Nanoimplants that Enhance Human Capabilities: A Cognitive‐Affective Approach to Assess Individuals’ Acceptance of this Controversial Technology

Abstract

Nanotechnology enables the miniaturization of complex devices designed to enhance individuals’ physical and cognitive capabilities and, in the form of nanoimplants, their integration in the human body. It is unknown, however, whether people are willing or not to accept such devices. To shed light on this issue, this research used an extended version of the well‐known technology acceptance model (TAM), adding affective factors to the cognitive components already present in the model. Testing on a sample of 600 individuals yielded statistically significant effects on attitudes toward nanoimplants and intention to undergo nanoimplantation. Conclusions are drawn and implications are discussed.

Cash, credit, or phone? An empirical study on the adoption of mobile payments in the United States

“…We tested our research model using the typical two‐step approach in structural equation modeling (Reinares et al, ; E. L. Slade et al, ). First, we tested the measurement model by assessing the construct reliability and discriminant validity.…”

“…In addition to cognitive factors in the traditional TAM, we argue for the role of hedonic feelings in affecting consumer adoption of new technology too. Kulviwat et al () have initiated an effort in incorporating feelings into what they called consumer acceptance model, and Reinares, Olarte, Pelegrín and Pino () have examined both affective and cognitive factors in the adoption of nanotechnology. We echoed such efforts by examining the impact of both positive and negative feelings in the adoption model.…”

A look into future risks: A psychosocial theoretical framework for investigating the intention to practice body hacking

“…For example, in the TAM (Davis, ), the attitude to use a technology is derived from its perceived usefulness (i.e., “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her performance,” p. 320) and the perceived ease of use (“the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort,” p. 320). Both have been shown to be significant predictors of the intention to use insideables (Pelegrín‐Borondo et al, ; Pelegrín‐Borondo et al, ; Reinares‐Lara, Olarte‐Pascuala, Pelegrín‐Borondo, & Pino, ). Gauttier (2019) using a qualitative methodology also found that convenience (i.e., the perceived usefulness or benefits) was a driver for accepting insideables.…”

“…For instance, one may worry about the prospect of development of BH (i.e., anticipatory emotions) or feel excitement or fear when thinking about imagined positive or negative consequences of BH (i.e., anticipated emotions). Positive and negative emotions have shown to be respectively significant positive and negative predictors of the intention to use insideables for oneself (Pelegrín‐Borondo et al, ; Pelegrín‐Borondo et al, ; Reinares‐Lara et al, ) or for one's child (Pelegrín‐Borondo et al, ). Interestingly, positive emotions were more influential than negative emotions (Pelegrín‐Borondo et al, ; Pelegrín‐Borondo et al, ; Reinares‐Lara et al, ).…”

“…So far anticipated regret has been considered as one dimension of negative anticipated emotions among others in predicting using insideables (e.g., Pelegrín‐Borondo et al, ; Pelegrín‐Borondo et al, ; Reinares‐Lara et al, ). However, considering anticipated regret as an independent predictor could turn out to be useful for understanding the intention towards practicing BH.…”