Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shame on You: When Materialism Leads to Purchase Intentions Toward Counterfeit Products

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 24 May 2017

This article has been updated

Abstract

In recent years, counterfeiting has grown exponentially and has now become a grave economic problem. The acquisition of counterfeits poses an ethical dilemma as it benefits the buyer and illegal seller at the cost of the legitimate producer and with fewer taxes being paid throughout the supply chain. Previous research reveals inconsistent and sometimes inconclusive findings regarding whether materialism is associated, positively or negatively, with intentions to purchase counterfeits. The current research seeks to resolve these inconsistencies by investigating previously ignored interactions between three variables: risk of embarrassment, counterfeit detectability and product conspicuousness. First, risk of embarrassment mediates the relationship between materialism and counterfeit purchase intentions. Specifically, materialism negatively predicts counterfeit purchase intentions as mediated by risk of embarrassment. Second, this relationship only holds when the counterfeit can be easily detected. When it is not easily detected, materialism instead leads to positive purchase intentions. Third, these positive effects can be offset when the product is not highly visible. This research has important implications for marketers, manufacturers and academics and contributes to better understanding the antecedents of counterfeit purchases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 24 May 2017

    An erratum has been published.

References

  • Bian, X., Haque, S., & Smith, A. (2015). Social power, product visibility, and the demand for luxury brand counterfeit products. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2009). An investigation of determinants of counterfeit purchase consideration. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 368–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, B. A., & Kaldenberg, D. O. (1997). Conceptualizing self-monitoring: Links to materialism and product involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBP. (2015). U.S. customers and border protection. Access December 2, 2015, from http://www.cbp.gov

  • Cesareo, L., & Stöttinger, B. (2015). United we stand, divided we fall: How firms can engage consumers in their fight against counterfeits. Business Horizons, 58(5), 527–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry, P. E., Zimmerman, A., Peters, J. R., & Cordell, V. V. (2009). Preserving intellectual property rights: Managerial insight into the escalating counterfeit market quandary. Business Horizons, 52(1), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, A. N., & Schlenker, B. R. (2004). Materialism and affect: The role of self-presentational concerns. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(2), 260–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuchinprakarn, S. (2003). Consumption of counterfeit goods in Thailand: Who are the patrons. European Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 48–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P., & Cohen, J. (1996). Research monographs in adolescence. Life values and adolescent mental health. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Cordell, V. V., Wongtada, N., & Kieschnick, R. L. (1996). Counterfeit purchase intentions: Role of lawfulness attitudes and product traits as determinants. Journal of Business Research, 35(1), 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabholkar, P. A. (1994). Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework: Analyzing models of mental comparison processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 100–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, A. (2012). These Hilariously bad knock-offs are on sale in China. Accessed October 16, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/hilariously-bad-chinese-knock-offs-of-famous-american-and-european-brands-2012-8

  • Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & De Witte, H. (2007). The social costs of extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits: Their relation with social dominance and racial and ethnic prejudice. Journal of Personality, 75(4), 757–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., & Valgeirsson, H. (2007). The effect of life values and materialism on buying counterfeit products. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(5), 677–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Norton M. I., & Ariely D. (2010). The counterfeit self: The deceptive costs of faking it. Psychological Science, 21, 712–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, R. E., Flynn, L. R., & Clark, R. A. (2012). Materialistic, brand engaged and status consuming consumers and clothing behaviors. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 16(1), 102–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havoscope. (2015). Global black market information. Access December 2, 2015, from http://www.havocscope.com

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffes, E. M. (2008). Protecting your brand: Fending off pirates. Financial Executive, 24(2), 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, B., Choi, C. J., & Chen, S. (2004). The ethics of counterfeiting in the fashion industry: Quality, credence and profit issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 343–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoe, L., Hogg, G., & Hart, S. (2003). Fakin’ it: Counterfeiting and consumer contradictions. E-European Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, K. P., Huiling Chen, A., Peng, N., Hackley, C., Amy Tiwsakul, R., & Chou, C. L. (2011). Antecedents of luxury brand purchase intention. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(6), 457–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICC. (2016). Counterfeiting Intelligence Bureau. Accessed August 10, 2016, from http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/fighting-commercial-crime/counterfeiting-intelligence-bureau/

  • IP Crime Report. (2013/14). IP crime report. Accessed August 10, 2016, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374283/ipcreport13.PDF

  • Kasser, T. (2016). Materialistic values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 489–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilbourne, W. E., & LaForge, M. C. (2010). Materialism and its relationship to individual values. Psychology & Marketing, 27(8), 780–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozar, J. M., & Marcketti, S. B. (2011). Examining ethics and materialism with purchase of counterfeits. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(3), 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, K. K. Y., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1999). Brand imitation: Do the Chinese have different views? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 16(2), 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, C. H., & Hsieh, I. Y. (2013). Determinants of consumer’s willingness to purchase gray-market smartphones. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, L. C., & Lu, C. J. (2010). Moral philosophy, materialism, and consumer ethics: An exploratory study in Indonesia. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muncy, J. A., & Eastman, J. K. (1998). Materialism and consumer ethics: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nepomuceno, M. V., & Laroche, M. (2015). The impact of materialism and anti-consumption lifestyles on personal debt and account balances. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 654–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nepomuceno, M. V., & Laroche, M. (2017). When materialists intend to resist consumption: The moderating role of self-control and long-term orientation. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2792-0.

  • NetNames. (2015). Counting the cost of counterfeiting: A NetNames report. Accessed August 10, 2016, from https://www.netnames.com/assets/shared/whitepaper/pdf/NetNames-Counterfeiting-Report-A4-2015.pdf

  • Nia, A., & Lynne Zaichkowsky, J. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury brands? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(7), 485–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (1998). The economic impact of counterfeiting. Accessed August 10, 2016, from https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/2090589.pdf

  • Penz, E., & Stottinger, B. (2005). Forget the” real” thing-take the copy! An explanatory model for the volitional purchase of counterfeit products. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham, T. H., Yap, K., & Dowling, N. A. (2012). The impact of financial management practices and financial attitudes on the relationship between materialism and compulsive buying. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phau, I., Sequeira, M., & Dix, S. (2009). Consumers’ willingness to knowingly purchase counterfeit products. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(4), 262–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phau, I., & Teah, M. (2009). Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: A study of antecedents and outcomes of attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirog, S. F., & Roberts, J. A. (2007). Personality and credit card misuse among college students: The mediating role of impulsiveness. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(1), 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponchio, M. C., & Aranha, F. (2008). Materialism as a predictor variable of low income consumer behavior when entering into installment plan agreements. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segev, S., Shoham, A., & Gavish, Y. (2015). A closer look into the materialism construct: The antecedents and consequences of materialism and its three facets. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 32(2), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, R. K., & Mandel, N. (2008). Preventing digital music piracy: The carrot or the stick? Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Gurel-Atay, E., Webb, D., Cicic, M., Husic, M., Ekici, A., et al. (2012). Linking advertising, materialism, and life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 107(1), 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: W.H. Freeman.

  • Staake, T., Thiesse, F., & Fleisch, E. (2009). The emergence of counterfeit trade: A literature review. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 320–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, G., D’Alessandro, S., & Johnson, L. (2014). Traditional culture, political ideologies, materialism and luxury consumption in China. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(6), 578–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Faking it: Personality and individual difference predictors of willingness to buy counterfeit goods. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(5), 820–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y., & Pilcher, J. (1998). Consumer demand for counterfeit goods. Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 405–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnage, M. (2013). A mind-blowing number of counterfeit goods come from China. Accessed November 3, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/most-counterfeit-goods-are-from-china-2013-6

  • Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veloutsou, C., & Bian, X. (2008). A cross-national examination of consumer perceived risk in the context of non-deceptive counterfeit brands. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(1), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wan, W. W., Luk, C. L., Yau, O. H., Alan, C. B., Sin, L. Y., Kwong, K. K., et al. (2009). Do traditional Chinese cultural values nourish a market for pirated CDs? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. J. (2003). The relationship of materialism to spending tendencies, saving, and debt. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(6), 723–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D. C. (2015). Materialism and the five-factor model of personality: A facet-level analysis. North American Journal of Psychology, 17(1), 133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wee, C. H., Ta, S. J., & Cheok, K. H. (1995). Non-price determinants of intention to purchase counterfeit goods: An exploratory study. International Marketing Review, 12(6), 19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, B., & Lee, S. H. (2009). Buy genuine luxury fashion products or counterfeits. Advances in Consumer Research, 36(1), 280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

    Alexander Davidson & Michel Laroche

  2. HEC Montreal, 3000 chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine (office: 4.756), Montréal, QC, H3T 2A7, Canada

    Marcelo Vinhal Nepomuceno

Authors
  1. Alexander Davidson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelo Vinhal Nepomuceno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michel Laroche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michel Laroche.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Each author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

The original version of this article has been revised: the name of the second author has been corrected.

Appendix: Scenarios

Appendix: Scenarios

Study 1

Watches:

  • Imagine that you are deciding to purchase a watch that you really like.

  • You find the watch that you want; however, it is a counterfeit.

Sunglasses:

  • Imagine that you are deciding to purchase a pair of sunglasses that you really like. You find the pair of sunglasses that you want; however, they are counterfeit.

Study 2

Low Counterfeit Detectability:

  • Imagine that you are deciding to purchase a pair of sunglasses that you really like. You find the watch that you want; however, they are counterfeit. The quality is so good that not even an expert could detect that they are counterfeit.

High Counterfeit Detectability:

  • Imagine that you are deciding to purchase a pair of sunglasses that you really like. You find the watch that you want; however, they are counterfeit. The quality is good, but many people can detect that they are counterfeit.

Study 3

Low Counterfeit Detectability and Low Product Conspicuousness:

  • Imagine that you are deciding to purchase a watch that you really like.

  • You find the watch that you want; however, it is a counterfeit.

  • The quality is so good that not even an expert could detect that it’s a counterfeit.

  • If you were to buy the watch, you have the impression that most people would not even notice that you are wearing it.

High Counterfeit Detectability and Low Product Conspicuousness:

  • Imagine that you are deciding to purchase a watch that you really like.

  • You find the watch that you want; however, it is a counterfeit.

  • The quality is good, but many people can detect that it’s a counterfeit.

  • If you were to buy the watch, you have the impression that most people would not even notice that you are wearing it.

Low Counterfeit Detectability and High Product Conspicuousness:

  • Imagine that you are deciding to purchase a watch that you really like.

  • You find the watch that you want; however, it is a counterfeit.

  • The quality is so good that not even an expert could detect that it’s a counterfeit.

  • If you were to buy the watch, you have the impression that most people would notice that you are wearing it.

High Counterfeit Detectability and High Product Conspicuousness:

  • Imagine that you are deciding to purchase a watch that you really like.

  • You find the watch that you want; however, it is a counterfeit.

  • The quality is good, but many people can detect that it’s a counterfeit.

  • If you were to buy the watch, you have the impression that most people would notice that you are wearing it.

Scales

Risk of Embarrassment (ROE):

  1. 1.

    I would feel uncomfortable being seen with the (product).

  2. 2.

    I would care about what others would think if they saw me with the (product)

  3. 3.

    I would be humiliated if people knew I owned the (product).

  4. 4.

    I would be concerned about being seen in public with the (product).

  5. 5.

    I would be embarrassed if I was caught using the (product).

Purchase Intentions (PI):

  1. 1.

    It is very likely I would buy the (product).

  2. 2.

    I would be interested in buying the (product).

  3. 3.

    I would like to own the (product).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davidson, A., Nepomuceno, M.V. & Laroche, M. Shame on You: When Materialism Leads to Purchase Intentions Toward Counterfeit Products. J Bus Ethics 155, 479–494 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3479-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3479-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation