Can Coolness Predict Technology Adoption? Effects of Perceived Coolness on User Acceptance of Smartphones with Curved Screens

Abstract

This study proposes an acceptance model for curved-screen smartphones, and explores how the sense of coolness induced by attractiveness, originality, subcultural appeal, and the utility of the curved screen promotes smartphone adoption. The results of structural equation modeling analyses (N = 246) show that these components of coolness (except utility) increase the acceptance of the technology by enhancing the smartphones' affectively driven qualities rather than their utilitarian ones. The proposed coolness model is then compared with the original technology acceptance model to validate that the coolness factors are indeed equally effective determinants of usage intention, as are the extensively studied usability factors such as perceived ease of use and usefulness.

Introduction

Researchers have typically considered usability and usefulness factors as the primary predictors of technology adoption.¹ However, increasing emphasis is being placed on the coolness aspects of technology because users are likely to show the “Wow! This is cool!” response when given newer, innovative technological products such as curved displays, smartwatches, and smartglasses. These “cool” devices invoke conscious acknowledgments of the “hipness” of the technology by triggering the coolness heuristic² with its novelty and innovativeness, which ultimately produces positive user perceptions and experiences of the technology. The operation of heuristics allows quick, effortless credibility judgments, and thereby helps shape user evaluations of—and attitudes toward—both the technology and the information it conveys.^2,3 Therefore, a device capable of invoking more positive heuristics (e.g., coolness) has a greater chance of market success.

In their study on the concept of coolness, Sundar et al.⁴ theorized that it is a socially constructed “multidimensional user-based judgment” consisting of four factors: attractiveness, originality, subcultural appeal, and utility. Thus, cool products are typically regarded as esthetic, unique, rare, and useful and associated with both affective and utilitarian attributes.^4,5 The current study applies this conceptualization to evaluate the coolness of the curved-screen smartphone—a device now being hyped in the information and communications technology (ICT) market—and develops a user acceptance model that integrates the four coolness factors in order to examine whether perceived coolness can indeed lead to technology adoption.

Theoretical Background

Curved display

Display screens have long been studied in terms of their size and panel variations. For example, Kim et al.^6,7 showed that increased screen size generally has positive effects on user perceptions and acceptance of mobile devices. Conversely, variations in panel types are found to have limited psychological influence, despite manufacturers' marketing emphasis on the advantages of their display panels.^8,9 While such empirical investigations have attempted to explicate the effects of various display screen characteristics, no research has yet explored whether curved screens can serve as an attractive and distinctive technological feature that promotes greater smartphone acceptance. Therefore, this study examines the role of curved screens in promoting the coolness aspects of the technology in order to provide both theoretical and practical insights into whether this newly introduced display technology influences smartphone adoption, with implications for other consumer electronics (e.g., televisions, PC monitors) that have also begun to integrate curved display technology.

Attitude toward cool technology

User attitudes toward a novel technology strongly predict behavioral intention to adopt it. Attitude refers to the degree to which a person forms positive or negative feelings and appraisals about engaging in a certain behavior.¹⁰ The salient structural and psychological features associated with technology shape user attitudes; a favorable attitude then leads to behavioral intention to adopt the technology.^10,11 This positive correlation between attitude and intention has been extensively validated via studies on the adoption of various technological products and services, including smartphones,⁷ smartwatches,¹² e-book readers,¹³ mobile cloud computing,¹⁴ and social networking services.¹⁵ Therefore, this study hypothesizes that the positive attitude induced by the perceived coolness of curved-screen smartphones will increase the intention to use the technology:

H1: A positive attitude will increase the intention to use curved-screen smartphones.

Coolness factors

Attractiveness

Individuals are drawn to objects, places, and people with more attractive, esthetic structural features, and physical appearance.¹⁶ Although this innate human drive has long played a critical role in influencing the quality of both human–human and human–computer interactions, the esthetic values of technology have been insufficiently acknowledged by researchers and designers until recently, when Apple began to emphasize the attractiveness of their products as a key element of their design and marketing.⁵ Consequently, the notion that what is beautiful is good¹⁶ and usable¹⁷ has become a dominant design principle for the ICT industry. Tractinsky et al.¹⁷ suggest that the esthetic values of technology are subjective, nonquantifiable, affect-based qualities that are as important as usability-related factors concerning the efficiency of the technology. Studies have consistently shown that affective appeals lead to greater acceptance of ICT devices such as smartphones⁷ and smartwatches.¹² Similarly, this study predicts that the attractive and esthetic structural feature of the curved display will be influential in shaping positive user attitudes, and thus proposes the following hypothesis:

H2: Attractiveness will lead to a more positive attitude toward curved-screen smartphones.

Originality

Originality, or uniqueness, refers to the degree to which users believe that a technological product is substantively, functionally, or esthetically different from others of a similar nature.⁴ Products with stylish designs, intuitive interfaces, distinct functions, or simply interesting names are perceived as unique. Possessing such products allows individuals to look and feel different from others without risking significant social discomfort or conflict,¹⁸ thereby satisfying the counter-conformity motivation¹⁹ and alleviating any potential threat to identity caused by an apparent similarity to others.²⁰ Unique products are particularly attractive to users with a strong desire for originality and a greater acceptance of innovativeness, such as those who identify themselves as early adopters and power users.²¹ In Western culture, individual identity, style, and difference are frequently expressed via the purchase of novel, original consumer goods and material displays of them.²² This study extends this line of inquiry to technology adoption to hypothesize that the sense of originality induced by the curved display is likely to lead to a positive attitude:

H3: Originality will lead to a more positive attitude toward curved-screen smartphones.

Subcultural appeal

Individuals tend to distinguish themselves from others by having cool things that reflect their unique characters, values, and interests.^23–25 McAlister and Pessemier²⁶ suggest that possessing unusual products satisfies the innate desire for social distinction. As novel technological products are rare in mainstream culture until they reach the mass market, owning an innovative device, especially at the early state of market dissemination, allows its users to stand out from the majority and creates a distinct subculture unique to its users. Sundar et al.⁴ argue that this subcultural appeal of a digital device is a critical psychological component of coolness, which induces the sense of rareness and “being different.” Extending this conceptualization, Kim and Shin¹² found that the subcultural appeal of smartwatches leads to a more positive attitude toward the device. Given that curved displays have not yet reached the mass market and that related products are still relatively new, they are likely to convey the subcultural value that leads to the perception of the technology as being cool. In line with this reasoning, this study examines the following hypothesis:

H4: Subcultural appeal will lead to a more positive attitude toward curved-screen smartphones.

Utility

Utility, or usefulness, refers to the degree to which users perceive that employing a particular technological product helps complete their tasks more efficiently and enhances their job performance.¹¹ Numerous studies following the technology acceptance model (TAM) framework have consistently identified usefulness as a primary predictor of both initial and long-term ICT usage intention.^27,28 Szajna²⁹ claims that perceived usefulness has persistent over-time effects, while the effects of perceived ease of use—another salient belief related to ICT usage—eventually becomes nonsignificant, suggesting that usefulness may be the primary predictor of ICT usage. Levy⁵ argues that the coolness of Apple products originates primarily from their astonishing utility, which seamlessly integrates diverse functions. Accordingly, Sundar et al.⁴ initially described utility as an essential component of coolness. The results of their study revealed otherwise, however, indicating that perceptions of utility may arise from the other coolness factors but that such perceptions are incidental, not central, to coolness. To examine this possibility for the restricted role of utility as a coolness component, the current study addresses the following research question and investigates whether utility, along with the other three coolness factors, function as a psychological essence of coolness predicting technology adoption:

RQ1: Will utility lead to a more positive attitude toward curved-screen smartphones?

Method

Questionnaire items developed and used in prior research^4,7 were employed in order to create a survey measuring curved-screen smartphone users' perceived levels of attractiveness, originality, subcultural appeal, and utility, as well as their attitude and intention to (continue to) use the smartphone. Words and phrases of the original items were modified and finessed to reflect the context of this study. A professional consulting agency was then hired to recruit respondents owning curved-screen smartphones and administer the survey. All variables were measured on 7-point Likert scales anchored by 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree.” The complete list of questionnaire items used in this study appears in the appendix.

The agency collected 278 samples with an 88.5% response rate; 246 valid samples (141 males) remained as the final data set after samples with incomplete responses were removed. A power analysis using online R software³⁰ for the not close model fit (α = 0.05, null root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.05, alternative RMSEA = 0.01)³¹ indicated that the sample size was sufficient for testing the hypotheses, with a strong statistical power (0.99). Respondents ranged in age from 19 to 47 years, with a mean age of 29.44 years (SD = 6.35 years). Table 1 reports the respondents' demographic characteristics.

Table 1.

Sample Demographics (N = 246)

Demographics	N	%
Age (years)
19–25	62	25.2
26–30	94	38.2
31–35	54	22.0
36–40	30	12.2
>40	6	2.4
Sex
Male	141	57.3
Female	105	42.7
Education
High school	49	19.9
Undergraduate	117	47.6
Graduate	80	32.5
Annual income (US$)
Unemployed	39	15.9
<10,000	41	16.7
10,000–20,000	49	19.9
20,000–50,000	93	37.8
50,000–75,000	16	6.5
>75,000	8	3.3
Residential area
Metropolis	151	61.4
Small and mid-sized cities	67	27.2
Rural area	25	10.2
Other	3	1.2

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) using the AMOS 22 statistical software with a maximum likelihood estimation method were conducted on the collected data. CFA examined the reliability and validity of the factor structure of the observed variables, while SEM analyzed the explanatory strength and directional effects of the potential causal relationships proposed in the research model.

Results

Measurement model

The CFA results indicated that the overall fit indexes of the measurement model were satisfactory: ratio of chi square to the degrees of freedom (χ²/df) = 2.242, RMSEA = 0.071, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.937; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.894, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.894, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.938, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.920, parsimony comparative fit index (PCFI) = 0.735, parsimony goodness of fit index (PGFI) = 0.628, and parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) = 0.701. As summarized in Table 2, the fit indexes of the measurement model were all above the values recommended in prior studies.^32–34

Table 2.

Fit Indexes of the Measurement and Structural Models

Fit index	Recommended value	Measurement model	Structural model
χ²/df	≤3.00	2.242	2.238
CFI	≥0.92	0.937	0.935
GFI	≥0.80	0.894	0.891
NFI	≥0.90	0.894	0.890
IFI	≥0.90	0.938	0.936
TLI	≥0.90	0.920	0.920
PCFI	≥0.50	0.735	0.758
PGFI	≥0.50	0.628	0.646
PNFI	≥0.50	0.701	0.722
RMSEA	≤0.08	0.071	0.071

χ²/df, ratio of chi square to the degrees of freedom; CFI, comparative fit index; GFI, goodness of fit index; NFI, normed fit index; IFI, incremental fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.

In addition, the measurement model was found to have strong internal reliability and convergent validity; the Cronbach's alpha values of each construct, the factor loadings of the questionnaire items, and the average variance extracted (AVE) were all >0.70 (see Table 3). The model also showed robust discriminant validity, with the square roots of the average variance extracted higher than the correlations between the factors (see Table 4). These CFA results confirmed the presence of the six factors examined in this study.

Table 3.

Internal Reliability and Convergent Validity

		Internal reliability		Convergent validity
Construct	Item	Cronbach's alpha	Item-total correlation	Factor loading	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted
Attractiveness	AT1	0.828	0.853	0.847	0.879	0.708
	AT2		0.901	0.862
	AT3		0.833	0.815
Originality	OR1	0.859	0.875	0.868	0.901	0.752
	OR2		0.880	0.855
	OR3		0.901	0.879
Subcultural appeal	SA1	0.850	0.882	0.876	0.892	0.733
	SA2		0.894	0.878
	SA3		0.858	0.813
Utility	UT1	0.847	0.894	0.879	0.901	0.752
	UT2		0.885	0.877
	UT3		0.847	0.845
Attitude	ATT1	0.855	0.858	0.746	0.807	0.583
	ATT2		0.929	0.719
	ATT3		0.853	0.822
Intention to use	IU1	0.895	0.901	0.842	0.879	0.707
	IU2		0.914	0.853
	IU3		0.912	0.828

Table 4.

Descriptive Analysis and Discriminant Validity of the Measurements

Construct	Mean	SD	AT	OR	SA	UT	ATT	IU
AT	4.22	1.07	0.842
OR	4.10	1.07	0.007	0.867
SA	4.57	1.06	0.062	0.228	0.856
UT	4.30	0.96	0.113	−0.126	0.040	0.867
ATT	4.23	1.40	0.316	0.261	0.323	0.017	0.844
IU	3.84	1.13	0.290	0.186	0.148	0.115	0.587	0.841

Diagonal elements in bold represent the square roots of the average variance extracted.

AT, attractiveness; OR, originality; SA, subcultural appeal; UT, utility; ATT, attitude; IU, intention to use.

Structural model and hypothesis testing

As depicted in Table 5, the SEM results confirmed all hypotheses and revealed satisfactory fit indexes for the research model: χ²/df = 2.238, RMSEA = 0.071, CFI = 0.935; GFI =0.891, NFI = 0.890, IFI = 0.936, TLI = 0.920, PCFI = 0.758, PGFI = 0.646, and PNFI = 0.722. The research model overall accounted for 32% of the variance in user attitude, and 41% of that in intention to use the curved-screen smartphone.

Table 5.

Summary of Hypotheses Tests

Hypotheses	Standardized coefficient	SE	CR
H1. ATT → IU	0.643^**	0.059	9.132
H2. AT → ATT	0.362^**	0.096	5.209
H3. OR → ATT	0.225^*	0.094	3.289
H4. SA → ATT	0.291^**	0.089	4.236
RQ. UT → IT	0.009	0.084	0.143

p < 0.01; ^**p < 0.001.

Consistent with H1, attitude was positively associated with intention to use the curved-screen smartphone (H1, β = 0.643, p < 0.001). As predicted in H2, H3, and H4, attractiveness (H2, β = 0.362, p < 0.001), originality (H3, β = 0.225, p < 0.01), and subcultural appeal (H5, β = 0.291, p < 0.001) had positive effects on attitude toward the curved-screen smartphone. Addressing the research question, curved-screen smartphones' utility was found to have no significant effects on attitude (β = 0.009, p > 0.05).

Discussion

This study develops and validates an adoption model for curved-screen smartphones in order to examine whether coolness induced by the curved display serves as a significant predictor of usage intention. As hypothesized, the three primary components of coolness (i.e., attractiveness, originality, and subcultural appeal) are found to have positive effects on user attitude, ultimately leading to greater acceptance of the smartphones. The proposed coolness model shows that users are drawn to esthetic and unique technological products that are rare in mainstream culture, suggesting that the feelings of enjoyment, identity, and differentness can be attained via the possession and purchase of cool devices.

This study's main contribution is identifying coolness as being an equally effective predictor of technology adoption as the much-studied usability factors in the TAM. To validate that view statistically, this study measured perceived ease of use and usefulness (i.e., the two fundamental determinants of user acceptance in the TAM) through the main survey and compared the model fits of the original TAM with the proposed coolness model to test their ability to predict the adoption of curved-screen smartphones. The TAM accounted for 23% of the variance in user attitude and 44% of that in intention to use the smartphone with satisfactory fit indexes: χ²/df = 2.455, RMSEA = 0.077, CFI = 0.960; GFI = 0.929, NFI = 0.936, IFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.947, PCFI = 0.713, PGFI =0.583, and PNFI = 0.695. This result suggests that both coolness and the TAM can help describe technology adoption. However, the implication does not point to which model is better, but rather that using the alternative, non-task-based predictors can indeed shed some light on the affective domain of ICT usage and adoption.

With regard to the research question, the SEM results reveal that the utility of curved-screen smartphones has no significant effects on attitude, a result consistent with Sundar et al.'s finding⁴ that utility is not an essential or distinct component of coolness and that coolness is thus an affectively driven, rather than utilitarian or task-oriented, multidimensional concept. Similarly, an earlier study⁷ on screen size's effects on smartphone adoption found that users tended to place a greater emphasis on the affective aspects of the technology than on its utilitarian, usability-related qualities. These findings collectively imply that a digital device's display characteristics, such as screen size and curvedness, convey positive psychological effects by inciting its affective, hedonic qualities, particularly in the mobile context. Given that users' affection for a technology is heuristically processed as its central characteristic,³⁵ the affectively driven sense of coolness is likely to have strong positive effects on users' evaluations of the device.

The practical implication is that the curved display may serve as one potential strategy by which the mobile industry can increase their products' sense of coolness. Coolness functions as a positive heuristic cue that triggers a conscious acknowledgment of the novelty and hipness of a device.² Users tend to rely instantly on such peripheral mental shortcuts to make snap judgments about devices instead of engaging in effortful, systematic evaluations of them.^36,37 Therefore, the coolness induced by curved displays is likely to lead users to form positive perceptions heuristically, thereby promoting smartphone adoption while biasing them to neglect systematic assessments of the smartphone's actual functions and features. Given that the curved display can also be used for televisions and PC monitors, design and marketing emphases on the coolness aspects of the display may be an effective strategy for promoting the adoption of those consumer electronics.

Methodologically, the failure to investigate the potential moderating effects of task types is a key limitation of this study. Given that smartphones are convergent media with a variety of functions and are used for both hedonic (e.g., gaming, movie viewing) and utilitarian (e.g., word processing, file sharing) purposes,⁷ some users may find the curved display to be particularly convenient and efficient for completing their tasks, while others may perceive it as uncomfortable and distracting. Therefore, including task type or usage purpose as a moderator could have provided further insights into the formation of user attitudes toward smartphones.

In addition, future studies may consider controlling for individual differences, such as gender and power usage. The quality and intensity of ICT usage is constantly influenced by gender because men tend to view digital media as information tools, whereas women are more likely to use them for communication.³⁸ Similarly, given that power users are known to identify themselves as early adopters with a greater interest in and willingness to try new technologies, controlling for power usage could have enhanced the explanatory strength of the study's findings. By considering these limitations, future studies may attempt to develop an acceptance model that integrates both coolness and TAM factors for a more comprehensive understanding of the adoption of cool technologies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2014S1A5B1014964).

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Appendix

Questionnaire Items

Attractiveness

ATT1: This smartphone is stylish.

ATT2: This smartphone is hip.

ATT3: This smartphone is sexy.

ATT4: This smartphone is hot.

Subcultural appeal

SA1: This smartphone makes people who use it different from other people.

SA2: If I use this smartphone, it will make me stand apart from others.

SA3: People who use this smartphone are unique.

SA4: People who use this smartphone are considered leaders rather than followers.

Originality

OR1: This smartphone is original.

OR2: This smartphone is unique.

OR3: This smartphone stands apart from similar products.

Utility

UT1: The purpose of this smartphone is to be useful.

UT2: I think the purpose of this smartphone is to help people.

UT3: This smartphone would help me get things done.

Attitude

AT1: Using this smartphone is a good idea.

AT2: I have a generally favorable attitude toward using this smartphone.

AT3: I like the idea of using this smartphone.

AT4: Overall, using this smartphone is beneficial.

AT5: I think this smartphone makes my life more interesting.

Intention to use

IU1: I predict I will use this smartphone in the future.

IU2: I plan to use this smartphone in the future.

IU3: I expect my use of this smartphone to continue in the future.

References

Lin

. Exploring the relationship between technology acceptance model and usability test. Information Technology & Management, 2013; 14:243–255.

Sundar

. (2008) The MAIN Model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In Metzger

, Flanagin

, eds. Digital media, youth, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 72–100.

Kim

. Heuristics in digital communication media: theoretical explications and empirical observations. Quality & Quantity. 2015; in press. DOI 10.1007/s11135-014-0103-y.

Sundar

, Tamul

, Wu

. Capturing “cool”: measures for assessing coolness of technological products. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 2014; 72:169–180.

Levy

. (2006) The perfect thing: how the iPod shuffles commerce, culture, and coolness. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kim

, Sundar

, Park

. (2011) The effects of screen-size and communication modality on psychology of mobile device users. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1207–1212.

Kim

, Sundar

. Does screen size matter for smartphones? Utilitarian and hedonic effects of screen size on smartphone adoption. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2014; 17:466–473.

Kim

, Sundar

. Does panel type matter for LCD monitors? A study examining the effects of S-IPS, S-PVA, and TN panels in video gaming and movie viewing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011; 6947:281–288.

Kim

, Park

, Sundar

. IPS vs. AMOLED: effects of panel type on smartphone users' viewing and reading experience. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, 2012; 182:77–84.

10.

Ajzen

. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Process, 1997; 50:179–211.

11.

Davis

. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 1989; 13:19–33.

12.

Kim

, Shin

. An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the adoption of future wearable technology. Internet Research, 2015; 25:527–541.

13.

Shin

. Understanding e-book users: uses and gratification expectancy model. New Media and Society, 2011; 13:260–278.

14.

Park

, Kim

. An integrated adoption model of mobile cloud services: exploration of key determinants and extension of technology acceptance model. Telematics & Informatics, 2014; 31:376–385.

15.

Kwon

, Park

, Kim

. What drives successful social networking services? A comparative analysis of user acceptance of Facebook and Twitter. The Social Science Journal, 2014; 51:534–544.

16.

Dion

, Berscheid

, Walster

. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1972; 24:285–290.

17.

Tractinsky

, Katz

, Ikar

. What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 2000; 13:127–145.

18.

Snyder

. Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: a consumer catch-22 carousel?. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 1992; 13:9–24.

19.

Nail

. Toward an integration of some models and theories of social response. Psychological Bulletin, 1986; 100:190–206.

20.

Snyder

, Fromkin

. Abnormality as a positive characteristic: the development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977; 86:518–527.

21.

Sundar

, Marathe

. Personalization versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Human Communication Research, 2010; 36:298–322.

22.

Kron

. (1983) Home-psych: the social psychology of home and decoration. New York: Potter.

23.

Southgate

. Coolhunting with Aristotle. International Journal of Market Research, 2003; 45:167–189.

24.

Horton

, Read

, Fitton

, et al. Too cool at school—understanding cool teenagers. PsychNology Journal, 2012; 10:73–91.

25.

Tian

, Bearden

, Hunter

. Consumers' need for uniqueness: scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 2001; 28:50–66.

26.

McAlister

, Pessemier

. Variety seeking behavior: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of Consumer Research, 1982; 9:311–322.

27.

Davis

, Bagozzi

, Warshaw

. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 1989; 35:982–1003.

28.

Bhattacherjee

, Premkumar

. Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: a theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly, 2004; 28:229–254.

29.

Szajna

. Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science, 1996; 42:85–92.

30.

Preacher

, Coffman

. (2006) Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA. www.quantpsy.org (accessed Nov. 20, 2014).

31.

MacCallum

, Browne

, Sugawara

. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1996; 1:130–149.

32.

Bentler

, Bonett

. Significance tests and goodness-of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 1980; 88:588–606.

33.

Bentler

. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 1990; 107:238–246.

34.

, Bentler

. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 1999; 6:1–55.

35.

Forgas

. Mood and judgment: the Affect Infusion Model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 1995; 117:39–66.

36.

Chaiken

. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1980; 39:752–766.

37.

Chaiken

, Liberman

, Eagly

. (1989) Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman

, Bargh

, eds. Unintended thought. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 212–252.

38.

Jackson

, Zhao

, Kolenic

III , et al. Race, gender, and information technology use: the new digital divide. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2008; 11:437–442.