Risk, benefit and moderators of the affect heuristic in a widespread unlawful activity: Evidence from a survey of unlawful file sharing behavior

Increasing the perception of legal risk via publicized litigation and lobbying for copyright law enforcement has had limited success in reducing unlawful content sharing by the public. We consider the extent to which engaging in file sharing online is motivated by the perceived benefits of this activity as opposed to perceived legal risks. Moreover, we explore moderators of the relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefits; namely trust in industry and legal regulators, and perceived online anonymity. We examine these questions via a large two-part survey of consumers of music (n = 658) and eBooks (n = 737). We find that perceptions of benefit, but not of legal risk, predict stated file sharing behavior. An affect heuristic is employed: as perceived benefit increases, perceived risk falls. This relationship is increased under high regulator and industry trust (which actually increases perceived risk in this study) and low anonymity (which also increases perceived risk). We propose that, given the limited impact of perceived legal risk upon unlawful downloading, it would be better for the media industries to target enhancing the perceived benefit and availability of lawful alternatives

Launching a report on unlawful file sharing

A launch event for a scoping review of a decade of file sharing research was held by the CREATe group on 11 April 2014. Panellists were invited from stakeholder groups including industry, civil rights and technological intermediaries. The review addressed five key determinants of unlawful file sharing which were repeatedly found in the 206 reviewed studies: legal and financial, technical, experiential, social and moral. It also covered issues of social welfare and the costs and benefits to producers and consumers. The unequal coverage of different media sectors and research types, and the insufficient actual causal behavioural data, were highlighted. A subsequent discussion covered technological change, harm and issues of production. There is need for more and better evidence to support policy

Why do people file share unlawfully? A systematic review, meta-analysis and panel study

Unlawful digital media sharing is common and believed to be extremely damaging to business. Understanding unlawful file sharers’ motivations offers the opportunity to develop business models and behavioral interventions to maximize consumers’ and businesses’ benefit. This paper uses a systematic review of unlawful file sharing research, and the Theory of Planned Behavior, to motivate a large-scale panel study in which initial determinants were used to predict subsequent behavior. A meta-analysis found Attitudes, Subjective Norms and Perceived Behavioral Control were all associated with unlawful file sharing. Media type and demographic differences in the importance of Perceived Behavioral Control were found and attributed to more accurate evaluation of familiar activities, i.e., greater experience increases the influence of Perceived Behavioral Control but age does not. The panel study confirmed that greater past experience was associated with Perceived Behavioral Control and Intention. We conclude that past experience increases the efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior and specifically Perceived Behavioral control in predicting behavior, contrary to some widely held beliefs about the role of experience. The role of experience is therefore crucial to understanding people’s choices. Practically, improving social approval, positive evaluation and access to lawful media should reduce unlawful behavior

Motives and comprehension in a public goods game with induced emotions

This study analyses the sensitivity of public goods contributions through the lens of psychological motives. We report the results of a public goods experiment in which subjects were induced with the motives of care and anger through autobiographical recall. Subjects' preferences, beliefs, and perceptions under each motive are compared with those of subjects experiencing a neutral autobiographical recall control condition. We find, but only for those subjects with the highest comprehension of the game, that care elicits significantly higher contributions than anger, with the control treatment in between. This positive influence of the care motive on unconditional giving is accounted for partly by preferences for giving and partly by the beliefs concerning greater contributions by others. Anger also affects attention to own and other's payoffs (using mouse tracking) and perceptions of the game's incentive structure (cooperative or competitive)

Determinants of Unlawful File Sharing: A Scoping Review

We employ a scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. Based on the evidence, we build a simple conceptual framework to model the psychological decision to engage in UFS, purchase legally or do nothing. We identify social, moral, experiential, technical, legal and financial utility sources of the decision to purchase or to file share. They interact in complex ways. We consider the strength of evidence within these areas and note patterns of results. There is good evidence for influences on UFS within each of the identified determinants, particularly for self-reported measures, with more behavioral research needed. There are also indications that the reasons for UFS differ across media; more studies exploring media other than music are required

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Perceptions of legal risk do not predict behaviour in unlawful file sharing:an empirical analysis

To reduce the widespread unlawful downloading of copyrighted media, industry has responded via litigation against individual file sharers and by lobbying governments to strengthen intellectual property laws. Such approaches have had limited success in reducing unlawful content sharing. We explore how much perceptions of legal risk impact upon stated unlawful behaviour as well as how relevant factors such as the perceived benefits of unlawful file sharing, trust in industry and legal regulators, and perceived anonymity online impact upon this perceived risk. We examine these questions via a large two-part survey of consumers of music (n = 658) and eBooks (n = 737). We find perceptions of legal risk fail to predict stated file sharing behaviour, while the perceived benefit of unlawfully downloaded files does predict behaviour. The relationship between perceived risk and behaviour is partially mitigated by perceived benefits. We also show that trust in industry and regulators enhance perceptions of risk, while perceptions of anonymity lower perceptions of risk. High trust and high anonymity impact on the effect of perceived benefit on risk perception. These findings have practical implications in terms of the likely success of different behavioural interventions and theoretical implications into how perceptions of risk are processed

Determinants and welfare implications of unlawful file sharing:a scoping review

We employ an innovative scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the consequences and determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. We complement this with a simple conceptual framework to model the decision to engage in UFS and to map out the existing evidence. Whether UFS is good or bad for welfare remains unclear. Regarding determinants of UFS, studies that employ observed behavior as a measured outcome remain few, and fewer still for potential moral, experiential and social determinants. More experimental and longitudinal studies assessing causality are needed