User Payment Patterns for Subscription Video-on-Demand Services: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Ignacio Redondo
,
Diana Serrano

Subscription video-on-demand platforms such as Netflix and HBO Max are being increasingly challenged by the widespread practice of sharing accounts with individuals outside the household. Platforms face a massive loss of revenue due to the opportunistic behavior of many users who enjoy content without paying anything or paying only a part of the required subscription fees.

  • film business
  • consumer behavior
  • account sharing

1. Introduction

Subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) has greatly disrupted how users consume movies, series, and other video content. In exchange for fees that are generally considered most convenient (Palomba 2020), SVOD subscribers are empowered to watch a wide variety of video content whenever, wherever, and however they desire. Unsurprisingly, the number of subscriptions has seen remarkable growth globally (Wayne and Castro 2021), and SVOD has steadily taken audiences away from well-established distribution channels, such as cinemas, DVD/Blu-ray, and TV networks (Schauerte et al. 2021; Weinberg et al. 2021). The explosive growth of the SVOD market has encouraged the entry of major competitors in recent years: Apple TV+ and Disney+ in 2019, HBO Max and Peacock in 2020, Discovery+ and Paramount+ in 2021, and SkyShowtime in 2022. Soon after, the market began to show some signs of maturity, such as a slowdown in the growth of new subscriptions and an acceleration in the growth of cancellations (Chakraborty et al. 2023; Wang 2022).
In addition to growing rivalry, SVOD players face two major threats: the ease with which the public can enjoy content from pirated video sources and can use SVOD accounts without paying the required fees. Regarding the piracy threat, the direct release of film content on SVOD has made high-quality copies available almost immediately on unauthorized sites, which has ushered in a new age of piracy (De Kosnik 2020; Sharma et al. 2023). Moreover, in the last decade, the most common form of piracy has shifted from that of downloading large files in P2P networks to simpler direct viewing on streaming sites: in 2021, P2P and streaming contributed 11% and 79%, respectively, to global piracy (Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment 2022). Concerning the threat of unpaid fees, subscribers can give their login credentials to individuals living in other households (e.g., relatives, friends, and acquaintances), who can then make unauthorized use of all account content. When the SVOD market was growing rapidly, providers tacitly allowed this practice and even considered it beneficial to their business because (a) temporary sharing could serve as a test before subscription and (b) rigorous user authentication could encourage viewing the same content on illegal streaming websites (Kelly 2022; Loh 2019). Nevertheless, SVOD account sharing creates large gaps between the number of subscribers and the number of actual users: for example, Netflix acknowledged that globally almost a third of the households consuming its content did not actually have the required subscription (Nguyen 2022). The subscriber-user gap has prompted more and more industry insiders to stress (a) the importance of considering the unauthorized use of SVOD accounts as a new form of piracy and (b) the need to implement more rigorous methods of user authentication (Gardner 2019).
In an increasingly competitive market, SVOD players have a growing need for subscription revenues to provide a solid source of funding, regardless of whether such revenues account for most sales (e.g., HBO Max) or whether there are significant additional revenues from advertising (e.g., Hulu) or cross-selling (e.g., Amazon Prime) (Hadida et al. 2021; Kübler et al. 2021). However, subscription revenues are a relatively fragile source of funding over which SVOD players have limited control because the actual payment of fees ultimately relies on the goodwill of users. In this complex situation, it is important to understand which factors motivate SVOD users in their decisions to pay the required fees. Although there have been calls to investigate this issue (Schauerte et al. 2021; Guo 2022), researchers have found no peer-reviewed studies on which individual factors influence SVOD payment patterns.

2. Subscription Video-on-Demand Services

In exchange for a monthly/annual fee, SVOD services typically allow subscribers (a) to obtain unlimited access to a wide selection of self-administered video content including original and exclusive titles, (b) to create multiple user profiles for the household members, (c) to simultaneously stream on multiple devices such as televisions, computers, tablets, and game consoles, and (d) to download their favorite content and play it offline anytime and anywhere. In addition, it is easy for users to contract, cancel, and restart their subscriptions.
Although not authorized by SVOD services, subscribers can easily share their login credentials with individuals from other households, who may then access the same selection of video content under the same viewing conditions. In turn, non-subscription users may or may not provide financial compensation to the corresponding subscribers. All of this means that actual SVOD users may have essentially three payment patterns for the services enjoyed: pay the full subscription, share the subscription fee, and pay nothing. Note that the same consumer can use different payment patterns for different SVOD services.
As a first step to understanding this phenomenon, researchers aim to explore which individual factors may influence the decision to pay all, part, or none of the corresponding subscriptions. Such individual factors can be tentatively understood under the umbrella of social cognitive theory, which Lowry et al. (2017) found to be the most efficient theoretical framework for the predictors of digital piracy identified in previous studies. However, it is worth noting that unauthorized SVOD use and digital piracy are partly similar and partly different. On the one hand, both behaviors consistently refer to the unauthorized use of digital content without providing the required compensation to copyright holders. On the other hand, the two phenomena show marked differences: first, there is a relatively strong (poor) social awareness of the illegitimacy of digital piracy (unauthorized SVOD use); second, digital piracy basically boils down to the dilemma of paying or not paying, while unauthorized SVOD use also covers the intermediate decision to pay only a part of the required fee.
Social cognitive theory posits that individuals’ behaviors are the result of dynamic and reciprocal interactions of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors (Bandura 1986). This theory encompasses five sets of factors that help predict digital piracy (Lowry et al. 2017): outcome expectancies, which are the anticipated consequences that individuals consider when determining whether digital piracy is worth committing (e.g., the benefit of saving money and the risk of legal repercussions); social learning, or the process by which social influences, social environment, and derived norms affect individuals’ willingness to encourage or discourage digital piracy (e.g., perceived ethicality shaped by societal values and imitation of the peers’ piracy practices); self-efficacy, which refers to the level of individuals’ confidence in their ability to successfully engage in piracy and control the desired outcomes (e.g., proficiency in obtaining pirated content and ability to avoid malware); moral disengagement, or the process by which individuals suspend or ignore their own judgment to commit piracy that they judge to be wrong, unethical, or immoral, regardless of their reasons for such a judgment (e.g., trivialization of the harm to copyright holders and minimization of one’s own responsibility); and environmental and other factors, which are the external conditions and personal characteristics that may facilitate or hinder the practice of digital piracy (e.g., internet connection quality and individual demographics).
Although the potential predictors of unauthorized SVOD use are quite numerous and varied, researchers are compelled to focus on the factors available in the secondary data used in this study. Specifically, 21 individual factors are examined, after being classified for convenience into three relatively homogeneous groups: six demographic factors, seven attitude-related factors, and eight behavior-related factors. The discussion of the possible influence of each factor is based on the social cognitive theory framework, the available evidence in the digital piracy field, and researchers' intuitive understanding.

2.1. Demographic Factors

Consistent with social cognitive theory (Lowry et al. 2017), several individual demographics could influence unauthorized SVOD use in a way that is analogous to how they have been found to affect digital piracy.
The potential influence of gender is rather uncertain due to both the lack of theoretical justification and the existence of mixed evidence of its influence on digital piracy, with some studies showing a higher incidence in males than in females (Bhattacharjee et al. 2003; Coyle et al. 2009) and other studies finding no significant differences (Al-Rafee and Cronan 2006; van der Byl and Van Belle 2008). In contrast, the influence of age seems rather more likely for two reasons. Firstly, compared to older individuals, younger ones are more inclined to share passwords for their personal computers (Byrne et al. 2016) and social networks (Bevan 2018; Whitty et al. 2015), an inclination associated with a lower concern for information privacy and sharing-related risks (Byrne et al. 2016; Steijn et al. 2016). Secondly, younger individuals show a greater willingness to download copyrighted material without paying (Coyle et al. 2009; Al-Rafee and Cronan 2006). Thus, it would be reasonable to find that age is negatively related to decisions to share SVOD accounts and to pay part or nothing of the corresponding subscription fees.
The potential roles played by education and household income are suggested by intuitive arguments and empirical results. Intuitively, higher levels of education may help raise awareness of the importance of fairly compensating the content creators, while households with higher income levels are more able to pay the full fees for SVOD services. Empirically, a willingness to pay for using online digital content was found to be directly related to education (Fetscherin and Lattemann 2007) and household income (Coyle et al. 2009). Thus, it would be unsurprising to find a positive influence of education and household income on full payment for SVOD services.
Another promising demographic is household size or number of people living in the household. There is anecdotal evidence that SVOD users living in small-sized households share unused available user profiles with non-cohabitants in exchange for monetary compensation (Loh 2019). On the contrary, households with more residents than available user profiles are less likely to share their SVOD accounts. It is thus reasonable to expect that household size negatively influences the sharing of SVOD usage and payment.

2.2. Attitudinal Factors

The SVOD full payment pattern could be positively influenced by four attitude-related factors (sense of duty, online privacy concern, attitude toward novelty, and attitude toward quality), whereas SVOD payment sharing could be positively influenced by three different ones (interest in collaborative consumption, preference for teamwork, and level of cosmopolitanism).
The sense of duty can prevent or inhibit the process of moral disengagement by which some individuals self-justify the acceptability of their piracy activities (Shang et al. 2008). This self-justification involves the neutralization of self-blame by disregarding or minimizing the violation of a personal duty and the negative impact on third parties (Lowry et al. 2017; Bandura 2002). The neutralization of the personal duty to compensate copyright holders increases willingness to engage in digital piracy (Higgins et al. 2008; Siponen et al. 2012). It is thus not surprising that a sense of duty has been found to reduce the likelihood of engaging in digital piracy (van Rooij et al. 2017), and that a similar pattern can be found with respect to unauthorized SVOD use.
Online privacy concern can fuel the expectation that piracy will jeopardize the security of personal information. In fact, engagement in digital piracy decreases with the increase in the perceived risk of personal information becoming accessible to others (Jeong et al. 2012). In the case of SVOD use, the risk comes from sharing the account password with the consequent possibility that non-cohabitants could track the account viewing history, obtain bank details, change contracted conditions, etc. Interestingly, there is anecdotal evidence that individuals more concerned about privacy and security are more reluctant to share their SVOD accounts (Sailaja and Fowler 2022). Thus, individuals with more online privacy concern will be more likely to follow an SVOD full payment pattern, which will free them from having to share the account.
Attitudes toward both novelty and quality can improve the willingness to compensate copyright holders to minimize the expectation of a lowering of artistic standards due to the losses from digital piracy and unauthorized SVOD use. Consistent with the relationship between the attitude toward novelty and the willingness to pay for copyrighted creative works (Hsu and Shiue 2008; Redondo and Charron 2013), users with a more positive attitude toward novelty might feel more compelled to properly compensate the creators of SVOD content. Considering that quality sensitivity is related to the willingness to financially contribute to digital content quality (Kim et al. 2017; Lee et al. 2019), SVOD users with a more positive attitude toward quality might be more prone to compensate providers to preserve content standards.
The interest in collaborative consumption, preference for teamwork, and level of cosmopolitanism could help build the self-efficacy required to share the use and cost of SVOD accounts. Despite sharing the same theoretical framework (Bandura 1986; Lowry et al. 2017), engaging in digital piracy primarily requires self-efficacy in technical skills (e.g., knowing how to use piracy software and how to find download sites), while engaging in SVOD sharing primarily requires self-efficacy in interpersonal skills (e.g., establishing a trusting relationship between sharers and resolving possible conflicts). The influence of technical skills on digital piracy has been observed (Cronan and Al-Rafee 2008; Sahni and Gupta 2019), but the influence of interpersonal skills on SVOD sharing remains unexplored. Even without prior evidence, there are good reasons to speculate on the possible influence of the three factors studied. Firstly, since collaborative consumption is about consumers sharing resources (e.g., car sharing and peer-to-peer accommodation), users more interested in collaborative consumption could be more inclined to share the use and cost of SVOD accounts. Secondly, as teamwork is based on interaction and cooperation with others to efficiently manage work and non-work activities, individuals with a greater preference for teamwork may be more likely to enjoy the mutual benefit of sharing the use and cost of SVOD accounts. Thirdly, considering that cosmopolitan individuals have more online interaction and collaboration with people from other countries/cultures, the level of cosmopolitanism could influence the likelihood of sharing the use and cost of SVOD accounts.

2.3. Behavioral Factors

The entry of new competitors is an environmental change that highlights the number of SVOD services used as one of the most potentially influential factors in users’ payment patterns. Consumers are of course attracted by the growing range of SVOD providers, each with exclusive content, but are also turned off by the high cost of subscribing to all or many of them (Loh 2019). In order to enjoy a greater number of SVOD services, consumers might agree among themselves to share the use and cost of multiple subscriptions.
Price sensitivity shapes users’ financial expectations when deciding whether or not to pay for copyrighted content (Jacobs et al. 2012; LaRose and Kim 2007). Intuitively, a negative relationship between price sensitivity and a willingness to pay copyright fees can be expected. Indeed, there is evidence that less price-sensitive users are more likely to pay for their movie downloads (Redondo and Charron 2013), while more price-sensitive ones are more likely to consume pirated movie content (Ho and Weinberg 2011). Similarly, less (more) price-sensitive SVOD users might be more inclined to pay the full subscription (to pay anything at all).
Past piracy behavior has a positive effect on the current intention to engage in digital piracy (Cronan and Al-Rafee 2008), an effect that has been attributed to both habituation (Ajzen 2002) and moral disengagement (Garbharran and Thatcher 2011). If individuals have engaged in digital piracy, it is likely that they have previously invoked the moral disengagement mechanism and that they currently require less moral disengagement to justify the same behavior (Garbharran and Thatcher 2011). Similarly, individuals who have engaged in unpaid movie downloading might reasonably require less moral disengagement to justify an unpaid use of SVOD content. Thus, unpaid movie downloading is a promising candidate for influencing the pattern of unpaid SVOD use.
Individuals who are more motivated by self-interested reasons are more likely to use moral disengagement mechanisms to justify the acceptability of their antisocial behaviors (Kish-Gephart et al. 2014). Conversely, individuals who participate in charity and community activities show that they put the interests of others before their own interests, which is contrary to the practice of benefiting oneself from free content at the expense of the legitimate benefit of creators. Thus, charity and community participation could influence the willingness to give fair compensation to the creators of SVOD content consumed.
Finally, researchers include four factors whose influence on SVOD payment patterns is difficult to specify a priori: binge-watching behavior, which is a frequent practice among the most enthusiastic SVOD users; frequency of cinema attendance, which shows the fondness for watching movies in the most traditional way; level of video-on-demand (VOD) use, which reveals the extent to which the self-administered consumption of video content is preferred; and level of internet use, which indicates the extent to which the internet is used in ordinary activities. Within the framework of social cognitive theory, these four factors can be classified as environmental factors that can act as enablers or inhibitors of the willingness to pay for SVOD content.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/admsci13050122

References

  1. Palomba, Anthony. 2020. Do SVOD product attribute trade-offs predict SVOD subscriptions and SVOD account access? Using utility constant sums to predict SVOD subscriptions and SVOD account access. International Journal on Media Management 22: 168–90.
  2. Wayne, Michael L., and Deborah Castro. 2021. SVOD Global Expansion in Cross-National Comparative Perspective: Netflix in Israel and Spain. Television & New Media 22: 896–913.
  3. Schauerte, Ricarda, Stéphanie Feiereisen, and Alan J. Malter. 2021. What does it take to survive in a digital world? Resource-based theory and strategic change in the TV industry. Journal of Cultural Economics 45: 263–93.
  4. Weinberg, Charles B., Cord Otten, Barak Orbach, Jordi McKenzie, Ricard Gil, Darlene C. Chisholm, and Suman Basuroy. 2021. Technological change and managerial challenges in the movie theater industry. Journal of Cultural Economics 45: 239–62.
  5. Chakraborty, Debarun, Mujahid Siddiqui, Aaliyah Siddiqui, Justin Paul, Ganesh Dash, and Francesca Dal Mas. 2023. Watching is valuable: Consumer views—Content consumption on OTT platforms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 70: 103148.
  6. Wang, Yiou. 2022. Research on the Competitive Analysis and Competitive Strategy Optimization of Netflix. Paper presented at 4th International Conference on Literature, Art and Human Development (ICLAHD 2022), Xi’an, China, October 28; pp. 373–81.
  7. De Kosnik, Abigail. 2020. 2021 Will Launch the Platinum Age of Piracy. Wired. December 12. Available online: https://www.wired.com/story/2021-platinum-age-piracy-streaming/ (accessed on 23 March 2022).
  8. Sharma, Megha, Sumanta Basu, Soumyakanti Chakraborty, and Indranil Bose. 2023. Determining the optimal release time of movies: A study of movie and market characteristics. Decision Support Systems 165: 113893.
  9. Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment. 2022. 2021 Movie & TV Piracy Trends Worldwide. Available online: https://www.alliance4creativity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ACE-Piracy-infographic-2021_final.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2023).
  10. Kelly, Heather. 2022. Streamers Worry the End Is Coming for Lax Password-Sharing Rules. The Washington Post. June 22. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/22/streaming-password-sharing/ (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  11. Loh, Benjamin Yew Hoong. 2019. “Do You Have a Link?”: The Effects of Piracy and Online Streaming Services on the Sharing Practices of Television Content. SEARCH Journal of Media and Communication Research 11: 41–59. Available online: https://fslmjournals.taylors.edu.my/wp-content/uploads/SEARCH/SEARCH-2019-11-2/SEARCH-2019-P3-11-2.pdf (accessed on 26 May 2021).
  12. Nguyen, Nicole. 2022. Netflix’s Password Crackdown Is Coming. Here’s What That Means for Account Sharers. The Wall Street Journal. April 21. Available online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-password-sharing-crackdown-how-11650488569 (accessed on 17 September 2022).
  13. Gardner, Eriq. 2019. Piracy Crackdown May Be Next Front in Streaming Wars. The Hollywood Reporter. November 5. Available online: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/piracy-crackdown-may-be-next-front-streaming-wars-1252309/ (accessed on 18 October 2022).
  14. Hadida, Allègre L., Joseph Lampel, William David Walls, and Amit Joshi. 2021. Hollywood studio filmmaking in the age of Netflix: A tale of two institutional logics. Journal of Cultural Economics 45: 213–38.
  15. Kübler, Raoul, Rouven Seifert, and Michael Kandziora. 2021. Content valuation strategies for digital subscription platforms. Journal of Cultural Economics 45: 295–326.
  16. Guo, Miao. 2022. The Impacts of Service Quality, Perceived Value, and Social Influences on Video Streaming Service Subscription. International Journal on Media Management 24: 65–86.
  17. Lowry, Paul Benjamin, Jun Zhang, and Tailai Wu. 2017. Nature or nurture? A meta-analysis of the factors that maximize the prediction of digital piracy by using social cognitive theory as a framework. Computers in Human Behavior 68: 104–20.
  18. Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780138156145.
  19. Bhattacharjee, Sudip, Ram D. Gopal, and George Lawrence Sanders. 2003. Digital music and online sharing. Communications of the ACM 46: 107–11.
  20. Coyle, James R., Stephen J. Gould, Pola Gupta, and Reetika Gupta. 2009. “To buy or to pirate”: The matrix of music consumers’ acquisition-mode decision-making. Journal of Business Research 62: 1031–37.
  21. Al-Rafee, Sulaiman, and Timothy Paul Cronan. 2006. Digital Piracy: Factors that Influence Attitude Toward Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 63: 237–59.
  22. van der Byl, Kimi, and Jean-Paul Van Belle. 2008. Factors Influencing South African Attitudes toward Digital Piracy. Communications of the IBIMA 1: 202–11. Available online: https://ibimapublishing.com/articles/CIBIMA/2008/902118/ (accessed on 7 June 2021).
  23. Byrne, Zinta S., Kyla J. Dvorak, Janet M. Peters, Indrajit Ray, Adele Howe, and Diana Sanchez. 2016. From the user’s perspective: Perceptions of risk relative to benefit associated with using the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior 59: 456–68.
  24. Bevan, Jennifer L. 2018. Social Networking Site Password Sharing and Account Monitoring as Online Surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 21: 797–802.
  25. Whitty, Monica, James Doodson, Sadie Creese, and Duncan Hodges. 2015. Individual Differences in Cyber Security Behaviors: An Examination of Who Is Sharing Passwords. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 18: 3–7.
  26. Steijn, Wouter M. P., Alexander P. Schouten, and Anton H. Vedder. 2016. Why concern regarding privacy differs: The influence of age and (non-)participation on Facebook. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 10: 3.
  27. Fetscherin, Marc, and Christoph Lattemann. 2007. Motives and Willingness to Pay for Digital Music. Paper presented at 3rd International Conference on Automated Production of Cross Media Content for Multi-Channel Distribution, Barcelona, Spain, November 28–30; pp. 189–96.
  28. Shang, Rong-An, Yu-Chen Chen, and Pin-Cheng Chen. 2008. Ethical Decisions About Sharing Music Files in the P2P Environment. Journal of Business Ethics 80: 349–65.
  29. Bandura, Albert. 2002. Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Moral Education 31: 101–19.
  30. Higgins, George E., Scott E. Wolfe, and Catherine D. Marcum. 2008. Music Piracy and Neutralization: A Preliminary Trajectory Analysis from Short-Term Longitudinal Data. International Journal of Cyber Criminology 2: 324–36. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/docview/89157862/abstract/164A061868654495PQ/1 (accessed on 3 December 2021).
  31. Siponen, Mikko, Anthony Vance, and Robert Willison. 2012. New insights into the problem of software piracy: The effects of neutralization, shame, and moral beliefs. Information & Management 49: 334–41.
  32. van Rooij, Benjamin, Adam Fine, Yanyan Zhang, and Yunmei Wu. 2017. Comparative Compliance: Digital Piracy, Deterrence, Social Norms, and Duty in China and the United States. Law & Policy 39: 73–93.
  33. Jeong, Bong-Keun, Kexin Zhao, and Moutaz Khouja. 2012. Consumer Piracy Risk: Conceptualization and Measurement in Music Sharing. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 16: 89–118.
  34. Sailaja, Neelima, and Abigail Fowler. 2022. An Exploration of Account Sharing Practices on Media Platforms. Paper presented at ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences, Aveiro, Portugal, June 22–24; New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 141–50.
  35. Hsu, Jane L., and Charlene W. Shiue. 2008. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Non-pirated Software. Journal of Business Ethics 81: 715–32.
  36. Redondo, Ignacio, and Jean-Philippe Charron. 2013. The payment dilemma in movie and music downloads: An explanation through cognitive dissonance theory. Computers in Human Behavior 29: 2037–46.
  37. Kim, Min Sung, Eun Kim, Shin Young Hwang, Junghwan Kim, and Seongcheol Kim. 2017. Willingness to pay for over-the-top services in China and Korea. Telecommunications Policy 41: 197–207.
  38. Lee, So-Eun, Mideum Choi, and Seongcheol Kim. 2019. They pay for a reason! the determinants of fan’s instant sponsorship for content creators. Telematics and Informatics 45: 101286.
  39. Cronan, Timothy Paul, and Sulaiman Al-Rafee. 2008. Factors that Influence the Intention to Pirate Software and Media. Journal of Business Ethics 78: 527–45.
  40. Sahni, Sanjeev P., and Indranath Gupta. 2019. Role of Self-Efficacy and Ability Towards the Act of Digital Piracy. In Piracy in the Digital Era: Psychosocial, Criminological and Cultural Factors. Edited by Sanjeev P. Sahni and Indranath Gupta. Singapore: Springer Nature, pp. 129–42. ISBN 9789811371738.
  41. Jacobs, Ruud S., Ard Heuvelman, Maurice Tan, and Oscar Peters. 2012. Digital movie piracy: A perspective on downloading behavior through social cognitive theory. Computers in Human Behavior 28: 958–67.
  42. LaRose, Robert, and Jung-Hyun Kim. 2007. Share, Steal, or Buy? A Social Cognitive Perspective of Music Downloading. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 10: 267–77.
  43. Ho, Jason, and Charles B. Weinberg. 2011. Segmenting consumers of pirated movies. Journal of Consumer Marketing 28: 252–60.
  44. Ajzen, Icek. 2002. Residual Effects of Past on Later Behavior: Habituation and Reasoned Action Perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review 6: 107–22.
  45. Garbharran, Ameetha, and Andrew Thatcher. 2011. Modelling Social Cognitive Theory to Explain Software Piracy Intention. Paper presented at Human Interface and the Management of Information. Interacting with Information, Orlando, FL, USA, July 9–14; Edited by Michael J. Smith and Gavriel Salvendy. Berlin: Springer, pp. 301–10.
  46. Kish-Gephart, Jennifer, James Detert, Linda Klebe Treviño, Vicki Baker, and Sean Martin. 2014. Situational Moral Disengagement: Can the Effects of Self-Interest be Mitigated? Journal of Business Ethics 125: 267–85.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Feedback