Do you want to be a cyborg? The moderating effect of ethics on neural implant acceptance

Abstract The development of neural implants to increase people's memory is enabling the creation of cyborgs (human-machine hybrids) with superior capacities. This paper aims to advance new technology acceptance models by analyzing the moderating effect of ethics on an integrative Cognitive-Affective-Normative (CAN) model to understand the acceptance of brain implants to increase capacities. The model is tested on a sample of 900 individuals segmented by their ethical assessment of these insideables: ethically in favor, ethically against, or ethically indifferent. The results show that an individual's ethical assessment of memory implants explains differences in his or her intention to use them but does not moderate the influence of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, positive emotions, negative emotions, or social influence on the intention to use them. The results have theoretical implications for technology acceptance models and open new lines of research concerning the future cyborg society.

[1]  B. Shiv,et al.  Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making , 1999 .

[2]  Becoming Cyborgian , 2012 .

[3]  Richard J. Whiddett,et al.  User acceptance of inter-organizational electronic medical records , 2001 .

[4]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Editorial - Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous Applications, Better Results and Higher Acceptance , 2013 .

[5]  K. Warwick.  Cyborg morals, cyborg values, cyborg ethics , 2003, Ethics and Information Technology.

[6]  Gerald Q. Maguire,et al.  Becoming Borg to Become Immortal: Regulating Brain Implant Technologies , 2007, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.

[7]  Joel B. Cohen,et al.  The Nature and Role of Affect in Consumer Behavior , 2008 .

[8]  Jens Clausen,et al.  Moving minds: ethical aspects of neural motor prostheses. , 2008, Biotechnology journal.

[9]  Thomas Donaldson,et al.  Contractarian Business Ethics: Current Status and Next Steps , 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly.

[10]  Ai-Ling Lai.  Cyborg as Commodity: Exploring Conception of Self-Identity, Body and Citizenship within the Context of Emerging Transplant Technologies , 2013 .

[11]  A. Daar,et al.  ‘Mind the gap’: science and ethics in nanotechnology , 2003, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[12]  Kevin Warwick,et al.  The Cyborg Revolution , 2014, NanoEthics.

[13]  Jens Clausen,et al.  Conceptual and ethical issues with brain–hardware interfaces , 2011, Current opinion in psychiatry.

[14]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[15]  Stefan Greiner,et al.  Cyborg Bodies—Self-Reflections on Sensory Augmentations , 2014 .

[16]  M. Hyde,et al.  Coming to a decision about cochlear implantation: parents making choices for their deaf children. , 2010, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[17]  Donald P. Robin,et al.  Some initial steps toward improving the measurement of ethical evaluations of marketing activities , 1988 .

[18]  Jiwat Ram,et al.  ERP adoption and the value creation , 2014 .

[19]  S. Zielke.  Integrating emotions in the analysis of retail price images , 2011 .

[20]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Corrigendum to “Editorial Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous Applications, Better Results and Higher Acceptance” [LRP 46/1-2 (2013) 1–12] , 2014 .

[21]  A. Mattila,et al.  The impact of experiential consumption cognitions and emotions on behavioral intentions , 2008 .

[22]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet , 2011 .

[23]  Cristina Olarte-Pascual,et al.  Nanoimplants that Enhance Human Capabilities: A Cognitive‐Affective Approach to Assess Individuals’ Acceptance of this Controversial Technology , 2016 .

[24]  Piyush Kumar Sinha,et al.  Consumer learning and its impact on store format selection , 2008 .

[25]  T. Most,et al.  Identity and Attitudes towards Cochlear Implant Among Deaf and Hard of Hearing Adolescents , 2007 .

[26]  W. Glannon.  Bioethics and the Brain , 2006 .

[27]  Rudolf R. Sinkovics,et al.  The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing , 2009 .

[28]  Klaus-Michael Weltring,et al.  Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Brain-Implants Using Nano-Scale Materials and Techniques , 2008 .

[29]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[30]  Monique M. Raats,et al.  Moral concerns and consumer choice of fresh and processed organic foods , 2008 .

[31]  Jonathan Levav,et al.  Emotional Accounting: How Feelings about Money Influence Consumer Choice , 2009 .

[32]  Gill Haddow,et al.  Cyborgs in the Everyday: Masculinity and Biosensing Prostate Cancer , 2015, Science as culture.

[33]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[34]  Prashanth U. Nyer,et al.  The role of emotions in marketing , 1999 .

[35]  Lina Zhou,et al.  The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: An empirical investigation , 2014, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[36]  Christopher Heath Wellman,et al.  A Companion to Applied Ethics , 2005 .

[37]  Lakshmi Goel,et al.  Acceptable IS Use: Conceptualization and measurement , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[38]  D. Andrade.  On norms and bodies: findings from field research on cosmetic surgery in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. , 2010 .

[39]  Andrew I. Cohen,et al.  Contemporary debates in applied ethics , 2005 .

[40]  Cheryl Burke Jarvis,et al.  The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. , 2005, The Journal of applied psychology.

[41]  R. Frank Falk,et al.  A Primer for Soft Modeling , 1992 .

[42]  R H Griffiths,et al.  What is ethics in practice? , 1983, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.

[43]  J. Lerner,et al.  Feelings and Consumer Decision Making: The Appraisal-Tendency Framework , 2007 .

[44]  Robert Stock,et al.  Human, Non-Human, and Beyond: Cochlear Implants in Socio-Technological Environments , 2015 .

[45]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[46]  H. Mano.  Emotion and Consumption: Perspectives and Issues , 2004 .

[47]  D. Watson,et al.  Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[48]  Enno Park,et al.  Ethical Issues in Cyborg Technology: Diversity and Inclusion , 2014 .

[49]  P. Ford.  Neurosurgical Implants: Clinical Protocol Considerations , 2007, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.

[50]  David W. Hart,et al.  Psychological Contracts: A Nano-Level Perspective on Social Contract Theory , 2005 .

[51]  I. L. Kvalem,et al.  Psychosocial Factors Predicting the Motivation to Undergo Cosmetic Surgery , 2006, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[52]  B. Allison,et al.  The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders’ Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing , 2011, Neuroethics.

[53]  Josh Adams.  Motivational Narratives and Assessments of the Body After Cosmetic Surgery , 2010, Qualitative health research.

[54]  Donald P. Robin,et al.  Toward the Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics , 1990 .

[55]  Cristina Olarte-Pascual,et al.  Assessing the acceptance of technological implants (the cyborg): Evidences and challenges , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[56]  M. Schermer.  The Mind and the Machine. On the Conceptual and Moral Implications of Brain-Machine Interaction , 2009, Nanoethics.

[57]  Cristina Olarte-Pascual,et al.  Assessing the Moderating Effect of the End User in Consumer Behavior: The Acceptance of Technological Implants to Increase Innate Human Capacities , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[58]  Manuel J. Sánchez-Franco,et al.  Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for Using Partial Least Squares in Information Systems Research , 2012 .

[59]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[60]  Tore Sørlie,et al.  Psychosocial predictors of an interest in cosmetic surgery among young Norwegian women: a population-based study. , 2010, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[61]  I. Ajzen.  The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[62]  Valerye Milleson,et al.  Nanotechnology, the Brain, and the Future: Ethical Considerations , 2013 .

[63]  Y. Yu,et al.  Satisfaction Emotions and Consumer Behavioral Intentions , 2005 .

[64]  Steffen K. Rosahl,et al.  Vanishing senses—restoration of sensory functions by electronic implants , 2004, Poiesis Prax..

[65]  S. Counsell,et al.  A conceptual model for the process of IT innovation adoption in organizations , 2012 .

[66]  Margo Buchanan-Oliver,et al.  Discourses of Technology Consumption: Ambivalence, Fear, and Liminality , 2011 .

[67]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[68]  Joseph F. Hair,et al.  Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! ☆ , 2016 .

[69]  F. Jotterand.  Beyond Therapy and Enhancement: The Alteration of Human Nature , 2008 .

[70]  R. Ford,et al.  Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature , 1994 .

[71]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2012, MIS Q..

[72]  A moratorium on cyborgs: Computation, cognition, and commerce , 2008 .