2009; 11(4): 407-428.
112.
MarinR. Apathy: A neuropsychiatric syndrome. Journal of Neuropsychiatry. 1991; 3(3): 243-254.
113.
AdamsDNelsonRToddP. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly. 2002; 16(2): 227-247.
114.
GagnonMOrruñoEAsuaJAbdeljelilAEmparanzaJ. Using a modified technology acceptance model to evaluate healthcare professionals’ adoption of a new telemonitoring system. Telemedicine Journal and E-health. 2012; 18(1): 54-59.
115.
TeoT. Students and teachers’ intention to use technology: Assessing their measurement equivalence and structural invariance. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2019; 57(1): 201-225.
116.
ParasuramanA. Technology readiness index (TRI): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research. 2000; 2(4): 307-320.
117.
CaoJLin Li.ZhangJZhangLWangYWangJ. The development and validation of the perceived safety of intelligent connected vehicles scale. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2021; 154: 106092.
118.
FischerTReuterMRiedlR. The digital stressors scale: Development and validation of a new survey instrument to measure digital stress perceptions in the workplace context. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021; 12: 607598.
119.
JilkeS. Measuring technological uncertainty and technological complexity: Scale development and an assessment of reliability and validity. International Journal of Innovation Science. 2021; 13(3): 381-400.
120.
SirgyMGrewalDMangleburgTParkJChonKClaiborneCJoharJBerkmanH. Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1997; 25(3): 229-241.
121.
NHS Digital. Registered blind and partially sighted people, England. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2021.
