Price, Scarcity, and Consumer Willingness to Purchase Pirated Media Products

Anthony D. Miyazaki, Alexandra Aguirre Rodriguez, and Jeff Langenderfer

Worldwide purchases of pirated media products continue to rise despite various industry and government efforts to quell their growth. Academic research examining consumer decisions underlying the purchase of pirated media has been limited in its approach by focusing almost exclusively on main-effects relationships and by using noncausal research designs. This article addresses these shortcomings by examining how various factors that consumers may perceive as constraining their ability to purchase genuine products (e.g., high price, stockouts, low income, lack of channel access, government restrictions) lead them to acquire pirated products and to condone such behavior in others. The authors report the results of three studies (two of which are experimental) that test three moderators of the consumption constraint effects using various settings, stimuli, and consumer types. The findings support the hypotheses that factors that may be perceived as limiting consumption can lead to higher piracy-related activity and are moderated by ethical beliefs, interpersonal social influence, and trait psychological reactance. The authors discuss the results in terms of implications for policy makers, managers, and future research opportunities. Keywords: pricing, scarcity, piracy, intellectual property, consumer behavior

ounterfeit and pirated products are a substantial and growing problem for many industries (Siwek 2006), including luxury goods, automobile parts, consumer electronics, DVDs, CDs, software, and pharmaceuticals. Specific industry examples are revealing: Worldwide losses from counterfeit clothing and shoes are estimated to exceed $12 billion annually (Blakeney 2004); approximately 35% of global software is pirated, reaching almost $40 billion per year; and the software piracy rate in some countries exceeds 90% (Business Software Alliance 2006). The number of illegally downloaded music files is estimated at approximately 2 billion per month (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry [IFPI] 2008) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) estimates piracy losses at more than $6 billion each year (McBride 2006; MPAA 2005). Although most estimates of counterfeiting and piracy rates come from trade organizations with perhaps some incentive to overestimate losses, even after adjusting for bias, the volume of counterfeiting activities is still large. Indeed, as many as 9% of the worlds branded products are fakes (The Economist 2003), and in some industries the pirate and counterfeit markets are much larger.

Anthony D. Miyazaki is Knight Ridder Research Professor and Associate Professor of Marketing (e-mail: miyazaki@fiu.edu), and Alexandra Aguirre Rodriguez is Assistant Professor of Marketing (e-mail: aarodrig@fiu.edu), College of Business Administration, Florida International University. Jeff Langenderfer is an associate professor, School of Business, Meredith College (e-mail: jefflang@meredith. edu).
2009, American Marketing Association ISSN: 0743-9156 (print), 1547-7207 (electronic)

Attempts to combat piracy are typically aimed at both the supply of and the demand for such products. With respect to the supply side, efforts are made to locate, apprehend, and prosecute pirated-product manufacturers and distributors (Jacobs, Samli, and Jedlik 2001; McDonald and Roberts 1994; Wang and Zhu 2003). On the demand side, attempts are made to educate the buying public that acquiring pirated products is illegal, unethical, and socially unacceptable (Childnet International 2005; IFPI 2008; MPAA 2005) and to prosecute those willing to acquire such materials (No Electronic Theft Act 1997; Smith 2004; Universal City Studios v. Corley 2001). However, relatively little effort has been made to understand the consumer psychology underlying why people are willing to purchase goods known to be pirated and of an illegal nature. The few studies that have examined consumer purchases of pirated goods typically have done so from a consumer characteristics perspective, using focus groups or survey research to gain descriptive insights into who these consumers are instead of causal research to gain predictive insights into what drives these consumers to engage in piracy (Albers-Miller 1999; Cheung and Prendergast 2006; Chiou, Huang, and Lee 2005; Kwong et al. 2003; Prendergast, Chuen, and Phau 2002). Although such studies have helped create an initial impression of the demographics and some basic characteristics of consumers who purchase pirated goods, they fail to examine the interplay among consumer traits, perceptions of market conditions, and intended and actual behavior. Moreover, prior work has not directly tested how consumer perceptions of market conditions can interact with individual characteris71
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Vol. 28 (1) Spring 2009, 7184

72

Consumer Willingness to Purchase Pirated Media Products

tics to influence consumer willingness to engage in and/or condone the purchase of pirated products. This article begins to fill the knowledge gap by exploring how various market conditions that consumers may perceive as consumption constraints can interact with individual characteristics to affect consumers support of, intention to participate in, and actual participation in piracy activities. We examine these relationships with three studies that use samples of both general consumers and those who are known purchasers of pirated goods. Our focus is on pirated media products because they represent an infringement on intellectual property that often has no other genuine substitute. Thus, when faced with factors that may limit the perceived ability to obtain genuine media products, consumers may believe that acquiring a pirated version of the intellectual property is the only viable alternative to purchasing the desired good. Before presenting the empirical studies, we first discuss the roles of psychological reactance and perceptions of scarcity in consumer responses to perceived consumption limitations. We follow this with a presentation of the three empirical studies, after which we discuss the implications of our findings for public policy and public education.

Consumer Responses to Perceived Consumption Constraints

Perceived constraints of a persons freedom to carry out a particular behavior often can increase that persons desire to carry out the behavior. Psychological reactance theory offers a motivation-based account for why such an effect occurs. The reactance explanation attributes the increased motivation to pursue a forbidden alternative to reactance arousal, which is a response of increased attraction to an alternative to which the persons access is threatened with elimination or is blocked by a barrier (Brehm and Brehm 1981). A recent example of reactance theory is NBCs attempt to broadcast the August 2008 Olympic Games opening ceremony on a tape-delayed basis because the live event occurred in the sparsely viewed early morning hours for the U.S. market. Internet broadcasts were widely available throughout Europe but were blocked in the United States. During the ceremonies, NBC tried fervently to block live international broadcasts and also sent requests to videosharing Web sites demanding that infringing video of the opening ceremonies be removed, all in an effort to preserve its evening U.S. television audience. However, as censorship efforts increased, Internet users became even more determined to view the ceremonies live, engaging in an escalating tug-of-war with NBC (Stetler 2008). In the end, it appears that NBCs act of censorship actually increased interest in live viewing for many Web users, consistent with reactance theory. In the current context, psychological reactance may explain why some consumers, when presented with marketplace conditions that are perceived to constrain the purchase of a desired product, may be willing to risk the legal consequences associated with acquiring a pirated product as a way of circumventing the perceived barrier. In the case of pirated media products, this is particularly a concern because the only real substitute for a genuine intellectual

property product is an unauthorized or pirated version of that product. There are several marketplace conditions that various groups of consumers can perceive as consumption constraints. These can be related to supply, channel access, buyer circumstances, and regulatory restrictions. Supplybased constraints are those that make the product scarce (e.g., limited-volume runs, limited time only, limited geographic distribution), unavailable (e.g., out of stock, out of production, out of print), or difficult to obtain (e.g., available to members only, offered only at higher prices) as a result of seller actions. Channel constraints consist of the inability to access distribution channels to acquire the product due to location, a lack of technology, restricted access, and so on. Buyer-based constraints are those pertaining to a lack of resources (e.g., money, time, transportation), knowledge, or the ability to acquire the product. Finally, regulatory restrictions can be those imposed by a government (e.g., bans, quotas, tariffs) or industry (e.g., self-imposed limitations). The presence of one or more consumption constraints can lead to the perceived scarcity of a particular product, which in turn can increase the desire for that product (Smith 1937). The increased desire for the product and the presence of a barrier to acquisition may give rise to psychological reactance and an even greater motivation to acquire the product. Scarcity barriers are sometimes intentionally put in place to increase sales of desirable products (Stock and Balachander 2005) and, particularly in the case of intellectual property products, can increase the amount of revenue that can be extracted (Langenderfer and Cook 2001). Such barriers can be created in various ways, such as product unavailability, high prices, censorship, and repressive government regulations (Clee and Wicklund 1980). Perceptions of consumption constraints and perceptions of product scarcity represent barriers to the obtainment of products and thus set the stage for psychological reactance effects that may result in extreme measures to obtain the focal product. For example, manufacturer limitations on the production and/or distribution of a legitimate (nonpirated) good make it more difficult to obtain the good, which may result in scarcity perceptions. Similarly, a channel access constraint, such as distribution limited to the Internet (e.g., iTunes, Rhapsody), also limits a persons access to the good, resulting in scarcity perceptions. Finally, buyer condition constraints, such as limited disposable income, also limit a consumers access to certain goods, particularly if a legitimate (nonpirated) good is priced at a level that consumers consider prohibitively high, making the product seem out of reach for certain segments. The popularity of pirated media products demonstrates that when consumption constraints (whether created intentionally or not) are perceived by consumers, some will seek illegal routes to overcome this barrier to product acquisition. Regulatory restrictions are a special case; not only are legitimate products limited in availability as a result of regulations (e.g., by government censorship), but their pirated-product substitutes are also restricted by legislative mandate. This often will result in psychological reactance effects because consumers believe that their freedom is being limited by some outside source. For example, because downloading pirated music from the Internet is

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

73

prohibited by law, this potentially fuels the desire of certain consumers (particularly those susceptible to reactance effects) to download such music. Reactance theory predicts that barriers will increase the focal products attractiveness and increase motivation to obtain it at a rate congruent with the magnitude of the barrier, but only up to the point at which the barrier is perceived as insurmountable (Brehm 1972). Thus, a barrier such as a monetary fine or imprisonment can be overcome essentially by not being caught, whereas a greater barrier, such as elimination of the outlets a consumer turns to for pirated goods (e.g., flea markets, Internet sites), would be insurmountable and thus would not be expected to increase motivation to obtain the desired good. In addition, government restrictions on genuine products may create black markets that may be less accessible than legitimate outlets, further accentuating reactance effects due to perceived scarcity of the pirated goods. This leads to our first research question: Can consumer perceptions of consumption constraints lead to the participation in or the condoning of the purchase of pirated media products? As we discussed previously, a perceived consumption constraint acts as a barrier to a particular consumption activityin this case, to the purchase of a genuine (nonpirated) product. As such, the consumers choice is either not to acquire the product (as long as the consumption constraint is present) or to find an alternative acquisition method (in this case, acquire a pirated version instead). This may occur as a result of higher valuation of the desired product due to evoked product scarcity perceptions or to higher motivation to acquire the product due to psychological reactance. In either case, we propose that the perceived consumption constraints decrease beliefs that alternative paths to product acquisition, such as purchasing a pirated version of the product, are as extreme (or abnormal) as they might be if the consumption constraints were not present. As a result, such behavior is less likely to be considered negatively and more likely to be supported or condoned. Thus, perceived consumption constraints should lead to decreased opposition toward others purchasing pirated products, increased intention to purchase pirated products, and increased probability of actual purchases. Formally,
H1: The presence (versus absence) of a perceived consumption constraint to obtaining a genuine (nonpirated) product (a) decreases disapproval of others purchasing pirated products, (b) increases consumer intentions to purchase a pirated product, and (c) increases the probability of the actual purchase of a pirated product.

additional constraints are likely to have little or no effect because consumption is already constrained. Thus, the addition of more than one consumption constraint should not have significant effects on the decision to acquire a pirated version of the desired product. Conversely, with regard to the removal of consumption constraints, all relevant (i.e., perceived and pertinent) consumption constraints would need to be removed to reduce consumer participation in the illicit behaviorin this case, acquiring the pirated product. Methodologically, this suggests a multiplicative (i.e., interaction) effect of multiple consumption constraints rather than an additive effect, such that the effects of any one relevant consumption constraint will be reduced in the presence of another (and thus enhanced in the absence of any others). Thus:
H2: The effects of a perceived consumption constraint to obtaining a genuine (nonpirated) product on consumer attitudes and intentions toward purchasing pirated products are moderated by the presence (versus absence) of other perceived consumption constraints, such that the presence of one perceived constraint reduces or negates the effects of the other.

Ethical Beliefs, Social Influence, and Trait Psychological Reactance as Moderators

Although H1 proposes that perceived consumption constraints can lead to increased purchasing of pirated products, it is likely that this will not be the case for all consumers and under all conditions. This leads us to our second research question: When do consumer perceptions of consumption constraints increase the participation in or the condoning of the purchase of pirated media products? That is, what are the moderating factors? Here, we propose three moderating factors that either limit or enhance the effects of perceived consumption constraints on the attitudes and behaviors surrounding the purchase of pirated products.

Moderator 1: Ethical Beliefs Toward Purchasing Pirated Products

The purchase of pirated products has often been approached from an ethics or morality perspective, often in an attempt to explain why consumers would deviate from acceptable behavior (Hill 2007; Kwong et al. 2003). These approaches have examined the ethics of purchasing pirated products from deontological (concerned with right versus wrong) and teleological (considering consequences of the act) perspectives (Gupta, Gould, and Pola 2004), as well as considered a multidimensional concept of moral intensity surrounding the purchase of pirated products (Chiou, Huang, and Lee 2005; Cronan and Al-Rafee 2007). For example, Cronan and Al-Rafee (2007) find that intention to pirate digital materials is positively influenced by favorable attitudes toward piracy and negatively influenced by a consumers moral obligation (a feeling of guilt or a personal obligation to behave or not behave in a certain way). Indeed, most researchers investigating ethical beliefs toward piracy and the purchase of pirated products have found evidence that more strongly held beliefs that piracy is

Marketplace conditions rarely present consumers with only one potentially determining factor when it comes to decision making. Thus, it is important to consider how multiple factors combine to influence consumer choice (Meyer 1981; Miyazaki, Grewal, and Goodstein 2005). In the case of piracy-related decision making, there may be times when multiple consumption constraints may be perceived as being present in particular situations. When consumers perceive a constraint that functions as a barrier to consumption of a legitimate product, they can either do without the product or overcome the constraint, perhaps by acquiring a pirated version of the product. However, if one perceived consumption constraint is present,

74

Consumer Willingness to Purchase Pirated Media Products

wrong, unethical, or immoral lead to a lower likelihood of intended piracy behavior. Nevertheless, the dearth of experimental work in this area has led researchers to disregard the potential for ethical beliefs toward piracy to act as a moderator of market condition variables. To remedy this shortcoming, we examine how ethical beliefs pertaining specifically to the purchasing of pirated products can moderate the relationship between perceived consumption constraints and piracy-related attitudes and behavior. Prior research has shown that attitudes against a particular activity can be more predictive of intended behavior than attitudes for that activity (e.g., Miyazaki, Langenderfer, and Sprott 1999). Ethical beliefs toward the practice of particular illegal activities often dominate predictive models, which suggests that the presence of strong beliefs against a particular activity relegate other predictive factors to a minor or nonexistent role. As such, we expect that consumers with relatively strong beliefs against purchasing pirated products are less likely to overcome perceived consumption constraints by engaging in this illegal behavior. Conversely, consumers without strong beliefs against purchasing pirated products are more likely to overcome perceived consumption constraints by buying a pirated product rather than doing without. Thus:
H3: The effects of perceived genuine-product consumption constraints on consumer attitudes and intentions toward purchasing pirated products are moderated by ethical beliefs against purchasing pirated products, such that stronger beliefs that such purchases are unethical weaken the consumption constraint effects.

H4: The effects of perceived genuine-product consumption constraints on consumer attitudes and intentions toward purchasing pirated products are moderated by interpersonal influences, such that having close friends or family who approve of and/or encourage such purchases weakens consumption constraint effects.

Moderator 3: Trait Psychological Reactance

As we explained previously, reactance theory can form the basis of a motivational explanation for the influence of consumption constraint perceptions on deviant consumer behavior. Psychological reactance also has been conceptualized as an individual difference variable. Although in general consumers can be motivated to pursue an object associated with access constraints, studies have shown that some consumers are more prone than others to experiencing the boomerang effect attributed to psychological reactance. This behavioral inclination is due to higher levels of trait psychological reactance (TPR), which is an individual motivational state aroused when real or perceived barriers are encountered (Hong and Page 1989; Woller, Buboltz, and Loveland 2007). Thus, psychological reactance is the motivational process that drives the behavior, whereas TPR is the individual difference characteristic. People with high TPR are more likely to react to and attempt to counteract barriers, particularly when such barriers are the result of authoritative control, such as a government restriction (Clee and Wicklund 1980; Cox, Cox, and Moschis 1990). Considering the previously mentioned example of the 2008 Olympic Games opening ceremony, it is likely that the Internet users who fought hardest against NBCs attempt to censor the live broadcasts were relatively high in TPR. In terms of the current research, we expect that consumers who score high on a TPR scale will react more strongly to consumption constraints than those who score low, particularly for legal or regulatory constraints. Thus:
H5: The effects of perceived genuine-product consumption constraints on consumer attitudes and intentions toward purchasing pirated products are moderated by TPR, such that high TPR strengthens consumption constraint effects, particularly constraints that are perceived as being caused by authoritative rule.

Moderator 2: Social/Interpersonal Influence

Consumers often learn about acceptable consumer practices through the behavior and attitudes of others in their social networks (Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989). Indeed, there is evidence that social factors sometimes underlie reasons for illegal consumer behavior (Cox, Cox, and Moschis 1990). With respect to purchasing pirated products, several studies have linked attitudes and behaviors of significant players in a social network to attitudes and behaviors related to the purchase of pirated products. For example, Cheung and Prendergast (2006) find that social conformity is positively related to the purchase of pirated VCDs (video compact discs) when the consumers social network included others who also made such purchases. Moreover, there is also evidence that consumers beliefs regarding the opinions of others in social networks can influence their attitudes toward purchasing pirated products (Chiou, Huang, and Lee 2005). Indeed, Limayem, Khalifa, and Chin (2004) find that social factors in the form of encouragement from friends, relatives, or colleagues positively influence intentions to pirate software, though external facilitating conditions were more highly related to actual piracy behavior. These findings suggest that social or interpersonal influence can act as a moderator to consumption constraints. Following these findings, we expect that when consumers have members of a social network (i.e., family and/or friends) who encourage or support piracy-related behavior, the effects of perceived consumption constraints will be weaker than when the social network does not offer such encouragement or support. Specifically,

Experimental Studies Overview

To test the hypotheses, we conducted three studies that examine selected marketplace conditions that consumers could perceive as consumption constraints and how those perceived constraints affect piracy-related approval, intentions, and behavior. As we explain subsequently, the studies used a variety of sample sets: shoppers from an online auction Web site (Study 1), consumers at an outdoor flea market that had two known vendors selling pirated DVD recordings (Study 2), and concertgoers at a free outdoor concert (Study 3). The studies collectively examine several marketplace conditions that consumers might perceive as consumption constraints to the purchase of a genuine media product. We chose appropriate conditions by considering the characteristics of each sample studied, the experimental scenarios, and data collection restrictions. We purposely chose a variety of marketplace conditions to act as perceived consumption

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

75

constraints to construct a broader test of the hypotheses. The perceived constraints we test originate from supplier conditions (temporary stockout and high price in Study 1, high price in Study 3), distribution channel conditions (lack of home Internet access in Study 2), consumer conditions (low income in Study 2), and government conditions (temporary government restriction in Study 3). Note that any marketplace condition a consumer perceives as prohibiting the purchase of a genuine media product is a consumption constraint for that consumer. Because the only real substitute for genuine media products (whether obtained as purchased, rented, or borrowed physical DVDs, streaming video, or broadcast receptions) is pirated versions of the same product, consumers who are unable to eliminate perceived consumption constraints realistically have only two choices: acquire a pirated version or do without. In addition, we explore the interactive effect of multiple perceived consumption constraints, particularly with respect to how the presence of one consumption constraint may or may not mitigate the effects of another. Finally, we examine three moderators (ethical views of piracy, social/ interpersonal influence, and TPR).

design. The setting was the online purchase of a DVD box set of a television series, and the sample consisted of online shoppers who were interested in purchasing such a product.

Study 1: Temporary Stockout, High Price, and Ethical Views

We designed Study 1 as a behavioral experiment using fictitious scenarios to examine how two supplier-based perceived consumption constraintstemporary stockouts and high priceaffect consumer attitudes and intentions toward purchasing pirated products and how consumers ethical views of piracy moderate the effects of those consumption constraints. In terms of the hypothesized relationships discussed previously, we expect that the presence of a temporary stockout (as opposed to having the product in stock) of a genuine (nonpirated) product will decrease consumers disapproval of someone buying a pirated copy under such conditions and increase the likelihood that the consumer will make a similar purchase. We expect that the effects of price as a consumption constraint will be similar, in that a higher genuine-product price will result in less disapproval and higher purchase intention for a pirated copy (Cox, Cox, and Moschis 1990). (The positioning of price as a consumption constraint is dependent on consumer perceptions of how a particular price level may or may not prohibit the consumers ability to acquire the genuine product.) These main-effects expectations are congruent with H1. As H2 predicts, we also expect the two consumption constraints to interact such that when one constraint is present (i.e., the price is high or the item is out of stock), the effect of the other constraint on the dependent variables will be attenuated or absent. Finally, as H3 predicts, we expect that consumers who view piracy as being relatively unethical will be less affected by perceived consumption constraints than those who do not consider it unethical. In other words, consumption constraint effects should be weaker or absent for consumers with stronger views of piracy as unethical.

Sample To find a sample of people to whom the setting would be relevant, we began by identifying participants in an online auction Web site who had bid in the previous month on at least one DVD box set of a noncurrent television series. Approximately half of those contacted bid on items that appeared to be pirated goods (as indicated by the efforts of the seller to emphasize the video and sound quality of the recordings). We then sent e-mails (with multiple attempts) to people from another auction account (a feature no longer available at this particular auction Web site) asking about the quality of any purchase they made from the seller. Of 1813 e-mails sent, 391 replied directly back from their auction site e-mail, and 526 replied from a nonauction e-mail address (896 did not reply at all). We contacted those replying from a nonauction e-mail address (N = 526) one month later from a university e-mail account and presented them with the opportunity to participate in an academic research study (conducted online) and to be entered into a drawing for one of ten $25 gift cards from their choice of two major national DVD rental companies. Of those contacted, 206 completed the study. Six responses were not usable, leaving a final sample of 200 (and an effective response rate of 38%). Average age was 29.8 years (ages ranged from 18 to 62 years), and 56% of the sample were male. Scenario and Manipulations The research instrument involved the presentation of a scenario involving the purchase of a DVD boxed set. The highprice, in-stock scenario read as follows:
John has spent the last few months searching stores for a boxed set DVD recording of one of his favorite television series from when he was a child. At a friends suggestion, he began to look online and finally found the recording he was looking for being sold by two potential sources. The first was a national distributor that priced the genuine, original recording at $89, and had the product currently in stock. The second was through a private seller who was obviously selling a pirated copy, that is, one that was recorded from the original DVD. The pirated copy was being sold for $26. John decided to purchase the pirated copy.

The low-price, out-of-stock scenario was identical, except for the following line:
The first was a national distributor that priced the genuine, original recording at $29, but did not have the product in stock and did not expect it to be in stock for the next several months.

Methods
We constructed Study 1 as a 2 (genuine-item availability: in stock versus temporarily out of stock) 2 (genuine-item price: low versus high) between-subjects experimental

There were also low-price, in-stock and high-price, outof-stock conditions. After viewing this scenario, respondents went on to complete a series of measures that assessed the dependent variables, manipulation checks, moderator variable, and demographic items.

Measures We measured disapproval of others purchasing pirated products with a three-item scale that began with the state-

76

Consumer Willingness to Purchase Pirated Media Products

ment, Please answer the following items regarding your opinion of Johns purchase of the pirated DVD recording. This was followed by three bipolar seven-point scale items anchored by I approve/disapprove of Johns purchase, I support/oppose Johns purchase, and I think Johns purchase was the right/wrong thing to do. Responses to the three items had a coefficient alpha of .93, and we averaged these for the analyses. We assessed the other dependent measure, consumer intention to purchase a pirated product, with a one-item measure stating, If I were in a similar situation, the likelihood that I would buy the pirated DVD set is , followed by a seven-point scale anchored by low and high. We did not measure actual purchase in this study. The following page contained the two manipulation check measures. Both had seven-point response scales. For price, the item read, The price of the original recording (compared to the pirated recording) is low/high, and for availability, the item read, The likelihood that the original recording is currently in stock is low/high. An item assessing the realistic nature of the scenario was then presented, which read, The scenario described at the beginning of this study is a realistic one, followed by a seven-point response scale anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree. The next two pages contained a series of questions unrelated to the study, which served as a filler task. Finally, the last page contained a measure assessing whether the respondent found purchasing pirated products to be an (un)ethical practice. It stated, In general, I feel that purchasing pirated products is , followed by three bipolar seven-point scales anchored by ethical/unethical, fair/unfair, and right/wrong (Chung and Monroe 2003; Freestone and Mitchell 2004; Valentine and Rittenburg 2004). The scale had a coefficient alpha of .88, and we averaged the responses for the analyses. We then requested demographic information.

three-way interaction effects were statistically significant (all ps > .15). The scenario check was favorable, with the average response being 6.27 (of 7.00).

Results
For simplicity in presenting the analyses, we performed a median split (at 4.60) of the piracy ethics measure. Respondents who believed that the purchase of pirated products was relatively unethical had a higher score (M = 4.84) than those in the more ethical group (M = 4.13; t198 = 3.18, p < .01, = .22), as we expected. We conducted the remaining analyses using analysis of variance in which we examined the consumption constraint interaction effects within each ethical beliefs group (belief of pirated-product purchase as ethical versus belief of pirated-product purchase as unethical). For each analysis, we initially performed a three-factor analysis of variance, with the relevant two-factor and maineffects analyses reported as appropriate.

Manipulation and Scenario Checks The manipulation checks provided evidence that the manipulations were perceived as intended. Specifically, respondents perceived the high-price condition as higher (M = 6.09) than the low-price condition (M = 3.42; F1, 192 = 125.94, p < .01, = .63), and they perceived the stockout condition as lower availability (M = 2.29) than the in-stock condition (M = 5.24; F1, 192 = 156.07, p < .01, = .67). For each manipulation check, no other main-effect, two-way, or

Hypothesis Testing Although we predicted interaction effects, we also conducted main-effects tests to examine the strength of the two consumption constraints on a general basis and across a comprehensive population. Main effects for original product availability were significant for both dependent measures. Specifically, consumers were less disapproving of the purchase of the pirated product under stockout conditions (M = 3.71) than when the original product was in stock (M = 4.34; F1, 192 = 8.30, p < .01, = .20). If confronted with a similar situation, respondents reported that they were more likely to make a similar pirated-product purchase when the original product was temporarily out of stock (M = 4.39) than when it was in stock (M = 3.68; F1, 192 = 8.33, p < .01, = .20). Main effects for price were also statistically significant for both dependent measures. Specifically, respondents disapproved less of the piracy when the original product price was high (M = 3.71) than when it was low (M = 4.36; F1, 192 = 7.17, p < .01, = .19) and were more likely to buy the pirated copy under high-price conditions (M = 4.46) than under low-price conditions (M = 3.59; F1, 192 = 10.61, p < .01, = .23). These results support H1. H2 proposed an interaction between genuine-product consumption constraints such that the presence of one constraint (in this case, a high original price or a temporary stockout) would reduce the effect of the other constraint on the dependent variables. Moreover, both consumption constraints must be removed for consumers either to express disapproval of someone buying the pirated good or to refrain from intending to buy it themselves. However, H3 proposed that these effects would be reduced or eliminated for consumers who believe strongly that purchasing pirated products is an unethical practice. This suggests little or no perceived consumption constraint effects for consumers who strongly believe that piracy is unethical but a consumption constraint interaction effect for consumers without such beliefs. To evaluate these hypotheses, we examine the analysis of variance results and the mean values for the dependent measures in each condition (see Figure 1). There was an expected three-way interaction for purchase intention (p < .05) but not for disapproval (p = .12); however, the more specific two-way analyses showed support for the hypotheses. Specifically, when respondents viewed the purchase of pirated products as relatively unethical, price and availability had no significant effects on either of the dependent measures (all ps > .25; see Figure 1, Panels B and D). However, when the respondents did not view purchasing pirated products as unethical, price and availability interacted in the expected direction for both disapproval of someone elses pirated-product purchase (interaction F1, 102 = 4.99, p = .03, = .23) and the respondents own intended purchase under similar conditions (interaction F1, 102 = 6.93, p = .01, = .26). As Panels AC of Figure 1 show, these respondents tended to disapprove of the pirated purchase and to reduce their own purchase intentions only when both consumption constraints were absent.

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

77

Figure 1.

Study 1 Results A: Piracy Not Viewed as Unethical 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 Low High Genuine Product Price Stockout In stock 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 Low High Genuine Product Price Stockout In stock B: Piracy Viewed as Unethical Disapproval of PMP Purchase

Disapproval of PMP Purchase

C: Piracy Not Viewed as Unethical 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 Low High Genuine Product Price Stockout In stock 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 PMP Purchase Intention PMP Purchase Intention

D: Piracy Viewed as Unethical

Low

High

Genuine Product Price Stockout In stock

Notes: PMP = pirated media products.

Discussion
The findings from Study 1 provide evidence that a high price and temporary lack of availability (in the form of a stockout) can be perceived as consumption constraints to purchasing a genuine media product and thus can create an environment in which consumers are less likely to be critical of the purchase of a pirated good and are more likely to purchase a pirated good under similar circumstances. This result supports the presence of a psychological reactance mechanism that acts to motivate consumers to overcome challenges to obtaining an object to which their access is constrained. For example, in the current context, consumers who did not perceive the purchase of pirated products as unethical were susceptible to the psychological reactance effect, given that they were willing to choose this route to overcome the consumption constraint barrier (the stockout and/or high price). Conversely, consumers who viewed pirated-product purchase as unethical did not consider this a viable means of overcoming the consumption constraint. Thus, this group perceived the consumption constraints as insurmountable barriers, resulting in a decreased motivation to pursue the desired product. The results also show that the removal of only one consumption constraint was not enough to change attitudes and intentions. Only when both constraints were removed were

consumers willing to show disapproval and not consider purchasing the pirated good. Granted, these effects were absent for consumers who strongly believed that purchasing a pirated product in general is unethical. However, current marketplace conditions suggest that there are tens or hundreds of millions of consumers worldwide who do not consider such purchases unethical. For these consumers, consumption constraints appear to play a role in the purchase of illegal pirated goods. We discuss the findings in greater detail in the Discussion and Implications section.

Study 2: Channel Access, Low Income, and Interpersonal Influence

Study 2 consisted of a field study using survey methods; we conducted this study to examine how two factorslow income and a lack of distribution channel accesscould be perceived as consumption constraints to obtaining a genuine media product and thus affect the propensity to purchase a low-cost pirated alternative. We also examined the moderating effects of interpersonal influence. To complement the behavioral intention data collected in Study 1, we examined actual purchase behavior in Study 2. In terms of our hypotheses, we expect that the presence of perceived consumption constraints will result in a higher likelihood that a consumer will purchase a pirated media

78

Consumer Willingness to Purchase Pirated Media Products

product than when such constraints are not present (H1). We also expect that interpersonal influence will moderate the consumption constraint effects (Cox, Cox, and Moschis 1990). Specifically, when key members of a consumers social network strongly encourage or accept the purchasing of pirated products, we expect that the lack of consumption constraints will have little effect on decreasing the propensity to purchase a pirated product (H4). The environment in which we examined these relationships was an outdoor flea market in a major U.S. city (metropolitan population of more than one million) that had two known vendors of pirated DVD recordings. Although the recordings were likely of reasonable quality, the packaging for the recordings (most with a jewel case instead of the usual DVD case and with a low-quality printed insert) was clearly substandard, and thus it would be apparent to buyers and their friends and family that the DVDs were not authentic. Therefore, this situation was an ideal opportunity to examine how the opinions of key members of consumer social networks might moderate the proposed effects of the consumption constraints. Low income and a lack of home Internet access were the two consumption constraints we selected for this study because they appeared to be most germane to this particular setting. Informal interviews we conducted with both buyers and nonbuyers of the pirated DVDs suggested a wide range of income groups present, and lower-income consumers complained that they did not have the funds to purchase new, genuine DVDs. Another commonly stated reason for purchasing the pirated DVDs was respondents lack of Internet access to find other affordable alternatives.

Sample The observers relayed information to the data collectors regarding 234 purchasing and 211 nonpurchasing consumers (445). Of these, 108 and 85, respectively, agreed to participate in the study, for a collective response rate of 43%. Respondents had a mean age of 31.2 years (age range of 2155), had a median household income range of $45,000$49,999, and were about evenly split across sex (50.3% were female). Measures We measured interpersonal influence with three items (standardized = .84) that each had seven-point Likerttype response scales anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). The three items started with Some of my close friends and/or family might ... and ended with support my decision to purchase pirated products, encourage me to purchase pirated products, and persuade me to purchase pirated products. (We included a brief description of pirated goods as well.) To take the focus away from the pirated products, we included them among other measures that assessed the degree to which close friends or family would support the consumers decision to smoke cigarettes, vote in every election, and recycle plastic containers. In addition, a measure similar to that in Study 1 assessed the reported likelihood that the respondent would buy a pirated product in the near future (as well as likelihood measures for the three distracter activities). We measured access to the Internet at home with a yes/no question that asked whether respondents had Internet access that they could personally use at their place of residence. We measured income with a 19-category scale ranging from $0$4,999 to $95,000 or over.

Methods
We disguised Study 2 as a survey assessing how people perceive the opinions of their friends and family so as not to draw attention to the questions regarding pirated products. Thus, we measured the independent variables of income and home Internet access and the moderating variable of interpersonal influence with the questionnaire. One of the research assistants observed actual pirated DVD purchase behavior.

Results
Similar to Study 1, we performed a median split (at 3.33) of the moderator variablein this case, interpersonal influenceto simplify the analyses. To examine how the perceived consumption constraints operate in predicting the actual pirated-product purchase behavior, we ran discriminant analyses to distinguish between purchasers and nonpurchasers for both the high-social-support group (i.e., consumers with friends or family who would support or encourage piracy) and the low-social-support group. Predictor variables included the two potential consumption constraintshome Internet access and household incomeas well as age and sex. We added the latter two variables because prior research has shown that older consumers and women are less likely to participate in behavior that society typically views as unethical (Cox, Cox, and Moschis 1990; Gupta, Gould, and Pola 2004; Prendergast, Chuen, and Phau 2002). As we hypothesized, both consumption constraint variables were significant predictors of purchase of a pirated DVD for consumers with a low degree of interpersonal influence to buy pirated products, whereas for the high group, the consumption constraints were not predictive. Specifically, for the low group, the discriminant function was statistically significant (Wilks = .771; 2 = 25.3,

Procedure The procedure began by inconspicuously observing flea market visitors near the larger of the two vendors known to sell pirated DVD products. As consumers passed by (and often examined) the displays, a research assistant noted whether a particular consumer purchased a pirated DVD at that time. This information, along with a detailed description of the consumer, was relayed to another research assistant who was stationed approximately 150 feet down the same aisle of vendors. When a selected consumer reached the survey location, the second research assistant then approached and asked for his or her participation in a brief study of opinions, offering a modest monetary incentive. Thus, each survey participant who purchased a pirated DVD was marked as such. Note that some participants who were not marked as having purchased a pirated DVD could have already done so or could do so in the future; thus, the number of known pirated DVD purchasers represents a conservative estimate.

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

79

d.f. = 4; p < .01), with lack of home Internet access and lower income being predictive of a higher probability of piracy (both ps < .01). Younger age was also predictive of a higher probability of piracy (p = .01). For the highinfluence group, only age was predictive (p = .05), whereas Internet access and income were not. Sex of the respondents was not predictive for either group. Finally, we examined the behavioral intention item, which measured consumers likelihood of a future purchase of a pirated product with respect to its association with actual behavior. A simple comparison of means showed that known purchasers of the pirated DVDs indeed scored higher on the behavioral intention measure (M = 5.27) than those who were not observed making a pirated DVD purchase (M = 3.45; t = 6.12, p < .01).

Sample and Procedure Participants were concertgoers recruited from a free outdoor concert in a major U.S. city (metropolitan area population of more than one million). The bands playing were local and attracted primarily a younger (ages 2030 years) audience. Participants were approached by data collectors to participate in a short academic study and were compensated with a monetary incentive. Of 269 people approached, 196 agreed to complete the survey. Four surveys were not completed correctly, leaving a final sample of 192 and an effective response rate of 71%. Scenario and Manipulations The scenario presented to participants involved a music fan desiring a new DVD of a bands concert. The pricing manipulation was similar to that in Study 1. The government restriction manipulation was presented as a temporary ban on the import of the DVD. Specifically, the scenario (with high price and government restriction) was as follows:
One of J.T.s favorite bands recently played a celebration concert in its home country and created a DVD of the concert for sale around the world. J.T. wants to buy the DVD as soon as possible. The band has noted that the DVD will be for sale exclusively on its Web site for a price of $89. Unfortunately, the federal government has decided to issue a temporary ban on importing the DVD into the country until a series of regulatory documents have been approved, a process that reportedly may last several months. In the meantime, J.T. has found a way to buy an unauthorized, pirated copy of the DVD, which can be purchased for $26. J.T. has decided to buy the pirated copy.

Discussion
The results of Study 2 were key in establishing that actual behavior can be predicted on the basis of factors that may be perceived as consumption constraints, that interpersonal influence to purchase pirated products can moderate the consumption constraint effects, and that behavioral intention measures can be valid substitutes for behavioral observations for this deviant consumer behavior. Of concern, though not surprising, is that several respondents were witnessed purchasing the pirated DVDs who did not admit any future intention to participate in this activity.

Study 3: Government Restriction, High Price, and TPR

We designed Study 3 as a fictitious scenario-based experiment carried out in the field; we return to an examination of price as a factor that may be perceived as a potential consumption constraint, along with a government restriction on the sale of a product. To test H5, we examined TPR as a moderator of the consumption constraint effects. If government restriction and high price are indeed perceived as consumption constraints, we expect that they will result in less disapproval of piracy behavior and higher anticipated future piracy behavior (H1). We expect the two consumption constraints to interact with the dependent variables in that the presence of one should reduce or eliminate the effects of the other (H2). Moreover, TPR should moderate the consumption constraint effects, in that consumers with high TPR should show stronger effects, particularly for government restrictions (H5).

The no-ban conditions were identical, except for the following two sentences:
Fortunately, the federal government is currently allowing the import of the DVD into the country even though the band still has to have some regulatory documents approved. Nevertheless, J.T. has found a way to buy an unauthorized, pirated copy of the DVD, which can be purchased for $26.

The low-price conditions listed a genuine product price of $29.

Methods
We conducted Study 3 as a 2 (low versus high price) 2 (government ban present versus absent) between-subjects experimental design. We measured TPR as an individual difference variable and then performed a median split for simplicity in presenting the results. All analyses involved three-way (price, ban, TPR) analysis of variance, with relevant two-way interaction and main effects reported as appropriate. The scenario involved purchasing a DVD of one of a music fans favorite bands.

Measures The two dependent variable measuresdisapproval of others purchasing pirated products and consumer piracy intentionswere identical (except for the name change) to those used in Study 1, as was the price manipulation check measure. A manipulation check for product availability read, The likelihood that J.T. can purchase the original recording during the next few months is ...; this was followed by a seven-point response scale anchored by low and high. As with Study 1, we presented an item assessing the realistic nature of the scenario as well. We measured the moderating variable using Hong and Faeddas (1996) 11-point TPR scale and seven-point disagree/agree response scales (coefficient = .82). We averaged the scale items and performed a median split at 4.05.

80

Consumer Willingness to Purchase Pirated Media Products

Results
Manipulation and Scenario Checks Analysis of the manipulation checks provided evidence that participants perceived the manipulations as we intended. Specifically, they perceived the high-price condition as higher (M = 5.57) than the low-price condition (M = 2.74; F1, 191 = 214.0, p < .01, = .73), and they perceived the government ban condition as lower availability (M = 2.10) than the no-ban condition (M = 4.77; F1, 191 = 260.9, p < .01, = .77). In addition, no other main or interaction (twoway or three-way) effects were significant (all ps > .20). The scenario check was favorable as well in that the average response was 5.79 (of 7.00). Hypothesis Testing As in Study 1, we assessed main-effects tests to examine the strength of the two perceived consumption constraints on a general basis. The main-effects test for original product availability was significant for the disapproval dependent measure. Specifically, consumers were less disapproving of the purchase of the pirated product under government restriction conditions (M = 4.33) than when there was no government ban on the original product (M = 4.77; F1, 191 = 5.09, p < .05, = .16). The main effect for the behavioral
Figure 2. Study 3 Results A: Low TPR Disapproval of PMP Purchase

intention measure (that respondents would make a similar pirated-product purchase) was not significant (Mban = 4.19, Mno_ban = 3.77; F1, 191 = 3.22, p = .07). Main effects for price were statistically significant for both dependent measures. Respondents were less disapproving of the piracy when the original product price was high (M = 4.22) than when it was low (M = 4.89; F1, 191 = 11.39, p < .01, = .24) and reported higher pirated-product purchase intentions under high-price conditions (M = 4.57) than under lowprice conditions (M = 3.38; F1, 191 = 24.92, p < .01, = .34). These results support H1. As with Study 1, H2 proposed an interaction effect between perceived consumption constraints, such that the presence of one constraint (either the high genuine-product price or the temporary ban) would reduce the effect of the other constraint on the dependent variables. In addition, H5 proposed that when TPR is relatively high, consumption constraint effects, particularly that of the government ban, should be stronger. As in Study 1, there was an expected three-way interaction for purchase intention (p < .05) but not for disapproval; however, the more specific two-way analyses for the high- and low-TPR groups showed support for the hypotheses (see Figure 2). For consumers with relatively high TPR, both price and availability had main effects on both dependent measures.

B: High TPR Disapproval of PMP Purchase 5.50 5.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 Low High Genuine Product Price Ban No ban

5.50 5.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 Low High Genuine Product Price Ban No ban

C: Low TPR 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 5 Low High Genuine Product Price Ban
Notes: PMP = pirated media products.

D: High TPR 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 5 Low High Genuine Product Price Ban No ban PMP Purchase Intention

PMP Purchase Intention

No ban

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

81

Specifically, high-TPR consumers encountering a high price were less likely to disapprove of a pirated purchase (M = 3.78) than those with a low price (M = 4.56; F1, 94 = 7.24, p < .01, = .27) and had higher intentions of making a pirated purchase under high-price conditions (M = 4.94) than under low-price conditions (M = 3.89; F1, 94 = 10.14, p < .01, = .32). Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between the two consumption constraints for both the disapproval (F1, 94 = 7.95, p < .01, = .29) and purchase intention (F1, 94 = 6.72, p < .01, = .26) measures. The interactions revealed that both consumption constraints must be eliminated to raise piracy disapproval rates and lower intended piracy behavior (see Figure 2, Panels B and D), in support of H2. For consumers with relatively low TPR, the government ban had no effect on piracy disapproval (F1, 96 = .86, not significant [n.s.]) or on intended piracy behavior (F1, 96 = .56, n.s.). The interaction effects were also not significant for both dependent measures (both ps > .25; see Figure 2, Panels A and C). However, the lowTPR consumers offered less disapproval under high-price conditions (M = 4.66) than under low-price conditions (M = 5.21; F1, 96 = 4.21, p < .05, = .21) and higher intended piracy under high-price conditions (M = 4.18) than under low-price conditions (M = 2.90; F1, 96 = 15.04, p < .01, = .37). Overall, these findings offer support for H5.

straints influence the degree to which consumers are willing to condone and/or participate in the purchase of pirated products as a means to overcome the perceived barriers to purchase. This broadens prior views of consumption constraints and provides a basis for the study of pirated products and deviant consumer behavior. Second, the findings indicate that managing harmful reactions to perceived consumption constraints may be better effectuated by focusing on moderating variables rather than on the perceived consumption constraints themselves. The implications of these findings are germane to academic researchers, marketing managers, and public policy makers.

Implications
Marketing exchange factors, such as low income, high prices, and purchase/availability restrictions, all contribute to the illegal acquisition of products through shoplifting (Cox, Cox, and Moschis 1990) and purchasing known stolen goods (Albers-Miller 1999). The current research provides evidence that these factors may be perceived as consumption constraints that, due to the psychological reactance mechanism, influence a consumers willingness to participate in or condone piracy-related behavior. From a practical perspective, it benefits both marketers who present the consumer with perceived constraints, such as high prices or limited supplies, and governmental regulators who set restrictions on obtaining pirated versions of products to consider potential psychological reactance effects that may be triggered by the consumption constraints placed in the consumers path to obtaining such products. In particular, greater attention should be directed toward the means of mitigating the negative outcomes (condoning, intending to purchase, and/or purchasing pirated products) of psychological reactance effects. Because psychological reactance leads consumers to try to overcome consumption constraints, the marketer could provide legitimate alternatives to obtaining the constrained products. For example, if supply of a new product is intentionally limited to create supply shortage, as was the case with the Sony PlayStation 3 during the 2006 holiday season, the manufacturer could provide alternatives to those for whom the price or supply is a constraint, such as a lease or rental program through retail or entertainment outlets. As for government restrictions against acquiring pirated products, these constraints must be perceived as insurmountable so that consumer motivation to acquire these types of products subsides. Raising awareness of the severity of penalties for piracy and of enforcement of these penalties through credible communication sources, such as news outlets and word of mouth, would likely help increase the perceived insurmountability of regulatory constraints against obtaining pirated products. From a theoretical perspective, the findings add breadth to the examination of psychological reactance theory and its usefulness in explaining reactions to potential barriers to genuine-product purchases. Although much of the prior work on psychological reactance has been focused on barriers imposed by government or other authoritative figures, the potential for various types of barriers to be perceived as consumption constraints and to prompt piracy-related behavior suggests that psychological reactance is useful in

Discussion
The results from Study 3 support the hypotheses and add evidence of more specific moderating effects. Specifically, high-TPR consumers were more likely to respond to a government restriction type of consumption constraint than low-TPR consumers. However, for the low-TPR consumers, the high-price factor dominated attitudes and intentions, and there were no effects for government restrictions.

Discussion and Implications

The findings from the three studies support the hypothesized relationships regarding consumer attitudes and behavioral inclinations toward purchasing pirated products. In particular, we found that across three varied sets of consumers in different marketplace settings (online shoppers, flea market visitors, and concertgoers) and five market conditions (high price, stockouts, low income, lack of channel access, and government restrictions), factors that can limit consumption (i.e., factors that may be perceived as consumption constraints) can lead to (1) decreased disapproval of other consumers pirated-product purchase behavior, (2) greater personal pirated-product purchase intentions, and (3) higher probability of actual pirated-product purchase. Furthermore, the examination of three moderating variables (ethical views of piracy, interpersonal influence, and TPR) demonstrated that the focal effects differ across various consumer types and situations. The results are important in several respects. First, they show that consumers can potentially perceive various factors related to supply, buyer conditions, channel accessibility, and regulatory restrictions as consumption constraints, and given the psychological reactancetriggering effects of such constraints, under certain circumstances these con-

82

Consumer Willingness to Purchase Pirated Media Products

explaining reactions to nonauthoritative sources as well. The findings also address the conceptual basis for what constitutes consumption constraints, including whether they are mainly physical in nature, the degree to which they are also psychological in nature, and the degree to which they are represented by psychological reactions to consumer perceptions of objective conditions. Furthermore, the interactive effects shown by the three moderating variables may be useful in examining other types of deviant consumer behaviorboth legal and illegalsuch as shoplifting (Cox, Cox, and Moschis 1990), insurance fraud (Miyazaki 2009), and general dishonesty (Mazar and Ariely 2006). Marketing managers and policy makers should also heed the results of these studies as potential key elements in reducing consumer piracy behavior. Industry and government efforts to confront piracy directly have had limited effects on the amount or scope of piracy. Thus, focusing efforts on perceived consumption constraints or moderating variables may be more successful in effecting changes in behavior. To date, copyright holders have typically focused their efforts on prosecuting producers and suppliers of pirated products. This is sensible because there is substantial evidence that piracy (for sound recordings at least) is positively related to the size and efficiency of the black-market distribution channels (Papadopoulos 2004). However, the current research indicates that education efforts may have noticeable effects as well. Changing consumer attitudes and increasing the salience of messages that piracy is theft and, thus, socially unacceptable or unethical may have substantial effects on legitimate consumption choices. Consumer advocates and policy makers should consider other marketplace factors that could be perceived as consumption constraints and thus lead consumers to acquire pirated products and/or support the piracy behavior of others. Although industry or government may attempt to remove certain perceived consumption constraints, a more effective approach may be to target moderating variables, such as social influence or ethical perceptions, similar to recent efforts by the MPAA to change attitudes toward piracy. Indeed, Mazar and Ariely (2006) suggest that education and socialization efforts can increase internal reward mechanisms by instilling or strengthening internalized social norms. From a consumer education perspective, it is not apparent that previous attempts have worked to significantly reduce pirating behavior, though recent efforts have shown more promise (e.g., Siemens and Kopp 2006). It is critical for those attempting to change piracy attitudes and behavior to understand that some remedies may work only for certain groups but not for others. Again, an investigation into these and other moderators may help determine which remedies will work for particular consumer segments.

Potential Limitations and Further Research

Studies 1 and 3 were limited by examining only intended behavior instead of actual behavior, though the strong relationship between reported intentions and actual behavior uncovered in Study 2 lends confidence to the findings of the other two studies. Further research that examines actual behavior will continue to add to the findings of these studies in better understanding piracy and other deviant con-

sumer behavior. Another limitation could be the use of consumer disapproval of another persons piracy behavior as a dependent variable. However, considering the findings of Study 2 that interpersonal influence plays a role in moderating the consumption constraint effects, such attitudes may prove to be crucial to consumer reactance to perceived scarcity, price, lack of resources, and other perceived constraints. Nevertheless, an expansion of dependent measures would add to the understanding of consumption constraints regarding piracy behavior. A methodological concern with Study 2 involves the measurement of social influence after the purchase of the pirated product. Although the study participants were likely unaware that their purchase of pirated products had been observed, it is possible that their piracy actions influenced these measures. Future studies could work to remedy this concern and could consider the potential for socially desirable response behavior. A theoretical limitation involves both the assumption that consumers indeed perceived the limiting factors as consumption constraints and the use of psychological reactance theory as an explanatory tool. Further research should use process measures to explore more precisely how consumers interpret the manipulated factors and whether they consider each one (under the various conditions) a constraint to their consumption opportunities. Furthermore, more detailed measurement of psychological reactance could be conducted to validate when consumers experience it and when simple costbenefit analyses might offer a more elegant theoretical explanation. Finally, there is a limitation in the type of piracy behavior studied here. We purposefully focused our studies on the purchase of pirated media products. We understand that there are many other products that suffer from significant piracy problems. In addition, as demonstrated by the vast number of pirated songs that are downloaded, an actual purchase is not always necessary. Indeed, further research could focus efforts on alternative perspectives of piracy behavior, how consumption constraints do or do not play a role, and how consumer involvement and perceptions of price or cost may help explain reactions to constraints. Such research could more deeply explore what choices, particularly what distribution choices, a consumer has when he or she wants a particular product or service. For example, consider some of the ways that a consumer could acquire a desired recording of a song: (1) purchase at a store, (2) purchase through a mail-order service, (3) purchase online and have it mailed, (4) purchase online and download it, (5) purchase an unofficial (pirated) copy online and have it mailed, (6) purchase an unofficial (pirated) copy in person, (7) download a free pirated copy from a peer-to-peer service (e.g., LimeWire, Morpheus, BitTorrent), (8) borrow a CD from a friend and burn it, or (9) record it from the radio, particularly from high-quality digital/subscription radio.

Conclusions
The three studies presented here demonstrate that various consumption-limiting factors can have a deleterious effect on consumer behavior, particularly under the conditions of various moderating factors. The variety of limiting factors studiedoriginating from supplier, channel, consumer, and government conditionsand the three moderating variables

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

83

offer a comprehensive look at how price, scarcity, and government restrictions can influence consumers to seek alternative sources for the products they want. Indeed, it is often the marketplace conditions that influence the piracy-related consumer attitudes and behaviors to the point of potentially condoning such behavior and participating in it. The three studies collectively examine potential consumption constraints that originate from supplier conditions (temporary stockout and high price in Study 1, high price in Study 3), distribution channel conditions (lack of home Internet access in Study 2), consumer conditions (low income in Study 2), and government conditions (temporary government restriction in Study 3). In addition, we examine the interactive effects of various consumption constraints, showing that resolving one consumption constraint may have little or no effect on reducing piracy behavior for certain consumer groups unless other consumption constraints are resolved as well. Thus, further research and future efforts by government and industry will need to be more creative in identifying who is prone to consumption constraint effects and how to remedy those effects.

Clee, Mona A. and Robert A. Wicklund (1980), Consumer Behavior and Psychological Reactance, Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (March), 389405. Cox, Dena, Anthony D. Cox, and George P. Moschis (1990), When Consumer Behavior Goes Bad: An Investigation of Adolescent Shoplifting, Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 14959. Cronan, Timothy Paul and Sulaiman Al-Rafee (2007), Factors that Influence the Intention to Pirate Software and Media, Journal of Business Ethics, 78 (April), 52745. The Economist (2003), Stepping Up the War Against Piracy, (January 30), (accessed February 20, 2003), [available at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id= 1560936]. Freestone, O. and V. Mitchell (2004), Generation Y Attitudes Towards E-ethics and Internet-Related Misbehaviours, Journal of Business Ethics, 54 (October), 12128. Gupta, Pola B., Stephen J. Gould, and Bharath Pola (2004), To Pirate or Not to Pirate: A Comparative Study of the Ethical Versus Other Influences on the Consumers Software Acquisition-Mode Decision, Journal of Business Ethics, 55 (December), 25574. Hill, Charles W.L. (2007), Digital Piracy: Causes, Consequences, and Strategic Responses, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (March), 925. Hong, Sung-Mook and Salvatora Faedda (1996), Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56 (Fall), 17382. and S. Page (1989), A Psychological Reactance Scale: Development, Factor Structure, and Reliability, Psychological Reports, 64 (3), 132326. IFPI (2008), IFPI Digital Music Report: Revolution, Innovation, Responsibility, (accessed March 29, 2008), [available at http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2008.pdf]. Jacobs, Laurence, A. Coskun Samli, and Tom Jedlik (2001), The Nightmare of International Product Piracy, Industrial Marketing Management, 30 (6), 499509. Kwong, Kenneth K., Oliver H.M. Yau, Jenny S.Y. Lee, Leo Y.M. Sin, and Alan C.B. Tse (2003), The Effects of Attitudinal and Demographic Factors on Intention to Buy Pirated CDs: The Case of Chinese Consumers, Journal of Business Ethics, 47 (3), 22335. Langenderfer, Jeff and Don Lloyd Cook (2001), Copyright Policies and Issues Raised by A&M Records v. Napster: The Shot Heard Round the World or Not with a Bang but a Whimper? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20 (Fall), 28088. Limayem, Moez, Mohamed Khalifa, and Wynne W. Chin (2004), Factors Motivating Software Piracy: A Longitudinal Study, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51 (November), 41425. Mazar, Nina and Dan Ariely (2006), Dishonesty in Everyday Life and Its Policy Implications, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25 (Spring), 11726. McBride, Sarah (2006), Studios See Big Rise in Estimates of Losses to Movie Piracy, The Wall Street Journal, (May 3), B1. McDonald, Gael and Christopher Roberts (1994), Product Piracy: The Problem that Will Not Go Away, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 3 (4), 5565.

References
Albers-Miller, Nancy D. (1999), Consumer Misbehavior: Why People Buy Illicit Goods, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16 (3), 27387. Bearden, William O., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E. Teel (1989), Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 47381. Blakeney, Michael (2004), Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: Challenges, Remedies, and Public Awareness, World Intellectual Property Organization, (accessed March 29, 2008), [available at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/arab/en/wipo_ ip_uni_dub_04/wipo_ip_uni_dub_04_7.doc]. Brehm, Jack W. (1972), Responses to Loss of Freedom: A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Brehm, Sharon Stephens and Jack W. Brehm (1981), Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. New York: Academic Press. Business Software Alliance (2006), Fourth Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study, (accessed March 29, 2008), [available at http://w3.bsa.org/globalstudy//upload/2007Global-Piracy-Study-EN.pdf]. Cheung, Wah-Leung and Gerard Prendergast (2006), Buyers Perceptions of Pirated Products in China, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24 (5), 44662. Childnet International (2005), Young People, Music, and the Internet, (accessed April 1, 2008), [available at http://76.74.24. 142/A6091D27-6C3B-CA63-0422-7A6EF89A7125.pdf]. Chiou, Jyh-Shen, Chien-yi Huang, and Hsin-hui Lee (2005), The Antecedents of Music Piracy Attitudes and Intentions, Journal of Business Ethics, 57 (March), 16174. Chung, Janne and Gary S. Monroe (2003), Exploring Social Desirability Bias, Journal of Business Ethics, 44 (June), 291302.

84

Consumer Willingness to Purchase Pirated Media Products

Meyer, Robert J. (1981), A Model of Multiattribute Judgments Under Attribute Uncertainty and Informational Constraint, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (November), 42841. Miyazaki, Anthony D. (2009), Perceived Ethicality of Insurance Claim Fraud: Do Higher Deductibles Lead to Lower Ethical Standards? Journal of Business Ethics, forthcoming. , Dhruv Grewal, and Ronald C. Goodstein (2005), The Effect of Multiple Extrinsic Cues on Quality Perceptions: A Matter of Consistency, Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 14653. , Jeff Langenderfer, and David E. Sprott (1999), Government-Sponsored Lotteries: Exploring Purchase and Nonpurchase Motivations, Psychology & Marketing, 16 (January), 120. MPAA (2005), 2005 U.S. Piracy Fact Sheet, (accessed April 1, 2008), [available at http://www.mpaa.org/USPiracyFactSheet. pdf]. No Electronic Theft Act (1997), P.L. 105-147. Papadopoulos, Theo (2004), Pricing and Pirate Product Market Formation, Journal of Product & Brand Management: Pricing Strategy and Practice, 13 (1), 5663. Prendergast, Gerard, Leung Hing Chuen, and Ian Phau (2002), Understanding Consumer Demand for Non-Deceptive Pirated Brands, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 20 (7), 405416. Siemens, Jennifer Christie and Steven W. Kopp (2006), Teaching Ethical Copyright Behavior: Assessing the Effects of a University-Sponsored Computing Ethics Program, NASPA Journal, 43 (4), 11226.

Siwek, Stephen E. (2006), The True Cost of Motion Picture Piracy to the US Economy, Institute for Policy Innovation, (accessed March 29, 2008), [available at http://www.ipi.org/ ipi%5CIPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullTextPDF/ 293C69E7D5055FA4862571F800168459/$File/CostOfPiracy. pdf?OpenElement]. Smith, Adam (1937), The Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House. Smith, Tom (2004), RIAA Sues 482 More Unnamed File Sharers, The Register, (accessed April 1, 2008), [available at http:// www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/23/riaa_sues_482/]. Stetler, Brian (2008), Tape Delay by NBC Faces End Run by Online Fans, The New York Times, (August 9), A1. Stock, Axel and Subramanian Balachander (2005), The Making of a Hot Product: A Signaling Explanation of Marketers Scarcity Strategy, Management Science, 51 (8), 118192. Universal City Studios v. Corley (2001), 273 F.3d 429 (2d Circuit). Valentine, Sean R. and Terri L. Rittenburg (2004), Spanish and American Business Professionals Ethical Evaluations in Global Situations, Journal of Business Ethics, 51 (April), 114. Wang, Shujen and Jonathan J.H. Zhu (2003), Mapping Film Piracy in China, Theory, Culture & Society, 20 (4), 97125. Woller, Kevin M.P., Walter C. Buboltz Jr., and James M. Loveland (2007), Psychological Reactance: Examination Across Age, Ethnicity, and Gender, American Journal of Psychology, 120 (Spring), 1524.