Conventional vs. disruptive products: a wearables and insideables acceptance analysis

Arias-Oliva, Mario; Borondo, Jorge Pelegrín; Murata, Kiyoshi; Gauttier, Stéphanie

doi:10.1080/09537325.2021.2013462

Cited by 4 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, we used a sample of 1563 university students from seven different countries (Chile, China, Denmark, Japan, Mexico, Spain, and the U.S.) which was previously used in [2,3,28,37] that were published during years 2020 and 2021. The survey asked participants about their perceptions regarding the use of insideables and wearables.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The outcome explained in this work is behavioral intention (BI), which can be defined as the readiness of an individual to perform a given behavior [48]. This outcome can be answered under equal conditions among potential respondents, unlike in actual use, since insideables are a market that is in its infancy [3], and a large number of potential users may not have access to the devices and/or may need to be helped in their implementation. People living in rural areas have more difficulty receiving help from professionals who can insert them into their body [4].…”

Section: Perceived Usefulnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 1 shows that there are various quantitative studies on the adoption of insertable technology that consider hedonic motivation [3,33] or the maximization of positive emotions and the minimization of negative emotions [31,32] as relevant factors. However, in the literature, loyalty is less common than performance expectancy.…”

Section: Perceived Enjoymentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main difference between wearables and implantables is that while the former are attached to the body like a conventional accessory (a bracelet, a watch, or glasses), the latter becomes part of the human body [3]. Although wearing devices or elements in a noninvasive manner is more common than inserting them into the body, the insertion of objects is very ancient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of wearables for nonmedical purposes is widespread and does not generate controversy [3]. Likewise, it is common practice to use implantables for esthetic purposes, such as dental or breast implants [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Assessing the Acceptance of Cyborg Technology with a Hedonic Technology Acceptance Model

de Andrés-Sánchez,

Arias-Oliva,

Souto-Romero

et al. 2024

Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical implantable technologies, such as cochlear implants or joint prostheses, have been commonly used since the late 20th century. By contrast, the market for this type of technology is expanding when the purpose is not medical, even though it is more marginal. This study tests a technology acceptance model for the latter type of insideable technology based on an extension of the technology acceptance models TAM and TAM2 proposed for hedonic technologies by van del Heijden. So, the behavioral intention of insertables is explained by the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, as well as social influence, as proposed in the TAM2 by Venkatesh and Davis. Additionally, the perceived enjoyment, included in the extension by Van der Heijden, is added as an explanatory factor. We applied structural equation modeling to the theoretical scheme provided by the modified TAM and performed a necessary condition analysis. Statistical analysis showed that all variables considered in the model have a significantly positive influence on behavioral intention. Likewise, the model has good properties both from the point of view of the fit obtained, since it predicts 70% of behavioral intention, and from the predictive point of view. The necessary condition analysis allows us to analyze whether the presence of some of the latent variables postulated to explain the attitude toward implantables is necessary to produce the said acceptance. Therefore, its absence is a critical aspect of expansion. We observed that perceived usefulness manifests itself as a necessary condition for behavioral intention with a medium size. Perceived ease of use and enjoyment also present a significant necessity effect size, but their strength is smaller. By contrast, the subjective norm does not have the status of a necessary variable.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perceived Usefulnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perceived Enjoymentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessing the Acceptance of Cyborg Technology with a Hedonic Technology Acceptance Model

de Andrés-Sánchez,

Arias-Oliva,

Souto-Romero

et al. 2024

Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The ethical acceptability of human enhancement technologies: A cross-country Q-study of the perception of insideables

Gauttier,

Arias-Oliva,

Murata

et al. 2024

Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antecedents of the Intention to Use Implantable Technologies for Nonmedical Purposes: A Mixed‐Method Evaluation

de Andrés-Sánchez,

Arias-Oliva,

Souto-Romero

2024

Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the rise of implantable or cyborg technologies, also known as insideables, which offer the potential to improve health‐related conditions and enhance the capabilities of healthy individuals. This research focused on the acceptance of insideables among university students in Spain, utilizing the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) framework along with analytical tools such as partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS‐SEM) and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). The PLS‐SEM analysis revealed that factors such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence positively influenced the intention to use insideables. However, the fsQCA revealed that no single variable is a necessary condition for explaining technology acceptance or rejection. Instead, a combination of constructs is needed to understand both intention to use and rejection. Configurational analysis emphasized the importance of factors such as performance expectancy, social influence, and hedonic motivation in explaining technology acceptance, whereas effort expectancy and perceived risk were less conclusive in their impact on behavioral intention. Moreover, the research revealed that the configurations related to the acceptance and rejection of insideables are asymmetrical. This study sheds light on the complex dynamics of implantable technology acceptance and provides valuable insights into the factors influencing its adoption. From a theoretical perspective, the sequential use of both correlational and configurational methods within the UTAUT framework allows us to gain a deeper understanding of the reasons behind the adoption of emerging technology rather than using only one data analysis methodology.

show abstract

Conventional vs. disruptive products: a wearables and insideables acceptance analysis

Cited by 4 publications

References 45 publications

Assessing the Acceptance of Cyborg Technology with a Hedonic Technology Acceptance Model

Assessing the Acceptance of Cyborg Technology with a Hedonic Technology Acceptance Model

The ethical acceptability of human enhancement technologies: A cross-country Q-study of the perception of insideables

Antecedents of the Intention to Use Implantable Technologies for Nonmedical Purposes: A Mixed‐Method Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About