|Title:||Digital piracy intention: a comparison of theoretical models|
|Citation:||Yoon, C. (2012). Digital piracy intention: a comparison of theoretical models. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(6), 565-576.|
|Key Related Studies:|
|About the Data|
|Data Description:||Data were collected from university students in South Korea. In total, 317 questionnaires were analyzed. Respondents were almost equally distributed between male (157) and female (160).
Approximately 89% of the respondents were ages 20-29, and 53% did not follow a particular religion.
|Data Type:||Primary data|
|Secondary Data Sources:|
|Data Collection Methods:|
|Data Analysis Methods:|
|Cross Country Study?:||No|
|Government or policy study?:||No|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:||
Digital piracy intention research has yielded different sets of piracy intention determinants based on various theoretical models. In this study, we reviewed the digital piracy literature and empirically compared two theoretical models, which are the models most often used: the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and the Hunt–Vitell ethical decision model. Data were obtained from university students in South Korea, and structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to examine and compare the two competing theoretical models in terms of explanatory power, overall model fit and paths’ significance. The findings of this study revealed that the TPB is a more appropriate model for predicting digital piracy than the Hunt–Vitell ethical decision model.
Main Results of the Study
- Results showed the TPB is superior to the H-V model in predicting individuals’ behavioral intention to commit digital piracy.
- With regard to the explanatory power of individuals’ behavioral intention to commit digital piracy between the two models, the TPB and H-V model explain 43% and 18%, respectively, of the variance in individuals’ behavioral intention to commit digital piracy.
- Although the TPB has been shown to be a superior model to predict digital piracy in terms of explanatory power and model fit, in testing the path coefficients’ significance, this study showed that the subjective norm in the TPB has no significant impact on intention to commit digital piracy. The attitude and the perceived behavioral control in the TPB have a great impact on the intention to commit digital piracy.
- On the other hand, all paths in the H-V model were significant, indicating that a deontological evaluation and a teleological evaluation have a significant impact on ethical judgment, and ethical judgment and teleological evaluation have a significant impact on the intention to commit digital piracy. Therefore, it is desirable that the H-V model be continuously applied and tested as a base model in the IT ethics context.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
In comparing the two models, the following policy related findings were made:
- The TPB combines somewhat different elements – such as subjective norms derived from normative beliefs, attitude concerning a certain outcome and perceived behavioral control which is an individual’s belief that he/she has the skills and abilities to perform a given behavior – and is a more parsimonious model in predicting digital piracy behaviors which is not an ethical issue but includes complicated problems, like economic, environmental and legal factors, etc.
- The H-V model is based on only ethical factors such as normative standards (deontological and teleological evaluations) and ethical judgment.
As such, this study’s findings have important implications for researchers when choosing a base model for their study.
- It is desirable that software and digital media companies make people have unfavorable feelings about digital piracy by highlighting the negative consequences of the digital piracy behavior.
- Perceived behavioral control also influence piracy, such as the more skills and abilities to pirate will lead to a higher intention to pirate. It is desirable that companies employ new technologies actively to secure their digital materials to make pirating a much more difficult thing.
Coverage of Study
|Level of aggregation:||Individual|
|Period of material under study:||Not stated|