Cross-cultural study about cyborg market acceptanceJapan versus Spain

Referencias bibliográficas

• Arias-Oliva, M., Pelegrín-Borondo, J., & Matías-Clavero, G. (2019). Variables influ-encing cryptocurrency use: A technology acceptance model in Spain. Frontiersin Psychology, 10, 475. Available at. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00475
• Berger, J. L. https://www.google.com/patents/US7932825, 2011
• Berger, F., Gevers, S., Siep, L., & Weltring, K. M. (2008). Ethical, legal and social aspectsof brain-implants using nano-scale materials and techniques. NanoEthics, 2(3),241–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0044-9
• Besbes, A., Legohérel, P., Kucukusta, D., & Law, R. (2016). A cross-cultural validationof the tourism web acceptance model (T-WAM) in different cultural contexts.Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 28(3), 211–226.
• Brasor, P. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/10/28/national/media-national/organ-donations-transplants-still-face-obstacles-japan/#.XIaCoi1DkUE,2017
• Cepeda Carrión, G., Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Roldán, J. L. (2016). Prediction-oriented modeling in business research by means of PLS path modeling:Introduction to a JBR special section. Journal of Business Research, 69(10),4545–4551.
• Chiu, Y. T. H., & Hofer, K. M. (2015). Service innovation and usage intention: A cross-market analysis. Journal of Service Management, 26(3), 516–538.
• Chopdar, P. K., Korfiatis, N., Sivakumar, V. J., & Lytras, M. D. (2018). Mobile shop-ping apps adoption and perceived risks: A cross-country perspective utilizingthe Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Computers in HumanBehaviour, 86, 109–128.
• Christino, J. M. M., Silva, T. S., Cardozo, E. A. A., de Pádua Carrieri, A., & de PaivaNunes, P. (2019). Understanding affiliation to cashback programs: An emergingtechnique in an emerging country. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47,78–86.
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptanceof information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
• Donahue, M. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/worlds-first-cyborg-human-evolution-science/, 2017
• Duarte, B. N., & Park, E. (2014). Body, technology and society: A dance of encounters.NanoEthics, 8(3), 259–261.
• Edgar, J. http://bit.ly/2ufEXj7, 2014
• Faqih, K. M. S. (2011). Integrating perceived risk and trust with a technologyacceptance model: An empirical assessment of customers’ acceptance of onlineshopping in Jordan. Proceedings of international conference on research and inno-vation in information systems, 1–5.
• Farah, M. F., Hasni, M. J. S., & Abbas, A. K. (2018). Mobile-banking adoption: Empir-ical evidence from the banking sector in Pakistan. International Journal of BankMarketing, 36(7), 1386–1413.
• Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A per-ceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,59, 451–474.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introductionto theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Fleischman, G. M., Johnson, E. N., Walker, K. B., & Valentine, S. R. (2017).Ethics versus outcomes: Managerial responses to incentive-drivenand goal-induced employee behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–17.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3695-z
• Floristan, C. https://elpais.com/diario/2003/05/29/opinion/1054159209 850215.html, 2003
• Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Jour-nal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 209–221.
• Grigoryan, L. K., Lebedeva, N., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2018). A cross-cultural studyof the mediating role of implicit theories of innovativeness in the relationshipbetween values and attitudes toward innovation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-chology, 49(2), 336–352.
• Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journalof Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
• Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equa-tion modeling: Rigorous applications, better result and higher acceptance. LongRange Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12.
• Hasse, J. https://www.benzinga.com/general/biotech/17/05/9507518/nexeon-ceo-on-the-brain-chip-targeting-parkinsons-lou-gehrigs-disease-, 2017
• Heffernan, K. J., Vetere, F., & Chang, S. (2017). Towards insertables:Devices inside the human body. First Monday, 22(3). Available at.https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i3.6214
• Henseler, J. (2018). Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis? Quality & Quan-tity, 52(1), 1–8.
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invarianceof composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3),405–431.
• Herrera-Vega, E. (2015). Relevance of N. Luhmann’s theory of social systems tounderstand the essence of technology today. The Case of the Gulf of MexicoOil Spill: Para Alberto. Technology in Society, 40, 25–42.
• Hoffman, D. L., Kopalle, P. K., & Novak, T. P. (2010). The “right” consumers for bet-ter concepts: Identifying consumers high in emergent nature to develop newproduct concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 854–865.
• Hyman, M. R. (1996). A critique and revision of the multidimensional ethics scale.Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, 1(1), 1–35.
• Im, I., Yongbeom, K., & Hyo-Joo, H. (2008). The effects of perceived risk and tech-nology type on users’ acceptance of technologies. Information & Management,45(1), 1–9.
• Imamichi, T. (1990). Eco-ethica. Tokyo: Kodansha (in Japanese).
• ISAPS. https://www.isaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ISAPS 2017International Study Cosmetic Procedures.pdf, 2017
• ITU. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx, 2019
• Juaneda-Ayensa, E., Mosquera, A., & Sierra Murillo, Y. (2016). Omnichannel cus-tomer behaviour: Key drivers of technology acceptance and use and theireffects on purchase intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1117. Available at.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01117
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kannungo, S., & Jain, V. (2004). Relationship between risk and intention to purchasein an online context: Role of gender and product category. Proceedings of ECIS2004, 95, 1–14. Retrieved March 25, from. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2004/95
• Khan, I. U., Hameed, Z., & Khan, S. U. (2017). Understanding online banking adoptionin a developing country: UTAUT2 with cultural moderators. Journal of GlobalInformation Management, 25(1), 43–65.
• Kishore, S. K., & Sequeira, A. H. (2016). An empirical investigation on mobilebanking service adoption in rural Karnataka. SAGE Open, 6(1). Available at.https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016633731
• Klein, A., & Bhagat, P. (2016). Comparative study of technological innovativenessbetween individuals in the USA and India. Review of International Business andStrategy, 26(1), 100–117.
• LaTour, M. S., & Henthorne, T. L. (1994). Ethical judgments of sexual appeals in printadvertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 81–90.
• Legge, J. (2010). The Hsiao king or classic of filial piety. Whitefish, MT: KessingerPublishing.
• Leonard, L. N., & Jones, K. (2017). Ethical awareness of seller’s behavior in consumer-to-consumer electronic commerce: Applying the multidimensional ethics scale.Journal of Internet Commerce, 16(2), 202–218.
• Loo, R. (2004). Support for Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) eight-item mul-tidimensional ethics scale. The Social Science Journal, 41(2), 289–294.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2004.01.020
• Lu, J. (2014). Are personal innovativeness and social influence critical to continuewith mobile commerce? Internet Research, 24(2), 134–159.
• Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its mea-surement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229–242.
• Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, E. S. (2013). Ethical judgments: What do weknow, where do we go? Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), 575–597.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1426-z
• Murata, K., Adams, A. A., Fukuta, Y., Orito, Y., Arias-Oliva, M., & Pelegrín-Borondo,J. (2017). From a science fiction to reality: Cyborg ethics in Japan. ACM SIGCASComputers and Society, 47(3), 72–85.
• Nguyen, N. T., & Biderman, M. D. (2008). Studying ethical judgments and behav-ioral intentions using structural equations: Evidence from the multidimensionalethics scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 627–640.
• Nguyen, N. T., Basuray, M. T., Smith, W. P., Kopka, D., & McCulloh, D. (2008).Moral issues and gender differences in ethical judgment using Reidenbach andRobin’s (1990) multidimensional ethics scale: Implications in teaching of busi-ness ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 417–430.
• Olarte, C., Pelegrín, J., & Reinares, E. (2017). Model of acceptance of a new type of bev-erage: Application to natural sparkling red wine. Spanish Journal of AgriculturalResearch, 15(1), 1–11.
• Olarte-Pascual, C., Pelegrín-Borondo, J., & Reinares-Lara, E. (2015). Implants toincrease innate capacities: integrated vs. apocalyptic attitudes. Is there a newmarket? Universia Business Review, 48(fourth quarter), 86–117.
• ONT. http://www.ont.es/infesp/Paginas/DatosdeDonacionyTrasplante.aspx, 2019
• Pandey, S., & Chawla, D. (2019). Engaging m-commerce adopters in India: Exploringthe two ends of the adoption continuum across four m-commerce categories.Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32(1), 191–210.
• Park, E. (2014). Ethical issues in cyborg technology: Diversity and inclusion.NanoEthics, 8(3), 303–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0206-x
• Pelegrín-Borondo, J., Arias-Oliva, M., Murata, K., & Souto-Romero, M. (2018). DoesEthical Judgment Determine the Decision to Become a Cyborg? Journal of Busi-ness Ethics, p. 1–13. Available at. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3970-7
• Pelegrín-Borondo, J., Reinares-Lara, E., & Olarte-Pascual, C. (2017). Assessing theacceptance of technological implants (the cyborg): Evidences and challenges.Computers in Human Behaviour, 70, 104–112.
• Pelegrín-Borondo, J., Reinares-Lara, E., Olarte-Pascual, C., & Garcia-Sierra,M. (2016). Assessing the moderating effect of the end user in con-sumer behaviour: The acceptance of technological implants to increaseinnate human capacities. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 132. Available at.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00132
• Pérez Trivi˜no, J. L. (2016). El dopaje y las nuevas tecnologías. El nuevo paradigma deldeporte. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
• Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Ringle, C. M., Jaafar, M., & Ramayah, T. (2017). Urban vs. ruraldestinations: Residents’ perceptions. Community participation and support fortourism development. Tourism Management, 60, 147–158.
• Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1990). Toward the development of a multidimen-sional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of BusinessEthics, 9(8), 639–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00383391
• Reinares-Lara, E., Olarte-Pascual, C., & Pelegrín-Borondo, J. (2018). Do you want tobe a cyborg? The moderating effect of ethics on neural implant acceptance.Computers in Human Behaviour, 85, 43–53.
• Reinares-Lara, E., Olarte-Pascual, C., Pelegrín-Borondo, J., & Pino, G. (2016). Nanoim-plants that enhance human capabilities: A cognitive-affective approach to assessindividuals’ acceptance of this controversial technology. Psychology & Marketing,33(9), 704–712.
• Roldán, J. L., & Sánchez-Franco, M. J. (2012). Variance-based structural equationmodeling: Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systemsresearch. In M. Mora, O. Gelman, A. Steenkamp, & M. Raisinghan (Eds.), Researchmethodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering andinformation systems (pp. 193–221). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
• Ronteltap, A., Van Trijp, J. C. M., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2007). Consumeracceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future ofnutrigenomics. Appetite, 49(1), 1–17.
• Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Fang, H., Teo, T., García-Pe˜nalvo, F. J., & Torrecilla-Sánchez, E.M. (2018). Mobile acceptance and learning beliefs: A cross-cultural assessmentbetween China and Spain. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference ontechnological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality. pp. 228–234.
• Schermer, M. (2009). The mind and the machine. On the conceptual andmoral implications of brain-machine interaction. NanoEthics, 3(3), 217–230.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11569-009-0076-9
• Secchi, D., & Bui, H. T. (2018). Group effects on individual attitudestoward social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 725–746.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3106-x
• Sociedad Espa˜nola de Cirugía Plástica, Reparadora y Estética (SECPRE). (2014). Larealidad de la cirugía estética en Espa˜na 2014. Sociedad Espa˜nola de Cirugía Plás-tica, Reparadora y Estética.
• Shawver, T. J., & Sennetti, J. T. (2009). Measuring ethical sensitivity and evaluation.Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4), 663–678.
• Shim, S. I., & Lee, Y. (2011). Consumer’s perceived risk reduction by 3D virtual model.International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 39(12), 945–959.
• Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Velasquez Estrada, J. M., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant inthe room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research,69(10), 4552–4564.
• Slade, E. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Piercy, N. C., & Williams, M. D. (2015). Modeling consumers’adoption intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: extend-ing UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and trust. Psychology & Marketing, 32(8),860–873.
• Urquilla Castaneda, A. (2018). El impacto de los implantes de los microchips en losEstados Unidos. ¿Esclavitud o beneficio? Realidad y Reflexión, 47, 108–121.
• Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the TechnologyAcceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2),186–204.
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance ofinformation technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
• Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of infor-mation technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use oftechnology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
• Warwick, K. (2003). Cyborg morals, cyborg values, cyborg ethics. Ethicsand Information Technology, 5(3), 131–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:ETIN.0000006870.65865.cf
• Warwick, K. (2014). The cyborg revolution. NanoEthics, 8(3), 263–273.
• Wiegard, R.-B., & Breitner, M. H. (2017). Smart services in healthcare: A risk-benefit-analysis of pay-as-you-live services from customer perspective in Germany.Electronic Markets, 29(1), 107–123.
• Wilkinson, S. B. T., Pidgeon, N., Lee, J., Pattison, C., & Lambert, N. (2005). Explor-ing consumer attitudes towards functional foods: A qualitative study. Journal ofNutraceuticals, Functional & Medical Foods, 4(3–4), 5–28.
• Wright, R. T., Campbell, D. E., Thatcher, J. B., & Roberts, N. H. (2012). Operationalizingmultidimensional constructs in structural equation modeling: Recommenda-tions for IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,30(23), 367–412.