Digital Piracy Ethical Decisi

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bieedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Digital Piracy:
Ethical Decision Making
Digital Piracy:
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

o f the requirements for the degree o f
Doctor o f Philosophy
By
Sulaiman Al-Rafee, B.S., M.B.A.

Wright State University, 1994
University o f Arkansas, 1997
May, 2002
University o f Arkansas
UMI Number: 3055321
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 3055321
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O.Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
This Dissertation is approved for recommendation to the
Graduate Council
Dissertation Director:
Dr. Timothy Paul Cronan
Dissertation Committee:
U;,. J 2 H .&
Dr. Lou Glorfeld
Dr. Molly RapeK
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the people who supported me during the process o f writing
my dissertation. I would like to start by thanking my dissertation committee. They took
their time with me, and supported me during the whole process. Dr. Cronan was not only
my committee chair, he was also a friend and I owe him dearly for everything that he has
done for me. I would also like to express my gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Louis
Glorfeld, whom I’ve worked with extensively in the department. He is a good friend and
mentor. My thanks also goes to Dr. Molly Rapert, who joined the committee and
provided me with valuable feedback and support during my dissertation. I would also
like to thank other professors in the Computer Information Systems and Quantitative
Analysis that helped me and supported me during my Ph.D. work, and who made my
experience enjoyable at the University o f Arkansas. I would also like to thank all the
Ph.D. students that supported me during this phase and wish them the best o f luck in their
future life (in alphabetical order, Rick Brattin, Christine Davis, John Kidd, Lori Komp,
Melinda Korzaan, Novi Merchant, Paige Rutner, Wei Sha, and Ross Taylor). I was very
lucky to be around this gioup, it was a truly enjoyable group o f people. Also, I'd like to
thank other friends in Fayetteville, especially Connie Stave who is just a wonderful
person (if only more people like that existed in this world).
My family, I could never pay them back for everything that they have done for
me. I love them so much, and dedicate this dissertation to them. Starting with my wife
Eman and son Nassir, who endured many hours (months) at home (overseas) ju st waiting
for me. My thanks also goes to my mother, father, brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews
who I had their support during my journey o f education and learning.
iii
Table of Contents
1. Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................................1
1.1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. IS Ethics.......................................................................................................................... I
1.3. The Piracy Problem........................................................................................................2
1.3.1. Digital Piracy..............................................................................................................3
1.3.2. The Start of Digital Piracy........................................................................................4
1.3.3. The Spread o f Software Piracy................................................................................ 6
1.3.4. Piracy is An Important Issue.....................................................................................7
1.3.5. Digital Piracy as an Information Technology (IT) Issue......................................8
1.4. Purpose o f This study.................................................................................................... 9
1.5. Organization of This study..........................................................................................10
2. Chapter 2: Literature Review..................................................................................... 12

2.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................12
2.2. Behavioral Research....................................................................................................12
2.2.1. The Theory of Reasoned A ction............................................................................ 13
2.2.2. The Theory of Planned Behavior........................................................................... 14
2.3. Ethics Research............................................................................................................ 16
2.3.1. Kohlberg’s Stages o f Moral D evelopm ent...........................................................17
2.3.2. Rest’s Stages o f ethical decision-m aking.............................................................18
2.3.3. Bommer’s Model o f Ethical and Unethical Decision-M aking.......................... 19
2.3.4. Jones’ Moral Intensity............................................................................................. 21
2.3.5. Rubin’s Perceived Importance o f Ethics...............................................................24
2.4. IS Ethics research.........................................................................................................25
2.4.1. Mason's Ethical Issues in M IS............................................................................... 25
2.4.2. Computer Misuse..................................................................................................... 25
2.4.3. Ethical Decision Making Regarding IS Issues.....................................................26
2.4.4. Ethical Decision Making Within the IS Profession............................................28
2.5. Piracy Research............................................................................................................29
2.5.1. Protection Strategies................................................................................................29
2.5.2. Deterrents and Preventives.....................................................................................30
2.5.3. Detecting Software Piracy......................................................................................30
2.6. Models o f Software Piracy......................................................................................... 31
2.6.1. Factors Influencing Individuals with regard to Software Piracy...................... 32
2.6.2. Factors Influencing Softlifting............................................................................... 33
2.6.3. Explaining Software P iracy....................................................................................34
2.6.4. Explaining Software Piracy using Ethical Decision Making.............................35
2.7. Summ ary......................................................................................................................35
3. Chapter 3: Research M ethod..................................................................................... 37

3.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 37
3.2. Research Framework..................................................................................................38
3.2.1. The Importance o f Attitude.................................................................................. 39
iv
3.2.2. Determinants o f Attitude......................................................................................... 40
3.2.3. Determinants o f Intention....................................................................................... 46
3.2.4. Research M o d el........................................................................................................48
3.3. Research H ypotheses................................................................................................. 49
3.3.1. Gender (SEX)............................................................................................................ 50
3.3.2. Age (A G E )................................................................................................................ 50
3.3.3. Machiavellianism (M A C H )....................................................................................50
3.3.4. Perceived Importance (P I)...................................................................................... 51
3.3.5. Moral Judgment (M J )..............................................................................................51
3.3.6. Moral Obligation (M O )............................................................................................51
3.3.7. Cognitive Beliefs (C B )............................................................................................52
3.3.8. Affective Beliefs (A B ).............................................................................................52
3.3.9. Attitude (A TT).......................................................................................................... 52
3.3.10. Subjective Norms (S N )......................................................................................... 52
3.3.11. Perceived Behavioral Control (PB C ).................................................................. 53
3.3.12. Summary o f Research H ypotheses..................................................................... 53
3.4. Research M ethodology............................................................................................... 54
3.4.1. Instrument Construction.......................................................................................... 54
3.4.2. Hypotheses Testing.................................................................................................. 60
3.4.3. Sample........................................................................................................................ 62
3.4.4. Sample Size............................................................................................................... 62
3.4.5. Data C ollection.........................................................................................................63
3.5. Sum m ary....................................................................................................................... 63
4. Chapter 4: R esults........................................................................................................64
4.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................64
4.2. Questionnaire development and administration...................................................... 64
4.3. Descriptive information about the subjects..............................................................66
4.4. Missing Values............................................................................................................. 68
4.5. Construct V alidation...................................................................................................69
4.5.1. Unidimensionality.................................................................................................... 69
4.5.2. Reliability...................................................................................................................71
4.5.3. Convergent and discriminant validity............................................................. 75
4.5.4. Construct validity conclusion...........................................................................78
4.6. Hypotheses Testing..................................................................................................... 79
4.6.2. Dependent Variable: A ttitude...........................................................................80
4.6.3. Dependent variable: Intention...........................................................................91
4.6.4. Model sum m ary................................................................................................. 97
4.6.5. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM )........................................................... 100
4.7. Sum m ary.....................................................................................................................103
5. Chapter 5: Conclusion...............................................................................................104
5.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................104
5.2. Discussion...................................................................................................................104
5.2.1. Sex............................................................................................................................. 104
5.2.2. A ge............................................................................................................................ 105
5.2.3. Machiavellianism...................................................................................................106
5.2.4. Perceived importance.............................................................................................106
5.2.5. Moral Judgm ent.....................................................................................................107
5.2.6. Cognitive beliefs..................................................................................................108
5.2.7. Affective beliefs...................................................................................................109
5.2.8. Subjective norms..................................................................................................109
5.2.9. A ttitude................................................................................................................. 110
5.2.10. Perceived behavioral control.............................................................................111
5.2.11. Moral obligation.................................................................................................111
5.3. Fighting Digital Piracy...........................................................................................112
5.3.1. Digital media is overpriced................................................................................. 113
5.3.2. Getting caught...................................................................................................... 114
5.3.3. Easy to pirate digital m aterial.............................................................................114
5.3.4. Pirating digital media...........................................................................................116
5.4. Research Implications............................................................................................ 116
5.4.1. The role o f affect.................................................................................................. 117
5.4.2. Personal characteristics variables...................................................................... 117
5.4.3. Moral obligation................................................................................................... 117
5.4.4. TPB relationships................................................................................................. 118
5.5. Lim itations................................................................................................................. 118
5.5.1. Sample....................................................................................................................118
5.5.2. Measuring actual behavior...................................................................................119
5.6. Future research.......................................................................................................... 119
5.6.1. Study verification................................................................................................. 119
5.6.2. Ethical decision making....................................................................................... 120
5.6.3. Moral obligation................................................................................................... 120
5.6.4. Affective research................................................................................................121
5.6.5. Other research...................................................................................................... 121
5.7. Summary and conclusion....................................................................................... 122
vi
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Theory o f Reasoned Action................................................................................ 13

Figure 2: Dubinky’s Use o f the TRA to Predict Ethical Decision M aking................... 14
Figure 3: The Theory o f Planned Behavior.......................................................................16
Figure 4: Rest's Stages o f Ethical Decision m ak in g ........................................................ 19
Figure 5: Bommer's Model o f Ethical/Unethical Decision M aking............................. 21
Figure 6: Jones' Moral Intensity......................................................................................... 23
Figure 7: Robin's Perceived Importance o f Ethics...........................................................24
Figure 8: Loch and Conger's Model o f Ethical Computer Use Decisions....................26
Figure 9: Factors Influencing Ethical Decision Making (Kreie and Cronan, 1998,
1999, 2 000)........................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 10: Ethical Behavior o f IS Personnel (Baneijee et al., 1998)............................ 28
Figure 11: Model for Detection and Discipline o f Computer Abuse............................ 31
Figure 12: Eining and Christensen’s model o f software piracy..................................... 32
Figure 13: Simpson's model o f softlifting......................................................................... 33
Figure 14: Factors Motivating Software Piracy, Limayem, Khalifa, and Chin (1999)
................................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 15:Thong and Yap’s Model o f Softlifting............................................................ 35
Figure 16: The Theory o f Planned Behavior (T P B )........................................................39
Figure 17: Affective and Cognitive beliefs as determinants o f attitude....................... 41
Figure 18: Factors Influencing Attitude.............................................................................46
Figure 19: Research M odel.................................................................................................48
Figure 20: Research model for this study......................................................................... 80
Figure 21: Factors influencing attitude..............................................................................81
Figure 22: Factors influencing intention........................................................................... 92
Figure 23: The attitude model.............................................................................................98
Figure 24: The intention model.......................................................................................... 99
Figure 25: Modified m odel............................................................................................... 102
vii
Table of Tables
Table 1: Kohlberg's Stages o f Moral Development......................................................... 18

Table 2: Listing o f the factors used in this study............................................................. 49
Table 3: Complete Listing o f the hypotheses tested in this study................................... 54
Table 4: The constructs used in this study........................................................................ 59
Table 5: Salient beliefs identified for this study.............................................................. 65
Table 6: College level for study participants....................................................................67
Table 7: College m ajor for study participants.................................................................. 67
Table 8: Marital status for the subjects............................................................................. 67
Table 9: Years o f full-time work expereince for the subjects....................................... 68
Table 10: Summary o f findings......................................................................................... 79
Table 11: VIF values for variables in Attitude m odel.....................................................83
Table 12: Variables in the attitude (stepwise) regression m odel................................... 84
Table 13: Sex as a variable influencing attitude.............................................................. 85
Table 14: Attitude towards digital piracy in males versus fem ales...............................85
Table 15: Age as a variable influencing attitude............................................................. 86
Table 16: Attitude towards digital piracy according to age groups...............................86
Table 17: Machiavellianism as a variable influencing attitude......................................87
Table 18: Perceived importance as a variable influencing attitude...............................88
Table 19: Moral judgm ent as a variable influencing attitude.........................................88
Table 20: Cognitive beliefs as a variable influencing attitude........................................89
Table 21: Feelings as a variable influencing attitude.......................................................90
Table 22: Subjective norms as a variable influencing attitude...................................... 91
Table 23: VIF values for variables in intention m odel................................................... 93
Table 24: Variables in the intention regression m odel................................................... 94
Table 25: Attitude as a variable influencing intention.....................................................95
Table 26: Subjective norms as a variable influencing intention.................................... 95
Table 27: Perceived behavioral control as a variable influencing intention.................96
Table 28: Moral obligation as a variable influencing intention..................................... 97
Table 29: Summary o f the study hypotheses..................................................................100
Table 30: Research model fit results.............................................................................. 101
Table 31: Modified research model fit results................................................................102
Table 32: Age as a predictor o f attitude...........................................................................105
Table 33: Variable correlation with machiavellianism..................................................106
Table 34: Attitude according to perceived Importance.................................................. 107
Table 35: Most salient beliefs........................................................................................... 108
Table 36: Attitude, subjective norms, and PBC as predictors o f intention............... 111
Table 37: Correlations o f variables with moral obligation..........................................112
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. INTRODUCTION
During the last decade, much research has been dedicated to the study o f ethics in
business. Ethical situations arise often in many different areas o f business, and this has
been complicated by the integration o f Information Systems (IS) into business operations.
The integration of IS in business complicates ethics for many reasons (Weiss, 1990).
One main reason is the fact that information is available in electronic form, allowing
factors such as property rights, piracy, privacy, and security to have new dimensions o f
ethical issues in business. A study published in 1999 (Kreie et al.) concluded that
unethical use o f computer systems in organizations has resulted in significant losses to
businesses and society. In a world where profit is the motive, unethical behavior within
organizations can impose a serious impact on that profit. Costs can range from financial
losses, loss o f a company’s good will, and affecting the relationship between customers
and businesses (Al-Kazemi, 1999).
1.2. IS ETHICS
The extensive use o f IS has produced an added twist to ethical situations and has
spawned a growing area o f research concerned with the study o f ethics within IS. Recent
studies have concluded that research interest in ethics in the field o f IS has been
increasing significantly (Shim and Taylor, 1988; Cougar, 1989; Thong and Yap, 1998).
Special issues/sections in major IS research journals (Communications o f the ACM, Vol.
38, No. 12, 1995; Journal o f Management Information Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1998)
have been dedicated to ethics. Most o f the ethical issues addressed in these studies
revolve around M ason’s (1986) four major ethical issues with IS: privacy (private
information revealed to others), accuracy (the accuracy and authenticity o f data),
accessibility (information that individuals or organizations have the right to obtain), and
property (intellectual property).
To illustrate the seriousness and the extent o f computer misuse and fraud, Saari
(1989) notes that only 1% o f all computer fraud is detected; o f those detected, only 1 in 8
is reported; and o f those reported, only 3% result in a conviction.
1.3. THE PIRACY PROBLEM
One issue that has received much attention as o f late is intellectual property. O f
particular interest in this area is piracy. Most o f the studies have examined piracy as one
o f the ethical issues that is facing organizations and society. Straub (1991) identified
software piracy as a major problem facing the technology industry today. Anderson
(1993) examined piracy and intellectual property as some o f the top issues facing IS
professionals. Research examining piracy has appeared in all major IS journals (top S
journals according to Hardgrave and Walstrom, 1997).
Software piracy is the illegal act o f copying unauthorized software. Software
piracy can be and is called different things. Other labels for software piracy include:
unauthorized software copying, softlifting (software piracy done by individuals), and
online piracy.
An independent study done by the Business Software Alliance (BSA) found that
software piracy was the software industry’s worst problem. The Software Publisher’s
Association (SPA) estimates that software piracy cost software publishers more than
$100 billion in the 1990s (http://www.spa.org). In 1998, while business PC application
software accounted for revenues o f around $18 billion worldwide, the SPA estimates that
as much as $12 billion in revenues was lost due to software piracy. Not only is this
harmful to organizations, but also to consumers as well in the form o f higher prices for
legitimate software. Rothken (1998) predicted that software piracy adds around 15% to
the price o f legitimate software.
1.3.1. Digital Piracy
While software piracy is the most common form o f piracy, other forms do exist.
One common form o f piracy that has been receiving particular attention as o f late is the
piracy o f music using sound files available in MPEG (Motion Pictures Experts Group) 1
layer 3 (popularly known as MP3) format. Using the Internet, MP3 files can be shared
and distributed freely and easily between users. The Recording Industry Association o f
America (RIAA) estimates that it looses over $5 million a year due to music piracy o f
this type. The RIAA predicts that revenues lost due to Internet piracy will exceed all
losses due to other forms o f piracy combined in the near future (Das, 2000). Another
estimate by the Forrester research group (http://www.forrester.com/) claims that music
companies could lose up to $3.1 billion by 2005 through online piracy and digital
distribution software such as Napster.
Other forms o f piracy have also been appearing as o f late. Using the Internet as
the medium, fully recorded Hollywood movies and video games are becoming freely
available for download. The entertainment industry has acknowledged this and has been
actively involved in litigation to stop this threat. Yet another form o f digital piracy is
taking place in the form o f digitizing and distributing published books over the Internet.
The Forrester research group predicts that book publishers will lose $1.5 billion by 2005.
Unfortunately for these industries, the Internet provides anonymity for pirates to roam
and do virtually anything they want to do without being identified. Pirates are uploading
and downloading copyrighted material from/to the Internet without any fear o f
identification or detection.
For the remainder o f this study, digital piracy will be referred to as representing
all kinds o f piracy (including software, music, video, and games). Based on that, digital
piracy is defined as: The illegal copying and/or downloading copyrighted software,
music, video, or other material (such as MP3s, Hollywood movies, and digital audio
books among others).
1.3.2. The Start o f Digital Piracy
This section will discuss how digital piracy (using mostly software piracy
research, since until a few years ago, it was the only available form o f digital piracy) is a
different and unique type compared to other forms o f piracy. According to Solomon
(1990), software piracy was not an issue before the introduction o f personal computers in
1982. Solomon’s claim was supported by the following arguments: Limited hardware
availability, limited software that can be used, not many individuals had home computers
(hence, no need to pirate). Most o f the software was written for specific organizations,
and finally the fact that there were not many people who were skilled enough to pirate the
software.
But shortly after 1982, software piracy started to spread. Features o f software
make it prone to software piracy (Cheng, 1997). Duplication o f software is very easy and
only requires simple commands to do so. Also, the quality o f the software does not
diminish when copied. Further, the widespread use o f computers into virtually every
house makes it difficult, if not impossible, to track individual software pirates and
enforce the copyright laws. To that, I would add the Internet and the anonymity it
provides for individuals, allowing them to upload/download software packages without
the fear of being detected. I would also add the proliferation o f large and portable storage
devices (Zip drives, recordable CD-ROM s) that allow for inexpensive copying o f
software.
Likewise, Samuelson (1991) examined qualities o f digital media that make it
attractive to pirate. These qualities included: the ease o f replication, ease o f transmission
and multiple use, plasticity o f digital media (can be modified easily), equivalence o f
works in digital form (all digital files exist in one medium), compactness o f work in
digital form, and noniinearity (can be easily searched, unlike books and such).
Moseley et al. (1995) discusses software piracy in the workplace in a study
targeted to managers. The study starts by emphasizing the importance o f this issue
(piracy in the workplace) and the fact that employees, managers, and executives can be
held responsible for piracy and can face litigation, fines and even imprisonment. A
survey done by the BSA found that 40% o f employees bring software to the workplace
from home, 24% download unauthorized copies from the Internet, and 24% share
programs with other employees (http://www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases/1999-09-
16.178.phtml).
Mosley discusses four factors why software piracy has grown so much in the
workplace. These are as follows:
1. Managers don’t take the time to educate employees about software piracy and
the consequences that lie behind it
2. The ease o f copying software
3. The failure o f managers themselves to understand the restrictions and
limitations o f the software licenses
4. The management’s failure to provide employees with adequate software for
them to do their jobs.
It is also noteworthy to mention that software piracy is not just an American
problem but also an international problem. Gopal (2000) examined this issue and found
many countries to have piracy rates o f 90%. According to the SPA, the cost o f software
piracy in China alone was around $1.2 billion in 1998.
1.3.3. The Spread of Software Piracy
To show the extent o f software piracy, the following statements reflect how
piracy is rampant in the real world:
1. A Microsoft investigator found pirated software on the computers o f the
police department that was carrying out piracy investigations
(http://whatis.com/piracy.htm)
2. One in every three software packages used in businesses is illegal (Cabom,
1997)
3. There exists between two and ten copies o f illegal copies for every legitimate
copy sold (Conner, 1991)
4. In a survey about software piracy, 75% o f the Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools o f Business (AACSB) colleges responded that software
piracy does occur in their schools (Im, 1990)
5. A survey done by the SPA on software auctions found that the number o f
legitimate software packages that were being auctioned on the Internet to be
only 138 out o f a total o f 13,000 auctions that included the sale o f commercial
software (more than 98% was pirated).
1.3.4. Piracy is An Important Issue
Piracy is an important issue for both individuals and organizations. From an
individual’s/consumer's point o f view, the effect is the higher price o f legitimate
software. As discussed previously, Rothken (1998) claimed that piracy ends up adding
15% to the price of legitimate software (as a result o f the lost sales and the cost o f the
protection mechanisms employed by developers), which consumers end up paying. As
for the effect on organizations, there is the obvious effect o f lost revenues due to the
piracy o f their products. Another threat to organizations comes from the legal area. It is
worthwhile to mention that employees put themselves and their organization at risk when
they commit digital piracy. Organizations can be held responsible for piracy (Hal Roach
Studios, Inc. vs. Richard Fiener, 1984) even if management didn’t know about it.
Another consequence o f piracy is the fact that it deters developers from
developing software (Engardio, 1996). This is especially true in developing countries
where piracy is rampant. In these countries, developers have little incentive to develop
applications that are routinely pirated.
We can start to reap many benefits when and if the piracy problem is solved. For
one, organizations will increase their revenue currently being lost due to piracy, resulting
in lower prices o f legitimate software/music/video for consumers to purchase
legitimately. The industry will thrive economically and result in more competition and
thus better and cheaper products being delivered. Organizations will also not have to
worry about policing the actions o f their employees or about any legal problems related
to piracy.
1.3.5. Digital Piracy as an Information Technology (IT) Issue
Digital piracy is an issue related to IT. For one, technology is used to pirate
digital media. Whether it is done through downloading, copying copyrighted Compact
Disks (CDs), or digital scanning o f copyrighted material, it is all done through som e kind
o f technology. The solution to this problem might also include some form o f a
technology. Record companies have been working on a version o f music files that have
security features that protects music from being copied. Also, recent news report a push
in the technology world to create a standard that places digital piracy protection in
computer hardware and software (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4292282.html).
Also, from an educational point o f view, there has been a push for including
ethics education into the IT curriculum (Cougar, 1989). Mason (1986) had identified
intellectual property as one o f four major ethical issues with IT. The results o f this study
can be used to provide insights into how these courses would be taught.
1.4. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
To combat piracy, two popular methods are being used: preventives and
deterrents (Gopal and Sanders, 1997). Preventives impede the act o f piracy making it
very hard to do so. The idea is to make the pirates expend so much effort that it will wear
them down, and eventually they will not want to do it (again). Deterrents on the other
hand use the threat o f undesirable consequences (mostly legal sanctions) to prevent
piracy (Gopal and Sanders, 1997). Straub et al. (1990) examined computer abuse
detection strategies. His study highlighted three methods o f detection: accidental
discovery (the computer abuse is discovered by accident), through normal system
controls (where internal system controls placed to specifically for detection purposes),
and purposeful investigations (detection by auditors or security officers).
A review o f the piracy numbers discussed previously shows that preventives and
deterrents have not been successful in combating the piracy problem. Preventives (using
technical controls such as: copy-protected disks, hardware protection, and computer
codes) can be easily bypassed with the advent o f advanced tools that evade these
controls. Piracy deterrents are also hard to use for two main reasons: the pirates are not
easy to find because o f the anonymity available with the use o f the Internet, and secondly
the fact that most o f the pirates work alone and it would be too expensive to use the legal
system against so many individuals.
As for detectives, studies (Saari, 1987; Straub, 1990) have pointed out that very
few instances (between 1% and 5%) o f computer abuse are detected. Thus, pirates have
little fear o f being detected (and a much lower chance o f being reported when detected
according to the same two studies).
Instead, looking at the factors that influence these individuals to pirate is a more
advantageous path in combating piracy. This is especially important because many
studies have suggested that individuals don’t see piracy as a crime or an unethical issue
(Im et al., 1991; Reid et al., 1992). Solomon and O ’Brien (1990) examined attitude
towards piracy among business students and found that they view piracy as socially and
ethically acceptable, and that piracy is widespread among business students. Christensen
and Eining (1991) also found that individuals don’t perceive piracy as inappropriate and
they don’t believe their friends and superiors think it is inappropriate.
A better understanding o f these factors may prove to be essential in our
understanding o f this phenomenon and help us in combating digital piracy. The research
question sought to be answered in this study will be as follows:
What factors affect an individual’s ethical decision making when it comes to
pirating digital media?
1.5. ORGANIZATION OF THIS STUDY
This study is divided into five chapters. The first chapter is basically an
introduction that explains what digital piracy is and what are its effects in the business
world. The chapter will also include the purpose o f this study and the research question
that we seek to answer in this study. The chapter will also include a section discussing
limitations o f the study.
The second chapter will include a literature review o f previous studies that
examined piracy. Models and research related to behavior, ethics, and piracy will be
examined.
10
The third chapter will examine the research model used in this study. Theoretical
justifications for the model will be presented, as well as an outline o f the study method to
be employed (including sample information and data collection) and the statistical
techniques used to examine the data.
Results from the statistical analyses are presented in chapter four, as well as
descriptive statistics about the sample.
Chapter five is contains a discussion o f the statistical findings in chapter four.
Study conclusion, research limitation, and future research are also discussed in detail.
11
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1. INTRODUCTION
Before trying to answer the research question discussed in Chapter 1, a visit to
previous literature regarding digital piracy is necessary. In this chapter, previous research
related to behavior, ethics, and specifically piracy will be examined. This chapter is
composed o f four sections; a review o f previous behavioral research, ethics research, IS
ethics, and the fourth section will include a literature review o f piracy research.
The first section contains a review o f behavioral research. Specifically, Ajzen and
Fishbein’s behavioral research will be examined. The next section will examine various
fields within the ethics research. Specifically we will be looking at research that
examined factors effecting ethical decision-m aking in different forms. The third section
will include research done within the IS field regarding ethical decision-making. The
fourth and last section will include a look at previous research done concerning piracy.
2.2. BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
The works o f Ajzen and Fishbein about behavior in the psychology literature are
some o f the most famous and validated research done to date. Their theories have been
used in predicting a wide range o f behavior (Sheppard et al., 1992; Madden et al., 1992).
Their work is based on the premise that intention causes behavior. The following is a
detailed discussion about the behavioral research done by Ajzen and Fishbein.
12
2.2.1. The Theory o f Reasoned Action
Fishbein and Ajzen first introduced the Theory o f Reasoned Action (TRA) in
1975. The theory isbased upon the noticn that human behavior is quite rational and
makes useo f the limited information available to individuals. The TRA asserts that two
determinants affect human behavior: one is personal in nature (attitude), and the other
represents the social influence (subjective norm).
Fishbein and Ajzen define Attitude (A) as “a person’s feeling o f favorableness or
unfavorableness for that behavior”. Subjective Norm (SN) was defined as “a person’s
perceptions o f that most people who are important to him think he should or should not
perform the behavior in question” (Ajzen, 1985).
The theory posits that behavior (B) is a function o f intention (I). Intention is a
function o f attitude (A) towards the behavior and subjective norms (SN)- The model is
shown in figure 1 and the model function is as follows:
B = f(I) (I)
I - f (A, SN) (2)
Attitude
Intention Behavior
Subjective
Norms
Figure 1: Theory of Reasoned Action
13
The TRA has been used extensively to predict a wide range o f behavior. It has
been used to predict turnover, education, and breast cancer examinations among other
behaviors (Change, 1998).
As an example, Dubinsky (1989) used the TRA to explain ethical decision
making. Dubinsky used behavioral beliefs (belief that a specific behavior will lead to
either positive or negative consequences) and outcome evaluations (whether individuals
perceive outcomes to be positive or negative) as determinants o f attitude. As for
subjective norm, the author used normative beliefs (an individual’s belief about how
referent others view performing the behavior) and motivation to comply (an individual’s
motivation to comply with what important others b elief is appropriate) as determinants.
Figure 2 below shows Dubinsky’s depiction o f ethical decision-making using the TRA.
| Behavioral I
I B eliefs ,-----------------------,
i Attitude L
' O utcom e ^ ----------------------- 1
| Evaluations : ; ,-----------------------,
^ ' i Intention |--------- *j Behavior j

j Normative s '--------------------------- 1----------------------- ;
■ B eleifs ,--------- 1
5---------------- Subjective
---------------- ; Norms j
: Motivation to 1
j Comply |
Figure 2: Dubinky's Use of the TRA to Predict Ethical Decision Making
2.2.2. The Theory of Planned Behavior
The Theory o f Planned Behavior (TPB) is an extension o f the TRA, introduced by
Ajzen in 1985. Ajzen contends that the TRA is insufficient because it does not consider
situations where the behavior is not under the individual’s control. That is, even if the
14
individual’s attitude and subjective norm was in favor o f committing the behavior, the
individual might not be able to perform the behavior. As Ajzen and Madden put it
(1986):
“To ensure accurate prediction o f behavior over which individuals

have only limited control, we must assess not only intention but also
obtain some estimate o f the extent to which the individual is capable o f
exercising control over the behavior in question”, (page 456)
The model presented by Ajzen includes an extra determinant o f intention, being
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC). PBC is easily measured, and represents the
person’s belief on how easy or difficult it is to perform the behavior (Ajzen and Madden,
1986). The model posits that intention (I) is determined by attitude (A), subjective norm
(SN), and PBC. Subsequently, intention (I) is a determinant o f behavior (B). Two
versions o f the TPB exist:
1. A version with a no link between PBC and behavior:
B = f(I) (3)
I = f (A, SN, PBC) (4)
2. A version with a link between PBC and behavior:
B = f( I , PBC) (5)
I = f (A, SN, PBC) (6)
Figure 3 below shows a picture o f the TPB, with the link between PBC and
behavior (B) shown in dotted lines.
15
A ttitu d e
In te n tio n B e h av io r
| S u b je c tiv e
j N o rm s
B e h a v io ra l
C o n tro l
Figure 3: The Theory o f Planned Behavior
As in the TRA, the TPB has been used extensively to predict behavior in a variety
o f situations, including ethics (Flannery and May, 2000).
2.3. ETHICS RESEARCH
As mentioned previously, this section will also include a review o f ethics
research. Seminal ethics research will be examined and discussed in this section. The
studies examined here include Kohlberg’s stages o f moral development (1969), Rest’s
stages o f ethical decision-making (1986), Bommer’s model o f ethical/unethical decision
making (1986), Jones’ moral intensity (1991), and Rubin’s perceived importance o f
ethics (1996).
16
2.3.1. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
Kohlberg (1969) tried to explain how individuals reason moral situations through
his categories o f moral development. According to Kohlberg, individuals reason out
moral situations differently, and propose a theory that explains different levels o f moral
reasoning. Kohlberg’s theory specifies six stages o f moral development, arranged within
three levels. Each o f the three levels contains two stages, and the levels are titled pre-
conventional morality, conventional morality, and post-conventional morality
respectively.
Pre-conventional morality is the first level, where individuals judge performing a
behavior on the basis o f avoiding punishment or getting rewards. Stage one is where
individuals are obeying rules to avoid punishment; stage two is when individuals conform
to attain rewards. Kohlberg suggest that most residents o f this level are children aged 7
and younger (Baxter and Rarick, 1987).
Conventional morality is the second level, where individuals perform behavior to
conform to societal beliefs. Stages three and four lie within this level. Stage three is
where individuals abide by laws and regulations to avoid any feelings o f disapproval
from others. Stage four is where confrontations with authority o r feelings o f guilt are
avoided by adhering to rules.
Post-conventional morality is the third and highest level, where individuals’
actions are guided towards conformity to shared standards, or duties other than from
supporting authority. Stage five actions are guided by societal-agreed-upon principles
and stage six actions are guided by self-principles (what the person believes in).
17
Table 1 shows a brief description o f the levels, stages, and behavioral motivation
according to Kohlberg. Rest (1976) developed what is known as the Deciding Issues
Test (DIT) that assesses the level o f moral development for individuals.
_. i - i S t e i V . v A - •’- r - V r . >
Level 1: Stage 1: Punishment Orientation To avoid punishment
Preconventinoal Morality Stage 2: Reward Orientation To obtain rewards
To Avoid disapproval o f
Stage 3: Good-boy/Good-Girl
others
Level 2:
Conventional Morality To avoid feeling
Stage 4: Authority Orientation disapproval from
authorities
Actions guided by what is
Stage 5: Social Contract best for public welfare
Level 3: Orientation
PostConventional Morality
Stage 6: Ethical Principle Actions guided by self
Orientation chosen ethical principles
Table 1: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
2.3.2. Rest's Stages of ethical decision-making
Rest (1986) developed a four-stage model o f ethical decision-making. The model
proposes that individuals follow certain steps when it comes to ethical decision-making:
recognizing that there is a moral issue, judging the issue to be either moral or not,
establishing behavioral intent, and finally performing the behavior. Figure 4 shows
stages o f ethical decision-making according to Rest.
18
R a co g n iz*
Moral Is s i m
| Mako Moral
J u d g m en t
! E sta b lish |
! Moral Intent i
Moral
B ehavior !
Figure 4: Rest's Stages of Ethical Decision nuking
2.3.3. Bommer’s Model of Ethical and Unethical Decision-Making
Bommer et al. (1986) identified and described a range o f factors that affect ethical
and unethical behavior in organizations. The factors include: work environment,
government/legal environment, social environment, professional environment, personal
environment, and individual attributes. Bommer’s model has been frequently used in
predicting ethical/unethical behavior (Khazanchi, 1995; Terpstra etal., 1993; Reiss et al.,
1998; and Kreie et al., 1998-2000,).
The following list describes the factors examined by Bommer:
1) Societal Environment: The society and the set o f values (humanistic,
religious, cultural and societal) shared between members. For example,
one could ask, what does the society say should be done about this
behavior?
19
2) Government and Legal Environment: This factor is concerned with
respecting the laws and regulations o f the government. For example, one
could ask, what does the law say about this issue?
3) Professional Environment: According to Bommer, this is the professional
environment where the manager practices. It also includes any
professional associations or peer groups. This factor addresses the codes
o f conduct and professionalism and asks the individuals can ask
themselves what does my profession says about this issue?
4) Working Environment: The corporate environment that includes goals,
policies and corporate culture. For example, what does my managers and
the organizational bottom line say about this issue?
5) Personal Environment: This factor corresponds with the subjective norm
o f the TRA and TPB. This includes the individual’s perception o f how
significant others (such as family and close friends) say about the issue or
behavior.
6) Individual Attributes: characteristics o f the individual. These include the
individual’s moral level, personal goals, motivations, personality and
demographical information (age, sex, education... etc) among others.
Bommer’s model is shown below in figure 5.
20
Individual
Attributes
Personal
Environment
Work
Environment
Ethical
Judgm ent
Legal
j Environment
Social I
i Environment i
Professional i
Environment !
Figure 5: Bommer's Model o f Ethical/Unethical Decision Making
2.3.4. Jones’ Moral Intensity
Jones (1991) argued that while there were many models trying to explain
ethical/unethical behavior, none o f them encompasses any issue characteristics. Jones
contends that issue characteristics do play a part in effecting ethical decision-making and
that these characteristics should be considered either as an independent variable or a
moderating variable in any model that explains ethics.
Jones refers to these so-called issue characteristics as Moral Intensity (MI). MI is
defined as “a construct that captures the extent o f issue-related moral imperative in a
situation” . For example, an issue related to taking office supplies home will not have the
same MI as embezzling millions o f dollars from work. MI focuses on the characteristics
o f the issue and not the individual or the organizational context. Jones also theorized that
21
MI would have an effect on all stages o f ethical decision-making (as categorized by Rest,
1986).
The six dimensions o f the ethical situations are outlined as follows:
1) Magnitude o f Consequences: This is the sum o f harms (or benefits) done
to victims (or beneficiaries) o f the moral act. Jones demonstrates this
component with an example that compares causing injuries to 10,000
people versus causing the same injury to 10 people.
2) Social Consensus: This represents the degree o f social agreement that a
proposed behavior is evil (or good). The author compares the act o f
bribing an official in the United States versus bribing one in Mexico to
illustrate this component.
3) Probability o f Effect: This component is the probability that the behavior
will happen and that it will cause harm (or benefit). Jones gives an
example o f selling a gun to a known criminal versus selling the gun to
someone who is law-abiding.
4) Temporal Immediacy: This component is the length o f time between the
present and the time where the consequences (or benefits) would occur.
Jones provides an example o f giving out medicine that might have side
effects in 20 minutes, versus 20 years from now.
5) Proximity: This is the feeling o f nearness towards the victims o f the
consequences o f the behavior. For example, harm done to a neighbor will
have more effect than the same harm done to some person in another
country.
22
6) Concentration o f Effect: According to Jones, this is “An inverse o f the
number o f people affected by a given act o f given magnitude’'. Basically,
this is an indication o f how concentrated the effect is. The author gives an
example o f denying health coverage to 10 people with a $10,000 claim
each has a more concentrated effect than denying 10,000 people each with
a $10 claim.
Jones theorized that situations with high moral intensity would be recognized as
moral issues more than situations with low moral intensity, and that they will require
higher levels o f moral development than situations with low moral intensity. Figure 6
shows Jones’ MI and how it affects the stages o f ethical decision making according to
Rest.
I Recognize
C on seq u en ces
*, Moral Issue
Social Con
Make Moral
Judgm ent
Prob. o f Effect
Moral
Intensity
T e m p /^ \
V^Jmmediacy^y Establish j
Moral Intent i
Proximity
Cone, o f Effect Moral

Behavior
Figure 6: Jones' Moral Intensity
23
2.3.5. Rubin’s Perceived Importance o f Ethics
Robin et al. (1996) extends Jones (1991) MI construct with the introduction o f the
concept o f the Perceived Importance o f an Ethical issue to an individual (PIE). The
difference between these two constructs is that while MI represents the characteristics o f
the issue, PIE represents the individual’s perception o f the issue at hand. Robin argues
that PIE is an improvement over MI in that it can capture different perceptions o f the
same issue (mainly because the same issue can be perceived differently by different
individuals and thus).
Robin theorized (and empirically validated) that high levels o f PIE (“important”
issues) will correspond with more unethical judgments, and that high levels o f PIE will
correspond to more reluctance to behave in an ethical manner.
Robin also proposed two propositions for the use o f PIE in ethical decision
making, the first being that PIE is a determinant o f ethical judgm ent and the second being
that PIE acts as a moderator between ethical judgment and behavioral intention. The
following diagram shows Robin’s depiction o f how PIE ties in with ethical behavior.
PIE
PIE Ethical ± B ehavioral

! Ju d g m e n t Intention
Figure 7: Robin's Perceived Importance o f Ethics
24
2.4. IS ETHICS RESEARCH
Ethics research has been a growing area o f research within the field o f IS. Recent
studies have concluded that research interest in ethics in the field o f IS has been
increasing significantly (Shim and Taylor, 1988; Cougar, 1989; Thong and Yap, 1998).
Special issues/sections in major IS research journals (Communications o f the ACM, Vol.
38, No. 12, 1995; Journal o f Management Information Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1998)
have been dedicated to ethics. The following is a brief overview o f some o f the major
ethics research done in the IS field.
2.4.1. Mason's Ethical Issues in MIS
IS ethics research practically was launched in 1986 when Mason examined major
ethical issues with IS. Mason identified the ethical issues as privacy, accuracy,
accessibility, and property. The following list details these issues:
1) Privacy: What information about individuals should be disclosed? Under
what conditions should this information be available?
2) Accuracy: The accuracy and authenticity o f data, and accountability o f
erroneous information
3) Property: Ownership and the value o f the information
4) Accessibility: What information is accessible to others? Under what
conditions should this information be available?
2.4.2. Computer Misuse
Like Dubinksy (1989), Lock and Conger (1991) base their model on the TRA to
examine ethical decision-making. Using situations related to privacy and resource-
25
ownership, the authors develop a model o f ethical decision-making regarding computer
use. The model posits that self-image (how individuals characterize themselves),
deindividuation (feeling o f being estranged or separated from others), and computer
literacy (individual’s knowledge about computers) affect ethical attitude; and thus social
norms and ethical attitude affect intentions; which in turn causes behavior.
The proposed model was weakly supported. A modified model (with
deindividuation, literacy, and self image as antecedents to intention along with ethical
attitude and social norms) had a better fit. The modified model is shown below in figure
7.
i Ethical Attitude I
Social Norms
Self-Image Intention
; Deindividuation -
! Computer Literacy
Figure 8: Loch and Conger's Model of Ethical Computer Use Decisions
2.4.3. Ethical Decision Making Regarding IS Issues
In a series o f three articles, Kreie and Cronan (1998, 1999, 2000) examined
ethical decision-making concerning IS issue. For these studies, the authors used ten
factors that have been theorized to affect ethical decision-making. Seven factors were
26
used from Bommer’s model; three more factors were added that included personal
characteristics, moral obligation (suggested b y Schwartz and Tessler, 1972), and
awareness o f consequences (suggested by Rest, 1979; Eining and Christensen, 1991).
Figure 8 represents a graphical depiction o f the m odel used in these studies.
Individual
Attributes
Personal Values
; Legal Environment L
i Social Environment
Ethical |
Professional Judgment
Environment
Individual
Environment
B u sin ess
Environment
Moral Obligation
A w areness of
j C on seq u en ces
Figure 9: Factors Influencing Ethical Decision M aking (Kreie and Cronan, 1998,1999,2000)
Kreie and Cronan used different scenarios representing different ethical issues
with IS; used a questionnaire to assess whether an action is ethical or not, and to unearth
what factors affected one’s ethical decision m aking. The different scenarios generated
different factors that affected ethical decision-making, and in one study compared results
across genders.
27
2.4.4. Ethical Decision Making Within the IS Profession
Baneijee, Cronan, and Jones (1998) examined ethical decision making within the
IS profession. Their model is shown below in figure 9, and is based on the TRA.
1
Locus of ! Organizational
Ego Strength |
Control Ethical Climate
i
> ’f '
Moral
Judgment
Ethical Attitude ♦ Intention Behavior j

Situation
Personal
Normative
Beliefs
Figure 10: Ethical Behavior of IS Personnel (Banerjee et al., 1998)
The mode posits that moral judgment (the way a person reasons when faced with
an ethical situation), attitude (a person’s evaluation o f the behavior), and normative
beliefs (the personal obligation to perform an act or not) influence intention to perform a
behavior.
The authors also claimed that three variables acted as moderators. These
variables are ego strength (the individual’s self conviction), locus o f control (control of
own destiny), and organizational ethical climate (the ethical culture o f the organization).
The study, however, didn’t find any o f these moderators to be statistically significant.
Instead, the most significant factor was the situation itself.
28
2.5. PIRACY RESEARCH
In this section, a previous research on software piracy is examined. Previous
piracy research had examined strategies for protecting (Conner and Rumlet, 1991),
deterring/preventing (Gopal and Sanders, 1991), and detecting software piracy (Straub,
Nance, 1990). The section will also examine research that introduced and tested general
software piracy models (Christensen and Eining, 1991; Simpson et al., 1994; Limayem et
al., 1999; and Thong and Yap, 1998)
2.5.1. Protection Strategies
Conner and Rumelt (1991) analyzed how individuals decide on whether to pirate
or not, and surprisingly, the findings suggest that in some cases, the best software piracy
protection strategy is not to have one at all. The authors argue, that in the presence o f
positive network externalities (the dynamics associated with the diffusion or adoption o f
a product), piracy will increase the user base o f the software, and thus creating a higher
program value (after purchase value, represented in the cost o f learning, customization,
and standardization) for the consumer. Increased protection might actually deter users o f
the software into forgoing the use o f the software and thus decreasing the total user-base.
Software companies are better off with a large user base (even if many are pirated)
because they would make extra income in the form o f post-purchase income (various
forms o f support, learning and customization, among others). The authors do suggest the
use o f some form o f protection strategies when network externalities are weak.
In a separate study affirming the conclusion o f the previous study, Givon et al.
(1995) tracked the spread o f software (specifically word processing, and spreadsheet
29
software) in the United Kingdom and found that although six in seven users were pirates,
these pirates had actually generated around %80 o f the total sales o f the actual software
over time.
2.5.2. Deterrents and Preventives
Gopal and Sanders (1997) studied preventive and deterrent controls employed by
software companies to combat software piracy. The authors developed and examined an
analytical model that tests the implications o f the use o f these controls to limit software
piracy. Surprisingly, the authors found that while deterrent controls had a positive impact
on profitability o f the software companies, preventive controls do not play a role in
increasing profitability.
2.5.3. Detecting Software Piracy
Straub and Nance (1990) examined how organizations discover computer abuse in
their business settings. According to the authors, incidents o f computer abuse can be
discovered by accidental discovery (discovered by accident, about 41% o f all abuses
were discovered this way), normal system controls (controls set up by the organization,
50% were discovered this way), or purposeful investigations (looking randomly for
abuses, accounted for about 16% o f abuses discovered). The authors surveyed over a
thousand organizations regarding this issue, and constructed a model (shown below in
figure 10) o f how security efforts should be managed.
30
Proactive
Detective
Activities
Computer
Abuse Discover
Recovery ----- ► Punishment
of Abuse from Abuse
Accident
Reactive
Detective
Activities
Internal
Systems
Controls
Figure 11: Model for Detection and Discipline of Computer Abuse
The authors also provide the following suggestions on how to improve security
features in organizations, as follows:
1. Security administrators should pay more attention to detection
2. Abuses should be reported more often to authorities
3. No employees should b e given preferential treatment when it comes to
computer abuse
4. Punishment should be equal for abusers who abuse for personal gain,
and abusers who are ju st fooling around
2.6. MODELS OF SOFTWARE PIRACY
In this section, research attem pting to explain software piracy is examined. Four
general models will be examined here, as shown in the following section.
31
2.6.1. Factors Influencing Individuals with regard to Software Piracy
Starting with the earliest, Eining and Christensen (1991) developed a model o f
factors influencing individuals with regard to software piracy. Their model identified
five factors that influenced this behavior: computer attitudes, material consequences,
norms, social-legal attitudes, and effective factors. The factors are explained as follows:
1. Attitudes towards computers: the individual’s attitude towards
computers and the roles o f computers in society
2. Material consequences: the individual’s perception o f the monetary
value (gains and losses) as a result o f the piracy
3. Norms: subjective norms o f the individual and his/her family and close
friends
4. Social-Legal attitude: beliefs and opinions about software companies
and the laws regarding piracy
5. Effective factors: the individual’s irritation from copying software.
The model is shown below in Figure 12.
G orpier | f a u r is l ! j Sobd-Legal j Effective

No tts
Attitudes | Corseoences j ! Attitudes F ados
1 ! i i
I __________ !___________!__________ I__________ I
i
Intentions Behavior
Figure 12: Eining and Christensen's model o f software piracy
32
2.6.2. Factors Influencing Softlifting
Simpson et al. (1994) examined factors influencing softlifting (piracy done by
individuals for individual use). The authors identified five factors that influenced
decision-making, as follows:
1. Stimulus to act: the reason behind the softlifting
2. Socio-cultural factor: social and cultural factors that influence the individual
3. Legal factor: the effect o f the potential punishments on the individual
4. Personal factors: individual factors such as age, gender, religious orientation
among others
5. Situational factors: various situational factors such as knowing how to copy
software or not.
The model is shown below in figure 13.
Stimulus to Act
Socio-Cultural
Factor
Ethical Decision
Legal Factors Behavior
Process
i Personal Factors r
; Situation Factors
Figure 13: Simpson's model o f softlifting
33
2.6 3 . Explaining Software Piracy
Limayem et al. (1999) based their model on Triandis’ behavioral model (1980) to
explain software piracy. The study used a longitudinal design to study piracy within
business students. The study used the following variables to explain the behavioral
process:
1. Social factors: social pressures to perform or not to perform such a
behavior
2. Perceived consequences/beliefs: the outcome o f the behavior
3. Habit: repeating behaviors that became automatic and done without much
reasoning
4. Affect: the feeling o f joy or happiness as a result o f the behavior
5. Facilitating conditions: similar to the behavioral control in TPB, this
construct measures how easy or difficult an action is to perform
6. Intention: the individual's intention to perform a behavior
Habit
Affect
Piracy
-« Intention -
Behavior
Social
Factor*
; Facilitating !
Conditions
L
Figure 14: Factors Motivating Software Piracy, Limayem, Khalifa, and Chin (1999)
34
The model is presented in figure 11 above. Results o f the study indicated that
only social factors and consequences had an influence on the piracy behavior; On the
other hand, intention (surprisingly) did not influence behavior.
2.6.4. Explaining Software Piracy using Ethical Decision Making
Thong and Yap (1998) also attempted to explain softlifting (software piracy done
by individuals) by using Hunt and VitelFs (1986) ethical decision-making theory. The
theory suggests that individuals are influenced by deontological (where rules define what
is ethical or not) and teleological (examine the consequences o f the behavior) evaluations
as shown in figure 12 below.
: Dsontologfcal Dsontotogicsl
: Norms Evaluation
Ethical Moral
Judgment Intention
Daontological !
Norms
^ Tslsological |
Evaluation
Dsontological
Norms
Figure 15:Thong and Yap's Model o f Softlifting
Study findings suggest that deontological and teleological do influence ethical
decision-making, which in turn influence the softlifting behavior.
2.7. SUMMARY
This chapter reviewed and examined previous research related to the research
question introduced in Chapter 1. The chapter started by looking at general behavioral
35
theories (specifically, the TRA and the TPB), explored ethics literature starting with
Kohlberg’s stages o f moral development, and examined some ethics-related models o f
behavior. The next section discussed ethics research specific to IS and reviewed some
well-known models o f ethics in IS. The last section examined research specific to
software piracy, and included areas such as protection/detection/prevention strategies as
well as some general models o f software piracy.
In the next chapter, an outline o f research methodology will be revealed. Chapter
3 will include a detailed explanation o f the steps needed to undertake this research and
attempt to answer the dissertation’s research question. A research model attempting to
explain digital piracy will be developed, and details about how the model will be
operationalized will be detailed in the next chapter. Statistical methods that are needed to
examine the research model will also be examined.
36
Chapter 3: Research Method
3.1. INTRODUCTION
In the previous two chapters, we looked at the problem o f digital piracy, and
examined previous research undertaken regarding behavior, ethics, and computer misuse
(specifically software piracy). Digital piracy continues to be a big problem, and none o f
the methods suggested (deterrents and preventives) for combating piracy have been
successful. An understanding o f the factors that influence piracy might lead to better
strategies and a more advantageous method o f combating piracy.
There is not a generally agreed upon behavioral model on ethical/unethical
behavior (Jones, 1991). Prior piracy research has examined different models with
different variables (see Chapter 2 for previous piracy research) to explain piracy with
limited success. To better explain (and hopefully influence) piracy, a closer look at the
reference disciplines is needed to better understand the piracy behavior and its
antecedents.
In this chapter, a model is developed to explain the piracy behavior based on an
exhaustive and comprehensive examination o f the literature. The model is based on the
Theory o f Planned Behavior (TPB), and it is extended through a review o f the
psychology and ethics literature. The model developed borrows from other disciplines
and attempts to conceptualize a general model o f ethical decision-making.
37
3.2. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
As discussed in the last chapter, the TPB (which is an extension o f the Theory o f
Reasoned Action) has been used extensively in predicting different kinds o f behavior
(Flannery and May, 2000). The TPB posits that behavior is influenced by the individual's
intention to perform that behavior, and that three classes o f factors influence intention:
1. Attitude (AT): The individual's positive or negative evaluation o f a
behavior
2. Subjective Norm (SN): The individual's perception o f social pressure to
perform/not perform the behavior
3. Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC): The perceived ease or difficulty in
performing a behavior
The TPB is shown in the following figure (the figure includes the possible link
between PBC and the actual behavior).
38
Attitude
Intention Behavior !
j Subjective I
Norms [
i Perceived
I Behavioral
Control
Figure 16: The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
3.2.1. The Importance o f Attitude
Attitude has been long acknowledged as the most important construct in social
psychology (Allport, 1935). This is evident by the overwhelming amount o f research
published in this area (Olson and Zanna, 1993; Petty, Wegener et al., 1997; Ajzen, 2001).
Attitude has also been found to be the most significant factor influencing behavioral
intention. A recent review by Trafimow and Finlay (1996) found that attitude was the
best predictor o f intention in 29 out o f 30 studies.
Another reason why attitude is so important is the fact that attitude can be
changed through persuasion and other means. An abundance o f research regarding
attitude change and persuasion exists in the psychology literature (Olson and Zanna,
1993). Since attitude is the most significant predictor o f intention (Beck and Ajzen,
39
1991) (which in turn, is the best predictor o f the actual behavior), then behavior can
possibly be influenced through attitude change and persuasion.
From the previous discussion, it is obvious that while the TPB in general is
important in understanding/explaining behavior, attitude seems to be the most important
factor here. Based on that, while this study uses the TPB as a base for the research
model, special emphasis will be placed on attitude and its antecedents. In the next
section, attitude and its antecedents are examined.
3.2.2. Determinants o f Attitude
In the following section, several factors that could possibly influence attitude are
examined as suggested in the literature. These factors are: cognitive beliefs, affective
beliefs, perceived importance o f the issue, moral judgment, and individual characteristics.
3.2.2.1 Beliefs as determinants of attitude
Attitude is a general construct that is the individual’s positive or negative
evaluation o f an object or a behavior. According to the TPB, the attitude construct is
determined by the behavioral beliefs o f the individual (Ajzen, 1985). These beliefs are
usually elicited from a representative sample o f the population (see the instrument
construction section o f this chapter for a detailed example) and are used to predict
attitude.
These beliefs have been used as the dominant explanation for attitude and attitude
change in the psychology literature (Fishbein and Middlestadt, 1995), and have
historically been labeled as cognitive beliefs. Cognitive beliefs represent the individual's
opinion about an object (in terms o f attributes or characteristics o f an object) or behavior
(in terms o f outcomes o f a behavior). While early research on attitude has concentrated
40
on "only" cognitive beliefs (beliefs based on the object attributes or outcomes o f a
behavior) as determinants o f attitude, new research streams suggest that other non-
cognitive beliefs might influence attitude.
Several authors have established the impact o f affective beliefs (beliefs based on
emotions and feelings) on attitude. Originally believed to be antecedents o f cognitive
beliefs, affective beliefs have been demonstrated as having direct influence on attitude
(Bodur, Brinberg et al., 2000). Holbrook and Batra (1987) established several affective
beliefs that influenced attitude. Haddock and Zanna (1998) found that both affective and
cognitive beliefs were important in predicting attitude towards capital punishment.
Trafimow and Sheeran (1998) examined affective and cognitive beliefs and found that
they are separate constructs that independently influenced attitude. Kempf (1999) found
that affective beliefs were separate and independent o f cognitive beliefs in his study
about product trials. Verplanken et al. (1998) also provided support for the affective-
cognitive model of attitude. Bodur's et al. (2000) study provided further evidence that
affect does influence attitude directly and independently o f cognitive beliefs. The
following diagram demonstrates the influence o f beliefs on attitude based on the research
done within the psychology literature.
Affective
Beliefs
Attitude
Cognitive
I Beliefs
Figure 17: Affective and Cognitive beliefs as determinants of attitude
41
3.2.2.2. Ethics Research
To get more insights about other factors that might influence attitude, a look at
other behavioral fields and disciplines is warranted. One area o f interest is the ethics
literature, where computer misuse and crime have been often looked into within an
ethical/unethical point o f view (Im and Koen, 1990; Simpson, Baneijee et al., 1994; Loch
and Conger, 1996; Baneijee, Cronan et al., 1998). The ethics literature provides us with
valuable research done on ethical decision-making/behavior that could be used in this
study.
Borrowing from the ethics literature might help to better understand the complex
behavioral relationships involving attitude and intention. Since the ethics literature often
examines ethical judgment/evaluation and not attitudinal judgment, there is a need to
justify extending the TPB with factors from the ethics literature.
The following section provides the justification for using factors from ethics
literature to use with this study. First, ethical behavior (studied in ethics) is one kind o f
general behavior that is usually studied using TPB. The attitude concept is the closest
match to ethical judgm ent in the TPB model (com pared to subjective norms, perceived
behavioral control, intention, or behavior). Both attitude and ethical judgment have been
used to explain intention/behavior, and the TPB has been used to explain ethical behavior
(Dubinsky and Loken, 1989; Randall and Gibson, 1991; Baneijee, Cronan et al., 1998;
Flannery and May, 2000). Both attitude and ethical judgm ent are some kind o f a
judgment or an evaluation about a behavior. A lso, both attitude and ethical judgment
lead to intention, which in turn leads to some kind o f behavior. Not to mention the fact
that ethical judgm ent has been also called ethical attitude and has been measured using
42
attitudinal measurements (Dubinsky and Loken, 1989; Baneijee, Cronan et al., 1998). It
is also argued that attitudinal judgment would be very similar to ethical judgment when
the behavior in question involves an ethical dilemma. Attitude and ethical judgment are
not the same thing, but what affects ethical decision making might also affect attitude.
Based on that, a review o f ethical decision-making was warranted (see Chapter 2
for review). Going a step further, a list o f factors and variables influencing ethical
decision-making and ethical intention was put together. Along with that, a “mini” meta
analysis was performed to assess the results o f these studies to identify which factors
have been used repeatedly and were consistently found to be significant determinants o f
ethical decision-making. Based on this criterion, three factors were identified as follows:
individual characteristics/attributes, moral judgment, and moral obligation.
3.2.2.2.I. Individual Characteristics and Attributes
Individual characteristics and attributes have been used frequently in the ethics
literature to predict ethical decision-making. Prior studies have found gender to influence
ethical decision-making (Khazanchi, 1995; Loch and Conger, 1996; Reiss and Mitra,
1998; Leonard and Cronan, 2001). Results from these studies suggested that females had
higher ethical standards than males (Ford and Richardson, 1994, Found that females had
higher ethical standards in 7 out o f 7 studies reviewed). Simpson et al. (1994) found that
gender was a significant variable affecting ethical decision-making regarding software
piracy.
Attitude research has also examined the effect o f gender on attitude and found it
to be a significant predictor o f attitude. Randall (1991) also theorized that individual
characteristics would have an influence on attitude. Two studies that examined cheating
43
behavior in school found that gender had an effect on attitude toward cheating (Whitley,
Nelson et al., 1999; Salter, Guffey et al., 2001)
As for personal traits, there have been many traits/characteristics that have been
tested for effects on ethical decision-making. Examples include: locus o f control, ego
strength, and Machiavellianism. While previous studies had inconclusive results on locus
o f control and ego strength (Ford and Richardson, 1994; Baneijee, Cronan et al., 1998),
Machiavellianism proved to be a more consistent factor influencing ethical decision
making (Hegarty and Sim, 1978; Hegarty and Sims, 1979; Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1992;
Jones and Kavanagh, 1996; Bass, Barnett et al., 1999).
Based on the previous discussion, gender and Machiavellianism will be employed
in this study as antecedents to attitude.
3.2.2.2.2. Moral Judgment
Kohlberg (1969) theorized that individuals reason out moral situations differently,
and proposed a theory that explained different levels o f moral reasoning (see Chapter 2).
Moral Judgment (MJ) is basically how an individual reasons when faced with an ethical
dilemma. Also referred to as moral development, it has been employed as a factor
influencing ethical judgment. First theorized by Trevino (1986) as a determinant o f
ethical/unethical judgment, its use has been a common occurrence in the ethics field
(Rest, 1986; Trevino, 1986; Leonard and Cronan, 2001; Wagner and Sanders, 2001).
Moral judgment is measured using Rest's (1986) Defining Issues Test (DIT), and will be
included in this study as an antecedent to attitude.
44
3.2.2.2.3. Perceived Importance
Another issue that has received attention in the ethics literature is what is referred
as "Situational Ethics". Situational ethics posits that each ethical situation (dilemma) has
its own unique characteristics, and these characteristics actually influence the ethical
decision-making process o f individuals (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985). The term was first
conceptualized by Jones (1991), using the term Moral Intensity, it consisted o f five
dimensions, representing exogenous characteristics o f the situation. Robin et al. (1996)
extended this concept and referred to it as "Perceived Importance o f an Ethical Issue"
(PIE). Robin’s concept was an improvement over moral intensity in that PIE measured
the individual's perception o f the importance o f the issue (moral intensity measured
characteristics o f the issue, while PIE examined how important the issue is to
individuals). For the rest o f this study, we will refer to this factor as Perceived
Importance (PI).
3.2.2.2.4. Relationship between Attitude and Subjective Norms
There is also some evidence that suggests that subjective norms have an influence
on attitude (Shepherd and O'Keefe, 1984; Shimp and Kavas, 1984; Vallerand, Pelletier et
al., 1992; Chang, 1998). The ethics literature had examined this relationship in previous
studies (referred to as the relationship between significant others and ethical decision
making) (Bommer, Gratto et al., 1987; Kreie and Cronan, 2000). Since attitude is an
overall judgment/evaluation o f a behavior, it is likely that this overall evaluation could
possibly be affected by what significant others think about the behavior.
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
3.2.3. Factors Influencing Attitude
Based on the previous discussion, we can form a model o f factors influencing
attitude as follows:
Attitude = Function (Cognitive Beliefs, Affective Beliefs,

Individual Attributes, Moral Judgment, Perceived Importance, (7)
Subjective Norms)
The following diagram show s a depiction o f the relationships o f the different
factors influencing attitude.
Moral
Judgment
Individual
Attributes
Affective
Beliefs
Attitude
| Cognitive
i Beliefs
Norms
Figure 18: Factors Influencing Attitude
3.2.3. Determinants of Intention
According to the TPB, intention is determined by attitude, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control. The following section examines these factors briefly and
introduces other factors suggested to influence intention.
46
3.2.3.1. Attitude
Attitude (ATT) is an overall evaluation or judgm ent o f toward an object or
behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). There is a great amount o f research done on
attitude and its influence on intentions and behaviors (Olson and Zanna, 1993; Petty,
Wegener et al., 1997; Ajzen, 2001). Attitude has mostly been studied as an independent
variable, and not much research has examined factors influencing attitude (other than
beliefs), which is one motive behind this study.
3.2.3.2. Subjective Norms
Subjective Norms (SN) are defined as “a person’s perceptions o f that most people
who are important to him think he should or should not perform the behavior in question”
(Ajzen, 1985). Subjective norms have been posited as determinants o f intention and have
been empirically validated (Ajzen, 1991).
3.2.3.3. Perceived Behavioral Control
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) is the individual's perception o f how easy or
difficult it is to perform a behavior (Ajzen, 1991). This factor addressed the issue o f not
being able to perform the behavior, even if the individual’s attitude and subjective norm
was in favor o f committing the behavior. PBC is usually are considered to be composed
o f difficulty and control factors (Ajzen, 2001). These two factors will be discussed in
more detail in the measurement section o f this chapter.
3.2.3.4. Moral Obligation
Moral Obligation (MO) refers to the feeling o f guilt or the personal obligation to
perform or not to perform a behavior. Schwartz and Tessler (1972) indicated that moral
obligation would be a good predictor o f ethical/unethical intention. This factor has been
47
used in the literature to predict ethical intention (Randall and Gibson, 1991; Kurland,
1995; Baneijee, Cronan et al., 1998; Leonard and Cronan, 2001). This factor has also
been theorized as affecting intention in studies from the psychology field. Ajzen (1991)
indicated that moral obligation could possibly be added to the TPB as a separate
determinant o f intention. In a review o f TPB research, Conner and Armitage (1998)
found that moral obligation was a significant predictor o f intention in a number o f
studies.
3.2.4. Research Model
Based on the previous discussion, a research model is developed and
conceptualized in the following diagram:
Moral
Judgment
Irnvidual
Attributes
Affective
Beliefs
Attitude
Cognitive
1 Beliefs
S u b jective
in ten tion
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Moral
Obligation
Figure 19: Research Model
48
Based on the previous discussion, we can form a model o f factors influencing
intention as follows:
Intention = Function (Attitude, Subjective Norms, Perceived Behavioral Control,
Moral Obligation)
The following table lists the factors and variables used in this study with a brief
description o f these factors.
Factor Description
Gender (SEX) Gender o f the subject
Age (AGE) Age o f the subject
Machiavellianism (MACH) How Machiavellian is the subject
Perceived Importance (PI) How important is the issue to the subject
Moral Judgment (MJ) How does the subject reason when faced with an ethical
dilemma
Moral Obligation (MO) The feeling o f guilt or moral obligation toward the
behavior
Cognitive Beliefs (CB) Beliefs based on the outcome o f the behavior
Affective Beliefs (AB) Beliefs based on emotions and feelings toward
performing the behavior
Attitude (ATT) The subject’s overall evaluation about the behavior
Subjective Norms (SN) What significant think about this behavior
Perceived Behavioral Control How easy or difficult it is to perform the behavior
(PBC)
Intention (INT) Behavioral intention to perform the behavior
Table 2: Listing of the factors used in this study
Appendix A includes a comprehensive review o f the factors used in the study and
a brief summary of the results o f the study they were used in.
3.3. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
The purpose o f this study is to examine the relationships between different factors
and attitude/intention towards digital piracy. This section examines the nature o f these
relationships outlined in hypothesis form.
49
3.3.1. Gender (SEX)
The ethics literature suggests that females have a higher ethical standard than
males (Ford and Richardson, 1994). Sims (1996) found that male students pirated
software more often than female students. Based on that, it is expected that females
would have a lower attitude (think it is unethical) towards digital piracy than males.
H I : Females will have a lower attitude towards digital piracy than males
3.3.2. Age (AGE)
The ethics literature suggests that older individuals have higher ethical standards
than younger individuals (Ford and Richardson, 1994). Based on that, it is expected that
older subjects would have a lower attitude (think it is unethical) towards digital piracy
than younger subjects.
H2: Older subjects will have a lower attitude towards digital piracy than younger
subjects
3.3.3. Machiavellianism (MACH)
The literature suggests that individuals with a high Machiavellianism will not be
concerned about unethical behavior. Based on that, high Machiavellianism individuals
will have a higher attitude towards digital piracy
H3: Individual with high Machiavellianism will have a higher attitude towards
digital piracy
50
3.3.4. Perceived Importance (PI)
The literature suggests that the more important an issue is, the more likely that
individuals would view that issue as unethical; Thus, the higher the importance o f the
issue, the lower the attitude towards digital piracy.
H4: The higher the importance o f the issue will be, the lower the attitude towards
digital piracy
3.3.5. Moral Judgment (MJ)
Moral judgm ent is how a person reasons when faced with an ethical dilemma.
Individuals high in moral judgment (According to Kohlberg, 1969) would examine their
actions and compare them to the goodness o f the society and them as having high ethical
values. Based on that, the higher an individual's moral judgment, the lower their attitude
towards digital piracy.
H5: Subjects with higher moral judgment will have a lower attitude towards
digital piracy
3.3.6. Moral Obligation (MO)
Moral obligation is the feeling o f guilt towards a behavior. Posited as a
determinant o f intention, it is expected to influence intention negatively. That is, the
higher the moral obligation is, the less likely it is for individuals to perform the behavior.
H6: Subjects with higher moral obligation will have a lower intention to pirate
digital material
51
3.3.7. Cognitive Beliefs (CB)
Cognitive beliefs have been mostly used to determine attitude (Bodur, Brinberg et
al., 2000). Positive beliefs (and evaluation o f these beliefs) would correspond to higher
attitude towards digital piracy.
H7: Positive/Higher beliefs/evaluations will correspond to higher attitude towards
digital piracy
3.3.8. Affective Beliefs (AB)
Affective beliefs should also contribute to attitude formation (see previous
discussion).
H8: High excitement and happiness feelings should correspond with higher
attitude towards digital piracy, and high distress feelings would correspond with lower
attitude towards digital piracy
3.3.9. Attitude (ATT)
Attitude has a positive relationship with intention. The higher the attitude is, the
higher the intention to perform a behavior.
H9: Higher attitude will correspond with higher intention to pirate digital material
3.3.10. Subjective Norms (SN)
Subjective norms has a positive relationship with intention. The higher the
evaluation o f subjective norms (significant others have a favorable opinion towards the
behavior) is, the higher the intention to perform a behavior.
52
HlOa: Higher subjective norms will correspond with higher intention to pirate
digital material
Subjective norms are also theorized to influence attitude. The higher the
evaluation o f subjective norms (significant others have a favorable opinion towards the
behavior) is, the higher attitude towards digital piracy.
HI Ob: Higher subjective norms will correspond with higher attitude towards
digital piracy
3.3.11. Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)
The third predictor o f intention according to the TPB is perceived behavioral
control. An individual who has perceived the behavior to be easy and under his control
(higher perceived behavioral control) would have a higher intention to perform the
behavior.
HI 1: Higher perceived behavioral control would correspond to higher intention to
pirate digital material
3.3.12. Summary of Research Hypotheses
The following table provides a comprehensive listing o f the hypotheses that will
be tested in this study.
53
Hypothesis Description
1 Females will have a lower attitude towards digital piracy than males
Older individuals will have a lower attitude towards digital piracy than
2
younger individuals
Individuals with high machiavellianism will have a higher attitude towards
3
digital piracy
The higher the importance o f the issue will be, the lower the attitude
4
towards digital piracy
Individual with higher moral judgm ent will have a lower attitude towards
5
digital piracy
Individual with higher moral obligation will have a lower intention to
6
pirating digital material
Positive/higher beliefs/evaluations will correspond to higher attitude
7
High excitement and happiness feelings should correspond with higher
8 attitude towards digital piracy, and high distress feelings would correspond
with lower attitude towards digital piracy
Higher attitude will correspond with higher intention to pirate digital
9
material
Higher subjective norms will correspond with higher intention to pirate
10a
digital material
Higher subjective norms will correspond with higher attitude towards
10b
digital piracy
Higher perceived behavioral control would correspond to higher intention to
11
pirate digital material
Table 3: Complete Listing of the hypotheses tested in this study
3.4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This section describes the research methodology undertaken to carry out this
study. This section will include information about instrument construction, the statistical
techniques used to examine the hypothesized relationships, and the sample used.
3.4.1. Instrument Construction
The following is a discussion o f the instrument used in this study and the sources
o f the different constructs needed to implement this study. Appendix B contains a
complete copy o f the actual questionnaire.
54
3.4.1.1. Gender (SEX) and Age (AGE)
Gender and age are single item questions eliciting the subject for his/her gender
and age.
3.4.1.2. Machiavellianism (MACH)
The Machiavellianism measure will be based on the MACH IV (Christie and
Geis, 1970) scale. The scale is composed o f 20 items (10 items o f which are reverse
worded) that include questions addressing tactics, views, and morality. The items include
questions like "Most people are basically good and kind", and "Anyone who trusts
anyone is asking for trouble". Respondents are asked to indicate the extent o f their
agreement/disagreement with each o f the items using a seven-point Likert scale ranging
from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree".
3.4.1.3. Perceived Importance (PI)
Perceived importance will be measured based on Robin's (1996) instrument. The
instrument is composed o f four items with questions related to the importance o f the issue
at hand. Respondents are asked to indicate their perception on the extent o f the
importance of the issue with each o f the items using a seven-point scale ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree.
3.4.1.4. Moral Judgment (MJ)
Moral judgment is measured using the Defining Issues Test (DIT) developed by
Rest (1986). The DIT is composed o f 6 scenarios each involving a different moral
dilemma, each with several questions about the scenario (the short form includes the first
three scenarios). A recent book (Rest, Narvaez et al., 1999) examined over 400 published
55
articles that used the DIT and demonstrated validity and reliability o f the DIT instrument
(Rest, Narvaez et al., 2000).
3.4.1.4. Moral Obligation (MO)
Moral obligation is measured using a three-item scale scored on a seven-point
Likert scale ranging from strongly agrees to strongly disagree. Example statements
include "Digital piracy goes against my principle" and "It would be morally wrong for me
to pirate digital material" (Beck and Ajzen, 1991).
3.4.1.5. Cognitive Beliefs (CB)
To assess the cognitive structure o f these salient beliefs, a standard method has
been suggested (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) for collecting and obtaining these cognitive
beliefs. Keeping in mind, that these beliefs are different in the case o f b elief towards a
behavior versus the case o f beliefs towards an object. When eliciting beliefs toward a
behavior, these beliefs should be based upon the outcome/consequences o f the behavior.
Beliefs about an object on the other hand, require that beliefs should be based about the
characteristics/attributes o f the object (Fishbein and Middlestadt, 1995).
A representative sample o f subjects is gathered and respondents are asked
questions regarding the behavior. These questions assess the respondent's beliefs about
the outcome o f the behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Specifically, respondents are
asked three questions regarding the behavior, as follows: "What are the advantages, if
any, o f Digital piracy", "What are the disadvantages, if any, o f Digital piracy", and "Is
there anything else you associate with Digital piracy". A Content analysis is performed
on the beliefs, and "very" similar beliefs are combined into one. Beliefs mentioned by at
least 10% o f the sample are selected for the scale (Fishbein and Middlestadt, 1995).
56
3.4.1.6. Affective Beliefs (AB)
Affective beliefs capture the emotions and feelings associated with the action.
Mano (1991) examined eight categories o f affect (arousal, elation, pleasantness,
calmness, quietness, boredom, unhappiness, and distress). Bodur et al. (2000) used four
categories (arousal, elation, pleasantness, and distress) to assess their affective beliefs
construct. Other researchers have used a two dim ensional structure based on pleasure
and arousal (See Bodur, Brinberg et al., 2000). In this study, three dimensional affective
structure will be used to measure affective beliefs; the three dimensions will be based on
arousal, pleasantness, and distress. Subjects are asked to express how they felt about the
pirating behavior on a seven-point scale ranging from "not at all" to "very much".
3.4.1.7. Attitude (ATT)
Attitude is assessed with items relating to the overall
favorableness/unfavorableness o f the behavior. As suggested by Fishbein and Ajzen
(1975), subjects are asked to respond to a question regarding the individual's attitude
towards the behavior. Respondents are presented with the sentence, "Overall, my attitude
towards Digital Piracy is:". Different semantic differential items are used to answer the
question and assess attitude. Different semantic differential items that have been used
include good/bad, favorable/unfavorable, pleasant/unpleasant, harmful/beneficial,
useful/useless, positive/negative, pro/anti, harmful/beneficial, nice/awful, and
wise/foolish among others (Madden, Ellen et al., 1992; Trafimow, 1996; Chang, 1998;
Bodur, Brinberg et al., 2000; Flannery and May, 2000). For this study, attitude will be
measured using four items (good/bad, harmful/beneficial, positive/negative, and
57
favorable/unfavorable) scored on a seven-point scale ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree.
3.4.1.8. Subjective Norms (SN)
Subjective norms have been assessed by asking subjects whether significant
others approve or disapprove the behavior in question. Items include questions such as
"Most people who are important to me think that I should not pirate digital content", and
"When considering digital piracy, I wish to do what most important people to me think",
and answered using a seven point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly
disagree". In total, 3 items assessing subjective norms will be used in this study.
3.4.1.9. Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)
Perceived behavioral control is a measure o f how easy or difficult it is for subjects
to perform the behavior in its original depiction by Ajzen (1985). Ajzen (2001)
recommends the use o f both a self-efficacy measure (whether individuals believe that
they have the skills and abilities to perform the behavior) and control (whether
individuals believe they have control over performing the behavior) measures. Measures
used in this study will be based on previous measures used in previous research regarding
perceived behavioral control that would capture both self-efficacy and control
dimensions. Self-efficacy will be measured on a seven-point scale assessing "For me to
pirate digital content, it would be" (very easy/very difficult), "If I wanted to, I could
easily pirate digital content" (strongly agree/strongly disagree), and "I believe I have the
ability to pirate digital content" (strongly agree/strongly disagree). Control will be
measured also on a seven-point scale assessing "I have the resources necessary to pirate
digital content" (strongly agree/strongly disagree), "How much control do you have in
58
pirating digital content" (complete control/absolutely no control), and "It is mostly up to
me to pirate digital content" (strongly agree/strongly disagree).
3.4.1.10. Intention (INT)
Intention will be measured as suggested by Madden and Ajzen (1992) with a
three-item construct answered on a seven-point scale. The items include "I intend to
pirate digital content in the near future" (definitely do/definitely do not), "I will try to
pirate digital content in the near future" (definitely will/definitely will not), and "I will
make an effort to pirate digital content in the near future" (definitely true/definitely false).
Summary of Constructs
The following table provides a brief description o f the constructs used in this
study. Please see Appendix B for the complete instrument used in this study.
Factor Description
Gender (SEX) 1 item
Age (AGE) 1 item
Machiavellianism (MACH) 20-item instrument (Christie and Geis, 1970)
Perceived Importance (PI) 4-item instrument (Robin, Reidenbach et al., 1996)
Moral Judgment (MJ) DIT short form (Rest, 1986)
Moral Obligation (MO) 3 items
Cognitive Beliefs (CB) Will be determined in a later elicitation study (6-10
items)
Affective Beliefs (AB) 3 items
Attitude (ATT) 4 items
Subjective Norms (SN) 3 items
Perceived Behavioral Control 5 items (3 representing Self efficacy, 1 representing
(PBC) resources, 1 representing control)
Intention (INT) 3 items
Table 4: The constructs used in this study
59
3.4.2. Hypotheses Testing
Stepwise regression and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) will be used to test
the hypotheses.
Since the model has two dependent variables with different independent variables,
a stepwise regression approach will be used to test out the individual hypothesis first.
Regression assumptions examined will include normality, homogeneity o f variance, and
multicollinearity.
SEM techniques are considered to be the next generation o f data analysis
techniques (Bagozzi and Fomell, 1982). Unlike linear regression, ANOVA, and other
multivariate statistical techniques, SEM allows researchers to analyze more than one
layer o f links between independent and dependent variables (Gefen, Straub et al., 2000)
which is the case in this study (where attitude is considered both a dependent and an
independent variable predicting intention). SEM provides both a structural analysis o f
the model (testing relationships for statistical significance between variables) and an
evaluation o f the measurement model (where loadings o f items on their latent variable are
examined) at the same time.
These features (and others) have resulted in an increased usage o f SEM tools in
the behavioral sciences (Hair, Anderson et al., 1998). There is also a growing interest in
the use o f SEM tools within IS research. A recent survey o f the empirical IS studies
found that 34% o f studies between 1994 and 1997 used SEM in two leading IS journals
(Information Systems Research and MIS Quarterly) (Gefen, Straub et al., 2000). This
study will utilize SEM tools to analyze the data collected and test the research model.
60
SEM assumptions are similar to assumptions found in regression analysis. These
include having and adequate sample size, normally distributed data, and linear
relationships between constructs (other assumptions include small residuals and
elimination o f outliers) (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). Also, since SEM is being used as
a confirmatory technique, then theoretical basis for the relationships must exist prior to
testing the model.
Construct validity and reliability will also be assessed. Construct validity deals
with whether the items used to measure constructs are consistent with a prior hypothesis
regarding the relationship between these items and constructs. This is done by using a
confirmatory factor analysis to examine the construct validity o f the data and checking
the factor loadings on each given construct. Geffen et al. (2000) suggests that item
loadings should be above 0.707.
Reliability is a measure o f how accurate or precise an instrument is. Since
constructs are usually comprised o f multiple items, these items should all correspond
together to measure the same construct. The most commonly used method to measure
reliability is by using Cronbach's alpha (Carmine and Zeller, 1979). Geffen et al. (2000)
recommends a Cronbach alpha o f 0.70 and above for confirmatory research.
As for testing the relationships between the model components, the SEM analysis
provides two means for analyzing the research model. The first is an indication o f the
overall fit o f the model (how well does the model fit the data). Geffen (2000)
recommends examining the Adjusted Goodness o f Fit Index (AGFI), Chi-Square, and
Normative Fit Index (NFI). The second indicator is related to the relationships between
61
the different factors in the model. Each relationship is tested by examining the beta
coefficient between factors and testing it for statistical significance.
3.4 3 . Sample
The sample for this study will be based on a student sample from a business
college attending a university in the Midwest. The students will be a mix o f sophomore,
junior, and senior level students. Recent studies have suggested that students view piracy
as socially and ethically acceptable, and that piracy is widespread among business
students (Solomon and O'Brien, 1990).
Students would be an adequate and a representative sample. Student samples
have been used in ethics literature to explain ethical behavior (Rest, 1986; Khazanchi,
1995; Loch and Conger, 1996; Reiss and Mitra, 1998; Kreie and Cronan, 1999; Kreie and
Cronan, 1999; Kreie and Cronan, 2000; Leonard and Cronan, 2001) and software piracy
(Solomon and O'Brien, 1990; Eining and Christensen, 1991; Simpson, Baneijee et al.,
1994; Glass and Wood, 1996; Kuo and Hsu, 2001; Wagner and Sanders, 2001). Also,
students are the target populations, since a high proportion o f students have been shown
to pirate (Solomon and O'Brien, 1990; Im and Van Epps, 1991; Sims, Cheng et al., 1996)
3.4.4. Sample Size
This study will be utilizing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to statistically
analyze the results. The literature contains some guidelines regarding the appropriate
size o f the sample used in the study. Research studies have suggested having 5 to 15
cases for each variable measured (Bentler and Chou, 1987; Stevens, 1996). Boomsma
(1987) suggests using a sample size o f 200 as a simple rule o f thumb. Gefen et al. (2000)
62
recommends having a sample o f at least 100-150 cases. Authors have cautioned against
using sample sizes below 100 (Fomell, 1983; Kline, 1998). Loehlin (1992) recommends
at least 100 cases, and preferably 200. Based on literature, the study will utilize a
minimum sample size o f 200.
3.4.5. Data Collection
Data for this study will be gathered by a survey instrument (see instrument in
Appendix B). The survey will be administered to students and will gather information
related to the different factors examined in this chapter (see Table 3).
3.5. SUMMARY
In this chapter, a research model based on the Theory o f Planned Behavior is
presented along with justifications for the different components o f the model. The
research hypotheses to be tested are outlined, along with the instruments used to measure
these components. The sample needed to perform this study is discussed, as well as the
statistical techniques necessary to test the hypotheses suggested.
The next chapter (Chapter 4) will include the analysis o f the results o f this study
as well as any information regarding the sample. Chapter 5 would include a discussion o f
the statistical findings in Chapter 4, study conclusion, research limitations, and future
research.
63
Chapter 4: Results
4.1. INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, a discussion o f the results o f the study outlined in Chapter 3 is
presented. The different hypotheses put forward in Chapter 3 are tested using statistical
techniques outlined in the previous chapter. Section 4.2 includes a brief description o f
questionnaire development and administration. Section 4.3 includes descriptive
information about the subjects that participated in this study. Section 4.4 includes a
discussion about missing values and the analysis undertaken to resolve this problem.
Section 4.5 details different reliability and validity (construct validity) tests that were
performed on the data collected. In Section 4.6, a thorough examination o f the research
model (and the individual hypotheses) is outlined using regression and structural equation
modeling techniques. Section 4.7 includes the chapter summary.
4.2. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION
As outlined in Chapter 3, a questionnaire (shown in its entirety in Appendix B) is
developed using various instruments from previous research (see Chapter 3). An
elicitation study was conducted to elicit the salient beliefs subjects held with regard to
digital piracy. In addition to eliciting beliefs, the elicitation study served another
purpose. The elicitation study was also used to verify that subjects held the same salient
beliefs toward different kinds o f piracy (software piracy versus digital piracy).
64
Appendix C contains the questionnaires used to elicit the beliefs, as well as a table
showing the results o f the elicitation study. 123 students (54 males, and 69 females) were
used in the elicitation study with an average age o f 21.6 years. The study verified that
subjects held the same beliefs towards different types o f piracy. The study also provided
the salient beliefs used in this study. A total o f 7 salient beliefs were identified (see
Chapter 3 for detailed discussion) and the following table identifies the salient beliefs.
Belief
Belief
Number
1 Saving money
2 Digital media is overpriced
3 Authors/developers lose money
4 Pirating is convenient
5 Might get caught
6 Might not work as well as the original/purchased version
7 Save time by pirating
Table 5: Salient beliefs identified for this study
Using previous (validated and reliable) instruments, the study questionnaire was
developed. The questionnaire contained reverse items to check for any inconsistencies in
the data collected. A pretest was conducted to check for ambiguous and vague items in
the questionnaire, and to check for any problems in the questionnaire. The questionnaire
was administered to a group o f faculty members and Ph.D. students. The group filled out
the questionnaire while examining it for any potential problems. After discussing the
different recommendations regarding the questionnaire, the questionnaire was refined (8
items were modified that were somewhat ambiguous, and some cosmetic changes were
made to the questionnaire) and further tested again in a classroom setting. The
questionnaire was administered to 39 students in a sophomore level class. No problems
(regarding the clarity o f questions) were reported by the students, and the students
65
completed filling the questionnaire within 25 minutes. Preliminary data from this pilot
sample demonstrated initial reliability and validity qualities.
For the final sample, sophomore, junior, senior, and graduate classes were
selected for questionnaire administration. Faculty was contacted for permission to use
their class as subjects for this study. The questionnaire was administered throughout a
two week period at a business college in a university in the Midwest. The questionnaire
included an introduction section which described the digital piracy concept, and the
purpose o f this study, among other standard sections (see Appendix D for a copy o f the
administered questionnaire).
4.3. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
SUBJECTS
The questionnaire was administered to a total o f 11 classes during class time (1
sophomore class, 7 junior classes, 2 senior classes, and 1 graduate class). A total o f 292
questionnaires were returned from these classes. In this section, a detailed demographical
account o f the subjects is presented.
The average age for the students was 23.5 years, with the youngest subject at 18,
and the eldest subject at 58. 171 (58.6%) male students and 121 (41.4%) female students
participated in the study. The students had an average GPA o f 3.1, and an average full
time work experience o f 2.3 years. The majority o f the students (76.7%) were either in
their junior or senior year. The following table shows a breakup o f the level o f students
involved in this study.
66
Frequency Percent
Freshman 16 5.5%
Sophomore 13 4.5%
Junior 106 36.3%
Senior 118 40.4%
Graduate 31 10.6%
Other 8 2.7%
Total 292 100.0%
Table 6: College level for study participants
The following table shows a breakup o f the subjects' majors as filled in the
questionnaire. More than half the students are majoring in information systems, and
around 95% o f the students are business students.
Frequency Percent
Information Systems 157 53.8%
Marketing 53 18.2%
Finance 26 8.9%
General Business 21 7.2%
Accounting 12 4.1%
Management 6 2.1%
Other 17 5.8%
Total 292 100.0%
Table 7: College major for study participants
As expected, a majority (about 83%) o f the subjects in this study were single.
The following table shows a breakup o f the marital status o f the respondents as answered
in the questionnaire.
Status Frequency Percent

Single 242 82.9%
Married 43 14.7%
Divorced 7 2.4%
Total 292 100.0%
Table 8: Marital status for the subjects
As for work experience, since the sample population was a student sample, most
students reported no full-time work experience (50.2%). The following table shows a
breakup o f the students’ full-time experience.
Experience Frequency Percent

< 1 year 143 50.2%
1 - 3 years 95 33.3%
4-7 years 28 9.8%
8-10 years 10 3.5%
> 10 years 16 5.6%
Total 292 100.0%
Table 9: Years of full-time work expereince for the subjects
4.4. MISSING VALUES
A total o f 292 questionnaires were collected for this study. 7 questionnaires were
deemed suspect and were discarded. O f the 7 questionnaires discarded, 4 questionnaires
had a consistent case o f “column-checking” o f scales with reverse items, and 3
questionnaires were discarded because one or more pages were left unanswered.
O f the remaining 285 questionnaires, there were also 23 questionnaires that had
missing data. These questionnaires had at least one missing value item (no more than 4
missing items per questionnaire were detected). According to Schwab (1999),
researchers have several options to pursue when faced with missing data. These options
include deleting variables, deleting cases, or estimating variables. Since the number o f
missing items was relatively low (1 to 4 items per questionnaire), and since all o f the
missing values were independent variables (Schwab (1999) recommends against
estimation dependent variables), a decision was made to estimate the missing variables.
According to Schwab (1999), mean estimating is the most popular way to estimate
68
missing scores. This is done by replacing the missing scores with the mean score for that
variable across the subjects. A total o f 45 missing scores were replaced in this study.
After dealing with missing values, a total o f 285 questionnaires were deemed
acceptable for use in this study. In the next section, an examination o f construct validity
for the questionnaire is presented.
4.5. CONSTRUCT VALIDATION
In this section, the instrument's construct validaty will be examined. To establish
construct validity, three components need to be examined (O'Leary-Kelly and Vokura,
1998): unidimensionality, reliability, and validity.
4.5.1. Unidimensionality
Unidimensionality entails checking each construct to see if it is measuring only a
single trait (and no other). One method o f checking unidimensionality is through the use
o f Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) (Pedhauzr and Schmelkin, 1991). EFA is applied
to each o f the constructs in this study and the factor structure o f each construct is
examined. The factor structure o f each constmct should correspond to one factor (or
more than one if the theory dictates that). The following paragraphs entail a detailed
examination o f the unidimensionality o f the constructs used in this study.
4.5.1.1. Importance scale
The importance scale was made up o f four items (see Chapter 3). EFA extracted
1 factor accounting for 83.9% o f the variance. Appendix D shows the actual EFA output
for this scale.
69
4.5.1.2 Affective scale
The feelings scale was made up o f nine items (see Chapter 3). The first six items
are associated with happiness and excitement, while the latter three items are related to
distress. EFA extracted 2 factors accounting for 81.4% o f the variance. The first factor
extracted loaded on the first six items (happiness and excitement), and the second factor
extracted loaded on the last three items (distress). Appendix D shows the actual EFA
output for this scale.
4.5.1.3. Attitude scale
The attitude scale was made up o f four items (see Chapter 3). EFA extracted 1
factor accounting for 78.8% o f the variance. Appendix D shows the actual EFA output
for this scale.
4.5.1.4. Subjective norms scale
The revised subjective norms scale was made up o f three items (see Chapter 3).
EFA extracted 1 factor accounting for 58.1% o f the variance. Appendix D shows the
actual EFA output for this scale.
4.5.1.5. Machiavellianism scale
The Machiavellianism scale was made up o f 20 items (see Chapter 3). According
to the scale developers (Christie and Geis, 1970), the scale is composed o f three different
factors (negativism, duplicity, and distrust). EFA extracted 3 factors accounting for
39.5% o f the variance. The loadings o f the individual items corresponded to the original
structure (as suggested by the authors) except for one item. The second item “The best
way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear” had loaded on the
negativism scale instead of the duplicity scale (as suggested in the literature). W hile this
70
item is regarded as one representing deceiving people (duplicity), it can also be viewed as
representing negativism (a person that is negative in nature). Based on that, a decision
was made to keep that item with the negativism factor. Appendix D shows the actual
EFA output for this scale.
4.5.1.6. Perceived behavioral control scale
The perceived behavioral control scale was made up o f five items (see Chapter 3).
EFA extracted 1 factor accounting for 68.1% o f the variance. Appendix D shows the
actual EFA output for this scale.
4.5.1.7. Moral obligation scale
The moral obligation scale was made up o f three items (see Chapter 3). EFA
extracted 1 factor accounting for 78.8% o f the variance. Appendix D shows the actual
EFA output for this scale.
4.5.1.8. Intention scale
The intention scale was made up o f three items (see Chapter 3). EFA extracted 1
factor accounting for 96 .2 % o f the variance. Appendix D shows the actual EFA output
for this scale.
4.5.1.9. Overall Unidimensionality
Overall, tests on these different scales provide evidence o f the unidimensionality
o f the constructs used in this study.
4.5.2. Reliability
A construct is reliable (hence the term reliability) if all the measures are
consistent, stable, and free o f random error (O'Leary-Kelly and Vokura, 1998).
Cronbach’s alpha has been commonly used as a measure o f reliability (Pedhauzr and
71
Schmelkin, 1991), and an alpha value o f 0.7 and above has been used as a lower limit for
reliable measures (Nunnaly, 1978). To further increase the reliability o f the scales, any
problematic items (ones that decrease the reliability o f the scale) should be removed from
the scale.
4.5.2.1. Importance scale
The importance scale was made up o f four item s (see Chapter 3). Cronbach’s
alpha for this scale was 0.936. This value is acceptable and w ithin the recommended
guidelines (Nunnaly, 1978). No items were removed. Appendix D shows the actual
reliability estimates for this scale.
4.5.2.2. Affective scale
were associated with happiness and excitement, while the latter three items were related
to fear and nervousness (will be referred to as distress). C ronbach’s alpha for the first six
items scale was 0.943, and 0.91 for the last three items. C ronbach’s alpha for the full
scale was .863. These values are acceptable and w ithin the recommended guidelines
(Nunnaly, 1978). No items were removed. Appendix D shows the actual reliability
estimates for this scale.
4.5.2.3. Attitude scale
The Attitude scale was made up o f four items (see Chapter 3). Cronbach’s alpha
for this scale was 0.909. This value is acceptable and w ithin the recommended guidelines
72
4.5.2.4. Subjective norms scale
The Subjective Norms scale was made up o f three items (see Chapter 3).
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.637. This value was not acceptable. Taking a
closer look at the output, there seemed to be a problem with the second item. While the
first and third items were related to the opinion o f others toward digital piracy, item 2
was related to the degree o f compliance with these opinions. Item 2 was removed, and
the modified scale had a Cronbach’s alpha o f 0.757. Flannery and May (2000) reported
an alpha value o f .6 in their study, and reported that this measure has produced lower
reliabilities in other studies. However, this value is acceptable and within the
recommended guidelines (Nunnaly, 1978). Appendix D shows the actual reliability
4.5.2.5. Machiavellianism scale
The Machiavellianism scale was made up o f twenty items (see Chapter 3).
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.717. To further improve this scale, a closer look at
the reliability analysis identified some problematic items that should be removed
(Pedhauzr and Schmelkin, 1991). Item 20 was removed, which increased the alpha value
to 0.722. Item 17 was removed, which increased the alpha value to 0.732. Item 3 was
removed, which increased the alpha value to 0.735. Item 19 was removed, which
increased the alpha value to 0.737. Item 15 was removed, which increased the alpha
value to 0.738. No other item’s removal would increase Cronbach’s alpha, and a
decision was made to stop at this point. This value is comparable with other findings that
reported the alpha value for this scale to be 0.62 (Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1992), 0.76
(Hunt and Chonko, 1987), and 0.79 (Christie and Geis, 1970). This final alpha value o f
73
0.738 is acceptable and within the recommended guidelines (Nunnaly, 1978). Appendix
D shows the actual reliability estimates for this scale.
To further verify our findings, we compared the Machiavellianism score from this
study with other similar studies. The average score for this scale was 90.5 in this study.
This is comparable to other studies which reported scores o f 84.5 (Christie and Geis,
1970), 85.7 (Hunt and Chonko, 1987), and 90.9 (Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1992). The
average score was based on summing the item scales, and adding a constant score o f 20
to the overall score as recommended by the scale developers (Christie and Geis, 1970).
4.5.2.6. Perceived behavioral control scale
The Perceived behavioral control scale was made up o f five items (see Chapter 3).
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.943. This value is acceptable and within the
recommended guidelines (Nunnaly, 1978). No items were removed. Appendix D shows
the actual reliability estimates for this scale.
4.5.2.7. Moral obligation scale
The Moral obligation scale was made up o f three items (see Chapter 3).
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.76. This value is acceptable and within the
recommended guidelines (Nunnaly, 1978). Further, other studies have reported similar
values for their moral obligation scale (Beck and Ajzen, 1991, reported 0.71, 0.78, 0.79;
Kurland, 1995, reported 0.71; Flannery and May, 2000, reported 0.85). No items were
removed. Appendix D shows the actual reliability estimates for this scale.
4.5.2.8. Intention scale
The intention scale was made up o f three items (see Chapter 3). Cronbach’s alpha
for this scale was 0.979. This value is acceptable and within the recommended guidelines
74
4.5.2.9. Moral judgment
Since the moral judgment scale (represented by the P-index) is a 1 item scale, no
reliability information can be obtained from this item. However, a comparison o f scores
in other studies would be an appropriate measure to check if these results are within the
normal scores. The average score for the P-index was 33.2. This is comparable to Rest
et al’s (1986) study where a score o f 33.7 was reported for college seniors.
4.5.2.10. Overall Reliability
Based on the previous discussion, the scales used in this questionnaire were found
to be reliable.
4.5.3. Convergent and discriminant validity
The last step in establishing construct validity is the establishment o f convergent
and discriminant validity. Convergent validity is a measure o f how well the items load
on their corresponding factors. Discriminant validity on the other hand, is demonstrated
by checking the correlations between the factors, and whether they are significantly
different (Pedhauzr and Schmelkin, 1991).
4.5.3.1. Convergent validity
As discussed earlier, convergent validity is a measure o f how well the items load
on their corresponding factors. This is done by checking the significance o f item
loadings on their corresponding factor (Confirmatory Factor Analysis, CFA) for each o f
the scales in the study (Pedhauzr and Schmelkin, 1991). The following is a discussion o f
the findings regarding convergent validity.
75
4.5.3.1.1. Im portance scale
The importance scale was made up o f four items (see Chapter 3). Using CFA, all
o f the items loadings on the factor were found to be significant (with the lowest p-value
being 0.00). Appendix D shows the actual CFA test results for this scale.
4.5.3.1.2. A ffective scale
are associated with happiness and excitement, while the latter three items are related to
distress. On both CFAs, all o f the items loadings on its factor were found to be
significant (with the lowest p-value being 0.00). Appendix D shows the actual CFA test
results for this scale.
4.5.3.1.3. A ttitude scale
The attitude scale was made up o f four items (see Chapter 3). Using CFA, all o f
the items loadings on the factor were found to be significant (with the lowest p-value
4.5.3.1.4. Subjective norm s scale
The subjective norms scale was made up o f two items (see Chapter 3, and
reliability analysis in the previous section). Using CFA, all o f the items loadings on the
factor were found to be significant (with the lowest p-value being 0.00). Appendix D
shows the actual CFA test results for this scale.
4.5.3.1.5. M achiavellianism scale
The revised Machiavellianism scale was made up o f 15 items (see Chapter 3, and
reliability analysis in the previous section). According to the scale developers, the scale
is composed o f three different factors (negativism, duplicity, and distrust). Running CFA
76
on each factor (with the corresponding items), each item’s loading on its factor was
significant (with the lowest p-value to be 0.00). Appendix D shows the actual CFA test
results for this scale.
4.5.3.1.6. Perceived behavioral control scale
The perceived behavioral control scale was made up o f five items (see Chapter 3).
Using CFA, all o f the items loadings on the factor were found to be significant (with the
lowest p-value being 0.00). Appendix D shows the actual CFA test results for this scale.
4.5.3.1.7. Moral obligation scale
The moral obligation scale was made up o f three items (see Chapter 3). Using
CFA, all o f the items loadings on the factor were found to be significant (with the lowest
p-value being 0.00). Appendix D shows the actual CFA test results for this scale.
4.5.3.1.8. Intention scale
The intention scale was made up o f three items (see Chapter 3). Using CFA, all
o f the items loadings on the factor were found to be significant (with the lowest p-value
4.5.3.1.9. Convergent validity
Based on the previous discussion, convergent validity has been established for the
constructs used in this questionnaire.
4.5.3.2. Discriminant validity
There are many techniques to assess discriminant validity, including a CFA
approach with a two model comparison (Venkatraman, 1989), and an approach where the
correlations between the latent variables are tested and checked to see they are different
77
than 1 (Bagozzi and Phillips, 1991). The second approach was used to test for
discriminant validity.
Using Fisher’s Z-transform test, a test o f the correlations between the factors is
performed. According to Bagozzi and Phillips (1991), each correlation is tested against
the perfect correlation o f 1. For better reliability, the correlations tested in this study will
be tested against a stringent value o f 0.7 (all factor correlations were less than 0.6, so no
danger o f having a hypothesis accepted for correlations larger than 0.7).
Appendix D shows the factor correlation matrix. Using SPSS (Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences, version 10) software, the correlations were tested to be
equal to 0.7. The null hypothesis being tested was whether the correlation between each
factor is 0.7. For all o f the correlations, the null hypothesis was rejected (see table at
Appendix D) at the 0.00 level. None o f the correlations between the factors was found to
be highly correlated (at the 0.7 correlation). This demonstrates discriminant validity for
this questionnaire.
4.5.4. Construct validity conclusion
Based on the previous discussion, construct validation for the questionnaire has
been established. Because o f the many scales used in this study, the following table
summarizes the findings from the previous section (please refer to the previous section
for discriminant validity analysis).
78
Scale Unidimensionality Reliability Convergent
3 Factors (as All items loaded
Machiavellianism
suggested by a = 7384 significantly on
(15 items)
literature) factor
All items loaded
Importance
1 Factor a = .936 significantly on
(4 items)
factor
2 Factors All items loaded
Affective
(happiness and a = .862 significantly on
(9 items)
fear) factor
All items loaded
Attitude
(4 items)
factor
All items loaded
Subjective Norms
(2 items)
factor
All items loaded
PBC
(5 items)
factor
All items loaded
Moral Obligation
(3 items)
factor
All items loaded
Intention
(3 items)
factor
Table 10: Summary o f findings
After establishing construct validity for the scales used in this study, the next step
would be to actually test the hypotheses outlined in Chapter 3.
4.6. HYPOTHESES TESTING
Since there are two dependent variables (attitude and intention), this section will
examine the hypotheses relating to each dependent variable separately. For each
dependent variable, a regression approach (with stepwise method) will be utilized.
Regression assumptions will be examined before testing the individual hypotheses.
79
Before looking at the results o f the study, a visit back to the research model is
warranted. The following diagram represents the research model for this study.
Moral
Judgment
Iravidual
Attributes
Affective
Beliefs
Cognitive
Beliefs
4 Behavior
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Figure 20: Research model for this study
The next section will examine the assumptions and results related to the
individual hypothesis regarding attitude.
4.6.2. Dependent Variable: Attitude
According to the research model, attitude is a function o f different variables, as
follows:
Attitude = Function (Cognitive Beliefs, Affective Beliefs,

Age, Sex, Machiavellianism, Moral Judgment, Perceived Importance, (8)
Subjective Norms)
A picture o f the model is shown below:
80
Moral
Judgment
Individual
Attributes
Affective
Beliefs
A ttitude
Cognitive !
Beliefs !
Subjective
Norms
Figure 21: Factors influencing attitude
4.6.1.1. Assumptions and outliers
Before undergoing the regression approach, a check on the assumptions related to
regression analysis, and an outlier analysis is performed. For regression assumptions, an
examination o f normality, homogeneity o f variance, and multicollinearity will be
conducted.
4.6.1.1.1. Norm ality
Checking for normality entails checking a plot o f the predicted values versus the
residuals (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). The plot (shown in Appendix D) is random and
does exhibit normality. Another test to check for normality is done by administering the
Shapiro-Wilk normality test. The p-value for this test was 0.3 (see Appendix D for actual
output), meaning that we fail to reject the hypothesis that the residuals are not normally
distributed, and conclude that the normality assumption has been met.
81
4.6.1.1.2. H omogeneity o f variance
Another assumption that needs to be examined is the homogeneity o f variance.
Homogeneity o f variance is a check for unequal error variance. The Breusch-Pagan
(1980) test has been commonly used to test for homogeneity o f variance. This was
tested using the SAS (version 8) program (with the /spec option). The p-value for the test
was 0.83 (see Appendix D for the complete output), thus, we reject the null hypothesis
and conclude that the error variances are not statistically different. Thus, the data
collected meet the assumption o f homogeneity o f variance.
4.6.1.1.3. M ulticollinearity
Multicol linearity refers to having high correlations between independent variables
which can cause problems with the regression model. Regression models with high
multicollinearity can cause insignificant results when they should be significant, and/or
having a negative (or positive) relationship between variables when it is expected to be in
the other direction (Grapentine, 1997).
One way to check for multicollinearity artifacts is done by examining the variance
inflation factors (VIF). VIF measure how much o f the variance in the predicted variables
is inflated because o f correlations between the variables. VIF values have been
commonly used as a method to detect multicollinearity (Pedhauzr and Schmelkin, 1991).
The following table shows the VIF values for the different variables within the
attitude model.
82
Variable VIF
Sex 1.074
Age 1.201
P-Index 1.029
Cognitive 1.220
Happiness & Excitement 1.283
Distress 1.379
Mach 1.100
Subjective Norms 1.420
Importance 1.156
Table 11: VIF values for variables in Attitude model
According to Nunter (1985), as a rule o f thumb, VIF values o f 10 or more are an
indication o f multicollinearity, and VIF values between 5 and 10 are considered suspect
with regard to presence o f multicollinearity. Examining the table, none o f the variables
had a high VIF value (the highest VIF value was 1.42). This would indicate that the
attitude model is not affected by multicollinearity.
4.6.1.1.4. O utlier analysis
According to Tabachnich and Fidell (1996), outliers should be detected, and
possibly deleted because o f their statistical influence on the model. One way to detect
outliers, is through checking the standardized residuals for data points that fall outside 3
standard deviations (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). Three observations (outliers) were
omitted from this analysis, resulting in an overall number o f 282 samples.
4.6.1.2. Overall regression
A stepwise regression method is employed in this study to examine factors
influencing attitude (explaining attitude, and not predicting attitude). While there are
different types o f statistical regression (mainly backward, forward, and stepwise),
stepwise regression is considered to be the best o f the three (Tabachnick and Fidell,
83
1996). In stepwise regression, the regression model starts out with no independent
variables. An independent variable is entered into the model only if it significantly
contributes (statistically) to the regression model. Also, an independent variable would
also be deleted for the model when it is no longer significantly (statistically) contributing
to the regression. Because this is an exploratory study, an entry significance value o f
0.09 and an exit significance o f 0.10 were employed.
Using SPSS software, a stepwise regression was performed on the attitude model.
The following table shows the output o f the stepwise regression (significant and non
significant variables are included in this table).
Standardized
t-value Significance
Coefficients
Subjective Norms .342 6.647 .000
Happiness & Excitement .290 5.863 .000
Importance -.165 -3.442 .001
Age -.115 -2.353 .019
Machiavellianism .086 1.821 .070
Cognitive .089 1.809 .072
Distress -.043 -.812 .417
P-Index -.040 -.870 .385
Sex .007 .158 .874
Table 12: Variables in the attitude (stepwise) regression model
The following section details the results o f the individual hypotheses described in
Chapter 3.
4.6.1.1. Sex
Sex of the subject was hypothesized to affect attitude towards digital piracy.
Males were expected to have a higher (more favorable) attitude toward digital piracy than
females. The hypothesis was framed as follows:
H I: Females will have a low er attitude towards digital p ira cy than males
84
Examining the results o f the stepwise regression, sex was not a significant
variable influencing attitude. The following table shows the result o f the stepwise
regression analysis (with attitude as a dependent variable).
Standardized
coefficient
Sex .008 .164 .870
Table 13: Sex as a variable influencing attitude
The correlation between sex and attitude was -0.078. The correlation had a
negative value, indicating that males (scored as a 0) had a higher attitude (although small)
towards digital piracy than females (scored as a 1). Going further, a test o f the mean
attitude value was compared between males and females; the following table shows the
results o f that test.
Standard
Sex Mean N
Deviation
Male 4.3553 162 1.42085
Female 4.1240 113 1.51025
Total 4.2603 285 1.46004
Table 14: Attitude towards digital piracy in males versus females
These results indicate that (as expected) males have a higher (more favorable)
attitude towards digital piracy than females (males had an attitude score o f 4.3S, while
females had an average attitude o f 4.12. A subsequent t-test was performed between the
two groups, and found that there was no significant differences between the two groups
when it came to their attitude towards digital piracy (p-value = 0.19).
While there were differences in the overall attitude between males and females,
these differences were not significant statistically. Based on this, w e reject the HI
85
hypothesis, and conclude that there are no differences between males and females
regarding their attitude towards digital piracy.
4.6.1.2. Age
Age o f the subject was hypothesized to affect attitude towards digital piracy.
Older subjects were expected to have a lower (less favorable) attitude toward digital
piracy than younger subjects. The hypothesis was framed as follows:
H 2: O lder subjects will have a low er attitude towards digital piracy than yo u nger
subjects
Examining the results o f the stepwise regression, age was a significant variable
influencing attitude. The following table shows the result o f the stepwise regression
analysis (with attitude as a dependent variable).
Standardized
Coefficients
Age -.115 -2.353 .019
Table IS: Age as a variable influencing attitude
The standardized beta value for age was -0.115. The beta had a negative value,
indicating that older subjects had a lower attitude towards digital piracy than younger
subjects. Going further, a test o f the mean attitude value was compared between different
age groups (used the cutoff of 25 years old), the following tables shows the results o f that
test.
Standard
Age N Mean
Deviation
C4
59 3.5413 1.66478
A
It
<25 221 4.4481 1.34362
Table 16: Altitude towards digital piracy according to age groups
These results indicate that (as expected) younger subjects had a higher (and
significant) attitude towards digital piracy than older subjects.
86
Based on the previous discussion, we accept the H2 hypothesis, and conclude that
older subjects have a lower (less favorable) attitude towards digital piracy than younger
subjects.
4.6.1.3. Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism was hypothesized to positively affect attitude towards digital
piracy. The relationship was hypothesized to be positive as follows:
H3: Individual with high Machiavellianism w ill have a h ig h e r attitude towards

digital p ira cy
Examining the results o f the stepwise regression, Machiavellianism was a positive
and a significant variable influencing attitude. The following table shows the result o f
the stepwise regression analysis (with attitude as a dependent variable).
Standardized
Coefficients
Machiavellianism .086 1.821 .070
Table 17: Machiavellianism as a variable influencing attitude
Machiavellianism was a significant variable affecting attitude (at the 0.1 level).
As expected, there was a positive relationship between M achiavellianism and attitude.
Hypothesis H3 is then accepted, and we conclude that subjects with high
Machiavellianism will tend to have a higher attitude towards digital piracy.
4.6.1.4. Perceived importance
Perceived importance was hypothesized to affect attitude negatively. That is, the
higher the importance, the lower the attitude toward digital piracy. The hypothesis was
framed as follows:
H4: The higher the importance o f the issue w ill be, the lo w er the attitude towards
digital piracy
87
Examining the results o f the stepwise regression, perceived importance was a
significant variable influencing attitude. The following table shows the result o f the
stepwise regression analysis (with attitude as a dependent variable).
Standardized
Coefficients
Importance -.165 -3.442 .001
Table 18: Perceived importance as a variable influencing attitude
Perceived importance was a significant (and a negative) predictor o f attitude. The
higher the perception o f importance, the lower the attitude towards digital piracy would
be. Hypothesis 4 is then accepted, and we conclude that individuals tend to have a lower
attitude towards an ethical issue when they perceive the issue to be an important one.
4.6.1.5. Moral Judgment
Moral judgment is represented by the P-index score. This index has been
commonly used as an overall score o f moral judgment (Rest, Narvaez et al., 1999). The
P-index represents the percentage o f the time subjects make decisions based on high
moral judgment areas (level 5 or 6). Scores for this variable ranged from 0 to 85, with
the average at 33.2. The original hypothesis was stated as follows:
H5: Subjects with higher m oral ju d g m e n t will have a low er attitude towards
digital piracy
Examining the results o f the stepwise regression, moral judgment was not a
significant variable influencing attitude. The following table shows the result o f the
Standardized
coefficient
P-Index -.040 -.870 .385
Table 19: Moral judgment as a variable influencing attitude
88
While the direction of the relationship (-0.040) is negative (as predicted), the
relationship between moral judgment and attitude was found to be not significant. Thus,
H5 hypothesis is rejected.
4.6.I.6. Cognitive beliefs
Cognitive beliefs were hypothesized to affect attitude positively. That is, the
higher the beliefs, the higher the attitude toward digital piracy. The hypothesis was
framed as follows:
H7: Positive/H igher beliefs/evaluations w ill correspond to higher attitude

Examining the results of the stepwise regression, cognitive beliefs were found to
be significant in their effect on attitude. The following table shows the result o f the
Standardized
Coefficients
Cognitive beliefs .089 1.809 .072
Table 20: Cognitive beliefs as a variable influencing attitude
Cognitive beliefs were a significant (and a positive) predictor o f attitude. Thus,
the higher/favorable the beliefs, the higher/favorable the attitude is towards digital piracy.
Hypothesis 7 is then accepted.
4.6.1.7. Affective beliefs
Affective beliefs were hypothesized to affect attitude. Happiness and excitement
beliefs were supposed to affect attitude positively. The feeling o f distress was
hypothesized to affect attitude negatively. The hypotheses were framed as follows:
H8: High excitem ent and happiness feelin g s sh o u ld correspond with higher
altitude towards digital piracy, a n d high distress fe e lin g s w ould correspond with
low er attitude tow ards digital p ira cy
89
Examining the results o f the stepwise regression, excitement and happiness
feelings were a significant variable influencing attitude, but distress feelings were not.
The following table shows the result o f the stepwise regression analysis (with attitude as
a dependent variable).
Standardized
Coefficients
Happiness & Excitement .290 5.863 .000
Distress -.043 .417
NJ
00
I
Table 21: Feelings as a variable influencing attitude
Happiness and excitement feelings were a significant (and a positive) predictor o f
attitude. Individuals who feel happy/excited when pirating digital media tend to have a
higher/favorable attitude towards digital piracy. Distress, on the other hand, was not a
significant predictor o f attitude. Distress was, however, related negatively (although not
significantly) with attitude. Hypothesis 8 is then partially accepted.
4.6.1.8. Subjective norms
Subjective norms were hypothesized to affect attitude positively. That is, the
higher approval from important others regarding digital piracy, the higher the attitude
would be towards digital piracy. The hypothesis was framed as follows:
H I Ob: H igher subjective norms w ill correspond with higher attitude towards
digital p ira cy
Examining the results o f the stepwise regression, subjective norms were a highly
(at the 0.00 level) significant (and a positive) predictor o f attitude. The following table
shows the result o f the stepwise regression analysis (with attitude as a dependent
variable).
90
Standardized
Coefficients
Table 22: Subjective norms as a variable influencing attitude
Subjective norms were a significant (and a positive) predictor o f attitude. This
would imply that the opinion o f important others does affect one's attitude. Hypothesis
10b is then accepted.
4.6.1.9. Overall attitude model
Overall, the attitude regression model contained the following significant
variables:
Attitude = Function (Cognitive Beliefs, Happiness and Excitement, (9)

Age, Perceived Importance, Subjective Norms, Machiavellianism)
Results o f the stepwise regression analysis resulted in a model with an overall R2
o f 0.436. Moral judgment, distress, and sex were not significant variables in the
regression model.
4.6.3. Dependent variable: Intention
According to the original research model, intention is a function o f different
variables as follows:
Intention = Function (Attitude, Subjective Norms,

Perceived Behavioral Control, Moral Obligation) (10)
A picture o f the model is shown below:
91
Attitude
Subjective
Norms
Intention Behavior
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Moral
Obligation
Figure 22: Factors influencing intention
4.6.2.1. Assumptions and outliers
Before undergoing the stepwise regression approach, a check on the assumptions
related to regression analysis and an outlier analysis should be performed. For regression
assumptions, an examination of normality, homogeneity of variance, and
multicollinearity will be conducted.
4.6.2.1.1. Normality
Checking for normality entails checking a plot o f the predicted values versus the
residuals (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). The plot (shown in Appendix D) is random and
does exhibit normality. Another test to check for normality is done by administering the
Shapiro-Wilk normality test. The p-value for this test was tested as 0.38 (see Appendix
D for actual output), meaning that we fail to reject the hypothesis that the residuals are
not normally distributed, and conclude that the normality assumption has been met.
92
4.6.2.1.2. H om ogeneity o f variance
Another assumption that needs to be examined is the homogeneity o f variance.
Homogeneity o f variance is a check for unequal error variance. The Breusch-Pagan
(1980) test has been commonly used to test for homogeneity o f variance. This was
tested using the SAS program (with the spec option). The p-value for the test was .62
(see Appendix D for the complete output), thus, we reject the null hypothesis and
conclude that the error variances are not statistically different.
4.6.2.1.3. M ulticollinearity
To check for multicollinearity artifacts, variance inflation factors (VEF) scores are
examined. VIF measure how much o f the variance in the predicted variables is inflated
because o f correlations between the variables. VIF values have been commonly used as a
method to detect multicollinearity (Pedhauzr and Schmelkin, 1991).
The following table shows the VIF values for the different variables in the
intention model.
Variable VIF
Moral Obligation 1.903
Perceived Behavioral Control 1.224
Subjective Norms 1.885
Attitude 1.624
Table 23: VIF values for variables in intention model
According to Nunter (1985), as a rule o f thumb, VIF values o f 10 or more are an
indication o f multicollinearity, and VIF values between 5 and 10 are considered suspect
with regard to presence o f multicollinearity. Examining the table, none o f the variables
had a high VDF value (the highest VIF value was 1.90). This would indicate that the
intention model is not significantly affected from multicollinearity.
93
4.6.2.1.4. O utlier analysis
According to Tabachnich and Fidell (1996), outliers should be de detected, and
possibly deleted because o f their statistical influence on the model. One way to detect
outliers is through checking the standardized residuals for data points that fall outside 3
standard deviations (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). Based on that, two observations were
omitted from this analysis, resulting in an overall sample o f 280 subjects.
4.6.2.1. Overall regression
A stepwise regression method is employed in this study to examine factors
influencing attitude. Using SPSS software, the attitude model was tested using stepwise
regression. The following table shows the output o f the stepwise regression (all the
variables included).
Standardized
Coefficients
Moral Obligation -.338 -6.316 .000
PBC .347 8.075 .000
Attitude .203 3.801 .000
Table 24: Variables in the intention regression model
The following section details the results o f the individual hypotheses described in
Chapter 3.
4.6.2.2. Attitude
Attitude was hypothesized to affect intention towards digital piracy. The
relationship was hypothesized to be positive as follows:
H9: H igher (m ore favorable) attitude w ill correspond with higher intention to
pira te digital media
94
Examining the results of the stepwise regression, attitude was a significant
predictor o f intention. The following table shows the result of the stepwise regression
analysis (with intention as a dependent variable).
Standardized
Coefficients
Attitude .203 3.801 .000
Table 25: Attitude as a variable influencing intention
Attitude was a significant variable affecting intention. As expected, there was a
positive relationship between attitude and intention. Hypothesis H9 is then accepted,
and we conclude that subjects with high (more favorable) attitude will tend to have a
higher intention towards pirating digital material.
4.6.2.3. Subjective norms
Subjective norms were hypothesized to affect intention towards digital piracy.
The relationship was hypothesized to be positive as follows:
HlOa: H igher subjective norms w ill correspond with higher intention towards
digital p ira cy
Examining the results o f the stepwise regression, subjective norms were a
significant predictor o f intention. The following table shows the result o f the stepwise
regression analysis (with intention as a dependent variable).
Standardized
Coefficients
Subjective norms .105 2.127 .034
Table 26: Subjective norms as a variable influencing intention
Subjective norms significantly influenced intention (as hypothesized in the TPB).
As expected, there was a positive (and significant) relationship between subjective norms
and intention. Hypothesis HI Ob is then accepted, and we conclude that subjects'
95
intentions regarding digital piracy is positively affected by the approval o f significant
others.
4.6.2.4. Perceived behavioral control
Perceived behavioral control was hypothesized to positively affect intention
towards digital piracy. The relationship was hypothesized to be positive as follows:
H I I: H igher perceived behavioral control w ould correspond to higher intention

to p ira te digital media
Examining the results o f the stepwise regression, perceived behavioral control
was a significant predictor o f intention. The following table shows the result o f the
stepwise regression analysis (with intention as a dependent variable).
Standardized
Coefficients
PBC .347 8.075 .000
Table 27: Perceived behavioral control as a variable influencing intention
Perceived behavioral control was a significant variable affecting attitude. As
expected, there was a positive relationship between perceived behavioral control and
intention. Hypothesis HI 1 is then accepted, and we conclude that subjects that have the
ability and resources to pirate digital media will tend to have a higher intention towards
pirating digital material.
4.6.2.S. Moral obligation
Moral obligation was hypothesized to negatively affect intention towards digital
piracy. The relationship was hypothesized to be positive as follows:
H6: Individual with higher m oral obligation w ill have a low er intention to
perform ing a behavior
96
Examining the results o f the stepwise regression, moral obligation was a
significant predictor o f intention. The following table shows the result o f the stepwise
regression analysis (with intention as a dependent variable).
Standardized
Coefficients
Moral obligation -.338 -6.316 .000
T able 28: M oral obligation as a variable in flu en cin g intention
Moral obligation was a highly (at the 0.00 level) significant variable negatively
affecting intention. As expected, there was a negative relationship between moral
obligation and intention. Hypothesis H6 is then accepted, and we conclude that subjects
with high moral obligation will tend to have a lower intention towards pirating digital
material.
4.6.2.6. Overall intention model
Overall, the intention regression model contained the following significant
variables:
Attitude = Function (Attitude, Subjective Norms, Perceived Behavioral Control,

Moral Obligation)
All o f the variables in the models were significant in predicting and explaining
intention. Results o f the stepwise regression analysis resulted in a model with an overall
R2 o f 0.586.
4.6.4. Model summary
In this section, a summary o f the findings is presented. For the attitude model, six
out o f the nine variables were found to be significant. The significant variables are as
follows: cognitive beliefs, happiness and excitement, age, perceived importance,
97
subjective norms, and Machiavellianism. Moral judgment, distress, and sex were not
significant variables affecting attitude.
The following diagram shows the resulting attitude model that includes the actual
values from the statistical analysis (significant relationships are in bold, and the values on
the lines represent the beta value and its significance between parentheses).
Affect Machiavellianism Sex Age
Distress
o
o
•>1
Happiness and CO
Excitement
Cognitive ■ .089 (.07)

Attitude
I Moral
i Judgment
! Importance • R2 = 43.6%
' Subjective
Norms
Figure 23: The attitude model
As for the intention model, all o f the variables were found to have a significant
relationship with intention. These variables are: attitude, subjective norms, perceived
behavioral control, and moral obligation. The following diagram shows the intention
model that includes the actual values from the analysis (significant relationships are in
bold, and the values on the lines represent the beta value and its significance between
parentheses).
98
Attitude
Subjective
Norms
Intention
Behavioral
Control
R2 = 58.6%
Moral
Obligation
Figure 24: T h e intention m odel
The following table summarizes the results o f the hypotheses as examined
previously in the previous sections.
99
Hypothesis Result P-Value
H I : Females will have a lower attitude towards digital
Rejected 0.870
piracy than males
H2: Older subjects will have a lower attitude towards
Accepted 0.019
digital piracy than younger subjects
H3: Individual with high Machiavellianism w ill have a
Accepted 0.070
higher attitude towards digital piracy
H4: The higher the importance o f the issue w ill be, the
Accepted 0.001
lower the attitude towards digital piracy
H5: Subjects with higher moral judgment will have a
Rejected 0.385
lower attitude towards digital piracy
H6: Individual with higher moral obligation will have a
Accepted 0.000
lower intention to performing a behavior
H7: Positive/Higher beliefs/evaluations will correspond
Accepted 0.072
to higher attitude towards digital piracy
H8: High excitement and happiness feelings should 0.000
correspond with higher attitude towards digital piracy, Partially (happiness)
and high distress feelings would correspond w ith lower Accepted and 0.417
attitude towards digital piracy (distress)
H9: Higher (more favorable) attitude will correspond
Accepted 0.000
with higher intention to pirate digital media
HlOa: Higher subjective norms will correspond with
Accepted 0.034
higher intention towards digital piracy
H I0b: Higher subjective norms will correspond with
Accepted 0.000
higher attitude towards digital piracy
HI 1: Higher perceived behavioral control would
Accepted 0.000
correspond to higher intention to pirate digital media
Table 29: Summary of the study hypotheses
4.6.5. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
The next step of the analysis was to examine the model using SEM. Using the
AMOS SEM (version 4) package, a test o f the overall model is performed, and based on
the modification indices (that improve the model fit) suggested by the software, a new
model is developed based on these indices.
4.6.4.1. R esearch Model fit
Using the AMOS package, the model fit was tested with the data. Several
indicators are examined for fit. Gefen et al. (2000) introduced heuristics for SEM model
100
fit to be used in IS research. These heuristics include chi-square (x2), X2 / degrees o f
freedom, Goodness o f Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness o f Fit Index (AGFI), and
Normative Fit Index (NFI). The heuristics are compared to the actual results o f the
model fit as shown in the table below (see Appendix D for actual output o f the AMOS
software package).
Fit index Test heuristic Study results

x2 Insignificant Significant
X2 / d f <3.0 2.95
GFI >0.9 .94
AGFI ^ >0.8 .86
NFI r > 0.9 .89
T able 30: R esearch m odel fit resu lts
While x 2 was significant, three o f the other indices were above the accepted
limits, and NFI was very close to the accepted limit (0.89 instead o f 0.9). Overall, given
that this research is exploratory in nature, the model fit seems to be acceptable.
4.6.4.2. Modified model
Not only does an SEM package like AMOS allow us to assess model fit, it can
also be used to recommend relationships suggested by the data. By examining the
modification indices, relationships between the variables are altered in a way to increase
the model fit.
Based on the modification indices, a new model is formed (see Appendix D for
actual output o f the AMOS software package) as shown in the following diagram (only
significant paths are shown).
101
Happiness and
Cognitive Sex
Excitement
Age
. _ ! -.08 (.09 )
Importance j------------- 5— -
Attitude
.20 (. 00)
-.42 (.00 )
Intention
I Behavioral
i Control
Attitude R2 - 52.0%
Obligation
Intention R2 = 63.3%
Figure 25: Modified model
The modified model had an R2 for attitude o f .52, and an R2 for intention o f .633.
As for the model fit, the following table examines the fit heuristics for this modified
model.
Fit index Test heuristic Study results

x2 Insignificant Significant
X2 1 d f < 3 .0 1.90
GFI > 0 .9 .96
AGFI >0.8 .91
NFI > 0 .9 .94
Table 31: Modified research model fit results
Again, the modified model had a good fit (4 out o f 5 indices met or exceeded
guidelines) and a better fit than the original model (as expected). As for the modified
relationships, they are as follows:
• While sex was not a significant predictor o f attitude, it was a significant
predictor o f intention
102
• Cognitive beliefs were a significant predictor o f intention, instead o f attitude
• Happiness and excitement were a significant predictor o f both attitude and
intention
• Machiavellianism w as not a significant predictor o f attitude
• Moral obligation was a significant predictor o f attitude in addition to its effect
on intention
4.7. SUMMARY
In this chapter, a statistical analysis o f the questionnaire and results are
performed. Questionnaire development and administration was examined in section 4.1.
The next section included demographical information about the subjects who participated
in the study. Missing value analysis was used to replace missing data from the
questionnaires. Construct validation was examined in the next section (namely,
reliability, unidimensionality, convergent and discriminant validity were examined). A
test o f the hypotheses from Chapter 3 was included in the next section using stepwise
regression analysis. The last section examined the model using SEM techniques, and a
modified model that had a better fit was examined based on the modification indices. In
the next and final chapter, a detailed discussion o f the results, implications o f this
research, limitations o f this study, and future research directions will be examined.
103
Chapter 5: Conclusion
5.1. INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the results o f the study will be examined and discussed in detail.
Based on the results o f this study, implications to the real world are discussed that will
include different approaches to combat digital piracy. Literature contributions and
implications are also discussed. Study limitation will be examined in detail in section 5.
Section 6 will include future research directions based on the results o f this study. This
chapter (and study) will conclude with a summary section that briefly describes the study
and results.
5.2. DISCUSSION
In this section, a discussion o f the results from the study is presented. The
questionnaire developed for this study has demonstrated strong construct validity (see
Chapter 4). The data was shown to be normally distributed, and checks for statistical
assumptions were conclusive in showing no major problems with the data.
The next section will contain a detailed examination o f the results o f each
hypothesis tested in Chapter 4. Implication o f these results will also be presented in this
section.
5.2.1. Sex
Sex o f the subject was not found to be a significant predictor o f attitude. While
females had a lower attitude towards digital piracy as expected (see Chapter 4), that
104
difference was not statistically significant. In the ethics literature, different studies have
found inconsistent results when it came to having sex as an independent variable
influencing ethical decision making (see Chapter 2 and 3). Researchers argue that this
might be an artifact o f the situation itself (Baneijee et al., 1998), and that different ethical
situations are affected by different variables which might be the case here. Other ethical
decision making studies could still find sex to be significant under different ethical
situations.
However, sex was found to be a significant predictor o f intention (in the modified
model based on the SEM analysis). That, however, could be attributed to the fact that sex
was correlated highly with PBC (males had a much higher PBC score than females),
which in tum was a strong predictor o f intention.
5.2.2. Age
Age o f the subject, on the other hand, was a significant predictor o f attitude.
There was a negative relationship between age o f the subjects and their attitude towards
digital piracy, as shown below.
Standardized
Coefficients
Age -.115 -2.353 .019
Table 32: Age as a predictor o f attitude
The correlation between age and attitude was a -0.34. Older subjects had a lower
attitude towards digital piracy. This is consistent with previous ethics research that found
that older subjects are usually more ethical than younger subjects (Ford and Richardson,
1994). Age also had a negative relationship with intention (although not as strong as the
relationship with attitude).
105
5.2.3. Machiavellianism
As expected, machiavellianism had a significant (and positive) relationship with
attitude. Machiavellianism also had significant correlations with other variables, as
shown in the table below.
Variable Correlation P-value

Intention 0.23 .00
Sex -0.16 .01
Age -0.13 .03
Moral Obligation -0.30 .00
Subjective Norms 0.17 .00
Table 33: Variable correlation with machiavellianism
Machiavellianism had a positive relationship with intention (possibly through its
effect on other variables as shown in table 23). Females had a lower machiavellianism
score than males (a significant correlation o f -.16). Younger subjects also exhibited
higher machiavellianism score than older subjects (a significant correlation o f -.13).
Also, highly machiavellian subjects had a higher subjective norms score that would imply
that highly machiavellian subjects are less effected by significant others.
Machiavellianism had its biggest effect on moral obligation, where the correlation
was a significant -0.30. The implication is, that highly machiavellian individuals feel less
guilt towards performing unethical behavior than others, thus, having a higher intention
towards performing an unethical behavior (through the effect o f moral obligation on
intention).
5.2.4. Perceived importance
Like machiavellianism, perceived importance was another interesting variable.
Perceived importance was found to be a significant variable negatively effecting attitude.
106
That is, subjects who viewed digital piracy as an important issue, had lower attitude
towards digital piracy than ones that viewed digital issue as an unimportant issue. This
finding is consistent with how Robin et al. (1996) envisioned this variable effect on
ethical decision-making. The following table shows the difference between subjects'
attitude according to how they perceived the importance o f digital piracy (on a scale
between 1 and 7, with 7 representing high importance).
Importance N Attitude Mean

High (> 4) 129 3.8
Low (< 4) 151 4.6
Table 34: Attitude according to perceived Importance
Clearly, there is a difference between the attitude means o f subjects who viewed
digital piracy as low versus high (p-value o f 0.00). Perceived importance also was highly
correlated to moral obligation (a correlation o f 0.34). Implying, that subjects that felt that
digital piracy was an important issue, had a higher feeling o f guilt towards performing the
behavior; And thus, effecting intention through its effect on moral obligation.
S.2.5. Moral Judgment
Moral judgment was not found to be a significant predictor o f attitude. Taking a
closer look at the data, the highest correlation with moral judgm ent was found to be with
moral obligation. This would make sense, as subjects with a high moral judgment would
be morally obligated (feeling o f guilt) towards performing a behavior. However, that
relationship was weak (correlation o f 0.11, p-value was 0.06).
107
5.2.6. Cognitive beliefs
Cognitive beliefs were significant predictors o f attitude (at the 0.1 level). The
salient beliefs consisted o f seven separate beliefs related to: saving money, saving time,
convenience, getting caught, functioning as well the original media, being overpriced,
and the fact that authors/developers are losing money because o f piracy. The following
table shows the means for the subjects' evaluation o f these beliefs (computed by
multiplying the probability o f the belief occurring times its importance, minimum score
was 1, maximum score was 49).
Average
Belief (Belief x Importance)
Higher is better
Digital media is overpriced 35.5
Saving Money 33.5
Convenience 28.4
Developers/Authors losing money 22.9
Saving Time 20.3
Working as well as the original 17.5
Getting Caught 16.0
Table 35: Most salient beliefs
Examining the beliefs means, the highest two beliefs were related to money. The
most salient belief was related to the fact that subjects think that digital media is
overpriced (81.4% o f the subjects thought that digital media was overpriced). The
second most salient belief was the fact that digital piracy was a way to save money.
Digital piracy was also found to be convenient and easy to do. Subjects had a low fear of
getting caught and prosecuted (70.4% disagreed with the statement that they might get
caught). Also, subjects believed that their digital copies would work as well as the
108
original ones. These salient beliefs provide valuable insight into how individuals view
digital piracy (in order to devise means to combat digital piracy).
5.2.7. Affective beliefs
Affective beliefs were found to be composed o f two factors. Happiness and
excitement formed one factor, with the other factor being distress. According to the data,
subjects did not distinguish between these two feelings (this might not be the case in
other studies). Happiness and excitement were found to be a significant predictor o f
attitude.
Distress, on the other hand, was not found to be a significant predictor o f attitude.
This can be an indication that subjects didn't have any fears when pirating digital media
(this was consistent with the findings in the cognitive beliefs part regarding the fear o f
getting caught). The average distress feeling was 2.75 (with 7 being the highest emotion
o f distress), while the average value for happiness and excitement was a very high 6.21.
5.2.8. Subjective norms
Subjective norms were found to be a significant predictor o f both attitude and
intention. The relationship was stronger between subjective norms and attitude than with
intention (.342 with attitude, versus .105 with intention). Overall, the average score for
subjective norms was 4.67 (on a scale between 1 and 7, with 7 representing high support
from significant others), indicating that the subjects view their significant ones as
supportive o f digital piracy.
109
Subjective norms also had a strong relationship w ith moral judgment (r=0.S3). It
would seem like the opinion o f significant others would also affect one's moral obligation
toward a behavior.
5.2.9. Attitude
In this study, a major objective was to attempt to explain attitude, and try to
identify its antecedents. Re-examining the ethics literature, seven antecedents were
identified. Five antecedents were found to be significant as follows: age, cognitive
beliefs, affective beliefs, subjective norms, and machiavellianism. These variables
explained 43.6% o f the variance in attitude.
It was interesting to find that subjective norms accounted for the highest variance
in attitude. Also, when the SEM output was examined, a link was suggested between
moral obligation and attitude. Moral obligation was found to be a highly significant
predictor o f attitude, and when that link was added to the model, the model explained
53.5% o f the variance in attitude.
It was also interesting to notice that attitude was not the best predictor of
intention. This might be because o f the high correlation between attitude and moral
obligation. When moral obligation was removed from the intention model (see Appendix
D for statistical output), the intention model did have a high explanatory power (R2 =
52.6%). Only then did attitude have the highest effect on intention (with a Beta o f .371).
110
Standardized
t-value p-Value
Coefficients
Attitude .371 7.530 .000
PBC .369 8.065 .000
Table 36: Attitude, subjective norms, and PBC as predictors of intention
5.2.10. Perceived behavioral control
PBC had the highest effect on intention (r=.347) in the original intention model.
That indicates that subjects who had the skills and resources to digital media, have a
higher intention o f pirating digital media. Further examining the data, subjects reported
that it was easy to pirate digital media. According to the data collected, 236 subjects
(84.3%) reported that it was easy or very easy to pirate digital media, and only 8 (0.3%)
found it hard or very hard to do. The average score for PBC was a high 5.5 (on a scale
between 1 and 7, with 7 representing having high PBC).
It was interesting to see a large difference between males and females with regard
to PBC. The PBC score was a "very high" 5.8 (on a scale between 1 and 7, with 7
representing having high PBC)for males, and only 4.9 for females (on a scale between 1
and 7, with 7 representing having high PBC).
5.2.11. Moral obligation
Moral obligation was a significant predictor o f intention. With an r o f -0.338,
subjects who felt guilt/moral obligation towards digital piracy had a lower intention o f
pirating digital media. The SEM analysis also found moral obligation to also affect
attitude (r=-0.54). The following table shows the correlation between moral judgment
and some o f the variables used in this study.
Ill
Correlation with
P-value
Moral obligation
Age 0.26 0.00
Attitude -0.65 0.00
Happiness & Excitement -0.31 0.00
Distress 0.39 0.00
Machiavellianism -0.30 0.00
Importance 0.34 0.00
Subjective Norms -0.53 0.00
Intention -0.64 0.00
Table 37: Correlations o f variables with moral obligation
Moral obligation was an interesting variable that was highly correlated with many
variables. Older subjects had a higher level o f moral obligation towards digital piracy.
Moral obligation significantly affected attitude negatively. That is, subjects who had a
feeling o f guilt/moral obligation had a lower attitude towards digital piracy. Moral
obligation was also strongly linked to the affective part (negatively towards happiness
and excitement and positively towards distress). Highly machiavellian subjects had less
feeling o f guilt (as expected). Also, significant others had a strong influence on moral
obligation. Subjects who perceived their significant others to be supportive o f digital
piracy, had a lower feeling o f guilt/moral obligation towards the behavior.
Moral obligation is an interesting variable that was highly correlated with other
variables in this study. Further investigation o f moral obligation will be discussed later in
this chapter.
S3. COMBATTING DIGITAL PIRACY
In this section, several methods o f combating digital piracy in the real world are
presented. Obviously, a quick examination o f the cognitive beliefs subjects held as well
112
as other variables studied here would help provide us with means to better combat digital
piracy in the real world.
5.3.1. Digital media is overpriced
The most salient belief was that subjects believed that they could save m oney by
pirating digital media. Another salient belief was that subjects believed that digital media
is overpriced. During a discussion with one group o f students in the sample, the issue
was raised that CDs cost less than a dollar to produce, but a music CD typically costs
around $20. While the students understand that there are royalties to be paid to the
artist/developer, they believed that the markup was way too high. This was also evident
in another belief (although not highly salient), that students believed that the
authors/developers made too much money, and that they will not get hurt if the students
copied their media. There has been a move recently to lower the price o f digital m edia to
curb piracy. By making the prices lower, pirates will reexamine the cost o f pirating
versus buying and hopefully tilt the balance towards buying versus pirating (Cheng et al.,
1997).
Another avenue that might be worthwhile pursuing is to better educate the public
on why these prices should be the way they are (by explaining the different costs
associated with making/promoting digital media). The RIAA (which has been leading
the fight against music piracy) does have a section on its web site to explain these costs
(http://www.riaa.org/MD-US-7.cfin). The problem is this information needs to be
presented to the public, and not be hidden in a web site for the public to find.
113
Obviously, an ideal method would be to use both o f these approaches. That is an
approach to lower prices, while explaining to the public why the costs are the way they
are.
5.3.2. Getting caught
Subjects believed that they would not get caught while pirating digital material.
This would obviously translate into lower deterrence towards pirating digital media
(Gopal and Sanders, 1997). While there have been some cases o f apprehending digital
pirates in the news lately (http://zdnet.com.com/2110-1105-838860.html), these cases
were targeted at professional groups that copy and spread pirated material all over the
internet, and not the average digital pirate. Obviously, going after each individual pirate
might not be feasible, other methods can be employed.
One approach would be to expand the media coverage on these digital piracy
busts, and create new and tougher laws to combat against digital piracy. Another
approach would include using "smart digital media" software that would warn users
about the consequences of pirating when it detects an attempt to copy the media (thus,
serving as a deterrent towards piracy).
5.3.3. Easy to pirate digital material
Subjects believed that it was very easy to pirate digital material. That was
indicated in the PBC score (see discussion in section 5.2.10). Subjects believed that they
had both the skills and resources to pirate digital material. Subjects also found digital
piracy to be very convenient to do (the average score was 5.34 out o f 7). Every software
security mechanism used to prevent piracy has been breached (or will be eventually).
114
One method is to employ software protection within the operating system itself that could
not be bypassed. Another method would be to employ hardware mechanisms to prevent
piracy (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-867333.html). These methods have been
controversial in nature, and plans to use them haven't been materialized yet
(http://zdnet.com.eom/2100-1103-867950.html). A bill (Consumer Broadband and
Digital Television Promotion Act) has been recently introduced to congress that would
make it illegal to manufacture any computer or electronic device that does not include
hardware protection mechanism within the system. If that bill is passed, it would mean
that all current computer and mp3 devices will be considered illegal
(http://www.wired.eom/news/politics/0,1283,51245,00.html).
The subjects also believed that they had the resources necessary to pirate digital
material (the average score was a high 5.5 out o f 7). CD burners are available at very
reasonable prices and blank CDs are even cheaper than computer floppy disks. One
option is to increase the cost/supply o f these resources needed for piracy. Germany, for
example, has started enforcing a charge on every CD burner that is sold to compensate
for lost revenue due to piracy (http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSTechNews0106/28_bumers-
ap.html). By increasing the cost o f piracy and decreasing the cost o f the digital material,
digital piracy can be combated effectively.
Also, since students have access to high-speed internet access at their universities,
a complete Hollywood movie can be downloaded in less than 30 minutes. This is in
addition to the plethora o f peer-to-peer software that is used to exchange digital material
such as Napster, Audio galaxy, and morpheus among others. Universities have started to
combat this for fear o f legal litigation (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-239621.html).
115
Many universities are now employing high-end firewalls to prevent the illegal trading o f
digital media. However, internet service providers that provide high speed internet
access (broadband) into homes are reluctant to block such software for fear o f losing
customers. Obviously, the next step would be to target ISPs and software makers (that
create these file-swapping programs) to curb digital piracy.
5.3.4. Pirating digital media
Subjects also didn't feel any guilt about pirating digital media. There was a low
level o f guilt (moral obligation) towards digital piracy. Significant others encouraged the
pirating act, and didn't believe it was wrong to do so. Subjects also didn't think that
authors/developers were losing money due to piracy, and they believed that
authors/developers were making too much money to begin with.
To combat these trends, society has to be informed o f how harmful piracy is. One
way is by using targeted ads like the ones targeting smoking in young teenagers.
Different harmful aspect o f piracy should be presented to consumers in the public opinion
court. Another way would be to enforce newer ethical codes o f conduct for information
systems professional that stress different types o f piracy (not just software) and its effect
on business and society as a whole.
5.4. RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
As for research implications, several implications have been identified based on
the results o f the study. These include the role o f affect in determining attitude and
behavior, inclusion o f personal variables, the moral obligation variable, and
modifications in the relationships suggested by the theory o f planned behavior.
116
5.4.1. The role of affect
As shown in this study, affective beliefs w ere important in determining both
attitude and intention. One can also make the case that moral obligation (which is a
feeling o f guilt) is also one dimension o f affect. According to the results o f the study,
affect was found to be a strong predictor o f both attitude and intention. Previous studies
in ethical decision-making have included little o r no variables representing affect (Ford
and Richardson, 1994). Affect should be studied m ore and included in future studies that
examine ethical decision-making.
5.4.2. Personal characteristics variables
Machiavellianism was found to be a significant predictor o f attitude. Previous
research has rarely employed such personal variables, and has mostly used
demographical variables to represent information about the subject. Future research
should examine the role o f psychological characteristics, such as machiavellianism, the
five dimensions o f personality (Digman, 1990), and others as antecedents to ethical
decision-making.
Moral obligation was the most interesting variable in this study. Not only was
this variable significantly associated with both attitude and intention, it was also highly
related to other variables in this study (see table 36). Future research should examine this
variable further as an influence on ethical decision-making.
117
5.4.4. TPB relationships
One o f the interesting findings in this study was the strong relationship between
subjective norms and attitude. This was consistent with previous studies (see Chapter 3).
Based on the results o f this study (and others), further tests on the TPB should be done to
determine whether this link (between subjective norms and attitude) should added as an
integral part o f the TPB. Further studies should also examine whether this addition
would eliminate the relationship between subjective norms and intention or not.
5.5. LIMITATIONS
Limitations for this study are categorized within two categories, the sample itself,
and the measurement o f intention.
5.5.1. Sample
The sample used was a student sample. While students are well known to be
digital pirates, there are pirates that are non-students. The sample was also somewhat
small, to fully undergo an SEM analysis, a larger sample size would have been needed.
Also, because the sample used was made out o f students, there was not much variation in
age, and other demographical variables (such as income).
Another limitation regarding the sample was the fact that it was mostly made up
o f business students. Students in different colleges might well view digital piracy
differently than business students. Also, the majority o f the students in the sample were
information systems majors. Again, other non-IS students, might have a different
perception o f digital piracy and/or the factors that cause individuals to pirate digital
media (for example, IS majors are more technically advanced and might have a higher
118
self-efficacy towards digital piracy than other students). So, the generalizability o f this
study can be questioned in the area o f the sample used.
5.5.2. Measuring actual behavior
Intention was used as a surrogate to the actual pirating behavior. While this
method has been commonly used in the literature (do to the difficultness o f measuring
actual behavior), measuring the actual behavior is possible with this type o f study. One
option, was to revisit the student sample after a specific amount o f time has passed, and
ask them if they have actually pirated digital media during that time (would have to
match to the original questionnaire).
5.6. FUTURE RESEARCH
As is the case with any research, different and interesting results from this study
provide new directions for researchers to follow and examine. In this section, future
research directions are examined within these four areas: study verification, ethical
decision making, feelings research, and other variables that need to be examined further.
5.6.1. Study verification
To verify the results study, it should be replicated with a larger and a possibly
different sample. There were some limitations with using SEM with a complex model
such this one, with a relatively small sample. Also, using a different sample would be
beneficial to see if these results would hold across different populations. A more diverse
sample might be appropriate, with different age groups, different cultures, and non
students as subjects.
119
5.6.2. Ethical decision making
Future research directions are also warranted in ethical decision making. One
research directions would be to further explain and understand the relationship between
ethical judgment and attitude. Are they the same thing? Does one cause the other? How
about moral obligation's effect on ethical judgment? What are the antecedents o f moral
obligation? The relationship between ethical judgment, attitude, intention, and moral
obligation needs to be examined further.
Another research venue would be to reexamine this model under other ethical
situations. The model might be different under different ethical situations. Some
variables might be more/less/not/are significant under different ethical scenarios.
Machiavellianism was found to be a significant predictor o f attitude (and had a
stronger relationship with moral obligation). Future ethics research should try to
incorporate different psychological characteristics (see previous discussion in section
5.4.2) as predictors o f ethical judgment.
Moral obligation was a highly significant variable affecting both attitude and
intention. Further studies should study this variable further and examine its antecedents.
It was interesting to notice that when the relationship between moral obligation and
attitude was added to the model, several other variables (that were significant with
attitude) fell out o f the model. This might well mean that these variables could be
antecedents o f moral obligation, but that needs to be verified in a future study.
120
5.6.4. Affective research
The role o f affect was found to be a strong predictor o f both attitude and intention.
Future behavioral research should pay more attention to affect as a variable influencing
behavior. Affect seemed to influence ethical behavior in this study, which needs to be
verified in other ethical studies. Once that is verified, a further examination o f affect's
effect on different types o f behavior (and not ju st ethical behavior) should be examined.
Another stream o f research is to examine these affective feelings further (what are
the different types of affect?). Different types o f affect should be classified and
examined further in the literature (which o f the different types o f affect is more
influential than others?). Also, research regarding affecting these feelings should be
undertaken (what are the antecedents o f feelings?).
5.6.5. Other research
Some o f the other research ideas include further examination o f other variables
such as past behavior. While it has been found to be the best predictor (although not
explanatory in nature) of intention (Conner and Armitage, 1998), its relationship to other
variables might be worth examining.
Since it is possible (as explained previously), other studies should try to replicate
the findings o f this study and actually measure actual behavior instead o f intention. This
would provide us with a unique opportunity to examine the relationship between
intention and actual behavior within this domain.
121
5.7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In this chapter, a detailed re-examination o f the results o f the study was discussed
in section 5.2. The next section contains some applications that can be followed based on
the results o f the study to combat digital piracy. Then, research implications and study
limitations were discussed. The last section contains future research directions that
should be examined to provide a better understanding o f this phenomenon and ethical
decision-making.
In this dissertation, a study was undertaken to understand and explain digital
piracy. In Chapter 1, a thorough introduction to the subject o f digital piracy was
performed. Chapter 2 contained a comprehensive literature review regarding piracy and
ethical decision making. In Chapter 3, the research method for this study was detailed
and a questionnaire was developed to capture the data needed to undertake this study.
Chapter 4 included the statistical analysis o f the study, as well as a detailed test o f the
construct validity o f the scales used in this study. Chapter 5 included a detailed
reexamination o f the results, as well as implications for research and practice. Appendix
A includes a comprehensive review o f the variables used in the study. Appendix B
contains a copy o f the questionnaire used in this study to collect data. Appendix C
contains a list o f the behavioral beliefs collected from a student sample to form the
cognitive beliefs regarding digital piracy. Finally, Appendix D contains a listing o f the
statistical output referenced to in chapters 4 and 5.
122
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1985). "From Intentions to Behavior: A Theory o f Planned Behavior."

In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.): 11-39.
Ajzen, I. (1991). "The Theory o f Planned Behavior." Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes 50: 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2001). "Nature and Operations o f Attitudes." Annual Review of

Psychology 52: 27-58.
Ajzen, I. (2001). "Perceived Behavioral Control, Self Efficacy, Locus o f Control,

and the Theory o f Planned Behavior." Journal o f Applied Social Psychology: In Press.
Ajzen, I. and T. Madden (1986). "Perceived Goal-Directed Behavior: Attitudes,

Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control." Journal o f Experimental Social
Al-Kazemi, A. and G. Zajac (1999). "Ethics Sensitivity and Awareness Within

Organizations in Kuwait: An Emprical Exploration o f Espoused Theory and Theory-in-
Use." Journal o f Business Ethics 20: 353-361.
Allport, G. (1935). Attitudes. Handbook o f Social Psychology. C. Murchison,

Worcester, MA: Clark University Press: 798-844.
Anderson, R., D. Johnson, et al. (1993). "Using the New ACM Code o f Ethics in
Decision Making." Communications o f the ACM 36(2): 98-107.
Armitage, C. and M. Conner (1999). "The Theory o f Planned Behavior:

Assessment o f Predictive Validity and 'Perceived Control'." British Journal o f Social
Bagozzi, R. and C. Fomell (1982). Theoretical Concepts. Measurement, and

Meaning. Praeger.
Bagozzi, R. and L. Phillips (1991). "Assessing Construct Validity in

Organizational Research." Administratice Sciences Ouartelrv 36: 421-458.
Baneijee, D., T. P. Cronan, et al. (1998). "Modeling IT Ethics: A Study in

Situational Ethics." MIS Quarterly 22(1): 31-60.
Bass, K., T. Barnett, et al. (1999). "Individual Difference Variables, Ethical

Judgmentsm and Ethical Behavioral Intentions." Business Ethics Quarterly 9(2): 183-
205.
123
Baxter, G. and C. Rarick (1987). "Education for the Moral Development o f
Managers: Kohlberg's Stages o f Moral Development and Integrative Education." Journal
o f Business Ethics 6: 243-248.
Beck, L. and I. Ajzen (1991). "Predicting Dishonest Actions Using the Theory o f
Planned Behavior." Journal of Research in Personality 25(3): 285-301.
Bentler, P. and C. Chou (1987). "Practical Issues in Structural Modeling."

Sociological Methods and Research 16(1): 78-117.
Beruk, P. "EEE-Commerce Epidemic: Software Piracy on Internet Auctions."

Software________________ and_________________Industry________________ Association
http://www.siia.net/piracy/news/AuctionSearchApril2000.htm.
Bodur, H., D. Brinberg, et al. (2000). "Belief, Affect, and Attitude: Alternative
Models o f the Determinants o f Attitude." Journal o f Consumer Psychology 9(1): 17-28.
Bommer, M., C. Gratto, et al. (1987). "A Behavioral Model o f Ethical and
Unethical Decision Making,." Journal o f Business Ethics 6(4): 265-280.
Boosmsa, A. (1987). The Robustness o f Maximum Likelihood Estimation in

Structrual Equation Modeling. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Breusch, T. and A. Pagan (1980). "The LM Test and Its Applications to Model
Specification in Econometrics." Review o f Economic Studies/January): 153-177.
Cabom, A. (1997). "Are You a Software Thief, But You Don’t Know It."
Management Todav: 108-110.
Carmine, E. and R. Zeller (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Newbury

Park, CA, Sage Publications.
Chang, M. (1998). "Predicting Unethical Behavior: A Comparison o f the Theory

o f Reasoned Action and the Theory o f Planned Behavior." Journal o f Business Ethics 17:
1825-1834.
Cheng , H., R. Sims, et al. (1997). "To Purchase or to Pirate Software: An

Empirical Study." Journal o f Management Information Systems 4: 49-60.
Christensen, A. and M. Eining (1991). "Factors Influencing Software Piracy:

Implications for Accountants." Journal o f Information Systems: 67-50.
Christie, R. and F. Geis (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York,

Academic Press.
124
Co., H. R. S. i. v. R. F. (1984). Copyright Law Decisions (CCH). para. 25: 709.
Cohen, E. and L. Cornwell (1989). "College Students Believe Piracy is

Acceptable." CIS Educator Forum: 2-5.
Conner, K. and R. Rumlet (1991). "Software Piracy: An Analysis o f Protection

Strategies." Management Science 37(2): 125-139.
Conner, M. and C. Armitage (1998). "Extending the Theory o f Planned Behavior:

A Review and Avenues for Further Research." Journal o f Applied Social Psychology
28(15): 1429-1464.
Cougar, J. (1989). "Preparing IS Students to Deal with Ethical Issues." MIS

Quarterly 13(2): 211-218.
Das, S. (2000). "The Availability o f the Fair Use Defense in Music Piracy and
Internet Technology." Federal Communications Law Journal. Los Angeles 52(3): 727-
748.
Digman, J. (1990). "Personality Structure: An Emergence o f the Five-Factor

Model." The Annual Review o f Psychology 41(417-440).
Dinacci, D. (1985). "Software Piracy: Is Your Company liable?"

Business!October): 34-38.
Dubinsky, A. and B. Loken (1989). "Analyzing Ethical Decision Making in

Marketing." Journal o f Business Research 19: 83-107.
Eagly, A., A. Mladinic, et al. (1994). "Cognitive and Affective Bases o f Attitude
Toward Social Groups and Social Policies." Journal o f Experimental Social Psychology
30: 113-137.
Eining, M. and A. Christensen (1991). "A Psycho-Social Model o f Software

Piracy: The Development and Test o f a Model." in Ethical Issues in Information Systems.
R. Deiorie. G. Fowler, and D. Paradice feds.). Bovd and Fraser (Boston. MA).
Engardio, P. (1994). "Microsoft's Long March." Business WeekfJune 24): 52-54.
Ferrell, O. and L. Gresham (1985). "A Contingency Framework for

Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing." Journal o f M arketing: 87-96.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975). "Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An

Introduction to Theory and Research." Reading. MA: Addison-Weslev.
125
Fishbein, M. and S. Middlestadt (1995). "Noncognitive Effects on Attitude
Formation and Change: Fact or Artifact?" Journal o f Consumer Psychology 4(2): 181-
202.
Flannery, B. and D. May (2000). "Environmental Ethical Decision Making in the

U.S. Metal-Finishing Industry." Academy o f Management Journal 43(4): 642-662.
Ford, R. and W. Richardson (1994). "Ethical decision making: A review o f the

empirical literature." Journal o f Business Ethics 13(Mar): 205.
Fomell, C. (1983). "Issues in the Application o f Covariance Structure Analysis: A

Comment." Journal o f Consumer Research 9(4): 443-448.
Gefen, D., D. Straub, et al. (2000). "Structural Equation Modeling and

Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice." Communication o f the Association for
Information Systems 4(7): Article 7.
Givon, M., M. Vijay, et al. (1995). "Software Piracy: Estimation o f Lost Sales and
the Impact on software Diffusion." Journal o f Marketing: 29-37.
Glass, R. and W. Wood (1996). "Situational Determinants o f Software Piracy: An

Equity Theory Perspective." Journal o f Business Ethics 15: 1189-1198.
Gopal, R. and L. Sanders (1997). "Preventive and Deterrent Controls for Software
Piracy." Journal o f Management Information Svstems(4V. 29-47.
Gopal, R. and L. Sanders (2000). "Global Software Piracy: You Can't Get Blood
Out o f A Turnip." Communications o f the ACM 43(9): 82-89.
Grapentine, T. (1997). "Managing Multicollinearity." Marketing ResearchfFalll.
Haddock, G. and M. Zanna (1998). "Assessing the Impact o f Affective and

Cognitive Information in Predicting Attitudes toward Capital Punishment." Law and
Human Behavior 22(3): 325-339.
Hair, J., R. Anderson, et al. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Hal Roach Studios, inc. vs. Richard Fiener & Co. (1984) Copyright Law
Decisions (CCH). para. 25, 709, S.D.N.Y.
Hardgrave, B. and K. Walstrom (1997). "Forums for MIS Scholars."

Communications o f the ACM 40(11 ): 119-124.
Hegarty, W. H. and H. P. Sim, Jr. (1978). "Some Determinants o f Unethical

Decision Behavior: An Experiment." Journal o f Applied Psychology 63(Aug.l: 451.
126
Hegarty, W. H. and H. P. Sims, Jr. (1979). "Organizational Philosophy, Policies,
and Objectives Related to Unethical Decision Behavior: A Laboratory Experiment."
Journal o f Applied Psychology 64(June): 331.
Holbrook, M. and R. Batra (1987). "Assessing the Role o f Emotions as Mediators

o f Consumer Responses to Advertising." Journal o f Consumer Research 14: 404-420.
Hoyle, R. (1995). Structural Equation Modeling. Conecepts. Issues, and

Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Hunt, S. and L. Chonko (1987). "Marketing and Machiavellianism." Journal o f

Marketing Summer: 30-42.
Hunt, S. and S. Vitell (1986). "A General Theory o f Marketing Ethics." Journal o f
Micromarketing 6: 5-16.
Im, J. and C. Koen (1990). "Software Piracy and Responsibilities o f Educational

Institutions." Information and Management 18: 189-194.
Jones, G. and M. Kavanagh (1996). "An Experimental Examination o f the Effects

o f individual and situational fact that is on Unethical Behavioral Intentions in the
Workplace." Journal o f Business Ethics 15: 511-523.
Jones, T. (1991). "Ethical Decision Making By Individuals in Organizations: An

Issue Contingent Model." Academy o f Management Journal 16(2): 366-395.
Kempf, D. (1999). "Attitude Formation from Product Trials: Distinct Roles o f

Cognition and Affect for Hedonic and Functional Products." Psychology and Marketing
16(1): 35-50.
Khazanchi, D. (1995). "Unethical Behavior In Information-Systems - The Gender

Factor." Journal o f Business Ethics 14(9): 741-749.
Kline, R. (1998). Principles and practice o f structural equation modeling. New

York, Guilford Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). "Stages and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental

Approach to Socialization." in D. Grosling fed.). Handbook o f Socialization Theory and
Research: Chicago: Rand Mcnally.
Kreie, J. and P. Cronan (1999). "Copyright, piracy, privacy, and security issues:
Acceptable or unacceptable actions for end users?" Journal o f End User Computing
11(2): 13-21.
127
Kreie, J. and P. Cronan (2000). "Making Ethical Decisions." Communications o f
the ACM 43(12): 66-72.
Kreie, J. and T. Cronan (1999). "How Men and Women View Ethics."
Communications o f the ACM 4119k 70-76.
Kuo, F. and M. Hsu (2001). "Development and Validation o f Ethical Computer

Self-Efficacy Measure: The Case o f Softlifting." Journal o f Business Ethics 32: 299-315.
Kurland, N. (1995). "Ethical Intentions and the Theories o f Reasoned Action and
Planned Behavior." Journal o f Applied Social Psychology 25(4): 297-313.
Leonard, L. and T. P. Cronan (2001). "Illegal, Inappropriate, and Unethical

Behavior in an Information Technology Contexts: A Study to explain Influence."
Forthcoming Paper.
Limayem, M., M. Khalifa, et al. (1999). "Factors Motivating Software Piracy: A

Longitudinal Study." Proceedings o f the International Conference on Information
Systems: 124-131.
Loch, K. and S. Conger (1996). "Evaluating Ethical Decision Making and

Computer Use." Communications o f the ACM 39(7): 74-83.
Loehlin, J. (1992). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and

structural analysis. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Logsdon, J., J. Thompson, et al. (1994). "Software Piracy: Is It Related to Level

o f Moral Judgment?" Journal of Business Ethics 13: 849-857.
Madden, T., P. Ellen, et al. (1992). "A Comparison o f the Theory o f Planned
Behavior and the Theory o f Reasoned Action." Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin! 18): 3-9.
Mano, H. (1991). "The Structure and Intensity o f Emotional Experiences: Method

and Context Convergence." Multivariate Behavioral Research 26(3): 389-411.
Mason, R. (1986). "Four Ethical Issues o f the Information Age." MIS

Ouarterlv(March): 5-12.
Mathieson, K., E. Peacock, et al. (2001). "Extending the Technology Acceptance

Model: The Influence o f Perceived User Resources." The DATABASE for advances in
Information Systems 32(2): 86-112.
Moseley, O. and R. Whitis (1995). "Preventing Software Piracy." Management

Accounting(December): 42-47.
128
Neter, J., W. Wasserman, et al. (1985). Applied Linear Statistical Models.
Homewood, IL, Irwin.
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. NY, Mcgraw Hill.
O'Leary-Kelly, S. and R. Vokura (1998). "The Empirical Assessment o f Construct

Validity." Journal o f Operations Management 16: 387-405.
Olson, J. and M. Zanna (1993). "Attitudes and Attitude Change." Annual Review
o f Psychology 44: 117-154.
Pedhauzr, E. and L. Schmelkin (1991). Measurement. Design, and Analysis: An

Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Petty, R., D. Wegener, et al. (1997). "Attitudes and Attitude Change." Annual
Review o f Psychology 48: 609-647.
Randall, D. and A. Gibson (1991). "Ethical Decision Making in the Medical

Profession: An Application o f the Theory o f Planned Behavior." Journal o f Business
Ethics 10: 111-122.
Reid, R., J. Thompson, et al. (1992). "Knowledge and Attitudes o f Management

Students Toward Software Piracy." Journal o f Computer Information Systems 33: 46-51.
Reiss, M. and K. Mitra (1998). "The Effects O f Individual Difference Factors On

The Acceptability O f Ethical And Unethical Workplace Behaviors." Journal o f Business
Ethics 17(14): 1581-1593.
Rest, J. (1979). Development in Judging Moral Issues. Minneapolis, University o f

Minnesota Press.
Rest, J. (1986). "Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory." New

York. Praeger.
Rest, J., D. Narvaez, et al. (1999). Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-

Kohlbergian Appraoch. Mahwan, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rest, J., D. Narvaez, et al. (2000). "A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach to Morality

Research." Journal o f Moral Education 29(4): 381-395.
Rest, J., D. Narvaez, et al. (1999). "DIT2: Devising and Testing a Revised
Instrument o f Moral Judgment." Journal o f Educational Psychology 91(4): 644-659.
Robin, D., R. Reidenbach, et al. (1996). "The Perceived Importance o f an Ethical

Issues as an Influence on the Ethical Decision-Making o f Ad Managers." Journal o f
Business Research 35: 17-28.
129
Rothken, I. (1998). "Are You a Software Pirate." Home Office Computing 16(7):
122-123.
Saari, J. (1987). "Computer Crime - Numbers Lie." Computers and Securitvf6):

111-117.
Salter, S. B., D. M. Guffey, et al. (2001). "Truth, consequences and culture: A

comparative examination of cheating and attitudes about cheating among U.S. U.K.
students." Journal o f Business Ethics 31(1: I): 37-50.
Samuelson, P. (1991). "Digital Media and the Law." Communications o f the

ACM 34(10): 23-28.
Schwab, D. (1999). Research Methods for Organizational Studies. Mahwah, NJ,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Schwartz, S. and R. Tessler (1972). "A Test o f a Model for Reducing Measured
Attitude-Behavior Discrepancies." Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology 42(2):
225-236.
Shepherd, G. and D. O'Keefe (1984). "Separability o f Attitudinal and Normative

Influences on Behavioral Intentions in the Fishbein-Ajzen Model." The Journal o f Social
Psvchology(1221: 287-288.
Shim, J. and S. Taylor (1988). "A Comparative Study o f Unauthorized Software

Copying: Information Systems Faculty Members' vs. Practicing Managers' Perceptions."
OR/MS Today 15(5): 189-198.
Shimp, T. A. and A. Kavas (1984). "The Theory o f Reasoned Action Applied to

Coupon Usage." Journal o f Consumer Research 1 l(Dec): 795.
Simpson, P., D. Baneijee, et al. (1994). "Softlifting: A Model o f Motivating

Factors." Journal o f Business Ethics 13: 431-438.
Sims, R., H. Cheng, et al. (1996). "Toward a Profile o f Student Software

Piraters." Journal of Business Ethics 15: 839-849.
Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell (1992). "Marketing Ethics: Sales Professionals

Versus Other Marketing Professionals." The Journal o f Personal Selling & Sales
Management 12(Spring): 27.
Solomon, S. and J. O'Brien (1990). "The Effect o f Demographic Factors on

Attitudes Toward Software Piracy." The Journal O f Computer Information Systems: 45-
45.
130
Sparks, P., C. Guthrie, et al. (1997). "The Dimensional Structure o f the Perceived
Behavioral Control Construct." Journal o f Applied Social Psychology 27: 418-438.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences.

Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Straub, D. and R. Collins (1990). "Key Information Liability Issues Facing

Managers: Software Piracy, Proprietary Databases, and Individual Right to Privacy." MIS
QuarterlvfJunel: 143-156.
Straub, D. and W. Nance (1990). "Discovering and Disciplining Computer Abuse

in Organizations: A Field Study." MIS OuarterlvTM arch): 45-60.
Swinyard, W., H. Rinne, et al. (1990). "The Morality o f Software Piracy: A

Cross-Cultural Analysis." Journal o f Business Ethics 9: 655-664.
Tabachnick, B. and L. Fidell (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York,

Hyper Collins Publishers.
Terpstra, D., E. Rozell, et al. (1993). "The Influence O f Personality And

Demographic-Variables On Ethical Decisions Related To Insider Trading." Journal o f
Psychology 127(4): 375-389.
Thong, J. and C. Yap (1998). "Testing an Ethical Decision-Making Theory: The

Case o f Softlifting." Journal o f Management Information Systems 15(1): 213-237.
Trafimow, D. (1996). "The Importance o f Attitudes in the Prediction of College

Students' Intention to Drink." Journal o f Applied Social Psychology 26(24): 2167-2188.
Trafimow, D. and P. Sheeran (1998). "Some Tests o f the Distinction between

Cognitive and Affective Beliefs." Journal o f Experimental Social Psychology 34: 378-
397.
Trevino, L. (1986). "Ethical Decision M aking in Organizations: A Person-

Situation Interactionist Model." Academy o f Management Review 11(3): 601-617.
Triandis, C. (1980). "Values, Attitudes and Interpersonal Behavior." Nebraska

Symposium on Motivation. 1979: Beliefs. Attitudes, and Values. Lincoln. NE: University
o f Nebraska Press: 159-295.
Vallerand, R. J., L. G. Pelletier, et al. (1992). "Ajzen and Fishbein's Theory o f

Reasoned Action as Applied to Moral Behavior: A Confirmatory Analysis." Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology 62(Jan): 98.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). "Strategic Orientation o f Business Enterprises: the

Construct, Dimensionality, and Measurement." M anagement Science 35(8): 942-962.
131
Verplanken, B., G. Hofstee, et al. (1998). "Accessebility o f Affective Versus
Cognitive Components o f Attitude." European Journal o f Social Psychology 28: 23-35.
Wagner, S. C. and G. L. Sanders (2001). "Considerations in ethical decision

making and software piracy." Journal o f Business Ethics 29(1/2): 161-167.
Wang, G. (1996). "How to Handle Multicollinearity in Regression Modeling."

The journal o f Business Forcastine Methods & Svstems(Spring).
Weiss, E., D. Parker, et al. (1990). "The XXII Self-Assessment: The Ethics O f
Computing." Communications o f the ACM 33(11): 110-132.
White, H. (1980). "A Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator

and a Direct Test for Heteroscedasticity." Econometrica 48: 817-838.
Whitley, B., A. Nelson, et al. (1999). "Gender differences in cheating attitudes

and classroom cheating behavior: A meta-analysis.” Sex Roles 41(9/10): 657-680.
132
APPENDIX A: FACTORS USED IN THIS
STUDY
133
Factor Description Study
Leonard and Cronan (2001): Gender was a
significant variable influencing ethical
decision making
Salter et al. (2001), Whitley B. et al. (1999):
Gender had an effect on attitude towards
classroom cheating
Reiss and Mitra (1998): Gender had an effect
on whether an individual considered a
behavior as ethical or unethical
Loch and Conger (1996): There are
Gender o f the
Gender (SEX) difference >between how men and women
subject
evaluated ethical decision making
Khazanchi (1995): Significant differences
between genders in recognizing ethical issues
related to IS
Simpson et al. (1994): Gender was a
significant variable affecting ethical decision
making regarding software piracy
Randall (1989): Demographical variables are
theorized to be determinants o f
beliefs/attitude
Wagner and Sanders (2001): Was found to be
a determinant o f ethical judgment regarding
software piracy
How an individual Leonard and Cronan (2001): D-Score
Moral
reasons when component was significant in affecting ethical
Development
faced with an decision making
(MD)
ethical dilemma Trevino (1986): Theorized to be a
determinant o f ethical/unethical behavior
Rest et al. (1974): MD was a significant
predictor o f Attitude
Moral obligation Leonard and Cronan (2001): MO found to be
Moral Obligation
to perform/not significant in affecting ethical decision
(MO)
perform a making
behavior Baneijee et al. (1998): Found to be a
significant variable related to behavioral
intention
Conner and Armitage (1998): MO was found
to be a significant determinant o f both attitude
and intention in a number o f studies
134
Kurland (1995): MO was the most significant
predictor o f behavioral intention
Ajzen (1991): M O are expected to influence
intentions
Randall and Gibson (1991): MO was a
significant variable affecting ethical
behavioral intention
Limayem et al. (1999): Perceived

consequences were found to be influential in
intention to pirate software
Thong and Yap (1998): Perceived
consequences found to be a significant
Cognition - The Advantages/Disad determinant o f ethical decision-making
cognitive vantages from regarding software piracy
determinant o f performing a Simpson et al. (1994): Benefit was found to
attitude behavior be the most influential variable affecting
ethical decision-making regarding software
piracy
Eining and Christensen (1991): Material
consequences affected intention to pirate
software
Bodur et al. (2000): Affect is a significant
determinant o f attitude (independent o f the
cognitive component)
Kempf (1999): Attitude is formed by affective
Affect - The Feelings,
and/or cognitive beliefs
Affective Emotions about
determinant of Trafimow and Sheeran (1998): Found that
performing a
attitude behavior attitude is influenced by both cognitive and
affective beliefs
Haddock and Zanna (1998): Both affective
and cognitive beliefs were significant in
predicting attitude
Leonard and Cronan (2001): Found to be a
The Situation Characteristics o f
(SIT) significant variable affecting behavioral
the Situation
intention for com puter misuse
Baneijee et al. (1998): The situation was the
most important factor effecting behavioral
intention
Glass and Wood (1996): The situation was
found to be a determinant o f intention to
pirate software
135
Simpson et al. (1994): Situational variables
were found to be significant in affecting
ethical decision-making regarding software
piracy
Ferrell and Gresham (1985): Characteristics
o f the ethical issue will influence an
individual’s ethical decision making
Leonard and Cronan (2001): A significant
variable in predicting ethical behavioral
intention
Ajzen (1991): Found Attitude to be
significant in predicting intention in 19 out o f
19 studies
Attitude towards Dubinsky and Loken (1989): Attitude was a
Attitude (AT)
the behavior significant determinant o f intention to engage
in an ethical/unethical behavior
... .
Limayem et al. (1999): Social factors were
significant determinants o f Intention to pirate
software
Loch and Conger (1996): Was a significant
variable in determining Intention to
Social pressures
performing a behavior
on the individual
Subjective Eining and Christensen (1991): SN was the
to perform or not
Norms (SN) strongest factor that affected the intention to
to perform a
pirate software
behavior
Ajzen (1991): Found SN to be significant in
predicting intention in 15 out o f 19 studies
Dubinsky and Loken (1989): SN were a
significant determinant o f intention to engage
in an ethical/unethical behavior
Loch and Conger (1996): Used computer
The individual’s
literacy to measure PBC, was a significant
perception on
Perceived variable in predicting computer misuse
whether a
Behavioral Ajzen (1991): Found PBC to be significant in
behavior is easy or
Control (PBC) predicting intention in 19 out o f 19 studies
difficult to
perform Ajzen and Madden (1986): Found PBC to be
a significant determinant affecting intention
Machiavellianism Bass et al. (1999): There is a direct link
One that is
(MACH) n n n n n n n r 1^ ^ . »>«♦!« 1 between MACH and ethical decision making
136
unconcerned with Jones and Kavanagh (1996): MACH had a
the morality o f the significant effect on unethical decision
behavior as long making_______________________________
as it will lead to Singhapakdi and Vitell (1990):
the desired Machiavellianism managers found ethical
outcome problems as less serious________________
Hegarty and Sims (1978, 1979):
Machiavellianism was significant in
explaining ethical behavior______________
137
APPENDIX B: THE QUESTIONNAIRE
138
B <•« y Sam M»
dLWALTON
»Aiy^sAs *B college usiness
Digital Piracy Study

Thank you for participating in this study. This questionnaire should take about 20-30 minutes
to complete. Please read thefollowing instructions before continuing with the survey.
Description: The purpose of this research is to examine digital piracy behavior.
Digital piracy is defined as:
The illegal copying and/or downloading of copyrighted software (such as Microsoft

Windows, Microsoft Office, and other copyrighted programs), music, video, or other
digital material (MP3s, Hollywood movies, and digital audio books among others)
Benefits and Risks: Your participation in this study will help contribute to the understanding of
digital piracy behavior (i.e. why do individuals pirate digital material). There are no risks
associated with this research as no penalties are assigned to your responses.
Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this project is voluntary.
Confidentiality: All information will be recorded anonymously. No individual respondents will

be identified, this is an anonymous questionnaire.
Procedure: The instrument will be administered to university students by your instructor and the
results collected. Students will be asked to return the questionnaire.
Informed Consent: I have read the above description, including the nature and purpose o f the
study, the benefits, confidentiality statement, and the right to withdraw from the study at any
time. The investigator/instructor has answered my questions regarding the study, and I believe I
understand what is involved. My participation indicates that I freely agree to participate in this
study.
Please provide the following background information:
1. A g e : _______ 2. S ex: □ M a le □ F e m a le
3. C o lle g e lev el: □ Freshm an □ S o p h o m o re □ J u n io r □ S e n io r □ G rad u a te □ O th er
4. M a jo r : 5. O v e ra ll G P A : __________
6. M a rita l S tatu s: □ M arried □ S in g le □ D iv o rc e d
7. Y e a rs o f fu ll-tim e w ork e x p e rie n c e :________
139
Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements:
I
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
disagree disagree agree agree
N ever tell anyone the real reason you did

som ething unless it is useful to do □ □ □ □ □ □ □
The best w ay to handle people is to tell them what

they want to hear □ □ □ □ □ □ □
O ne should take action only when sure it is morally

right □ □ □ □ □ □
M ost people are basically good and kind □ □ □ □ □ □ □
It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious

streak and it will come out when they are given a □ □ □ □ □ □ □
chance
H onesty is the best policy in all cases □ □ □ □ □ □ □

!
T here is no excuse for lying to som eone else □ □ □ □ □
□
!
G enerally speaking, people w on’t work hard unless
they’re forced to do so □ □ □ □ □ □ □
All in all, it is better to be hum ble and honest than
im portant and dishonest
j
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
W hen you ask som eone to do som ething for you, it
is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather
than giving reasons which might carry more weight
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
M ost people who get ahead in the world lead clean, ;
moral lives □ □ □ □ a D
□
Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
asking for trouble
T he biggest difference between m ost criminals and
other people is that criminals are stupid enough to ! □ □ □ □
get caught
□ □ °
M ost people are brave □ □ □ □ □ □ □
It is wise to flatter important people j □ □ □ □ □

□ □ !
It is possible to be good in all respects □ □ □ □ □ □ □
B am um was very wrong when he said there's a

sucker bom every minute □ □ 1 □ □ □ □ □
i
It is hard to get ahead without cutting comers here
□ □ □ : □ □ □ □
and there
People suffering from incurable diseases should
have the choice o f being put painlessly to death
1
□ !
I D !
□ | □ □ □ !
!
□
M ost people forget more easily the death o f their

father than the loss o f their property □ □ □ □ □ □ □
140
Overall, my attitude towards digital piracy is (that digital piracy is):
(Check a box fo r each line}
---- ,
j F a v o ra b le □ □ □ □ □ □ □ U n fa v o ra b le j
H arm fu l □ □ □ □ □ □ □ B en efic ial
| F o o lish □ □ □ □ □ □ □ W is e |
; G ood □ □ □ □ □ □ □ B ad
Questions relating to the opinions of significant others (friends and family) regarding
digital piracy
( M o s t p e o p le w h o a re im p o rta n t to me th in k I sh o u ld n o t p ira te d ig ita l m a te ria l
1 Strongly Agree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strongly Disagree
; W h e n c o n sid e rin g d ig ita l p ira c y , I wish to d o w h at p e o p le w h o a re im p o rta n t to m e w a n t m e to d o
j Strongly Agree O O O 0 Q O O Strongly Disagree
I f I p ira te d ig ita l m a te ria l, th e n m o st p eo p le w h o a re im p o rta n t to m e w o u ld
j Not Care O O O O O O O Disapprove
following set of questions is related to your ability to pirate digital material
F o r m e to p ira te d ig ita l m a te rial, it w ould b e
Very easy 0 0 0 0 o o o Very difficult
I f I w a n te d to , I c o u ld e a s ily p ira te digital m aterial
Strongly Agree O O O 0 o o o Strongly Disagree
I b e lie v e I h av e th e a b ility to p ira te digital m aterial
Strongly Agree 0 O O O o o o Strongly Disagree
I h a v e th e re so u rc e s n e c e ssa ry to pirate d ig ita l m aterial
Strongly Agree 0 O 0 O O o o Strongly Disagree
I c a n find d ig ita l m a te ria l to p ira te if I w an te d to
Strongly Agree O O O O o o o Strongly Disagree
The following set of questions is related to the morality of digital piracy
I w o u ld n o t feel g u ilty i f I p ira te d digital m aterial
D ig ital p ira c y g o e s a g a in s t m y p rin cip les
It w o u ld b e m o ra lly w ro n g fo r m e to pirate d ig ita l m a teria l
Strongly Agree O O 0 O O o 0 Strongly Disagree
P ira tin g d ig ita l m ate ria l is
Ethical O O O O o o o Unethical
141
The following set of questions is related to your intention to pirate digital material
I intend to pirate digital material in the near future

Definitely Do G G D D D G o Definitely do not j
I will try to pirate digital material in the near future
Definitely Will □ □ □ □ □ □ o Definitely will not
I will make an effort to pirate digital material in the near future

Definitely True 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Definitely False j
I have pirated digital material in the past
O Yes 0 No
How much digital material did you pirate? (Skip if you answered no to the last one)
A lot O O O O O O O Very little
To me, the issue of digital piracy is an (check a box fa r each line)’.
Extrem ely Important

Issue
o o o o o o o Unimportant Issue
Highly Significant Issue o o o o o o o Insignificant Issue
Issue is o f considerable
Concern
o o o o o 0 D Issue is o f no concern
Fundamental Issue o o o o o o D Trivial Issue
The following set of questions is related to your feelings when pirating digital material
(Or ifyou haven i pirated digital material, how would you expect to feel ifyou did so)
I feel elated when I pirate digital material

Not at all O O O O 0 □ □ Very m uch so
I feel excited w hen 1 p irate digital m aterial
Not at all O O O □ □ □ □ Very m uch so
I feel active when I p ira te digital m aterial
I feel happy when 1 p irate digital m aterial
Not at all O D D □ □ □ □ Very m uch so
1 feel pleased w hen I p irate digital m aterial
Not at all O D D □ □ □ □ Very m uch so
I feel satisfied w hen I p irate digital m aterial
I feel anxious w hen I p irate digital m aterial
I feel fearful when I p irate digital m aterial
Not at all □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Very m uch so
I feel nervous when I pirate digital m aterial
Not at ill Q O D □ □ □ □ Very m uch so
142
The following set of questions is related to your beliefs towards digital piracy
i I believe that there is a chance o f getting caught while pirating digital media
Strongly agree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strongly disagree
| How important is the fact that one may get caught

[ Very important Q O O O O O Not important at all j
' I believe that the pirated digital material will not work as well as the original
; work
Strongly agree o o o o o o o Strongly disagree
: How important is it that the digital material would not work as the original
j Very important O O O O O D O Not important at all 1
I believe that one will save money by pirating digital media

Strongly agree IH f"j (~) l~l l~l fl o Strongly disagree
How important is saving money by pirating digital material

; Very important l~l j~j j~j l~l t~l I~1 o Not important at all
: I believe that one will save time by pirating digital media

Strongly agree l~l fl |~1 I~1 I~1 1~1 o Strongly disagree
How important is saving time by pirating digital material

Very important IH l~l j**l j*~j f~l IH o Not important at all
I believe that developers/artists will lose money because o f digital piracy

Strongly agree 0 O 0 O O O O Strongly disagree
How important is it that developers/artists might lose money

Very important l~l l~l [**j f~j f~l l~l o Not important at all
I believe that digital piracy is convenient to do

Strongly agree 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Strongly disagree
How important is the fact that it is convenient to pirate digital material

Very important 0 O 0 O O O O Not important at all
I believe that digital material is overpriced

Strongly agree O O 0 O O O o Strongly disagree
How important is the fact that digital material is overpriced

Very important 1 1 1 1 |~1 1 1 l~l l~l o Not important at all ;
143
For rest o f the questionnaire, please read the paragraph on top o f each page and answer the
questions related to the paragraph
Escaped Prisoner
A m a n h a d b e e n se n te n ce d to p riso n fo r 10 y ears. A fte r o n e y e ar, h o w e v e r, he escap ed fro m p riso n ,

m o v e d to a n e w a re a o f th e country, a n d to o k o n th e n am e o f T h o m p s o n . F o r 8 y ea rs he w o rk e d h ard , an d
g ra d u a lly h e sa v e d e n o u g h m oney to b u y h is o w n b u sin e ss. H e w as fa ir to h is cu sto m ers, g av e h is
e m p lo y e e s to p w ag es, a n d g ave m o st o f his o w n p ro fits to c h a rity . T h e n o n e day, M rs. Jo n es, a n o ld
n e ig h b o r, re c o g n iz e d h im as the m an w h o e sc a p e d fro m p ris o n 8 y e a rs b e fo re , a n d w hom th e p o lic e h ad
b e e n lo o k in g for.
Should Mrs. Jones report Mr. Thompson to the police and have him sent back to prison? (Check
one)
_________ S h o u ld re p o rt h im C a n ’t d e c id e S h o u ld no t re p o rt h im
G iv e n y o u r d e c isio n , m a rk th e degree o f importance fo r th e fo llo w in g sta te m e n ts in m aking th a t d ec isio n :
G re a t M uch Som e L ittle N one

1 1 1 !---------------
: 1. H asn’t Mr. Thompson been good enough for such a lo n g time to ! j :
j prove he isn’t a bad person?______________________________________ j_________________ j________________
2. Every time som eone escapes punishment for a crime, doesn’t that
ju st encourage more crime?
3. W ouldn’t we be better o ff without prisons and the oppression o f j | j
our legal system? J j
4. Has Mr. Thompson really paid his debt to society?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1------------------ j------------------ 1---------------- ,--------------
5. Would society be failing Mr. Thompson? I I I I i
6. What benefits would prisons be for a charitable man?
7. How could anyone be so cruel and heartless as to send Mr. j j i ;
Thompson to prison? j j j j
8. W ould it be fair to all the prisoners who had to serve ou t their full
sentences if Mr. Thompson was let off?
9. Was Mrs. Jones a good friend o f Mr. Thompson? | j j |
10. W ouldn't it be a citizen’s duty to report any escaped criminal,
regardless o f the circumstances?
i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- j------------------- j---------------- 1--------- j---------------
11. How would the will o f the people and the public good best be | i
j served? ! j
1 1---------------------------------------1---------------
-
12. Would going to prison do any good to Mr. Thompson or protect

anybody?
F ro m th e list o f q u e stio n s ab o v e, select th e fo u r m o st im p o rtan t a n d e n te r th e ir q u e stio n num ber b elo w :
M o st Im p o rta n t
S e c o n d M o s t Im p o rta n t
T h ird M o st Im p o rtan t
F o u rth M o st Im p o rta n t
144
Heinz and the drug
In E u ro p e, a w o m a n w as n e a r d e a th fro m a sp ecial k in d o f ca n c e r. T h e re w a s o n e d ru g th a t doctors

th o u g h t m ig h t sav e h e r. It w as a fo rm o f rad iu m th at a d ru g g ist in th e sa m e to w n h a s re c e n tly d iscovered.
T h e d ru g w as e x p e n siv e to m ak e, b u t th e d ru g g ist w as ch arg in g te n tim e s w h a t th e d ru g c o st to m ake. He
p a id $ 2 0 0 fo r th e ra d iu m a n d c h a rg e d $ 2 ,0 0 0 for a sm all d o se o f th e d ru g . T h e sic k w o m e n ’s husband,
H ein z, w en t to e v e ry o n e h e k n e w to b o rro w th e m oney, b u t h e c o u ld o n ly g e t to g e th e r a b o u t $ 1 ,0 0 0 , which
is h a lf o f w h at it co st. H e to ld th e d ru g g ist th at his w ife w as d y in g a n d a s k e d h im to sell it c h e a p e r o r let
h im p a y later. B u t th e d ru g g ist sa id , “N o , I disco v ered th e d ru g a n d I ’m g o in g to m a k e m o n e y fro m it." So
H e in z g o t d e sp e ra te a n d b e g a n to th in k a b o u t break in g into th e m a n ’s sto re to s te a l th e d ru g fo r h is wife.
S h o u ld H e in z s te a l th e d r u g ? ( C h e c k o n e )
S h o u ld S te a l it C a n ’t D ecid e S h o u ld n o t stea l it
G iv e n y o u r d e c isio n , m a rk th e d e g re e o f im p o r ta n c e fo r th e follow ing sta te m e n ts in m a k in g th a t decision:
; G rea t M uch ' Som e L ittle None

1. W hether a com m unity’s laws are going to be upheld !! i! 11 !1 I
2. Isn 't it only natural for a loving husband to care so much
for his wife that h e’d steal?
i 3. Is Heinz willing to risk getting shot as a burglar or going
| to jail for the chance that stealing the drug might help?
| 4. W hether Heinz is a professional w restler or has
considerable influence with professional wrestlers
I---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------—
I 5. W hether Heinz is stealing for him self o r doing this
i solely to help som eone else
6. W hether the druggist's rights to his invention have to be
' respected
! " ; ~ 1
| 7. W hether the essence o f living is more encompassing
i than the termination o f dying, socially and individually
8. What values are going to be the basis for governing how
; people act towards each other
j 9. W hether the druggist is going to be allowed to hide
| behind a worthless law which only protects the rich
I anyhow
10. Whether the law in this case is getting in the way o f the
most basic claim o f any mem ber o f society
: II . Whether the druggist deserves to be robbed for being
I so greedy and cruel
12. W ould stealing in such a case bring about more total
good for the whole society or not
F ro m th e list o f q u e stio n s a b o v e , se le c t th e fo u r m ost im p o rtan t an d e n te r th e ir q u e s tio n n u m b e r b elo w :
S e c o n d M o st Im p o rtan t
T h ird M o st Im p o rta n t
145
The Doctor’s Dilemma
A la d y w as d y in g o f c a n c e r w h ic h c o u ld n o t b e c u re d a n d sh e h a d o n ly a b o u t six m o n th s to live. S h e w as
in te rrib le p a in , b u t sh e w as so w e a k th a t a g o o d d o se o f p a in -k ille r lik e m o rp h in e w o u ld m ak e h e r die
so o n e r. S h e w as d e lirio u s a n d a lm o st c ra z y w ith p ain , a n d in h e r c a lm p e rio d s, sh e w o u ld a sk th e d o c to r to
g iv e h e r e n o u g h m o rp h in e to k ill her. S h e sa id sh e c o u ld n ’t sta n d th e p a in a n d th a t sh e w as g o in g to d ie in
a few m o n th s anyw ay.
What should the doctor do? (Check one)
_________ H e s h o u ld g iv e th e lad y th e C a n ’t d e c id e S h o u ld n o t g iv e the o v e rd o se

o v e rd o s e th at w ill m ak e h e r d ie
G iv e n y o u r d e c isio n , m a rk th e d e g re e o f importance fo r th e fo llo w in g sta te m e n ts in m a k in g th a t d ec isio n :
G re a t M uch Som e L ittle N one
1. W h e th e r th e w o m a n ’s fa m ily is in fa v o r o f g iv in g h e r th e j i j
o v e rd o s e o r n o t. j !
i '
2 . Is th e d o c to r o b lig a te d b y th e sa m e law s a s e v e ry b o d y e ls e i f > ; :
g iv in g h e r a n o v e rd o s e w ill k ill h er.
3 . W h e th e r p e o p le w o u ld b e m u c h b e tte r o f f w ith o u t s o c ie ty ; j
re g im e n tin g th e ir liv e s a n d e v e n th e ir d e a th s. j j | !
4 . W h e th e r th e d o c to r c o u ld m ak e it a p p e a r lik e an accid en t.
S. D o e s th e sta te h a v e th e rig h t to fo rce c o n tin u e d e x iste n c e o n i i

th o s e w h o d o n ’t w a n t to liv e. i 1
6. W h a t is th e v a lu e o f d e a th p rio r to s o c ie ty ’s p e rsp e c tiv e o n
p e rs o n a l v alu es.
7. W h e th e r th e d o c to r h as sy m p a th y fo r th e w o m a n ’s su fferin g j i ;
j j
o r c a re s m o re a b o u t w h a t s o c ie ty m ig h t think.
8. Is h e lp in g to e n d a n o th e r’s life e v e r a re sp o n sib le act o f
c o o p e ra tio n .
9 . W h e th e r o n ly G o d sh o u ld d e c id e w h e n a p e rs o n 's life s h o u ld 1 ; j
end. j j !
10. W h a t v a lu e s th e d o c to r h a s s e t fo r h im s e lf in h is ow n
p e rs o n a l c o d e o f b eh av io r.
11. C a n so c ie ty a ffo rd to le t e v e ry b o d y e n d th e ir liv e s w h en I i !

| 1 j
th e y w an t to . ' ! !
12. C a n so c ie ty a llo w su icid e s o r m e rc y k illin g a n d still p ro te c t
th e liv es o f in d iv id u a ls w h o w an t to live.
F ro m the list o f q u e stio n s a b o v e , se le ct th e fo u r m o st im p o rta n t a n d e n te r th e ir q u e stio n n u m b e r b elow :
S e c o n d M o s t Im p o rta n t
T h ird M o st Im p o rtan t
146
APPENDIX C: SUBJECTS' BELIEFS
147
Salient beliefs elicited from subjects, and the reported
percentage for each belief
Belief % reported
Authors lose money 54.2%
Benefit outweighs the cost 3.7%
Can bypass age screening 2.7%
Can get others in trouble 1.9%
Cant be stopped/There will always be a way 2.3%
Convenient 20.0%
Cost outweighs the benefit 3.8%
Don’t need to buy a whole CD 8.1%
Don’t pay for something you rarely use 1.9%
Don't get manuals/support/extra stuff 6.5%
Drive prices down 2.7%
Everyone is doing it 7.3%
Everyone would have the latest stuff 2.9%
Expands creativity 2.9%
Find rare music 3.7%
Get the newest out there 7.3%
Get live music 2.7%
Get more entertainment/at home 9.8%
Get Music not out yet 5.0%
Hacking 3.2%
Hurts specially small companies/unknown groups 2.7%
If you buy it, and distribute it, then you will lose 2.9%
It’s a stupid thing to do 2.9%
Its available, so why not do it? 6.2%
Its bad for the Industry - No one will bother making things again 5.0%
Its cheap to do so 3.5%
Its expensive to do 4.3%
Its fun to do 4.4%
Its hard to do 3.8%
Its not a big deal 1.9%
148
Its Not a crime/illegal 1.9%
Its not nice 1.9%
Its not wrong 5.5%
Its risky 5.8%
Knowing that you can do it 2.9%
Like a little crime 4.2%
Make multiple copies 2.7%
Make Your own music 4.3%
Makes me nervous 2.3%
May drive prices up 6.5%
Might get caught 33.2%
Might not work As well as the original/purchased version 24.8%
More efficient 2.7%
More people would use computers because o f it 2.8%
More punishing Laws will be created as a result 2.9%
Need it to succeed 1.9%
Needs resources to do 2.7%
Only get caught when selling it 2.7%
Only people who know can do This 5.9%
Others might not like you 2.4%
Overpriced 13.5%
People are used to it now 2.7%
Promotes anti-social behavior 3.2%
Risky for your company 1.9%
Save money 88.5%
Save time 21.2%
Sell it to make money 5.8%
Sense o f ownership 2.7%
Share it to people when they need it 8.9%
Should not be Illegal 7.0%
Spread the word to others about the New Music, so they might buy 8.0%
Stay competitive with others 7.7%
Staying up to date with software 2.5%
149
Take a long time 6.3%
The thrill o f doing something illegal 3.3%
They make too much money 7.6%
They Will get their money anyway like it or hate it/They will not get 5.4%
affected
Use it for my personal business 1.9%
Using technology the Wrong way 3.7%
Watch missed TV shows 2.7%
Will not get caught 3.2%
150
Questionnaire used to elicit beliefs
Softw are Piracy Study
Thank you for participating in this study. This study should take about 10-IS minutes. Please
indicate the answer in the provided tables. Please try to answer at least 3 items for each question
(if you need more space, please use the back of this sheet). When done, tear off the bottom part
and present it (separately) with this paper to your instructor for the purpose of anonymity.
The behavior in question is the act of illegally copying and/or downloading software (software
piracy).
1. Age:___ Gender: Male Female
2. What do you believe are the advantages of your performing this behavior?
# Advantage
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. What do you believe are the disadvantages of your performing this behaviorl
# Disadvantage
1
2
3
4
5
6
4. Is there anything else you can associate with performing this behavior?
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thank you for participating in this study. This study should take about 10-15 minutes. Please
The behavior in question is the act of illegally copying and/or downloading

music/video/copyrighted material (such as MP3s, Digital Hollywood movies, and digital audio
books among others)
1.Age : __ Gender: Male ___Female
n Advantage
i
2
3
4
5
6
3. What do you believe are the disadvantages of your performing this behavior?
# Disadvantage
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thank you for participating in this study. This study should take about 10-15 minutes. Please
The behavior in question is the act of illegally copying and/or downloading

Software/music/video/copyrighted material (Software Piracy, and downloads/copies of MP3s,
Digital Hollywood movies, and digital audio books among others)
1. Age:___________ Gender:____ ______ Male Female
# Advantage
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. What do you believe are the disadvantages of your performing this behavior?
# Disadvantage
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
APPENDIX D: STATISTICAL OUTPUT
154
Descriptive Statistics for the subjects
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Age 292 18 56 23.52 6.046
GPA 272 1.90 4.00 3.1646 .49675
Experience 292 0 25 2.30 4.021
Valid N (listwise) 272
155
Factor Analysis for Mach scale
Communalities
Initial
MACH1 1.000
MACH2 1.000
MACH3R 1.000
MACH4R 1.000
MACH5 1.000
MACH6R 1.000
MACH7R 1.000
MACH8 1.000
MACH9R 1.000
MACH 10R 1.000
MACH11R 1.000
MACH12 1.000
MACH13 1.000
MACH14R 1.000
MACH 15 1.000
MACH16R 1.000
MACH17R 1.000
MACH18 1.000
MACH 19 1.000
MACH20 1.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
156
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Rotation
%of
Component Total Variance Cumulative % Total
1 3.530 17.650 17.650 2.990
2 2.110 10.550 28.199 2.785
3 1.539 7.695 35.894 1.786
4 1.293 6.465 42.359
5 1.104 5.519 47.878
6 1.037 5.187 53.064
7 .988 4.941 58.006
8 .947 4.737 62.742
9 .873 4.363 67.105
10 .840 4.199 71.304
11 .799 3.995 75.299
12 .723 3.614 78.913
13 .672 3.359 82.272
14 .653 3.264 85.536
15 .564 2.821 88.357
16 .552 2.762 91.119
17 .519 2.593 93.712
18 .473 2.364 96.076
19 .451 2.254 98.330
20 .334 1.670 100.000
a. When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings
cannot be added to obtain a total variance.
Component Matrix*
a. 3 components extracted.
157
Pattern Matrix*
Component
1 2 3
MACH1 .559
MACH? .661
MACH3R .504
MACH4R .601
MACH5 .557
MACH6R .774
MACH7R .765
MACH8 .654
MACH9R .558
MACH 10R .534
MACH11R .495
MACH12 .491
MACH13 .558
MACH14R .621
MACH15 .475 -.474
MACH16R .468
MACH17R
MACH18 .412
MACH 19 .407
MACH20
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
158
Structure Matrix
Component
1 2 3
MACH1 .580
MACH2 .659
MACH3R .469
MACH4R .634
MACH5 .570
MACH6R .771
MACH7R .771
MACH8 .625
MACH9R .605
MACH 10R .561
MACH11R .502
MACH12 .523
MACH13 .567
MACH14R .643
MACH15 .423
MACH16R .472
MACH17R
MACH18 .443
MACH 19 .414
MACH20
Component Correlation Matrix
Component 1 2 3
1 1.000 .181 .154
2 .181 1.000 5.49E-02
3 .154 5.49E-02 1.000
159
Factor Analysis for Importance scale
Communalities
Initial Extraction
IMP1R 1.000 .873
IMP2R 1.000 .907
IMP3R 1.000 .867
IMP4R 1.000 .709

Initial Eiaenvalues Extraction Sums of Sauared Loadinqs
%of %of
Component Total Variance Cumulative % Total Variance Cumulative %
1 3.357 83.923 83.923 3.357 83.923 83.923
2 .374 9.342 93.265
3 .180 4.511 97.776
4 8.90E-02 2.224 100.000
Component Matrix*
Compone
nt
1
IMP1R .935
IMP2R .953
IMP3R .931
IMP4R .842
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis,
160
Factor Analysis for Feelings scale
Communalities
Initial Extraction
FEEL1 1.000 .614
FEEL2 1.000 .805
FEEL3 1.000 .812
FEEL4 1.000 .843
FEEL5 1.000 .862
FEEL6 1.000 .814
FEEL7 1.000 .724
FEEL8 1.000 .924
FEEL9 1.000 .928

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Sauared Loadings
% of % of
1 4.766 52.961 52.961 4.766 52.961 52.961
2 2.559 28.431 81.392 2.559 28.431 81.392
3 .535 5.944 87.336
4 .308 3.423 90.760
5 .292 3.244 94.004
6 .199 2.211 96.215
7 .169 1.876 98.091
8 .118 1.311 99.402
9 5.38E-02 .598 100.000
Component Matrix*
Component
1 2
FEEL1 .782
FEEL2 .896
FEEL3 .901
FEEL4 .903
FEEL5 .907
FEEL6 .869
FEEL7 .781
FEEL8 .951
FEEL9 .956
161
Factor Analysis for Attitude
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ATT1R 1.000 .794
ATT2 1.000 .760
ATT3 1.000 .769
ATT4R 1.000 .828

Initial Eiaenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
%of %of
1 3.151 78.777 78.777 3.151 78.777 78.777
2 .319 7.979 86.756
3 .313 7.829 94.585
4 .217 5.415 100.000
Component Matrix*
Compone
nt
1
ATT1R .891
ATT2 .872
ATT3 .877
ATT4R .910
162
Factor Analysis for Subjective Norms
Communalities
Initial Extraction
&N1R 1.000 .790
SN2R 1.000 .281
SN3 1.000 .672

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
%of % of
1 1.744 58.122 58.122 1.744 58.122 58.122
2 .887 29.568 87.690
3 .369 12.310 100.000
Component Matrix*
Compone
nt
1
SN1R .889
SN2R .531
SN3 .820
Rotated Component Matrix*

a. Only one component was extracted.
The solution cannot be rotated.
163
Factor Analysis for PBC scale
Communalities
Initial Extraction
PBC1R 1.000 .843
PBC2R 1.000 .871
PBC3R 1.000 .856
PBC4R 1.000 .824
PBC5R 1.000 .678

Initial Eiaenvalues Extraction Sums of Sauared Loadings
% of % of
1 4.071 81.430 81.430 4.071 81.430 81.430
2 .434 8.670 90.100
3 .228 4.561 94.661
4 .177 3.539 98.200
5 9.00E-02 1.800 100.000
Component Matrix"
Compone
nt
1
PBC1R .918
PBC2R .933
PBC3R .925
PBC4R .908
PBC5R .823
164
Factor Analysis for Moral Obligation scale
Communalities
Initial Extraction
MOI 1.000 .498
M02R 1.000 .786
M03R 1.000 .759

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Sguared Loadings
% of % of
1 2.043 68.109 68.109 2.043 68.109 68.109
2 .666 22.197 90.306
3 .291 9.694 100.000
Component Matrix*
Compone
nt
1
MOI .705
M02R .887
MQ3R .871
165
Factor Analysis for Intention scale
Communalities
Initial Extraction
INT1R 1.000 .951
INT2R 1.000 .975
INT3R 1.000 .959

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
% 0f %of
1 2.885 96.151 96.151 2.885 96.151 96.151
2 7.84E-02 2.615 98.766
3 3.70E-02 1.234 100.000
Component Matrix*
Compone
nt
1
INT1R .975
INT2R .987
INT3R .979
166
Factor Analysis for factors affecting Attitude
Communalities
Initial Extraction
MACH1 1.000 .423
MACH2 1.000 .534
MACH4R 1.000 .544
MACH5 1.000 .418
MACH6R 1.000 .672
MACH7R 1.000 .670
MACH8 1.000 .553
MACH9R 1.000 .477
MACH10R 1.000 .466
MACH11R 1.000 .433
MACH12 1.000 .296
MACH13 1.000 .405
MACH14R 1.000 .525
MACH16R 1.000 .363
MACH18 1.000 .393
SN1R 1.000 .662
SN3 1.000 .683
IMP1R 1.000 .878
IMP2R 1.000 .908
IMP3R 1.000 .857
IMP4R 1.000 .724
FEEL1 1.000 .640
FEEL2 1.000 .816
FEEL3 1.000 .827
FEEL4 1.000 .844
FEEL5 1.000 .868
FEEL6 1.000 .812
FEEL7 1.000 .741
FEEL8 1.000 .902
FEEL9 1.000 .893
167
Initial Eigenvalues action Sums of Sguared Loadi ation Sums of Sguared Loadii
% of % of % of
Compont Total Variance umulative 9 Total Variance umulative °/ Total Variance Emulative ‘
1 5.240 17.468 17.468 5.240 17.468 17.468 4.789 15.965 15.965
2 4.534 15.115 32.582 4.534 15.115 32.582 3.512 11.706 27.671
3 2.935 9.783 42.366 2.935 9.783 42.366 2.690 8.965 36.636
4 2.265 7.549 49.914 2.265 7.549 49.914 2.530 8.434 45.070
5 1.838 6.128 56.042 1.838 6.128 56.042 2.444 8.147 53.216
6 1.332 4.442 60.484 1.332 4.442 60.484 1.708 5.692 58.908
7 1.083 3.612 64.096 1.083 3.612 64.096 1.556 5.187 64.096
8 .957 3.191 67.286
9 .949 3.163 70.449
10 .927 3.091 73.540
11 .816 2.719 76.259
12 .782 2.607 78.866
13 .731 2.436 81.302
14 .689 2.297 83.599
15 .596 1.988 85.587
16 .586 1.955 87.542
17 .545 1.815 89.357
18 .498 1.659 91.015
19 .461 1.536 92.551
20 .404 1.345 93.896
21 .331 1.105 95.001
22 .314 1.047 96.048
23 .263 .876 96.924
24 .237 .789 97.713
25 .175 .582 98.295
26 .149 .498 98.793
27 .140 .468 99.261
28 .101 .338 99.599
29 26E-02 .242 99.841
30 77E-02 .159 100.000
168
Component Matrix1
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MACH1 .426
MACH2 .490
MACH4R .518
MACH5 .390 -.414
MACH6R .523
MACH7R .480
MACH8 .391 -.538
MACH9R .523
MACH10R .448 .380
MACH11R .450
MACH12 .389
MACH13
MACH14R .404 .497
MACH16R
MACH18 .428
SN1R .486
SN3 .477
IMP1R .755 .509
IMP2R .744 .557
IMP3R .778 .467
IMP4R .748 .392
FEEL1 .680
FEEL2 .833
FEEL3 .817
FEEL4 .870
FEEL5 .870
FEEL6 .847
FEEL7 .569 -.477
FEEL8 .690 -.500
FEEL9 .666 -.522
169
Rotated Component Matrbf
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MACH1 .595
MACH2 .663
MACH4R .636
MACH5 .607
MACH6R .771
MACH7R .754
MACH8 .631
MACH9R .604
MACH10R .644
MACH11R .414
MACH12 .441
MACH13 .575
MACH14R .699
MACH16R .516
MACH18 .394
SN1R .693
SN3 .737
IMP1R .926
IMP2R .948
IMP3R .910
IMP4R .816
FEEL1 .765
FEEL2 .891
FEEL3 .887
FEEL4 .905
FEEL5 .916
FEEL6 .884
FEEL7 .824
FEEL8 .906
FEEL9 .907
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
170
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 .890 .287
o
o
V*
-.020 .267 -.196 .071
2 .241 .734 .530 -.094 -.155 .280 -.110
3 -.333 .105 .257 .628 .514 .160 .357
4 -.073 .646 -.620 -.088 .302 -.303 .043
5
CO
.001 .260 -.649 .699 .042 -.029
6 .014 .038 .200 -.254 -.245 -.382 .829
7 .182 -.032 -.402 -.146 -.023 .786 .406
171
Factor Analysis for factors affecting Intention
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ATT1R 1.000 .790
ATT2 1.000 .758
ATT3 1.000 .781
ATT4R 1.000 .829
SN1R 1.000 .770
SN3 1.000 .870
PBC1R 1.000 .839
PBC2R 1.000 .867
PBC3R 1.000 .854
PBC4R 1.000 .825
PBC5R 1.000 .699
M01 1.000 .491
M02R 1.000 .821
M03R 1.000 .810
Initial Eiqenvalues action Sums of Sauared Loadii tation Sums of Sauared Loadir
% of % 0f % of
Compone Total Variance Emulative °/ Total Variance :umulative °/ Total Variance lumulative 1
1 6.272 44.801 44.801 6.272 44.801 44.801 4.180 29.858 29.858
2 2.844 20.313 65.114 2.844 20.313 65.114 3.247 23.193 53.051
3 1.070 7.645 72.759 1.070 7.645 72.759 2.031 14.505 67.557
4 .817 5.836 78.595 .817 5.836 78.595 1.545 11.038 78.595
5 .615 4.391 82.986
6 .473 3.381 86.367
7 .354 2.532 88.899
8 .320 2.288 91.187
9 .284 2.029 93.216
10 .266 1.896 95.113
11 .230 1.645 96.758
12 .207 1.478 98.236
13 .163 1.167 99.403
14 .36E-02 .597 100.000
172
Component Matrix*
Component
1 2 3 4
ATT1R .719 -.441
ATT2 .665 -.481
ATT3 .665 -.439
ATT4R .704 -.468
SN1R -.686 .413
SN3 -.586 .408 -.594
PBC1R .733 .542
PBC2R .731 .565
PBC3R .708 .585
PBC4R .704 .568
PBC5R .600 .577
M01 -.651
M02R -.610 .417
M03R -.580 .428 .409
Rotated Component Matrix*
Component
1 2 3 4
ATT1R .819
ATT2 .816
ATT3 .851
ATT4R .862
SN1R .719
SN3 .881
PBC1R .889
PBC2R .910
PBC3R .905
PBC4R .890
PBC5R .819
M01 .490
M02R .834
M03R .839
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4
1
1
.635 .564 -.404
o
£
2 .756 -.546 .348 .094
3 .113 .607 .556 .557
4
in
CM
N.
-.109 .126 .638
»*
174
Reliability Analysis for Mach Scale -1
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S IS - S C A L E (ALP
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Alpha
if Item if Item Total if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted
MACH1 67.0549 128.8706 .3741 .6984

MACH 2 67.3648 127.9312 .3949 .6963
MACH3R 67.2298 137.9426 .1377 .7195
MACH4R 67.1115 135 .8544 .2059 .7135
MACH5 66.8190 131.2975 .3257 .7032
MACH6R 67.6927 127.8677 .4032 .6956
MACH7R 66.9035 126.2809 .4294 .6927
MACH 8 67.1485 133.1894 .2621 .7089
MACH9R 68.3075 131.1115 .4502 .6957
MACH10R 67.6852 133 .2821 .3521 .7024
MACH11R 66.0303 134.0421 .2393 .7109
MACH12 66.8623 130.5257 .3490 .7011
MACH13 67 .5230 129.5850 .4041 .6967
MACH14R 66.2944 134.9666 .2712 .7082
MACH15 66.5162 137.0718 .1850 .7150
MACH16R 67.2310 134.1989 .2211 .7128
MACH17R 66.0514 141.7580 .0347 .7273
MACH18 66.5937 130.7164 .3477 .7013
MACH19 66.1500 131.5594 .2269 .7140
MACH20 68.2415 138 .4752 .1096 .7226
Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 284.0 N of Items = 20
Alpha = .7176
175
Reliability Analysis for Mach Scale - 2
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (ALPHA)

MACHl 64.7274 122.9414 .3657 .7047

MACH2 65.0373 122.4743 .3732 .7039
MACH3R 64.9023 130.9671 .1539 .7238
MACH4R 64 .7840 129.4495 .2068 .7191
MACH5 64.4915 125.1003 .3235 .7089
MACH6R 65.3652 121.3402 .4134 .7000
MACH7R 64.5761 119.6799 .4426 .6967
MACH8 64.8211 127 .2006 .2523 .7154
MACH9R 65.9801 124.7020 .4566 .7003
MACHlOR 65.3577 127.2444 .3423 .7084
MACH11R 63 .7028 127.3265 .2504 .7155
MACH12 64 .5348 124.5125 .3417 .7072
MACHl3 65.1956 123.6523 .3947 .7028
MACH14R 63.9669 128.5589 .2733 .7134
MACHl5 64.1887 130.8947 .1777 .7211
MACH16R 64.9035 127.5234 .2304 .7176
MACHl7R 63 .7239 134.9574 .0432 .7324
MA C H 18 64.2662 123.9965 .3621 .7054
MACH19 63 .8225 125 .2335 .2274 .7199
Alpha = .7226
176
item-total Statistics

MACHl 60.2098 119.2534 .3761 .7146

MACH2 60.5197 118.7656 .3844 .7138
MACH3R 60.3847 127.6762 .1492 .7349
MACH4R 60.2664 125.9195 .2100 .7295
MACH 5 59.9739 121.6727 .3254 .7195
MACH6R 60.8476 117.8114 .4199 .7104
MACH7R 60.0584 116.1492 .4497 .7070
MACH 8 60.3035 123.7054 .2552 .7260
MACH9R 61.4625 121.1105 .4661 .7103
MACH10R 60.8401 123 .6282 .3508 .7184
MACHl1R 59.1852 124.2456 .2408 .7272
MACH12 60.0172 120.6804 .3565 .7167
MACHl3 60.6780 120.3133 .3945 .7136
MACH14R 59.4493 125.2293 .2705 .7243
MA C H 15 59.6711 127.4423 .1781 .7317
MACHl6R 60.3859 124.5521 .2179 .7296
MACHl8 59.7486 120 .4549 .3681 .7157
MACHl9 59.3049 122.3122 .2158 .7323
Alpha = .7324
177
Reliability Reliability Analysis for Mach Scale - 4

MACHl 56.8706 111.7274 .3958 .7153

MACH2 57.1805 111.2420 .4043 .7143
MACH4R 56.9272 118.9375 .2067 .7328
MACH5 56.6347 114.2391 .3405 .7209
MACH6R 57.5084 111.7666 .3945 .7154
MACH7R 56.7192 109.8215 .4350 .7110
MACH 8 56.9642 115.8961 .2794 .7266
MACH9R 58.1232 114.8616 .4388 .7146
MACH10R 57.5009 117.0127 .3360 .7221
MACHl1R 55.8460 117.5942 .2288 .7313
MACH12 56.6780 113.3829 .3683 .7182
MACHl3 57.3387 113.4133 .3940 .7162
MACH14R 56.1101 117.7847 .2846 .7259
MACHl5 56.3319 120.0476 .1872 .7340
MACH16R 57.0467 117.5520 .2162 .7329
MACHl8 56.4094 113.3532 .3739 .7177
MACHl9 55.9657 115.8765 .2010 .7374
Alpha = .7349
178

Mean Variance Itern- Alpha
MACHl 52.4515 100.6687 .3939 .7180

MACH 2 52.7615 99.5885 .4228 .7148
MACH4R 52.5082 106.4524 .2412 .7329
MACH5 52.2157 102.8545 .3454 .7231
MACH6R 53.0894 101.0895 .3800 .7194
MACH7R 52.3002 99.6882 .4062 .7165
MACH8 52.5452 103.9224 .3006 .7276
MACH9R 53.7042 103.5505 .4422 .7164
MACHlOR 53.0819 105.2966 .3510 .7234
MACHl1R 51.4270 106.1683 .2291 .7346
MACH12 52.2590 102.3994 .3611 .7215
MACHl3 52.9197 102.4308 .3867 .7192
MACH14R 51.6910 106.2982 .2881 .7284
MACHl5 51.9129 108.8818 .1747 .7384
MACHl6R 52.6277 106.2524 .2124 .7368
M ACHl8 51.9903 102.5000 .3623 .7214
Alpha = .7374
179

MACHl 48.3987 94.1320 .3926 .7190

MACH2 48.7087 93.6182 .4034 .7178
MACH4R 48.4554 99.2218 .2579 .7329
MACH5 48.1629 96.2963 .3424 .7245
MACH6R 49.0366 94.1230 .3929 .7190
MACH7R 48.2474 93 .2237 .4035 .7177
MACH 8 48 .4924 97.5063 .2915 .7299
MACH9R 49.6514 96.8956 .4429 .7170
MACHlOR 49.0291 98.4273 .3580 .7238
MACHl1R 47.3741 98.9752 .2437 .7348
MACH12 48 .2062 96.0507 .3513 .7236
MACHl3 48.8669 96.4352 .3635 .7225
MACH14R 47.6382 99.0200 .3093 .7278
MACH16R 48 .5748 98.8968 .2314 .7366
MACHl8 47.9375 96.4833 .3405 .7247
Alpha = .7384
180
Reliability for Importance Scale
Scale Scale Corre c t e d

IMP1R 10.3310 21.4116 .8788 .9067

IMP2R 10.2359 21.1090 .9105 .8960
IMP3R 10.1585 21.7390 .8731 .9086
IMP4R 10.2394 24.8582 .7388 .9496
Alpha = .9361
181
Reliability for Feelings Scale (all types)

Mean Variance I tern- Alpha
FEEL1 23.8235 95.8530 .6659 .8415

FEEL2 23.9014 91.4518 .7616 .8315
FEEL3 23.8979 90.9264 .7948 .8285
FEEL4 23.6567 92.3616 .7189 .8355
FEEL5 23.5645 91.9592 .7115 .8360
FEEL6 23.4298 93.5225 .6509 .8421
FEEL7 23.9409 100.6367 .4614 .8602
FEEL8 24.1295 105.1033 .3185 .8734
FEEL9 24.1295 105.6524 .2965 .8757
Alpha = .8627
182
Reliability for Feelings Scale (Excitement and pleasantness)
Item- total Statistics

FEEL1 15.5957 65 .1124 .6964 .9475

FEEL2 15.6737 60 .2258 .8474 .9304
FEEL3 15.6701 60.7763 .8399 .9313
FEEL4 15.4290 59.3983 .8696 .9276
FEEL5 15.3368 58.5457 .8816 .9260
FEEL6 15.2020 59.3297 .8348 .9320
Alpha = .9433
183
Reliability for feelings Scale (Fear and nervousness)
Alpha = .9106
184
Reliability for Attitude Scale

ATT1R 12.7491 18 .7929 .8027 .8795

ATT2 12.5749 20.0707 .7718 .8895
ATT3 12.8506 21.4564 .7793 .8893
ATT4R 12.9495 18.7562 .8323 .8679
Alpha = .9088
185
Reliability for Subjective Norms Scale -1

Mean Variance I tern- Alpha
SN1R 6.6000 7.6704 .6258 .2733

SN2R 6.6421 11.0968 .2703 .7566
SN3 7.1228 8.3194 .4770 .4966
Alpha = .6377
186
Reliability for Subjective Norms Scale - 2
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S S C A L E (ALPHA)

SN1R 3.0596 3.6338 .6094

SN3 3 .5825 3.2652 .6094
Alpha = .7566
187
Reliability for PBC scale

PBC1R 22.0772 42 .3813 .8663 .9256

PBC2R 21.9228 42 .7194 .8910 .9209
PBC3R 21.8421 43 .6264 .8786 .9234
PBC4R 21.8737 43.6671 .8522 .9280
PBC5R 21.6737 47.3896 .7377 .9475
Alpha = .9428
188
Reliability for Moral Obligation Scale

MOl 7.5404 11.3267 .4522 .8281

M02R 7.1868 9.5055 .6866 .5704
M03R 6.8113 9.2900 .6505 .6087
Alpha = .7605
189
Reliability for Intention

INT1R 8.0456 16.4662 .9443 .9785

INT2R 8.1930 16.3887 .9709 .9598
INT3R 8.2316 16.4673 .9531 .9722
Alpha = .9799
190
Correlations for factors (testing for discriminant validity)
compoment c<Drrelation Main:I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 1.000 .242 .330 .053 .084 .375 .150 .145 .049 -.034 .009
2 .242 1.000 .224 .012 -.255 .461 .096 -.080 .120 -.061 .033
3 .330 .224 1.000 -.282 -.317 .564 .074 .224 .290 -.045 .034
4 .056 .010 -.282 1.000 .289 -.205 .034 -.121 -.187 -.007 -.020
5 .084 -.255 -.317 .289 1.000 -.385 -.031 -.048 -.367 .069 .114
6 .375 .461 .564 -.205 -.385 1.000 .065 .162 .321 -.047 -.035
7 .150 .091 .079 .033 .031 .065 1.000 .344 .059 .076 -.169
8 .145 .080 .224 -.121 .048 .162 .344 1.000 .001 .129 .077
9 .049 .120 .290 -.187 -.367 .321 .059 -.001 1.000 -.055 -.148
10 .034 .061 .045 .007 .069 .047 .077 .129 -.055 1.000 .135
11 .009 .033 .034 .020 .114 .035 -.169 .078 -.148 .135 1.000
191
Fisher’s Z-Transformation test for correlations between factors
(with a correlation of 0.7)
Test
between Correlation P-Value Result
components
1 2 0.242 0.00 Reject null hypothesis that they are equal
I 8 0.145 0.00 Reject null hypothesis that they are equal
1 10 -0.034 0.00 Reject null hypothesis that they are equal
192
193
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Attitude Scale
Regression Weights
Estimate S.E. C.R. P
ATT1R<-- Attitude 1.502 0 .086 17.550 0.000
ATT2 <-- Attitude 1.331 0 .082 16.191 0.000
ATT3 <-- Attitude 1.199 0 .073 16.533 0.000
ATT4R<-- Attitude 1.534 0 .082 18.768 0.000
194
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Importance Scale
Regression Weights
IMPlRc-- Importance 1.632 0.079 20.630 0.000
IMP2R<-- Importance 1.686 0.076 22.114 0.000
IMP3R<-- Importance 1.539 0.080 19.207 0.000
IMP4R<-- Importance 1.160 0.080 14.573 0.000
195
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Feelings Scale (happiness and
excitement)
Regression Weights
FEELl <-- Feelings 1.147 0.086 13.358 0 .000
FEEL2 <-- Feelings 1.480 0.084 17.669 0.000
FEEL3 Feelings 1.467 0.082 17.871 0.000
FEEL4 <-- Feelings 1.606 0.081 19.805 0 .000
FEEL5 <-- Feelings 1.677 0.082 20.522 0 .000
FEEL6 <-- Feelings 1.618 0.086 18.902 0 .000
196
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Feelings Scale (fear and
nervousness)
Regression Weights
FEEL7 <-- Feelings 1.234 0.091 13.579 0.000
FEEL8 <-- Feelings 1.729 0.079 21.915 0.000
FEEL9 <-- Feelings 1.752 0.080 21.913 0.000
197
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Subjective Norms Scale
Regression Weights
SN1R <-- SNorms 2.030 0.295 6.885 0. ooo
SN3 <-- SNorms 1.030 0.179 5.742 0. ooo
SN2R <-- SNorms 0.507 0.123 4.112 0. ooo
198
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Perceived Behavioral Control
Scale
Regression Weights
PBC1R <-- PCB 1.776 0 .087 20.485 0.000
PBC2R <-- PCB 1.747 0 .082 21.197 0.000
PBC3R <-- PCB 1.610 0.083 19.376 0.000
PBC4R <-- PCB 1.567 0.088 17.887 0.000
PBC5R <-- PCB 1.257 0 .088 14.296 0.000
199
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Intention Scale
Regression Weights
INT1R <-- Intention 1.973 0.091 21.760 0 ooo
200
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Machiavellianism Scale
Regression Weights
MACH4R<-- Machiav 1 0.686 0.141 4.877 0.000
MACH11R<-- Machiav 1 0.510 0.134 3.798 0.000
MACH14R<-- Machiav 1 0 .727 0.138 5 .271 0.000
MACH16R<-- Machiav l 0.537 0.140 3 .841 0.000
Regression Weights
MACH6R<-- Machiav 2 1.217 0.101 12.058 0.000
MACH7R<-- Machiav 2 1.292 0.104 12.362 0.000
M ACH9R<-- Machiav 2 0.577 0.076 7.555 0.000
MACHlORc-- Machiav 2 0.562 0.080 7.045 0.000
Regression Weights
Estimate S.E. C.R. p
MACH1 <-- Machiav 3 0.848 0.108 7.860 0.000
MACH2 <-- Machiav 3 0.935 0.109 8 .606 0.000
MACH5 <-- Machiav 3 0.774 0.103 7.482 0.000
MACH8 <-- Machiav 3 0.806 0.105 7.674 0.000
MACH12<-- Machiav 3 0.597 0.105 5.685 0 .000
MACH13<-- Machiav 3 0.696 0.099 7.026 0.000
MACH18<-- Machiav 3 0.568 0 .104 5.452 0.000
201
Test for Normality
For attitude model
Tests for Normality
Test --Statistic--- -p Value-

Shapiro-Wilk W 0.993757 Pr < W 0.3000
Ko1mogorov-Smi rnov D 0.047382 Pr > D 0.1275
Cramer-von Mises W-Sq 0.105807 Pr > W-Sq 0.0955
Anderson-Darling A-Sq 0.603929 Pr > A-Sq 0 .1182
For intention model

Tests for Normality
Test --Statistic--- -p Va!

Shapiro-Wilk w 0.993757 Pr < w 0.3000
Kolmogorov-Smi rnov D 0 .047382 Pr > D 0.1275
Cramer-von Mises W-Sq 0.105807 Pr > W-Sq 0.0955
Anderson-Darling A-Sq 0.603929 Pr > A-Sq 0.1182
202
Test for Homogeneity of Variance
For attitude model
The REG Procedure

Model: MODEL1
Dependent V a r i a b l e : ATT ATT
Test of First and Second

Moment Specification
DF Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq
53 42.99 0.8353
For intention model
The REG Procedure

Model: MODEL1
Dependent V a r i a b l e : INT INT
Test of First and Second

Moment Specification
DF Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq
14 11.74 0.6273
203
Regression output for Attitude model
Model Summary9
Mode Adjusted Std. Error of
1 R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 .527a .278 .275 4.89154
2 .613b .376 .372 4.55428
3 .640° .409 .403 4.43956
4 .649d .422 .413 4.40031
5 .656® .430 .419 4.37777
6 .661f .436 .424 4.35973
a. Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms
b. Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness
& Excitement
c. Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness
& Excitement, Importance
d. Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness
& Excitement, Importance, Age
e. Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness
& Excitement, Importance, Age, Mach
f- Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness
& Excitement, Importance, Age, Mach, Cognitive
g. Dependent Variable: Attitude
204
ANOVA®
Mode Sum of Mean
1 Squares df Sauare F Sig.
1 Regression 2556.127 1 2556.127 106.829 .OOO3
Residual 6651.755 278 23.927
Total 9207.883 279
2 Regression 3462.504 2 1731.252 83.468 .000b
Residual 5745.379 277 20.741
Total 9207.883 279
3 Regression 3768.006 3 1256.002 63.725 .000c
Residual 5439.876 276 19.710
Total 9207.883 279
4 Regression 3883.121 4 970.780 50.136 .000d
Residual 5324.762 275 19.363
Total 9207.883 279
5 Regression 3956.711 5 791.342 41.291 .000®
Residuai 5251.172 274 19.165
Total 9207.883 279
6 Regression 4018.893 6 35.240
o
o
O
669.816
Residual 5188.989 273 19.007
Total 9207.883 279
a. Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms
b. Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness & Excitement
c. Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness & Excitement, Importance
d. Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness & Excitement, Importance,
Age
e. Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness & Excitement, Importance,
Age, Mach
f- Predictors: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness & Excitement, Importance,
Age, Mach, Cognitive
205
Coefficients*
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 23.051 .657 35.106 .000
Subjective Norms- -.912 .088 -.527 -10.336 .000
2 (Constant) 18.454 .926 19.930 .000
00
Subjective Norms- -9.241 .000
1
.085 -.451
Happiness & Excitement .200 .030 .323 6.611 .000
3 (Constant) 20.012 .986 20.305 .000
It*
Subjective Norms- -.695 .085 -8.148 .000
o
i
Importance -.174 .044 -.189 -3.937 .000
4 (Constant) 22.371 1.375 16.272 .000
Importance -.159 .044 -.172 -3.586 .000
Age -.115 .047 -.121 -2.438 .015
5 (Constant) 19.586 1.972 9.931 .000
Importance -.150 .044 -.162 -3.374 .001
Age -.111 .047 -.116 -2.363 .019
Mach 5.07E-02 .026 .092 1.960 .051
6 (Constant) 18.001 2.151 8.370 .000
importance -.152 .044 -.165 -3.442 .001
Age -.110 .047 -.115 -2.353 .019
Mach 4.70E-02 .026 .086 1.821 .070
Cognitive 1.24E-02 .007 .089 1.809 .072
a. Dependent Variable: Attitude
206
Excluded Variable#
Collinearity
Mode Partial Statistics
1 Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 Sex -.038a -.750 .454 -.045 .992
Age -.192a -3.638 .000 -.214 .897
P-lndex *.094a -1.844 .066 -.110 1.000
Cognitive .169® 3.215 .001 .190 .912
Happiness & Excitemer
,323a 6.611 .000 .369 .945
Distress -.027a -.497 .620 -.030 .852
Mach .161a 3.164 .002 .187 .972
Importance -,151a -2.911 .004 -.172 .943
2 Sex -.006b -.116 .908 -.007 .981
Age -.146b -2.915 .004 -.173 .877
00
P-lndex .991
1
-,064b -1.346 .179
o
Cognitive .094b 1.833 .068 .110 .857
Distress -.106b -2.030 .043 -.121 .812
Mach .117b 2.432 .016 .145 .952
Importance -.189b -3.937 .000 -.231 .932
3 Sex .001° .016 .987 .001 .980
Age -.121c -2.438 .015 -.145 .859
P-lndex -.056° -1.196 .233 -.072 .989
Cognitive .098° 1.965 .050 .118 .856
Distress -.068° -1.303 .194 -.078 .779
Mach .097° 2.047 .042 .123 .939
4 Sex -.008d -.166 .868 -.010 .975
P-lndex -.048d -1.033 .302 -.062 .983
Cognitive -096d 1.948 .052 .117 .856
Distress -.055d -1.043 .298 -.063 .769
Mach .092d 1.960 .051 .118 .937
5 Sex .005® .100 .921 .006 .957
P-lndex -.043® -.937 .350 -.057 .981
Cognitive .089® 1.809 .072 .109 .851
Distress -.059® -1.133 .258 -.068 .768
6 Sex .007* .158 .874 .010 .956
00
P-lndex .979
«
-.040f .385 -.053

o
Distress -.043f -.812 .417 -.049 .741

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Subjective Norms
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness & Excitement
c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness & Excitement, Importanc
d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness & Excitement, Importanc
e. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness & Excitement, Importanc
Age, Mach
f. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Subjective Norms, Happiness & Excitement, Importance
Mach, Cognitive
207
Residuals Statistics*
Std.
Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation N
Predicted Value 4.1286 25.7373 16.9743 3.79534 280
Residual -11.5908 12.7107 .0000 4.31260 280
Std. Predicted
Value -3.385 2.309 .000 1.000 280
Std. Residual -2.659 2.915 .000 .989 280
Charts
Normal P-P Plot of R egression Standar
Dependent Variable: Attitude

1.00
.75
.50
.25-
UJ 0.00
0.00 .25 .50 .75 1.00
Observed Cum Prob
208
Partial Regression Plot
D ependent Variable: Attitude

20
a
a
10
-10 a
a °
Attitude
-20
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Age

20
10
„ ° ° ® Q„ D
_ n* o
0
OOqO
-10
Attitude
-20
-200 -100 0 100 200
Cognitive
209
o i
_ a “n
a•
i°a
-10
a>
■a
3
S
<
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Happiness & Excitement
•o
a
3 Sf* %a
» O* “o
-10
■a
3
'&
<
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Mach
210
PTE
„o
□abW,
• . %® a ° D
-10 □O
Attitude
-20
-20 -10 0 10 20
Importance
go o
on
t*j °o# m 4
Ji
°a
-10
Attitude
-20
Subjective Norms
211
Regression output for Intention model
Modal Summary*
Mode Adjusted Std. Error of
1 R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 .638a .407 .404 4.64828
2 ,741b .549 .546 4.05967
3 .761° .579 .575 3.92869
4 .765d .586 .580 3.90384
a. Predictors: (Constant), Moral Obligation
b. Predictors: (Constant), Moral Obligation, PBC
c. Predictors: (Constant), Moral Obligation, PBC. Attitude
d. Predictors: (Constant), Moral Obligation, PBC,
Attitude, Subjective Norms
e. Dependent Variable: Intention
ANOVA*
Mode Sum of Mean
I Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 4114.594 1 4114.594 190.433 .000a
Residual 6006.602 278 21.606
Total 10121.20 279
2 Regression 5555.982 2 2777.991 168.558 .000b
Residual 4565.214 277 16.481
Total 10121.20 279
3 Regression 5861.246 3 1953.749 126.582 ,000c
Residual 4259.950 276 15.435
Total 10121.20 279
4 Regression 5930.209 4 1482.552 97.281 .000d
Residual 4190.987 275 15.240
Total 10121.20 279
a. Predictors: (Constant), Moral Obligation
b. Predictors: (Constant), Moral Obligation, PBC
c. Predictors: (Constant), Moral Obligation, PBC, Attitude
d. Predictors: (Constant), Moral Obligation, PBC, Attitude, Subjective Norms
e. Dependent Variable: Intention
212
Coefficients*
Mode Coefficients Coefficients
1 B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 21.578 .727 29.672 .000
Moral Obligation -.859 .062 -.638 -13.800 .000
2 (Constant) 11.717 1.231 9.518 .000
PBC .292 .031 .399 9.352 .000
3 (Constant) 6.145 1.729 3.555 .000
PBC .271 .031 .370 8.856 .000
Attitude .242 .054 .231 4.447 .000
4 (Constant) 4.893 1.816 2.694 .007
PBC .254 .031 .347 8.075 .000
Attitude .212 .056 .203 3.801 .000
Subjective Norms
.191 .090 .105 2.127 .034
a. Dependent Variable: Intention
Excluded Variables'1
Collinearity
Mode Partial Statistics
I Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 Subjective Norms
ft
.293 .715
CM
<0
h*
5.106 .000
Attitude .302a 5.210 .000 .299 .580
PBC .399* 9.352 .000 .490 .895
2 Subjective Norms .657
.152b 3.104 .002 .184
Attitude .231b 4.447 .000 .259 .566
tno
3 Subjective Norms
2.127 .034 .127 .616
o
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Moral Obligation

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Moral Obligation, PBC
c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Moral Obligation, PBC, Attitude
Residuals Statistics*
Std.
Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation N
Predicted Value -2.1743 21.0225 12.3036 4.61034 280
Residual -11.3439 11.6423 .0000 3.87575 280
Std. Predicted
-3.140 1.891 .000 1.000 280
Value
Std. Residual -2.906 2.982 .000 .993 280
Charts
213
Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standar
Dependent Variable: Intention

1.00
.75
.50
2
Q.
E
I -
£o
&
UJ 0.00.
0.00 .25 .50 .75 1.00
Observed Cum Prob
D ependent Variable: Intention
- 10-
£ -20
-10 -8 -6 -4 ■2 0 2 4 6 8
Subjective Norms
214
t i ■r ■ ■ i l
-20 -10 0 10 20
Attitude
Partial R egression Plot
D ependent Variable: Intention
Qfi a •
mrf
-10
eo
c
2c
-10 0 10
Moral Obligation
215

Intention
216
AMOS output for original model
Title
pa full: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 07:31 PM
Tour model contains the following variables
ATT observed endogenous

INT observed endogenous
SEX observed exogenous

AGE observed exogenous
P observed exogenous
COG_NEW observed exogenous
FEEL16 observed exogenous
IMP observed exogenous
MACH observed exogenous
SN_13 observed exogenous
MO observed exogenous
PBC observed exogenous
EA unobserved exogenous
El unobserved exogenous
Number of variables in your m o d e l : 15

Number of observed v a r i ables: 13
Number of unobserved variables: 2
Number of exogenous v a r iables: 13
Number of endogenous v a r i a b l e s : 2
Summary of Parameters
Weights Covariances Variances Means Intercepts Total
Fixed 2 0 0 2
Labeled 0 0 0 0
Unlabeled 13 26 13 52
Total: 15 26 13 54
NOTE:
The model is recursive.
Sample size: 280
Model: Default model
Computation of degrees of freedom
Number of distinct sample moments: 91

Number of distinct parameters to be estimated: 52
Degrees of freedom: 39
Oe 5 0.0e+000 -2.4315e-001 1.00e+004 1.11962235458e+003 0 1.00e+004

le* 0 1.6e+001 0.0000e+000 1.08e+000 3 .25882470845e+002 18 9.42e-001
2e 0 1.9e+001 0.0000e+000 S.28e-001 2.04820350050e+002 2 0.00e+000
3e 0 2.7e+001 0.0000e+000 4 .15e-001 1.34162520203e+002 1 1.22e+000
217
4e 04. 6e+001 O.OOOOe+OOO 3.28e-001 1.17262640055e+002 1 1.18e+000
5e 0 S .9e+001 O.OOOOe+OOO 1.59e-001 1.15330824010e+002 1 1.09e+000
6e 0 6.2e+001 O.OOOOe+OOO 3.01e-002 1.15281514796e+002 1 1.02e+000
7e 06.1e+001 O.OOOOe+OOO 9.86e-004 1.15281460907e+002 1 l.OOe+OOO
Min i m um was achieved
Chi-square = 115.281
Degrees of freedom = 3 9
Probability level = 0.000
M aximum Likelihood Estimates
Regression Weights: Estimate S.E. C.R. Label
A TT < ---- -------- SEX 0.283 0.485 0 .584

ATT < --- --------- AGE -0.102 0.045 -2.270
ATT < ---- ---------- P -0.013 0.056 -0.240
ATT < ---- --- COG NEW 0.011 0.007 1.659
ATT < --------- FEEL16 0.187 0.031 6.095
ATT < ---- ---- FEEL79 -0.055 0.061 -0.908
ATT < -----■....... IMP -0.145 0.044 -3 .280
ATT < --- --------MACH 0.049 0.025 1.948
ATT < ---------- SN 13 0.570 0.092 6.186
INT < ---- -------- ATT 0.212 0.055 3 .830
INT <------ --------- MO -0 .456 0.072 -6.370
INT < ---------- SN 13 -0.191 0.089 -2.144
INT < --- --------- PBC 0 -2S4 0.031 8 .247
Variances: Estimate S.E. C.R. Label
SEX 0.245 0.021 11.837

AGE 36.696 3.102 11.831
P 17.693 1.498 11.811
COG_NEW 1727.201 145.493 11.871
FEEL16 84.001 7.085 11.856
FEEL79 23.204 1.941 11.957
IMP 38.598 3 .268 11.811
MACH 108.816 9.199 11.830
SN_13 10.791 0.891 12.112
MO 19.342 1.563 12.373
PBC 66.697 5.521 12.080
EA 18.462 1.563 11.811
El 14 .968 1.267 11.811
Squared Multiple Correlations: Estimate
ATT 0.422
INT 0.570
Implied (for all variables) Covariances
PBC MO SN_13 MACH IMP FEEL79 FEEL16
PBC 66.697
218
MO -10.240 19.342
SN_13 -9.960 7.469 10.791
MACH 0.000 -7.749 0.000 108.816
IMP 0.000 9.015 4 .779 0 .000 38.598
FEEL79 -12.769 8.855 6.200 0.000 8.139 23.204
FEEL16 20.229 -13.286 -7.898 0.000 0.000 0.000 84 . 0 0 1
COG_NEW 108.280 -48.674 -38.175 0 .000 0.000 -45.141 115 .160
P 0 .000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. 0 0 0
AGE 0.000 4.969 5.058 0.000 7.555 4.788 -9 .384
SEX -0.904 0.000 0.000 -0.926 0.000 0.000 0. 0 0 0
ATT 11.139 -15.793 -9.611 5.052 -9.531 -6.991 22 .504
INT 25.850 -16.188 -10.030 4 .603 -7.043 -9.941 17 .470
COG NEW AGE SEX ATT INT
COG_NEW 1727.201
P 0.000 17.693
AGE 0.000 0 .000 36.696
SEX 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 .245
ATT 65.363 -0.237 -9.754 0 .024 31.915
INT 70.807 -0.050 -5.300 -0.224 18.632 34.771
S u m m a r y of models
Model NPAR CMIN DF CMIN/DF
Default model 52 115 .281 39 0.000 2.956

Saturated model 91 0 .000 0
Independence model 13 1053 .673 78 0 .000 13.509
Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI
Default model 9.658 0.941 0 .863 0.403

Saturated model 0 .000 1.000
Independence model 25.439 0.516 0 .435 0.442
DELTA1 RHOl DELTA2 RH02

Model NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI
Default model 0.891 0.781 0.925 0.844 922

Saturated model 1.000 1.000 00 0
Independence model 0.000 0 .000 0.000 0.000 000
Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI
Default model 0.500 0.445 0.461

Saturated model 0 .000 0 .000 0.000
Independence model 1.000 0.000 0.000
Model NCP LO 90 HI 90
Default model 76.281 47.829 112.370

Saturated model 0.000 0 .000 0.000
Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90
Default model 0 .413 0 .273 0.171 0.403

Saturated model 0 .000 0.000 0.000 0.000
219
Independence model 3 .777 3 .497 3.13S 3.886
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
Default model 0.084 0.066 0.102 0.001

Independence model 0.212 0.200 0.223 0.000
Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC
Default model 219.281 224.776 541.668 460.291

Saturated model 182.000 191.615 746.176 603.766
Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI
Default model 0 .786 0.684 0.915 0.806

Saturated model 0.652 0.652 0.652 0 .687
Independence model 3 .870 3.507 4 .259 3.875
HOELTER HOELTER
Model .05 .01
Default model 133 152

Independence model 27 30
220
AMOS output for modified model
Title
pa full modified: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 07:42 PM
Your model contains the following variables
ATT observed endogenous

INT observed endogenous
SEX observed exogenous

AGE observed exogenous
P observed exogenous
COG_NEW observed exogenous
IMP observed exogenous
MACH observed exogenous
SN_13 observed exogenous
MO observed exogenous
PBC observed exogenous
EA unobserved exogenous
El unobserved exogenous
Number of variables in your m o d e l : 15

Number of observed v a r iables: 13
Number of unobserved variables: 2
Number of exogenous va r i a b l e s : 13
Number of endogenous v a r i a b l e s : 2
Summary of Parameters
Weights Covariances Variances Means Intercepts Total
Fixed 2 0 0 2
Labeled 0 0 0 0
Unlabeled 17 25 13 55
Total: 19 25 13 57
NOTE:
The model is recursive.
Sample size: 280
M o d e l : Default model
Computation of degrees of freedom
Number of distinct sample moments: 91

Number of distinct parameters to be estimated: 55
Degrees of freedom: 36
Oe 5 0.0e+000 -1.8000e-001 1.00e+004 1 .13618064377e+003 0 1.00e+004

le 0 1.4e+001 O.OOOOe+OOO 1.21e+000 2.67310147836e+002 18 8 . 77e-001
221
2e 0 2.3e+001 0 OOOOe+OOO 5.22e-001 1.43696919447e+002 2 O.OOe+OOO
3e 0 2.7e+001 0 OOOOe+OOO 4 . 15e-001 8 .24244760705e+001 1 1.21e+000
4e 0 4 .le+ooi 0 OOOOe+OOO 3 . 12e-001 6 . 9S433216672e+001 1 1.16e+000
5e 0 4.9e+001 0 OOOOe+OOO 1.32e-001 6.83999971085e+001 1 1.07e+000
6e 0 5.2e+001 0 OOOOe+OOO 1 . 89e-002 6.83824150208e+001 1 1.Ole+OOO
7e 0 5.4e+001 0 OOOOe+OOO 3 . 68e-004 6.83824082046e+001 1 l.OOe+OOO
M inimum was achieved
Chi-square = 68.382
Degrees of freedom = 3 6
Probability level = 0.001
M aximum Likelihood Estimates
Regression Weights: Estimate S.E. C.R. Label
ATT <-............. SE X 0.134 0.481 0.278

ATT < ..... AGE -0.104 0.041 -2.537
ATT < --------------- P -0.013 0.056 -0.227
ATT < --------- COG_NEW 0.008 0.006 1.288
ATT < .... FEEL16 0.127 0.029 4 .357
ATT < -----------FEEL79 0.060 0.057 1.043
ATT <---...... --- IMP -0.069 0.041 -1.675
ATT < ------------- M A C H 0.010 0.023 0 .422
ATT < ------------ SN_13 0 .350 0.089 3 .946
ATT < ------- MO -0.540 0.071 -7.593
INT < -------------- A T T 0.114 0.054 2.135
INT <...... MO -0.422 0.066 -6.380
INT <---........ SN_13 -0.206 0.082 -2.505
INT < ...... PBC 0.192 0.030 6.303
INT < -----------FEEL16 0.145 0.027 5.419
INT < ------ SE X -1.210 0.445 -2.719
INT < --------- COG N E W 0.014 0.006 2.392
Variances: Estimate S.E. C.R. Label
S EX 0 .245 0.021 11.837

A GE 36.696 3 .102 11.831
P 17.693 1.498 11.811
COG_NEW 1727.201 145.493 11.871
FEEL16 84 .001 7.085 11.856
FEEL79 23.204 1.941 11.957
IMP 38.598 3.268 11.811
MACH 108.808 9.198 11.830
SN 13 10.791 0.891 12.112
MO 19.355 1.563 12.386
PBC 66.679 5.520 12.080
EA 15.302 1.296 11.811
El 12.691 1.074 11.811
Summary of models
Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
222
Default model 55 68.382 36 0.001 1.900
Saturated model 91 0.000 0
Independence model 13 1053.673 78 0.000 13.509
Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI
Default model 9.037 0.965 0 .911 0.382

Saturated model 0.000 1.000
Independence model 25.439 0.516 0 .435 0 .442
DELTA1 RHOl DELTA2 RH02

Model NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI
Default model 0.935 0.859 0.968 0.928 0.967

Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000
Independence model 0.000 0.000 0 .000 0.000 0.000
Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI
Default model 0.462 0.432 0 .446

Model NCP LO 90 HI 90
Default model 32.382 12.841 59.728

Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90
Default model 0.245 0.116 0.046 0.214

Saturated model 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
Default model 0.057 0.036 0.077 0 .274

Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC
Default model 178.382 184.194 519.368 433.296

Saturated model 182.000 191.615 746.176 603.766
Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI
Default model 0.639 0.569 0.737 0.660

Saturated model 0.652 0.652 0.652 0.687
Independence model 3.870 3.507 4 .259 3.875
223
HOELTER HOELTER
Model .05 .01
Default model 209 240

Independence model 27 30
224
Intention Model without Moral Obligation
Variables Entered/Removed *
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-
enter <=
Attitude
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
2 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-
PBC enter <=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
3 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-
Subjective enter <=
Norms .050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error of
Model R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 .589a .346 .344 4.87830
2 ,709b .502 .499 4.26394
3 .725° .526 .521 4.16983
a. Predictors: (Constant), Attitude
b. Predictors: (Constant), Attitude, PBC
c. Predictors: (Constant), Attitude, PBC. Subjective
Norms
225
ANOVA*
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3505.411 1 3505.411 147.300 .000*
Residual 6615.785 278 23.798
Total 10121.20 279
2 Regression 5084.997 2 2542.499 139.842 ,000b
Residual 5036.199 277 18.181
Total 10121.20 279
3 Regression 5322.247 3 1774.082 102.032 .000°
Residual 4798.949 276 17.387
Total 10121.20 279
a. Predictors: (Constant), Attitude
b. Predictors: (Constant), Attitude, PBC
c. Predictors: (Constant), Attitude, PBC, Subjective Norms
d. Dependent Variable: Intention
Coefficients*
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.830 .911 2.009 .045
Attitude .617 .051 .589 12.137 .000
2 (Constant) -4.138 1.022 -4.050 .000
Attitude .476 .047 .454 10.153 .000
PBC .305 .033 .417 9.321 .000
3 (Constant) -4.868 1.019 -4.780 .000
Attitude .389 .052 .371 7.530 .000
PBC .270 .033 .369 8.065 .000
Subjective Norms .341 .092 .188 3.694 .000
Excluded Variables0
Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 PBC .417a 9.321 .000 .489 .897
Subjective Norms .306* 5.660 .000 .322 .722
2 Subjective Norms .188b 3.694 .000 .217 .663
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant). Attitude
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Attitude, PBC
c. Dependent Variable: Intention
226
Digital Piracy:
Abstract o f dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

o f the requirements for the degree o f
Doctor o f Philosophy
By
Sulaiman Al-Rafee, B.S., M.B.A.

Wright State University, 1994
University o f Arkansas, 1997
May, 2002
University o f Arkansas
This abstract is approved by:
Dissertation Director:
Dr. Timothy Paul Cronan
Software piracy issues have received much interest in the literature (with an
estimated $12 billion in lost revenues in 1998 according to the Software Publishers
Association). Other forms o f piracy have been emerging, such as video and music
piracy. Referred to as digital piracy, it is defined as: “The illegal copying and/or
downloading o f copyrighted software, music, video, or other material (such as MP3s,
Hollywood movies, and digital audio books among others)”. According to industry
estimates (Recording Industry Association o f America, Motion Picture Association o f
America, and the Business Software Alliance), digital piracy caused loses o f about $20
billion last year alone.
In this research study, a model is developed that would help better explain and
understand digital piracy. Using the Theory o f Planned Behavior (TPB) as a basis, we
extend existing IT ethical behavior models with additional factors based on ethical
behavioral literature to further explain digital piracy.
A questionnaire was developed and administered to a sample o f 292 students.
Results o f statistical analyses provided general support for the research model (10 out o f
13 hypotheses were supported). In summary, digital piracy can be explained by personal
attributes and feelings, importance o f the issue, attitude, subjective norms, perceived
behavioral control, and moral obligation. The results o f the study, as well as limitations,
implications, and future research are discussed in this presentation.

Digital Piracy Ethical Decisi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Piracy Ethical Decisi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

ProQuest Information and Learning

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

Sulaiman Al-Rafee, B.S., M.B.A.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Dr. Timothy Paul Cronan

Dr. Molly RapeK

my dissertation. I would like to start by thanking my dissertation committee. They took

who I had their support during my journey o f education and learning.

2. Chapter 2: Literature Review..................................................................................... 12

3. Chapter 3: Research M ethod..................................................................................... 37

Figure 1: Theory o f Reasoned Action................................................................................ 13

Table 1: Kohlberg's Stages o f Moral Development......................................................... 18

unethical use o f computer systems in organizations has resulted in significant losses to

and businesses (Al-Kazemi, 1999).

Special issues/sections in major IS research journals (Communications o f the ACM, Vol.

information revealed to others), accuracy (the accuracy and authenticity o f data),

property (intellectual property).

is reported; and o f those reported, only 3% result in a conviction.

1.3. THE PIRACY PROBLEM

journals according to Hardgrave and Walstrom, 1997).

Software piracy is the illegal act o f copying unauthorized software. Software

unauthorized software copying, softlifting (software piracy done by individuals), and

the price o f legitimate software.

1.3.1. Digital Piracy

estimate by the Forrester research group (http://www.forrester.com/) claims that music

distribution software such as Napster.

books among others).

1.3.2. The Start o f Digital Piracy

provides for individuals, allowing them to upload/download software packages without

Likewise, Samuelson (1991) examined qualities o f digital media that make it

Moseley et al. (1995) discusses software piracy in the workplace in a study

programs with other employees (http://www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases/1999-09-

workplace. These are as follows:

the consequences that lie behind it

2. The ease o f copying software

3. The failure o f managers themselves to understand the restrictions and

limitations o f the software licenses

4. The management’s failure to provide employees with adequate software for

them to do their jobs.

It is also noteworthy to mention that software piracy is not just an American

piracy in China alone was around $1.2 billion in 1998.

1.3.3. The Spread of Software Piracy

piracy is rampant in the real world:

1. A Microsoft investigator found pirated software on the computers o f the

police department that was carrying out piracy investigations

2. One in every three software packages used in businesses is illegal (Cabom,

copy sold (Conner, 1991)

Collegiate Schools o f Business (AACSB) colleges responded that software

piracy does occur in their schools (Im, 1990)

legitimate software packages that were being auctioned on the Internet to be

software (more than 98% was pirated).

1.3.4. Piracy is An Important Issue

Piracy is an important issue for both individuals and organizations. From an

individual’s/consumer's point o f view, the effect is the higher price o f legitimate

protection mechanisms employed by developers), which consumers end up paying. As

Another consequence o f piracy is the fact that it deters developers from

developing software (Engardio, 1996). This is especially true in developing countries

applications that are routinely pirated.

in lower prices o f legitimate software/music/video for consumers to purchase

As an example, Dubinsky (1989) used the TRA to explain ethical decision

stages o f ethical decision-making (1986), Bommer’s model o f ethical/unethical decision