IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/prp/micp17/523-528.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Opportunistic Consumer Behaviour in the Context of Digital Piracy

Author

Listed:
  • Ciprian-Marcel Pop

    (Babes-Bolyai University, Marketing Department, Romania)

  • Andreea–Ioana Romonti-Maniu

    (Babes-Bolyai University, Marketing Department, Romania)

  • Monica-Maria Zaharie

    (Babes-Bolyai University, Marketing Department, Romania)

Abstract

In light of the growing interest in challenges of the digital economy, this paper presents the results of an empirical investigation which argues that attitude and social norms are not always sufficient to explain the phenomenon of digital piracy. The quantitative study is based on the model of Theory of Planned Behaviour. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess measurement structures and the proposed model was estimated using structural equation modelling in order to identify the influences of Romanians` intention to engage in digital piracy. Significantly, perceived behavioural control is shown to have a positive, but obvious impact on the intention to pirate. Thus, when a consumer perceives himself to have more control in a piracy situation, he will take the opportunity to engage in a wrong behaviour. As such, perceived behavioural control has a distinctive feature enabling consumers to exploit opportunities, often unethically, with little regard to principles and consequences. The paper analyses the results specific to the Romanian consumers, but emphasizes implications for an understanding of digital piracy in the East European economies and cultures. Overall, the findings offer a new facet of ethically questionable behaviour placing the opportunity in terms of digital piracy. Furthermore, consumers are more likely to be opportunistic when dealing with online activities, therefore the results have important practical implications for the digital industry and governments hoping to reduce online piracy. In other words, companies need to understand the consumer perceptions toward the severity of punishment and the difficulty of engaging in acts of piracy. Moreover, Romanian consumers find piracy as a common behaviour, not unethical or illegal, a perception that enable them to transform digital piracy in a ”good habit”. However, it is necessary to take note not only of what consumers consider, but equally what they are allowed to do in terms of digital piracy. Limitations of the study and future directions for research are considered as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Ciprian-Marcel Pop & Andreea–Ioana Romonti-Maniu & Monica-Maria Zaharie, 2017. "Opportunistic Consumer Behaviour in the Context of Digital Piracy," MIC 2017: Managing the Global Economy; Proceedings of the Joint International Conference, Monastier di Treviso, Italy, 24–27 May 2017,, University of Primorska Press.
    • Handle: RePEc:prp:micp17:523-528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hippocampus.si/ISBN/978-961-7023-71-8/119.pdf
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lixuan Zhang & Wayne W. Smith & William C. McDowell, 2009. "Examining Digital Piracy: Self-Control, Punishment, and Self-Efficacy," Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), IGI Global, vol. 22(1), pages 24-44, January.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Cheolho Yoon, 2011. "Theory of Planned Behavior and Ethics Theory in Digital Piracy: An Integrated Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 100(3), pages 405-417, May.
    4. Kirsten Robertson & Lisa McNeill & James Green & Claire Roberts, 2012. "Illegal Downloading, Ethical Concern, and Illegal Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(2), pages 215-227, June.
    5. Hassan Aleassa & John Pearson & Scott McClurg, 2011. "Investigating Software Piracy in Jordan: An Extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 98(4), pages 663-676, February.
    6. Kyoko Fukukawa & Christine Ennew, 2010. "What We Believe Is Not Always What We Do: An Empirical Investigation into Ethically Questionable Behavior in Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 49-60, February.
    7. Timothy Cronan & Sulaiman Al-Rafee, 2008. "Factors that Influence the Intention to Pirate Software and Media," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 78(4), pages 527-545, April.
    8. Ian Phau & James Ng, 2010. "Predictors of Usage Intentions of Pirated Software," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 23-37, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Basu, Paulomi & Banerjee , Tanmoyee & Mitra, Santanu, 2022. "An Experimental Understanding of Transaction Utility in Piracy," Journal of Economic Development, The Economic Research Institute, Chung-Ang University, vol. 47(4), pages 123-141, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Koay, Kian Yeik & Tjiptono, Fandy & Sandhu, Manjit Singh, 2020. "Digital piracy among consumers in a developing economy: A comparison of multiple theory-based models," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    2. Mateja Kos Koklic & Monika Kukar-Kinney & Irena Vida, 2016. "Three-Level Mechanism of Consumer Digital Piracy: Development and Cross-Cultural Validation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 15-27, March.
    3. Hongyi Sun & Pei‐Lee Teh & Jonathan D. Linton, 2018. "Impact of environmental knowledge and product quality on student attitude toward products with recycled/remanufactured content: Implications for environmental education and green manufacturing," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 935-945, November.
    4. Wojciech Hardy, 2020. "Consumer switching costs in a market with legal and pirate providers," IBS Working Papers 08/2020, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    5. Casidy, Riza & Phau, Ian & Lwin, Michael, 2016. "The role of religious leaders on digital piracy attitude and intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 244-252.
    6. Izzatul Jannah & Muamar Nur Kholid, 2020. "Ethics theory and theory of reasoned action in e-book piracy: An empirical study of accounting students," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 9(3), pages 114-122, April.
    7. Mahmut Sonmez & Deli Yang & Gerald Fryxell, 2013. "Interactive Role of Consumer Discrimination and Branding against Counterfeiting: A Study of Multinational Managers’ Perception of Global Brands in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 195-211, June.
    8. Godwin Udo & Kallol Bagchi & Moutusy Maity, 2016. "Exploring Factors Affecting Digital Piracy Using the Norm Activation and UTAUT Models: The Role of National Culture," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 517-541, May.
    9. Amanda Chu & Patrick Chau & Mike So, 2015. "Explaining the Misuse of Information Systems Resources in the Workplace: A Dual-Process Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 209-225, September.
    10. Oylum Korkut Altuna & F. Müge Arslan & A. Ercan Gegez & Özge Sýðýrcý, 2016. "Development of a Scale on e-Consumers’ Attitudes towards Ethically Questionable Online Behaviors," Bogazici Journal, Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Bogazici University, Department of Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 99-134.
    11. Bert Weijters & Frank Goedertier & Sofie Verstreken, 2014. "Online Music Consumption in Today’s Technological Context: Putting the Influence of Ethics in Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(4), pages 537-550, November.
    12. Sheng-Hsiung Chang & Ching-Hsien Chou, 2018. "Consumer Intention toward Bringing Your Own Shopping Bags in Taiwan: An Application of Ethics Perspective and Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, May.
    13. Lee, Byung & Paek, Seung Yeop & Fenoff, Roy, 2018. "Factors associated with digital piracy among early adolescents," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 287-295.
    14. Connie Bateman & Sean Valentine & Terri Rittenburg, 2013. "Ethical Decision Making in a Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Situation: The Role of Moral Absolutes and Social Consensus," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(2), pages 229-240, June.
    15. Zhaohua Wang & Xiaoyang Dong, 2016. "Determinants and policy implications of residents’ new energy vehicle purchases: the evidence from China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 82(1), pages 155-173, May.
    16. Lu-Ming Tseng, 2019. "How Implicit Ethics Institutionalization Affects Ethical Selling Intention: The Case of Taiwan’s Life Insurance Salespeople," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 727-742, September.
    17. Łukasz Tomczyk, 2021. "Evaluation of Digital Piracy by Youths," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-26, January.
    18. Chao Wu & Shuling Liang & Weijiong Wu & Yuxiang Hong, 2021. "Practicing Green Residence Business Model Based on TPB Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-11, July.
    19. Mauricio S. Featherman & Nick Hajli, 2016. "Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks in Social Commerce Era," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 251-269, December.
    20. Liza Rybina, 2011. "Music Piracy in Transitional Post-Soviet Economies: Ethics, Legislation, and Expertise," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 1(1), pages 3-17, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prp:micp17:523-528. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alen Jezovnik (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hippocampus.si .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.