Randomized Response Analysis
5. Discussion
5.3. Limitations and future research
Similar to most empirical studies, our research is subject to limitations that represent depar-ture points for fudepar-ture research. Two limitations are of particular interest. First, our empirical research was conducted in the German market, which is one of the four largest markets for recorded music worldwide. Although we do not expect our findings to deviate substantially from other Western markets, piracy behavior is likely to be influenced by country character-istics, such as the existence and enforcement of anti-piracy legislation, economic indicators, and cultural variables. Therefore, it would be interesting to compare our results to other coun-tries or even to extend the framework to explicitly account for country characteristics using a multi-level framework. Second, although we have shown that moral aspects play a crucial role in the formation of piracy and purchase intentions, our research does not provide an in-depth analysis of how moral and emotional appeals can be utilized most effectively, which qualifies as an avenue for future research.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human De-cision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Andersen, B. and M. Frenz (2010). Don’t Blame the P2P File-Sharers: The Impact of Free Music Downloads on the Purchase of Music CDs in Canada. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(5), 715-740.
Ariely, D. (2012). How to Stop Illegal Downloads. Danariely.com (accessed August 8, 2013), available at: http://danariely.com/2012/11/03/how-to-stop-illegal-downloads.
Barkan, R., S. Ayal, F. Gino, and D. Ariely (2012). The Pot Calling the Kettle Black: Dis-tancing Response to Ethical Dissonance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 757-773.
Barker, G. and T. Maloney (2012). The Impact of Free Music Downloads on the Purchase of Music CDs in Canada. ANU College of Law Research Paper No. 4 (accessed October 4, 2013), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2128054.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.
Bhattacharjee, S., R. D. Gopal, K. Lertwachara, J. R. Marsden, and R. Telang (2007). The Effect of Digital Sharing Technologies on Music Markets: A Survival Analysis of Al-bums on Ranking Charts. Management Science, 53(9), 1359-1374.
Böckenholt, U. and P. G. M. Van der Heijden (2007). Item Randomized-Response Models for Measuring Noncompliance: Risk-Return Perceptions, Social Influences, and Self-Protective Responses. Psychometrika, 72(2), 245-262.
BVMI (2012). Musikindustrie in Zahlen 2011. Berlin.
Chellappa, R. K. and S. Shivendu (2005). Managing Piracy: Pricing and Sampling Strategies for Digital Experience Goods in Vertically Segmented Markets. Information Systems Re-search, 16(4), 400-417.
Danaher, B., S. Dhanasobhon, M. D. Smith, and R. Telang (2010). Converting Pirates with-out Cannibalizing Purchasers: The Impact of Digital Distribution on Physical Sales and Internet Piracy. Marketing Science, 29(6), 1138-1151.
Danaher, B., M. D. Smith, and R. Telang (2013a). The Effect of Graduated Response Anti-Piracy Laws on Music Sales: Evidence from an Event Study in France. Journal of Indus-trial Economics, forthcoming.
---- (2013b). Piracy and Copyright Enforcement Mechanisms. In J. Lerner and S. Stern (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy (vol. 14). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
De Jong, M. G., R. Pieters, and J.-P. Fox (2010). Reducing Social Desirability Bias through Item Randomized Response: An Application to Measure Underreported Desires. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 14-27.
De Jong, M. G., R. Pieters, and S. Stremersch (2012). Analysis of Sensitive Questions Across Cultures: An Application of Multigroup Item Randomized Response Theory to Sexual Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 543-564.
Ehrlich, I. (1981). Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Inves-tigation. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 521-565.
Fox, J.-P. (2005). Randomized Item Response Theory Models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30(2), 189-212.
Fox, J.-P. and C. A. W. Glas (2003). Bayesian Modeling of Measurement Error in Predictor Variables Using Item Response Theory. Psychometrika, 68(2), 169-191.
Fox, J.-P. and C. Wyrick (2008). A Mixed Effects Randomized Item Response Model. Jour-nal of EducatioJour-nal and Behavioral Statistics, 33(4), 389-415.
Fox, J. A. and P. E. Tracy (1986). Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Ganster, D. C., H. W. Hennessey, and F. Luthans (1983). Social Desirability Response Ef-fects: Three Alternative Models. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 321-331.
Gelman, A., J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and D. B. Rubin (2004). Bayesian Data Analysis. Flori-da: Chapman & Hall.
GFK (2012). Survey on Digital Content Usage. Nürnberg.
Greenwald, R., L. V. Hedges, and R. D. Laine (1996). The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361-396.
Hennig-Thurau, T., V. Henning, and H. Sattler (2007). Consumer File Sharing of Motion Pictures. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 1-18.
IFPI (2013a). Digital Music Report 2012. London.
---- (2013b). The Recording Industry in Numbers 2012. London.
Jain, S. (2008). Digital Piracy: A Competitive Analysis. Marketing Science, 27(4), 610-626.
Karaganis, J. and L. Renkema (2013). Copy Culture in the US and Germany. The American Assembly at Columbia University. New York.
Kwan, S. S. K., M. K. P. So, and K. Y. Tam (2010). Applying the Randomized Response Technique to Elicit Truthful Responses to Sensitive Questions in IS Research: The Case of Software Piracy Behavior. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 941-1050.
Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M., J. J. Hox, P. G. M. Van der Heijden, and C. J. M. Maas (2005). Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research: Thirty-Five Years of Valida-tion. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(3), 319-348.
Liebowitz, S. J. (2008). Testing File-Sharing's Impact on Music Album Sales in Cities. Man-agement Science, 54(4), 852-859.
Lord, F. M. and M. R. Novick (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lunn, D. J., A. Thomas, N. Best, and D. Spiegelhalter (2000). WinBUGS -- a Bayesian Mod-elling Framework: Concepts, Structure, and Extensibility. Statistics and Computing, 10, 325-337.
Mazar, N., O. Amir, and D. Ariely (2008). The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633-644.
Mick, D. G. (1996). Are Studies of Dark Side Variables Confounded by Socially Desirable
Oberholzer-Gee, F. and K. Strumpf (2007). The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 115(1), 1-42.
---- (2010). File Sharing and Copyright. In J. Lerner and S. Stern (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy (vol. 10, pp. 19-55). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Park, S. and S. Gupta (2012). Handling Endogenous Regressors by Joint Estimation Using Copulas. Marketing Science, 31(4), 567-586.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and Control of Response Bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R.
Shaver, and L. Wright (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Atti-tudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego: Academic Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioural Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Rob, R. and J. Waldfogel (2006). Piracy on the High C's: Music Downloading, Sales Dis-placement, and Social Welfare in a Sample of College Students. Journal of Law and Economics, 49(1), 29-62.
---- (2007). Piracy on the Silver Screen. Journal of Law and Economics, 55(3), 379-395.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of Latent Ability Using a Response Pattern of Graded Scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 17, 1-100.
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review.
European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1-36.
Sinha, R. K. and N. Mandel (2008). Preventing Digital Music Piracy: The Carrot or the Stick? Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 1-15.
Smith, M. D. and R. Telang (2009). Competing With Free: The Impact of Movie Broadcasts on DVD Sales and Internet Piracy. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 33(2), 321-338.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., M. G. De Jong, and H. Baumgartner (2010). Socially Desirable Re-sponse Tendencies in Survey Research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 199-214.
Taylor, S. A., C. Ishida, and D. D. Wallace (2009). Intention to Engage in Digital Piracy.
Journal of Service Research, 11(3), 246-262.
Tunca, T. I. and Q. Wu (2013). Fighting Fire with Fire: Commercial Piracy and the Role of File Sharing on Copyright Protection Policy for Digital Goods. Information Systems Re-search, 24(2), 436-453.
Webb, T. L. and P. Sheeran (2006). Does Changing Behavioral Intentions Engender Behavior Change? A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268.
Tables and figures
Table 1 Pre-study results
Influence on Piracy Intention
Predictors Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Structural parameters
Intercept (β0) –0.708 –1.130 –1.037 –1.283
Questioning technique (RR=1) (δ) 0.575 0.567 0.625 0.595 Main effects
Age (in years) (βage) –0.030 –0.030 –0.032
Gender (female=1) (βgender) –0.127 –0.113 0.083
Impression management (βIM) –0.332
Perceived social undesirability (βSD) –0.620
Perceived legal risk (βrisk) –0.287
Interaction effects
RR x Impression management (βRR, IM) 0.162
RR x Perceived social undesirability (βRR, SD) 0.273
RR x Perceived legal risk (βRR, risk) 0.192
Latent class probability (κ)
Non-adherence (%) 12.0 11.8 11.8 11.8
Notes. Estimates in bold do not contain 0 in their 95% credible interval. All tests are two-sided tests. All predictors are mean-centered. n = 1,601.
Table 2
Simulation study results
Simulated
covariance (ρ) Parameters True values
Baseline model Proposed model
Mean SD RMSE Mean SD RMSE
0.000 γ –0.500 –0.503 0.032 0.028 –0.496 0.156 0.046
β1,2 0.300 0.304 0.035 0.152 0.301 0.084 0.154
ρ 0.000 — — — –0.007 0.153 0.034
0.200 γ –0.500 –0.305 0.032 0.197 –0.486 0.089 0.076
β1,2 0.300 0.196 0.035 0.202 0.287 0.055 0.158
ρ 0.200 — — — 0.179 0.084 0.070
0.500 γ –0.500 –0.003 0.032 0.498 –0.493 0.046 0.048
β1,2 0.300 0.052 0.035 0.274 0.297 0.039 0.153
ρ 0.500 — — — 0.489 0.036 0.036
0.800 γ –0.500 0.303 0.032 0.803 –0.496 0.022 0.022
β1,2 0.300 –0.101 0.035 0.351 0.297 0.033 0.155
ρ 0.800 — — — 0.797 0.010 0.010
1.000 γ –0.500 0.501 0.032 1.001 –0.500 0.000 0.000
β1,2 0.300 –0.200 0.035 0.400 0.292 0.021 0.160
ρ 1.000 — — — 1.000 0.000 0.000
Table 3
Item characteristics of piracy and purchase intention items
Discriminations Thresholds
Intention Items αk τ k,1 τ k,2 τ k,3 τ k,4
Piracy Intention Items (θ1i)
Item 1: Download files via BitTorrent 1.611 0.127 0.752 1.302 1.848
Item 2: Download files via other P2P-networks 1.942 0.094 0.722 1.330 1.649 Item 3: Upload/share files via file-sharing networks 2.357 0.141 0.740 1.334 1.708 Item 4: Download files via newsgroups/Usenet 1.933 –0.036 0.631 1.283 1.706 Item 5: Download files via sharehoster or FTP server 1.428 –0.273 0.360 0.955 1.577 Item 6: Upload/share files via sharehoster or FTP server 2.011 0.069 0.682 1.282 1.640 Item 7: Download files via blogs or forums 1.442 –0.182 0.510 1.232 1.750
Item 8: Rip files from audio streams 0.827 –0.530 0.238 1.192 2.279
Item 9: Rip files from video streams 0.826 –1.054 –0.373 0.586 1.609
Item 10: Obtain files via instant messaging or email 1.024 –0.835 –0.143 0.741 1.745 Item 11: Obtain files via media storage devices 0.820 –1.993 –1.268 0.056 1.245 Item 12: Share files via instant messaging, email or storage devices 0.885 –1.595 –0.902 0.240 1.396 Item 13: Use VPN services for privacy protection 1.081 –0.359 0.427 1.316 2.059
Item 14: Purchase counterfeit CDs 0.743 –0.035 0.772 1.827 3.134
Item 15: Purchase unlicensed MP3s 0.847 –0.437 0.445 1.489 2.465
Item 16: Sell unlicensed music for a profit 1.144 0.578 1.270 1.852 2.677
Purchase Intention Items (θ2i)
Item 1: Purchase likelihood 1.928 –1.519 –1.144 0.583 0.138
Item 2: Purchase frequency 1.813 –1.319 –0.642 0.045 0.756
Item 3: Usage of paid channels for music consumption 0.820 –1.479 –0.752 0.090 1.045 Item 4: Usage share of paid channels (most music consumption) 1.484 –1.158 –0.592 0.002 0.784 Item 5: Usage share of paid channels (all music consumption) 1.190 –0.874 –0.273 0.392 1.054
Item 6: Spending intention 1.965 –1.572 –1.150 –0.423 0.394
Item 7: Spending intention compared with others 1.326 –0.908 –0.120 0.645 1.265 Item 8: Spending intention as part of disposable income 0.884 –0.647 0.593 1.582 2.361
Item 9: Spending amount (planned) 0.795 –1.224 –0.479 0.352 1.304
n = 3,246
Table 4
Posterior predictive check and agreement with piracy items under DQ and RR
Piracy Intention Items
Percentage Agreement obs. DQ est. DQ est. RR
Item 1: Download files via BitTorrent 2.2% 2.1% 3.0%
Item 2: Download files via other P2P-networks 1.2% 1.5% 2.3%
Item 3: Upload/share files via file-sharing networks 1.3% 1.1% 1.8%
Item 4: Download files via newsgroups/Usenet 2.0% 1.7% 2.6%
Item 5: Download files via sharehoster or FTP server 4.6% 5.0% 7.2%
Item 6: Upload/share files via sharehoster or FTP server 2.0% 1.3% 2.4%
Item 7: Download files via blogs or forums 3.0% 2.9% 4.3%
Item 8: Rip files from audio streams 6.8% 7.5% 10.3%
Item 9: Rip files from video streams 12.8% 14.3% 19.4%
Item 10: Obtain files via instant messaging or email 9.0% 9.9% 13.7%
Item 11: Obtain files via media storage devices 20.0% 22.9% 30.3%
Item 12: Share files via instant messaging, email or storage devices 17.3% 18.8% 25.3%
Item 13: Use VPN services for privacy protection 3.5% 4.1% 5.8%
Item 14: Purchase counterfeit CDs 3.7% 4.3% 5.9%
Item 15: Purchase unlicensed MP3s 4.3% 5.0% 6.9%
Item 16: Sell unlicensed music for a profit 1.7% 1.4% 2.0%
Notes. Agreement are responses 4: “agree” or 5: “strongly agree”. Obs. DQ = observed percentage in the direct questioning group, est. DQ/est. RR = estimated percentage under the proposed model in the direct questioning and randomized response group, respectively. n = 3,246
Table 5
Posterior mean estimates of the antecedents of piracy and purchase intentions
Model 1 Model 2
Predictor
Piracy Intention
Purchase Intention
Piracy Intention
Purchase Intention
Structural Parameters
Intercept (β0) –1.109 0.288 –1.041 0.467
Question technique (RR = 1) (δ) 0.401 0.426 Control variables
Age (in years) (β1) –0.008 –0.012 –0.015 –0.012 Gender (female = 1) (β2) 0.070 –0.314 0.075 –0.317
Income (β3) –0.017 0.096 –0.016 0.096
Music taste (independent) (β4) 0.010 0.142 0.106 0.141 Costs of piracy
Legal costs (β5) –0.075 –0.037 –0.084 –0.037
Moral costs (β6) –0.185 0.231 –0.179 0.230
Search costs (β7) 0.041 0.049 0.038 0.049
Technical costs (β8) –0.025 0.007 –0.025 0.007
Learning costs (β9) 0.030 0.003 0.023 0.003
Utility of piracy
Social utility (β10) 0.293 –0.014 0.387 –0.014
Anti-industry utility (β11) 0.158 0.013 0.164 0.012
Economic utility (β12) 0.003 0.019 0.002 0.020
Devaluation utility (β13) 0.065 –0.318 0.064 –0.317 Price of legitimate alternatives (β14) –0.032 –0.105 –0.033 –0.105 Lack of legitimate alternatives (β15) 0.017 –0.155 0.016 –0.155
Sampling utility (β16) 0.224 0.003 0.315 0.002
Question technique interactions
RR x Age (βRR, age) 0.008
RR x Music taste (βRR, taste) –0.135
RR x Social utility (βRR, social) –0.137
RR x Sampling utility (βRR, sampling) –0.127 Notes. Estimates in bold do not contain 0 in their 95% credible interval. All tests are two-sided tests. All predictors are mean-centered. The prior variances of θ1i and θ2i are set equal to 1 to fix the scale. n = 3,246.
Table 6
Influence of piracy intentions on purchase intentions and purchase behaviors
Influence on Purchase Intentionsa (n = 3,246)
Influence on Purchase Behaviors (n = 1,652)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Predictor
Piracy Intention
Purchase Intention
Piracy Intention
Purchase Intention
Piracy Intention
Purchase Behavior
Piracy Intention
Purchase Behavior Controlling for …
social desirability?b yes yes yes yes
endogeneity?c no yes no yes
Structural Parameters
Intercept (β0) –0.947 –.0269 –0.923 0.080 –0.534 1.601 –0.786 1.753
Question technique (δ) 0.407 0.409 0.495 0.491
Piracy Intention
Main effect (γ) –0.107 –0.171 –0.084 –0.120
Interaction effect (βDQ, piracy)b 0.090 0.151 0.007 0.029
Latent class probability (λ)
Main effect (βNP) 0.219 0.223
Non-purchasers (%) 10.1 10.1
a We only report coefficients that are related to the effect of piracy intentions on purchase intentions because the remaining predictor effects exhibit a high degree of stability across models.
b The difference in magnitude of the γ-parameter between the experimental groups is inferred by including an interaction term between the group indicator (DQ = 1) and the piracy intention main effect in the purchase regression equations. For example, the effect size of 0.090 in Model 1 indicates that γ = –0.017 under DQ.
c In models 1 and 3 with uncorrelated errors, we specify independent normal priors for the piracy and purchase constructs and define another independent predictor variable for piracy intentions.
Notes. Estimates in bold do not contain 0 in their 95% credible interval. All tests are two-sided tests. All predictors are mean-centered.
Table 7 Summary of effects
Purchase intentions Positive effect
• Moral costs • Search costs
• Income
• Music taste (independent)
No effect
• Legal costs • Technical costs
• Learning costs
• Economic utility
• Social utility
• Anti-industry utility
• Sampling utility
Negative effect
• Age • Price of alternatives
• Lack of alternatives
• Gender (female)
• Devaluation utility
Negative effect No effect Positive effect Piracy intentions
Figure 1
Framework of the antecedents and consequences of piracy and purchase intentions
Notes. Piracy intentions are measured with direct questioning and randomized response using a between-subjects design. The effect of consumer intentions on purchase behavior is tested on a sub-sample using data from a longitudinal survey that was conducted subsequent to the main study.
Figure 2
Randomized response mechanism
Figure 3
Category response functions (a) Item 1
(b) Item 10
Figure 4
Probability distribution under proposed randomized response scheme
Note. The randomization device does not have to produce outcomes that are uniformly distributed, since the sampling design is integrated in the model. For example, when more forced “strongly agree” responses are in-structed, the model will expect on average more “strongly agree” responses
Appendix
Appendix 1: Survey items, descriptive statistics and procedural instructions