The Joint Moderating Impact of Moral Intensity and Moral Judgment on Consumer’s Use Intention of Pirated Software

Abstract

use intention of pirated software, moral intensity, moral judgment, theory of planned behavior,

Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality

“…MI centrality has been found to regulate behaviors in a wide range of contexts. For example, MI centrality enhances social volunteering (Aquino and Reed 2002); charitable donation and provision of public goods (Aquino et al 2009); Consumer's use intention of pirated software (Chen et al 2009) and general ethical behavior (Reynolds and Ceranic 2007). Meanwhile people with stronger MI centrality are less likely to cheat (Reynolds and Ceranic 2007) or lie (Aquino et al 2009).…”

Theory of planned behaviour and the family business

“…One area in which the theory of planned behaviour is applied is in business ethics. Examples of topics studied are ethical decision making by managers and business professionals (Buchan, 2005;Hoffman, Hoelscher & Sorenson, 2006;Cohen, Ding, Lesage & Stolowy, 2010) and user intentions toward pirated software (Chen, Pan & Pan, 2009;Yoon, 2011). It is notable that many of these studies extend the theory of planned behaviour.…”

Ethical Judgments: What Do We Know, Where Do We Go?

“…However, there is no way for any respondent to ascertain whether an organization would actually experience such outcomes, and thus this measure's construct validity seems doubtful in that it does not assess "magnitude (or even probability) of organizational effect", and certainly not in the way intended by Jones (1991); that is, as objective attributes of situations. Similarly, there seems no way for any individual to provide meaningful estimates concerning the likelihood of formal sanctions or other outcomes (Smith et al, 2007, p. 646), the extent of perceived "moral intensity" (a composite of Jones' situational characteristics as determined by respondents; e.g., Chen, Pan, and Pan, 2009;Valentine and Fleischman, 2003;Valentine, Fleischman, Sprague, and Godkin, 2010;Valentine and Bateman, 2011;Vitell, Bakir, Paolillo, Hidalgo, Al-Khatib, and Rawwas, 2003), or any component characteristic such as "temporal immediacy" (whether anticipated consequences of the questionable action in the vignette would occur immediately or much later) or "proximity" (to what extent are those affected by questionable actions similar to respondents themselves).…”

“…These include beliefs about the extent to which actions are culturally and traditionally acceptable (see Table 1), and such Ethical Judgments 24 assessments do not differ appreciably from judgments about societal, organizational, or professional acceptance of actions (that is, perceived social consensus). "Subjective norms" (Cherry and Fraedrich, 2000; also called "normative pressures from the in-group", Cherry et al, 2003, Hypothesis 5; see also Buchan, 2005;Chen et al, 2009;Yoon, 2011b) or "subject norms" (Yoon, 2012, p. 576) also resemble social consensus, and therefore ethical judgments, in that these refer to respondent estimates of what other people think of as appropriate and thus would recommend to the respondents themselves in a situation with apparent ethical implications. Smith et al (2007, p. 662, Note 10) also addressed conceptual "overlap between our measures of outcome expectancies and moral evaluations", but the congruence addressed in that study seemed less complete than that noted here between social consensus and ethical judgments.…”