Lai and Kuo (2007)

Source Details

Lai and Kuo (2007)
Title:	Preventing piracy use intention by rectifying self-positivity bias
Author(s):	Lai, M., Kuo, C.C.
Year:	2007
Citation:	Lai, M., & Kuo, C. C. (2007). Preventing piracy use intention by rectifying self-positivity bias. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35(7), 961-974.
Link(s):	Definitive
Key Related Studies:	Schwarz, Bless, Strack, Klumpp, and Simons (1991) Rothman and Salovey (1997) Lee and Aaker (2004)
Discipline:	D11: Consumer Economics: Theory K42: Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
Linked by:

About the Data
Data Description:	60 university students (41 female and 19 male) were randomly assigned to four between-subject designs that manipulated message framing (positive and negative) and information accessibility (high and low).
Data Type:	Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:	Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting) Experimental (Laboratory) Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences)
Data Analysis Methods:	Quantitative content analysis (e.g. text or data mining) Correlation and Association Regression Analysis
Industry(ies):	Software publishing (including video games) Television programmes Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing
Country(ies):	Taiwan
Cross Country Study?:	No
Comparative Study?:	No
Literature review?:	No
Government or policy study?:	No
Time Period(s) of Collection:	None stated
Funder(s):

Abstract

Piracy has become a global challenge. In this study, the author proposed to discourage piracy intention by rectifying the self-positivity bias with message framing and information accessibility. Cartoon advertisements conveying either positively or negatively framed messages were produced. Respondents’ level of information accessibility of piracy behavior was manipulated. As predicted, using positively framed messages or increasing level of information accessibility can effectively reduce self-positivity bias. Moreover, in a low information accessibility scenario, positive rather than negative message framing is more effective in reducing self-positivity bias in using pirated products. Research implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are also addressed.

Main Results of the Study

By framing anti-piracy messages as providing advantages to the user as opposed to emphasizing the potential negative impacts, marketers and lawmakers can appeal to users' self-positivity bias (the idea that positive things are more likely to happen to self and negative things are more likely to happen to others.)

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

Illegal downloading can be more effectively curbed by presenting advantages of legal downloading to users rather than emphasizing consequences.

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues

Issue	Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

Coverage of Evidence Based Policies

Issue	Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

Sample size:	60
Level of aggregation:	University students
Period of material under study:	Not stated