I-cyborg: disability, affect and public pedagogy

Assessing the Moderating Effect of the End User in Consumer Behavior: The Acceptance of Technological Implants to Increase Innate Human Capacities

“…In conclusion, the cognitive variables included in the CAN model have only a limited influence when the end user is oneself, and no influence when the end user is one's child. The results slightly modify those of previous studies, such as Li et al ( 2003 ), Christiansen and Leigh ( 2004 ), and Christie and Bloustien ( 2010 ), that have shown the importance of “PU” in the decision to implant one's child for health-related reasons. In the current study, implantation is not performed for medical reasons, and this variable ceases to have an effect.…”

“…Their influence on the intention to use implants in adults has been proven with regard to physical implants for cosmetic surgery (Adams, 2010 ), as well as technological implants to address health issues, such as submammary defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, cardioverter defibrillators, or pacemakers (Giudici et al, 2010 ). “PU” also plays a key role in the intention to use cochlear implants in children (Christiansen and Leigh, 2004 ; Christie and Bloustien, 2010 ). These studies support the idea that most parents have high expectations that cochlear implants will help their children improve their verbal communication, educational options, and emotional well-being, often beyond the standard level among the deaf population (Li et al, 2003 ).…”

“…A novel extension of models is proposed here in order to capture the effect of emotions on the acceptance of new technologies. Both medical advances in transplant technology, such as organ transplants from animals, and the integration of technological devices have led to the perception that the body is modifiable (Christie and Bloustien, 2010 ), which, in turn, can generate apprehension and anxiety (Buchanan-Oliver and Cruz, 2011 ) and fear of dehumanization (Lai, 2012 ). With regard to young people's perceptions, Schaar and Ziefle ( 2011 ) analyzed, through qualitative methods, benefits, and fears regarding four implantable medical devices known to different degrees and entailing different levels of surgical risk for the patient: pacemakers, cochlear implants, medical chips, and deep brain stimulation (or “brain pacemakers”) for the treatment of Parkinson tremor and paralysis.…”

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

“…For instance, Giudici, Carlson, Krupa, Meierbachtol, and VanWhy () showed that the PU of submammary defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and pacemakers favorably influences patients’ decisions to implant these devices in their bodies. Christie and Bloustien () established that the usefulness that the deaf ascribe to cochlear implants, in terms of their improved capability to thrive in an oral world, favorably influences their acceptance of such devices. Adams () ascertained that the PU of cosmetic surgery is an essential factor in individuals’ acceptance of cosmetic body implants.…”

Perceived Realism and Twitter Use Are Associated with Increased Acceptance of Cosmetic Surgery among Those Watching Reality Television Cosmetic Surgery Programs

“…22 Facebook is a Web site used to connect people with their friends and also allows for shar ing photographs and updates. 25 Information and activities on Facebook were used to prevent a decline in con dom use 26 and to reduce infection with a sexually transmitted disease. 24 Facebook has been used by patients undergoing surgery to document their experience.…”