Computers in Human Behavior 70 (2017) 104e112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

Assessing the acceptance of technological implants (the cyborg):

Evidences and challenges
Jorge Pelegrín-Borondo a, Eva Reinares-Lara b, Cristina Olarte-Pascual a, *
a
Department of Business Administration, Universidad de La Rioja, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales, La Cigüen~ a 60, 26006, Logron ~ o, La Rioja, Spain
b
Department of Business Administration, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, Paseo Artilleros s/n., 28032, Vicalvaro,
Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Society has already accepted the use of physical implants that increase an individual's seductive power as
Received 28 June 2016 well as technological implants that correct physical disabilities. Various companies are currently
Received in revised form developing technological implants to increase the innate capacity of the human body (insideables) (e.g.,
9 December 2016
memory implants). Public acceptance of this new technology has not yet been investigated in academic
Accepted 28 December 2016
Available online 3 January 2017
research, where studies have instead focused on the ethical and evolutionary implications of insideables.
The main aim of this study is the development of a model, namely the Cognitive-Affective-Normative
(CAN) model, for assessing the acceptance of new types of technological products. The CAN model
JEL classification:
M3
combines the cognitive variables perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, as well as the normative
variable subjective (or social) norm, from the TAM models with the affective variables positive emotions,
Keywords: negative emotions and anxiety. The CAN model was tested on a sample of 600 randomly selected in-
Insideable dividuals through structural equation modeling. Data were obtained from a self-administered, online
Technology acceptance survey. The proposed model explains 73.92% of the intention to use the technological product in the very
Perceived usefulness
early stages of its adoption, that is, its early acceptance. Affective and normative factors have the greatest
Ease of use
Emotions
influence on the acceptance of a new technology; within the affective dimension, positive emotions have
Subjective norm the greatest impact. Any technology acceptance model should thus consider the emotions that the new
technology produces, as well as the influence of the social norm.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction model combines the cognitive variables perceived usefulness and

Technological implants are electronic devices implanted in the
human body. They can be classified into two types: implants that
correct for physical disabilities and implants that increase the hu-
man body's innate capacity. This study presents an original model
of technology acceptance, namely, the Cognitive-Affective-
Normative (CAN) model, designed to explain people's intention to
use technological implants to increase the innate capacity of their
bodies (henceforth, ‘technological implants to increase innate ca-
pacity’ or ‘insideables’). The CAN model is based on the previous
technology acceptance models TAM (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, &
Warshaw, 1989) and TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), which have
been expanded to include affective variables. Specifically, the CAN
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jorge.pelegrin@unirioja.es (J. Pelegrín-Borondo), eva.
reinares@urjc.es (E. Reinares-Lara), cristina.olarte@unirioja.es (C. Olarte-Pascual).
perceived ease of use, as well as the normative variable subjective (or
social) norm, from the TAM models with the affective variables
positive emotions, negative emotions and anxiety. The CAN model
was tested on a sample of 600 randomly selected individuals
through structural equation modeling. Data were obtained from a
self-administered, online survey.
Today, many companies are either developing or patenting and
commercializing insideables. Olarte-Pascual, Pelegrín-Borondo,
and Reinares-Lara (2015) showed that part of society is ready to
accept technological implants to increase innate capacities. Exam-
ples of insideables include future implants, such as memory im-
plants (MIT Technology Review, 2013), implants that are currently
available on the market, such as the personal identification im-
plants sold by VeriChip, and patented implants that have not yet
been brought to market, such as the microphone patented by
Motorola that can be implanted in the neck to reduce problems
with bad reception or the tattoo developed by Nokia that vibrates
when there is an incoming call. Consumer acceptance of insideables

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.063
0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Pelegrín-Borondo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 70 (2017) 104e112
would open up a huge potential market for businesses. Neverthe-
less, public acceptance of this new technology has not yet been
investigated in academic research, where studies have instead
focused on the ethical and evolutionary implications of insideables.
The latter involve the development of cyborg theories (i.e., theories
related to the notion of creatures that are both part human and part
machine), which view insideables as an evolutionary success that
will allow reasonable people to enhance their capabilities as much
as the technology allows (Rosahl, 2004; Schermer, 2009; Selinger &
Engstro € m, 2008).
There is evidence pointing to the potential acceptance of
insideables by a significant portion of humanity. Technological im-
plants that correct for physical disabilities have been accepted, as
have non-technological implants that increase the body's innate
capacity. For instance, Schermer (2009) found that the use of
technological body implants to compensate for physical disabilities,
i.e., for health-related reasons, has not only been accepted but has
also become a widespread practice. Cochlear implants to assist
children with hearing impairments (Pray & Jordan, 2010), pace-
makers, cardioverter defibrillators, catheters and heart valves,
among others, have all seen rapid penetration worldwide (Hill &
Sawaya, 2004; Rosahl, 2004). Likewise, many people have already
chosen to modify their body to help them increase their seductive
capacities (Lawton, 2004) and achieve their social or personal goals
(Adams, 2010). In the U.S. alone, 11.8M cosmetic surgeries were
performed in 2007 (Chauhan, Warner, & Adamson, 2010), of which
augmentation mammoplastydthe incorporation of (non-techno-
logical) physical implants for breast augmentationdseems to be
the most popular procedure (Sevin et al., 2006; Siclovan & Jomah,
2008). Moreover, some authors argue that the penetration of
(technological) implants in modern society has led to the percep-
tion that the body is modifiable (Christie & Bloustien, 2010; Lai,
2012). In this vein, Buchanan-Oliver and Cruz (2011) have noted
that the human body is increasingly seen as a machine assembled
from multiple parts and systems that can be replaced when broken,
and that body performance can be improved using simple pros-
thetic devices to correct sensory functions (e.g., eyeglasses) or by
incorporating technology into the body through sensory prostheses
(e.g., neuroprostheses, exoskeletons, deep brain stimulation, and
neurofeedback (Schermer, 2009)).
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2
introduces the model variables and hypotheses. Section 3 de-
scribes the methodology. Section 4 presents the statistical analysis
resulting from the application of the CAN model, namely, the
relative importance of cognitive, affective and normative factors in
the acceptance of insideables. Section 5 discusses the results and
their implications. Section 6 contains the conclusion.
2. Model variables and hypotheses
The CAN model combines the cognitive variables perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use and the normative variable
subjective (or social) norm from the TAM models with the affective
variables positive emotions, negative emotions and anxiety. The
following subsections describe the model variables and underlying
hypotheses.
2.1. Influence of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on
the intention to use a new technology
Davis (1989, p. 320) defines the variable perceived usefulness as
“the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
system would enhance his or her performance.” Perceived ease of
use, on the other hand, is defined as “the degree to which a person
believes that using a particular system would be free of effort”
105
(Davis ibid., p. 320). The influence of perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use on attitudes toward the use of a new tech-
nology was established by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
(Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989). Subsequently, Venkatesh and Davis
(2000) demonstrated the influence of the variables perceived use-
fulness and perceived ease of use on the intention to use a new
technology in their TAM2 model. In the field of technology accep-
tance, the influence of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use on the acceptance of a new technology has also been proven
(e.g., Abdullah, Ward, & Ahmed, 2016; Mohammadi, 2015; Tan, Ooi,
Chong, & Hew, 2014). Several studies have empirically confirmed
that TAM models consistently explain a substantial part of the
variance (approximately 40%) in the intention to use innovative
technologies (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
With regard to the acceptance of body implants, Adams (2010)
already established the importance of the variable perceived use-
fulness as a vital factor in the decision to undergo cosmetic surgery.
In addition, Giudici, Carlson, Krupa, Meierbachtol, and VanWhy
(2010) showed that the decision to have a submammary defibril-
lator, cardiac resynchronization therapy device, cardioverter defi-
brillator or pacemaker implanted is associated with the system's
ability to provide greater comfort and better aesthetic results than
external body systems. In relation to technological implants,
Christie and Bloustien (2010) noticed the perceived usefulness that
the deaf community attributes to cochlear implants in providing
them with certain key capacities required to thrive in an oral world.
Reinares-Lara, Olarte-Pascual, Pelegrín-Borondo, and Pino (2016)
showed that the perceived usefulness of capability-enhancing
nanoimplants significantly influences people's attitudes toward
such devices. Consumers' decisions to adopt wearable technology
are affected by perceived usefulness (Choi & Kim, 2016).
Based on the conceptual framework of the TAM models, and the
results of studies in the therapeutic arena, we propose the
following hypotheses in relation to insideables:
H1. The perceived usefulness of insideables positively affects the
intention to use them.
H2. The perceived ease of use of insideables positively affects the
intention to use them.
2.2. Influence of emotions on the intention to use a new technology
Along with cognitive factors, we propose the addition of affec-
tive explanatory variables since they enable a better understanding
of the assessments subjects make (Campbell, 2007; Laverie et al.,
2002; Parren ~ o, Sanz-Blas, Ruiz-Mafe, & Aldas-Manzano, 2013;
Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999; Van Osselaer et al., 2005; Zielke, 2011). In
order to define the concept of emotion, we used the Componential
Emotion Theory. This theory identifies the minimum common
traits required to define the concept of emotion (Ortony and Turner,
1990; Russell, 2003; Richins, 1997; Scherer, 2001, 2005), namely,
the need for a stimulus, attribution of the cause of the stimulus,
cognitive assessment, physiological reaction, feelings of pleasure-
displeasure, a qualitative feeling of uniqueness, a tendency to-
ward a characteristic action, and a short-duration processes.
In terms of how emotions influence behavior, some emotions
stimulate action, while others inhibit or change it (Cohen, Pham, &
Andrade, 2006; O'Neill and Lambert, 2001; Oliver, Rust, & Varki,
1997; Turner, Love, & Howell, 2008; White & Yu, 2005). In gen-
eral, objects causing positive emotions are evaluated favorably,
whereas objects causing negative ones are evaluated unfavorably
(Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999; Mano, 2004). Moreover, there is a
natural tendency to make decisions that minimize the likelihood of
negative emotions occurring (Elliott, 1998; Han, Lerner, & Keltner,
106 J. Pelegrín-Borondo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 70 (2017) 104e112
2007; Schwarz, 2000).
In the field of body implants, it has been determined that ad-
vances in medical implants have given rise to the idea of the
dissolution of the limits of what the human body is and that this, in
turn, has generated feelings of apprehension, anxiety, and even fear
(Buchanan-Oliver & Cruz, 2011). Both medical advances in trans-
plant technology, such as organ transplants from animals, and the
integration of technological devices generate fear of dehumaniza-
tion (Lai, 2012). Indeed, many people fear the very idea of the ex-
istence of the cyborg. In addition, Most, Wiesel, and Blitzer (2007)
showed that some deaf people feel that part of their identity is
associated with their membership in a social minority. These peo-
ple fear that cochlear implants will lead to a loss of identity in
young deaf people, with no guarantee that the implant will even
work as expected.
Drawing on this background, we proposed the following
hypotheses:
H3. Positive emotions toward insideables positively affect the
intention to use them.
H4. Negative emotions toward insideables negatively affect the
intention to use them.
H5. Feelings of anxiety toward insideables negatively affect the
intention to use them.
2.3. Influence of subjective norms on the intention to use new
technology
A subjective or social norm “refers to the perceived social
pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior” (Ajzen, 1991, p.
188). The behavioral models of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and of its extension, the Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), together with the TAM2 model
(Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) justify examining the concept of sub-
jective norms in relation to the intention to use a new technology.
In the field of technology acceptance, the influence of subjective
norms on the acceptance of a new technology has also been proven
(e.g., Jin, 2014; Tarhini, Hone, & Liu, 2014).
Consumers' decisions to adopt wearable healthcare technology
is affected by factors related to social influence (Gao, Li, & Luo,
2015). In the context of body implants, Most et al. (2007) noted
the importance of the family environment in attitudes toward
cochlear implants. With regard to body modification for strictly
aesthetic purposes, Adams (2010) and Javo and Sørlie (2010)
established the influence of family and friends on the decision to
undergo cosmetic surgery. Additionally, for this area of surgery in
particular, the social pressure to maintain a youthful and attractive
image has been proven to play an important role (Dorneles de
Andrade, 2010; Von Soest, Kvalem, Skolleborg, & Roald, 2006).
Pelegrín-Borondo, Reinares-Lara, Olarte-Pascual, and Garcia-Sierra
(2016) showed that the variable subjective norm positively influ-
enced the intention to use implants.
In light of the above, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H6. A favorable subjective norm regarding the use of insideables
positively affects the intention to use them.
In research on the acceptance of new technologies, numerous
researchers have built on variables from previous studies that
proved to be influential in technology acceptance (Hameed,
Counsell, & Swift, 2012). The formulated hypotheses define our
proposed comprehensive theoretical model of variables influencing
the intention to use insideables as shown in Fig. 1.
3. Method
3.1. Data collection and sample characteristics
A self-administered, online survey was conducted among a
randomly selected population sample of people over the age of 16
residing in Spain. To access this population, invitations were sent,
distributed proportionally by gender (50% women, 50% men) and
age quotas (20% of individuals < 20 years old; 20% between the ages
of 21 and 30; 20% between the ages of 31 and 40; 20% between the
ages of 41 and 50; and 20% > 50 years old), until the sample used in
this study was obtained. In all, more than 3500 invitations to
participate in the study were sent. The actual sample selected for
the study consisted of 600 people (see data description in Table 1).
Before answering, respondents were provided with the
following description of the concept of the product to be tested (i.e.,
insideables), due to its novelty:
“Technological implants are electronic devices embedded in the
body (such as pacemakers or cochlear hearing implants). Several
companies are currently developing technological implants to
increase the innate capabilities of human beings for reasons
other than medical need (e.g., implants to enhance a person's
strength, speed, or speed of thought and calculation, implants to
delay aging, or implants for the remote control of machines).”
We reviewed the literature to develop the construct measures
for the questionnaire. Tables 2 and 3 provide operational defini-
tions and show the scale items and sources of the constructs. All
items were measured on 11-point Likert scales (0 ¼ “strongly
disagree” to 10 ¼ “strongly agree”).
3.2. Statistical analysis
In order to test the working hypotheses, a sequential process
was followed. First the factors making up the measurement scales
were tested by means of exploratory factor analysis. Second, the
measurement model was assessed by testing the reliability and
validity of the measurement scales. Lastly, partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to verify the
adequacy (i.e., acceptance) of the hypotheses. SmartPLS 2.0 soft-
ware was chosen to this end as it is less sensitive to the violation of
assumptions of data normality (Chin, 1998; Ram, Corkindale, & Wu,
2014).
4. Results
First, participants were asked whether they considered inside-
ables to be of interest for society. They were then asked about their
intention to use insideables, specifically, whether they would be
willing to implant one in their body. Regarding the first question, all
insideables scored more than 5 points on a scale of 0e10, suggesting
that, in general, insideables are considered to be of interest for so-
ciety. The most highly valued implants are those related to delaying
aging (score of 7.52), followed by those that increase the speed of
thought and enhance calculation abilities (6.97), are related to the
remote control of machines (5.46), increase strength (5.16), and,
finally, increase physical speed (5.16).
Regarding the second question asked, namely, about partici-
pants' intention to use insideables in their own body, we measured
the intention to use by means of two variables: (1) “I intend to use
insideables,” and (2) “I predict that I would use insideables”. By and
large, respondents showed a certain rejection of insideables
(Table 4). Both the intention to use and predicted use of insideables
variables had arithmetic means of 4.6 (and medians of 5), though
 J. Pelegrín-Borondo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 70 (2017) 104e112 107

A ecƟve

Negative
emotions
Positive
H4 = - Anxiety
emotions
H3 = + H5 = -

Perceived
ease of use H2 = +
Subjective
CogniƟve norm NormaƟve
Perceived H6 = +
usefulness
H1 = +
Intention to
use

Fig. 1. Theoretical CAN model of acceptance of insideables.

Table 1
Technical details of the study and sample description.

Universe Individuals over 16 years old

Sampling procedure Stratified by gender and age
Data collection Self-administered online survey (structured questionnaire)
Scope Spain
Sample size 600 individuals
Fieldwork April 2014

Sample characteristics

Gender 50% male, 50% female

Age 20%  20 years old; 20% ages 21e30; 20% ages 31e40; 20% ages 41e50; 20% age  51 years old
Monthly net household income 6.33%  V1000; 18.33% from V1001 to V1749; 22.83% from V1750 to V2499; 10.50% from V2500 to V2999; 20.33% > V3000

Table 2
Operational definition.

Construct Operational definition Source

Emotions Emotions produced by the idea of insideables Pelegrín-Borondo et al. (2016)

Perceived usefulness The degree to which a person believes that using insideables would enhance his or her performance Adapted from Davis (1989)
Perceived ease of use The degree to which a person believes that using insideables would be free of effort Adapted from Davis (1989)
Subjective norm Refers to the perceived social pressure to use implants Adapted from Ajzen (1991)
Intention to use Reflects the intention to use insideables Adapted from Venkatesh and Davis (2000)

there was great dispersion in the mean value for the variable
intention to use insideables (approximately 3.3). When respondents'
opinions were broken down by age, profound differences could be
seen. The youngest respondents both intended to use implants
(mean 5.92 and median 7.00) and expected to use them (5.76 and
7.00). Both the intention to use and the predicted use of insideables
decreased with age; subjects between the ages of 31 and 40 would
not use implants (mean 3.92 and median 4.00) and did not expect
to use them in the future (mean 4.05 and median 4.00). For all age
strata, dispersion of the mean was greater than 3. In light of these
dispersion levels, a theoretical model was proposed to explain the
intention to use insideables.
4.1. Exploratory factor analysis
verify the factors formed from the observable variables (i.e., the
measurement scales). The results for the perceived usefulness (PU),
perceived ease of use (PE), subjective norm (SN) and intention to use
(IU) scales are formed, in all cases, by a single factor with high
explained variance: PU ¼ 91.90% (KMO ¼ 0.845), PE ¼ 91.97%
(KMO ¼ 0.875), SN ¼ 95.14% (KMO ¼ 0.500), and IU ¼ 97.48%
(KMO ¼ 0.500). Bartlett's sphericity tests reflect a significance level
of less than 0.001 for all the aforementioned scales.
With regard to the scale of the emotions triggered by the idea of
insideables, results from the exploratory factor analysis showed that
together three factors account for 71.53% of the variance in the
intention to use insideables. The KMO index provided good results
(0.931), and Bartlett's sphericity test reflected a level of significance
of less than 0.001. The three extracted factors are explained below:

In this step an exploratory factor analysis was carried out to

108 J. Pelegrín-Borondo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 70 (2017) 104e112

Table 3
Constructs, items and sources.

Construct/items Source

Emotions produced by the idea of insideables

Interested, distressed, excited, upset, determined, guilty, scared, hostile, enthusiastic, proud, irritable, alert, ashamed, inspired, PANAS scale (Watson, Clark, &
nervous, strong, attentive, jittery, active, afraid Tellengen, 1988)
Perceived usefulness of insideables
Using technological implants would improve my performance TAM scale (Davis et al., 1989)
Using technological implants would increase my productivity
Using technological implants would enhance my effectiveness
I would find technological implants useful to perform my daily activities
Perceived ease of use of insideables
Learning to operate technological implants would be easy for me TAM scale (Davis et al., 1989)
I would find it easy to get technological implants to do what I want them to do
It would be easy for me to become skillful at using technological implants
I would find technological implants easy to use
Subjective norm
People who influence my behavior think that I should use implants TAM2 scale (Venkatesh & Davis,
People who are important to me think that I should use implants 2000)
Intention to use insideables
Assuming I have access to implants, I intend to use them TAM2 scale (Venkatesh & Davis,
Given that I have access to implants, I predict that I would use them 2000)

Notes: The items removed during the purification process (i.e., the model respecification) are shown in italics. A more detailed explanation is provided in the section
“Assessment of the structural model.”

Table 4 particularly when indicators contribute to the content validity of

Intention to use by age (mean, standard deviation and median). the factor. As for the rest of variables, standardized loadings were
Intention to use Predicted use greater than 0.7 and t-values were above 1.96 (see Table 5 and
Fig. 2). Thus, individual items' reliability was adequate (Hair,
Mean S.D. Median Mean S.D. Median
Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena, 2011a).
Total sample 4.65 3.38 5.00 4.61 3.38 5.00
All constructs showed very high values for composite reliability
By age interval and Cronbach's Alpha (close to or above 0.9). The convergent val-
p-value H Kruskal-Wallis p < 0.001 p < 0.001 idity criterion was met; in other words, all constructs had an
20 years old 5.92 3.23 7.00 5.76 3.31 7.00
21-30 years old 5.27 3.37 6.00 4.97 3.26 5.50
average variance extracted (AVE) greater than 0.5. The discriminant
31-40 years old 3.92 3.25 4.00 4.05 3.30 4.00 validity criterion was also met: (1) the square root of the AVE was
41-50 years old 4.08 3.36 5.00 4.19 3.39 4.00 larger than the correlations among constructs (Rolda n & Sanchez-
51 years old 4.03 3.28 4.50 4.09 3.34 4.00 Franco, 2012) (see Table 6); and (2) the model loadings were
larger than the cross loadings.
Bootstrapping with 5000 resamples was used to assess the
 Positive emotions (PE): This factor reflects the emotions of significance of the path coefficients (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt,
feeling enthusiastic, determined, proud, inspired, strong, active, 2011b). Fig. 2 shows the overall model results, namely, the R2 in
interested and excited. It refers to aspects capturing proactive the dependent variable, the path coefficients and the t-values.
feelings generated by the idea of insideables. It takes its name Empirical support was found for five of the six hypotheses: t-values
from the terminology used by the authors of the PANAS scale surpassed the minimum level indicated by a one-tailed t-distribu-
(Watson et al., 1988). tion with 4999 degrees of freedom (number of resamples - 1) (see
 Anxiety (A): The anxiety factor encompasses the emotions of Table 7). H5 was not supported; it was non-significant, and the 95%
feeling afraid, scared, jittery, alert, nervous and attentive. confidence interval included the zero.
 Negative emotions (NE): This factor includes variables related to The explanatory power of the proposed model was high: the
the formation of negative feelings, such as feeling hostile, upset, variance explained (R2) was 73.92% (see Table 8). Stone-Geisser's
irritable, distressed, ashamed and guilty. It, too, takes its name cross-validated redundancy Q2 confirms the model's predictive
from the terminology used by the authors of the PANAS scale. relevance (i.e., Q2 > 0); “Q2 values of larger than zero indicate that
the exogenous constructs have predictive relevance for the
endogenous construct under consideration” (Hair et al., 2011b, p.
4.2. Assessment of the structural model 145). All in all, the model was highly predictive of the intention to
use insideables. In addition, Table 8 shows the amount of variance
The standardized loadings of the variables should be greater that each antecedent variable explained in the dependent variable
than 0.7 and significant (t-value > 1.96) in order to ensure the intention to use.
adequacy of the selected indicators (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013).
However, the variables alert and attentive showed values below 0.7 5. Discussion
and t-values lower than 1.96. Given that a re-specification of the
model can yield greater convergence if one or more problematic Although insideables are currently being developed, the accep-
indicators are excluded (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), we proceeded tance of this technology by potential consumers has not yet been
to eliminate these problematic variables. The variables ashamed investigated.
and guilty also showed standardized loading values slightly below The Cognitive-Affective-Normative (CAN) model proved to be
0.7, but had t-values greater than 1.96, which are significant. In this superior to other comparable models of technology acceptance,
case we thus decided to keep the variables. As Hair et al. (2013) such as the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
have argued, the 0.7 standardized loading rule is flexible, (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003), in terms
 J. Pelegrín-Borondo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 70 (2017) 104e112 109

Table 5
Outer model loadings and cross loadings.

Perceived usefulness Perceived ease of use Positive emotions Anxiety Negative emotions Subjective norm Intention to use
(PU) (PEU) (PE) (A) (NE) (SN) (IU)

PU1. Performance 0.961 0.640 0.620 0.077 0.160 0.450 0.620

PU2. Productivity 0.964 0.619 0.626 0.070 0.139 0.437 0.587
PU3. Effectiveness 0.961 0.622 0.628 0.081 0.155 0.411 0.594
PU4. Usefulness 0.949 0.646 0.594 0.065 0.160 0.430 0.599
PEU1. Easy to learn 0.618 0.953 0.482 0.083 0.138 0.299 0.488
PEU2. Easy to use 0.656 0.940 0.522 0.028 0.096 0.362 0.527
PEU3. Easy to become skillful 0.624 0.971 0.516 0.048 0.117 0.325 0.525
PEU4. Easy to do 0.630 0.972 0.534 0.055 0.127 0.321 0.544
PE1. Interested 0.614 0.527 0.813 0.092 0.198 0.500 0.750
PE2. Proud 0.499 0.418 0.859 0.008 0.037 0.556 0.618
PE3. Inspired 0.517 0.463 0.861 0.036 0.097 0.424 0.649
PE4. Strong 0.566 0.479 0.864 0.032 0.034 0.483 0.644
PE5. Active 0.519 0.395 0.850 0.175 0.034 0.437 0.561
PE6. Excited 0.450 0.397 0.739 0.186 0.167 0.405 0.488
PE7. Determined 0.589 0.450 0.871 0.069 0.002 0.476 0.621
PE8. Enthusiastic 0.591 0.486 0.932 0.019 0.104 0.530 0.723
A1. Nervous 0.052 0.015 0.222 0.739 0.615 0.070 0.006
A2. Jittery 0.033 0.064 0.176 0.811 0.602 0.039 0.045
A3. Afraid 0.102 0.062 0.018 0.945 0.652 0.069 0.187
A4. Scared 0.067 0.073 0.040 0.919 0.699 0.026 0.155
NE1. Irritable 0.099 0.082 0.020 0.601 0.857 0.014 0.197
NE2. Ashamed 0.016 0.044 0.086 0.494 0.667 0.043 0.074
NE3. Distressed 0.089 0.067 0.000 0.677 0.778 0.052 0.180
NE4. Upset 0.224 0.153 0.132 0.564 0.885 0.104 0.317
NE5. Guilty 0.035 0.007 0.124 0.505 0.676 0.036 0.090
NE6. Hostile 0.169 0.132 0.082 0.651 0.864 0.055 0.249
SN1. People who influence me 0.442 0.344 0.550 0.030 0.044 0.975 0.672
SN2. People who are important 0.437 0.322 0.549 0.050 0.067 0.976 0.677
to me
IU1. Intention to use 0.632 0.543 0.747 0.184 0.277 0.680 0.988
IU2. Predicted use 0.605 0.531 0.738 0.150 0.256 0.685 0.987

of explanatory power. Venkatesh et al. (ibid.) conducted a panel
survey, interviewing the same respondents about their acceptance
of a new technology product at three different points. However, the
individual R2 for each of these points was around 50% of variance
explained. Subsequently, they applied the UTAUT model to data
pooled across the three time periods, obtaining a PLS R2 of 76%. In
contrast, the CAN model was tested using cross-sectional data,
specifically, one-time-point data, and refers to the emerging tech-
nological product of insideables. The model explained 73.9% of the
variance in the intention to use insideables.
The CAN model jointly assessed (1) cognitive variables
(perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use), (2) affective variables
(positive emotions, negative emotions, anxiety), and (3) a normative
variable (subjective or social norm). All of the examined variables,
with the exception of anxiety, affected the intention to use inside-
ables. Five of the six hypotheses were thus accepted (H1, H2, H3, H4,
H6), while one (H5) was rejected.
Although all the variables integrated in H1, H2, H3, H4 and H6
influenced the intention to use insideables, they did so to
different degrees. Positive emotions accounted for the highest
percentage of variance explained (32.04%), while negative emo-
tions accounted for the lowest (4.59%). The natural tendency that
some authors have reported to make decisions that minimize the
likelihood of negative emotions occurring (Elliott, 1998; Han et al.,
2007; Schwarz, 2000) thus seems to have little impact on the
intention to use insideables. Our results reinforce those of studies
arguing that positive emotions toward a product generally favor a
positive assessment thereof (Bagozzi, 1997; Mano, 2004; Shiv &
Fedorikhin, 1999). Nevertheless, a new emotional dimension must
also be taken into account, namely, anxiety regarding the idea of
insideables. This dimension is a disaggregation of the negative
emotions dimension of the PANAS scale by Watson et al. (1988).
However, its impact on the intention to use insideables was not
significant. This finding is consistent with those reported by
Venkatesh et al. (2003) with regard to the UTAUT model. They
rejected the hypothesis that the anxiety produced by new tech-
nology significantly impacts the intention to use it. In this vein, the
fear of dehumanization caused by the idea of the cyborg (Lai, 2012)
cannot be confirmed to have a decisive impact on the decision to
accept insideables.
The variable with the second greatest explanatory power was
the subjective or social norm (25.19%). Several studies have
corroborated that family atmosphere, friends and society as a
whole have a decisive influence on decisions to modify one's body
(Adams, 2010; Javo & Sørlie, 2010; Dorneles de Andrade, 2010;
Most et al., 2007; Von Soest et al., 2006).
The cognitive variables perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use explained lower percentages of the intention to use insideables
(5.20% and 6.20% respectively).
Numerous studies have confirmed that cognitive and affective
factors do influence subjects' assessments of products (e.g.,
Campbell, 2007; Dean, Raats, & Shepherd, 2008; Holbrook &
Hirschman, 1982; Parren ~ o et al., 2013). Moreover, several studies
have reported benefits derived from including both cognitive and
affective factors in order to better understand these assessments
(Bagozzi, 1982; Laverie et al., 2002; Levav & McGraw, 2009; Van
Osselaer et al., 2005; Van Waterschoot, Kumar Sinha, Van
Kenhove, & De Wulf, 2008; Zielke, 2011). Nevertheless, the re-
sults of this research show that the benefits of including them are
not equal. Positive emotions should be included since they explain
a great deal of the intention to use; the contribution of negative
emotions and cognitive factors is comparatively much smaller.
6. Conclusions
The main contribution of this study is the development of the
110 J. Pelegrín-Borondo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 70 (2017) 104e112

Note: ***=p<0.001; **= p< 0.01; *=p<0.05; ns= not significant

*** ** *
Fig. 2. Structural model results, path coefficients (t-values) and R2. Note: ¼ p < 0.001; ¼ p < 0.01; ¼ p < 0.05; ns ¼ not significant.

Table 6
Construct reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity.

Construct Composite reliability > 0.7 Cronbach's Alpha AVE > 0.5 PU PEU PE A NE SN IU

Perceived usefulness (PU) 0.98 0.97 0.92 0.96

Perceived ease of use (PEU) 0.98 0.97 0.92 0.66 0.96
Positive emotions (PE) 0.95 0.95 0.72 0.64 0.54 0.85
Anxiety (A) 0.92 0.91 0.74 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.86
Negative emotions (NE) 0.91 0.89 0.63 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.72 0.79
Subjective norm (SN) 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.45 0.34 0.56 0.04 0.06 0.97
Intention to use (IU) 0.99 0.97 0.97 0.63 0.54 0.75 0.17 0.27 0.69 0.98

Note: Diagonal elements (in bold) are the square root of the AVE. Off-diagonal elements are the correlations among the constructs.

Table 7
Structural model results.

Hypothesis Path coefficients t-value Percentile bootstrap Support for hypothesis

95% confidence level

Lower Upper
**
H1: Perceived usefulness ¼> (þ) Intention to use 0.083 2.57 0.02 0.14 Accepted
H2: Perceived ease of use ¼> (þ) Intention to use 0.114*** 4.13 0.06 0.17 Accepted
H3: Positive emotions ¼> (þ) Intention to use 0.426*** 11.35 0.35 0.50 Accepted
H4: Negative emotions ¼> () Intention to use 0.170*** 5.35 0.23 0.11 Accepted
H5: Anxiety ¼> () Intention to use 0.041n.s. 1.24 0.10 0.02 Rejected
H6: Subjective norm ¼> (þ) Intention to use 0.364*** 10.15 0.30 0.43 Accepted

Note: Based on a one-tailed t (4,999) distribution (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009): * ¼ p<0.05 ¼> t > 1.65; ** ¼ p<0.01 ¼> t > 2.33; *** ¼ p<0.001¼> t > 3.09; n.s. ¼ not
significant.
 J. Pelegrín-Borondo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 70 (2017) 104e112
Table 8
Effect on endogenous variables.
R2
Intention to use 73.92%
H1: Perceived usefulness ¼> (þ)Intention to use
H2: Perceived ease of use ¼> (þ)Intention to use
H3: Positive emotions ¼> (þ)Intention to use
H4: Negative emotions ¼> ()Intention to use
H5: Anxiety ¼> (þ)Intention to use
H6: Subjective Norm ¼> (þ)Intention to use
CAN model for assessing the acceptance of new types of techno-
logical products in the early stages of their development. This study
addresses a type of technological product so new that many people
may not yet even be aware of it; some products are currently in
development, while others have already been patented but have
not yet been launched. The proposed model strongly explains the
intention to use the technological product in the very early stages of
its adoption, that is, its early acceptance. Affective and normative
factors have the greatest influence on the acceptance of a new
technology; within the affective dimension, positive emotions have
the greatest impact. Any technology acceptance model should thus
consider the emotions that the new technology produces, as well as
the influence of the social norm.
Risselada, Verhoef & Bijmolt (2014, p. 54) looked at the adoption
of high-tech products and found that the effect of social norms on
product acceptance decreases soon after society begins to adopt the
product. In this vein, and as a future research line, the CAN model
should be tested for both more popular products and equally
innovative ones. Should the model be found to work only for
assessing the acceptance of extremely new products, it would
indicate that it is only suitable for assessing product acceptance in
the early stages, when the product concept is still being developed.
This, in turn, would suggest that other models should be used to
explain subsequent stages of market acceptance.
The novelty of insideables may be partly responsible for the low
explanatory power of the variables perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use. Given this novelty, consumers may not yet
have considered, or even imagined, the full usability of insideables.
They might thus be focusing on the emotions they evoke and what
others would think of them were they to use these implants.
The CAN model has been applied to a general idea of insideables.
However, it is unclear whether the CAN model would be as
powerful if it were applied to a particular type of insideable or if it is
only appropriate when it comes to the concept of a potential type of
emerging technology product. We are thus considering testing the
CAN model for specific types of insideables, as they are technolog-
ically developed, as another future research line. From an
eminently operational and managerial level, research centers and
companies should provide greater support to insideables, given that
insideables will signify a revolution in both industrial and consumer
markets.
Commercial communications from companies wishing to lead
the insideable market, should primarily be aimed at convincing the
public of the benefits of implants (the social norm accounts for
25.19% of the variance in the intention to use) and at generating
positive emotions (32.04%). Preventing the emergence of negative
emotions should be a secondary concern (4.59%).
One limitation of this study is derived from the non-inclusion of
the ethical component. This perspective can be essential, given that
society must assess whether it is appropriate and ethically
acceptable for certain insideables to be launched. Otherwise, people
could use the implants to increase their capacities. If, in practice,
the implants were only available to a limited group of high-income
111
Q2 Direct effect Correlation Variance explained
0.7160
0.083 0.626 5.20%
0.114 0.544 6.20%
0.426 0.752 32.04%
0.170 0.270 4.59%
0.041 0.169 0.69%
0.364 0.692 25.19%
people, this could result in “first-class” and “second-class” citizens,
thereby considerably increasing the equality gap.
Finally, the present paper has analyzed the relationships be-
tween cognitive, affective, and normative variables for assessing
the acceptance of new types of technological products. Future
research should continue to analyze the reasons for the relation-
ships between these variables.
Acknowledgements
This work has been funded by The Ministry of Economy and
Competitivity (Spain), Research Project with reference: ECO2014-
59688-R, Programa Estatal de Investigacio n, Desarrollo e
Innovacion Orientada a los Retos de la Sociedad, Plan Estatal de
n Científica y Te
Investigacio cnica y de Innovacio
n 2013e2016.
References
Abdullah, F., Ward, R., & Ahmed, E. (2016). Investigating the influence of the most
commonly used external variables of TAM on students' Perceived Ease of Use
(PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human
Behavior, 63, 75e90 (October).
Adams, J. (2010). Motivational narratives and assessments of the body after
cosmetic surgery. Qualitative Health Research, 20(6), 755e767.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaviour and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 50, 179e211.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411e423.
Bagozzi, R. (1982). A field investigation of causal relations among cognitions, affect,
intentions, and behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 562e584.
Bagozzi, R. (1997). Goal-directed behavior in Marketing: The role of emotion,
volition and motivation. Psychology and Marketing, 14(3), 309e313.
Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184e206.
Buchanan-Oliver, M., & Cruz, A. (2011). Discourses of technology Consumption:
Ambivalence, fear, and liminality. Advances in Consumer Research, 39, 287e291.
Campbell, M. C. (2007). Says Who? How the source of price information and affect
influence perceived price un) fairness? Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2),
261e271.
Chauhan, N., Warner, J., & Adamson, P. A. (2010). Adolescent rhinoplasty: Challenges
and psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 34(4),
510e516.
Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295e336).
Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Choi, J., & Kim, S. (2016). Is the smartwatch an IT product or a fashion product? A
study on factors affecting the intention to use smartwatches. Computers in
Human Behavior, 63, 777e786 (October).
Christie, E., & Bloustien, G. (2010). I-cyborg: Disability, affect and public pedagogy.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(4), 483e498.
Cohen, J. B., Pham, M. T., & Andrade, E. B. (2006). The nature and role of affect in
consumer behavior. In C. P. Haugtverdt, P. Herr, & F. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of
consumer psychology (pp. 297e348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319e340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science,
35(8), 982e1003.
Dean, M., Raats, M., & Shepherd, R. (2008). Moral concerns and consumer choice of
fresh and processed organic foods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(8),
2088e2107.
Dorneles de Andrade, D. (2010). On norms and bodies: Findings from field research
on cosmetic surgery in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Reproductive Health Matters,
112 J. Pelegrín-Borondo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 70 (2017) 104e112
18(35), 74e83.
Elliott, R. (1998). A model of emotion-driven choice. Journal of Marketing Manage-
ment, 14(1e3), 95e108.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An intro-
duction to theory and research. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gao, Y., Li, H., & Luo, Y. (2015). An empirical study of wearable technology accep-
tance in healthcare. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 115(9),
1704e1723.
Giudici, M. C., Carlson, J. I., Krupa, R. K., Meierbachtol, C. J., & VanWhy, K. J. (2010).
Submammary pacemakers and ICDs in women: Long-term follow-up and pa-
tient satisfaction. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 33, 1373e1375.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011b). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139e151.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural
equation modeling: Rigorous applications better result and higher acceptance.
Long Range Planning, 46(1e2), 1e12.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2011a). An assessment of use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research.
Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 40(3), 414e433.
Hameed, M. A., Counsell, S., & Swift, S. (2012). A conceptual model for the process of
IT innovation adoption in organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 29(3), 358e390.
Han, S., Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2007). Feeling and consumer decision making:
The appraisal etendency framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(3),
158e168.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20,
277e319.
Hill, A. V., & Sawaya, W. J. (2004). Production planning for medical devices with an
uncertain regulatory approval date. IIE Transactions, 36(4), 307e317.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption:
Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2),
132e140.
Javo, I. M., & Sørlie, T. (2010). Psychosocial predictors of an interest in cosmetic
surgery among young Norwegian women: A population-based study. Plastic
Surgical Nursing, 30(3), 180e186.
Jin, C. H. (2014). Adoption of e-book among college students: The perspective of an
integrated TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 471e477 (December).
Lai, A. L. (2012). Cyborg as Commodity: Exploring conception of self-identity, body
and citizenship within the context of emerging transplant technologies. Ad-
vances in Consumer Research, 40, 386e394.
Laverie, D. A., Kleine, R. E., III, & Kleine, S. S. (2002). Reexamination and extension of
Kleine, Kleine & Kerman's social identity model of mundane consumption: The
mediating role of appraisal process. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4),
659e669.
Lawton, G. (2004). Extreme surgery. New Scientist, 184(2471), 54e56.
Levav, J., & McGraw, A. P. (2009). Emotional accounting: How feeling about money
influence consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 66e80.
Mano, H. (2004). Emotion and consumption: Perspectives and issues. Motivation
and Emotion, 28(1), 107e120.
MIT Technology Review. (2013). 10 Breakthrough technologies 2013. MIT Technology
Review May-June, Available at: (accessed 12 November 2015) http://www.
technologyreview.com/featuredstory/513681/memory-implants/.
Mohammadi, H. (2015). Investigating users' perspectives on e-learning: An inte-
gration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45,
359e374 (April).
Most, T., Wiesel, A., & Blitzer, T. (2007). Identity and attitudes towards cochlear
implant among deaf and hard of hearing adolescents. Deafness & Education
International, 9, 68e82.
Olarte-Pascual, C., Pelegrín-Borondo, J., & Reinares-Lara, E. (2015). Implants to in-
crease innate capacities: Integrated vs. apocalyptic attitudes. Is there a new
market? Universia Business Review, 4, 102e117.
Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer delight: Foundations, findings,
and managerial insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 311e336.
Ortony, A., & Turner, T. (1990). What's basic about basic emotions? Psychological
Review, 97(3), 315e331.
O'Neill, R., & Lambert, D. R. (2001). The emotional side of price. Psychology and
Marketing, 18(3), 217e237.
Parren ~ o, J. M., Sanz-Blas, S., Ruiz-Mafe, C., & Ald
as-Manzano, J. (2013). Key factors of
teenagers' mobile advertising acceptance. Industrial Management and Data
Systems, 113(5), 732e749.
Pelegrín-Borondo, J., Reinares-Lara, E., Olarte-Pascual, C., & Garcia-Sierra, M. (2016).
Assessing the moderating effect of the end user in consumer behavior: The
acceptance of technological implants to increase innate human capacities.
Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 132e145.
Pray, J. L., & Jordan, I. K. (2010). The deaf community and culture at a crossroads:
Issues and challenges. Journal of Social Work in Disability and Rehabilitation, 9(2),
168e193.
Ram, J., Corkindale, D., & Wu, M.-L. (2014). ERP adoption and value creation:
Examining the contributions of antecedents. Journal of Engineering and Tech-
nology Management, 33, 113e133.
Reinares-Lara, E., Olarte-Pascual, C., Pelegrín-Borondo, J., & Pino, G. (2016). Nano-
implants to enhance human capacities: A cognitive-affective approach to assess
consumer acceptance of this controversial technology. Psychology and Market-
ing, 33(9), 704e712.
Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumptions experience. Journal
of Consumer Research, 24(2), 127e146.
Risselada, H., Verhoef, P. C., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2014). Dynamic Effects of social
influence and direct marketing on adoption of high-technology products.
Journal of Marketing, 78(2), 52e68.
Roldan, J. L., & Sanchez-Franco, M. J. (2012). Variance-based structural equation
modeling: Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems
research. In M. Mora, O. Gelman, A. Steenkamp, & M. Raisinghan (Eds.), Research
methodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering and
information systems (pp. 193e221). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Rosahl, S. K. (2004). Vanishing sensesdrestoration of sensory functions by elec-
tronic implants. Poiesis Prax, 2, 285e295.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and psychological construction of emotion. Psy-
chological Review, 110(1), 145e172.
Scherer, K. R. (2001). Emotions, psychological structure of emotions. In N. J. Smelser,
& P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sci-
ences (pp. 4472e4477). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social
Science Information, 44(4), 695e729.
Schermer, M. (2009). The mind and the machine. On the conceptual and moral
implications of brain-machine interaction. Nanoethics, 3, 217e230.
Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition and
Emotion, 14(4), 433e440.
Selinger, E., & Engstro €m, T. (2008). A moratorium on cyborgs: Computation,
cognition, and commerce. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7,
327e341.
Sevin, A., Sevin, K., Senen, D., Deren, O., Adanali, G., & Erdogan, B. (2006).
Augmentation mammaplasty: Retrospective analysis of 210 cases. Aesthetic
Plastic Surgery, 30(6), 651e654.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and Mind in conflict: The interplay of affect
and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research,
26(3), 278e292.
Siclovan, H. R., & Jomah, J. A. (2008). Advantages and outcomes in subfascial breast
augmentation: A two-year review of experience. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 32(3),
426e431.
Tan, G. W., Ooi, K., Chong, S., & Hew, T. (2014). NFC mobile credit card: The next
frontier of mobile payment? Telematics and Informatics, 31(2), 292e307.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). The effects of individual differences on e-
learning users' behaviour in developing countries: A structural equation model.
Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 153e163 (December).
Turner, M., Love, S., & Howell, M. (2008). Understanding emotions experienced
when using a mobile phone in public: The social usability of mobile (cellular)
telephones. Telematics and Informatics, 25(3), 201e215.
Van Osselaer, S. M. J., Ramanathan, S., Campbell, M. C., Cohen, J. B., Dale, J. K.,
Herr, P. M., et al. (2005). Choice based on goals. Marketing Letters, 16(3e4),
335e346.
Van Waterschoot, W., Kumar Sinha, P., Van Kenhove, P., & De Wulf, K. (2008).
Consumer learning and its impact on store format selection. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 15(3), 194e210.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2),
186e204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425e478.
Von Soest, T., Kvalem, I. L., Skolleborg, K. Chr, & Roald, H. E. (2006). Psychosocial
factors predicting the motivation to undergo cosmetic surgery. Plastic and
Reconstructive Surgery, 117(1), 51e62.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellengen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063e1070.
White, C., & Yu, Y. T. (2005). Satisfaction emotions and consumer behavioral in-
tentions. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(6), 411e420.
Zielke, S. (2011). Integrating emotions in the analysis of retail price images. Psy-
chology & Marketing, 28(4), 330e359.