Attitude towards the purchase of counterfeits: Antecedents and effect on intention to purchase

Abstract

HAL is a multidisciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Non‐deceptive counterfeit purchase behavior of luxury fashion products

“…Risk may have a positive connotation when consumers are directed by stimulation and sensation‐seeking behavior (Penz et al, 2008); the greater the risk, the greater is the thrill for a deviant consumer (Fullerton & Punj, 1993). Thus, non‐deceptive counterfeit behavior of luxury goods has been shown to be driven by adventure and fun (Francis et al, 2015; Li et al, 2018; Penz & Stöttinger, 2012; Sharma & Chan, 2011; Tang et al, 2014; Thaichon & Quach, 2016), and engagement in the non‐deceptive purchase of luxury counterfeits is a playful and sensory experience (Larraufie, 2017; Perez et al, 2010; Viot et al, 2014). Qualitative studies employing in‐depth interview techniques have uncovered the motivations behind counterfeit behavior, such as thrill seeking, sensory elements, adventure, and risk (Bian et al, 2016; Larraufie, 2017; Li et al, 2018; Thaichon & Quach, 2016).…”

“…For example, prior studies demonstrate that factors such as integrity (Eisend et al, 2017; Phau & Teah, 2009), materialism (Bhatia, 2018; Yoo & Lee, 2009), perceived quality (De Matos et al, 2007), smart shopper self‐perception (Eisend et al, 2017), subjective norms (Ngo et al, 2020; Thaichon & Quach, 2016), and value consciousness (Randhawa et al, 2015; Ting et al, 2016) may influence attitude toward counterfeit purchase. However, even though extant research has focused on counterfeit purchase behavior, it generally lacks inclusiveness, as conceptualizations of attitude toward counterfeits are usually limited to a few determinants (Viot et al, 2014). Moreover, some studies find that integrity (Ting et al, 2016; F. Wang et al, 2005), materialism (Wee et al, 1995), price–quality inference (Abdullah & Yu, 2019; Huang et al, 2004; and subjective norms (Francis et al, 2015) do not affect attitude toward counterfeit products.…”

Do product category and consumers’ motivations profiles matter regarding counterfeiting?

“…Person or individual characteristics encompass demographics, such as age, income, educational level (Bloch et al, 1993;Penz and Stöttinger, 2005;Cheung and Prendergast, 2006;Hamelin et al, 2013) and psychographics. The psychographic variables include personality traits, such as materialism, novelty seeking, value consciousness, integrity, conformity, personal gratification, status consumption; social factors such as information susceptibility, normative susceptibility, collectivism; motivations such as desire for luxury brands, hedonistic motivation, perceived risk, and revenge on big business (Ang et al, 2001;Penz and Stöttinger, 2005;Cheung and Prendergast, 2006;Veloutsou and Bian, 2008;Lee and Yoo;2009, Phau andTeah, 2009;Geiger-Oneto et al;2013;Hamelin et al, 2013;Viot et al, 2014;Bian et al, 2016). Personal or individual characteristics have been extensively studied, especially personality traits and motivations.…”

A typology of brand counterfeiting and imitation based on a semiotic approach

“…The marketing literature addresses diverse topics such as the motivations for purchasing counterfeit products (Ang, Cheng, Lim, & Tambyah, 2001;Gistri, Romani, Pace, Gabrielli, & Grappi, 2009;Viot, Le Roux, & Kremer, 2014;Wilcox, Kim, & Sen, 2009), the consequences of counterfeiting on original brands (Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000) and on original brand owners (Commuri, 2009). Recently, Zaichkowsky (2006) provides a comprehensive cover of the topic of counterfeiting.…”