The experiment tested whether the legal frame presented (Control, Law Only, Formal Sanctions, Informal Sanctions, or Morality) influenced participants’ perceptions of various file sharing norms and behavioral intentions, measured by the five variables just discussed. Overall, the legal frame had a statistically significant effect on these five dependent measures as a group.121 Table 1 reports descriptive statistics for each group, and the following section discusses the results for each measured variable.
1. The Effect of the Legal Frame on the Descriptive Norm (Perception That Others will Share Files)
We first examined whether the legal frame changed perceptions of the extent to which other students will share files, and found that the legal frame did in fact have an overall effect on the descriptive norm.122 On the one hand, presenting a legal frame (Law Only, Formal Sanctions,
119. This variable was constructed by computing the mean of responses to the three questions appearing under the Intention section in the Appendix. Cronbach’s Alpha = .84.
120. This variable was constructed by computing the mean of responses to the three questions appearing under the Morality section in the Appendix. Question 1 was reverse coded. Cronbach’s Alpha = .77.
121. F(20, 904) = 2.11; p<.01, η2 = .045. The analysis used a multivariate analysis
of variance (MANOVA), a statistical technique for assessing the simultaneous effect of an independent variable on two or more dependent criterion variables. See JAMES H. BRAY & SCOTT E. MAXWELL, MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 7-8 (1985).
Throughout this Article “p” refers to the probability of finding a difference or relationship between groups as large as that observed if there were, in fact, no difference or relationship between them. “η2” is a measure of the difference between groups.
Informal Sanctions, or Morality) did not change the descriptive norm relative to presenting no legal frame at all (Control). On the other hand, presenting the Formal Sanctions or Informal Sanctions frames decreased the perception that others would engage in file sharing, relative to presenting the Law Only frame. In other words, compared to simply stating that file sharing is against the law, announcing the prospect of concrete punishment, such as losing network privileges, or being publicly shamed, such as having one’s name posted on a website, led to perceptions that unlawful file sharing behavior would decrease.
2. The Effect of the Legal Frame on the Injunctive Norm (Perception That Others Will Approve of Sharing Files)
The legal frame did in fact have an overall effect on the injunctive norm—the perception that others will approve of sharing files.123 As with the descriptive norm results just discussed, presenting any legal frame did not change the injunctive norm relative to the Control. At the same time, presentation of the Informal Sanctions legal frame, in which violators face publication of their names, seemed to influence the injunctive norm most distinctly. Relative to the Law Only frame, the Informal Sanctions frame decreased perceptions that other students would approve of file sharing.
3. The Effect of the Legal Frame on Willingness to Express Disapproval Toward Violators
The legal frame caused an overall change in the extent to which students report that they would be willing to express disapproval toward others who share files unlawfully.124 It is first worth observing that respondents were generally unwilling to confront a fellow student about file sharing—the mean response in all groups was less than three out of ten, where ten represents “very likely.” A clear pattern of differences between groups emerges, however, where students presented with the Informal Sanctions legal frame reported being more willing to express disapproval toward violators than students in any other group. Thus, it appears that awareness of possible publication of violators’ names increases the reported willingness to confront violators directly and express disapproval.
123. F(4, 227) = 3.16; p < .05; η2 = .053.
4. The Effect of the Legal Frame on Intention to Share Files
The legal frame changed overall self-reported intentions to share files.125 Specifically, Formal Sanctions had a deterrent effect that decreased students’ own willingness to share files relative to the Control frame or the Law Only frame.
5. The Effect of the Legal Frame on Moral Norms Against File Sharing
There was no overall effect of the Law Only frame on moral norms against file sharing.126
TABLE 1. ATTITUDES TOWARD FILE SHARING:DESCRIPTIVE
STATISTICS Perception Treatment Others File Share (Descriptive Norm) Mean (SD) Others Approve of File Sharing (Injunctive Norm) Mean (SD) Own Willingness to Express Disapproval Mean (SD) Own Intention to File Share Mean (SD) Moral Norm to Not File Share Mean (SD) Control Group 7.19a,b (2.05) 7.24a,b (1.50) 2.11a (1.74) 6.61a (2.27) 3.90 (2.55) Law Only Group 7.50a (1.73) 7.76b (1.23) 1.95a (1.40) 6.57a (2.45) 3.64 (2.22) Formal Sanctions Group 6.59b (1.80) 7.54b (1.40) 1.90a (1.22) 5.20b (2.82) 4.39 (2.47) Informal Sanctions Group 6.57b (2.29) 6.78a (1.64) 2.88b (2.11) 5.50a,b (2.67) 4.28 (2.33) Morality Group 7.55a (1.70) 7.29a,b (1.31) 1.87a (1.03) 5.99a,b (3.16) 4.46 (2.32)
Means without shared subscripts denote differences within a column at p<.05. That is, within a column, numbers with different subscripts are statistically different from one another; those with identical subscripts are statistically indistinguishable. All column heading constructs were measured on ten point scales with a higher value indicating stronger endorsement of the construct. SD refers to standard deviation.
125. F(4, 227) = 2.54; p < .05; η2 = .043.
V. DISCUSSION