Misconceptions Surrounding Assistive Technologies
- Sam Shepherd
- 2 days ago
- 6 min read
By Michel-Ange Townsend
Assistive technology, (AT) is any item, piece of equipment, software program or product system that is used to increase, maintain or improve the functional capabilities of persons with disabilities[1]. Despite their benefits however, users of assistive technologies oftentimes have negative experiences surrounding their assistive technologies. For many individuals who find themselves within the excluded cusp of the standards of normalcy in a society, stigma is a pervasive agent of separation. Whether one is a part of a minority based on race, gender expression, religion or other differentiating characteristic feelings of “isolation, alienation, exclusion, or embarrassment” are not uncommon [2]. Unlike the aforementioned, disabilities differ in the fact that “all people over the course of their lives, traffic between times of relative independence and dependence.” [3] The need for assistive technology is a facet of life which goes on to affect many with introductions being made at birth, through accidents or the onset of aging.
Though this dependence is a likelihood for many, there exists an undeniable air of indifference and judgement towards those who use assistive technologies throughout their daily activities. This can be seen in experiencing negatively differential treatment, inability to socially connect with others and form thriving relationships and a pattern of device abandonment for the sake of avoiding judgement. Many feel “stigmatized by devices that signal loss of function” and develop aversions to them as they wish not to be under the gaze of a society that is “near-obsessed with averages and statistical norms about bodies and capabilities” [1][3]. This obsession is fueled by a myriad of misconceptions which are hard to dispel in the absence of direct experience with individuals with assistive technologies.
A common misconception is that assistive technology is in place to only benefit those who have severe disabilities. This is untrue as individuals may use AT of various levels from needing it in their daily lives for extended periods of time to needing them temporarily as they heal from injuries. In addition, AT is also useful for individuals with conditions that vary in intensity. Some may not need assistance everyday and only rely on AT when they are experiencing more extreme symptoms. This is also connected to the misconception that those who are perceivably “high- functioning” do not need their AT. In reality many strive to remain in an optimal zone of function and use their AT to “fill a legitimate need” [1].
Another widespread belief is that AT should be a last resort, used only when all other strategies have failed. This outlook diminishes the value of AT as a proactive tool that can immediately improve quality of life and independence. Similarly, some assume that AT guarantees complete independence, overlooking the reality that technology is only one part of a broader framework that includes accessibility, community support, and personal adaptation[4].
Users of assistive technology are also frequently mischaracterized as dependent or less capable. In truth, AT is empowering and often provides users with greater autonomy than they would otherwise have. Yet, this misconception persists alongside another narrow view: that assistive technology is purely physical. While devices such as wheelchairs, prosthetics, and hearing aids are often the most visible, AT also includes software, communication apps, screen readers, smart-home technology, and mental health tools. Ignoring this diversity reduces the perceived scope of what AT can do[4].
There is also the belief that AT is always prohibitively expensive and inaccessible. While cost can indeed pose a barrier, many solutions are affordable or even free, particularly when common technologies such as smartphones are adapted for accessibility. Moreover, another misconception is that once someone begins using AT, they are bound to it permanently. In reality, some people use AT only during temporary recovery periods, while others transition between different forms of AT depending on their changing needs[5].
Age-related stereotypes also shape perceptions of AT use. Children are sometimes thought to be too inexperienced and older adults too resistant to adapt to new technologies. In practice, both groups can thrive with proper training and support, demonstrating that adoption is not limited by age. Finally, there is the assumption that AT reduces “normalcy,” making users stand out in a negative way. This belief stems from society’s obsession with averages and ideals of what a “normal” body should be. In reality, AT often facilitates greater inclusion and allows individuals to participate more fully in daily life[1].
These misconceptions not only misrepresent the wide spectrum of AT users but also contribute to barriers in access, acceptance, and continued use. When individuals feel pressured to conform to a narrow idea of “normal” functioning, they may abandon tools that are essential for their independence and well-being. This cycle perpetuates exclusion and reinforces the stigma attached to disability and dependency.
To move beyond this, society must begin to view assistive technologies not as markers of deficiency but as valuable instruments of equity, empowerment, and participation. Just as eyeglasses or smartphones are widely accepted tools that enhance daily life, wheelchairs, communication devices, hearing aids, and other forms of AT should be normalized as extensions of human capability rather than signs of limitation. Education, increased representation, and open dialogue can help dismantle misconceptions and foster environments where individuals feel supported rather than judged.
Ultimately, the future of assistive technology lies not only in innovation but in changing the social narratives that surround it. By reframing AT as a universal resource that nearly everyone will benefit from at some point in their lives,we can cultivate a culture that embraces difference, reduces stigma, and champions the dignity and autonomy of all people.
—-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistive Technology Industry Association. “What Is AT?” Assistive Technology Industry Association, 2025, www.atia.org/home/at-resources/what-is-at/
Parette, P. & Scherer, M. J. (2004). Assistive Technology Use and Stigma. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(3), 217–226. Discusses how stigma affects adoption and abandonment of AT, including issues of aesthetics, social acceptability, family expectations, and visibility of devices. ResearchGate+1
HENDREN, SARA. “All Technology Is Assistive: Six Design Rules on Disability.” Making Things and Drawing Boundaries: Experiments in the Digital Humanities, edited by Jentery Sayers, University of Minnesota Press, 2017, pp. 139–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt1pwt6wq.18. Accessed 26 Sept. 2025.
Shinohara, K. & Wobbrock, J. (2011). In the Shadow of Misperception: Assistive Technology Use and Social Interactions. CHI 2011. An interview-based study exploring how social and professional contexts influence AT use; identifies misperceptions such as thinking AT eliminates disability or that users are helpless without them. ResearchGate+2UW Faculty+2
“The use of assistive devices and social engagement.” Park, H. J. et al. (2023). Examines whether use of assistive devices like dentures or hearing aids is associated with social engagement among older adults, offering empirical data connecting device use to social outcomes. PMC
Barbareschi, G. et al. (2021). “Factors Shaping the Experience of Disability Stigma.” This work describes how AT can function as a visible identifier of disability, and how people internalize or react to that visibility. PMC
“Breaking Assistive Technology Myths.” (Iowa Reading Research Center blog) A more accessible source (non‐peer reviewed) that lists common myths (e.g. AT is always expensive, AT “fixes” deficits) and counters them. Good for linking your misconceptions section to real-world discourse. Iowa Reading Research Center
“Federal Guidance Counters Assistive Technology Myths.” Bass, S. (2024) Highlights policy-level discussions and common myths (e.g. “AT is cheating,” cost, administrative hurdles). Useful for bridging your arguments to institutional contexts. Leadership in Language and Communication
“Overcoming the Stigma Associated with Assistive Devices.” Jacobson, S. (PDF) Discusses strategies and literature on reducing stigma connected to AT use, including personal narratives and device customization techniques. CORE
“Aesthetics and the Perceived Stigma of Assistive Devices.” dos Santos, A. D. P. (2022) Focuses on how aesthetics (look, design) influence perceptions of AT and contribute to stigma. Useful for your points on appearance, “standing out,” and the cosmetic dimension of stigma. Tandfonline
World Health Organization: Assistive Technology Fact Sheet (2024) Provides global context: barriers to access, recognition of stigma as a barrier, and policy-level recommendations to raise awareness and combat stigma. World Health Organization
Leonard Cheshire: “Disability Stigma and Assistive Technology” (2021) A case-focused source (research in Kenya) showing how negative attitudes toward AT influence uptake and abandonment, and how stigma is experienced in real communities. Leonard Cheshire
Assistive Technology Industry Association. “What Is AT?” Assistive Technology Industry Association, 2025, www.atia.org/home/at-resources/what-is-at/
“3 Misconceptions about Assistive Technology (AT), Debunked!” Apply EBP, 21 Aug. 2025, www.applyebp.com/ask-applyebp/3-misconceptions-about-assistive-technology-at-debunked/. Accessed 23 Sept. 2025.
World Health Organization. (2022). Assistive Technology Fact Sheet
